Google Glass wearers, or Explorers as Google likes to call them, have been getting some bad press of late, and the company has been moved to defend the headsets against the rise of rumor and speculation. "Mr. Rogers was a Navy SEAL. A tooth placed in soda will dissolve in 24 hours. Gators roam the sewers of big cities and Walt …
" It also asks those considering a ban to remember that later models of Glass allow for prescription lenses to be added and may be needed by people to actually see."
The actual wording is:
"Just bear in mind, would-be banners: Glass can be attached to prescription lenses, so requiring Glass to be turned off is probably a lot safer than insisting people stumble about blindly in a locker room."
Requiring that people use ordinary glasses if they need prescription lenses doesn't seem unreasonable to me, and is not the same as insisting people stumble around blindly. It doesn't seem unreasonable that someone using Glass with prescription lenses be expected to carry ordinary specs for just such occasions - or to just leave Glass at home and wear ordinary glasses when it's inappropriate to do so.
(And I am speaking as someone who does need prescription lenses - and usually carries more than one pair of glasses for different needs.)
There's prescription glasses and prescription glasses. I'm sure yours, like most people's are those nice thin ones that can be put into a huge array of frames. i'm one of the unlucky ones whose lenses resemble the bottom of a glass coke bottle, and have a choice of precisely 2 frames in the whole shop. I couldn't imagine for a second bolting a Google glass on top of this contraption.
You should try high-index plastic lenses, they aren't too much more expensive than standard lenses
Re: @Anonymous Coward
My glasses used to resemble what AC described, but haven't done for a long time - but I can assure him/her that the reason they are less unwieldy now is not due to some miraculous improvement in my eyesight; it's notably worse than it was back then.
" I couldn't imagine for a second bolting a Google glass on top of this contraption."
So do you think you will be able to attach your lenses, that you say you only have the option of two sets of frames, to Google Glass? If so, that suggests you think the lenses can be (or will possibly be, in future) fitted to other frames, doesn't it? Otherwise it's a non-issue, because Google Glass won't be an option for you anyway.
My suggestion is not to bother considering Glass in the first place.
Anybody looking at me in a locker room while wearing this crud is likely to end up having them surgically removed. Go perv somewhere else. Seriously, wearing them in a locker room? That's just way too creepy.
Also.. I don't tweet... sober or drunk. I guess it shows that the chocolate factory expects this to appeal to the inadequate types who feel that every aspect of their mundane existence needs posting for posterity.
They should be banned while driving, otherwise we might see costly cases where courts have their time wasted while glasshole posers argue that they were off - or that they were a wearable sat nav. The fact that some idiots will use them for purposes unrelated to driving when behind the wheel is the reason that they should be banned from drivers faces. The roads are hazardous enough already.
So you have an objection to being viewed through a lens attached to a memory store and a set of mechanisms capable of transmitting the information stored there received to third parties?
So should we ban people from locker rooms, or just surgically remove their eyes?
Got something to be ashamed of?
Re: @Anonymous Coward
In Spanish the phrase blind as a bat can be translated literally as someone who can't see three on a donkey. Without my glasses I can't even see the donkey. I've been using those high refractive lenses for quite some time and have just bought a complete new pair, frames, darkening lenses, scratch resistant and anti-reflection for 500 euros with the lenses being 180 each. Not sure how that compares to a normal lens but I doubt they are much cheaper.
I like Google Glass as much as the next bloke. It's a great way of accessing small amounts of data in an unobtrusive manner.
BUT! If Larry Page came into my bathroom and started filming me in the shower and tweeting the video all over facebook, I'd say "OI! PAGE! NO!" Being the CEO of a multi-million dollar company does not give you the right to come into my bathroom and start filming me in the shower!
(apologies to Harry Enfield.)
It doesn't seem unreasonable that someone using Glass with prescription lenses be expected to carry ordinary specs for just such occasions
Your lenses must be less expensive than mine. That or your income is significantly more than mine. My glasses cost more than my smart phone (yes, I paid full price, no it's not a cheapy -- It's a Galaxy S2 in case you're curious). I have only one pair and because of my particular eye problems they tend to get replaced every year or two do to my prescription changing. My insurance usually covers them, but I'd pay full price if I wanted a second pair. If I tacked on the extra cost to get Glass on my eyeglasses (which insurance would not cover) I can promise you I'd not be buying a second pair for when I couldn't wear them. My budget couldn't handle it. (Incidently, that's also why I won't be buying Glass any time in the foreseeable future.)
