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!

Details of Google's Project Glass Revealed In FCC Report

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the attaches-to-head-using-eyeball-clamps dept.

Google 76

Flozzin writes with news that documents published to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's website have provided new details about Project Glass, Google's augmented-reality headset. "A test report describes video playing on the device alongside audio running to a 'vibrating element.' The description tallies with a patent filing suggesting it plays sound via 'bone-conduction' tech rather than earbuds. Developers are due to receive a test edition of the headset later this year. ... [The FCC's papers] describe data being sent to the small screen display via wi-fi and Bluetooth using a radio unit manufactured by Broadcom. The equipment is also said to be able to store video files internally and can be recharged by plugging a power connector into the computing unit on the right-hand arm of the glasses' frame. However, the most arresting detail is the suggestion that audio is provided without the user needing to wear headphones which might disturb how they hear ambient sounds. Last week Google filed a patent application entitled Wearable Computing Device with Indirect Bone-Conduction Speaker."

cancel ×

76 comments

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

Posting (1)

c00rdb (945666) | about a year and a half ago | (#42772819)

Posting to undo accidental mod

Let me be the first to say (0)

gnomff (2740801) | about a year and a half ago | (#42772849)

That is so freaking cool!

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42773341)

Google: Shut up and take my money!

Bone-conduction explains it all. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42772917)

Why Cupertino is all a buzz about Google glass. Google had better watch out for patent trolls from mosquitoes who already have a patent on making my head buzz.

Need for padded poles. (2, Insightful)

LikwidCirkel (1542097) | about a year and a half ago | (#42772919)

In a few years, I expect to see the rate of pedestrian-car accidents and people running into poles to go up by an order of magnitude. Sure, it overlays in your field of vision, so it's not like looking down at a phone, but we're just not meant to multitask with our senses the way this kind of device demands.

I don't even want to think about how many idiots will drive while using such devices.

Re:Need for padded poles. (1, Flamebait)

DavidClarkeHR (2769805) | about a year and a half ago | (#42772949)

In a few years, I expect to see the rate of pedestrian-car accidents and people running into poles to go up by an order of magnitude. Sure, it overlays in your field of vision, so it's not like looking down at a phone, but we're just not meant to multitask with our senses the way this kind of device demands. I don't even want to think about how many idiots will drive while using such devices.

... and BOOKS, don't even get me started on those. I mean, people used to have to KNOW things, and now they can just look them up? And they're in ENGLISH? Seriously. It loses so much meaning when it's not in the traditional latin.

Re:Need for padded poles. (4, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year and a half ago | (#42772987)

Driving with these glasses showing you where to go should be safer than having to glance to the side at a satnav screen from time to time. And a pedestrian or cyclist reading an incoming message on a HUD is actually less likely to crash into a pole than the person who takes his cellphone out of his pocket and looks down at it while continuing to walk/pedal.

Re:Need for padded poles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773133)

Driving with these glasses showing you where to go should be safer than having to glance to the side at a satnav screen from time to time. And a pedestrian or cyclist reading an incoming message on a HUD is actually less likely to crash into a pole than the person who takes his cellphone out of his pocket and looks down at it while continuing to walk/pedal.

The solution is NOT to replace one stupid choice with another stupid
choice, the solution is to not make stupid choices.

Idiots like you need to be neutered. No, I'm not joking.

Re:Need for padded poles. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773299)

If it is really a stupid choice, evolution will do the rest. No need for name calling, ape.

Re:Need for padded poles. (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about a year and a half ago | (#42773525)

If it is really a stupid choice, evolution will do the rest. No need for name calling, ape.

I've never driven a car with such a device on so I don't have an opinion on whether or not it's safe.

But when people do unsafe things while driving, people that are being safe are often on the receiving end of that stupidity. So maybe let's not get fast and loose with the 'evolution will do the rest' line.

Re:Need for padded poles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42774459)

So we are just selecting for luck as well.
Oh, hi Teela, how things?

Re:Need for padded poles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42776513)

Thank you. I'm re-reading some of these posts with a Hero's Tongue accent and now they make sense (in particular the neutering threat).

Re:Need for padded poles. (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42773389)

Who says its a stupid choice? Do you have a shred of evidence to say it might not enhance safety?

Re:Need for padded poles. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773883)

Driving with these glasses showing you where to go should be safer than having to glance to the side at a satnav screen from time to time. And a pedestrian or cyclist reading an incoming message on a HUD is actually less likely to crash into a pole than the person who takes his cellphone out of his pocket and looks down at it while continuing to walk/pedal.

