Beta
×

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!

Microsoft Granted Patent For Augmented Reality Glasses

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the not-tonight-shades dept.

Microsoft 89

another random user writes with an excerpt from the BBC about Microsoft's vision for augmented reality glasses: "A patent granted to the U.S. tech firm describes how the eyewear could be used to bring up statistics over a wearer's view of a baseball game or details of characters in a play. The newly-released document was filed in May 2011 and is highly detailed. ... Although some have questioned how many people would want to wear such devices, a recent report by Juniper Research indicated that the market for smart glasses and other next-generation wearable tech could be worth $1.5bn by 2014 and would multiply over following years." Noticeable differences from Google's version: two lenses, a wrist computer, and wires.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why MS is better than Google's (-1, Flamebait)

Presentss (2780313) | about 2 years ago | (#42074017)

I would hesitate getting Google's reality glasses because it would mean that all my data would go to Google. Instead of that, Microsoft's version would process things independently on the wrist computer. That's a huge difference and suits to people who want to keep their privacy.

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074121)

Shill

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#42074223)

Shill

Such eloquence, such insight! Makes me wonder why I bothered to post this [slashdot.org] ... oh wait, you're being a total douche aren't you?

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (1, Troll)

schitso (2541028) | about 2 years ago | (#42074253)

Is there an issue with pointing out obvious shills?

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#42074319)

Not at all, if you're willing to back it up.

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (4, Informative)

Tapewolf (1639955) | about 2 years ago | (#42074567)

Not at all, if you're willing to back it up.

I don't know about you, but when someone with a brand-new account kicks off the discussion with a first post that praises Microsoft and denounces the competition, and that is their only comment, that looks rather odd to me.

When you remember that there have been a lot of new accounts doing exactly that over the course of this year - the Visual Studio ones being some of the most blatant - well, writing that off as normal user behaviour starts to look like burying your head in the sand.

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42075075)

This has been going on much longer than a year.

This was over a year and a half ago:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/cdd1ea06-7cc0-11e0-994d-00144feabdc0.html [ft.com]
 

Burson-Marsteller, a WPP-owned PR agency whose clients also include Microsoft, contacted US newspaper reporters and opinion-piece writers with a view to securing coverage on Google’s alleged use of personal information from Facebook and other social networks.

MS vs ODF (2009):
http://techrights.org/2009/05/27/ghettoblaster-may-be-microsoft-astroturf/ [techrights.org]

MS vs Linux (2001):
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/09/26/ms_targets_linux_mac_rivals/ [theregister.co.uk]

There is so much more too....

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42079347)

the new account is a good sign, but the comment is valid. Screw having the advertising giant strap a camera, gps, and screen to my face.

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (2)

alexhs (877055) | about 2 years ago | (#42074697)

Proof 1 [slashdot.org]
Proof 2 [slashdot.org] , specifically time stamp, and FUD that would have been obvious if you RTFA instead of trolling :

Microsoft's version would process things independently on the wrist computer

vs

[Patent] indicates that most of the processing work [...] would likely be carried out by remote computer servers [...].

These astroturfers have been operating in the same way for a long time (more than a year I think), posting first-posts pro-Microsoft Anti-Google FUD.

Do you carefully check each and every mail by some Nigerian wanting to transfer some big money via your account ? Maybe THAT one isn't a scam ?

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#42074785)

Nice try [slashdot.org]

Why so insecure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42075339)

Are you so insecure that you need to re-post your own comment multiple times in a discussion about whether the OP is a shill? That's not even relevant and just makes you look like you're defending him because you want to be sure your reply is well modded or some other such vain nonsense.

Do you even understand the post you replied to here? The guy was making fun of you because you seem to think it's better to rationally argue with a 419 spammer than call them out/ignore/mod down/etc.

Please, do us all a favor and stop posting. Judging by your comment history, it would be a BIG favor.

