Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sergey Brin Shows Project Glass Glasses to Journalists (Video)

Roblimo posted more than 2 years ago | from the goo-goo-googly-eyes dept.

Google 117

Not too many years ago, people who carried on conversations with folks the rest of us couldn't hear were considered demented (or drunk). Then came the cellular phone headset, which meant normal people could walk along, carrying on conversations with people we couldn't hear, although many researchers came to believe that a large percentage of so-called "normal" cell phone users were also demented (or drunk). Now Google's Project Glass means people can walk along, seeing things no one else can -- and carrying on conversations with them. Are Google's Project Glass users demented? Are they drunk? Or are they looking at heads-up displays mounted on glasses frames or attached to prescription glasses? Inquiring Slashdot editor Timothy Lord wanted to know, so he joined a Glass demonstration hosted by Google co-founder Sergey Brin (whose company is not related to Barney Google, as far as we know) to find out for himself -- and to share his findings with you.

cancel ×

117 comments

Here is the full video of the demo (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40492231)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3azbb3f69A0&list=UUiWJgml6SpZBgNY6n-TZQew&index=1&feature=plcp

Re:Here is the full video of the demo (5, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | more than 2 years ago | (#40494069)

It would be nice to see what the glasses actually show people. Seeing a lot of video showing things from a headcam isn't super exciting. I know it's an alpha product right now, but what we're seeing as "glasses in action" is nothing that my buddy's 10$ groupon headcam can't do already - and apparently at higher framerates and resolution. In the demo we see people saying that they see notifications around the room, but you get no sense of that at all.

Best use (3, Funny)

seyfarth (323827) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492247)

Now people can drive while watching porn...

Re:Best use (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492339)

Now people can drive while watching porn...

Hear, hear... Finally, driving won't interrupt us from watching porn anymore!

Re:Best use (5, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492349)

Now people can drive while watching porn...

Why do you think google is working on the driverless car [wikipedia.org] too?

Re:Best use (0)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492689)

Spray down you clothing and the dash with some super hydrophobic spray [youtube.com] for easy cleanup and you'll never have to leave your car!

Re:Best use (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40493129)

Spray down you clothing and the dash with some super hydrophobic spray for easy cleanup and you'll never have to leave your car!

You forgot the integrated waste management system...

Re:Best use (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#40493819)

Why do you think google is working on the driverless car [wikipedia.org] too?

Because it's a geekier project than porn that watches itself?

Re:Best use (0)

hoggoth (414195) | about 2 years ago | (#40494317)

In the meantime, if someone could make a car you can drive with just ONE HAND that would be good enough.

Re:Best use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40494527)

So that they can make porn while they are driven to work.

Re:Best use (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492397)

Now? Pfft. Amateurs.

Re:Best use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40497965)

Or vagina

Yes, users are demented. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40492249)

It's going to be like the Segway crowd. A bunch of demented, Aspergers, singularity freaks who think technology has all the answers and who have tunnel vision into their dream future while conveniently ignoring all the troubles of the world which their "cool tech" does nothing to help.

This will not become mainstream.

Re:Yes, users are demented. (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492319)

No, you could never have technical documentation show up in front of you, hands free, while you're working on something like a car, machine, or plane or anything else. no, it would never happen. A soldier, police officer, fireman could never have a lightweight video feed coming from the drone overhead, either. No, never happen.

--
BMO

Re:Yes, users are demented. (3, Informative)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492817)

Well, having had experience with this sort of worn hud in the past I think you are right, it won't happen.
In my experience anything that needs you to actually focus on the details of the displayed images is
impossible since your left eye (and brain) go crazy.

I have heard that they have consulting optics experts so I guess they could have actually cracked it
but afaik to be able to do real work with computer augmented vision you need a real hud, not a small
blotch on the far right top side of your right eye's vision.

Re:Yes, users are demented. (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492977)

In my experience when something is merely a technological hump to get over (and not depending on a breakthrough in physics), the person saying "it can't be done" is invariably wrong.

--
BMO

Re:Yes, users are demented. (0)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#40493517)

And your point, referring to my comment, was?

take it a step further... (1)

schlachter (862210) | about 2 years ago | (#40498687)

if someone's not yelling "it can't be done"...it might not be worth doing!

Re:Yes, users are demented. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40493055)

This problem isn't actually HARD to solve, it's just EXPENSIVE (so far.) With a camera per eye and per-eye tracking you can figure out where someone is actually looking and overlay graphics intelligently. Without eye tracking it's just impossible. Some have suggested that Google is projecting directly into the eye; if so, they already have eye tracking.

