Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Worst new tech invention EVER

In the techno-gadget mad crazy race to keep inventing the next big iThing, Google has come up with the worst idea yet, maybe ever – glasses with an interface right in your line of vision. In the top right corner of your right lens will be a box where you can face chat, get GPS instructions, weather and street information, internet access, and texting.  It's like having the Fox football score all the time!

How many accidents and deaths on the highway will this goofy thing cause? We really need to see who we’re phoning, read restaurant reviews, and do our taxes while driving a two-ton vehicle at 70 m.p.h.?

The commands are voice-activated. And of course we all know how accurate those are. Ask Siri. “Call for new tires please.” “Looking up California retirement places.”

A big feature is that you’ll be able to take instant videos. Other than secret sex tapes (“How come you're putting your glasses at the end of the bed?”) I don’t quite see the major attraction. In the promo video they have people video taping their skydiving and going down roller coasters. How often am I going to go skydiving? 

If you’re not skiing down Everest or surfing a 50 foot wave, what are you going to record? Do you really need video of yourself walking through the mall? “Ohmygod! Here I am looking in the window at Build-a-Bear!” Quick! All your Facebook friends need to see this!

As for the design, they’re space age wraparounds. You can look like LeVar Burton in STAR TREK.

I love new gadgets as much as anybody. I love those tech trade shows where they introduce computers with screens that can flip and become tablets and wristwatch phones that allow you to call the dead. I’m not one of those cranks who say: “What’s wrong with communicating with people through Morse code?” but this product borders on irresponsible.

And how long until they’re showing promos for WHITNEY right onto your glasses?

Plus, what does this do to personal conversations? You’re talking to someone and they stop making eye contact because there's a pitching change at Wrigley Field.  

I know that we all say, “How did I live before smart phones?” But will we really be saying in five years – “How did I live before I had a computer on my face?”

They say they’re still a year or two away from putting these on the market. One voice command they damn well better perfect is: “Glass, employ the airbag!”

So to repeat because I know I'll get a bunch of comments that say I'm just set in my ways and get off my lawn -- my big issue is SAFETY.  

UPDATE:

There's also the invasion of privacy issue.  Some people don't like strangers just videotaping them at will.  Reader Louise brought this to my attention:  A guy thrown out of McDonalds for coming in with essentially a pair of these.  Check it out. 

Here's the promo film.  Whattaya think?


Programming note:  I’ll be guesting on the Stu Shostak Show from 4-6 PT today discussing aspects of my checkered career.  You can also call in.  Imagine Friday Questions but live!

62 comments:

Rory W. said...

Gee, Ken, I thought this would be perfect for you Hollywood types who have to pretend to remember who you're talking to.

Now, when you walk into a pitch meeting, you can scan the room and the glasses will tell you, "Flunky, flunky, decision maker, women you slept with in 1993, flunky."

I think these will be great for you.

Scooter Schechtman said...

The Youtube promo had a promo banner itself. Advertising has had sex with itself and created young 'uns. The punchline is in the toilet bowl.

Andy Ihnatko said...

Well, we won't know how good this sort of augmented reality interface is until someone goes ahead and builds it. It's certainly worth trying, particularly if Google can make a version of Glass that's even remotely affordable. For now, the developer edition costs $1500.

And it's possible that this kind of technology is for the upcoming generation of users. It's tough to apply existing contexts to new ideas. To a certain generation, having a smartphone in your pocket at all times means you're never technically away from the office. To me, it means that I can be "at work" in times and places of my choosing, instead of being locked to specific places and times. And I remember having to explain to my parents that the Internet is the exact opposite of "isolating"; they couldn't get around the fact that I was using a screen and a keyboard as an interface for other humans.

And now I'm the one who has to maintain an open mind on a new idea!

I suspect that Google will get Glass very wrong in its early incarnations, but then they'll adjust their aim as they keep getting feedback and it'll become something special.

The Curmudgeon said...

I have to admit -- finances being what they are, I watch a whole lot more Sox games on TV than in person. But when I've been able to go a game in person, I keep looking up in the upper left corner of my vision for the count, the score, and the number of outs. I'm always so disappointed when I realize it's not there.

404 said...

Sorry, Ken, but I disagree. I think these things, eventually, are going to be pretty revolutionary. The taking video aspect, to me, is negligible, but I think the other uses for this are going to be amazing, and once third-party developers get their hands on it, who knows what they'll be able to dream up?

