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!

Coming Soon: Prescription Lenses For Google Glass

timothy posted about 9 months ago | from the hey-five-eyes dept.

Google 195

When I first tried on an early Google Glass headset, I had to take off my glasses -- that made the Glass display usable, but made the rest of the room a blurry mess. When I asked the engineers and designers about this, I got mostly shrugs in return. But now, writes reader rjmarvin, "Google Glass users sporting the eyewear will soon be able to do so with a prescription for $99. Eyeglass manufacturer Rochester Optical will offer prescription options in differents colors and styles, even allowing Glass users to trick out their eyewear with transitions or tinted lenses. They're currently conducting a survey to gauge consumer interest and preference." I look forward to the day that online glasses sources like Zenni Optical have have even cheaper options for wearable computing integration, but Rochester's projected starting price is lower than I would have guessed.

cancel ×

195 comments

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

Google Glass wearers need to be raped by horses (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45848665)

Google is for fags, and so is Slashdot.

Coming soon! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45848681)

Prescription enses For oogle ass

That's a nice feature for the wearer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45848707)

How about an opt-out feature for the people whom the wearer is viewing?

Oh noez, it's teh Google (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45848771)

But the hundreds, if not thousands, of other cameras you pass each day are okey-dokey.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 9 months ago | (#45848829)

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 9 months ago | (#45849535)

Say what you want about privacy matters. But if they're ONLY wanting $99 per lens, I might get this to save money on my freaking glasses!!

My eyesight is so poor, my lenses are quite $$$ and take month or more to get them made any time I buy glasses.

Even with the Glass fee, these may turn out to be comparable to my normal glasses with decent designer frames cost wise.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (1)

neoritter (3021561) | about 9 months ago | (#45849605)

It's $99 PLUS the cost of the frame (ie the glasses).

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 9 months ago | (#45849777)

It's $99 PLUS the cost of the frame (ie the glasses).

I know...like I said, my eyes are REALLY bad. My lenses alone are like $300-$350+ each normally.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45848853)

You mean the CCTV cameras? The ones whose footage is usually kept private, as opposed to getting uploaded to YouTube?

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849081)

You mean the CCTV cameras? The ones whose footage is usually kept private, as opposed to getting uploaded to YouTube?

"The wicked flee where none pursueth." -Proverbs 28:1

In other words, what the hell are you doing IN PUBLIC that you'd have to worry about it showing up on YouTube? 'Cause whatever it is, the mall rent-a-cops monitoring the existing security cameras would probably snag a copy and upload it to YouTube anyway.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849293)

Would you be okay if I followed you around a store with my camcorder on? Don't mind me, just filming you. (licks lips).

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 9 months ago | (#45849367)

This argument is incredibly tiresome, its a complete logic fail. There is no barrier to uploading CCTV video to the net.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (0)

checkitout (546879) | about 9 months ago | (#45849651)

The barrier is getting fired from your job.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45848861)

...no? You have to be a paid shill if you're so clueless as to believe any significant amount of slashdotters are okay with public CCTV cameras.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45848991)

Do people like you REALLY not get the difference?

You really don't get the difference between random strangers walking around filming us and security cameras?

Do you need it explained... or what?

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849163)

Are you a time-traveler from the past? Have you not been around for, oh, 10-15 years? Because I have news for you buddy, there's an internet-connected camera in every Tom, Dick, and Harry's pocket, and if they want to film you, they're going to film you. There's nothing that Glass does that people haven't been able to do for years now. Sorry for the rude awakening.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (2, Insightful)

checkitout (546879) | about 9 months ago | (#45849487)

So if I walk up to you and point my cell phone camera in your face - No problem? I think you'd get annoyed rather quickly.

Also, let's be honest, the security camera argument is a false argument, since we all know how crappy the footage from security cameras are and that there are more controls over the purpose and use of that footage.

With Glass you may become part of some weirdo's "art project" or have your image stored with Google in perpetuity for them to eventually add to their facial recognition database and who knows what else.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (3, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 9 months ago | (#45849567)

Not to mention...I'm sure the NSA is already figuring a way to suck up all the data from Glass type video recorders, store it and run some nifty face recognition to really help track down the populace....err....terrorists.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849839)

Different AC here.

