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!

The Future of Project Glass

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the next-step dept.

Hardware 118

An anonymous reader writes "Project Glass made a big splash not too long ago at Google's annual developer conference when they showed several users falling on to the Moscone West in San Francisco. Google's pretty bent on showing us the sharing possibilities with Project Glass, but it feels like in time that technology could become a ubiquitous part of our lives. Fortunately for those of us who lack a hyperactive imagination, a short film popped up recently that can help fill in the blanks. The world created in the film was made possible by wearable tech. Games, cooking challenges, information in real-time about the person you are talking to, all made possible by the contact lenses being worn. And of course there's a darkside to the equation, the potential to hack and therefore influence the actions of others. Ultimately, it's a realistic idea of the future we all face."

cancel ×

118 comments

Another user created video (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808425)

Showing how life would really be with Google [youtube.com] .

Re:Another user created video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808475)

Brilliant video. Please mod up.

Re:Another user created video (-1, Troll)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40808751)

I'm glad you got modded funny. I love it when people that never accomplished shit try to mock those that do. Nice to see human nature is one thing that no matter what brave new world we find ourselves in tomorrow will never change.

Re:Another user created video (1, Informative)

toriver (11308) | about 2 years ago | (#40809075)

Why do you get butthurt over someone making fun of the next step in Google's control and surveillance of our lives? They are not fucking saints curing cancer.

Re:Another user created video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40809169)

Bwahahahahahahahaha...pull the tinfoil a little tighter, joke...hahahahahaha...when can I buy your DVD.

On the serious tip, if you don't like it, don't buy it. And if you don't like Google don't use them. Since you're so sure you'll be better off without them, you should have an easy leg up on the rest of us poor souls.

Re:Another user created video (0)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40810451)

The only thing Google is in control of as far as you are concerned is what you allow them to control. I'm not even sure that's actually true as how are they "controlling" you anyway? As far as them having you under surveillance, just turn them off. It's pretty easy just log out and shut your account down then never use their products again and if you just can't help it, don't run any personally identifying information through their system. Try this [torproject.org] if you think it's what you need. And if you're worried about somebody wearing a Glass and getting picture/video of you then you should demand that nobody take a picture of you at all as many people's cell phones automatically upload to dropbox/flicker/faceboot/Google+ these days. Lobby your MP or congressman if it really offends you. Or stay in the house. Whatever floats your boat. But railing against people online that don't have as big a problem with the loss of privacy as you do is pretty pointless as you come across as an extremist. Catch flies with honey and so forth.

Re:Another user created video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40811465)

They are not fucking saints curing cancer.

Saints curing cancer should be afforded any recreation or entertainment they desire. Your claim that Google is not providing these much needed services to the aforementioned saints should be investigated.

Re:Another user created video (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40812567)

This so deserves to be modded up. Accept my own ephmeral +1 Effing Hilarious. Get to fucking those cancer curing saints, Google!

Re:Another user created video (1)

Deorus (811828) | about 2 years ago | (#40809747)

Accomplishing shit is easier when have an advantage. Try starting a company with no money to begin with and no stable family to fall back to if you fail..

Re:Another user created video (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40810375)

Accomplishing shit is easier when have an advantage.

Welcome to the real world. We hope you'll stay a while. I'm sorry to break it to you but the sooner you accept the fact that "fair" is an indulgent figment of your (and many other's) imagination(s) the better off you'll be. How fair is it that you have the means to complain about it online whereas hundreds of millions of other's are having trouble feeding themselves today? I'm not trying to diminish their plight but using this as an excuse to take away from other's accomplishments because they do have means is a rather pointless exercise as there are much more productive ways to bring attention to the needy. I'd suggest joining peace corp if you really want to help.

Re:Another user created video (1)

Deorus (811828) | about 2 years ago | (#40810551)

I'm neither playing victim nor trying to bring attention to anything. As a matter of fact the only person complaining about others here is you. In your own words, welcome to reality, where fairness is nothing more than an ideal and the people who have the means, do, while those that don't, complain. I see no point in your complaint about others, especially since you acknowledge that the world is unfair. Are you against trying to make it fairer? Are you against the expression of opinions? Are you against fairness? Are you a fanboy? Because honestly I see no other logical reasons for your stance!

Re:Another user created video (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40810747)

I'm neither playing victim nor trying to bring attention to anything.

When you write:

Accomplishing shit is easier when have an advantage. Try starting a company with no money to begin with and no stable family to fall back to if you fail..

You are by definition "bringing attention to" the fact that those less fortunate don't have the means to accomplish as much. Writing that on Slashdot in reply to me is the act of bringing attention to it if only to me and fellow readers here.

I see no point in your complaint about others

My complaint wasn't directed to some amorphous "others", it was directed specifically at you. My original question was essentially "why deride the accomplished" and you responded with a general statement about how accomplishment is easier when you have means. First of all, that's pretty obvious so I'm not sure why you bother to bring it up, second of all, I reasonably interpreted your statement as a challenge to my original question. My response in that case was very logical as it questioned your presumptions as while your statement may have been technically logical, it didn't really make sense in the context of the conversation. At this point, I believe I am arguing with a poorly worded opinion which is really pointless.

Are you against trying to make it fairer? Are you against the expression of opinions? Are you against fairness? Are you a fanboy? Because honestly I see no other logical reasons for your stance!

You lead with multiple strawmen then question my logic. But to answer you, I believe that objectively speaking the world is "fair". Kind of like how local phenomenon can seemingly violate the third law of dynamics, local phenomenon even that exceeding the time span of the existence of the human race and certainly shorter amounts of years can seem to violate "fairness". That is an illusion.

Re:Another user created video (-1, Redundant)

Bogtha (906264) | about 2 years ago | (#40809375)

There's also the short film Sight [vimeo.com] .

Power Tits! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808437)

A dollar for the use of your butthole!

Unrealistic (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808443)

Look if they can shrink it down to something fashionable they might have something. But most people aren't going to wear something that makes them look like freakish cyborgs.