The solution is NOT to replace one stupid choice with another stupid
choice, the solution is to not make stupid choices.

Idiots like you need to be neutered. No, I'm not joking.

Ah yes, abstinence only. Because that works. If you really think he needs to be neutered for suggesting that we make the risky things that people will do anyways be less risky, you're the one that might just need the neutering. If you're going to be hyper-critical, make sure you're right first.

Re:Need for padded poles. (2)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year and a half ago | (#42775261)

They say using a mobile phone while driving causes accidents, and nobody disagreed so they banned it in many places. Yet when they did so, even though people used their mobiles less while driving, accidents didn't go down.

Just because you *think* it is a stupid choice, doesn't necessarily make it so. Without actually putting the method of interaction into field use, you don't know how exactly it will effect users, or how they'll adopt it. For the longest time people believed that the UI seen in minority report would be an awesome thing to have, only now that touch devices are widespread, we're seeing just how bad touchscreens are ergonomically and how little demand there is for large touchscreen displays.

This could end up going either way, it depends on whether or not the HUD ends up being a distraction or help you stay focused better. So far though, HUD's have been very helpful, enough to the point that almost all military navigation systems include them.

Re:Need for padded poles. (1)

f()rK()_Bomb (612162) | about a year and a half ago | (#42776191)

For the longest time people believed that the UI seen in minority report would be an awesome thing to have, only now that touch devices are widespread, we're seeing just how bad touchscreens are ergonomically and how little demand there is for large touchscreen displays.

We have known UI's like that suck since the 80's.

http://catb.org/jargon/html/G/gorilla-arm.html [catb.org]

Re:Need for padded poles. (1)

Sarius64 (880298) | about a year and a half ago | (#42775703)

IDK what you'll be doing but I'll get that extra half hour nap on the way to work in my Google car!

Re:Need for padded poles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773253)

I'm sure the primary use will be getting directions when driving not watching porn.

Re:Need for padded poles. (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a year and a half ago | (#42775427)

I'm sure the primary use will be getting directions when driving not watching porn.

I highly doubt that. People don't _need_ directions very often. Quick: do you remember how to drive to work every day? Do you even look at the signs while driving to work? Do you regularly make a left turn when it should be a right turn, and arrive at work 30 minutes late because of it? No? Then you don't need directions.

What you _will_ need from the HUD regularly is entertainment. Because let's face it, driving to and from work is boring, that's why people keep the radio on. Driving to the shopping mall is boring, too. With a HUD, you can watch TV without actually taking your eyes off the road. Possibly porn, but more probably some stupid morning shows and TV series.

It will happen.

Re:Need for padded poles. (2)

Omestes (471991) | about a year and a half ago | (#42776071)

I highly doubt that. People don't _need_ directions very often.

I live in a very large, sprawling (17,000 sq. mi according to Wikipedia.), city. I know less than 20% well enough to know exactly where I am going without looking it up. We like to go new places, and eat at new restaurants, so I generally have my phone's GPS sitting around when we go places. Even when I know roughly where something is, by cross streets, I often use GPS for the exact location. So, around twice a week, we do use GPS. A couple of times a year, we also travel, and we use GPS almost 100% of the time when doing so.

People use GPS more than you think.

I'm not saying that your wrong, people will use it for idiotic reasons. Hell, my mind is still boggled that people are allowed to have TVs in the front of their cars. People do all sorts of idiotic things while driving. I've almost been killed by several women doing their make up, a guy reading the paper, and god knows how many people texting or reading on their phones. A HUD won't really be any worse than what we have.

Re:Need for padded poles. (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42774043)

You won't have to look at a HUD, it will just read out messages or speak directions for you.

Re:Need for padded poles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42774737)

Speak for yourself, I plan to drive while playing video games and watching two or three videos.

Re:Need for padded poles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773151)

I don't even want to think about how many idiots will drive while using such devices.

Every time one of these idiots is involved in an accident, they should
have their eyes removed.

Soon there will be a lot of blind idiots riding the bus.

Problem solved.

Re:Need for padded poles. (3, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | about a year and a half ago | (#42773261)

In a few years, I expect to see the rate of pedestrian-car accidents and people running into poles to go up by an order of magnitude.

You forgot about Google's self-driving car.

