×

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!

I Became a Robot With Google Glass

timothy posted about 3 months ago | from the no-you-didn't dept.

Displays 134

Nerval's Lobster writes "Videographer and journalist Boonsri Dickinson took the second generation of Google Glass out for a spin, and came back with some thoughts (and a video) on the hardware (basically unchanged from the first generation) and the new XE12 software upgrade (which includes many new features, such as the 'eye wink' option for snapping photos). New apps in the tiny-but-growing Glass app store include Compass, which allows you to find interesting landmarks; Field Trip, which allows you to walk around and look up local history; Video Voyager, a tool for sharing videos based on your location; and Strava Run, which visualizes your fitness habits. 'Glass has potential to take off as a new platform because it's not a phone,' she writes. 'The hands-free approach could expand its use to venues as diverse as the operating room and kitchen, unlocking new ways of using the data overlays to augment the real world.' Interesting features aside, though, her experience with the device raises the usual privacy questions: 'For the most part, Glass is a good prototype for this new kind of computer: but do we really need it, and are we ready for it?'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

134 comments

Please take off your glasses (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951017)

or leave.

Re:Please take off your glasses (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951247)

fuck google

Re:Please take off your glasses (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about 3 months ago | (#45951339)

Please DO NOT take off your glasses. Those glasses can make a McSoylent burger appear as your favorite food.

Re:Please take off your glasses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951513)

A large plate of gagh overlayed on sesame noodles might be fun.

Re:Please take off your glasses (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45952023)

Fuck Google. Microsoft, Apple...anything but that laggy, buggy, broken Android shit.

Wearable Tech (5, Insightful)

elzurawka (671029) | about 3 months ago | (#45951025)

There is huge hype in the media that THIS year will be the year of wearable tech. Until there are better input methods then voice, i dont think it will take off. I hate interacting with my phone through voice, and i feel like Glass would be even worse.

Wearable tech is still a lot of hype by the industry, and I don't know if the consumer is really looking to spend money on it just yet. I feel like we need a breakout tech to really get people on board, and Glass hasn't done that.

Re:Wearable Tech (4, Interesting)

boristdog (133725) | about 3 months ago | (#45951109)

I've found that voice interactions with devices are generally annoying.

But I have found that I like using with voice interaction when I am drunk or stoned. Then it's fucking hilarious.

Re:Wearable Tech (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951179)

"stoned"

Shame on you son... you have no respect for the war on drugs... its your fault all the violence around the planet due to drugs wars.

You need Jesus in your heart.

Re:Wearable Tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45953173)

"You need Jesus in your heart."

What does my gardener have to do with this?

Re:Wearable Tech (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951263)

I've found that voice interactions with people are generally annoying too.

Re:Wearable Tech (2)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 3 months ago | (#45952901)

In private, using voice to search on my Android device is much much faster than typing it out. I also find myself dictating notes to my device and watching it type out my words instead of jotting my thoughts down manually.

In public, nobody should use voice commands.

Mod down! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45954489)

Come on, is this really interesting? If I can get a +5 interesting for this crap, I'll just post on every thread.

s/voice interaction/Windows 8/g
s/voice interaction/Google+/g
s/voice interaction/slashdot beta site/g

The list goes on....

Re:Wearable Tech (3, Interesting)

Kelbear (870538) | about 3 months ago | (#45951777)

Like most first-gen hardware, it's going to be a rough experience. Doing the limited release they way they have was a good idea.

In the meantime, I think the most compelling part of Google Glass is the first-person recording. There are other wearable cameras of course, but they typically record from over-the-head views. It seems like Google Glass is a unique video recorder for parents.

  Like that saying: "The best camera is the one you have with you" nearly all of the pictures and video of my son are from my phone. Our family's actual camera stopped being used after we got smartphones last year. One of the most annoying problems with the phone is that I have to position the phone, and aim the phone to record moments with my son that I want to remember later. That means I have to choose 1) between recording the moment so that my wife and I can remember it for years, or 2) watching the moment directly instead of watching it through a fucking phone. With Google Glass, I get to see the moment directly, while also getting a first-person recording for later. Plus I wouldn't have to hold it while I'm waiting for the right time to start the video or take a picture, it's ready to go.

If a consumer version of google glass comes out that isn't insanely expensive, even if was garbage for everything else, I might still buy one to just to record special events.

Re:Wearable Tech (1)

lennier (44736) | about 3 months ago | (#45956503)

I think the most compelling part of Google Glass is the first-person recording.

Isn't that also the part which everyone else considers an unacceptable privacy intrusion? Someone coming up to you wearing Glass might as well be holding a sign saying "hi, I'm going to record this conversation without your permission and post hilarious videos of you on social media! Do you want to 1) run away, 2) put on your Oculus Rift as a privacy shield, or 3) skip the preliminaries and punch me right now?"