Don't worry (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808463)

Apple will release their version as an out-of-sight contact lens (available in prescription strengths). A year or two after this happens, you'll start seeing a few others as contact lens. Apple will sue (they've of course patented this) while others claim it was totally obvious to do that, and that if Apple hadn't, someone else would've anyway.

Re:Don't worry (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40809685)

The fact that you can come up with this right now makes it clear that it really is blatantly obvious. We simply don't have the technology yet, but once we get that far in miniaturisation and power supply, it's the next obvious thing to apply it to contact lenses instead of glasses. Which of course won't stop Apple to patent the very usage application, because they don't have the heavy R&D necessary to achieve and patent advancements in the actual base technologies.

Re:Don't worry (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40811627)

Just because I can imagine some future product (oh, flying car! jet pack!) doesn't mean I can imagine the detailed technology necessary to make it happen (oh! anti-grav powered by manipulating the higgs-boson!).

If Apple were to be the first to market with a contact lens hud system like this, and did it by a few years, wouldn't you have to say that perhaps they figured out how to make it work and deserve some reward for that?

Re:Unrealistic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808497)

Personally, I think people might embrace the look of it. It makes you look like you're from the future, which is kind of cool.

Re:Unrealistic (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40808589)

Have you seen the final production version, Nostradamus?

Re:Unrealistic (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 2 years ago | (#40808713)

Answer hazy. Try again later.

Re:Unrealistic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40811841)

Yes - Nostradamus.

Re:Unrealistic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808615)

Speak for yourself. You will be assimilated.

Unrealistic (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808517)

I'm a vegetarian and there is no a lousy engineer (I only date scientist or mathematicians, you know smart people not crafty dorks) can make me seat on his LEATHER couch.

Re:Unrealistic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40809043)

Can I make you sit on my PORK sword?

work at home (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808567)

as Tiffany replied I am stunned that anybody able to profit $5569 in one month on the internet. did you read this site link http://goo.gl/UUZFR

How far can this go? (0)

Scorillo47 (752445) | about 2 years ago | (#40808585)

This video is really cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808653)

and I outed myself as born in the late 70s ;)
but it's "coooooooooool"

Not really convincing... (5, Insightful)

openfrog (897716) | about 2 years ago | (#40809009)

Polished piece of work... must have been quite a bit of work, but there is a major inconsistency:

For the major part of the film and during most of the interaction with the girl he is dating, the info he gathers on her is a distraction and makes him look like a dork.

Indeed, this is all information (her Facebook profile) he could have read beforehand, which is already possible and happening in the real world. As his prior gathering of info would have been rather uninteresting in the story (although it would surely have been more efficient for him achieving his goal), here it is shown happening in real time. It can only be a distraction, especially in a live conversation, and the film carries this quite well. The guy looks like an idiot.

Then, at the very end, what has been portrayed as a debilitating distraction suddenly turns into an absolute power of manipulation, out of all conventions built during the preceding scenes, and without letting the viewer know what would be the source of that power. He stops her going out of his apartment by a simple voice command, and presumably rewinds her memory to prior her discovery of damning information on him. All of this happens in the very last seconds of the film, where we are suddenly thrown in deep sci-fi territory, in a completely inconsistent way. The film concludes on that little surprise, and it is obvious that it could not have carried on after such a stunt.

So, I see this as a slick flick without much depth, attempting to piggyback on the publicity surrounding Google Glass. Clever.

Re:Not really convincing... (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40809245)

Maybe it was a blind date.

Some of those points were addressed. (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#40809691)

During the date he said he worked at the SIght company and was a programmer.

The woman commented that she heard rumors they could plant ideas in people's heads, which he denied but was obviously more than true.

He also did look at her profile beforehand, he picked out the restaurant without knowing she was Veg.

I agree accessing the information distracted him and at first made him look like a dork, but it was also an interesting thing to think about - when we can have invisible access to apps any time without people knowing, wouldn't most people just access information during awkward moments? Or be tempted to look something up and be caught out by the sluggish response?

I also thought it was really interesting to have the idea that everything you did could be a game, which he had taken to the extreme and she was disgusted by.

I do agree the end was a bit abrupt but part of what I liked about the way it ended was the mystery of it - you knew he could kind of control her, but how far did that go and what did he have in mind? I also thought he was going to erase some of her memory but I don't know why I thought that.

I thought that movie overall was a much more interesting look at what is possible than the Glass videos Google put together.

Re:Some of those points were addressed. (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40811337)

I thought that movie overall was a much more interesting look at what is possible than the Glass videos Google put together.

That's kind of like saying Minority Report is a much more interesting look at what is possible than Beyond 2000 (debatable I know). The former is just fantasy that while rooted in a reasonable version of the future isn't constrained by "this is actually being worked on by us and we're just teasing you with what we will deliver" which is the case with the Project Glass video vs. what this other guy put together. Not taking anything away from his vision as I found it entertaining but with obviously no constraint of this being a description of an actual deliverable and the extremely speculative and frankly at times practical questionableness of some of the things he shows I think it is kind of disingenuous to compare this with what Google shows in a way that reflects negatively on the level of "interest" it generates. One more analogy and then I'm done. Star Wars for many is more interesting than a shuttle launch but you would sound kind of silly pointing this fact out.

Re:Some of those points were addressed. (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#40811747)

The project glass video was just a little closer to reality than the Vimeo video. But not a great deal more. Sure Google has headsets coming out but how much of what was displayed in the video will they be doing out of the gate?

Still plenty of things in the Glass video that are not going to come to pass for some time, it also was meant to be a showcase of what is possible.

The two videos are way closer than you are making out. Both are fantasy.

Re:Some of those points were addressed. (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40812345)

The project glass video was just a little closer to reality than the Vimeo video. But not a great deal more.