Re:Why so insecure? (0)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#42075375)

Stop me - I dare you

Re:Why so insecure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42076711)

Douche

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074851)

Not at all, if you're willing to back it up.

OK, two points of proof to back up user Presentss is a shill.

1 - UID is 2780313 registered 11/23/2012 (aka Today)
2 - http://slashdot.org/~Presentss/comments [slashdot.org]

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#42075321)

Apologies for not doing a full background check on all /. users I reply to.

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42079361)

To be honest that's one point. Also your ignoring whether the comment has any value. I for one arn't thrilled about the idea of the biggest advertising giant and data analysis company in the world strap a camera, gps, and screen to my face.

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42080367)

So don't freaking buy one!

Seriously, if you can't control your actions so much that you purchase things you despise, you have no right to complain about the fact you purchased it.
And if you aren't going to purchase it, then what the hell are you bitching about?

Until a Google rep comes to your home with a gun pointed at your head, the GP has no point nor value to his shilling post.

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42080653)

i still want the tech just not from google, and considering this is a story about microsoft you can go fuck your self.

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074625)

Um, his comment was posted before yours. Don't get all whiny about it.

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#42074687)

You win the 'Stating The Obvious Award'! Congratulations!

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (4, Informative)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#42074211)

I would hesitate getting Google's reality glasses because it would mean that all my data would go to Google. Instead of that, Microsoft's version would process things independently on the wrist computer. That's a huge difference and suits to people who want to keep their privacy.

Doesn't look like it:

It indicates that most of the processing work - identifying people and other objects in view, and deciding what information to show about them - would likely be carried out by remote computer servers in order to keep the equipment slimline.

So you'll probably need a .NET Passport/Windows Live ID/Microsoft Account/whatever-they're-calling-it-tomorrow to use it.

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074225)

From TFA: "It indicates that most of the processing work - identifying people and other objects in view, and deciding what information to show about them - would likely be carried out by remote computer servers in order to keep the equipment slimline."

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074275)

I would hesitate getting Google's reality glasses because it would mean that all my data would go to Google. Instead of that, Microsoft's version would process things independently on the wrist computer. That's a huge difference and suits to people who want to keep their privacy.

Yeah but try getting it through airport security!

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074565)

How are those glasses different from the computers, tablets and phones with cameras we always pass through airport security?

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (1)

HappyPsycho (1724746) | about 2 years ago | (#42075563)

They can record the TSA agents too, can't have that!!!

Snowcrash provides prior art (1)

IBitOBear (410965) | about 2 years ago | (#42074579)

The novel snowcrash profides prior art to all the wearable computer glasses/goggles thing. I know I have read the same thing in other books too, they just don't come to mind.

The whole patent thing is just so screwed up. If the guy who developed the waterbed was denied patent because of Stanger in a Strange Land, then the system as written already disallowed all this crap.

But that's just reason and logic.

Re:Snowcrash provides prior art (1)

MnemonicMan (2596371) | about 2 years ago | (#42074959)

Snow Crash [wikipedia.org] was written in 1992. For an even earlier conception, see Earth [wikipedia.org] which was written in 1990.

These novels provide protection over the general idea of "augmented reality" but however, they do not provide protection for the specific implementations as those will likely be very complex assemblages of various technologies that are much more involved than just a general idea.

OP is a shill, this is their first ./ comment (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074949)

Please mod these MS shills down. OP is a shill, this is their first ./ comment. They dont even have the days read in a row achievement.

Re:Why MS is better than Google's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42075237)

I would hesitate getting Google's reality glasses because it would mean that all my data would go to Google. Instead of that, Microsoft's version would process things independently on the wrist computer. That's a huge difference and suits to people who want to keep their privacy.

Thank you for mentioning that, Presentss. You know, Microsoft(tm) products make everything I do easier and more enjoyable too!
These glasses will be a great add-on for Microsoft(tm) Windows 8(tm)! Ha ha ha (big smiles). Now let's both turn and look at the
camera while keeping these smiles frozen on our faces. Annnnnnd cut. Nice job, Presentss.