Re:Wearable Tech (3, Insightful)

Kelbear (870538) | about 3 months ago | (#45958149)

Well, let's think about it. What if some parent showed up at the swim meet with a camcorder to film their kid's performance? Soccer game? Marching band? Maybe a birthday party? Those people aren't getting punched in the face today, what if they try filming those events on their phone? When they film it on a head-mounted camera, is it punchy-time yet? No, it's fairly well understood by those present why that person brought a recording device and it's accepted that recording devices are likely to show up at these kinds of events.

Now, if someone sat down on the subway in the seat across from you and pointed a camcorder at you (whether or not you can tell it's off), that's clearly unsettling and I could very well imagine that person getting punched in the face. It seems there are already fairly clear social norms around when you can record in public. An etiquette for its use has already been established, and in reports from those using the explorer models, I'm already starting to see examples where the writer felt uncomfortable putting on Glass in places like the aforementioned subway. Word about how to recognize the appropriate etiquette will spread in time, and the usage will eventually follow (and of course we'll have people with bad behavior too, much like smartphone creep shots today). Overall, I'm not exactly in a panic about this technology. I'm also not terribly concerned about using Glass to record my kid doing things because the only time I'd take out the Glasses is in typical recording situations.

Re:Wearable Tech (1)

TheloniousToady (3343045) | about 3 months ago | (#45954279)

I hate interacting with my phone through voice

If that kind of thinking catches on, maybe people will even start using phones to talk with each other again.

Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (4, Insightful)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about 3 months ago | (#45951047)

If he became a robot, wouldn't that mean he was kind of a slave to whatever the Glass told him to do? Like someone was texting his eyeballs messages saying "Order a quarter-pounder-with-cheese and a Dr Pepper"

If he wanted to say cyborg I'd buy it, or if he "felt" like an android I guess I could accept it.

But "robot" tends to imply a mechanical device more devoid of free-will or thought than some of the other phrases. Heck, the blurb in which it's used is describing how it's expressing personality.

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951081)

Maybe RTFA? (Boonsri is a Woman)

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (2)

kannibal_klown (531544) | about 3 months ago | (#45951203)

Maybe RTFA? (Boonsri is a Woman)

I read TFA, and shockingly didn't know Boonsri was a woman's name. How does that take away from my overall question.

The closest thing to robot-like is that she didn't have to remember street directions. Cyborg or whatever - sure, but not robot-like.

Read my post, the question was the correct term of Robot vs any other term. I'm not seeing anywhere she describes the Glass as removing free will or where she feels less-than.

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951361)

This is a subthread about your use of the wrong pronoun in your overall question. Please stay on-topic.

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (0)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 3 months ago | (#45951721)

Ah, you do realize reading comprehension is part of being able to read right? Work a little more on that.

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951277)

If he/she had a proper name instead of some primitive, third world, ooga booga shit name, maybe there would be no confusion.

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45952447)

Or if you had any experience outside of rural Aba-lama, you might not assume things.

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45953985)

I might, if I was a broke ass, bleeding heart, hipster backpacker who could only afford to go to third world cesspools.

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951371)

Is she worth $50K??

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45954101)

Is she worth $50K??

Yes, most definitely.

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (5, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 3 months ago | (#45951091)

speaking of robots, suppose I wear a tee shirt with 'robots.txt' printed on it and some wildcards below it.

I wonder: will that render me invisible to google glass wearers?

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#45951301)

speaking of robots, suppose I wear a tee shirt with 'robots.txt' printed on it and some wildcards below it.

I wonder: will that render me invisible to google glass wearers?

Doubtful.

Similarly, I wonder how effectively some high-powered infrared LEDs sewn into the lapels of my shirts would hide my face from the built-in camera...

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951399)

Is your face so awful that it needs to be hidden?

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#45951419)

Is your face so awful that it needs to be hidden?

No, but I'm sick of your mother Photo-chopping me into pictures with her.

Bitch is obsessed with my junk, yo.

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951309)

I wear a necklace with bright IR LEDs. It does a great job of blocking out digital cameras.

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 3 months ago | (#45953233)

I wear a necklace with bright IR LEDs. It does a great job of blocking out digital cameras.

Damn..wish you weren't anonymous...I'd like to know where you bought said necklace.

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45954149)

I assembled it myself. Search around, you can find some instructions on how to do it. Some make IR LED hats, but you can easily adapt that into a necklace or a pair of glasses instead.

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 3 months ago | (#45955227)

I assembled it myself. Search around, you can find some instructions on how to do it. Some make IR LED hats, but you can easily adapt that into a necklace or a pair of glasses instead.

What I'd REALLY like, is to get a set of them surrounding my rear license plate, to blind cameras. I found some links to that awhile back, but it seemed far more complex than I had the skills for fabricating it....