To do a comparison I'll start with what I see wrong with the vimeo video. Firstly, the contact lense full AR system is wildly futuristic. As in decades away. You would have a pair of displays directly adhering to your eyeballs that presumably allow for natural focusing on far way objects like seen in the dive at the beginning, can convincingly reproduce the full color spectrum and lighting all the way from opaque black (harder than it sounds for what we're talking about here) all the way up to what it would be like opening the curtains on a southern facing window first thing in the morning and getting the peripheral lux blast from that our very on nuclear fusion reactor in the sky. I could go on but we're talking about some futuristic shit here. Quick preview: compare this go Google Glass which is just a transparent tiny monitor with an overlay of simple graphics whisking in and out of view. Google's version doesn't even have actual pretensions of being real augmented reality. Just an additional contextually aware information resource. Now assuming the contact lenses were possible or lets just remove them from the equation an insert a pair of eyeglasses with embedded displays as it would be functionally similar to the depiction shown. As an aside, note that the guy in the video is also hearing audio despite a lack of obvious sonic conveyance. We'll let that slide though as maybe he's piping it through the stereo or has really small bluetooth headphones. As far as how the thing knows he's in the refrigerator etc., I'd buy that the whole house is rigged up with rfid chips and a sufficiently sophisticated if-then tree from a really bored programmer could cover most of the normal things he's doing and display the relevant information (i.e., sitting on the couch alone on a Monday night staring at the blank wall? Football baby!). But this would break down as soon as he left his personal space unless we assume that society is covered in RFID chips that he can interface with (not a bad idea actually). Barring that however, having a computer vision system that can do a general interpretation of any scene is computationally intractable with current programming techniques thus requiring something approaching general AI which is so speculative as to not even be worth discussing.

Moving on, I would buy the cucumber cutting game with the overlay all the way up until he moves the cucumber to the side and the AR system tracks it perfectly. That is fantasy right now. This particular point in the video is really worth thinking about and is one of the most important actually as one of the grand promises of AR is to perfectly track the environment and be able to overlay the augmented version in a convincing way over what ever happens to lie in your visual space. The contacts can obviously completely block out the real world as we saw in the beginning so what is portrayed here has the unstated potential of completely transforming your perception of your entire environment at least visually. Don't like your run down shack? It's now a medieval castle in the country side. The illusion could even be padded by simulating different rooms as you walk around the virtual environment. Of course this isn't actually depicted explicitely in the video but all of the necessary ingredients are there or strongly implied.

And on and on. Basically for the vimeo video to happen would require either an extremely well organized and AR friendly society or general AI both of which are in the realm of fantasy at the present time.

Now on to this google glass [youtube.com] video. Guy wakes up in a fairly normal looking albeit affluent western house. Slips his Glass on and an icon overlay pops up. No AR, nothing mystical just some icons painted 2 dimensionally on a transparent screen. A small amount of artistic license is applied here vs. what we've seen of the real Google Glass as the video makes it look like the wearer is enjoying a stereoscopic view. That could be my perceptual bias talking though. Moving on, now we're getting to a fairly contemporary example of how Glass works. He pours the coffee looking down and sees nothing. He looks up as you would have to with the Glass monitor being above eye level and he sees a clock with a reminder. Again, no AR just icons and some text. The only thing that seems slightly out there is the lack of an obvious edge to the tiny transparent monitor or for that matter a monitor at all, e.g., the data seems to be floating in space. Yes, that is sci-fi and similar to what is seen in the vimeo video except the vimeo video had a much more detailed an environmentally aware system. Other than that (and it might be forgivable for not seeing a glass screen since I'm watching this on a glass screen), the situation is entirely believable and possible with tech circa right now. Next he walks to the window and sees the temperature. Maybe Glass is reacting to the increase of ambient light and assumes the wearer is by the window or maybe it is using GPS but this is a practical scenario. Next he receives an instant message and responds via voice. No problem there as the rig could be set to turn the mic on immediately upon receiving an IM. So far so good and much more realistic than the vimeo thing. Progressing through the narrative, everything the guy sees on the display is easily cued via GPS or his voice (he sets a reminder at one point). His Glass would also need an internet connection for real time updates to public transportation availability and the displayed map but that isn't an issue with smartphone tethering or built in cellular. The map spontaneously popping up for the route to the bookstore is plausible as the thing knows the subway isn't an option and it knows based on his calendar where he's going so that is very believable. When he asks "Is Paul here yet?" and it shows Pauls location update it might seem that the Glass understood the question on context alone which is a bit of a stretch but that's not really the case as we know Glass has physical controls on the unit itself. One of those probably being a search. The question "Is Paul here yet?" getting a good answer is not too far out as the unit has been fed with a lot of relevant contextual data. However, I will say that this is an intersection of multiple technologies that as far as I can tell aren't quite fleshed out to this level of polish or sophistication yet so you have a point here. GIve it a year or two though and I think it would work judging from the performance of Google Now on my phone. Note here that the icons come in and out of focus on the display. This is a nice touch as that is how they would actually work as you focused on them and then away. The vimeo video doesn't do this at all implying that there is some very advanced optic tech in play. And that's basically the end of the video except for the video conference.

To sum it up, the vimeo video requires some pretty far out technology and it's an interesting look into the imagination of one man but in no way can it be said that the Google Glass video is in the same realm of speculativeness. As a matter of fact I challenge you to point out one thing in the Glass video that is not possible with technology available today or a mere step or two away from it.

Re:Some of those points were addressed. (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#40812563)

To do a comparison I'll start with what I see wrong with the vimeo video. Firstly, the contact lense full AR system is wildly futuristic. As in decades away.

The one in the Google video is briefly shown as a thin strip, obviously with no cords; It has been laying around somewhere as there is no dock in sight. The viewer is left to image it is just as non-intrusive.

The real Google Glass differs wildly from both videos.

The only difference is that the Vimeo one uses a lot more AR, otherwise it gets the same context data the Google one does.

Indeed, that part doesn't even matter since AR is not even the hard part - we ALREADY have a lot of apps that make use of AR.

It's all about how non-intrusive such technology actually is in day to day use, and there the Vimeo one is hardly different than the Google one.

