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. SuperTim


    I have never worn them (apart from looking crucial in shades, obviously) so I would not want to wear a google-glass device, even if it does give me a cool Head-up display type experience. A smarter watch? Maybe, as a do wear one of those and it currently only tells me the time.

    I can't comprehend these hipsters who wear glasses frames with no lenses for "fashion" purposes. It makes them look like a "Twunt".

    I suppose I am still waiting for the Arthur C Clarke inspired "Brain Cap".

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Glasses.

      It makes them look like a "Twunt".


      It makes the twat look like a cunt. There, fixed that for you.

      1. wowfood

        Re: Glasses.

        As a man who wears glasses here are the three things I cannot stand when it comes to glasses.

        1: Douchebag hipsters wearing thick frames because it makes them look 'cool' apparently, no you look like a douche

        2: Douchbag twats who wear a pair of shades on their forehead / over the top of their caps because it makes them look cool. Once again no, you look like a douche.

        3: The price. Why oh why do they cost so freakin' much. Go down town, see a pair you like which are hipster made and they're like, £10. Go to specsavers and you're looking at £125 for anything that doesn't look like it was made for a grandad. And that's before extras like reactions or ultrathin.

        Short version. Glasses for those who need them are too expensive, and if you get them when you don't need them you're just a douchebag.

        1. Shrimpling

          Re: Glasses.

          Buy them online like everything else.... My last pair cost £20 and were almost identical to the £300 pair they replaced.

        2. Ian Watkinson

          Re: Glasses.

          Shocker, you went to a bricks and mortar store and paid more money?

          Try or one of the other online spec providers, for the same hipster pair at the same £25 price...

      2. Charles 9 Silver badge

        Re: Glasses.

        No, the first word was right because it was a portmanteau of two insulting words: BOTH of which apply

        1. SuperTim
          Thumb Up

          Re: Glasses.

          Thanks Charles, It was what I was going for...Originally invented around the same time as "insania" and for obvious reasons.

    2. mmeier

      Re: Glasses.

      Smart watch has the same problems a smart phone has:

      No hands free operation

      Need to "dig it out"

      A well implemented HUD or full AR-Rig (Glass is neither) has benefits in all situations where that is not easily done. From wearing gloves to using a bike / car (1) to sitting (more likely: standing) in the tram or bus where I need one hand for my attache case and one for steading myself

      (1) Yes, some cars have that build in. But I won't spend 30.000+ € on a car nor be seen dead in a german car (G-Wagon excluded)

      1. SuperTim

        Re: Glasses.

        You don't need to "dig out" a wrist watch. you simply lift your arm until it comes into view. Unless you are wearing long sleeves and gloves, watches are quite easy to view. operation may be an issue on something small, along with battery life.

        I would like a HUD, but one that doesn't require me to look like a cyborg,

        1. mmeier

          Re: Glasses.

          You refer to situations like

          >From wearing gloves to using a bike / car (1) to sitting (more likely: standing) in the tram or bus where I need >one hand for my attache case and one for steading myself

          1. Glenn Charles

            Re: Glasses.

            You stead yourself too. Is this a new trend?

      2. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

        Cars with a HUD

        Sadly the ill fated 'new SAAB 95' had one.

        I know a dealer with one '10' plate going for £18K.

        not a german car but just as boring and I'm a SAAB driver.

      3. Glenn Charles

        Re: Glasses.

        How do you stead yourself? Or do I want to know?


    3. David Hicks

      Re: Glasses.

      Personally I'm waiting for the Google Monocle.

      So much classier.

      1. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

        Re: Glasses.

        Personally I'm waiting for the Google Monocle.

        So much classier.

        I and everyone else in my private box at the opera sneer at your Google Monocle. The truly fashionable use the Glorgnette.

      2. abubasim
        Thumb Up

        Re: Glasses.

        With all the electronics hidden in the accompanying top hat.

    4. Fibbles

      Re: Glasses.

      A wrist watch has exactly the same image problem as glasses do to be honest. I don't find glasses to be particularly geeky but amongst the segment of the population that do, watches are also given the same stigma.

      Not just any wearable tech though, oh no. Say you've got something kinda geeky, not the kind of thing that everyone is into - like, I dunno, [a watch]? That might not take off, because not everyone wants to wear [a watch], see?

  2. Gordon Pryra

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

    Except for this short list

    1) The name Google or Apple on the side

    2) Their mates wearing one

    3) Some tard from Apple telling them they wont

    1. FartingHippo

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

      Forget that, just partner with Ray-Ban and tint them brown.

      Changing from glasses to sunglasses makes them instantly cool. FACT.

    2. Gav

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

      If those who haven't worn glasses, won't ever wear glasses, how did those who do wear glasses start out? No-one is born wearing glasses, there always has to be a first time.

