“After reading all the reviews, and talking to people who actually wore Glass, I just see a product plagued by bugs, and of questionable use, that’s generating a lot of buzz because people want so desperately to have some new gadget to latch onto, and fear being wrong about the next major technology trend.” Nobody wants a computer in their home. Nobody wants a cell phone and always be connected. Nobody wants an iPhone. The current version of this line? Nobody wants Glass. “I haven’t worn Glass.” Oh right.
The article mentions a lot of things like e.g. “You can’t tweak any settings in Glass” and “The battery life is terrible” — well, it’s a work-in-progress and there is no reason why Google couldn’t improve things before the final product is released. I am not aware of a single god damn high-end product that didn’t have niggles and bugs while it was still in its unreleased form and I know quite damn many that have such even after release. Given how fond Google actually is of giving you access to plenty of functionality and settings to tweak on Android I have a hard time believing they won’t work on that on the Glass, too.
Do we need anything other than “it saves time and provides an easier hands-free access to things?” I certainly don’t need any better a reason. It’s cumbersome to always have to dig up your phone from the bag or pocket or whatever just to check what the message you just got was about, to take a quick picture of something neat you see or to Google this or that address you need — even more so if you’re carrying something at the moment or your hands are dirty!
The fact is that the Glass does serve to save time in many cases and provides a very quick outlet for small snippets of information. It may not be enough for everyone in its current form, but there are also bound to be people who would find it immensely useful and/or attractive, and I happen to be one of those people.
I declare the assessment of “Nobody likes Google Glass” invalid.
Just you wait until Apple makes a similar product, then it’s the best things since Jesus rose from the grave.
Nah, when it comes to eye wear, Johnny Ive is out of his element, brAun never made a pair of glasses…
Edit: if there is any company that could compete with google in this space, assuming it gets traction, that could be microsoft. Interestingly enough.
Edited 2013-05-04 03:42 UTC
If this is the future of technology, it sucks and is pretty shallow.
I’m still getting used to the rather stupid idea that if you don’t have a facebook account, there is something suspicious about you.
I’m certainly annoyed by the idea that if you wear a watch, you are retro and shouldn’t be hired, my watch has a 1sec to brain latency, my crap cell phone maybe 30s while it boots.
To hell with it all, I will not become Borg!
Same deal here! I wear a wrist watch, don’t have a cellphone (don’t have a use for it. Believe it or not, I don’t want to be 24/7 on the interwebz) and deleted my Facebook account because I didn’t need it. When people find out about this, they look at me like I’m some sort of alien! Have you thought maybe not everything is made for everybody?
And damn, Thom, you sound more and more like a cynical old man! Maybe a positive view on things to freshen things for a bit?
Oh dear! And I thought I was only one… don’t get me wrong, I have like 2 laptops, 4 mobiles and and tablet but… I use them only for work/testing/dev – and they often are left at my work place… I don’t even use watch because my wrist was, dunno.. tense/tired after a while. No fb, no g+… and when I say that I’m not exceited about ‘next best thing’ people looks at me like I’m from out of space… newsflash – all those fancy items did not improve our life *that much*. Does every new version of android make your life better? not really, but the fap-circle is abysmal in the prise of the every detail…
I am another type of “weirdo” – no tablet, no laptop, no smartphone – yes, I do have an FB account and a few mobile phones, which are, well, mobile phones You use to talk and send smses.
And I also have 4 PCs – i.e. those towers You keep on the floor, connecting them to the monitors and keyboards on Your desk. Being also an Amiga fan I feel more and more “retro” guy, because the concept of PC in a “box” is more and more anachronistic (“Mainstream PC” is in now rather synonymous with a laptop device, not a “PC tower”)
Actually I also have a kind of tablet – the one You use to do drawings in Photoshop or GIMP using a pen with AAA battery inside.
I always avoided laptops, because I know that most of them fail after approx. 2 years of regular use and after that they are basically unrepairable.
I’ve been using laptops for a few years, but recently decided to build a tower. (Due to maintenance concerns, as your post suggested.) The performance difference between a mid-range laptop and a low-end tower shocked me. People may be claiming that any computer is powerful enough these days, but it’s sheer nonsense if you value your time.