So if I walk up to you and point my cell phone camera in your face - No problem? I think you'd get annoyed rather quickly.

Indeed I would. However, I don't assume that everyone who has their cell phone out is recording me. And that's the critical difference here; everyone is acting as though anyone wearing a Glass must ipso facto be uploading everything they see to YouTube constantly, despite the fact that the Glass clearly indicates when it is recording.

That's the proof that the Glass hate is largely class-based. Deep down, most of you don't really care about the recording. That's just an excuse to hate someone who's reminding you that they have more money than you do. You actually WANT them to be the evil creepy spies you're imagining, so that you can justify your prejudice.

And no, I don't have a Glass myself, nor could I afford it if it were offered, nor would I buy one even if I could.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849129)

But the hundreds, if not thousands, of other cameras you pass each day are okey-dokey.

First: Citation for your contention that people think that ubuquitous surveillance by non-Google Glass wearers is "fine"? Yeah. That's what I thought.

Second: Surveillance cameras have a purpose. Even if I don't like them, I can still weigh their intrusiveness against the benefit of crime reduction/loss prevention, etc. Not so, with Google Glass. I am left to weighing my desire to avoid gratuitous surveillance against some random dweeb's unknown and unstated motives.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849393)

First:
When was the last time you even *heard* about someone throwing a fit in a store due to the presence of a security camera?
Compare that to the last time you heard someone complaining about even a *hypothetical* someone wearing Google Glass.
There's your citation about how 'people' feel about "ubuquitous [sic] surveillance by non-Google Glass wearers".

Second:
That's not the only purpose of surveillance cameras. And even where it's the only *intended* purpose, they're often used for less savory purposes as well.
Google Glass has an equally valid purpose (if not more so). Recording interactions between police and civilians.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (2)

hodet (620484) | about 9 months ago | (#45849903)

Don't be glib. There is a difference and you know it.

Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45850005)

No, there isn't. But here, let me test the waters a bit. Here's just a straight-up compact, wearable cam, no additional AR features or application integration. It just records and uploads:

http://www.looxcie.com/looxcie-2/ [looxcie.com]

Ok, now show me some hate. Show me some glorious, frothing-at-the-mouth hatred for this product that's been out for years whose only purpose is the very thing many here seem to despise so much. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Re:That's a nice feature for the wearer (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 9 months ago | (#45849119)

For the mentally ill that think that everyone is recording you all the time because of your paranoia and your inability to see that the record light is on?

You bet, you will get a free "Google Privacy protector" at any local shopping store for free. simply place on your head and cut holes for your eyes. The stores call them "grocery bags" but that is because they don't understand the Google nomenclature.

Note, these can be lined with a metal foil to further protect you from the government satellite system as well, contact your local Google Representative for more information on this DIY upgrade.

Re:That's a nice feature for the wearer (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 9 months ago | (#45849169)

For the mentally ill that think that everyone is recording you all the time because of your paranoia and your inability to see that the record light is on?

Before you try being patronising, you might want to check the Google Glass specs. There is no red record light visible to the person the camera is pointed at. Nor is there on most other video cameras manufactured since the 1990s.

Re:That's a nice feature for the wearer (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 9 months ago | (#45849557)

It doesn't have a little red light, but it has the light in front of the wearer's eye. If the screen is on, they could be recording you. They also have to stare directly at you to record, and they'd be using voice commands and tapping at the side of their head. It seems like a pretty shitty device for surreptitious recording - you can already fit a camera in almost anything [brickhousesecurity.com] .

Re:That's a nice feature for the wearer (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 9 months ago | (#45849833)

Right. I'm just correcting the myth that there's a red recording light.

But no one is suggesting it's a spy cam. That's not one of the many objections. It's a straw-man.

Re:That's a nice feature for the wearer (2)

vux984 (928602) | about 9 months ago | (#45849783)

You bet, you will get a free "Google Privacy protector" at any local shopping store for free. simply place on your head and cut holes for your eyes. The stores call them "grocery bags" but that is because they don't understand the Google nomenclature.