Keep in mind there were many people who said similar negative things about the ipad, claiming it was a big ruckus for nothing, no one is going to want to carry it around, it's awkward, etc ... but it truly was a revolutionary device, more than I think anyone could really have predicted. I was certainly a nay-sayer back then, and I see now how short-sighted I was being at the time.

Anonymous said...

This post belongs in the same category as Harry Warner saying, "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?"...Google glass is just the first step, next it will be contact lenses, then full retinal integration. The goal is to be able to layer another reality on top of this one. Everything will be augmented and virtual.

Charles H. Bryan said...

Congratulations to Google on trademarking the word "Glass". Keep doing no evil, guys! I look forward to you data-mining my peripheral vision.

This looks like a great device for people who actually move around or have friends or cannot go three seconds without feeling connected. Much much better use of human ingenuity than finding a cure for cancer.

Louise said...

I'm the type of person who hates being filmed or even having a photo taken without my explicit consent, I'm sure there are more people out there like me. Might create a social divide between the paranoid and the narcissists.

Fully expecting more stories like this: http://blog.laptopmag.com/exclusive-cyborg-steve-mann-on-alleged-mcdonalds-assault

Robert Pierce said...

Sorry Ken, I'm going to have to disagree with you as well.

I just don't think you understand the full scope of what "augmented reality" is. By taking the trivial uses of the product and then using hyperbole to denigrate the other uses, is a strategy I'm very familiar with, seeing as how I live in D.C. and have to deal with politicians who do exactly the same thing.

You look at these glasses as a safety hazard. Now, granted, they will be a safety hazard, but so is your smart phone. By that matter, so are newspapers, books, tablets, make-up, shaving utensils, oh, and kids.

Also, I'd just like to point out that Geordie’s visor on Star Trek wasn't an Augmented Reality device but instead was a device meant to improve the quality of life for a person with a visual disability. - I may have just outed myself as a nerd, but I'm actually fine with that.

What you have failed to mention are the positive aspects of the glasses, quite understandably, because you might not understand them. I'll give you an example, the critics of the smart phone correctly stated that we all have the ability to call people, send e-mails, receive texts, go on the internet and play games on our, then, current multitude of devices. Instead, Apple and Blackberry created the smart phone, combining multiple devices into one all inclusive device. It's what changed Apple from a second rate computer maker to the world’s most valuable company in a decade. Now, Google is taking that smart phone and putting it into a different format. Instead of a handheld phone, it's a pair of glasses that only covers 1/4 of 1 eye.

The positive aspects, well, augmented reality allows you to look at anything, for example a building and tell you which companies are located in it. You can look at a person and find out their name (Great for those awkward work buddies, who's names you should know but can't ask for because it has been 3 years since you met them). You can literally get step by step visual GPS directions (great for those who are directionally impaired - like me). Say you're shopping for a car and the dealer tells you he can only go down to $15K, your glasses could show you competing dealers and their prices immediately, and thus you can push back on the spot.

As 404 stated before me, we have no idea what Third-Party Developers will do with this. From lie detection, to spotting drunk drivers on the road, to warning you of an impending car crash, to showing how many calories are in that donut your eating, to giving you weather alerts immediately, to a whole host of other things, this device could be the next step in the computer revolution.

I could be wrong though. I could be back on this site in 3 years explaining how wrong I got this one, but I hope I don't have to.

And one final note:

"Who doesn't want to look and act like Stephen Hawking or Geordie LaForge"?
\

404 said...

Charles: Imagine a surgeon wearing something like this as he performs, a device that helps augment his vision, point out problem areas, things to avoid, what to cut, noticing things the surgeon might have missed,etc..."

This device might one day help along that cure for cancer, save lives, be used for important clinical research. Who knows? But to discredit it so quickly is, imo, foolish.

You do raise a good point about privacy, though. And Google has not exactly earned a gold star in that respect.

Johnny Walker said...

I think it's a bit fascinating piece of tech, but whether it'll be the next Google Maps, or the next Google Wave/Google Buzz/Google Answers... Etc. etc. Time will tell.

I really can't decide if I think it's a good thing or not. I swear that part of me gets more Amish as I get older -- a younger me would definitely have loved this, but a part of today's me wonders, "do we really need this? Will it really improve lives?".

When I first watched that video I remember thinking, "How long until someone video blogs their entire life?" And will people love watching it when they do? Will it become the ultimate vicarious thrill?

Johnny Walker said...

You know, thinking about it, I guess this tech could improve the lives of quadriplegics. That's pretty cool. (Although maybe they already have something similar?)