But starting with at hat or necklace might be a good place to start to learn how to do it.

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45958103)

How do you know when the battery has run out?

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (2)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about 3 months ago | (#45953193)

I wonder: will that render me invisible to google glass wearers?

Here's an option: Google glass is prevented from photo-tagging or otherwise identifying any other google glass wearer.
The only people that are identifiable in google glass vids are non-wearers.
So if you want to stay invisible to the NSA, you'll need to join the google gang.
bwa-hah-ha . pay up for privacy.

Robots.txt for your faace (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45957121)

speaking of robots, suppose I wear a tee shirt with 'robots.txt' printed on it and some wildcards below it.

I wonder: will that render me invisible to google glass wearers?

It has been suggested before:
http://stopthecyborgs.org/2013/03/23/robots-txt-for-your-face/ & http://tagmenot.info

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951233)

he was kind of a slave to whatever the Glass told him to do

This very accurately represents the Google and Apple fanboys.

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 3 months ago | (#45951459)

But "robot" tends to imply a mechanical device more devoid of free-will or thought than some of the other phrases.

Well, we ARE talking about someone who's wearing Google Glass, after all...

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (3, Interesting)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | about 3 months ago | (#45951489)

The term that clicks for me is gargoyle [marksarney.com] .

I'm sure a few others around here have read that book, too.

Re:Poor use of phrase "robot" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45953201)

"If he became a robot, wouldn't that mean he was kind of a slave to whatever the Glass told him to do? Like someone was texting his eyeballs messages saying "Order a quarter-pounder-with-cheese and a Dr Pepper"

No he'd see SAY 'Fuck you!' and sue Google for the broken jaw he got from it.

I already have multiple pairs or normal glasses,.. (1)

Selur (2745445) | about 3 months ago | (#45951097)

and without them I'm kind of half-blind, so wearing google glasses really wouldn't be that nice.
Sure, I might get a nice info overlay, but the 'resolution/sharpness' of everything else would really go down too far to be comfortable,...
-> unless these 'tech-glasses' get some near-/far-sight compensation they are nor really that interesting

Re:I already have multiple pairs or normal glasses (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 3 months ago | (#45953355)

I'm holding out for a Google Glass type thing with headsup displays in contact form. Then I'd have Terminator Vision.

Needs an external redesign (4, Insightful)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | about 3 months ago | (#45951241)

It would help if they could design that into a form factor that isn't blatantly a pair of google glasses. I would want my wearable tech to be as inconspicuous and non-intrusive as possible, both to my experience and the public around me.

Re:Needs an external redesign (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#45951325)

It would help if they could design that into a form factor that isn't blatantly a pair of google glasses. I would want my wearable tech to be as inconspicuous and non-intrusive as possible, both to my experience and the public around me.

Yea, don't want to let the parents at that playground know you're secretly videotaping their kids, eh? That could end badly.

BTW, I'm only half-joking (specifically, the half where I suggest you're a pervert - I don't know you well enough to make that determination)

Re:Needs an external redesign (2)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | about 3 months ago | (#45951667)

It would help if they could design that into a form factor that isn't blatantly a pair of google glasses. I would want my wearable tech to be as inconspicuous and non-intrusive as possible, both to my experience and the public around me.

Yea, don't want to let the parents at that playground know you're secretly videotaping their kids, eh? That could end badly.

BTW, I'm only half-joking (specifically, the half where I suggest you're a pervert - I don't know you well enough to make that determination)

So, are you suggesting that playground perverts are being stymied today by a lack of suitable surreptitious videography gear? Or that even in its current form factor that it is acceptable to walk up to people whom you deem "pervy" and demand they leave a public place because of their google glass?

I could have said something like "I would like to not advertise an expensive wearable computer on my face to the unwashed masses on the subway train, since it would only lead to me being robbed". The fact that her face wear drew knowledgeable attention should be indicator enough. Other reasons to have it surreptitious? How about witness to a crime, intentional or otherwise?

If you are really a parent concerned with your child's privacy at the playground, I would suggest things that are actually under your control, like not letting them play where the hoodlum teenagers broke the vodka bottle by the jungle gym, or keeping them from putting foreign objects in their mouths. That is time well spent.

Re:Needs an external redesign (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#45952601)

So, are you suggesting that playground perverts are being stymied today by a lack of suitable surreptitious videography gear?

Well, since I didn't actually say that...

Or that even in its current form factor that it is acceptable to walk up to people whom you deem "pervy" and demand they leave a public place because of their google glass?

Huh?

I could have said something like "I would like to not advertise an expensive wearable computer on my face to the unwashed masses on the subway train, since it would only lead to me being robbed"

Then don't wear an expensive computer on your face when you're in public.

I'd respond the same way if you had substituted "expensive wearable computer on my face" with, say, "expensive Versace purse on my arm."