Yeah, that sounds great, except the trend is now to make it illegal to wear something that covers your face in public...

http://www.wtvq.com/content/localnews/story/Lexington-Adult-Masks-Illegal-To-Wear-In-Public/kduA8xtDwE6DV1LdXH5D5w.cspx [wtvq.com]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/01/outrageous-critics-angered-by-new-law-making-it-illegal-to-wear-a-mask-at-unlawful-protests/ [nationalpost.com]

http://gothamist.com/2011/09/19/nypd_uses_law_from_1845_to_arrest_m.php#photo-1 [gothamist.com]

Re:That's a nice feature for the wearer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45850033)

How come you aren't so sarcastically dismissive of privacy concerns when the story is about the NSA?

Fists in great clarity. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45848715)

The only benefit of this will be to more clearly identify the knuckles which are about to forcefully make contact with your face.

Only when you can't tell that glasses have it (2, Insightful)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 9 months ago | (#45848725)

As long as Google Glass looks like Locutus-of-Borg cosplay, there will be pushback from people who don't want to be seen with it.

The display needs to be embedded transparently in the lenses itself, and the other components need to be integrated into a thin, ordinary-looking temple piece.

Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849115)

the other components need to be integrated into a thin, ordinary-looking temple piece.

...in which case i will bash in your face, as long as you can't show a certificate that your glasses are not a hidden camera.

Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it (4, Interesting)

RedBear (207369) | about 9 months ago | (#45849409)

As long as Google Glass looks like Locutus-of-Borg cosplay, there will be pushback from people who don't want to be seen with it.

The display needs to be embedded transparently in the lenses itself, and the other components need to be integrated into a thin, ordinary-looking temple piece.

That will just make it worse.

If it becomes difficult for people to tell that you're wearing something like Google Glass versus just a regular pair of glasses, this is going to become a very unpleasant world to live in for those of us who require corrective lenses and who don't want to or cannot wear contacts. As the technology improves over time it becomes inevitable that "smart" glasses will become indistinguishable from normal glasses, but long before it becomes literally true the public will start to believe that it's already true. We're going to start having irrational assholes everywhere, even in completely public places, going up to people and demanding they take off their glasses and "stop recording me!". This will of course include some of the biggest assholes of all: law enforcement officers.

As a wearer of corrective lenses I do not look forward to this brave new world where everyone who wears glasses will be subjected to suspicious glares or even physically accosted for no good reason because no one can tell whether or not you're surreptitiously recording them. As we all know too well, when people aren't sure about something they instinctively default to "Kill it with Fire!".

Thanks a lot, Google. Like we needed another witch hunt trigger. I guess I better start saving up for Lasik treatments.

When we finally perfect wireless bionic retinal implants with decent resolution the world is going to go absolutely apeshit with paranoia about being secretly recorded.

Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about 9 months ago | (#45849437)

You may want to have a rant against the people spreading the FUD rather than the people creating the technology.

Great (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | about 9 months ago | (#45848727)

So it will be even more expensive to replace when a FUD punches me in the face!

Re:Great (1)

decipher_saint (72686) | about 9 months ago | (#45848747)

at least you'll see it coming...

Re:Great (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 9 months ago | (#45849155)

Easier than pie because the police report will cover the assult. The hard part is getting your pistol back from the police after you shot the FUD that attacked you.

I know that any loser that tries to punch me will get about 4 rounds center mass, "I was afraid for my life officer, he just came at me."

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849499)

Internet tough guy detected

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849555)

"I know that any loser that tries to punch me will get about 4 rounds center mass"

And this is why america has a gun violence problem.

Re:Great (1)

nbauman (624611) | about 9 months ago | (#45849791)

You'll get a great Youtube video, "Goon punching me in face." Maybe a lot of them.

It'll be a meme, with all the other Youtube videos of people with Google glasses getting punched in the face.

"Here's one from when we went to France."

uh oh, a Google glass story (1, Insightful)

Ultra64 (318705) | about 9 months ago | (#45848745)

Cue the neanderthal luddites threatening to beat people up.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (3, Funny)

Krishnoid (984597) | about 9 months ago | (#45848755)

Well, they wouldn't be so mean as to hit a guy with glasses.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#45848827)

Cue the neanderthal luddites threatening to beat people up.