I'll let you have the last post as I find it pointless to argue further, you are obviously seeing something very different in these videos from what I am seeing.

Re:Some of those points were addressed. (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40812803)

The one in the Google video is briefly shown as a thin strip, obviously with no cords; It has been laying around somewhere as there is no dock in sight. The viewer is left to image it is just as non-intrusive.

We know that Glass at this time has the electronics housed on the right hand side of the unit with the rest as essentially a thin strip and nose bumpers extending to the left to wrap around the user's head. In the video, you can't see the right side of the unit as it is out of the frame. Also, the video, I presume, was not intended to focus on the form factor of the device but what you could potentially do with it so showing the business side of it would be a bit superfluous. I also am quite certain that the unit is a work in progress and the final product will be much smaller than what we see today so it wouldn't even be an accurate portrayal if they had shown the whole thing. Glass will not be ready for general availability until 2013 or 2014 and I have a wristwatch (Motorola Activ) running Android that has the processing power to do what Glass does (assuming a strong server side system working in concert) and is a smaller form factor than what Larry Page has been wearing around. In a year or two, I think it is quite reasonable that an ARM device would be possible that would fulfill the demands of Glass yet be much more compact than what you see right now. After all, the ARM cpu itself is only a few millimeters square. The entire SOC could be manufactured in more than just the conventional rectangular configuration. Why not in the form factor of a wide arm of a pair of glasses? The real limitation is having enough battery to run GPS and some kind of radio for the internet. I'll err on the optimistic side and say it's doable.

The only difference is that the Vimeo one uses a lot more AR, otherwise it gets the same context data the Google one does.

Google Glass has never been shown distinguishing individual shapes and acting on that data as far as I have seen. The cucumber scene has more implications than you might realize and that is far off into the future.

Indeed, that part doesn't even matter since AR is not even the hard part - we ALREADY have a lot of apps that make use of AR.

You give those apps and the hardware they run on way too much credit. Think about the hardware side of the equation. The only way to use Layar as a consumer is to look at it overlaid on the video coming through the phone's camera. That is a nonstarter and why this version of AR will remain a toy. It is frankly fatiguing to look at the world through the phone. Glass solves this problem by allowing you to look at the actual world just adding the appropriate iconography over it. Yes, technically you are looking through transparent glass but that is a sight better than looking at a screen. But assuming the AR overlay in the video was remotely possible, there is still the question of the contact lenses and the fine grained contextual awareness. Those are the two main problems. The first would require a breakthrough in who knows what kind of physics. Nanotech? And the second I'm going to go out on a limb and say would require general AI or, again, an extremely well organized and predictable society so as to moot the intractability of computing and making sense of complex scenarios algorithmically. And when that happens, augmented reality will be the least of our concerns. Of course there's the fantasy of hacking into the woman's brain or whatever it was which would require extremely advanced brain computer interfaces. What we have right now while wonderful for the disabled is a great example of "can't get there from here". Just doing it one-way is a crude interpretation of measurable brain electrical activity. What is portrayed in the video would only be possible via nanotechnology wiring the brain manually one neuron at a time (not to imply that it would take more than a few seconds of course as you could be full of nanobots). That all is easily grasped conceptually but just because you can imagine it on a superficial level doesn't mean it is actually anywhere near feasible. It reminds me of people that think they "understand physics" because they have memorized a description of the standard model and can paraphrase it. Ha! You need to have a grasp of the underlying mathematics. If you can't make plausible non-obvious predictions then you know nothing. The physics involved in realizing the dream in the vimeo video is akin to this retrospective analogy.

Re:Not really convincing... (1)

fermion (181285) | about 2 years ago | (#40810683)

This kind of reminds me when I saw a couple on a date. His shirt said "I'm not listening".

At first I was thinking these would not catch on because they do exactly oppositie of what many people want. Instead of getting rid of excess reality, they just make it worse. Look at the return of the ugly big headphones that are all the rage again. Look at the number of kids that still get high. These glasses may have a market. In terms of dating the question is how to pass the time until it becomes socially acceptable to have sex.

There are some virtual reality applications now. Some are not widely used because they do not have a purpose, or because they are privacy concerns. You meet someone, your facebook profile in on you phone, that person now has access to all the info. In many states you tax records are on public file. Someone comes to the house to beg for money, the homeless, a church, whatever, they now have a bunch of information. Likewise someone looking for a car to follow and hijack.

Google did collect unnecessary personal information. Google has not deleted it. The issue with these are not going to be technical buy political.

Re:Not really convincing... (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40811591)

Look at the return of the ugly big headphones that are all the rage again.

Honestly? They sound better. Yes, I realize the irony of wasting this on lossy compressed music. I'm just waiting for the return of the grooved analog medium. Can you just see the hipsters running around with some kind of modern day record player strapped to their belts? I'm sure there is some way to miniaturize the whole thing and maybe go back to cylinders but it would still be something to behold. Maybe I should patent that shit. Could throw in a tube for good measure.

Look at the number of kids that still get high.

Pro tip: Almost every single high level executive you see on TV or hear about? They're all hopped up on dope. Nobody...and I mean nobody (for statistically significant values of nobody) can work 130 hours a week as brass in a major corp and not be on something.* As far as kids doing drugs, that's a real shame. IMHO they need to learn to cope with reality with their baseline psychological profile. If you consider college students as "kids" then you have to take into account the fact that it is very difficult to accept being a B kid when you know judicious use of the right stimulant can turn you into an A student. Last study I saw showed that 25 percent of the student body on elite campuses admitted to stimulant use in the pursuit of better academic performance. Sad but true.

There are some virtual reality applications now. Some are not widely used because they do not have a purpose, or because they are privacy concerns.