Glass can be attached to prescription lenses, so requiring Glass to be turned off is probably a lot safer than insisting people stumble about blindly in a locker room.
Really, no one made the "If we outlaw Glass, only outlaws will have glasses" joke?
Thank goodness. I didn't think the Reg readership could resist that one. Bullet dodged!
Chocolate. Glasshole. Explorers.
It'll never catch on.
Not everybody wants their video to go straight to google. I love the HUD idea; but would definitely want no leaking. Haemorrhaging data to an advertising company in another country is *NOT* where success lies.
Let me rephrase that for you: "Haemorrhaging data to an advertising company in ANY country is *NOT* where success lies."
Unfortunately, TheGreatUwashed are clueless when it comes to personal security, so the concept will probably fly over the long-haul. On the bright-side, I'm already seeing "red-circle-slash over a picture of glass" signs scattered about Sonoma.
Not to worry given Google has a non-extant
tax avoidance scheme footprint.
I would quite like one for a HUD book, so I could read in the pub and still know what's going on. Were I to actually do this, I'd probably have tape or a hard cover over the lens so people could see that I wasn't recording; just to save me the trouble of being randomly punched out by people as paranoid as I am.
I would also divorce the device from Google, if possible, or just not buy one if it isn't.
Of course the real problem is other people using it; almost certainly on the default "spaff all data widely" settings; so if you're in the recording, you are being sold to Google without your permission. I think a lot of people have a problem with this.
I've said it before and I most certainly will again: I want an offline version of glasses please. Something with a little flashdrive hidden somewhere that can store images/videos I produce and can have a small database with a map of the area I plan to traverse and other could be interesting data.
If it can' access the internet, then it can't leak data to anyone... right?
So, the goggles do nothing.
Guys, you're the (beta) product
So, they accept that
- Glass is not that capable today
- Glass is still not the final product
See there, Google, my fear.
It's also only reasonable to declare in advance that you'll be forced to stumble in dark if you choose to be a Glasshole with prescription glasses.
Ever since their invention, cameras have been touted as privacy killers...
Yeah... but as long as the camera stays in someone's pocket,
I don't have as much of a problem with them as google glass...
because THAT camera is right in your face !
Re: Ever since their invention, cameras have been touted as privacy killers...
you don't live in Britain do you? There's a camera on pretty much every street, in every shop and bar, on nearly every piece of public road and on all public transport.
And as pointed out you can get a fantastic spy camera with hours of recording capacity and pretty much impossible to spot fro £50.
Not trying to 'debunk the myth' that glass wearers are glassholes I see.........
If they use the term themselves to mean people who don't follow a certain etiquette then why should they. It appears they actively want to differentiate between responsable users and those whose behaviour may cause others to feel uncomfortable. So no myth to debunk.
This article does come over...
as a "praising via faint damning" promo piece. Is that what was intended?
Re: This article does come over...
Larry Page was not wearing a pair when he spoke at TED this week. It would seem Google is cooling on the project. Robert Scoble, the biggest Glasshole out there, wrote a blog post decrying the fact they are very far from ready for commercial release and lamenting the fact there seems to be a growing disinterest on Google's part for pushing the project to completion. I expect they are coming to the view smart watches are a first more practical step to wearable computing, and even those haven't as yet been executed well. Google's new API and Motorola's latest hardware look interesting though.
When I'm walking about I want to take a break from technology. When I walk in the countryside it's nice to meet people not yacking away on phones or updating Facebook.
Technology needs to make life better not degrade it and Glass seems to be the technology that degrades life. Another technology crutch that kids will grow up with an be lost without.
The art of remembering things and not looking them up on Wikipedia is starting to go. How long before people won't walk into a pub because their headset tells them it only has 3 stars out of 5 and so on.
Too much data reliance and consumption.
"The art of remembering things and not looking them up on Wikipedia is starting to go. How long before people won't walk into a pub because their headset tells them it only has 3 stars out of 5 and so on."
Yeah you tell them! Just like how kids today can't do long division or use an abacus because they have calculators. Damn that Gutenberg he is running the monks out of business!
I don't believe AC was trying to entirely rid the world of tech. Instead, he's suggesting that it is occasionally a good idea to take a break from technical immersion.