Not being keen on the idea of someone recording your movements at all times is not what I would consider a Luddite-ish value. Just seems reasonable to me.

I'll grant that threatening to cause people harm because they're doing something you don't like, but isn't explicitly prohibited, is a rather prehistoric attitude to have.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (2)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | about 9 months ago | (#45848857)

Thinking that someone passing you on the street wearing one of these devices is the same as "recording your movements at all times" is.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#45849055)

Thinking that someone passing you on the street wearing one of these devices is the same as "recording your movements at all times" is.

So, if you see someone walking around with one of those gigantic 1980's VHS camcorders on their shoulder, looking through the eyepiece, you don't think assuming "hey, that guy must be recording something" is a reasonable thought to have?

What self-blinded ignoramus goes through life assuming every camera pointed at him is turned off by default?

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (2)

Forbo (3035827) | about 9 months ago | (#45849199)

So every person with a cameraphone has it recording at all times? What person goes through life assuming that every camera in existence is recording their every move?

Hint: It's called paranoid schizophrenia, and it's no fun.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#45849553)

So every person with a cameraphone has it recording at all times?

When they're holding it in that certain way that screams, "I AM RECORDING SOMETHING RIGHT NOW," yes.

When it's in their pocket, or they're obviously on a call? Don't be obtuse.

What person goes through life assuming that every camera that's pointing at themis recording their every move

Celebrities and other values of person who put value on their privacy.

Hint: It's called paranoid schizophrenia, and it's no fun.

Don't use that term. You obviously don't know what it means, and just insulted every person who either suffers from the affliction or at least knows what that term means.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 9 months ago | (#45849615)

Exactly. If someone wanted to surreptitiously record your every move, they could do a very simple Google search for hidden or spy cameras and come up with hundreds of products. They would probably not use a device that emits a glow in front of their eye when recording, makes them look like a sci-fi character, activates when they tap themselves on the temple, and requires voice commands.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 9 months ago | (#45849265)

The problem is if someone pulls out a cell phone or camera to take a picture, you can see them doing so.

There are no such visual cues with glassholes.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 9 months ago | (#45849431)

You do realize that 'glassholes' are the absolute tip of the wearable iceberg, right? I could wear 10 cameras on my person and you would never know they were there unless i pointed them out to you.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849717)

No. Google Glass is being pushed so that everybody has one, google wants it be the next cell phone.
Hidden and "spy cameras" are a special niche and they have one purpose.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 9 months ago | (#45849281)

And, yes, if I see someone wearing them, I'm going to assume they're turned on and active.

What would be the point otherwise?

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849689)

They aren't meant primarily as a recording devices, but as a display for augmented reality. Who the hell has the space to record every damn walk everywhere all the time?

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45848919)

> recording your movements at all times

Yes everyone with these are going to be wasting their battery life just to spy on you.

MY GOD - CanHasDIY IS PLAYING ON FACE BOOK, TWEET THE NSA, CIA AND FACEBOOK RIGHT NOW. They must know this vital information.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849075)

> Not being keen on the idea of someone recording your movements at all times is not what I would consider a Luddite-ish value.

I sure hope you never go outside.

Seems to me that anti-glass outrage is largely fueled by the Apple media cult and its astonishing capacity for being angry about any technology not invented in cupertino. Had this been "Apple iSight" it would have been widely hailed as revolutionary and obsoleting all other forms of computing overnight.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#45849149)

> Not being keen on the idea of someone recording your movements at all times is not what I would consider a Luddite-ish value.

I sure hope you never go outside.

Personally, I find it sad and not just a little fucked up how so many people have this attitude of, 'dur, if you're outside your actual home then it's all fair game!'

That's not how it works, goddammit, so stop saying stupid, mindless shit like that. Yea, in a public place you don't have a whole lot of privacy rights; however, and I want you to read this next part a few times so it sticks: not all out door areas are public fucking places. My backyard, for example, with its 8-foot privacy fence. Do you think I would have spent the money on an 8-foot privacy fence, if I didn't want a little privacy in my backyard? Of course not. So don't be a douche about it.