      If there's a distinct benefit to wearing glasses (like being able to see things) then people will wear them. Same applies to Google glasses or any other augmented reality tech.

      Sure, the first adopters will be get odd looks and comments in the street. But so did those using mobile phones.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

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

        People who didn't start out wearing glasses but then started either:

        1. Can't see without corrective lenses and don't like/can't afford contacts

        2. Are lame fashion victims who think glasses make them look cool/nerdy

        I hope to never need them. My father was long-sighted and my mother was short-sighted. My sister has astigmatism but both me and my brother have excellent uncorrected vision, so maybe we managed to combine the errors and cancel them out. My sister can't see at all, which explains her choice of husband (oooh....oh no you di'ent!)

        1. Gav

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

          "I hope to never need them."

          Keep telling yourself that. One day you'll be late middle aged and you'll discover, amazingly, that you're not immune to the inevitable fallibilities of the human body.

      2. larokus
        Thumb Up

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

        Very true. I recall the time (and perhaps even thinking) 'urrgh just look at that prick talking on his cell phone'. And for what it is worth, I'd welcome Google glass to watch news and videos while exercising (treadmill, spin bike, rowing etc..) where a display is not otherwise readily available (and the price were $200 or less.) Also, everybody HAS worn glasses. Tim have you ever heard of sunglasses? Prick.

    3. JeevesMkII
      Paris Hilton

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

      Just show the kids Marilyn Monroe in Some Like It Hot explaining how she likes men who wear glasses. That'll get at least half the kids on board.

  3. spiny norman

    Why Kidz?

    Why this obsession with what the kids like? Kids just roll from one trendy gimic to the next. If you've got ground-breaking tech that performs a useful function, why not target it at adults who can actually make use of it?

    1. nuked

      Re: Why Kidz?

      You've never been involved in marketing or selling anything have you?

    2. cyborg

      Re: Why Kidz?

      I believe you have your answer in your question:

      "If you've got ground-breaking tech that performs a useful function, "

      It's the useful part that's found wanting.

      1. wowfood

        Re: Why Kidz?

        Google glass could be amazingly useful for folks like me, who can't put a name to a face even when it's their own family.

        Google glass facial recognition. Looking at... "Barney".

        Would make life so much easier / so much less complicated.

        1. Tchou

          Re: Why Kidz?

          Don't you have the slightest concern about privacy?

          1. wowfood

            Re: Why Kidz?

            Not really no.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Why Kidz?

            "Don't you have the slightest concern about privacy?"

            Do you?

            I guess you don't have a supermarket loyalty card, never pay by credit or debit card, always cover your face while walking around the street, only ever surf the net with TOR, take your battery out of your mobile phone whenever you are travelling?

            Privacy-wise your ISP, your Card company and your Mobile phone company have databases full of personally identifiable (no anonymisation) data which the allow access to with government requests quite readily and are prepared to sell that actual data without a fuss. None of this has an opt-out option or a 'delete' option or a way around it.

            Even the worst data-miners like Facebook and Microsoft have some controls in place. Slightly better companies like Google even have full access to delete see all your data and ways to make sure that things aren't collected.

        2. ItsNotMe


          "Google glass could be amazingly useful for folks like me, who can't put a name to a face even when it's their own family."

          Me thinks it's time for the "home" now @wowfood. Be a good boy, and put your arms in this nice white jacket we have for you. Come on a dear.

          Your nurse will be along shortly to give you some nice happy pills, which will make you sleep better.

          1. Glenn Charles

            Re: @wowfood

            I have another problem, I keep waking up and seeing this odd face in the mirror and searching for a name for it...can you help me mister?

  4. RegGuy1

    Gates said:

    "If someone wants those companies to pay more tax they should change the rules. It is not incumbent on those companies to take shareholder money and pay huge amounts that are not required."

    Much as I want to say this is bollocks, it isn't. In the same way that the concept of limited liability and a company were controversial a hundred years ago (viz Salomon), so is this now. If I chose to invest some of my own money in a company, I am expecting that company to do its best with it, and to give me back as much as it can. If the law says they can shuffle their operations around the world to increase my payback then that suits me.

    And as Gates says, if you don't like it change the rules.

    Beer, coz that's what I'll buy with my returns.

    1. C 18

      Re: Gates said:

      The 'a hundred years ago' argument is facile in any reasoned discussion about the impact on society of loophole manipulating corporations etc.

      It's all well and good saying I can invest in Global Corp X and not care about the effect it has on a local economy by not contributing back into the society where it can hamper the innovation and effectively stamp out potential competition.

      It is a moral issue, and it needs to be addressed.