Re:Need for padded poles. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773337)

I don't want a car that's going to take a close to optimal route just so it can drive me by a few more advertisements. And a few years is too short. It'll more be like at least a decade before consumers have a chance at getting them. Each advancement will trickle down into high-end cars then standard cars one at a time. This will ensure people have a chance to adjust to each improvement and for each improvement to get field tested and the bugs ironed out

Re:Need for padded poles. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773791)

I don't want a car that's going to take a close to optimal route just so it can drive me by a few more advertisements.

That's a ludicrous interpretation of Google's approach to business. The ads will be displayed in the car or else on its windows. Whether you see them won't depend on what route is taken - where would be the sense in that?

Re:Need for padded poles. (1)

robmv (855035) | about a year and a half ago | (#42773281)

people with better genes for multitasking will survive, natural selection at work

Re:Need for padded poles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773851)

We're also going to need genes to get out of the way of people without multitasking genes :-)

Re:Need for padded poles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773327)

If you look, Google Glass sits slightly above the right eye... not directly in front of it.

Re:Need for padded poles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773329)

obligatory google glasses 'parody': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3TAOYXT840 [youtube.com]

Re:Need for padded poles. (1)

boundary (1226600) | about a year and a half ago | (#42773543)

Google self-parodied when they released their video of the obscure French-named band-loving, ukulele-playing hipster asshole.

Re:Need for padded poles. (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42773369)

These glasses never block your vision or require you to take your eyes off the road, so at least you will see things you are approaching. They also have a camera embedded so they could probably be programmed to know when you are driving, and limit the display of data to just navigation info.

FIFY: Need for automated cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773461)

In a few years, I'll have a google care with my google glasses and my car can worry about polls. -_-

Re:Need for padded poles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773605)

We finally figure out why Google is working on driverless cars.

Re:Need for padded poles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773977)

In a few years, I expect to see the rate of pedestrian-car accidents and people running into poles to go up by an order of magnitude. Sure, it overlays in your field of vision, so it's not like looking down at a phone, but we're just not meant to multitask with our senses the way this kind of device demands. I don't even want to think about how many idiots will drive while using such devices.

Huh. Comments about technology ruining life : Insightful. Unless they're based on historic arguments. Then, flamebait. (Not anon, just not logged in).

Re:Need for padded poles. (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42774453)

"In a few years, I expect to see the rate of pedestrian-car accidents and people running into poles to go up by an order of magnitude."

Think of it as evolution in action.

It will weed out the non-multitask people in a few dozen generations.

Re:Need for padded poles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42779731)

Except it isn't in your field of vision, it's above your field of vision.

Re:Need for padded poles. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42787887)

Not sure if overlays with primary field of vision.. as i recall, you have to look up-and-to-the-right to see the UI

Addiction (3, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | about a year and a half ago | (#42772943)

It'll be interesting to see how addictive this technology becomes, especially as many people already can't be separated from their smartphones. One of the more thought-provoking things in Vinge's novel Marooned in Realtime [amazon.com] (about the pace of technology accelerating towards a singularity) is that human beings from later in the 21st century feel disoriented and sluggish when disconnected from wearable technology that provides them 24/7 with sources of information.

Love It! (1)

Kotoku (1531373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42772947)

I would buy a pair in an instant. Most of what I do on my phone is read things, so what better than having it in front of your eyes? Also, completely private personal movie viewing. Four people could with in a room and watch four different movies without any external devices if they wanted.

Re:Love It! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773007)

Maybe you should try one for a while before you decide to buy two to cover both eyes.

Re:Love It! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773291)

They're had these types of devices for over a decade. I bought an EyeTop over 5 years ago. Most people can't handle it. The displays give them migraines. You also start turning your head in the direction of the display as you're subconsciously trying to get both eyes looking at it. For some people that means they start turning towards the direction their head is pointed as well. I've seen more than one person walk into walls and stumble over chairs while focused on the display.

I don't see anything about Glass that makes them different. Everyone caught up in the hype will buy them, no one else will.

Bone-conduction sound with wearable displays isn't new. I really wish people would do their history research on products.

Re:Love It! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42774435)

Or maybe wait until the damn thing actually comes out before judging how good it is or not. This is nowhere near the final form so you just make yourself look like a jackass dissing it.

another corporation disturbing people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42772969)

whats new

Re:another corporation disturbing people (1)

oakgrove (845019) | about a year and a half ago | (#42774481)

Wearable display meets actual practicality? Assuming they can pull it off, get to disturbing, Google!

Bone Fone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773065)

Yay!