Barbara C. said...

Robert, I'm going to take nerdiness a bit farther. When I first saw it I thought of Star Trek: The Next Generation, but of the episode called "The Game" (with an unknown Ashley Judd) where everyone gets addicted to a game that looks and works just like that thing to the point where it starts augmenting their brain patterns. I want to say that an enemy had sneaked that thing on the Enterprise to distract everyone so they could attack.

Rebecca said...

The one issue I've never seen mentioned is what if you already WEAR glasses? How the heck could someone like me with glasses wear these things?

Perhaps if they created a single lens version that could snap onto a current pair of glasses. Otherwise, I'm not wearing glasses on top of my glasses.

And no, I don't go to 3D movies and wear those stupid glasses. 3D movies give me headaches, which this sort of thing might do as well. It would depend on how you'd be able to focus it.

Thomas said...

The ideas in these comments are interesting in that they share one feature: they are all fantasy. No computer has much in the way of visual capabilities yet, because it's so hard to program; so you would not be able to look at a surgical operation and find out more information. It'd be a miracle if the glasses even knew it *was* a surgical operation! Perhaps building recognition would be possible, but individual face recognition/identification is a long way off - and it strikes me as deeply unethical to have a company able to follow the movements of non-consenting individuals in that way.

I think there are uses, but they are much closer to home. The businessman who wants to make calls while driving, he may buy one. The sculptor in the promo was the only one I could imagine having a good reason to buy one, if he felt that was helpful. But it will be a niche - much like iPads are a niche, no matter how revolutionary other commenters are calling them. Some people will find a use (or not) and purchase. Most people will not. And unfortunately, the issues Siri has are not going to go away for a good 5 or 10 years, if they're going away at all.

Anonymous said...

Rebecca, Dear Hubby & I neither one could use the glasses for 3D. He has a vision disorder and I would just get headaches. But when we bought our new HUGE flat screet tv, it came 3D ready & with glasses. We tried it and found both of us could see it without the headache. It wasn't great enough to just get 3D movies, but those floating lanterns in Tangled were amazing!

Pam aka SisterZip

Keith said...

Ken, there's an obvious solution to the car-crash-inducing aspect of Google's "computer on your face", and that is to buy a self-driving car, which is being made by....oh, who was it...

Mac said...

I rushed out to buy the first iPod and six months later was the owner of an expensive white slab which looked ridiculous next to the update. So I'm going to wait until they get through umpteen versions of this before they settle on one that you'd actually use. But it will, in time, be amazing. Especially for movies & games - a totally immersive experience.

David Whitham said...

The best reaction to this was LeVar Burton's tweet:

"It would be a downgrade. -Geordi La Forge"

Robert Pierce said...

Tom,

I have a visual recognition app on my phone... I also have an app that allows me to take a picture of any street corner in any major US city and it tells me where the closest public transportation is to me...

I also hate to break it to you, if you live in a major metropolitan area in the U.S., Europe or Asia, your movements are already being "followed" through CCTV and other devices.

"But it will be a niche - much like iPads are a niche, no matter how revolutionary other commenters are calling them. Some people will find a use (or not) and purchase. Most people will not. And unfortunately, the issues Siri has are not going to go away for a good 5 or 10 years, if they're going away at all."

Interesting. Not going away at all. Now that's a very big statement. Seeing as how 10 years ago, computers were bulky desktops, Laptops were, at best, 2 inches thick with 2 hours of battery time. The internet was still mainly HTML based. And touch screen technology was thought to still be in the realm of science fiction.

And before I let you stew on that, I'd like to write down some quotes that I believe are similar to what you just wrote:

"This telephone has too much shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us" - Western Union internal memo, 1876

"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." - Marshall Ferdinand Foch, Ecole Superieure de Guerre

"The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" - David Sarnoff on the radio, 1920s

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." - Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home." - Ken Olsen, president chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp, 1977

Johnny Walker said...

@Thomas, The glasses don't need to know anything. All processing of imagery will be done online -- by Google's incredible infrastructure.

Augmented reality is just around the corner... Google Glasses are going to be available at the end of this year and developers already have them.

chuckcd said...

So instead of Siri, will it have a male voice named Jordi?

Uncertain Woman said...

I think the ad works best as an encouragement to people to get off their butts and do something fun.

John said...

Unless Google plans to buy up all the lawyers in the country with their cash reserves and via stock sales, I can see their glasses being banned while driving after the first handful of lawsuits are filed over accidents linked to people keeping their eyes on their virtual Google+ page instead of on that oncoming school bus whose lane you've just drifted into.