The fact that her face wear drew knowledgeable attention should be indicator enough.

Right, the same way that walking around flashing a $3,500, diamond-studded wristwatch will draw a certain kind of attention. Thing is, if you don't want that kind of attention, don't do whatever it is that's causing people to pay attention to you. Expecting society to magically and instantly change just because you have a new toy you want to play with completely unrestricted is just ridiculously unreasonable.

Other reasons to have it surreptitious? How about witness to a crime, intentional or otherwise??

No idea what you mean by that. I will say that "because law enforcement could use it" is a really piss-poor reason for doing something that may violate the rights of other people, however I couldn't tell you if that's a relevant response.

If you are really a parent concerned with your child's privacy at the playground, I would suggest things that are actually under your control, like not letting them play where the hoodlum teenagers broke the vodka bottle by the jungle gym, or keeping them from putting foreign objects in their mouths. That is time well spent.

I allude to the fact that technology such as Google Glass will have its nefarious uses, and you kinda flew off on an almost completely unrelated tangent.

Really not sure what to think about that...

Re:Needs an external redesign (1)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | about 3 months ago | (#45953451)

I would argue that your point was tangential from the start. You took my point of wanting a less intrusive, more natural looking piece of kit straight to "ZOMG Think of the poor childrens! Perverts armed with google glass! News at eleven!". My follow on suggestions/desciptions were meant to be in the same absurd, vacuous realm. I simply was trying to state that I would prefer it to not be horribly ugly and obviously intrusive to everyone around the people wearing these.

You didn't really suggest that Google glass has "nefarious uses". Your suggested the reason that someone (me, in this case) might want a less intrusive device was to clandestinely film children at the playground. You then went on to say "well, I'm only half joking since I can't know for sure that you aren't a pervert".

If you were only addressing a concern that Google glass can have bad uses, then all I can reply is that, sure, you are absolutely right. You just have to ask yourself is it worth being constantly paranoid about? I guess you have to decide whether Google is the Devil incarnate, sent to enslave us all with their very ugly eyewear, or whether they are simply a tech company trying to hit the next big thing before Apple does. I am not losing sleep over Google glass, at least not from the privacy concerns.

Re:Needs an external redesign (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#45955933)

I would argue that your point was tangential from the start.

No need to argue that - I was pretty sure it was obvious.

That you continue to argue, even after accepting that my point was tangential, is what I'm having trouble understanding.

You took my point of wanting a less intrusive, more natural looking piece of kit straight to "ZOMG Think of the poor childrens! Perverts armed with google glass! News at eleven!"

not quite - I, rather subtly, pointed out a potential negative effect to the ubiquity of hard-to-notice, personal recording devices. Again, you're the one who decided to assume I was making a big deal out of it. FWIW, when I want to make a real stink about something, I do, in a most obvious way.

My follow on suggestions/desciptions were meant to be in the same absurd, vacuous realm.

There's nothing absurd of vacuous about the very real danger of being robbed because you're visibly flaunting expensive accessories, or pedophiles hanging out around playgrounds. Shame on you for trying to marginalize real risk.

I simply was trying to state that I would prefer it to not be horribly ugly and obviously intrusive to everyone around the people wearing these.

Then you probably should have said that, rather than resorting to a ridiculously circuitous method that does not allow the reader to infer your claimed intent. Because to someone who cannot read your mind, it sure reads like you're getting all butthurt over somebody pointing out that someone may, someday, use Glass to do something bad.

You didn't really suggest that Google glass has "nefarious uses".

Actually, I think "suggest" is the perfect word for what I did. "Implied" would work equally well.

Your suggested the reason that someone (me, in this case) might want a less intrusive device was to clandestinely film children at the playground. You then went on to say "well, I'm only half joking since I can't know for sure that you aren't a pervert".

I specifically disqualified you, although considering how adamantly you're pursuing the point (one you already admitted is not the point I was making), I feel now might be a good time to re-assess my previous conclusion. Liars get far more pissed when you call them one than an honest person ever would.

If you were only addressing a concern that Google glass can have bad uses, then all I can reply is that, sure, you are absolutely right.

Then why didn't you? Because before you got all stuck up your own ass about a perceived ill, that's really all I said (or rather, 'suggested').

You just have to ask yourself is it worth being constantly paranoid about?

Yes, inasmuch as it's worth being constantly paranoid about that cop that just busted a u-turn, swung in behind you, and is now riding your ass. Sure, he might decide to not fuck up your life today, but who knows what he might do tomorrow?

I guess you have to decide whether Google is the Devil incarnate

You should really stop guessing. You're not very good at it.

Try learning instead, so you can make informed decisions instead of taking shots in the dark.

I am not losing sleep over Google glass, at least not from the privacy concerns.