So count me in the “retro” camp too. I’ll take better over gimmickier any day. And since Google Glass just happens to be the latest gimmick …
MacTO,
“I’ve been using laptops for a few years, but recently decided to build a tower. (Due to maintenance concerns, as your post suggested.) The performance difference between a mid-range laptop and a low-end tower shocked me”
I prefer desktops too, they’re not only easier to upgrade and fix (I’ve been using the same cases for over a decade), but they’re also much cheaper and more powerful. I have a strong preference for the screen/keyboard/mouse ergonomic layouts of desktop PCs. My interactions are noticeably slower on my laptop, which I never-the-less have been using more often since my workspace has been moved into the garage to make room for our firstborn.
I’ve got a laptop from 2004, 2 from 2006, 1 from 2010 and 1 from 2011 — only the oldest one is experiencing technical difficulties. HDDs tend to break after such a long time in use, that I agree with, but they’re easy to swap out or if it’s just a few UNC-errors on the disk it’s easy to force the disc to redo those sectors or relocate them to spare areas.
Sure, a regular PC is easier to service if something breaks, but tbh I find laptops still quite repairable if the issue lies anywhere other than the motherboard itself. Swapping the LCD out for a new one, for example, requires some time as you have to open everything up, but it is perfectly doable.
Edited 2013-05-04 09:57 UTC
I agree completely. My habit of repairing rather than throwing away my own electronics has netted me dozens of laptop repair gigs in the past several years. I can tear down and rebuild most major brands, even the annoying ones like Acer (some of their laptops and netbooks require a complete teardown to change out a hard drive or RAM). I find laptops, and even some tablets, phones and digital cameras, to be no more challenging than a standard desktop PC. More tedious, yes, but not difficult once you’re used to doing it.
Would you share some details about doing such operation? (what software etc.). I have a few old HDDs, in need of rescue, which could benefit…
Edited 2013-05-08 19:46 UTC
I never got one. Was compelled to discuss this at great length over & over during university, as if it was as inexplicable as, say, refusing to talk to anyone on Tuesdays.
Well, it sort of is, from the manufacturers point of view. The inevitable final outcome of the industrial revolution.
From the individual’s point of view though, you’re completely right. I enjoy tech of all kinds, but have come to realise that beyond a minimum level it ceases to augment my life; instead distracting me from things I enjoy much more. Like being in a pub. Or watching the dog get confused by a bumble bee. Or reading novels. Or just not be plugged into to anything at all for a while so you can actually think.
Once you’ve established the base level, I reckon its best to try & resist the urge to equip yourself any further lest you begin to lose grip on the difference between momentary distraction & deep satisfaction.
Not that this relates specifically to Google Glass. Some people will like it. I might. I hope we don’t ever go completely the opposite way to the the author of that article & consider it weird to not wear it.
That being the case, you’re not using it correctly. Admittedly, 95% of it is just time-wasting fluff, but the other 5% can be invaluable once you learn to harness it. I couldn’t imagine living without these tools, at least not in this society. If I were in a third world country without electricity and running water, then sure …
As for folks using phones and such in public, people really should stop passing judgment, as you have no idea what they’re doing with them. Maybe they’re just chatting on Facebook or playing games, but as long as they’re not talking loudly or walking in front of traffic, why do you care? I’ve got friends on G+ who will post pictures of other people taking photos with their tablets, for no other reason than to ridicule them. Really? Is your life so f**king bankrupt that you have nothing better to do with your time?
As for Google Glass, I am half-blind and can barely see well enough to drive. Even then, I am limited as to where I can go, without having to take a bus or a cab. I am extremely interested in how technologies like Google Glass can help me in this regard, although I suppose their self-driving cars will be much more of a benefit for me
lol
If you can use it correctly then its within that minimum level. I didn’t mean to imply it was necessarily a low minimum level. Its different for different people. Some peoples’ lives are enhanced by certain tech, some aren’t. That’s not a Luddite perspective to my mind.
Not sure if you’re directing this at me or not. On the chance that you were: I use my phone in public too & am not hugely interested passing judgement on others without knowing their circumstances, just as you say.