In Store Shopping Assistance? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074033)

Will this "augmented reality" be used in stores to help convince people to buy a Windows 8 phone?

Re:In Store Shopping Assistance? (0, Troll)

Joce640k (829181) | about 2 years ago | (#42074123)

They're much more likely to be used for watching porn during boring baseball games.

(...and for blocking out disturbing images of people masturbating at baseball games)

Re:In Store Shopping Assistance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42075635)

It looks like its specifically for live events (part of the patent is that it detects that you're at a live event), and probably intended to be provided by the event planners with your ticket. An example would be the NFL handing out Super Bowl stat glasses to get info on the players and see instant replays from your stadium seat.

Re:In Store Shopping Assistance? (3, Funny)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 2 years ago | (#42074405)

In copying everything Apple, Microsoft wants a 'Reality Distortion Field' and has to resort to hardware to do it.

Re:In Store Shopping Assistance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42075681)

Um, Apple's reality distortion field prevents Apple fans from seeing that Apple sucks. However, Apple only gained that with the Cult of Jobs and the iPhone. Microsoft has had a more subtle reality distortion field for a lot longer that lets Windows fans say Windows sucks but there's nothing worth switching to.

Yet another example of Apple's innovations being a minor change on something that already existed.

Re:In Store Shopping Assistance? (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 2 years ago | (#42074527)

I just want to know if they will make Windows 8 look like a usable desktop OS?

Patent nonsense (5, Insightful)

Seeteufel (1736784) | about 2 years ago | (#42074047)

I am with Richard Stallman and the FFII [ffii.org] : Stop all the nonsensical software patent granting. All of them are a disgrace to professionals in the field, a hostile takeover from laywers and patent parasites.

Re:Patent nonsense (1)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about 2 years ago | (#42074087)

Absolutely! This is getting beyond a joke - pretty soon we'll have patent lawyers scouring the SciFi back catalogue and patenting everything in there, since most of what we see coming to market now, or "real soon now" has already been imagined and sometimes described in great detail.

*rushes off to patent phasers, transporters, replicants and geosync orbits*

Re:Patent nonsense (1, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#42074247)

This is a piece of hardware, and a specific implementation of it. This is exactly what patents are for.

Re:Patent nonsense (0)

cristiroma (606375) | about 2 years ago | (#42074495)

-1: Troll
Is that you Steven Gibson?

Re:Patent nonsense (1)

Seeteufel (1736784) | about 2 years ago | (#42074499)

All the functionality is software.

Re:Patent nonsense (3, Insightful)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | about 2 years ago | (#42074501)

Actually patents are for non-obvious specific implementations of hardware. This isn't.

Re:Patent nonsense (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074511)

Obviously you and the people who modded you insightful didn't even bother to read the the first sentence of the abstract of the patent. This is NOT a piece of hardware, rather it is "A system and method to present a user wearing a head mounted display with supplemental information when viewing a live event". The head mounted display is already assumed in this patent - this patent is just talking about presenting live statistics/info about the event in a manner that doesn't obstruct the viewing of said event.

Again, not hardware.

Re:Patent nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074585)

Broad and generic, something that should not be patentable. We had patents granted because very old stuff happened on touchscreens, we are getting another round about glasses now. Quite silly.

Re:Patent nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42076201)

Why would anyone give a damn about the abstract? It's completely irrelevant to what the patent actually claims.

The patent has exactly three independent claims, 1, 9 and 19. The remaining 17 claims are dependent, and each relies on one of those independent claims. Nothing can infringe this patent unless it completely implements at least one of those three independent claims.

How the fuck do people like you get modded up when you don't have the first idea of which part of a patent even describes the invention?

Re:Patent nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074539)

Nope this is a specific hardware implementation with an example software attached and patented as a software "invention".

