Seattle drinking den bans Google Glass geeks A Seattle bar has issued a preemptive ban of Google Glass to preserve the privacy of its tipplers. The 5 Point Cafe in Seattle announced plans to suppress the futuristic devices on its Facebook page this week, and didn't mince words. "The 5 Point is the first Seattle business to ban in advance Google Glasses," the bar wrote …
The purpose is to record the user's daily life, and what will it show? An endless succession of people turning away / crossing the road to avoid them / leaving the room when they enter / slamming doors in their faces / telling them to "take that fucking thing off or else!" / etc.
What's the point?
"What's the point?"
Ah, you obviously are not aware of the 'Zaphod mode'.
That endless succession of people are transformed by the glasses visuals and audio in to people complimenting the wearer on the wise choice they have made, the incredible foresight of being a wearable-tech pioneer, that everything Google does is like King Midas's poo.
But far better to have a big box with ACME on the side and a huge boxing glove to wipe the smug expression off the face.
Actually, a hack has just become possible that preys on the narcissism of the wearers ----
"Candygram for Mongo" (YouTube it yerself)
A bar that nobody has ever heard of bans a technology which is essentially still vapourware and suddenly they're getting worldwide press coverage.
I do think however that it does highlight the major issue with these glasses (when they do appear). They ARE going to get banned in a raft of places like bars, gyms, changing areas. And even when they're not banned, people are going to be highly suspicious of someone sitting in a beach, park, playground, bus, train etc. People *are* going to get caught perving with these things which will only reinforce their social unacceptability.
And even aside from that who really wants to be talking to someone wearing these. Are they paying attention to you or their email? Are they recording you or transcribing the conversation? At least with a phone you can tell if someone's attention is on you or their phone. Are we supposed to be watching someone's eyes to see if they're darting around like they're looking at something which isn't there?
So aside from their dorky experience these glasses have a serious social problem to overcome and I don't see acceptance coming any time soon.
"So aside from their dorky experience these glasses have a serious social problem to overcome and I don't see acceptance coming any time soon."
I think you're wrong. The Farcebook and Twatter generation simply won't see a problem. And, unfortunately, they are or soon will be, the majority.
The Marching Morons.
Give it a few years and the technology will improve so that these über-specs are indistinguishable from normal glasses. Then look out for a wave of violent attacks on innocent spec-wearers, as the tabloids whip up a "terrorists and molesters are filming our children!" frenzy which rattles the cages of the kind of neanderthals who, after finger-spelling their way through similar claptrap in the past, have smashed in the winows of paediatricians' offices.
...artificial eyes got developed and recording video was a diagnostic feature to facilitate blind patients in their rehabilitation? Would those wanting to punch GG users in the face react the same way to these cyborgs? If the article from a few days ago is any indication they'd still do so. The problem isn't that these devices record video. It's the perception that it can be done covertly. But so what if they do? Are you always 100% aware of everyone around you? Some guy could be recording you right now and not even realize it. GG or not.
But still a good idea. I would be very uncomfortable being breast anyone wearing a pair. I have no idea what they are recording (audio and video), I have no idea I'd some facial recognition had tagged me. So I have no idea if my current conversation is going global.
What I do in public is not a secret, but it can still be private. One can discuss even fairly sensitive things in public as your anonymity protects you. Google glasses remove that, and it's only when it's gone will we realise what we have lost.
This post has been deleted by its author
I'm not "holier-than-thou"[1], rather I'm a tool user. Using a hammer as a jeweler's screwdriver is not a good idea. Written English (in all it's magnificent iterations!) is a very precise language, when used precisely. Blaming the tool for your lack of proof reading should be beneath you.
[1] In fact, I'm probably quite unholier-than-thou :-)
I see. Jake "The Perfect" is shall now call thee. He of unerring perfection and exactitude. He who has never stumbled over of a word, taken a wrong turn, forgotten to flush before closing a file or otherwise made any error or misstep from the moment of his conception.
Really Jake, get over yourself. You are coming across as a total ass.
I've never blamed my hardware for my own fat fingering, Yin.
Going to try to explain `Jake "The Perfect" is shall now call thee.` as somehow being a proper English construct? Seriously. When you're using the wrong tool for the job, you come off as a total tool. Just admit you didn't proofread it. It's easier to say mea culpa than to try to justify your human imperfection.
Hi Jake "The Perfect". So good to hear from you.
I am human, I make mistakes. Unlike Jake "The Perfect", the only human in the history of all creation who has never once made an error. As wise as Solomon? Please. 'As wise and perfect as Jake "The Perfect"' should be the new saying.
I'm not denying my imperfections, I'm taking the piss out of your holier-than-thou attitude. Maybe I should rename you, Jake "The Perfect and Insufferable"?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I trust you are being ironic - that is absolute genius!
To others: if you don't get the joke, check out some of the other posts from this man who doesn't even write his own name with a capital letter.
HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO
Please excuse me whilst I pick myself up off the floor and wipe the tears from my eyes.
"this man who doesn't even write his own name with a capital letter."
Types the dude/tte who seems to think that "Anonymous Coward" is it's name.
jake's not my name, it's my handle on ElReg. Computers are literate. 0100 0001!=0110 0001.
"Types the dude/tte who seems to think that "Anonymous Coward" is it's name."
Oh look everyone, Jake "The Perfect" has to be demoted to Jake "They Like To Think They Are Perfect"!