One of the most interesting things that can come out of Google Glass will be enhanced edge detection & so on for visually impaired people. There’s a hell of a lot you could do with today’s processors in on-the-fly image processing to help those with poor or residual sight. That would not be a distraction!
The question is: how much did you spend on your watch? Most people I know who still wear watches, wear them as status symbols. Thus, I see watch I think they’re self important wind bags who only consider aesthetics important.
If your wearing a timex/casio/swatch. Mad props. I stopped wearing one only because I kept breaking them, and got tired of shopping for watches and then having custom bands put on that fit my strangely shaped wrist.
Edit: So I hope you aren’t telling us how practical you are with a watch that costs $500+.
Edited 2013-05-04 00:39 UTC
I wear a rolex for 9k usd, it has not given me a single problem during 10 years of daily use and it still looks like new. It gets me happy everytime I see it. Best of all it didn’t even make a blip in my bank account when I bought it, since I had a good business during that time.
I bet it’s one of them super special Rolexes, you know the ones with the extra ‘x’
Lame. Don’t get me wrong everyone has something that they spend more money than they absolutely need to. But, I won’t take any time to brain latencies seriously from someone that does. Expensive watches look terrible to me. I might not hire someone because of an expensive watch worn to an interview ( in combination with other factors obviously, but it would be a negative). Now a casio calculator watch is definitely a plus if it has definite wear signs. A pocket watch with a band made out of duckt tape, well that might just qualify them for a promotion.
I share you allergy to all signs of douchyness but, cmon, you have definitely outed yourself as a shameless hipster.
Why, because of the duckt tape? If you’re taking simple, cheap things and using them beyond or despite their capacities, that’s awesome. If you’re paying a lump sum of money just to have something to look cool, that’s not very impressive. Do you understand the distinction? If I’m looking for a creative talented engineer, I know which one I’d choose.
Using duct tape to keep things from falling apart is indicative of creativity and talent?
yes. Sometimes the best hacks are the ugliest…
To quote you from earlier: “A pocket watch with a band made out of duckt tape, well that might just qualify them for a promotion.”
I don’t see anything good about that and it actually would serve to give me a negative first impression of the person. Why? Well, a good engineer knows how to properly fix things and would just replace the band with a new one — using duct tape as a replacement is shoddy, poor workmanship and won’t last for long and a person who’s solution to such a simple problem is to resort to duct tape is most likely not a terribly reliable character.
Do you know what a pocket watch is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_watch
There isn’t an original band. I mentioned the pocket watch because taking something that was supposed to be carried inside a pocket (like cell phones) and purposefully attaching it to a wrist is an bracing reminder of the cyclical nature of technology
We once always had our time pieces inside pockets, and moved towards wrist watches as technology improved. Then when cell phones were introduced people went back to having time pieces in their pockets. And of course with pebble and the rumored apple watch they are about to move back to the wrist.
The ducktape is just standard hacker tool #1 and provides nice artistic contrast with the elegant pocket watch, reflecting the desire to catch up to technology while sacrificing aesthetics and to a certain extent practicality.
I thought that was obvious. Apparently not… Which is why anyone coming in the door with that much insight would qualify for the promotion.
This is a matter of taste largely: not every expensive-looking watch is necessarily that expensive (unless you know more about watches than I do – which is little enough, but given your general disdain for them, I am betting not). Even though I’m pretty far down the list on persons caring about fashion, I personally think metallic watches, and leather-banded watches, can look ok sometimes.
My wife bought be watch for $200 roughly, it is a Bulova. I’ve wasted more money by far on failed electronics projects.
To be fair, I kind of hate this watch other than its looks – I wanted something functional, and my last kinetic watch kept a charge for quite a while. This one will lose it in less than a day. Also, I fell once and it became apparent that this watch was even more of a liability due to a watch-induced minor injury
.
Ever been to China? They are really taking watch fashion to the next level there…
About $3 for the current one I like, and $50 for the one the wife bought to smarten me up back in the days when watches were still fine. As long as the battery lasts 3 years, its fine.
I have no use for a $500 watch, I could get some decent hardware for that.
You may be a Borg, but your brain was programmed to think you are not. And you are The One who will bring peace the matrix… ups wait, different franchise.
