back to article 'Nothing will convince a kid that's never worn glasses to wear them'

This was the week when a campaign run by a bunch of women's groups actually made Facebook admit to a fault and offer to change. The groups called on advertisers to boycott the social network until Zuck and Co guaranteed their ads wouldn't appear next to content promoting violence against women, and they achieved what many …


This topic is closed for new posts.


  1. qwertyuiop

    Re: Still waiting!

    Yeah - I was aware of that kind of thing. However "...One button operation to announce time" doesn't fit what I had in mind. In my original post I quite clearly said I didn't want a watch where I had to do *ANYTHING*; it should detect me wondering what time it was and automatically tell me.

  2. Sealand

    Re: Still waiting!

    Be careful what you wish for - you may get it.


    The time is 15:32 and you clearly need coffee. There's a cafe not far from here, so follow my directions. I’ll keep you posted with special deals from the shops that you pass along the way.


    The time is 15.32. The time is now displayed on all your devices and those of your family members and friends.

    Windows Watch:

    It looks like you are staring at me. Would you like me to tell you the time?

  3. xyz

    Re: Still waiting!

    >>Be careful what you wish for - you may get it

    That is the funniest thing I'll read this week.

  4. Gordon Pryra

    Were any of you people ever 20 something?

    Check out the earphones that people wear now. When I was younger it was all about in-ear and hidden. Now its all about making yourself stand out and look stupid at the same time.

    Having something techy on your face will sell out in seconds, kids will want one because they cant afford it, 20 somethings will want one because it shows they can afford it, 30 somethings will buy one to prove to themselves they are still 20 somethings and 40 somethings will buy it to watch pr0n at work.

    My parents will still not approve, which only brings its street cred up 200%

    Apples comments come from someone in the age group of my parents, from a company who has nothing to offer in this area apart from a ....... watch (yawn), He must be kicking himself and any designers he has close to hand about missing this boat. After all the jokes about Apple not innovating, they SHOULD have been here not Google.

  5. Bob Terwilliger

    Re: Were any of you people ever 20 something?

    Totally agree - the last middle aged, mega-rich CEO of Apple was able to show products that were actually cool.

    The current one is using up that legacy by trying to decry others products without having anything as an alternative.

  6. kyza


    So in the UK, google will only have the 68% of the population who wear glasses to market to, Tim.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: Glasses...

    ...And how many sunglasses wearers?

  8. MJI Silver badge


    What is it with this silly fashion of Joe 90 and 1960s NHS frames? Look you look like a prat!

    Prices, mine cost me a LOT, frames were a minor part.

    People who wear glasses and do not need them - eg no lenses, especially of the Joe 90 variety are twats of the highest order.

    There is serious brand snobbery among us who need glasses. We rip the piss out of you if you think we mean frames, frames are easy, are they light, are they practical, are they the anti 1960s NHS, do you NOT look like Joe 90.

    We save it for the most important part.

    OK I am a Nikon lens snob, but other makes are good such as Zeiss. My frames are D&A lightweight metal pre Boots crapification.

  9. Yet Another Commentard

    Re: Glasses

    On snobbery, and usability - Oakley. Oakley lenses are incredible, the curved "around your eyes Rx" things are truly remarkable. They take a little use to not freak out ("I can see without turning my head, WTF?") before you just accept that you can see as well as in contacts but without the whole touch my eyeballs every morning squeamishness problem.

  10. heyrick Silver badge

    Nothing that will convince a kid that's never worn glasses or a band to wear one.


    Some AI to display the people you are looking at with lesser clothed bodies might be a hit for teenagers?

  11. Robert Carnegie Silver badge

    Re: Nothing that will convince a kid that's never worn glasses or a band to wear one.

    XXX-ray vision? Creepy. But, in general, doesn't invisible porn sound like a killer app?

  12. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

    Re: Nothing that will convince a kid that's never worn glasses or a band to wear one.

    Some AI to display the people you are looking at with lesser clothed bodies might be a hit for teenagers?

    That hardly requires AI (well, unless you define "AI" pretty broadly). Give the app a small library of stock images of nekkid folks in the same "canonical" position. Do some standard image processing to identify the part of the image that contains the person. Do some kinesiology processing to determine the position of the body from its projection in the image - this is a combination of a kinesiology engine as used in some video games, some simple geometric principles, and a fitting algorithm. "Unfold" the computed body to the canonical position. Train a model to do approximate clothing removal to get body type; this doesn't have to be very accurate, and could probably be done satisfactorily by training a Hidden Markov Model with a pretty small corpus. Use a variant of Minimum Edit Distance to compare the computed image with the stock-image library, finding the one with the closest dimensions. Recolor the stock image to match the coloration of exposed skin on the person in the input image (with appropriate variations to make it look human and not like a Barbie doll; that's just a texture map with a little random variation thrown in). Fold the recolored image into the position of the person in the input image (computed above). Replace the face on the folded image with the face from the input image.