Jake, don't you proofread? Don't you know that the English language is very exact? It's a precise tool to be wielded deftly and with a delicate touch. '"Anonymous Coward" is [it is] name' what are you wittering on about? "is it is"? Makes no sense. PROOFREAD you fool!
Now I have made my point, I shall let the matter rest.
Whitespace quoted and then inquired:
" I would be very uncomfortable being breast anyone wearing a pair."
Freudian slip or predictive text snafu?
If predictive text wtf were you trying to type?
"Abreast" as in "Abreast of"
a·breast
adverb, adjective
1. side by side; beside each other in a line: They walked two abreast down the street.
It's obviously a publicity stunt if they don't also ban people from using cameraphones. In the stripclubs near me...so I'm told...you get approached by a bouncer the second you take the phone from your pocket. That doesn't happen in bars.
Anyhow, it occurred to me whilst reading this that Google could create a way to have certain functionality of the devices turned off based on location. Then I remembered Apple's got a patent on this sort of thing. So it's another point to the patent trolls in their battle against innovation!
Sorry for that interlude. The google-bashing may now continue.
This post has been deleted by its author
I am really annoyed by the rozzers who use camcorders to film my son and I walking to the ground, so I deliberately conceal my face. I get stopped and questioned and the Police trot out the usual lines:
Its for my safety.
They are allowed to film me in law
And the classic - If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
My response is always that I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear and I certainly do not need you filming me as person that has not committed a crime.
My fear with GG that it will be used for nefarious purposes and may soon be a requirement in law that we all have to wear tracking / recording devices with the exact same excuses coppers give me now.
Why not film them right back? They have no right to prevent you from doing that, but they sure as hell don't like it (in my experience), especially the people who tell you you have nothing to fear are not inclined to repeat that statement with a camera pointed at them..
In my experience, some people have a wonderful imagination.
I don't wear glasses of any kind, not even sunglasses. When I'm cycling, I have a set of headlights (these ones) mounted on my helmet. The helmet also has a headset (with boom microphone) embedded which hooks into either a radio transceiver, or into my mobile phone. This boom mike isn't much different to the ones seen worn by some motorcyclists.
People see the headlights, see a small cable running to the radio on the bike, and immediately assume the two are connected and that I must be recording. Thankfully, no one has confronted me in a violent fashion, but I have been asked about it on more than one occasion. It's easy enough to just turn them on, and suddenly the fact that it's just a light, becomes immediately clear.
Pre-emptive explanation: No, BlueTooth is not an option. Too expensive, and this doesn't support it. I'm not spending $500+ for the luxury of beaming my voice via an intermittent 2.4GHz FHSS digital RF link when a simple wire will do it reliably for under $10.
You are a cyclist. You pay no road tax. You have no right to be on the road anyway.
Do you even have insurance? Done any training? Got any kind of license?
But it's OK; the suffering motorist will pay for your personal lanes and other privileges. And for the accidents you cause. And your medical costs.
Yeah, you just worry about your trinkets.
Ahh, a road troll... of course. Course this has nothing to do with what I posted about, or the article, but I'll bite just this once. :-)
I pay no road tax of course, I damage no roads! When was the last time you saw a footpath resurfaced? Roads get that treatment all the time. "No right"? Does that imply a bicycle has less right than a motorcycle, who has less right than a car, who has less right than a bus, or a truck, who has less rights than a semi-trailer? Who pays the most road tax of those? You really think "rights" are proportional to taxation? Joke is on you my fuel-guzzling fiend.
Truth be told, I'd rather avoid the road completely, and I would if it were practical. But it isn't, so I settle for quiet back-streets. You know, the ones the majority of the traffic isn't using.
Insurance? I'd get some if someone would offer it to me. In fact my bank did ask if I was interested in vehicle insurance. And naturally I enquired further, but they kind of lost interest when I mentioned my sole mode of transport. I can't buy something that isn't there. I only know of Bicycle Queensland, kind of a monopoly, I'll wait until there's a couple of players in the field.
Training? I've read the rule book. That is all that law requires. I don't see car drivers being put through a course in operating V-doubles before being let loose on the road, so why should I know how to drive a car to ride my bicycle? I got about 80% last time I attempted a written road rules test. Not good enough to get a learner's permit, but good enough to operate a bicycle according to Queensland road rules. Got a problem with that? Talk to the government.
Got any kind of license? Yes, I have a radio license. (No, you didn't stipulate vehicle license, you did ask "any kind", and a radio license is a kind of license, issued by a government body.)
And actually around here, it's the Brisbane City Council that provides the footpaths and cycleways, Not Queensland Transport or the Department of Main Roads. I'd imagine this is similar in other parts of the world, where it's the local council that looks after provisioning of bike paths and footpaths, and a state-wide body looks after the roads themselves.
I'll worry about all 0 accidents I have ever caused. And now we shall get back on topic, since my post was more to do with people seeing something from afar and jumping to conclusions.
"You are a cyclist. You pay no road tax. You have no right to be on the road anyway.
Do you even have insurance? Done any training? Got any kind of license?
But it's OK; the suffering motorist will pay for your personal lanes and other privileges. And for the accidents you cause. And your medical costs.
Yeah, you just worry about your trinkets."
I'd like to see this shit stand up in a court of law. Not so smart then!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