Re:Yes, users are demented. (1)

justforgetme (1814588) | more than 2 years ago | (#40493579)

Hmm...

AFAIK no. There is only one camera on the headset and that sees what you see (with a bit of parallax).
The premise is sound though, with eye tracking and projection on both eyes you would be golden. The
Google headset though is far away from that thing since it possesses neither eye tracking nor stereo
projection.

Re:Yes, users are demented. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40493121)

The way to do it properly is not to display video feeds or a bunch of information over one eye. It should *add to* (augment) the data that is already there. Anything it does display should be displayed on both eyes with proper depth separation.

Re:Yes, users are demented. (1)

digitalsolo (1175321) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492829)

No, you could never have technical documentation show up in front of you, hands free, while you're working on something like a car

I'm embarrassed to admit this had not crossed my mind. As someone who builds cars as a hobby (particularly electrical work on cars) that concept would be absolutely fantastic, and a relatively simple implementation considering the point they're at with the technology now.

Re:Yes, users are demented. (1)

MickLinux (579158) | about 2 years ago | (#40494831)

Maybe the soldier is looking up documentation, or maybe he's playing network Quake.

You'll know just as soon as he picks up -- either that pen, or a grenade.

Re:Yes, users are demented. (1)

Professr3 (670356) | about 2 years ago | (#40497541)

"That man is playing Galaga..."

Track and Field (1)

reluctantjoiner (2486248) | about 2 years ago | (#40499603)

Now that would look interesting: "That man is either dreaming or playing track and field"

Re:Yes, users are demented. (1)

Huge_UID (1089143) | about 2 years ago | (#40496041)

Video feed from my drone... My next paintball weekend will be awesome!

Re:Yes, users are demented. (5, Insightful)

negativeduck (2510256) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492323)

I disagree, I think that there is potential for things like this and we really are starting to glance the surface of what can be done when information can be readily snapped to the user without them even asking about it. In BioMed alone this form of technology can bring alot to the table. You wear a pair of //safety// glasses. as you enter a room the camera see's room number or a bar-code and snaps to your display the information on that patient without even looking. Even simple things like names or allergic reactions.

In Construction if you have a 3d blueprint you walk through the skeleton of a site and you see the plumbing that isn't yet installed on the display and an realize that 3 days earlier a cross member was installed in the wrong place. You can correct it now or advise the plumber in advance of a change keeping the project on track.

Likewise though, if you start out small then //larger// implementations become even simpler using the same technology they can easily expand to other fields having already licked the miniaturization.

hell map a large datacenter and "I need to find server XYZ, follow the yellow line!"

DIY kiddies, call a central company I'm installing X. They bring up your video feed and can football style draw circles lines and point to the part and help you through whatever has gotcha buggered.

Re:Yes, users are demented. (1)

Nethead (1563) | more than 2 years ago | (#40493869)

Greg Bear, in his book Quantico, has FBI agents examining a crime scene with 'glasses' days later that was recorded in 3Dish detail before it was cleaned up.

Re:Yes, users are demented. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40494587)

For me the killer app would be for IKEA. Think of how annoying it is to build furniture. But, using augmented reality and 3d barcodes, when you looked at each part, you could see exactly where it goes. With 3d barcodes on each bag of screws, it could quickly tell you where each screw is.

Also, it would be very useful with something like Pepakura Designer, which converts 3D models to 2D ones that can be printed on paper. People build full costumes with this like and iron man costume. http://www.therpf.com/f24/speed-building-filesntricks-4-days-foam-iron-148889/

Re:Yes, users are demented. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40496507)

For me the killer app would be for IKEA. Think of how annoying it is to build furniture.

Annoying? Its like solving a puzzle, i.e. a fun challenge. You can award yourself an extra beer or something if you manage to do it without looking at the instructions.

Re:Yes, users are demented. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40492325)

Let the people with troubles worry about the troubles of the world.
ie. Fuck them.

Re:Yes, users are demented. (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492367)

At $1500 i really doubt that it gets mainstream. At $200 or less, this, or some evolution of it (or some other product from other company with a similar idea), with more functionality that it have now, will have a good chance to be the future. Most tech people that laughed at the whole ipad idea when was presented, and like it or not seem to be popular (even if don't help to solve the troubles of the world)

Re:Yes, users are demented. (1)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492803)

It's a first generation prototype for a limited audience that's $1500 so it can have all the bells and whistles, think of it as a buying a beta key for a game, only that this time it's hardware, and it's really damn expensive. Force the price down to $200 and it will be like the Vuzix "vr glasses" that's absolute shit tier because they valued an attractive pricepoint more than a plesant user experience.