Google reinvents the Bone Fone [retrothing.com]

No prior 'art' here? [gatech.edu]

Re:Bone Fone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773213)

Interesting that one of the companies using Bone Fone (ears free bone conduction head appliance technology) already has a deal going with Nokia [dowumi.com] . Sounds like Google might just hit a wall with this one unless the patent office is stupid enough to completely ignore prior art. I can already hear the paper hitting the desk in several law offices, one can almost be certain that the filings will be happening within the week. Either that or other patents that have been issued over the years cover Google's ass on this one.

But knowing the US patent office you can bet that someone will come out swinging on this one.

Hopefully the result will be the invalidation of all patents granted to devices using bone connectivity because someone else already did it back in the time of Alexander Graham Bell or Thomas Edison. If I remember correctly there were military and spy head sets using bone conduction during the second world war. So the technology in question hear (pun intended) is definitely something that is not unique or revolutionary to say the least.

Re:Bone Fone (2)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42773477)

Being Built into a wearable display device makes it a whole separate idea than simply a poor quality headphone.

Remember that patents don't mean that ANY prior use of a technology makes any other use obvious, and thus non-patentable.
All you need to do is combine them in a new non-obvious way in an application not seen before.

Bone conduction isn't necessary for these glasses to do their job. They could use standard ear buds.
It just makes it easier to put them on and take them off.

You might find prior art, but nothing posted above comes close.

Re:Bone Fone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773957)

it's totally.fucking.obvious that any ear/headphone-equipped device would use some sort of bone fone at some point.
you know, like any of the existing wearable display devices.

Bonefone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773107)

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/bone-fone/

Not augmented reality (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42773143)

Google Glass is no more augmenting reality than a TV set is.

If it were rendering also the view behind it so there was no loss of vision, then it would be augmented reality. As it is it's the same as if you strapped your cell phone on an arm attached to your head a foot out or so.

Re:Not augmented reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773379)

Seeing as it is transparent, there is no need to render meat space

Re:Not augmented reality (1)

icebike (68054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42773529)

Google Glass is no more augmenting reality than a TV set is.

If it were rendering also the view behind it so there was no loss of vision, then it would be augmented reality. As it is it's the same as if you strapped your cell phone on an arm attached to your head a foot out or so.

But that is exactly what it does.

Its a HUD, projecting a mostly transparent overlay [dailymail.co.uk] on what you see behind it. Further, it only covers one eye. So it could show navigation arrows without occluding your vision of the road.

Meets my definition of augmented reality.

Re:Not augmented reality (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#42774409)

It may however, cause issues with the reality distortion field.

Re:Not augmented reality (3, Informative)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year and a half ago | (#42773637)

Google Glass is no more augmenting reality than a TV set is.

If it were rendering also the view behind it so there was no loss of vision, then it would be augmented reality. As it is it's the same as if you strapped your cell phone on an arm attached to your head a foot out or so.

This may come as a surprise to you....but it's transparent.

Re:Not augmented reality (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773719)

Look, let me paint a use case for you:

Google adapts the code used by google maps cars to be used by your glasses (Just as they've already done for android phones). It gives you simple instructions on how to move and rotate and while you have the camera on, Google glass creates a 3D image based map of your location. Now, all of this is overlapped with the position of you on the planet, the direction you are looking and the tilt of your head. Only, every person who has google glass has the capability to do this. Now there are 3d tours of:
-- Museums
-- Gardens
-- Zoos
-- Natural Parks
-- Live Performances
-- Parades
-- Work Places

This is geocaching^3.

Because now that you have these 3D maps which are tied to positions on earth you can leave messages for other people where you've been. Or, just take notes in virtual space. You'll be able to paint a picture on your wall for someone else to see, or leave a secret message. Or better yet, rate a restaurant right on its front window.

But I get your point: I can do all these things with my TV, I just don't feel like dragging it around me.

Re:Not augmented reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42774227)

Right on time, SuperKendall, and on target as always. Show those liberal fucks at Google what their product really does, and don't be stymied by their "oh, we developed and produced it therefore we know what it does." Just keep blathering away.

Re:Not augmented reality (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about a year and a half ago | (#42774351)

Google Glass is no more augmenting reality than a TV set is.

You're saying "The Goggles Do Nothing!" [youtube.com] ?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

That bone-conducting sound idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773153)

...was described in Ray Bradbury's last Martian Chronicles story, the Million-Year Picnic. The destruction of the Earth and its sudden radio silence is received by the main character through a watch radio that can be heard when you press it against your noggin.