This kind of patents should be banned and those companies that do them should be banned for 20 years of registering any other patent as penalty.

Re:Patent nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074643)

I'm with RMS as well. That said, this is a fascinating development.

Contextual statistics. !!!

How valuable would that be in political live debates?

Perhaps Faux News could be required to have the real statistics pertaining to what they're broadcasting displayed across the bottom of the screen?

Maybe implanting them, with electroshock feedback for telling an obvious lie, could be required in order to run for political office?

I like this gadget, properly used...

Stagnation (0)

Jetra (2622687) | about 2 years ago | (#42074055)

When will we get games with this augmented reality? Talk to M$ and see if they're willing to share. No? I think we're going to have to wait a few decades before then.

Re:Stagnation (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#42074233)

I played AR games on my Treo. I'm sure you can find many for any modern smartphone.

Prior art? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074079)

30 years of cyberpunk and post-cyberpunk say, "Hi!" Not that it will count for anything under what America laughably calls calls a patent system.

Re:Prior art? (1)

SoundGuyNoise (864550) | about 2 years ago | (#42074093)

I don't think depiction in fiction counts as prior art. If so, by this point Apple should be owned by the Roddenberry Estate.

This is Not Fiction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074157)

I don't think depiction in fiction counts as prior art. If so, by this point Apple should be owned by the Roddenberry Estate.

...and this is not fiction? Last time I looked there were no practical working implementations of AR glasses.

This seems like just another "Do common task X but now on device Y" patent.

Re:This is Not Fiction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074241)

Indeed, in the early times you had to provide a working sample for every patent you applied for. The reason this was dropped is that there are inventions you cannot be reasonably provide a working model of because they would simply be too large and/or too expensive. However if you couldn't even build such a model in principle, it is not an invention, it's at best an idea for an invention. But patents are there to protect inventions, not to protect ideas for inventions. The patent application should require at least a proof that you know how to build that thing.

Re:This is Not Fiction? (1)

HappyPsycho (1724746) | about 2 years ago | (#42075659)

"No practical working implementations"? Has done no research on the matter has you, yessss....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann [wikipedia.org] - This is just the most famous of the group.

There are no "consumer ready" AR glasses for various reasons but fully working implementations have been in existence for years.

I'll just say this now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074131)

Augmented reality is not a fad and its not going away.

It will start to creep into the mainstream in the next few years and will probably be ubiquitous in the developed world within 10.

There will be plenty of naysayers but that is solely due to their lack of vision, just like people said that tablet computing would never take off, that mp3 players were a flash in the pan, who would ever need an "app store," etc.

We are going to see some pretty remarkable (both bad and good) changes in the next decade, even in the face of what the Internet has already accomplished.

Re:I'll just say this now (1)

xtal (49134) | about 2 years ago | (#42074297)

I'll raise you a "never going to happen".

I wear glasses because I'm basically blind without them. Glasses are a pain in the ass to deal with. With most of these systems, I would have to wear contact lenses AND glasses. That sounds great!

Putting things on your face is a pain. Watches are dead now aside from demonstrations of disposable income.. killed by the smartphone. These glasses offer no major advantages over a smartphone.

Tablets are a different animal; they always have been. Tablets offer a substantive advantage over a notebook - weight, battery life - and larger screens than a smartphone. But tablets, like smart phones, get put away when they're not being used.

Augmented reality glasses offer no substantive advantages whatsoever.

For all the type of this, a really nice, lightweight, HUD display for simulations and other environments would be a lot more widely applicable.

Re:I'll just say this now (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#42074351)

Augmented reality glasses offer no substantive advantages whatsoever.

That is a lot of cockery. However, they do have to not suck. For example, they need to function as an Eyetap [wikipedia.org] . You can do convincing reality overlay without using an eyetap (which eliminates parallax error) but it requires a lot more processing power, or additional hardware. If you're going to have additional hardware, why not have it be ideal? The eyetap can have a focus adjustment in it, solving the "I need glasses" problem.