Re:Yes, users are demented. (2)

Zerth (26112) | more than 2 years ago | (#40493353)

1500 is the "we want you to be sure you are serious" price for IO devs.

Going by other wearable displays which start at $200 for just dumb screens, that is probably a starting point for just the display. Even though it has only a single display instead of one for each eye, it also has a 2 axis(at least) gyro and camera. Add in the computing device that is presumably in that white box, and it'd be priced more like an unlocked Android phone.

Re:Yes, users are demented. (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492509)

I personally don't prescribe to the Gene Roddenberry future where technology will solve all our problems and make us good and happy people. Every technology you use has a trade-off. Now the trick is to determine if the trade-off is worth it.

When we went from horses to automobiles, it was haled as an environmental achievement. Horses make a big mess on the streets, that needs to be clean and can cause the spread of diseases to people. Automobiles also let people go longer distances, and faster. However there was a trade-off. With Automobiles we needed a smoother road infrastructure, that cost tax payers a lot of money. With less daily maintenance and newer cheaper cars more people have cars creating traffic concerns, and more people driving create a higher air pollution rate. Now if we all had cars and used them the same way people used horses last century, the earth will be a cleaner place. However we got trade-offs, faster speed, more efficiency = more use.
If we make a more efficient engine, that means people will buy bigger cars they will keep their consumption about the same, they will just get a bigger car... Unless gas costs are too high then they get smaller.

We have created a new computer infrastructure, at a trade-off.
1. We allow people to work from anywhere in the world... That means we can hire people cheap in other countries.
2. Computers automate a lot of repetitive tasks... That means a lot of good entry level positions that teach college grads the ropes of business are now gone.
3. We now have access to more information... So each person is expected to do more... Harder work.

We really can't hold technology back for the sake that it offers tradeoffs. however we need to think of new ways to adjust to these chances.

Re:Yes, users are demented. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40493571)

1. We allow people to work from anywhere in the world... That means we can hire people cheap in other countries.

And you can travel to those countries to keep earning your current wage (or slightly lower) and live there like a rich person.

2. Computers automate a lot of repetitive tasks... That means a lot of good entry level positions that teach college grads the ropes of business are now gone.

I fail to see what's wrong in not having to do boring tedious stuff and be able to move to more intellectually challenging and stimulating jobs. Or are you afraid of using your brain?

3. We now have access to more information... So each person is expected to do more... Harder work.

Yep, I don't see any correlation between A and B, so you have a brain problem or have been lobotomized to think there is a correlation. Seriously, who mods this crap insightful?

Re:Yes, users are demented. (2)

Robotbeat (461248) | about 2 years ago | (#40496197)

The problem hasn't come so much from technology itself, but the fact that the middle class (in America, at least) has been convinced that they shouldn't band together and fight for their interests. This is why you have productivity increasing, the general economy growing, but wages stagnant as working hours remain the same or increase.

The idea with technology is that we can lower the amount of hours we need to work while having better incomes. Across the board. The only way this can realistically happen is through some sort of collective bargaining, either through something like associations or unions or co-op business models, consumer activism, civil engagement (i.e. democracy), etc. Distributive technology and infrastructure can also help this, but I remain skeptical if the benefits of economy of scale will ever be truly overcome by distributive processes. Why do we have a 40 hour work week? It's because technology allowed us the economic margin to demand that we should only have to work 40 hours a week. If we have technological growth but a broad public that has been convinced to vote and act against their own interests, then we'll continue to have a stagnating middle class (while social mobility continues to drop and inequality rises). This isn't a rail against the rich or capitalism, this is merely an acknowledgement that in order for the vast majority of people's lives to be improved by the benefits of technology, economic growth, and capitalism, it has to be tied to the public actually demanding they share in the growth that those three things allow.

These things are always a balance. On the one hand, mob rule can lead to totalitarianism. On the other, a completely suppressed people is already totalitarianism. What is needed is a balance between liberalism (and by that I mean classical liberalism, i.e. liberty from over-regulation, etc) and democratic welfare. Complete lack of balance is pernicious and leads to both economic ruin and totalitarianism. That includes the right-wing dream of near plutocracy, where there are no parks or roads or libraries or schools except those owned privately and that you must pay a per-use or subscription fee to use (granted, this is a slight exaggeration in that they probably wouldn't outright claim that as an end goal, but it is the end-result of their policies). In a land where everything is privately owned, the poor are born trespassers. So, there's a balance. There must be public goods and there must be basic social services like Hayek proclaimed ("There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.").