Layar and its ilk all have the same fatal flaw. You have to view the world through the same screen as the data the app produces. Google Glass hopes to remedy this problem by making the screen itself transparent and just overlaying the data on top of the actual world. Looking at Layar through even an all encompassing screen would quickly grow tiring as your eyes wouldn't even be able to focus naturally on far away objects. And no video screen I've ever seen can display the full gamut of colors and lighting the human eye can process so it would be like trying to live your life through a video camera. Not happening. Now if Layar etc. could be overlaid on a set of glasses then you might be on to something...enter Google Glass.

* I do NOT have proof of any exec taking drugs other than what has been exposed in popular media and available to everyone. Only common sense gained from roaming this earth for some decades and talking to lots of successful people. If you are in a high pressure environment and you are getting over the age of 40, be positively sure that there is somebody else gunning for you that is either younger or has a prescription to Adderall, Provigil, $STIMULANT_OF_CHOICE and they are using it. If you want to stay in the saddle, what do you do? Also note that I am not writing any of this as any kind of Freudian style rationalization of my own behavior. I'm not in a competitive environment where drugs are necessary and if I was, I would strongly resist the urge.

Re:Not really convincing... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40812383)

I took the thing to mean that it was an overall integrated dating game.

In other words, she wasn't real. Never was.

Nothing of note (4, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#40808605)

games, cooking challenges, information in real-time about the person you are talking to, all made possible by the contact lenses being worn. And of course there's a darkside to the equation, the potential to hack and therefore influence the actions of others. Ultimately, it's a realistic idea of the future we all face."

I'm not worried about hackers influencing the actions of others. They've had many, many other avenues for doing this, and for the most part they don't. The only thing anyone who's up to no good is regularly interested in is money: Either by browser hijacking or identity theft. What I AM worried about is businesses. Getting by in modern society increasingly requires that we surrender our personal information to faceless corporations who can do pretty much whatever they want with it. Want a job? Give us your Facebook password. Don't have a Facebook? That's a disqualifier. Want to buy anything? We only take credit cards here. Want to get on the internet? We'll be monitoring everything you do, storing that information forever, and selling it off to anyone who wants it. Cell phone? Same deal. Even your electric meter on your house is now phoning home with details of when you watch TV, cook dinner, etc.

I might as well not wear clothes anymore; Corporations already know everything about me, and for a pathetically small fee, so can you. Why the hell should I be modest about showing a little skin too? It's about the only thing you don't have pictures of. Wait... pictures from the full body scanners at the airport are being posted online? Sigh... nevermind...

Re:Nothing of note (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808639)

So... how you doing?

Re:Nothing of note (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#40808795)

So... how you doing?

The answer's still no.

Re:Nothing of note (1, Informative)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40808879)

"She's" a trap, dude. Unless you're into that kind of thing of course in which case carry on.

Re:Nothing of note (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#40809901)

How is this +1 informative, you little shit of a troll?

Re:Nothing of note (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40810335)

I sincerely apologize for offending you as that wasn't my intention.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trap&defid=2584134 [urbandictionary.com]

I'm not up on what is PC in the LGBT community so if this term is offensive let me know and I won't use it again.

Re:Nothing of note (again) (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#40810217)

How is this +1 informative, you little shit of a troll?

Keep modding me down, assholes... I got plenty of karma...

Re:Nothing of note (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40812053)

I am so sorry I just spent my last mod point so I can't mod you troll. Instead, I'll link to a blog post which explains why that is such a horrible thing to say [skepchick.org] , so you can stop pretending that you didn't know you were being offensive.

Re:Nothing of note (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40812489)

The trans women contingent is a minority of a minority community. I have never one single time sat down and had a discussion that wandered to what is and what isn't offensive terminology. Yes, in retrospect, it was a questionable comment and in light of what I read at your link it is obviously a very serious matter and not to be bandied lightly. The reality is the term "trap" is accepted lingo among normal adults who use it when it is contextually appropriate (yes, I get the implied contradiction of saying something extremely is every contextually appropriate). I have obviously heard the word and was apprised to its prosaic meaning but, naturally, was not filled in on its more sinister implications or how it is associated with an existential issue within the trans community. As penance I will make it a point to apply the appropriate social pressure to anyone that uses it in my presence in the future.

Re:Nothing of note (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40813135)

good lord, she may not have her balls anymore, but she sure has yours.

Re:Nothing of note (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40813429)

Your comment is very interesting. For one thing it carries with it an implied agreement with my original comment which I have since expressed regret in making. I would also wager that you (as some form of social quid pro quo) presume to goad me into blunting my aforementioned apology by expressing some kind of trivializing sentiment to appease you. Too bad as you'll have to look elsewhere for your entertainment tonight. What I said was wrong. Your antagonism is shameful and whatever balls you have you'd better cut 'em off because I doubt they belong to you.

Re:Nothing of note (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40813667)

I don't want to goad you into anything. That would imply I gave a shit about you.

Re:Nothing of note (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40814381)

You should see somebody about that acute case of douche bag-itis you have.

Have to solve the bathroom problem first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808617)

Would you be comfortable sharing a pissoir with a member of the borg collective?

Re:Have to solve the bathroom problem first... (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40808723)

Since by definition a Pissoir is not a bathroom, I don't think it will be a problem.

Re:Have to solve the bathroom problem first... (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#40808787)

Well, it serves the purposes of bathrooms, which is why it was designed.

Although I don't know why public bathrooms, or pissoirs are related to augmented reality.

I did find this little gem looking up the definition:

Pissoirs first became widespread in France but exist throughout the world, from Scandinavia to Australia. They fell out of fashion in the late 20th century, but have seen something of a revival, with ultra modern versions being built in places like Berlin. Britain, which shares anglo-saxon prudishness with America has recently relaxed its taboo against open air urinals, due to the problem of binge drinking and subsequent al fresco urination. In the south of England, cylindrical pissoirs which are hidden during the day, telescope out of the ground at night, for the relief of marauding drunken hordes.

Wow. I did not know you Brits took drinking so seriously. It's sounds like a sport.

Re:Have to solve the bathroom problem first... (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40808815)

A Pissoir might serve one of the purposes of a bathroom but it is not a bathroom. I know lexical laziness is en vogue so pardon my pedantry.