Let me try again:
You might be under control of the Puppet Master and you don’t know it…
yes, that’s sound better.
You’re just getting old. It happens…
Only if you let it…
Basically, yes.
Like you say, if this is the future of technology, then the future of technology is pretty bleak.
Isn’t it already bad enough that most people have a phone glued to their hand non-stop? Do we really need to have a computer plastered to our face too? Is anyone still living in reality or has everyone become so absorbed with social networking and instant gratification that they need to live on-line nonstop? While I think the idea of Google Glass is cool, I can certainly see where many people will turn into instant “glassholes” annoying the shit out of others around them with complete and utter abandon. As the technology advances and such features as facial recognition are added and ever more databases become linked by Google’s advanced search technology, I envision a world where people will be able to instantly run background checks on whomever they want at a mere glance. The ability to instantly conjure a virtual all-knowing “invisible” assistant that only a Glass wearer can see and interact with much like a real person will mean people will literally talk to themselves. I shudder to think how distracted people wearing Glass while driving will be with various information overlays status update feeds superimposed over their vision. Privacy will become extinct and social interactions will diminish to the detriment of society. Call me paranoid or delusional but this is where I see this technology going.
Maybe privacy will become seriously endangered. If so then societies will, in time, exhaust themselves with constant scrutiny & cast some of that behaviour off until we’re broadly at peace with the resultant balance. At worse we’ll veer wildly from privacy to secrecy a few times. Nothing’s for ever. Not even Google’s databases.
Well, privacy has already become extinct, for the most part. You do know, at least in the US, there’s a camera on you pretty much everywhere you go, right? And if there isn’t, somebody can quickly whip out a phone if they wish. Personally, I kind of like it. There’s nothing that pleases me more than some jerk being a complete asshole in public ending up on Youtube for the whole world to see.
Point being, if you want privacy, you will find it in your own house. When you walk outside, there’s really no such thing. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but just making a statement of fact. You can either accept it, or build a cabin in the woods, and never come out. Then you can have all the privacy you want.
Glass is an innovative, transformative piece of technology. Judging it as-is right now is about as foolish as judging the iPhone (which launched without apps, MMS, or 3G, and on a single carrier!) when it first launched.
Anyone, ESPECIALLY tech companies who are *not* actively looking at an answer to Glass in some form are about to repeat the mistakes of Nokia, BlackBerry, Microsoft, and others in 2006. Shrug off Glass like some shrugged off the iPhone and you’ll give the market away to your competitors.
Maybe it sucks now, maybe the battery life blows, maybe the funky display needs adjusting, maybe its heavy or uncomfortable or odd looking. Yes it has weird privacy implications. Whatever. The idea of Glass is an amazing one, and Google has done a terrific job in advancing the technology.
I *can’t wait* to get my hands on one.
You forgot to add the line:
“This post is sponsored by Google”.
So I’m Microsoft’s PR spokesperson who is sponsored by Google? Now I know what Thom feels like.
I … for once
completly agree with you !
Like the tablet and cellphone, this kind of device has been in the SCI-FI arena for a long time !
If you dont trust me, i give you proof of the most respectable and trustworthy : http://goo.gl/pO8TI
Were they? Some forms of them in scifi, if present, were usually quite far from reality. In general, scifi certainly failed to predict the total ubiquity of mobile phones.
Reminds me about one post of mine… http://www.osnews.com/thread?523521
http://eugenia.queru.com/2010/01/27/the-itampon-misses-the-mark-sin…
Fwiw, most of the complaints listed have been resolved by later ipads and Android tablets.
None of those problems prevented it from being a success initially even if it took time to resolve some of them.
The editors of this site have a very unique talent of latching on to products that fail, and dismissing products that are successful.
Thom…
You wrote a line there with a bit of irony.
Happens that I read the article and it actually mentions some strong shortcomings in this product.
I’d be interested to see your experience with Google Glass yourself.
So, The summary wasn’t claiming the review was wrong, but questioning it’s credibility. These are different things.