It won't stop people from still wearing the things in vehicles, just like the no-texting-while-driving laws haven't gotten rid of that problem, but it will indemnify the states from sharing financial culpability.

Michael said...

Friday question: These days it is not uncommon for shows, mostly on NBC, to have 2.5 - 3 million viewers and remain on the air. How does this compare to shows you worked on that were cancelled like "Almost Perfect"? Related question, was the 18-49 demo rating such a big deal back than like it seems to be today?

Robert Pierce said...

Hi Ken,

Friday Question:

Where do you see the basic technology of television and the watching of television going in the next 5, 10, 20 years? I bring this up because Content Creators, i.e. CBS, NBC, etc. are losing ground to internet piracy everyday. Cracking down on internet piracy hasn't done much to this point, so shouldn't the content creators be looking for a cheaper, more accessable way for the consumer to watch their products? Why not use the Facebook business model and provide the content for free, and then target each individual for specific advertising. I mean, why would you, as a company, want to advertise to someone you know is unlikely to buy your product, when you have a list of IP addresses that fall into your potential client category?

In other words, why have Content Creators refused to get into the Big Data game?

lucifervandross said...

When I worked for GM I had the pleasure of driving a high end sports Cadillac that had a heads up display projected on to the windshield with speed, shift indicator and the like. If you used the steering wheel radio controls it displayed the radio station, the volume, etc, right in the lower part of the windshield. This is what every car should have or be modified to be able to have in my opinion, and I feel like Google Glass is just an extension of this notion.

I could see them being really handy for the future of journalism.

Diane L. said...

Omg! Never say anything about tech again. Look how you've upset the nerds! Speaking of nerds, check out Technopoly by Neil Postman - he saw a lot of this coming. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbAPtGYiRvg

McAlvie said...

Put me in the category of skeptic. I don't see the point, either. We already have smartphones that fit in the palm of your hand and allow you instant access to data. And people already find them distracting enough that they walk into traffic, get into accidents because they were texting while driving, and walk off the edge of subway platforms in front of moving trains. So I see no benefit to Geordie Visors for anyone who has the use of both hands.

Added to that, what are the long term effects on your vision? I predict ocular damage and serious attention deficit issues, not to mention the sleep deprivation that can be triggered by video screens.

Anonymous said...

McAlvie,

Hell I still don't see a point in the smart phone. I carry around a flip-phone from the early 2000's. If I want to use the internet I will use a computer. If I want to send someone a message I will use the mail or normal e-mail. I don't have time to play games so those things are useless to me. And because I can't find a use for smartphones I automatically assume that everyone else has no need for them either.

All you young people use these gadgets for are games sex and movies.

Go climb a tree you nerds.

Anonymous said...

The one positive of wearing these glasses I see, you would be eating a better diet. Wear these things into a McDonalds and you get your ass kicked by a French guy. But then you could augment your reality from your hospital bed.

Gordon K said...

Ken, take a look at the movie "Brainstorm"-- Christopher Walkin and Natalie Wood (her last movie.) As I recall, this gadget was what they were trying to invent in the movie... (Other comments may correct me.)

Gordon

Johnny Walker said...

@DianeL, Thanks for linking to that Neil Postman video. He's a very interesting guy!

Wendy M. Grossman said...

I tried out an early version of this kind of thing in 1995 at MIT's Media Lab. *I* don't like it, but I don't have a desperate need for it (and I do have a lot of floaters in my eyes, something that makes the idea of adding any more mess off-putting).

But there are many contexts in which it will be helpful - for example, equipment repair, where projecting a map of what's where onto the thing you're working on makes your job easier and keeps your hands free. Military. Training in sports, medicine, complex equipment.

I agree that safety while driving is a concern (which reminds me to ask WHAT IDIOT approved having moving video billboards by the sides of highways?). ISTM that the big mistake is trying to show the public the potential by using demos they think will appeal to consumers. But as others have said, the younger generation will view things differently. They're growing up with multiple screens on at all times - if a movie 25 years ago wanted to convey some bit of news media, it would display a single TV at the foot of someone's bed. By the 1980s, it was a wall of TVs in a news station or shop window.

wg

Dewayne Stickney said...

I can't help but think of Carl Reiner in "The Jerk" taking those glasses off and being cross eyed.

Ben K. said...

Ken, check out Alan Sepinwall's blog today -- he has a behind-the-scenes look at how the most recent episode of "New Girl" was written. I'd say it's important reading for any non-Sitcom Room alums who don't believe TV writers work hard.