Re:Have to solve the bathroom problem first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808885)

Although I don't know why public bathrooms, or pissoirs are related to augmented reality.

So google have augmented reality technology that doesn't employ cameras?

Want to glimpse the future of "augmented reality"? Visit 4chan.

Re:Have to solve the bathroom problem first... (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40810347)

How is 4chan a glimpse of the future of augmented reality?

4chan? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40810449)

How is 4chan a glimpse of the future of augmented reality?

You know how when you look at things there are no goatse or similar images everywhere?
Now imagine everything you see with a floating, animated goatse (or worse) over it.

You KNOW it is inevitable.

Re:4chan? (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40810477)

That would be effing hilarious. Desensitizing a generation of western civilization to a gaping goatse asshole would probably do us good. Seriously. Think about it.

Forget the fashionable, focus on usefullness (1)

ciantic (626550) | about 2 years ago | (#40808629)

I think Google is missing the point when it tries to focus on "fashionable" side (or lack of) in the glasses.

Once it becomes useful, it has a potential to replace all displays and soon after the fashionable point becomes moot as people really want the thing. Yes it will be ugly first, but just like tablets, hands free dongles, USB sticks etc. the exterior will mature once it's useful.

But I'm afraid Google is doing this wrong, just like Bill Gates and Microsoft as they tried to introduce concept of tablets too early, when the technology was not ready.

Re:Forget the fashionable, focus on usefullness (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40808701)

Think they're focusing on both actually. A lot of people work there these days so they can spread them around a little bit you know.

Dennou Coil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808641)

The anime "Dennou Coil" explores the idea of a glasses-computer world pretty interestingly...

Augmented reality is extremely compelling (5, Insightful)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40808677)

Here [valvesoftware.com] is an excellent blog post by a Valve Software employee about the potential of augmented reality. Basically, the real thing like what you see in the video above while the guy is cutting the cucumber is very hard. Things like perfect motion tracking, contextual awareness, seamless overlays are science fiction at this point. But this is a very compelling scenario and very smart people are working on it so sooner or later it's happening. Hopefully Google Glass will get us one step closer. Ironically, one of the best uses for it is real life ad block. Imagine riding down the freeway and every billboard is replaced by a giant sequoia. Or a mushroom Smurf house.

Re:Augmented reality is extremely compelling (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#40808873)

Things like perfect motion tracking, contextual awareness, seamless overlays are science fiction at this point

Wanted: eyetap product. Maybe someone will bring us one as Glass gains popularity.

Too expensive (2)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#40808767)

VR has been there for quite a while, and the reason it is not widespread isn't lack of imagination but its prohibitive costs. And since Google Glass still costs an arm and a leg, it won't start any revolution.

Re:Too expensive (2)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40808783)

Um, it's not even for sale to the general public so how would you have any idea what it will cost? And if you think the explored kit they are selling to the Google I/O attendees is indicative of the real price, I ask you, have you priced console dev kits vs. The price of the consumer hardware lately? The two have nothing in common.

Re:Too expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40812537)

If the price of the google glass at this stage (~$1,500) is an arm and a leg I think you have MUCH bigger issues to worry about, namely the immediate future. You can hold off until it's actually purchasable next year, it'll only cost you an arm at ~$700.

That's all US dollars, so it's cheaper for the rest of the world ;)

Feed (1)

thoughtlover (83833) | about 2 years ago | (#40808811)

M.T. Anderson envisioned a fairly dystopian society where everyone receives an implant at birth. While the book was a simple and fun read, the implications of such tech were definitely scary. http://www.amazon.com/Feed-M-T-Anderson/dp/0763622591 [amazon.com] ("Feed" by M.T. Anderson). **spoiler alert** - The scary part of the story involved a character who was hacked into (more like, was given some malware) and many physical problems arose as a result.

Information age victim (1)

mcelrath (8027) | about 2 years ago | (#40808833)

More and more I feel as though I'm the mark of the information age, rather than benefiting from it. Google, Facebook, 100 advertising sites, are all busy trying to gather as much information about me as possible, and not giving me any control over it. I've long been a fan of augmented reality appearing, but it's coming in an age where user control is removed, and the information sources to which it has access are filtered, censored, and engineered by others, who have their own agenda. Soon we'll all be living in a reality distortion field, carefully engineered to make sure we keep buying a certain set of products, vote a particular way, or perform certain tasks for our overlords. Media distortion already works by selective omission of information, as the information becomes closer to us and higher volume, it will work the same way. Advertisement will become pervasive, more subconscious, and much harder to avoid. Just wait until they start correlating the placement of their corporate logo in your visual field with purchasing habits. They'll optimize it for human learning: show their ad/logo in an optimal learning pattern spatially and in time, so you won't forget it. We really will be programmed consumer-bots.

How do we prevent that dystopia?

Re:Information age victim (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40808955)

Google, Facebook, 100 advertising sites, are all busy trying to gather as much information about me as possible, and not giving me any control over it.

Um, really [facebook.com] ? Really? [google.com] and if that's too much trouble, you can probably hire somebody on mechanical Turk to do it for 10 cents.

Re:Information age victim (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40809547)

How do we prevent that dystopia?

If you're an American then hanging on to your 2nd Amendment rights would be a good start.

Interface (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808839)

That's some hipstery sugarly interface.

Distracted living (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808853)

Pass.

Re:Distracted living (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40809061)

He says this as he lazily passes a Sunday afternoon reading tech blogs about things he doesn't care about. Like I said above (or below, dear reader), the Internet is a funny place.

I've seen this movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808857)

The story kicks in when you realize the future is really shitty.

Re:I've seen this movie (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40809103)

Every generation since time immemorable has always thought "this is it". The world's going to hell now. Arrogantly we presume that this will be the time of cataclysmic change. The world was just waiting for me^H^H us to get here to seek it's retribution on mankind. And then...amazingly...not much really happens and the next group of younglings arrive...thinking the same thing. The "future" will be just fine, worrywart. I promise.