Looking everything up all the time is a borderline OCD. You're not going to experience much of this adventure called "Life" if you're doing it through Wikipedia and looking up pub ratings on the fly.
So, to use your examples... Yes, let the kids use calculators, but let them do a bit of mental arithmetic too. I grew up in an age where we used slide rules (and calculators) at school and university. Slide rules do not do the whole calculation, you still need to figure out the order of magnitude in your head. That also gives you a degree of error checking. The yoofs who have only used calculators miss this and will blindly accept the numbers spewing forth.
"Cops and the feds can already use a mobile as a tracking device, voice recorder and video camera without the owner being aware of what is going on, even if the handset is apparently switched off."
Re: Oh really?
Cops and Feds? No but NSA... possibly.
Key phrase, "apparently switched off".
Meanwhile at the Cantina on Mos Eisley....
We don't serve their kind here!
They'll have to wait outside.
Glass can only record video for 45 minutes before depleting the battery
As the old joke goes about a do everything digital wristwatch...
Beware the google glass wearer with a wheel barrow, it'll be carrying the external battery.
Myth 10: Glass marks the end of privacy
Google, making a statement on privacy....what next Putin commenting on subtle diplomacy?
For the true 'HUD' experience, terminator style, try out Epson's BT-200 glasses coming soon. I have the BT-100's and they are unbearably cool, but utterly useless. They view is really great of a hud overlay but the processor in the BT-100 is crap and can't even play low res video... The OS is old... and without any gyro sensors or even simple bluetooth it's utility as a practical device is limited. About all you can do with the BT-100 is view photos.
However, it looks like they've addressed most of these issues with the BT-200.. Can't wait for mine to arrive.
Re: Myth 6
Cheers for the heads up on one of the alternatives - somehow never come across these before.
While the BT-100 do have an element of cool about them... the BT-200 definitely don't. Google's Glass easily has the BT-200 beaten on looks - the lack of cable and monstrous arms helps a bit.
Eric and Larry in the changing room
Dear Larry and Eric
I would be happy a demo the Google Glass if you let me come train with you. I promise that I won't have Glass turned on while we are in the training room, in the showers or out running together. The 45 minute video recording limitation won't be a problem.
Is that OK?
Many thanks from a fellow pioneering spirit
Bah, privacy isn't going to be a problem. Not for the Glass anyway.
If you're going to use privacy to purve, you need to do *everything* as you would normally do under that context.
A member of our photograpy club was field-testing his black portable camera inside a grocery store. I asked what they said about it - it's normally a no-no. He said they didn't ask. Upon further questioning, no-one even noticed - he had the camera at his waist. Had he held the camera at eye level, he would have no doubt unceremoniously thrown out on his arse.
Ditto with the Samsung gear, you can fiddle with your watch - and no-one cares at all. As long as you're willing to mute the beeps and camera noises in hardware, it's the near perfect covert camera.
Which brings me to the Google Glass. It doesn't look anything like normal, not even close. There are many, many cheap and not-so-cheap covert eyeglass camera systems out there, the Glass isn't even a close contender - it's way too recognisable - and not only by us geeks.
A while back I was looking at an Android powered HUD designed for sports gear. I forget what company it was, but it was only around $300 for the model that could be attached to normal sunglasses. Supposedly, according to a few forum posts, it was possible to get it reasonably close to Glass capabilities. I almost bought it, but the other half gave me the look when I started talking about it and I decided it wasn't worth the impending fight.
Wrong, it can do quick face recognition.
"But even with the limited processor in the headset working in conjunction with a linked smartphone and the greater cloud, you're not going to get Glass capable of the kind of real-time facial recognition portrayed on popular TV shows."
Actually of course it can if any camera can. Assuming you have a wireless data connection of some kind. It could be your own subterranean system.
...GLASS owners have paid a lot of money for something that is not very useful, and should NEVER be useful in any well-ordered society...
I take exception to you using a bright red image of the late, great Willy Rushton to sell your tawdry "newspaper".
For shame, sir!
- Geek's Guide to Britain Kingston's aviation empire: From industry firsts to Airfix heroes
- Analysis Happy 2nd birthday, Windows 8 and Surface: Anatomy of a disaster
- Review Vulture trails claw across Lenovo's touchy N20p Chromebook
- Adobe spies on readers: EVERY DRM page turn leaked to base over SSL
- Analysis The future health of the internet comes down to ONE simple question…