Johnny Walker said...

@Wendy, you're kidding me? I'd that here or in the US??? Wherever that was clearly considers more important than life :(

@BenK, Thanks, I'll be checking that out! There's a great article on writing a Simpsons episode that is well worth taking the time to read, too. Unfortunately I can't remember where I saw it.

RMG said...

Mr. Levine, at least you admit that you are, in fact, behind the times... I love your work and respect your televisual opinions, but you're definitely off base here.

Okay, now hire me.

Mark P said...

Google is holding a sort of contest for developers to suggest applications for these glasses, and some of them are impressive. Example: while waiting for paramedics to arrive, you can treat an accident victim while a trained 911 operator watches and tells you what to do.

Mike said...

These glasses are not new. I saw them 15 years ago, and they looked stupid then. This tech will be a flop. Now if Apple had come up with it, they could charge twice as much and sell millions.

Anonymous said...

Robert Pierce said...
"Sorry Ken, I'm going to have to disagree with you as well.

I just don't think you understand the full scope of what "augmented reality" is."

Hey, Robert! Could you be any more condescending? Right now, you're glowing. I want to see if doing it more makes you spontaneously combust.

As it is, Ken sounds like At Toon trying to deal with Tom Tuttle.

That is, your head is in the clouds with abstractions, while many of us down on the ground prefer reality.

For example, if you think the epidemic of people ripping iphones out of other people's hands in New York City is bizarre, wait till a thousand dollar pair of Google glasses become popular. There's no way in hell you could relax wearing those things in urban areas.

Another example, how many people do you know who hold a cell phone up to their ears on every call? I personally know few people who do that regularly. The reason they don't is because most of them are at least somewhat aware of the fact that the World Health Organization considers RF fields to be possibly carcinogenic. Many conflicting studies have been done. I prefer to base my decisions on the study of one man who had a cell phone against his ear constantly, who developed a brain tumor – his tumor was behind his phone ear, in the shape of a cell phone.

Do YOU want to be a lab rat for Google to see if you develop cancer from an instrument that's pulsing RF fields into you 14 hours a day? If so, you'd advocate for others to do the same? Really?

I won't even delve into the obvious privacy concerns of wearing a recording device that can upload simultaneously to the cloud, aside from what it might mean to live in a society in which everyone is spying on each other without each other's consent, because they're too egocentric to consider why it might be a shitty idea.


"You're an asshole, man!"

- At Toon

Roger Owen Green said...

I'll probably never use it, though I COULD use SOMETHING to remind me who all those people are in the room; I'm terrible with names.

Helena said...

I don't even have a cellphone. And I'm pretty sure I'm happier because of it.

I agree with Ken and Louise, hands down.

Jerry Laufer said...

These are exactly what we need, because, you know, it's not enough that people can't go for 30 seconds without pawing at their iphone; now they can have it fed directly into their eyeballs. It's great that these corporations invest so much time, money and resources into developing the latest method for guys to jerk off on line, and to play Call of Duty. When our grandkids are facing a crazy climate, and food shortages, and the collapse of an oil based economy, I'm sure they'll appreciate that we dedicated so much time to developing...toys.

Robert Pierce said...

To: Anonymous,

---Before anyone says it, I'm sorry for feeding the Troll---

While I was not trying to be condescending towards Ken, I guess I will be towards you.

"For example, if you think the epidemic of people ripping IPhones out of other people's hands in New York City is bizarre, wait till a thousand dollar pair of Google glasses become popular. There's no way in hell you could relax wearing those things in urban areas."

- I don't understand how it's the iPhone's fault for being pretty enough to be stolen. I believe your issue here is with crime prevention and not that the next new technology could possibly get stolen. If I were to take your side, no one would have ever bought a walkman, let alone a car, for fear that it would be stolen. I'm also not fond of your use of the code word "urban areas", which to some of us sounds like you're just describing minorities... I would think that if the Google Glasses become popular, they'll be stolen across all demographic areas in the country...

"Do YOU want to be a lab rat for Google to see if you develop cancer from an instrument that's pulsing RF fields into you 14 hours a day? If so, you'd advocate for others to do the same? Really?"

- Living in constant fear of potentially getting cancer must really stress you out. First of all, I don't think you understand what the first incarnation of Google Glasses actually is (see what I did there, I was condescending). The First Gen Google Glasses will require a cell phone to operate. They will be connected through blue tooth and potentially another wireless signal. Thus, you won't actually be putting a "phone" next to your face all day; it would be like putting a hands-free device with a display on your face.