What about people who were right about those things but still think this is a failure? What about people who were pro several things (PCs, the internet, cellphones, iPod, iPhones, iPads, etc) and were also correct about being anti several things (Zune, WebOS, Surface, PlayBook, JooJooPad, etc.)? What about people who say X is the future but the current implementation is fundamentally flawed for Y years and if pursued along current path, may never succeed? What about people who got some criticism wrong but got another one right? This is empty rhetoric.
Valid criticisms are valid. Invalid criticisms are invalid; strictly personal criticisms, or those shared by a few, may or may not be valid. Google is currently selling a $1500 clunker to 1500 people. It may be a useful prototype to some developers but it appears to have gotten into the hands of many non-develoeprs and Google is clearly promoting it as useful to others who are not developers now when it is currently fundamentally flawed. Valid.
Edited 2013-05-04 01:22 UTC
How is it “fundamentally flawed?”
google glass is a developer kit and businessinsider is a click farmer
please don’t take seriously a criticism with flawed premise. google glass is not for people to want. google glass is for developers who want to make things people want
Google shouldn’t be arranging Glass time with every news website, TVshow, and radio program imaginable then in an effort to win over the normals. Their fault, not the news sites and other sources wondering who this is for.
google can do whatever they want, and the people who bought glass to seriously use can complain about it. good luck finding one of them though
And people can criticize Google for doing whatever they want.
Well, I’ve never worn one. Would I try it? Of course, wouldn’t be much of a tech person, if I wouldn’t, I even have a number of ideas for great use cases for such a device (and I’m just hoping they won’t be solved by someone else by the time I manage to get one and develop them
).
Having said that, would I want to have random people walking talking around me with an always-on recording device, Glass or no Glass, just for fun? Hell no.
This doesn’t have anything to do with the tech being new, or its idea being strange, or some supposedly conservative world-view, or some people’s misconceptions of having ‘privacy’ in public spaces, it’s just that I simply don’t like to be recorded without me knowing about it.
I don’t care about public surveillance – hell, some of my work even involves visual security surveillance related research -, but the important detail is that public surveillance systems do not work in secret. You know they are there, and you – optimistically – behave and act accordingly. This is one of the purposes of such surveillance systems, to somewhat ‘guide’ people to be normal when they are among others.
But going anywhere with the knowledge that wherever you are someone can record you, your bad jokes, your farts
you sleeping at a conference, your covnersation with a peer, and so on and so forth, it just doesn’t feel right.
Anyway, I jus thope by the time Glass – and similar tech – becomes generally available, we’ll come up with some sort of social agreement or something, to solve this issue.
Or just make every Glass wearer paint a huge G on their foreheads
It reminds me of all futuristic Japanese animations with giant robots, or machines controlled by cybernetic implants in the head. Or Shadowrun stories with technomancers with access to web anytime they want. Weren’t it cool? All that nanotechnology from sci-fi? I’m sure it touched every geek out there.
And now, when we are a little closer to that awesome stuff from the future, just because some megacorporation seeks more money and others will do it, too: NOOOOOO!! TAKE IT AWAY!! DON’T LET THEM!! I choose simple and chappy life as a monk of my privacy. And I have a big problem:
they have sci-fi equipment and I don’t,
they have an advantage,
they will know before me,
they will communicate over me,
they will act faster (no because they’re smarter, while it’s still a possibility),
they win,
I loose.
Game over man, game over.
I either join them in a technologically race of I quit. There’s no way I can compete on my own. It’s like I would start a business without phone number or email: wont work.
Regardless of all the issues, many people will want one at the Right Price. I believe anything above $500 will make it unattractive.
And even at that price it still has substantial flaws that can’t be fixed easily. Battery life privacy concerns are at the top of my list.
Oh no, a website said it’s bad so it is… teh horror: http://everythingsysadmin.com/2013/05/why-google-glass-is-so-import…
I have no idea whether Google Glass will be the next iPhone or the next Segway but the first thought I had was how will it work for the people who wear spectacles?
I wear spectacles as does a surprisingly large proportion of the population, 61% in the US and 68% in the UK for example, and the proportion goes up sharply once people hit middle age.
Yeah, I too wonder how people who wear glasses will wear glasses.