Not today. What about tomorrow?

What happens when you get called into your bosses office, to explain where this picture (posted from Google Glass) of you standing in front of a bong at some party came from? At least with the current iteration of technology, you can tell when someone's getting ready to snap a photo. Me, I personally do not look forward to the day that every single person around me becomes a paparazzi, willingly or otherwise.

Re:Needs an external redesign (1)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | about 3 months ago | (#45956721)

snip

Holy crap. Did you seriously go line by line rebuttal?

You went full retard. Never go full retard. [youtube.com]

Re:Needs an external redesign (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#45957593)

snip

Holy crap. Did you seriously go line by line rebuttal?

Uh, well, you obviously read it, so...

You went full retard. Never go full retard. [youtube.com]

Translation: I ran out of rebuttals; so here's a ad hominem attack for your reading pleasure.

Thanks, but I have no need for someone of low intellect to be insulted by - I already have brothers.

Re:Needs an external redesign (1)

TheBilgeRat (1629569) | about 3 months ago | (#45958265)

snip

Holy crap. Did you seriously go line by line rebuttal?

Uh, well, you obviously read it, so...

I seriously didn't. Did I miss some golden nugget of truth?

You went full retard. Never go full retard. [youtube.com]

Translation: I ran out of rebuttals; so here's a ad hominem attack for your reading pleasure.

Thanks, but I have no need for someone of low intellect to be insulted by - I already have brothers.

I bet they never let you get the last word in either ;)

Robot? Summary is missing context for headline (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 3 months ago | (#45951279)

I Became a Robot With Google Glass

Come on, editors (and submitters) - the least you could do is make sure that the headline makes sense within the context of the summary alone, rather than just copy and pasting it without thought for cogency.

The relevant part of the article is this:

The device also takes over as a fashion statement. One friend wrote to me: “I get a strong vibe that you are a robot inside. I’m not sure if that’s a nice thing to say, but in seriousness I think it’s an interesting way of expressing personality.”

Not worth it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951285)

Wifi infrastructure too weak to consider. Mobile data prices too absurd to consider.

what no sexist remark about chix wearing glasses?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951477)

not properly phrased in the canonical Taco iPod review.
yew phail eet.

Didn't we see it coming? (4, Insightful)

jigawatt (1232228) | about 3 months ago | (#45951365)

We've spent all our time worrying about the singularity as if the machines would eventually gain insight and perspective beyond the best humanity has to offer. Much more likely will be that human cognition falls below the level of a mere machine.

In short, the big problem is not that machines are thinking like humans, but that humans are thinking like machines.

Nice proof of concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951369)

Utterly poor execution, though. And I sure as hell wouldn't want to wear a device built for an advertising company that has been implicated in spying for the government.

1) yes, 2) no (5, Interesting)

EMG at MU (1194965) | about 3 months ago | (#45951373)

Yes we need it. That shouldn't even be a question. Did we need transistors? Did we need the keyboard, the mouse, the gui, the network, the Internet, modern web browsers, tablets, cell phones?

Are we ready? No. I do not believe so.

We are not ready for google glass on at least two fronts: privacy and self control.

Are you mad about google+ integration? Ok, then do you really think google glass will continue the trend of the ever watching google or will it reverse the trend?
Would you be ok with Google mining your "anonymized" glass data to build a better profile on you? Would you be ok with Google mining someone elses "anonymized" glass data to build a profile on you?
What about when glass data becomes part of what law enforcement / the government can subpoena?
Are you upset when you try to install a flashlight app and it tells you it needs full access to all your contacts, current calls, and the network? Wanna bet that all google glass apps are going to want full access to your current location, your vision, your hearing, what you say, and who you are with?

We aren't ready to deal with that yet, because as a society we still haven't found a current level of privacy and usefulness that strikes a balance. I think that there is a balance, but as users of the devices/services we just don't have enough power or information.

On top of privacy, we just don't have the self control and awareness to not do stupid things online. It will only get worse if we start using always-on, internet connected wearable devices. And I'm not referring to anyone who uses social media and the internet responsibly, I'm referring to the people who aren't informed and aware of the implications of uploading something to social media or posting it online.

How often do we hear about some highschooler suspended/expelled because he/she said or posted something stupid on facebook. Something completely harmless but since it is out of context for all the world to see, there are consequences. Furthermore, revenge porn is now getting into the courts, and its not just an angry ex leaking a sextape that two adults made, there are tons of people that don't realize that chatting naked with a stranger on the internet is a really good way to have that video posted to every shady corner of the web. For ever. Videos and pics of drunk college parties are preventing people from getting jobs upon graduation because they never realized that posting that time you pissed off the balcony at your frat house would show up on some HR person's search of you.