Interface with vechicles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773297)

I'd love if I got onto my motorcycle and it would link up with these glasses and give me a display of my speed/rpm's, GPS, and incoming call/msg notification. It'd keep me more focused on keeping the rubber side down and also from stopping every few hours to check if I missed calls. Also if the bone conduction works it could play a bit of music for me while I'm riding.

Where do I sign up for the Beta test? (1)

sehlat (180760) | about a year and a half ago | (#42773415)

I use a hearing aid, and it massively irritates the one working ear I have. But a non-surgical bone conduction hearing aid? One that might give me some semblance of binaural hearing without turning my ear canal into a mass of pain?

Where do I sign up and what percentage of my soul do they want?

Vibrating bone to augment reality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773459)

is google getting into the adult industry? :p

Prescription glasses (1)

pmontra (738736) | about a year and a half ago | (#42773865)

Does anybody know if the google glasses can be worn over a pair of prescription glasses? Myopia and presbyopia are common and not everybody can wear contact lenses.

Re:Prescription glasses (2)

Albanach (527650) | about a year and a half ago | (#42774773)

There are images of Sergey Brin [aninews.in] wearing them outdoors while attached to sunglasses. Looking at the design I don't think you'd wear them over prescription glasses, but rather would get prescription lenses for the existing frame.

Re:Prescription glasses (2)

Albanach (527650) | about a year and a half ago | (#42774795)

A bit more searching brings up this article [techtwitt.com] which has an image of them incorporated into more 'normal' looking glasses. So it might be possible to use them in conjunction with your regular eyewear.

Patent Application (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42773891)

The patent application linked was filed in October 2011.
It looks like it was just published by the PTO last week after a non-final rejection on all claims.

What if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42774225)

Imagine if someone hijacks the link to the display. This could be just the thing to revive the Rick Rolling community.

Too Much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42775877)

In genearl I love the latest greatest technology, but google glass kind of freaks me out.

Privacy? (3)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year and a half ago | (#42775895)

So, assuming these things get popular, anyone sort of concerned that now everyone has a camera recording their every move 24/7? Or worse yet, it's going to be indexed an searched and tracked by Google?

Sure, crime will go down - after all, would anyone want to rob anyone where a yell would bring dozens of cameras recording someone get mugged/raped/etc on the street? Or have dozens of cameras recording every face, so you can tell when that sex offender may be breaking their conditions (in other words, a boon for law enforcement when they have dozens of cameras and angles that can pinpoint anyone at any location).

Then there's the somewhat more ... private side, given there'll be dozens of cameras watching you coming out of that ... adult entertainment establishment.

I'm not quite sure society is ready yet for a technology that really puts everyone in the spotlight - where there's a camera on you every moment you step outside your house. Compile the results of dozens of cameras and people would have a pretty good track of your movements even if you only appear for a few frames in every glasses. Between law enforcement, Google ad tracking, insurance companies, they'd be really interested in your whereabouts, your activities, and even what you eat and do...

You can always wear a mask (1)

Su27K (652607) | about a year and a half ago | (#42776613)

Or paint your face...

Re:You can always wear a mask (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42787953)

lots of municipalities have laws against masks... these would need review. Obviously they aren't enforced around Halloween. They arise from KKK days, in some cases. I recall hearing that some laws were deployed against Occupy (Guy Fawkes mask..)

Re:You can always wear a mask (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42793289)

Make a fashion out of it. See Cetaganda for inspiration.

Re:Privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42791363)

People will start wearing new hairstyles as countermeasures? [cvdazzle.com]

Re:Privacy? (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about a year and a half ago | (#42795133)

Signal to noise will likely be too high. In the words of one of modern day's great philosophers, "Aint nobody got time for that".

Is you insurance agency going to have the time and money (and access) to examine petabytes of data from so many sources, just to put a few more cents onto your premium?

These cameras may be the worst possible thing for insurance agencies. When everyone has one, there's a good likelihood that people will stop buying full comp insurance, and just settle for 3rd party (mandatory) in the belief that they will always have video evidence that they didn't cause the accident. Good drivers will simply not bother with anything but the basic 3rd party, fire & theft insurance.

I want to be an early adoptar (1)

Insipid Trunculance (526362) | about a year and a half ago | (#42776995)

The ability to read a book or watch tv without disturbing the other half will be worth the premium! Now if anyone can point where i can register my interest.

Boner conduction (1)

coinreturn (617535) | about a year and a half ago | (#42785117)

Typo in the summary - it's boner conduction they're using.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>