    None of that is particularly complicated. There are known algorithms for each stage. It might make a nice project for a couple of CS grad students.

    And yeah, you could probably sell the thing and make some money. If you don't mind the fact that it's fairly vile.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Glasses??? Really?

    The main story is about a lobby group forcing FB to filter their content and everyone slags off on the glasses sub-tangent.

    Free speech means you can say whatever you like, not whatever someone else likes. If lobby groups (Motion Picture Association of America as just one notable example) starts to force filtering of content, you no longer have free speech and the Internet fails.

    I've never read Mein Kampf, nor do I have any interest to do so, but I support your right to read it if you choose. Those who do not support it are as dangerous as Hitler. All oppressive societies through history, up to and including Chinese Communism today, censor what their citizens see and brutally repress those who dissent.

    Governments are making larger inroads into the Internet directly affecting what you see and read on a daily basis. They are also opening huge databases to track where you go, who you communicate / associate with and record what you see. People are being jailed indefinitely on suspicion and held without trial for years. Those are the larger issues here, not how much of a twat you look when wearing Google Glass.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re: Glasses??? Really?

    The Title of the article is 'Nothing will convince a kid that's never worn glasses to wear them'?

  15. MJI Silver badge

    Look at the article title

    There is your answer

  16. Handle This

    Re: Glasses??? Really?

    If you don't think the MPAA filters content, what do you think their rating letters are for? Those letters have the ability to kill a commercial release through restriction of available outlets. It isn't that unusual in societies, in general, nor necessarily always that offensive, but it does happen regularly.

    The rest of your post reflects a certain amount of defensiveness and tinfoil. I actually agree with you that whether the "kidz" wear Google Glass is not really, in the larger picture, a subject needing immediate and intense social debate (maybe later, when it actually works in ways feared by many).

    I guess my question is that you truly are concerned about the "larger issues" (for which I admire you), why are you here, talking about this? Surely you could do more good on other sites with a greater connection to social good than complaining to those that are much less likely to share your own views on that subject.

    In the meantime, do you think these glasses make me look fat?

  17. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

    Re: Glasses??? Really?

    Free speech means you can say whatever you like, not whatever someone else likes.

    That's what sophomores who haven't learned critical thinking believe it means. In fact it means nothing of the sort.

    "Free speech", as the phrase is conventionally used (by people who aren't idiots), means expression will not be enjoined 1) by the government, 2) prior to the context in which it takes place, and 3) due to its content. The government had no hand in the protest against Facebook or in Facebook's decision. Indeed Facebook's action was voluntary and not compelled by force, regulation, or judicial instruction, so there cannot have been any insult to freedom of expression.

    The protesters convinced Facebook that there was a substantial possibility that they could change the incentives for Facebook's present actions. Based on that estimation, Facebook decided to alter its behavior. That is a normal and desirable outcome of a capitalist economy: a business responding to market forces. They were not "forced" to do anything; they decided what they wanted to publish using the means of publication they control.

    Liebling's maxim applies here: "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one". Facebook can publish whatever Facebook wants to publish. If Facebook decides that its interests are better served by rejecting a class of content, that's their right. That is in fact precisely the right they have under freedom of expression. Do you want the government to compel them to publish content they don't want to publish?

    If lobby groups (Motion Picture Association of America as just one notable example) starts to force filtering of content, you no longer have free speech and the Internet fails.

    That's the sort of overblown panic that tarnishes the image of free-speech campaigners and makes the real work of protecting civil liberties that much harder. Of course "lobby groups" and other entities often "force filtering of content" - that's why they go through the trouble of securing intellectual-property rights in the first place. According to one source, Microsoft alone filed over five million DMCA takedown notices just with Google in a year. "Filtering of content" is a continuous process online. Of course, Internet content has always been restricted in various ways; IP law always applied to it, and there have been other prohibitions, such as the non-commercial restriction on the NSFNet backbone in the early years.

    Yet, somehow, we continue to have considerable free speech and we continue to have the Internet.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Google one knows

    The thing with Google Glass is, IMO, no-one knows if they'll be successful or not. Noone knows if they will go down like a SInclair C5, be very niche like a Segway or be a runaway success like the iPad. Even Google don't know.

    There is some very obvious, amazing tech, with some great use cases but also some major issues.

    When the iPad was announced plenty of people thought it wouldn't sell and was just an oversized iPhone with little practical purpose but it ended up redefining the genre and starting off the decline of the PC. It wasn't the first and it isn't the best currently but it made the biggest impact.