  5. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  6. Blergh
    Paris Hilton

    I always wanted glasses

    When I was a kid my eyesight was always too good, so I didn't ever get glasses. I even pondered how I could make my eyesight worse so that I could get them and not feel left out.

    I still think glasses make a woman look sexier. Hmmm maybe it's a fetish. However I'm not sure the current Google Glass would make anyone look sexier.

    1. Justicesays

      Re: I always wanted glasses

      Well, might well be an app to make *other* people look sexier when looking at them while wearing GG.

      Maybe something like a "Beer goggles" app

  7. Furbian

    But I don't wear a watch either...

    .. stopped mid eighties, kept in the pocket, or on a desk, so that I could write better and keep a track of time during exams. Since then my life is surrounded by time pieces, on PC display, on the wall in nearly every room I frequent, my phone, my car etc. I am unlikely to start wearing one again unless it's very light and actually does something important that my phone can't do (unlikely).

    1. wowfood

      Re: But I don't wear a watch either...

      I'd buy it if it came with a build in mini taser.

      Every watch needs a built in mini taser.

    2. Andrew Newstead

      Re: But I don't wear a watch either...

      I think it depends on what you do as much as personal choice. I like having a watch on my wrist as it is a convienient way for me to keep track of things, I teach and time management in class is very important. It's also good for me when out and about as I don't like getting my phone out in public too much.

      Still, one day I'll do a "Peter Fonda", throw it away and ride off (see Easy Rider if you don't know what I'm on about).

    3. PJI

      Re: But I don't wear a watch either...

      A good watch (design and quality) is a nice piece of jewellery (the only jewellery I ever wear) with a practical use. Mine, being automatic, never runs out of battery; it does not play up because I dropped it or wore it while swimming or snorkelling or in the shower; become hard to see in bright light; mind being banged against a rock when climbing (yes, it is an expensive one) or, being on my wrist, need me to expose my fingers to swipe the screen, or hunt through pockets or bags and wonder if I lost it, or do without the time when running or posing on the beach. I do not have to turn it off on aeroplanes or put it in a special tray to pass through security systems (well, just once I was asked). Being a classical design, I never feel the need to upgrade or change to the latest and those who notice (it is fairly discreet) always admire it, just in case I need reassurance about my taste. It really does just work, year in, year out.

      In fact, traditional watches are selling well now and I like not all my extras being electronic, needing charging and a course to use them ..., though I have got this fantastic running watch (not a Garmin).

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    recently joined the club

    So I discovered I would benefit (slightly) from glasses, took me a year to choose some I liked, but now I prefer to wear them from a style point of view. What can I say, the look suits me. So yes, you can get a kid whose never worn glasses to wear them - they just need to have style / look cool / make a fashion statement.

    1. Glenn Charles

      Re: recently joined the club


  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

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

    I remember when smartphones were considered geeky. And when dental braces weren't considered a sign of wealth.

    1. Andy Fletcher

      The youth of today

      Really? I remember our first colour TV set and people saying that was a gimmick that wouldn't catch on. Holy shit I am old.

  10. Shonko Kid

    He's just not Steve is he?

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

    Oh, I bet you a pile of polo-necks that if it's white and shiny enough, has the apple logo on it, and is priced eye-wateringly high, then people will buy and wear it. These people think it's OK to take holiday snaps with a 10" tablet.

    1. Piro
      Thumb Up

      Re: He's just not Steve is he?

      Exactly. Steve would have told the public what they wanted, while giving it to them.

  11. qwertyuiop
    Thumb Down

    Still waiting!

    I'm still waiting for a watch that will *TELL* me the time. Every watch I've ever owned has failed to do this - I always have to look at them and read the time off the face. I did briefly have a bedside clock which would speak the time if you pressed a button on it, but again that requires me to do something. I'm waiting for the watch will detect me thinking I wonder what time it is and then tell me.

    1. Peter Simpson 1

      Re: Still waiting!

      Seek no further:

      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.

        1. 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?

          1. xyz

            Re: Still waiting!

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

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

  12. 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.

    1. 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.

  13. kyza


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

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Glasses...

      ...And how many sunglasses wearers?

  14. 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.

    1. 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.

  15. 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?

    1. 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?

    2. 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.

  16. 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.

    1. 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'?

    2. MJI Silver badge

      Look at the article title

      There is your answer

    3. 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?

    4. 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.

  17. 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.

    1. Handle This
      Thumb Up

      Re: Google one knows

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

  18. 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.


    1. 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.

  19. 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..

    1. 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...

  20. ks2problema

    I'm not prude.

    But some of you guys are disgusting fucks.

    1. 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!

  21. 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....?

  22. 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).

  23. Alan Denman

    Cheap one to watch, expensive to buy.

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

  24. 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?

  25. 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 © 1998–2019