Google has a version of glass for people who need real glasses: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/google-shows-…
Some innovative tech company will soon realize the next great wearable gadget is a chest plate like Iron Man has.
Never mind all the complaints and other negatives. Just one thing: the $1,500 price tag.
Why pay so much money to wear a gadget that needs a smart phone and isn’t very powerfull and lasts only a few hours?
If it’s $100 I’d give it a go, but I’m not going to pay so much money (more than an iMac!) to look silly and be a target for robbers just so I don’t need to look at my phone when it receives a notification.
I’d rather have a smart watch, but again at a reasonable price.
Well, then go DIY: please meet Flass http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=1074078
You will still look silly
but you can have fun hacking it (and it won’t cost you a fortune)
Mass production of a product can divide the price up to 10 times. Don’t expect to buy them at 150$, since google is probably selling them at a loss currently. But mass market price is not going to be 1500$ either.
If this is the future. I want no part of it.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/yes-you-can-wear-google-glass-in-…
(Do not put on tight things if you’re not thin. Put on black loose things, loose pants , high platform heels ext) (Target isn’t searching chic or elegant we are speaking about models type of putting on now. [url=http://gorgeouslouisvuittonhandbagsforsaleoutlet.webs.com/]louis vuitton handbags for sale[/url] http://gorgeouslouisvuittonhandbagsforsaleoutlet.webs.com/“ louis vuitton handbags for sale</a%3
Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)
I truly believe this will be the first in a range of life changing devices…. and I hate it.
I honestly cannot stand the idea of people talking to themselves and recording and photographing every other moment without anyone realising it. But alas, that won’t stop it from happening. Bring on the brave new world.
Forget twitter and instagram, you’ll be able to follow someone around via video LifeStream … (can I suggest stlkr.com ?) .. You’ll be able to keep up with the Kardashians in real time. ….ugh…
First I don’t like Google Glass but I don’t think privacy wise that is different to a cellphone or spy gadgets in wristwatches or keychains, even regular voice recorders. If I’m chatting with someone and he has this annoying glasses on I would ask him to please remove them from their face.
I’m more worried about driving safety, this thing although is in front of your sight it is as distracting as using the cellphone while driving (even with a speakerphone) and since is so easy to carry around and hide from police officers people would tend to abuse from them and it might trigger an apparent “plague” of google glass car crashes.
Now on the technical side, I haven’t use it, but after seeing long list of google’s project cemetery there is high probability of failure as with many other very interesting projects. There is something wrong inside Google, they have lairs filled with gold with great engineers yet they don’t seem able to pull anything off different than a search engine. Not even Android because they purchased it from someone else just to give it away and capitalize on the competition market lost.
Google doesn’t know what to do with its money, the invest it everywhere just to see if they can stumble upon the next big hit but they are just gambling.
Thom, Gruber name checked you on his latest podcast. He and Marco Arment discussed the issue – I’m sure their opinions will piss you off, but it was weird to hear your name all the same!
Let us say you have all of this other things right. women jordans http://www.pickjordanshoesforwomen.com%2
Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1) ; .NET CLR 1.0.3705)
It causes it to be easy if a person really wants to hit the proportion on Facebook in order to share on Twitter. [url=http://www.retroshoescollector.com/]jordan retro shoes for sale[/url] http://www.retroshoescollector.com/“ jordan retro shoes for sale</a%3
Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; TencentTraveler ; Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1) ; .NET CLR 2.0.50727 ; .NET CLR 4.0.30319)
The flavours matched the presentation, I love wild strawberries and these tiny bites were delicious, along with the other flavours that were complimentary to the main strawberry theme. [url=http://www.pickjordanshoesforwomen.com/]women jordans[/url] http://www.pickjordanshoesforwomen.com/“ women jordans</a%3
Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1) )
certainly|that is definitely|that may be} an entire other subject. louis vuitton outlet online http://newportbeachdining.com/food-for-thought/html_page.ht
Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; TencentTraveler ; Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1) ; .NET CLR 2.0.50727 ; .NET CLR 4.0.30319)
Even though it was only a 3 course meal, but we were very stuffed. http://www.picklegendarymonogram.com/“ cheap louis vuitton bags</a%3
Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; TencentTraveler)