    Glass however is trying out something completely new. Making HUD mainstream, bringing it out of niche applications and the military and making it into a consumer product. It's exciting tech and could start a new tech market.

    Who knows...

    However the idea that no-one could ever persuade a kid to wear glasses is very bad argument and sounds more like an argument Microsoft would make rather than Apple. I would be surprised to see Steve Jobs make a comment like that - there's plenty of other negative comments he might have made but he wouldn't be so short sighted to think that a product would fail because kids wouldn't wear it.

    Kids wear sunglasses, dental braces became trendy. If it's cool kids will wear them. The biggest problem with kids using them would be how to stop them getting broken, lost, stolen.

  19. Handle This
    Thumb Up

    Re: Google one knows

    Jobs wouldn't be so short sighted . . . I see what you did there.

  20. IsJustabloke Silver badge

    The same could be said of...

    ... wristy type things.

    I've never worn a wristwatch because I don't like teh feel of things on my wrists and I doubt that'll change because fruity co have an iWrist (tm)

    As in all things, some people will like these things and some wont.

    I'd just like to weigh in on the "twunt" versus "twat/ Cunt" debate

    I think the issue here revolves around the perceived inteligence of the person being so named.

    The first is a nice portmanteau but you run the risk of them not undertsanding they've been insulted, the second approach leaves very lttle room for doubt, so could be considered more effective.

    Consider the following....

    You sir; are a buffoon!

    You sir; are a cunt! [twunt]

    The first leaves room for doubt... the second none.


  21. Charles 9 Silver badge

    Re: The same could be said of...

    The thing about "buffoon" is that it can actually backfire. If someone is totally clueless about the word, they won't get it. But then again, someone may be such a natural clown that he takes it as a compliment and pulls a prank on you or something.

  22. Flywheel Silver badge

    In five years..

    Apple will have patented iMplants which will be surgically implanted to back-project data onto the retina - in the eye, not the display obviously. They're probably working on it right now, but they can't figure out what to do about the battery or the upgrade path.

    And yes, of course someone will buy them..

  23. qwertyuiop

    Re: In five years..

    The battery will, obviously, be fitted internally somewhere in the user's body. In line with other iDevices it won't be replaceable by the user. Instead you'll have to go to an official Apple optician - or iDoctor - to replace it.

    I'll get my coat...

  24. ks2problema

    I'm not prude.

    But some of you guys are disgusting fucks.

  25. Jamie Jones Silver badge
    Thumb Up


    I'm not prude.

    But some of you guys are disgusting fucks.


    Well, that's a given. But this thread is quite tame for the Register, and indeed ,very tame for the Internet in general,.

    You must be new here!

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Give it up, it's over – everybody's going to know everything"

    "Give it up, it's over – everybody's going to know everything. Right now, Amazon and Google know everything about everything you do, Everything is going to be known about you,"

    ....Depressing reading. Its meant to be Friday El Reg?! I don't agree with this guy. But maybe I'm just living under an illusion that I still have some control. What do others think....?

  27. HildyJ

    For all of those whose cool radar got stuck when they left college, cool changes. Cell phones have gone from cool (back when they were bricks), to uncool (why would anyone want one?), to cool based on size (Zoolander) or slickness (The Matrix) or smartness (iPhone 1), to innocuous. Ditto headphones, earbuds, headsets, and smart watches (which are really just a new calculator watch).

    Google Glass may be cool or not cool but it will have nothing to do with whether people wear glasses normally (or who wear non prescription horn rims because some NBA player does).

  28. Alan Denman

    Cheap one to watch, expensive to buy.

    Obviously, they want the suckers in droves buying their $10 made watch.

  29. severs1966

    Is it just me?

    Several commentators have opined that it will be difficult to get those who don't "need glasses" to wear Google glass or similar products.

    I wear glasses. Mine are really nice, it took ages to find them. They weigh almost nothing and they are very crush-resistant (handy, as I am clumsy). They cost me oodles but it was worth it. I can't imagine going back to crappy £20 easy-break heavy clunky specs ever again.

    I look at google-specs and find myself thinking "I can't wear those, because I am already wearing these". Am I the only person who reacts to techno-specs this way? I feel the same way about 3D specs for both televisions and cinema... I can't wear those, I'm already wearing these.

    People who design giant leaps forward in technology rarely make the compulsory specs pleasant to wear. Ask a habitual spec wearer to critique cinema or home-3D specs and you won't get many positive reviews. Are google-specs and their ilk also going to be "exciting new" tech, built onto disappointingly rubbish, uncomfortable frames that I can't wear anyway, because I'm already wearing these prescription ones?

  30. awood4929

    No Privacy, then implement IPV6.

    IPV6 - IPSEC point to point, end of story......make them crack rapidly changing keys.


This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018