Re:I'll just say this now (3, Insightful)

mrbester (200927) | about 2 years ago | (#42074661)

My watch glows in the dark so I only have to look at my wrist at night to see what the time is. It is powered by my wearing it so I don't need a mains supply (and cable / proprietary adapter) to recharge it. It can withstand water pressure of 10atm.

It also only cost me £30 a decade ago and hasn't had any problems whatsoever.

Until my smartphone can do all of those things I'm keeping it.

Re:I'll just say this now (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#42074685)

I wear my CHRONOMETER as a practical matter, not an affectation.

Re:I'll just say this now (1)

themusicgod1 (241799) | about 2 years ago | (#42075495)

These glasses offer no major advantages over a smartphone.

  • You can use both hands while wearing them, and probably drive and operate complex equipment requiring both hands with them

It's not like they won't be able to make them with curved lenses. The *glass* might have to be somewhat custom to the wearer, but that's already the case for most of our computers/mobes anyway, right?

Re:I'll just say this now (1)

HappyPsycho (1724746) | about 2 years ago | (#42075701)

Why do you need to wear both? why not just clip on the AR system to your existing glasses?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18091697 [bbc.co.uk]

Take a look at the pics in that article, not exactly a quantum leap in design to make it a clip on instead of a full set of glasses (stability is the only major concern I can think of).

Re:I'll just say this now (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 2 years ago | (#42076901)

Putting things on your face is a pain.

Do you know how many sunglasses are sold annually? Reduce the cost of these AR glasses enough, add in UV filters and focusable liquid lenses, and you've got the new rich man's (sun)glasses. Eventually they would become everyone's glasses.

Re:I'll just say this now (1)

mikael (484) | about 2 years ago | (#42077081)

Augmented Reality to provide statistics on geology samples in real-time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWrDaYP5w58 [youtube.com]

Current geology smartphone applications allow you to overlay surface map and geological layer data over a camera view. There are also some smartphone applications that present the visible stars and planets from your location as a 3D view. But if that could be superimposed over a camera image, that would be better.

Nobody is going to wear these things (1)

xtal (49134) | about 2 years ago | (#42074141)

Seriously.

Unless it's indistinguishable from normal glasses, which it won't be, there's no market here outside of some very specific and special industries.

Why can't we have kick ass VR glasses, like Carmack is working on, instead?

Cool, yes. Is my mom going to want a pair? Probably not.

I cite the entire contact lenses industry as evidence.

Shenanigans!

Re:Nobody is going to wear these things (3, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#42074201)

Why can't they be indistinguishable from normal glasses? Google's prototypes are pretty close to normal glasses already:

http://blog.sitestogo.biz/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/google-glasses.jpg [sitestogo.biz]

You think that thick part can't be integrated into the frame and the screen can't be part of the main lens?

Re:Nobody is going to wear these things (0)

xtal (49134) | about 2 years ago | (#42074255)

Yes, I do think it can't be integrated. Barring a star-trek advance in battery technology, or a wire running down your back, or a microwave battery power transmitter you carry. Those all scream cool.

These things are so dorky it hurts, and don't offer any serious advantage over a smartphone, that everyone already has anyway.

Re:Nobody is going to wear these things (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#42074333)

And yet in 20 years we've gone from dead-nuts-basic cell phones the size of a house brick (with batteries bigger than today's phones) to having far superior phones built into computer watches that cost about the same as a comparable standalone device. Yet a modest size decrease in these glasses is impossible?

I could see all the electronics being built into the front of the glasses frame and the batteries being in the arms, even using today's battery tech. They might look a bit like hipster glasses but they would be normal glasses. If today's bleeding-edge battery tech was on the shelf, battery life would easily beat today's smartphones.

I'll admit there are upsides and downsides vs. today's smartphones, but look at today's smartphones and tablets, inferior to other options on the market but still wildly popular.