But there must be also a free market, a market that can only remain free if monopolistic forces are kept at bay and/or democratized. Or you exchange the totalitarianism of communism with the totalitarianism of private fiefdoms. Democratic forces (i.e. the public acting in their own interests to exert leverage) + free markets (kept free by appropriate regulation) = improving quality of life for all. And the public must first and foremost act against corruption, which can destroy any and every economic political system if not kept in check by the will of the people.

Re:Yes, users are demented. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40492553)

WALL-E [wikipedia.org]

Re:Yes, users are demented. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40496631)

AMEN.

Re:Yes, users are demented. (1)

acid06 (917409) | about 2 years ago | (#40498193)

You know, somehow, I have a feeling the parent comment should be remembered for posterity. :)
iPod launch jokes, anyone?

An interesting expansion of the law (2)

canadiannomad (1745008) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492297)

Just like how they have banned cellphones in many jurisdictions, now they'll have to ban glasses... or at least heads up displays... But isn't that proven technology, in use by the military?
Maybe the glasses will have to be legally coloured so they are distinguishable...
Or hopefully it is time to start mass producing that car they are developing.

Re:An interesting expansion of the law (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492299)

(They referring to Google's Self Driving Car, not related to this article.)

Re:An interesting expansion of the law (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492383)

The glasses could improve driving conditions just imagine an IR camera integrated with the glasses, it would allow the user to see better at night.

Re:An interesting expansion of the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40492489)

I remember years back seeing a commercial for a automaker where they had something like that integrated into the windshield. It displayed the edge of the road and the lane markers as well as things in the road.

These days I'm astonished at the things that weren't possible when I was in college a decade ago being placed into cars that are actually on the road. Like the radar blind spot checker. I guess that was technically possible, but not in the form factor and certainly not in a moving vehicle.

Re:An interesting expansion of the law (1)

fufufang (2603203) | more than 2 years ago | (#40493653)

Surely you shouldn't be wearing one of these when driving?

Maybe you shouldn't wear them at all (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | about 2 years ago | (#40496215)

The Jerk (1979) - IMDb
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079367/ [imdb.com]

I hope Google has serious liability insurance.

These interactive glasses would be way more attention distracting than a cell phone call or texting.
The fact that you are still looking in the direction of straight ahead doesn't matter at all.
Your brain can only pay attention to one thing at a time.

There are many experiments demonstrating people looking straight at things and not noticing them because they are attending mentally elsewhere.
Faceplants into poles while walking would be the least of your worries.

Talking to imaginery voices... (1)

tbird81 (946205) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492317)

...is not "demented (or drunk)", it's "psychotic (or high)".

Re:Talking to imaginery voices... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40492359)

What if you don't reply to the voices and ignore them so they shut up?

Re:Talking to imaginery voices... (1)

hazah (807503) | more than 2 years ago | (#40493815)

While you can ignore them, they don't really shut up, they are generally produced by the speach centre of the brain, not the auditory censory.

Re:Talking to imaginery voices... (5, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492387)

Any video of the glasses themselves, preferably a "through" view showing what the actual overlay looks like, and what sort of info will be displayed? I am really not all that interested in a video of a bunch of people wearing those things...

Re:Talking to imaginery voices... (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492415)

de ment ed
adjective
1)crazy; insane; mad.
2)affected with dementia.

Glass in Google IO keynote (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40492341)

I was really disapointed with the demonstration in Google IO keynote. The only thing,they've showed for half an hour, was as a digital camera replacement. A digital camera that "doesn't get in the way of life".

Surprise! (3, Interesting)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492371)

A guy at Google is not concerned about the privacy issues of ubiquitous video recordings.
 
Everyone complains about the centralized government having tracking everyone, but surely it's the same thing if that tracking becomes distributed by actions of the citizens themselves.
 
I have curtains on my windows not because I just want to stop the government seeing what I do in private, but because I want to stop everyone else seeing what I do in private.

Re:Surprise! (2)

period3 (94751) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492455)

I agree with your concerns, but the cats been out of the bag for years. Video cameras are ubiquitous, as are telescopes and binoculars.

I wish there was a way to block these technologies or legislate them, but practically it's not going to happen. Younger people are going to grow up in a world with much less expectation of privacy, and with fewer taboos. In some ways, maybe that's a good thing, but it's not the way I want to live.

Re:Surprise! (2)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492647)

I agree with your concerns, but the cats been out of the bag for years. Video cameras are ubiquitous, as are telescopes and binoculars.

I see the difference as up until now you could see when someone was holding a camera in your face, and it was only people with "special needs" that bought and used cameras disguised as pens. With glasses like these (and I'm thinking of a slick public version and not just these prototypes) you will end up with no idea as to who is filming you - so you will have to assume that everyone is filming you. As a result I'd argue that society will develop more taboos, as you will have to conform to actions that are acceptable in public at all times - or be instantly called out .