We just haven't caught up yet as a society. That doesn't mean there are completely responsible informed people who would use google glass in positive ways, it means there are a lot of idiots who are going to do something stupid then cry when their life is fucked up because of something stupid they didn't mean to have broadcast to the world.

I don't think that means we shouldn't move forward with google glass, I just don't think we ready as a society to use wearable computing devices responsibly.

Re:1) yes, 2) no (4, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 3 months ago | (#45951429)

Yes we need it. That shouldn't even be a question. Did we need transistors? Did we need the keyboard, the mouse, the gui, the network, the Internet, modern web browsers, tablets, cell phones?

Guess that depends on how one defines "need," doesn't it?

No, and No. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951803)

We need it just like we need calculator watches or the Segway. Products die because they don't fit the way people work. Google glass will do so too.

Privacy issues will never go away. People aren't going to like it, just like no one will like you whipping out tape recorder and setting it on the table during a dinner meal. Crap, I have a bunch of IP cameras that I install only when I am on vacation because I don't want them inside *MY* home. My family hasn't said it, but they wouldn't like it either. I don't blame them if they did say something, but they won't because I already anticipate their reaction.

Someone with Google glass tried to talk to me, I'd punch them in the face and break their glasses. If they sued, I'd punch them again. And I am a staunch geek.

Re:1) yes, 2) no (1)

Windwraith (932426) | about 3 months ago | (#45955383)

>Wanna bet that all google glass apps are going to want full access to your current location, your vision, your hearing, what you say, and who you are with?

Oh come on Slashdot, why do I keep hearing this FUD from your "geeks"? You think network transfers come magically and for free? And I talk in the middle of a storm that is blocking all my wireless connections. So I don't think that's possible, sorry. Either they have a dedicated broadband connection exclusively for you to connect Glass to, and unlimited storage space, or this is just not possible, and that's as long as the weather is nice.
Be realistic, now. You won't find permanent open wifi in every point of your region for starters, not even 3G. Secondly, wireless connections like 3G are too expensive for multiple simultaneous streaming of video data, remember the data caps and that stuff. Even fiber lines have difficulty streaming footage depending on various factors. Third, not even the NSA has a recording of all voice/video calls, only metadata on them, because that storage space doesn't come for free and there aren't enough eyes to spy on so much real-time video. Come on now.

Yeah, Google and all the advertisers sure wish what you say was possible, but as long as the tendency is towards restricting downloads/bandwidth and network connections are low-quality at best, this is just a dream for the mighty GOOG. Not even them can, unless every citizen is given a high-bandwidth low-latency 4G network for free, and storage becomes 10x cheaper and bigger. Then maybe your fantasy will be possible.

Or then maybe the solution to "oh no robots will steal my jobs" is to make everyone work as "google video reviewers". Review everything for copyright, sex, and whatever crazy censorship laws your country has. Slashdot's surveillance fantasies can become true, there will be jobs for everyone, and everyone will be a little more miserable after the first few dozen penis videos.

Re:1) yes, 2) no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45956747)

Are you mad about google+ integration? Ok, then do you really think google glass will continue the trend of the ever watching google or will it reverse the trend?
Would you be ok with Google mining your "anonymized" glass data to build a better profile on you? Would you be ok with Google mining someone elses "anonymized" glass data to build a profile on you?

Don't know about the OP, but I'll be OK with one that isn't built by Google and doesn't use locked-in services.

The googles, they do nothing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951375)

It's all in my mind palace.

Google Glass altered reality (3, Insightful)

DickBreath (207180) | about 3 months ago | (#45951427)

Imagine. Those glasses could recognize advertising. Then mask it with other advertising that Google thinks you are interested in.

For example, that offensive billboard with a barely clothed female could be replaced by a strapping muscle bound shirtless hunk . . . holding puppies or kittens.

As per Vernor Vinge's story Fast Times at Fairmont High, everyone could tell Google what color and style they want their house to appear to other people wearing Glass. When you see artwork, Glass could replace it with different artwork that you prefer.

Two people wearing glass want to watch a movie together? All they have to do is agree which wall surface will become the "tv".

An underground meeting place could have a plain door, but members of the underground group, or invitees to the party would see a sign on the door, and could recognize one another.

Let your imagination roam.

Re:Google Glass altered reality (2)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | about 3 months ago | (#45951555)

Imagine. Those glasses could recognize advertising. Then mask it with other advertising that Google thinks you are interested in.

Like my very own private Minority Report.

Re:Google Glass altered reality (1)

minstrelmike (1602771) | about 3 months ago | (#45953271)

Imagine. Those glasses could recognize advertising. Then mask it with other advertising that Google thinks you are interested in.
For example, that offensive billboard with a barely clothed female could be replaced by a strapping muscle bound shirtless hunk . . . holding puppies or kittens.

Actually, most folks would opt for replacing the puppies with barely clothed people. that's why advertising works already.