If I were to get such a device I would use it as a companion device to a smartphone. It would replace a bluetooth notification bracelet, bluetooth headset, and give me a second camera and convenient non-dorky use of AR.

Re:Nobody is going to wear these things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42075223)

Actually these will take very little battery power to run. They are not LCD's in front of the eyes they have no back lights and the processing will be done on your holstered cellphone. It takes tiny amounts of power to have a few OLEDs light up and a bluetooth link in operation.

As far as these being used,
They are nothing like a smartphone. You are a fucking moron with no friends.

Re:Nobody is going to wear these things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074609)

I wonder if they'll make a model that people can wear together with their prescription glasses.

Re:Nobody is going to wear these things (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 2 years ago | (#42074811)

That would be tricky (and dorky-looking, at best it might look like the current prototype), but there should be no problem replacing the flat panes in these glasses with actual lenses.

Re:Nobody is going to wear these things (1)

TheDarkMaster (1292526) | about 2 years ago | (#42074289)

Well... I already use an unconventional eyeglass (one-piece impact-resistant polycarbonate) and I do not give a damn what others think when I'm using it. I really would like to use one that also had a real, functional HUD :-)

Re:Nobody is going to wear these things (1)

Sloppy (14984) | about 2 years ago | (#42074431)

It seems reasonable at first to predict that people won't tolerate their own glasses looking unusual. But I think the same way you predict that, can also be used to predict that nobody will ever walk about with bluetooth crap sticking out of their ears. Yet, there the gargoyles are.

This guy [alibi.com] was the future but this guy [wikimedia.org] wasn't? Are you sure you have the fashion expertise to really distinguish between the two? (I'll be the first to admit that I don't have that expertise either...)

Re:Nobody is going to wear these things (1)

HappyPsycho (1724746) | about 2 years ago | (#42075755)

VR glasses? Like these?

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Virtual+Digital+Video+Glasses&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3AVirtual+Digital+Video+Glasses [amazon.com]

Play whatever you want, all these are missing is sensors to determine orientation / movement (same sensors inside almost every smart phone).

When it's sunny (2)

Threni (635302) | about 2 years ago | (#42074153)

You'll appreciate the cool blue tint of the screens of death.

Re:When it's sunny (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#42074329)

Well the jokes just write themselves, don't they?

First to mind is that all they absolutely must make BSOD blue a chroma key for transparency so that when it crashes, you don't.

Alternately, they function as peril-sensitive sunglasses. When windows crashes, you can no longer see your wrist-mounted computer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074249)

"First post"

zonetrik.net (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074251)

bot facebook trik facebook download game aplikasi video mp3 http://zonetrik.net/ [zonetrik.net]

The next BIG thing! (1)

ElitistWhiner (79961) | about 2 years ago | (#42074327)

More than a fad...more than cool and better than Rx; Cx glasses are disruptive game changers. They stand on the shoulders of the PC, Internet, SQL, 802.11xx and HUD at the corner of Fashion and Future hawking the promise of all knowing all seeing Superman intelligence. What kid isn't gonna want to be like that when he grows up? LOL

NONE OF THAT is augmented reality (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074421)

I work in the area, and:

Displaying some tables or gauges on your glasses is not augmented reality.
Filming stuff with them and displaying it somewhere else (a la Google Glasses), also is not even remotely augmented reality.

Actual augmented reality integrates. Actual augmented reality is stuff that fits itself into reality, and augments it.

Actual augmented reality would be when you walk through your city, and there’s a pillar there that isn't really there, and you can walk up to it, and trigger a switch. It is when you can have a rendered monster walk around the corner of the wall of a skyscraper. Actual augmented reality is seeing through walls because some database knows more about the other side. Or being able to tune the weather/theme of your view. Or just primitive stuff like having the shop windows display something different for everyone, depending on preconfigured preferences. (Or in my case, show nothing, since I would have an ad blocker.)