Re:Surprise! (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492967)

With glasses like these (and I'm thinking of a slick public version and not just these prototypes) you will end up with no idea as to who is filming you - so you will have to assume that everyone is filming you. As a result I'd argue that society will develop more taboos, as you will have to conform to actions that are acceptable in public at all times - or be instantly called out .

There's no reason to assume that; one could as easily assume the opposite. Society may cast off some taboos when we learn that the majority of people actually engage in them, through ubiquitous surveillance. The only real potentially unavoidable negative repercussion I can see is how much easier it makes it for government to keep tabs on every aspect of your life, which makes it much more difficult to work against unjust law.

Re:Surprise! (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#40493123)

There's no reason to assume that; one could as easily assume the opposite.

Hey! It's my damned assumption and I'll go which ever way I want with it. And you are entitled to go your own way with your own assumption!
 
But given the (partially religious based [1]) conformist aspects of US society I can see issues with privacy - especially with things relating to sex and/or naked bodies. Things that are perfectly acceptable by sub-cultures but are frowned upon by the more vocal aspects of US society
 
[1] I say partially religious based as I have come across many non-religeous people who have conservative points of view regarding nudity. Given that they are not conforming to a theology, I am not going to say that such ideas are confined to religion.

Re:Surprise! (1)

thesandtiger (819476) | about 2 years ago | (#40497811)

People have used hidden cams (in bags etc) for years to record people in secrecy. Look for "upskirt" on your favorite search engine and you'll see what I mean.

And I disagree with your conclusion - I think the more this stuff happens the less people will worry about their personal eccentricities being caught on film.

Don't believe me? Make a fake Facebook account, go on FB and just browse through people's public profiles and pics - people are sharing things without blinking an eye that would have been horribly taboo just a few years back.

Re:Surprise! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40492757)

The bigger issue is when companies like Google use face recognition software to find people in photographs posted by third parties. It wasn't as bad when somebody would have to go through all the photos to figure out who was in the pictures, but with algorithms going it quickly, it's going to be hard or impossible to undo that damage.

Re:Surprise! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40492475)

Self-policing society 2.0

Re:Surprise! (4, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492607)

The difference is, when the government does it, they have an asynchronous advantage over the citizenry. When the citizens do it themselves, they erase that advantage. Your privacy was always an illusion... now you're finally being empowered. It's a positive development.

Re:Surprise! (3, Interesting)

rocket rancher (447670) | about 2 years ago | (#40496055)

It sounds to me like you've bought into sci-fi writer David Brin's theories on "sousveillance" [wikipedia.org] uncritically, and are ignoring Bruce Schneier's debunking of Brin's myth of the transparent society in this Wired article. [wired.com] For what it is worth, cops can already seize recording equipment from by-standers at a crime scene; I don't think giving everybody a camera is going to change that. What I think is far more likely to happen is that the government will attempt to maintain their asymmetric (I'm thinking you meant asymmetric, not asynchronous) advantage by minimizing a citizen's ability to record cops/firefighters/soldiers, either legislatively or technologically. Ironically, this legislation, if I'm right, will probably be passed in the name of maintaining privacy. It's already illegal to publish photos of dead US soldiers being returned to the US for interment -- and that was done by an executive order issued by Bush II and reaffirmed by Obama. The technology already exists to disrupt communications -- selectively blanking cell and wi-fi transmissions over arbitrary areas is trivial to accomplish and DHS has policies and procedures in place to control information in emergencies, something they inherited from FEMA.

Re:Surprise! (3, Interesting)

TrekkieGod (627867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492909)

A guy at Google is not concerned about the privacy issues of ubiquitous video recordings.

To be fair, there are no privacy issues with ubiquitous video recordings. You're filming things in public places, there's no expectation of privacy there. You can ask photographers who get harassed when they're taking pictures in public what they think. If anything, this would be great, as it would get people used to the idea, and they'd stop harassing photographers and people who take video of police. If you are walking into a private location with it, and the owners do not allow recordings, it's the same situation as it is now, as you wouldn't be allowed to record with your phone. You'd just be asked to take the thing off.

Privacy issues come with the sharing of those videos. And I don't mean who the person who recorded chose to share it with, that's his choice. The question is what google will do with it when the video hits their servers. If you trust Google to handle your e-mails (I do, others don't, and that's ok), there's no reason you wouldn't trust them with these videos. The e-mails contain far more information about your life.