Yes, you might be able to *legally* park a bucket truck on the street, extend it all the way, and look into my backyard, but that doesn't change the fact that you're a nosy asshole who should be universally shunned for doing it.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849445)

And your little story has *what* to do with Google Glass wearers? Do you think that the dinky little camera in the frame can magically see through your 8-foot privacy fence? Or do you think that Google Glass comes with a bucket truck?

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 9 months ago | (#45849463)

What about the satellites that fly overhead? Are they assholes too? Planes flying over doing land surveys? Are they also assholes? The plain fact is, that if you are outside, you are observable. Your 8 foot fence is not considered to be a legal 'expectation of privacy', no matter how you feel about it.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (1)

Holi (250190) | about 9 months ago | (#45849655)

>>What about the satellites that fly overhead? Are they assholes too?

Uhh yes, that's why the operators work for intelligence agencies.

And yes we do have an expectation of privacy in public, granted it's a lower expectation, but we do not lose all privacy just because we leave our house. That is why "Stop and Search" is wrong and, regardless of what NYC says, illegal. But we do have the right not to be followed and recorded, hence the legal definition of harassment.

Please, we live in a society, where we have rules and expectations. One expectation we have of our neighbors is a modicum of respect. That is what the Glassholes forget, respect for your fellow man. If it's obvious this device makes others uncomfortable, why would you insist on subjecting them to it? Sounds extremely disrespectful and rude.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 9 months ago | (#45850023)

CCTV has been around for decades, google glass changes very little. People have been videotaped most of their adult lives. The genie was out of the bottle a LONG time ago. Your objections ring hollow when you dont even mention CCTV. You are asking the individual to not do something business has enjoyed for a very long time. Does CCTV make you uncomfortable? Do you ask businesses to not tape you while you are out and about every time you see a camera? Do you consider every business with a CCTV setup to be equivalent to a glasshole?

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 9 months ago | (#45849637)

Add a roof to your fence and we're in agreement.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849749)

Android user here. I will burn my nexus in my fireplace before I ever let a google glass in my house.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 9 months ago | (#45849943)

>

Seems to me that anti-glass outrage is largely fueled by the Apple media cult and its astonishing capacity for being angry about any technology not invented in cupertino. Had this been "Apple iSight" it would have been widely hailed as revolutionary and obsoleting all other forms of computing overnight.

Well, that assumption is due to you being an imbecile. Grats on that by the way. If Apple had the same product, there would still be the same response because it's an issue of "PRIVACY" and not who made the thing.

And before you cry "ad hominem" you had best re-read your post and ask yourself if I was making a valid observation and not using ad hominem.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 9 months ago | (#45849417)

Its luddite behavior because we have been under constant video surveillance for decades. If they REALLY had objection to it, they wouldn't go to places that have CCTV.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (1)

s.petry (762400) | about 9 months ago | (#45849459)

Neanderthal luddite? hardly needed here, anyone with half a brain will give you intellectual reasons not to use this technology and why it's harmful for society. Of course you won't listen, because you know.. we never ever have proven conspiracies and governments can never be dangerous.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849473)

Now, can I buy the Google Glass with Bitcoins in my iPhone wallet? Will it interface with my Snapchat?

Did I have enough hipster buzzwords?

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849565)

Cue the aspies and hipsters who don't understand why things are so obviously offensive and wrong.

Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849981)

Queue the dregs of nerdom who think having a display in their vision as they're out and about is socially appropriate.

Coming soon after (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45848819)

Google glass being relegated to the fuck-up collection of "soon to be the big thing" tech gadgets.

Google Glass in my eye (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45848869)

When someone punches me I'll have horrible eye damage along with my bruise! Thanks Google!

Stop doing that. You'll go blind. (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about 9 months ago | (#45848897)

Can I do it until I need Google Glasses?

Whats the killer app for this tech? (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 9 months ago | (#45848903)

Outside of some sort of Tron: Uprising style AR view of things for mechanics and the like, why would a person wear these in their normal day?

Re:Whats the killer app for this tech? (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 9 months ago | (#45849039)

So that they don't get hit by a train while looking down at their smartphone?