The Internet is a funny place (4, Insightful)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40808859)

The Internet is a funny place. About half the comments on any blog post about Glass are comments mocking it. Yet in the next breath, the same commented will decry "lack of innovation" in the tech industry. Personally I don't need yet another way to edit my spreadsheets or unlock my phone. I'm ready for something new and consumer palatable augmented reality is it. Google might still get it wrong but I'm with them all the way for trying.

Re:The Internet is a funny place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40809415)

It's the same old, same old, just on contact lenses. Games, cooking instructions, information about the person you're talking to -- wow, I have no easy access to all of that stuff as it is.

There's no contradiction in mocking Glass and complaining about a lack of innovation.

Re:The Internet is a funny place (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40810403)

It's the same old, same old, just on contact lenses.

I'd argue otherwise. Yes, there is a world full of information that is contextually relevant to whatever situation you find yourself in. The only problem is there is friction between you and that information at any given time. If you can devise a system where you get a "just in time" feed at any given moment then that has the potential to catalyse a real fundamental shift in our ability to perform maximally in any given moment. It has the potential to blunt the Dunning-Kruger [wikipedia.org] effect in a general way which if I may say so myself is a pretty exciting prospect for the future of humanity.

Re:The Internet is a funny place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40810633)

The friction isn't solved by Glass, it's solved by algorithms. As anyone using a search engine (including Google's), recommendation engine, or various other information tools, can tell you, that friction still exists because the algorithms in use are simply not good enough.
 
Also, having a constant feed of information may cause even more changes in memory ability that have already been shown from reliance on the internet -- viz., a loss in the ability to remember any information we believe the feed can easily provide. The truth is that for most of us, we have little practical use for a non-stop feed of information and may well be worse off for it. There may be isolated instances where the feed would be helpful, but that's just as we already see with smartphone and tablet usage.
 
Your idea that it would get rid of the Dunning-Kruger effect is pleasant, but most likely we would see people subscribe to feeds that agree with their beliefs as already happens with news feeds. There's also the likely reality that the feeds themselves would give a false impression of certainty on issues which are arguable, as is common in any information format where brevity is valuable.

Re:The Internet is a funny place (2)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40810987)

The friction isn't solved by Glass, it's solved by algorithms.

What is an algorithm without implementation? Glass is an implementation that assuming Google follows through will be attainable by the typical westerner and reduces the friction of "just in time" information by a higher degree than anything else that you can readily get your hands on. I'm not pretending that it eliminates friction. I would imagine that Gods-like omniscience is the only thing that can do that and that isn't even on the table right now.

As anyone using a search engine (including Google's), recommendation engine, or various other information tools, can tell you, that friction still exists because the algorithms in use are simply not good enough.

This is true. Many CS problems including complete contextual awareness will probably only be solvable by general AI especially things like real time human level speech translation (to give an example) but Glass isn't claiming to be perfect only a step. Actually, I don't think Google is claiming much of anything about it right now other than it can be a neat way to get directions and take first person photos and videos. We are the ones filling in the blanks. I gave this a bit of though after seeing the skydiving stunt at Google IO and honestly, I couldn't come up with any extremely compelling scenarios where Glass would change my life for the better. But I do have a general sense of potential and as you say with the right algorithm it could be huge. However, with that being said, I do have a Galaxy Nexus running Jellybean and Google Now. The algorithm behind that does have a rudimentary contextual awareness and is genuinely helpful. Not life changing but helpful. Google will be refining it and Glass isn't even scheduled for general release until late 2013 at the earliest so they have a lot of time to work on their algorithm for it but with just what they have now in GNow, I would find a heads up display useful. More useful than pulling my cell phone out of my pocket when it beeps at me.

Also, having a constant feed of information may cause even more changes in memory ability that have already been shown from reliance on the internet -- viz., a loss in the ability to remember any information we believe the feed can easily provide.

I have seen this particular risk hypothesized before but I have seen no empirical evidence that it is harmful. I hate to use analogies but you could make the same argument about the advance of specialization post hunter-gatherer days. Before the beginning of our agrarian base society, almost everybody in the tribe "knew" everything there was to know. And if you go far back enough that is a virtual certainty. Still, nobody reasonably wants to turn back the clock in the name of regaining the ability to remember information. We are too far removed from that lifestyle. This will continue until inevitably strong AI is invented (discovered?) and we humans no longer have to do anything. I'm banking on us merging with the machines but you can assume any scenario you want as it doesn't change the presumed inevitability one iota.

The truth is that for most of us, we have little practical use for a non-stop feed of information and may well be worse off for it. There may be isolated instances where the feed would be helpful, but that's just as we already see with smartphone and tablet usage.

I think things like Glass and Google Now and Siri to a lesser extent actually help lessen the problem of information overload. Think of them as intelligent agents that present information to you as you need it. You don't have to burden your own time (and it is a factor of time really) with trying to sift through it all when an agent can just give you what you need when you need it. That frees you up for what humans are good at, e.g., being creative and making plans and simulating the possible outcomes of those plans. Then you do what any good human does and make decisions. The agents only exist to serve and help leverage your own abilities. Not overload you with a torrent of information. google.com is the problem and Google Now v++ is the potential answer.