Re:Surprise! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40493031)

Read Earth by David Brin for some insight into how good these glasses will be ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_(novel)

Re:Surprise! (2)

bughunter (10093) | about 2 years ago | (#40494545)

I was thinking of Earth also when I first saw this. Brin's core idea is that when everyone wears video recording devices -always on, always online- then no one will be able to get away with anything. Especially those kids on your lawn.

I am also reminded of Vernor Vinge's Rainbow's End, wherein absolutely everyone is heavily networked, and the interface is contact lenses that do very much what Google Glass aims to do with its HUD. The idea here is that people will hack their HUD to overlay detail and even hide or replace real parts of the scene to immerse themselves in a world of their choosing: Film Noir world, Jesus world, Porn world, Simpsons world, Salvador Dali world, whatever your heart desires. And tomorrow it can be different than today, because you can download overlay packs like you can download skins for Firefox. The best part is that these will grant you membership to a consensus community made up of people all using the same HUD overlay, and you can all see the same imaginary things.

That is the disruptive idea here. If you can create an interface that wearers can use to create a community, one that they can bring with them everywhere and anywhere, and interact in person, in the flesh... and give them the freedom to create what they want. It's difficult to predict the specifics, but it's certainly a revolutionary idea. It really would represent the final Synthesis of personal computing and networking with society.

Re:Surprise! (1)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 2 years ago | (#40493293)

Think it would be great in Search and rescue operations as well as basic emergency services,
Like Ambulance staff, they can use them to relay direct visuals to an A+E (ER for you yanks) Doctor, with the patients vital readouts being displayed on the medic's heads-up as well as in the ER for the doctor to advise and be fully prepared for when the patient gets there.

Thinks like that have already been tried and usually the equipment is bulky and not that user friendly, a small unit like this might be a great innovation to the emergency services.

Wonder if you can control the heads-up with hand gestures picked up by the webcam ??

Re:Surprise! (2)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 2 years ago | (#40494169)

I have curtains on my windows not because I just want to stop the government seeing what I do in private, but because I want to stop everyone else seeing what I do in private.

But if you have nothing to hide, then you have no reason to have curtains!

Re:Surprise! (1)

thesandtiger (819476) | about 2 years ago | (#40495213)

Then don't use this product and don't associate with anyone who is using this product and don't do anything private in a space where people who use this product can record you without your permission, or accept that you can't control everything and that trying to or worrying much about it is a losing battle.

Privacy as we know it is dead, and the best we can do is a kind of anonymity through saturation. As more and more people get caught doing stupid shit on camera, fewer and fewer people will give a shit about it because it will be understood that EVERYONE does stupid shit, so unless it's particularly egregious it won't be a blip.

Mind you, I understand missing it - I, personally, don't feel like I want everyone to know absolutely everything about me - but I've stopped worrying about that since it's a totally losing battle and instead spend my efforts on things where I can make a difference.

Re:Privacy (1)

presidenteloco (659168) | about 2 years ago | (#40496273)

Newsflash: Absolutely nobody cares what you do in private.

You should be so lucky, to have one person who cares what you do in private.

Any real demos? (3, Informative)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492373)

Any video of the glasses themselves, preferably a "through" view showing what the actual overlay looks like, and what sort of info will be displayed. I am really not all that interested in a video of a bunch of people wearing those things...

Re:Any real demos? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40492701)

Is it a view through a piece of glass? I've heard considerable speculation that, to cover the FOV they're suggesting, they're probably using something to project the image at your eye (I guess Brother demo'd this not too long ago).

https://www.google.com/search?q=projection+on+retina [google.com]

Otherwise you only get little info bubbles in the upper right of your field of view. That's not particularly useful for real augmented reality applications.

Re:Any real demos? (1)

fufufang (2603203) | more than 2 years ago | (#40493633)

You could have used a bunch of head-mounted camera to create the demo, no display required.

Loud advert intro (2)

PygmyShrew (618310) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492381)

I started the video and got a brainful of loud alarm beeping in the preliminary advert. Should be a goddamn warning about that...

Flash? (-1, Flamebait)

chord.wav (599850) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492419)

I find the use of flash in this site disturbing.

The thing that comes to mind... (5, Insightful)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492423)

As bad as I want one of these, I can't help but think about how badly we need a low cost, community developed version of this to function as a totally open, arduino-esque option.

Everything about these things coming to market as a popular, locked-down device creeps me out. Maybe it's too many years of scifi, but if history tells us anything, it's that we need a technological escape route at all times.

So uh, where can we source the display technology for these things? Because the rest seems entirely doable.