Re:Whats the killer app for this tech? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 9 months ago | (#45849483)

ill pose the equal question of, 'why wouldnt they'?

Re:Whats the killer app for this tech? (1)

Holi (250190) | about 9 months ago | (#45849891)

I don't know, common respect for those around them?

Re:Whats the killer app for this tech? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849765)

Basically the only useful application is maps and the camera. Even browsing the Internet is a pain in the ass that's significantly worse than just using a smart phone. It hasn't even caught on at Google and the only people praising it are marketing dregs like Scoble. It will find some uses in industry, but it's never going to catch on among normal people.

$99 real price but your Insurance billed $200-$900 (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 9 months ago | (#45848905)

$99 real price but your Insurance billed $200-$900 for them

Re:$99 real price but your Insurance billed $200-$ (1)

james_shoemaker (12459) | about 9 months ago | (#45848971)

$99 price for someone what doesn't really need glasses, just the blanks for my glasses cost more than that (I'm a -13).

Re:$99 real price but your Insurance billed $200-$ (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 9 months ago | (#45849333)

$99 price for someone what doesn't really need glasses, just the blanks for my glasses cost more than that (I'm a -13).

I've almost always paid for glasses out of pocket. Only 2 or 3 times have I had optical insurance paying. And while $99 sounds about right for the blanks, the grinding that comes afterwards is pretty creative. Plus it's either tint or do the whole thing over for sunglasses.

Still, it's the frames that are the real ripoff.

Re:$99 real price but your Insurance billed $200-$ (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about 9 months ago | (#45849675)

You guys need to check out Zenni. My wife is in coke-bottle territory, but we still pay nowhere near $100 for glasses. I'm only a -3 or so... my glasses are $7.

prescription lenses? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45848935)

I don't know anyone personally who wears glasses any more. all my friends and family have laser eye surgery or wear contacts. the others have 20/20 vision

Re:prescription lenses? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about 9 months ago | (#45849207)

And I know people that have had to have it twice and are wearing glasses again. I refuse to as it's not worth the risk. Unless the doctor has $10M in cash waiting for me if he screws up, I am not risking my eyesight for vanity.

Re:prescription lenses? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 9 months ago | (#45849559)

Then you have a small circle of people you know personally, of you're young.

Laser eye surgery isn't particularly effective as you get older, and as your eyesight changes more rapidly.

Re:prescription lenses? (2)

Antipater (2053064) | about 9 months ago | (#45849631)

You could make the same argument about sunglasses with prescription lenses, but people still use those.

Contacts can only be made so strong, and there isn't as much precision in the prescriptions as with glasses. Laser surgery should only be done if/when your prescription has been stable for 2-5 years, which for some people never happens and for others can take decades (my father's eyes didn't stabilize until age 40). It's also expensive.

Google Glass with Transition Lenses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849089)

Because they don't make glasses that just say "ASSHOLE" on them.

Another nail in the coffin... (1)

matbury (3458347) | about 9 months ago | (#45849161)

Yet another nail in the coffin for personal privacy. Please read George Orwell's "Nineteen Eight-four." Please look at how countries like N. Korea and the former German Democratic Republic used dissolving the concept of personal privacy to implement the most oppressive and hated regimes in human history (there are many other examples). Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, et al, are helping governments around the world to build the infrastructure that can allow the most oppressive, totalitarian regimes the world has ever seen come into existence.

Here's Christopher Hitchen's attempt to get across the idea of the dissolution of personal privacy from his own and others' experiences of despotic regimes (also find out why chess is banned in Iran): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-rTT8TPcck [youtube.com] (Fora.tv, running time: 01:00:52).

How about we allow them in public when every executive administrator of Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, et al, and the CIA, NSA, FBI, DEA, Homeland Security, Congress, and the Senate (federal and local, which would include meetings and lunches with lobbyists and special interests) agree to wear them all the time while they're working and all those video and audio streams are openly available to US citizens?

You've read a different book, or failed English (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 9 months ago | (#45849779)

No, I'm not talking about the missing y in the title ("Nineteen Eight-four.")