Two people wearing glass want to watch a movie together? All they have to do is agree which wall surface will become the "tv".

Or they could just stare lovingly (or vacantly) into each other's eyes.

Journalists that dont do research.... (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about 3 months ago | (#45951475)

"For the most part, Glass is a good prototype for this new kind of computer: but do we really need it, and are we ready for it?'

Wearable computers have been around for decades. I really wish that "journalists" would do some research before they write an article. Prof Steve Mann and Prof Thad Starner (who is the project lead on google glass) have had wearable computers since 1990's and the Aviation and military has used them since the mid 2000's. the only thing that is new is miniaturization and looking stylish.

Re:Journalists that dont do research.... (2)

LostMonk (1839248) | about 3 months ago | (#45951681)

Not the same thing at all. Having a HUD at the pilot sit -- used by a tiny minority in a highly specific and specialized location -- and giving to the general public to be used however they want, are worlds apart in their impact on everyday life.

Re:Journalists that dont do research.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951723)

Slashdot has a Google Glass agenda. If they didn't they'd at least mention the existence of the Epson Movario BT-200 (http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Landing/moverio-bt-200-smart-glasses.do). Binocular see-through display, front facing camera, half the price of Google glass, and since it's already taking pre-orders it will probably beat Glass to market.
There are tons of interesting display slashdot never mentions. NVidia at last year's Siggraph presented a cool non-see-through display prototype, for example, which could simulate depth of field and correct for people's poor vision in software. That will be something to watch out for for gamers.
Unless it's from Apple, Google, Microsoft, IBM, Oculus, or Bitcoin then slashdot editors are not interested. At this point, I'm assuming it's a funding thing...

Re:Journalists that dont do research.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951945)

the only thing that is new is miniaturization and looking stylish.

No, don't think they've got the bugs out of the "looking stylish" function.

However the "look like a dick" function seems to be working.

Re:Journalists that dont do research.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45956065)

i would suggest, glasshole, as the appropriate functional role.

Roddy Piper Movie - THEY - 80's ScFi MovieMaterial (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951617)

"B" rate Sci Fi movie material at best "THEY" except when you put the glasses on you could see all those Groovey Ghoulies for what they really were.

POV Porn (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951671)

More POV amateur porn coming. Porn has always been the historical vehicle by which tech as made in-roads into mainstream culture.

Morrowind - Skyrim (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951729)

Life used to be like Morrowind.

With Google Glass it will be like Skyrim.

Here is where google glasses really are: (1, Insightful)

MindPrison (864299) | about 3 months ago | (#45951741)

Remember "We are the borg..." from Star Trek? Who can't remember that scene when Jean Luc Picard gets turned into a borg.

The Google glasses kind of look like that. Not to mention that the glasses make anyone look like a grade A dork (Think Screech from Saved by the Bell), someone who's all filled up to the brim with tech gadgets. Imagine that person wearing a camera...looking at you while he isn't talking to you...but perhaps making observational (to someone else who is listening in, belittling) comments about the surrounding he is "Google-eyeballing".

Remember the first cellphone? It looked like a giant brick...which it sort of was... but it made the user look ...uh...so important....I must have a phone with me at all cost at all times. This will AUTOMATICALLY make you an enemy of the common people, because you're no longer one of them, you're ABOVE them (perhaps not in YOUR mind, but in THEIR minds...you are, because you make a spectacle around yourself).

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about gadgets...in fact...I was that "Screech" geek that filled up his pockets with advanced programmable calculators/pocket computers back in the 80's, heck...I even hooked up a Casio PB1000 to a Packet Radio Modem and a Radio Amateur Radio and a battery...all encased in a suitcase, worlds first portable wireless connected computer right there? Don't know...I was around 12 at the time.

The point is, such as it is now, it's just geeky because it's not commonplace. I have no idea if it ever WILL become commonplace either. Remember the "Spoon"?...there is no spoon - only Bluetooth. Rarely anyone uses a Bluetooth headset anymore (maybe when driving), but there was a time when we saw every businessman in town wear one of those on his side...looking like he was online and important all the time. Now...it's literally gone, I dare you to spot one today.

Gets better yet, personally I've even ditched the Smartphone now - because older as I get...I realize that I do NOT need to be connected 24H, when my employer calls me, I usually take a few days to answer (until I've read my mail or so), or if it is all that important...he should have called me on my new "old fashion" dumb phone...that I bought to disconnect myself entirely from the Google Machine and the constant need for synchronizations and endless recharging of a device that sucks so much power it needs a power outlet at least once a day. My new phone, doesn't need recharging before a month has passed, and doesn't know anything else than SMS and Calls. YAY. Freedom.

Re:Here is where google glasses really are: (1)

ApplePy (2703131) | about 3 months ago | (#45952481)

Remember "We are the borg..." from Star Trek? Who can't remember that scene when Jean Luc Picard gets turned into a borg.