Re:The thing that comes to mind... (3, Informative)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492859)

Wired's been doing stories on DIY wearable computer people from at least the mid 90's. See also the remembrance agent [remem.org] web page. It never really caught on that much, though nifty feats like performing facial recognition on people and bringing up information on them, placing IR beacons to which data could be attached to locations and video-recording everything with a camera capable of slowing down the wheels on a moving car so you could read the manufacturer details have been reported. The early papers on the subject talk about what a ubiquitous computing device you carry around on your person would be like, and it pretty much describes today's cell phones.

The limiting factors in the past have been I/O -- most of the early adopters went with one-handed "chording" keyboards and bulky, ugly head mounted displays. They also usually ended up carrying around a backpack with large-ish home made computer in it. Since a lot of people now carry around a computer with the appropriate capabilities and voice recognition has come along nicely, perhaps the I/O thing can be solved, too. I'm not sure a lot of people will go for wearing glasses full time, but if the value add is there, maybe I'm wrong.

Re:The thing that comes to mind... (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#40493093)

It seems to me the problem is a safe, small, retina projector. If you want to project something properly, anywhere in your field of view, it seems like it's exactly what you need.

This company makes something like the kind of technology you need for that but is currently putting it in cellphones and the nicer picoprojectors you see... http://www.microvision.com/technology/index.html [microvision.com]

All the processing power, sensors (multi-axis accel's, cameras, etc), are entirely doable.. demonstrated by all the augmented reality apps that do this stuff on your cellphone already. Now we just need the displays that don't suck. ;)

I guess Brother also developed this and didn't turn it into a product. I suspect that's what Google is looking to take mainstream with Project Glass... though I haven't see the things in person. Looking through a little bit of glass just doesn't accomplish what they're pimping so far.

Re:The thing that comes to mind... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40493109)

Everything about these things coming to market as a popular, locked-down device creeps me out.

So far we've been able to get Android devices which are rootable. Is there any reason to believe that this product will be different?

Re:The thing that comes to mind... (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | about 2 years ago | (#40497961)

I think the bigger problem is the backend infrastructure--datacenters and also logic.

The logic we can do, the datacenters require money, and therefore some way of being solvent. 

I don't see what he was showing off here? (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492505)

Couldn't you have put any broadcasting camera on someone to get the same effect? The point of this tech is that it's supposed to be augmented reality. I don't see how this spectacle in anyway related to that.

Input Mechanism (3, Interesting)

DaKong (150846) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492511)

I've been following wearable computing since the days of Xybernaut, during the Dot-Com era. Google Glass looks like it has the display issue nearly solved--it's functional without being overly intrusive. If they can wear it all day long then the battery issue would be solved enough for most people conditioned to the iPhone's evanescent battery life.

An input mechanism remains a quandry. Voice recognition has improved a lot beyond the days of Dragon Naturally Speaking, but it's still aggravating when you're trying to do something technical or even unusual. Are projected keyboards the answer, or those two handed-deals that ride under velcro patches on your knees? An arm mounted keyboard? Has anyone from MIT's media lab or similar place tried those options? How do they compare?

Re:Input Mechanism (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492613)

I'm hopeing a future version will incorporate eye tracking and wink-controls. Nasty for typing, but very good for picking options in a menu or wink-clicking on icons.

Re:Input Mechanism (1)

bughunter (10093) | about 2 years ago | (#40494565)

Just don't try to use that interface in a singles bar.

Re:Input Mechanism (1)

digitalsolo (1175321) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492863)

I would think once tech gets there, a projected display where you grab/move things in space (a la Minority Report) would be pretty effective, particularly if combined with eye tracking/wink controls.

Unfortunately they'll probably hire the guys behind Unity and Gnome 3 for the project.

Been there, done that (3, Insightful)

Dross50 (1333767) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492745)

I can think of a whole host of problems this device will have, starting with it is see through device and therefore is competing with greatest power source in the solar system, the sun. Also, this device is interfacing with a set of genes that evolved millions of years ago on the plains of Africa. And it's a mono display, the brain does not handle mono well, just ask the Ah-64 pilots. These guys need to talk to some Army Aviation folks, at Mother Rucker. Been there done this, like about 15 years ago......

Re:Been there, done that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40493237)

Also, this device is interfacing with a set of genes that evolved millions of years ago on the plains of Africa.
And it's a mono display, the brain does not handle mono well, just ask the Ah-64 pilots. These guys need to talk to some Army Aviation folks, at Mother Rucker.

A lengthier explanation would be appreciated. Could you elaborate?

Thanks.