If you've read the book you'd realize that while certain elements have come to fruition due to the march of technology the actual content of the story is about governmental control of what occurs, keeping people in intentional poverty, controlling the media, modifying history to support the changing governmental priorities, and imprisoning and brainwashing anyone who does not conform.

Quite the contrary, the government has little or no hand in the all the above mentioned things which are occurring - but at the behest of corporations and the voluntary lack of engagement by the public (well, okay - the books proels are really society at large today - point taken). The EU and the US (to a *far* lesser extent) have even set limits on what the corporations can an cannot do. Politicians do try to "adjust" the past in their speeches, but the internet has led to an explosion of fact-checkers which point out their historical rewrites. Often before the speech is even over.

New! (1)

msobkow (48369) | about 9 months ago | (#45849223)

Now with blind glassholes! :P

I Fail to See the Appeal (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 9 months ago | (#45849253)

I guess maybe I'm the odd duck here, but I just don't see what's so appealing about paying Google to become one of their pet, Snow Crash style gargoyles.

Re:I Fail to See the Appeal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849887)

Your lack of enthusiasm isn't such a big deal either way. If Glass is useful enough, you'll just get outproduced by those more willing to adapt. If Glass is a flop, you'll be just like the other 99.9% of people who don't have it.

Re:I Fail to See the Appeal (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about 9 months ago | (#45849915)

Absolutely, I expect to be their pet free of charge. ;-)

I find the non-glass versions of their products exceptionally helpful and useful. Glass would mean I don't have to carry a second gadget (I wear prescr. lenses). Right now, google can sift through my email at will, see where I'm going and what I'm doing (calendar), and know who I'm contacting (voice). Verizon knows the rest - they're my telephone provider and have access to all of the calls - home and mobile - and any texts I make. They even know where I am, via triangulation to their towers. I know they sell that information. Short of setting up my own, parallel cell network and landline phone system, that will never change.

I view it as a symbiotic parasitism. Is is creepy? Perhaps. But I'd like to find out where this rabbit hole leads, rather than throwing a poison bomb down the hole and covering it up.

Prescription lenses... (4, Funny)

cDarwin (161053) | about 9 months ago | (#45849365)

Will not fix a myopic product.

Re:Prescription lenses... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849695)

I'm waiting for a crowded streetcar or something, where someone just starts yelling "Ok Glass send a message to " and all the trendy hipster douchebags wearing these things have just blown up some random cellphone.

Refractive index? (1)

Flymo2 (2703789) | about 9 months ago | (#45849405)

$99 isn't going to buy lenses which are useful to me.

Re:Refractive index? (1)

mythosaz (572040) | about 9 months ago | (#45849633)

Why not? $99 can buy you nearly the most complicated lenses no-line bifocal lenses anyone wears on their face unless you demand a brand-name photochromic+progressive (instead of generic branded) as long as you don't insist on buying them from the mall.

What about Bifocals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45849761)

Are they going to offer bifocals? What about if someone has two pairs of glasses, one for reading and one for driving? Are they going to be able to switch between them without buying a new set of google glasses for $1500 or whatever the price was?

Re:What about Bifocals (1)

Holi (250190) | about 9 months ago | (#45849991)

Go to the site. It seems like you get one special lens for dealing with the actual Glass unit. I believe you could easily have a normal lens installed for the other eye.

Everyone at Google has 20/20 vision (1)

sir-gold (949031) | about 9 months ago | (#45849895)

"When I asked the engineers and designers about this, I got mostly shrugs in return."

So not a single person on the design and engineering team wears glasses, and it simply never occurred to them that there would need to be a prescription version?

Great, more expense to destroy (1)

Jamie Ian Macgregor (3389757) | about 9 months ago | (#45849971)

when someone rips your google glass off your face and stamps it into the footpath

I'll sign up... (1)

mi (197448) | about 9 months ago | (#45849997)

If/when I ever need glasses, I'll certainly get the "loaded" ones like Google's or whatever the technology will be by then.

I am one of those people, who always lose things (gloves, umbrellas), so I like to carry as little as possible. Heck, I even sacrifice some privacy and carry only the employer-provided smart-phone — because I loath having to carry one more device. And I read e-books on it too — so as not to carry a separate item.

Load More 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>