Your idea that it would get rid of the Dunning-Kruger effect is pleasant, but most likely we would see people subscribe to feeds that agree with their beliefs as already happens with news feeds. There's also the likely reality that the feeds themselves would give a false impression of certainty on issues which are arguable, as is common in any information format where brevity is valuable./quote Yes, there is danger in that and I myself pay attention to mostly tech news to the exclusion of some other things. But that is a personal choice and I wouldn't wish to tread on something so sacred. If people choose to exclude opposing viewpoints then I suggest cruising Slashdot at -1 sometime. It'll do wonders. j/k

fp 3oll? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40808927)

#goOd manners

Illium/Olympus (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 years ago | (#40809199)

If you want to go full to the future, those novels from Dan Simmons references what could be the a far future from the project glass, both from "interaction" (i.e. thinking in geometric shapes to activate some function) to going so far to become unusable (i.e. activating the wikipedia-like function to know everything in detail of what you are seeing around, at the point of becoming unpleasant to use)

Re:Illium/Olympus (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40809301)

For further reading, I'd suggest The Golden Age [wikipedia.org] trilogy by John C. Wright which is an absolute tour de force in full on hard sic-fi post human futurism. Predicting 10,000 years into the future is basically impossible but the author weaves a very believable scenario. Not to put too fine a point on it but these books are the primary reason I lost interest in popular "fantasy" science fiction aka skee-fee.

Re:Illium/Olympus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40810483)

Oh, I wish I had mod points, the parent is absolutely right. The Golden Age is probably the best sci-fi book series I've ever read. Even my wife liked it too and she's not a fan of sci-fi.

Re:Illium/Olympus (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40810507)

The Golden Age is so underrated it is tragic. Anybody even remotely interested in what a posthuman future might look like needs to read these books. The author is an effing genius. It's a shame he kind of went awol.

Re:Illium/Olympus (1)

robi5 (1261542) | about 2 years ago | (#40810075)

Another must read is Vernor Vinge: Fast Times at Fairmont High.

*** SPOILER ALERT ***
*** SPOILER ALERT ***
*** SPOILER ALERT ***
An interesting concept is that instead of decorating your wall and environments, you just augment reality.
Also, depending on the level of intimacy, family members and some guests are granted the privilege of seeing through the wall (achieved by cameras dispersed all over and a view reconstructed from several of them from the viewer's position, overlaid on the wall).

One word (1)

zrbyte (1666979) | about 2 years ago | (#40809259)

Whuffie [wikipedia.org]

Hyperactive imagination? Not even remotely. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40809313)

You call that hyperactive imagination?
I know I have a pretty good imagination, but compared do that lame shit, I'm a imagination god!
Come on, this is chartered accountant level "imagination"!

Apple patented after Google invented (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40809419)

It's the Apple way. Expect lawsuits to follow. Google Glass will probably be pulled from the market for copying Apple's idea.

Windows?? NO thanks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40809427)

Look at 6:35. Those are backslashes. IN PATHS.
Only Windows uses those for paths. They are escapes on every normal system.
No fuckin' thanks.

And he actually *watches* ads. Yeah right. A *developer* doesn’t have an ad blocker, *and* doesn’t switch away. Riiight.
Also a supposed developer is using a bog standard keyboard layout?

SEEMS LEGIT.

This is not believable, even for a made-up story.

Re:Windows?? NO thanks! (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40811699)

Look at 6:35. Those are backslashes. IN PATHS. Only Windows uses those for paths. They are escapes on every normal system. No fuckin' thanks.

Maybe this is a hypothetical future where everything runs on ARM processors and Treacherous^H^H^H^H^H Secure Boot is mandatory with no off switch. Scary shit.

Watching people watching. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40809619)

Watching people watching. What video could be better?

We hit the bottom. Contact Lenses aren't going to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40809997)

The contact lense thing is never going to happen; Vernor Vinge talked with a lot of engineers about it, and it's totally infeasible. He said that if he were to rewrite Rainbow's End, he'd make it a cybernetic implant of some sort (interface with the optic nerve?), but not contact lense. There's no way to put a "retina display" on a contact lens like that.

Richard Feynman wrote that: "There's plenty of room at the bottom."

The thing is, we've excavated to the bottom since he wrote that.

http://communitywiki.org/en/RainbowsEnd

Re:We hit the bottom. Contact Lenses aren't going (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40811669)

It's funny, since that's also what all of Apple's competitors said when they unveiled the iPhone.

Re:We hit the bottom. Contact Lenses aren't going (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about 2 years ago | (#40811769)

The contact lense thing is never going to happen

I wouldn't say never but I do think it is too early to realistically propose a practical implementation of AR contact lenses. However, barring the artistic license the video's author took, all of what he shows as far as the augmented reality goes could be accomplished with an advanced version of Google Glass, e.g., external display wearable on the face. If you read Neuromancer by William Gibson, he describes AR as being projected on lenses that are surgically implanted into the wearer's face. Also, reference Deus Ex Human Revolution for another example.

Enormous potential... (1)

Seb C. (5555) | about 2 years ago | (#40810817)

... But i can't help thinking we'll have to buy buckets of blue pills, if we really come to this...

And, to speak of the Google Glass project, i'm not sure : people that don't wear glasses will have hard time to acustomed to this (i mean, if you don't really need it all the time, you don't wear glasses beside the few minutes the 3D film is cast in the cinema). And people that do wear glasses... Well they need special glasses so they can actually see...

And i won't even mention the need for something that actually makes feel nice or is just different (wearing glasses is not nice, so your glasses have to be : it's your face, damn it : the first thing you see, the first impression you give to others - Ok.. may be the second or third for girl meeting horny geeks, but anyway...-).

I can't see how google can succeed with those glasses, despite that nice "always on" promise (well it's nice in the first place, but see how enslaved we are to our smartphone... Do you really want to feed another addiction ?)...

Re:Enormous potential... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40811643)

And yet millions of people wear safety glasses for 8 hours a day at work, but have no problem afterwards.

Not to mention all the hipsters wearing nonprescription lenses just to look cool.

Face Blindness (3, Interesting)

MrLogic17 (233498) | about 2 years ago | (#40811197)

As someone with mild associative prosopagnosia (google for Face Blindness), I *really* want this. Way too many people look alike to me, and I miss out on a lot for the first half of most conversations. I have to avoid names and only talk about general, common topics until I figure out who the heck I'm talking to. With a VR system, I might be able to follow the plot of more movies, too!

From a technology angle, contacts simple can't work for this application. You can't read text that's not directory in the center of your view.
See also: http://www.xkcd.com/1080/ [xkcd.com]

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...