I am starting to think the Borg are humans from the future, if we're not careful with technology. "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

Re:Here is where google glasses really are: (1)

WrongMonkey (1027334) | about 3 months ago | (#45953953)

You make that sound like its a bad thing. On Star Trek, the Borg are villains, but the only thing that might be considered evil is that their assimilation is involuntary. If joining the collective were a voluntary decision, then it might actually be a good deal.

Re:Here is where google glasses really are: (1)

ApplePy (2703131) | about 3 months ago | (#45956353)

For any collective bigger than a 30-member hippy commune, joining has never in human history been voluntary.

Any collective that garners sufficient force to coerce others to join WILL eventually use that power. While it's generally silly to argue over the world of science fiction -- knowing what we know about humans thus far, the Borg could not exist without coercion.

It's almost happening already. Look at all the zombies staring at their little phone screens, updating the hive mind, or Facebook, whatever you want to call it. It's cute and convenient for those participating, but I have to say it's getting a bit disturbing from the perspective of the outside observer. I have to go with Louis CK on this that smartphones are bad for society... but I'll add that it's only the beginning of a very un-human future.

Re:Here is where google glasses really are: (2)

Salgat (1098063) | about 3 months ago | (#45957845)

I think you fail to realize that this is just a prototype limited by technology. The true future Google Glass, 5-20 years from now, will be indistinguishable from a pair of glasses.

lower price + more focused implementations. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45951779)

heads up displays can be so much more useful in any sports arena or any other place where fast paced information is a serious advantage in saftey. much more so than needing augmented reality for going to get milk at the corner store.

all current offerings are lackluster or prohibitivly expensive.

Robots and cyborgs are different! (1)

coldsalmon (946941) | about 3 months ago | (#45951809)

A robot is "a machine that resembles a human and does mechanical, routine tasks on command." A cyborg is "a person whose physiological functioning is aided by or dependent upon a mechanical or electronic device." The Terminator is a robot; Robocop is a cyborg. The writer became a cyborg, not a robot.

Re:Robots and cyborgs are different! (1)

Algae_94 (2017070) | about 3 months ago | (#45955531)

A robot can look like anything at all. It doesn't have to look like a human. An android is a robot that looks like a human.

Re:Robots and cyborgs are different! (1)

coldsalmon (946941) | about 3 months ago | (#45957261)

True enough; I did not take care when copypasting my definitions. Let's try Wikipedia instead of Dictionary.com: "a mechanical or virtual agent, usually an electro-mechanical machine that is guided by a computer program or electronic circuitry." I think that does the job better.

Can't wait for the lawsuits (1)

Jmc23 (2353706) | about 3 months ago | (#45951811)

Any technology that forces you to focus on different things with both eyes is going to be extremely detrimental in the long run. For the typical four-eyed geek without stereoscopic vision it isn't going to have much negative effect, might even force some of them to learn how to use their right eye. For those who had good vision before...

Are we ready for it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45952215)

As a society, we are not ready for it. Given more than enough time to prepare, I still don't think we'd be ready for it. Sadly, I think this is one of those situations where i just has to be done, and THEN people will get used to it after the fact. I mean, even on Slashdot, a geek-oriented site, there is so much hostility towards glass.

As a cyberpunk who wants a HUD and not a paranoid Luddite who think's I'm important enough for strangers to want to film me, I'm looking forward to it.

I Became a Robot With Google Glass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45953721)

But first I became an obnoxious dork by wearing Google Glass.

Do. Not. Want. (1, Insightful)

waspleg (316038) | about 3 months ago | (#45954117)

I don't care if you're okay with annihilating what little privacy remains in your own life. I'm not okay with you using your headset to remove mine. Go fuck yourself.

cloaking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45957061)

We'll need to invent some kind of camera cloak so our faces are not revealed. Maybe some kind of opt-in device that if you have it, the Google Glass must respect it, like with robots.txt files or some shit.

Killer app? (1)

Dahlgil (631022) | about 3 months ago | (#45955503)

Look, I'm still waiting for a killer smartphone app that motivates me well enough to upgrade from my flip phone. Now if someday I walk up to the vending machine at work and it will only accept payments via mobile app, that might do it. On the other hand, the cost/value equation of paying $300 more a year on my cell phone bill just for vending machine access might end up keeping me on a diet. As for Google Glass, perhaps the ability to just look at that Snickers bar and have it fall into my hands might make it worth it. Decisions, decisions.

Cyborg (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45957033)

Um technically that makes you a Cyborg....snarf.

Street photography (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45957043)

I like Google Glass because I can take photos of people in the street without them taking notice of me, I'm a fine art street photographer and Google Glass would help me a lot with street photography.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...