It’s when you see and hear things that aren't there, and don't see and hear things that are there, and it's not schizophrenia. ;)

This here, on the other hand, is shit.

The future is blue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074429)

With little white tiny letters, but blue nonetheless..

Well fuck. I guess I'm screwed. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#42074673)

I've been using AR glasses with my smart phone for YEARS. [vuzix.com]
It's often times faster to overlay the 3D noise source map (gathered from sensors in the field) over the readily available physical model -- Depth culling to remove obscured sources in real time (industrial noise abatement). Sometimes it's faster if the CAD files can be imported easily, to just do it digitally, even so, I can just turn off the cameras. I rarely used my phone when doing this sort of work, but I have done so. I've used it experimentally in the field to visualize the pre-recorded 3D noise volumes in real time walking (while all the equipment is safely turned off). It's safer and sometimes faster because it skips the step of constructing a 3D model of the environment.

No longer work in that field, but I now do some game development on the side, and I've found craploads of uses for AR in game dev... Overlay a wireframe of the scanned object to the real 3D clay model, correct minor defects, add wrinkle details, seams and screws and bolts. It's sort of like the modern equivalent of a painter working on a portrait with a live model. If the cameras didn't make me look silly (or pervy) I'd wear them in public to do "Google Glass" right now.

I abstain from reading any patents if I can. I hope MS's new patent is properly limited so that it doesn't PREVENT EXISTING USES OF AUGMENTED REALITY. No, really, just end all patents. This is retarding.

Anonymous Pedant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42074739)

This is only a published patent application and not a granted patent. Big difference. I originally thought the blame lay with the BBC, but they have it right in the article, at least at the time I accessed it.

Too much clutter (1)

wcrowe (94389) | about 2 years ago | (#42074863)

This is probably going to sound like a "get off my lawn" kind of post, but "augmented reality" bothers me. I go to baseball games and plays as an ESCAPE from reality. I don't want it "augmented" by screeds of information. I just want to enjoy the experience. Don't get me wrong, I think there are uses for augmented reality, but does life suck so bad for people that they cannot simply live it and enjoy it without cluttering it up?

Art as prior art? (1)

seanellis (302682) | about 2 years ago | (#42075069)

The Personal System glasses from "Norbert and the System", a short story by Timons Esaias from 1993, may anticipate some of the features of this system. I haven't read the patent, but the overlay of contextual social information sounds a lot like what the original poster describes.

(Here's a link: http://www.sfcenter.ku.edu/Sci-Tech-Society/Esaias-Norbert.pdf [ku.edu] )

Re:Art as prior art? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#42075553)

Rainbows End, by Vernor Vinge, has a good layout of future direction of this.

The glasses understand the entire reality around you, and can erase objecs and replace them. People thus put on virtual costumes, or put them on other people. People also have huge battles using virtual weapons.

Also, people "tag" places, ala Google Earth, and wherever you go you can "see" tag indicators. Some places have spam cluttering things up.

mo3 up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42075693)

The wind appeared dicks produced moans and groans will recaal that it you can. No, THE CATHEDRAL posts. Therefore A way to spend just yet, but I'm of an admittedly

Even -if- prior art did not exist, this is obvious (1)

Press2ToContinue (2424598) | about 2 years ago | (#42075877)

There is so much of this in the movies and in sci-fi that we've all see our futures with such a device, ever since our childhoods we have seen this. I don't see how this could fail the "obviousness" test. How much more proof does one need to show how broken the patent system is?

Man, the U.S patent system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42076585)

The U.S patent system isn't even ridculous. Given that glasses is the next UI, should spesific content ble patentable?

Reminds me of light blue cowbos shoes: Only in America.

minority report (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42082867)

without the psychic stuff, the glasses reported someone not logging into facebook? must be a psychopath

another reason why the USPO is retarded (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42086303)

enough said!!!!!!!! read the subject response........

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?