Re:Been there, done that (5, Interesting)

Dross50 (1333767) | about 2 years ago | (#40494161)

The brain can only handle split imagery for 10 - 20 minutes then it starts to flip between eyes uncontrollably. The AH pilots handle this by turning the brightness up to the point where the non-hmd (Helmet Mounted Display) eye shuts down (pupil gets small). Of course they get wicked ass headaches. BUT if you go stereo then there a image alignment issues, the eye does not handle non-alignment images well, which would make the eyeglass mounting/holder not stiff enough or stable enough to mount a stereo display......ah all the issues come rushing back.......some day I should tell you about the display we designed for pit traders.... When I worked on the Space Suit HMD and the Army Helmet Mounted (Helmid) fighting the Sun was near impossible, causing us to raise the non-transmissiveness of the reflector (combiner) plate to 80 and 90% opaque. Making it rather difficult to see thought and causing me to use a non-see through combiner for the Army. There are a host of issues, all of them well studied, which is why although this tech is like 15 years old, (I know I built this type of device before) I doubt it will go anywhere, all the advanges and apps I heard years ago. But still some of the most fasinating stuff I ever worked.

even worse than 3D (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492839)

There are 2 options here. 1, it can artificially seem focused when your eyes are actually focused on something distant which has been proven over and over to be bad for your eyes and brain. 2, it can actually be out of focus until your eyes adjust to an object about a quarter inch in front of them, which is straining and difficult and throws off your left-right eye depth combination abilities. This is going to be found to be bad for anyone's eyes at any age and kill the project before it even causes people to walk off cliffs and in front of cars and stuff.

By the way, I attempted for 2 weeks to get used to "see behind yourself" reverse mirrored tipped glasses. I have very fast eyes from gaming all my life and and better at multitasking than the average person and even I couldn't get used to quickly snapping focus back and forth between the two views, in front of me and behind me. It's just not possible to focus on 2 "video streams" (for lack of a better term) at the same time or hop back and forth between them quickly. The only way this will ever work is an overlay-based image replacement technology that intercepts real life and puts text or colors over top of buildings and streets but even a 25ms delay would make it seem unreal and no tracking system is that fast.

Re:even worse than 3D (2)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 2 years ago | (#40492911)

If you think you have fast eyes, take the 5 minute, or 10 minutes, test at Panamath to see how could you really are.

The test isn't so much about how fast your eyes are, but rather, how quickly you can "guesstimate" or perceive quantities in a limited time frame. From their site:

Panamath measures your Approximate Number System (ANS) aptitude. The simple task of deciding whether there are more blue dots or yellow dots in a brief flash can tell us a lot about the accuracy of your basic gut sense for numbers.

The link: http://www.panamath.org/testyourself.php [panamath.org]

Re:even worse than 3D (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40493029)

If you think you have fast eyes, take the 5 minute, or 10 minutes, test at Panamath to see how could you really are.

it's almost like the people who made it have never played a game before. "Y" and "B"? I didn't take the test just because that's retarded.

Re:even worse than 3D (2)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#40493741)

Option 3: Virtual retina display.

Hard Advertising (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 2 years ago | (#40493127)

I'm so keen to see what that little screen displays in your eyeball, so these video promos annoy me a little that I don't get to see live action shots.

Flash Player (0)

jforr (15487) | more than 2 years ago | (#40493845)

"You need to have the Adobe Flash Player to view this content."

This is a feature right?

biTch (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40493923)

if you move A ta3le

the girl (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40494333)

Blah, blah, blah. Where do I need to fast forward to to see the cute girl from the thumbnail?

Tally Light (2)

wonkavader (605434) | about 2 years ago | (#40495403)

This thing REALLY needs a tally light (an led showing when it's recording) so we'll know when we're being photographed or video recorded.

In a world with of facial rec software, a camera like this WITHOUT a tally light is very valuable. Just record everything, do facial rec vs. people with facbook accounts, and dump the video, keep a signed still every few seconds. Now you can sell movement info with gps locations to facebook or anyone else. A fraction of people with Glass do this, and you can keep a database and sell location info and a photo (and proximity to other people) at any instant (or a short duration) for ... $100? (Maybe the service doing the facial rec and agregating the results keeps 70% of that. You get $30.) In a crowded city, you could make some serious change by just farming people's identities and locations complete with image for proof, signed with a private key known only to the recorder, who could be called upon to testify at te divorce trial that the images were his/hers.

At some point enough people would be doing it that it wouldn't be very profitable, but we could also assume that everyone would know where we were at all times.

And that's without big brother watching (Google capturing this themselves), because we can't trust our peers.

If these things don't have a tally light, I'm buying a gorilla mask as soon as glass become popular. Hmm. No, I guess we'd all have to start buying the SAME mask...

Looks like a Borg implant (1)

ClickOnThis (137803) | about 2 years ago | (#40498283)

Resistance is futile. You will be distracted.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...