Another thing, I keep hearing people talk about how all their images and video will be uploaded simultaneously to the cloud. I would be absolutely astonished if that were to happen, mainly because I can't even get a 2MB web page to open on my IPhones in less than 20 seconds, how am I going to upload around 20GB of data a day? Not to mention the fact that the cell towers across the country wouldn't be able to handle the new data, let alone the price people would have to pay for those data plans.

And if you truly believe we don't already have devices that record people without their consent on a daily basis, then you are the one that isn't living in reality.

Just because this one device will see what it's human owner sees doesn't change the fact that it is still just a camera, something that is on most phones in the country now. Not to mention the CCTV cameras across major metropolitan areas, such as your "urban area" New York, which, by the way, was set up to stop crimes like the one you mentioned in your first incoherent paragraph.

Oh, and I hear wearing tin-foil around your head dissipates the RF signals, so I'd suggest going out and buying a lot of it. Sounds like you're just the type of person who'd use it.

With Absolutely No Respect & With Total Condescension,

Yours Truly,

Robert

Oh, and I don’t hide behind an anonymous posting, I actually sign my name.

Rebecca said...

I still say for those of us who already wear glasses, this is a pain in arse.

Now if they had a clip-on version for us glasses folks, that would be cool!

404 said...

Rebecca, something tells me there are enough people at Google who wear glasses that they have probably been working on a solution to that! (I know, I know . . . stereotypes and generalizations).

Robert, your response to our good friend A. Troll was much nicer than mine would have been.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Robert (Tom Tuttle)!

I wanted to let you know that just because you don't mean to be a tool, doesn't mean you're not a tool. Doesn't work that way, Tom.

When you say things like:

"I just don't think you understand the full scope of what "augmented reality" is."

after someone submits a comic rant piece, guess what? You're a tool!

Let's go back to the drawing board...

– If you try to equate the designation of an "urban area" with "where the minorities are," instead of, "city with a significantly denser population than surrounding areas," you, Mr. Tuttle, are a tool.

- A pretty Iphone is around $200. Walkmen were about the same. Google Glass will start out at $1500. I'd LOVE for you to walk around New York City wearing your beautiful new Google Glass. Make sure you're uploading everything to Ustream, so we can enjoy the inevitable slapstick.

– I don't sit around worrying about getting cancer. I worry about a device shooting RF signals on any part of my body for a long period of time. Many other intelligent people are too. Whether it uses bluetooth or not is irrelevant, since whatever device serving as the RADIO will be kicking out RF signals full blast. If you want to have a cell phone in your front pocket running full signal, be my guest. I suspect it might be because you don't have much to lose down there. But have respect for people who still need to use their penis. Or maybe you plan to keep your cell in your manpurse. Many people aren't like you, Tom.

-Your astonishment at people being able to upload to the cloud, or some other method, while recording in real time, I find... astonishing. 15 years ago, you barely had enough bandwidth to upload your grandma's GIF. As long as there's money to be made, spectrum will never be a long-term problem. Seems funny you have all these grand designs for the future of Google Glass, but when it comes to bandwidth, you're stumped.

- Regarding privacy, it's one thing to whip out a cell phone to record your friend vomiting on himself, it's another to have a ton of idiots wearing glasses, recording all the time, without the subject(s) having a clue as to whether they are or not. Google glass will take spying out of shopping malls, and into... everywhere. All the time.

I will take for granted you don't have the brain power to consider what that might eventually portend. I suggest you watch the History Channel. Watch some episodes depicting civilized behavior breaking down for one reason or another. Then ask yourself how Google Glass could be a bad thing in some of those instances-unless you're trying to kill a lot of people at once–then Google Glass rocks the house.

I can tell you confidently, Tom, the Hutu's would have LOVED Google Glass in their heyday. They could have doubled their score!

"You're still an asshole, man!"

- At Toon




404 said...

Mr. Troll

There is not now, nor has there ever been, any evidence that cell phones (or any other RF device) causes cancer. It doesn't happen. Stop reading your A-Z encyclopedia of urban legends and use a search engine once in a while. Don't believe me? Read through the literally hundreds of websites that pop up--some actually believable--that explain why. With multiple studies talked about and explained.

As far as Google Glass causing the breakdown of civilzation . . uh, what?

Donald said...

Highway accidents? Google is making driver-less cars. You sound old.

Robert Pierce said...

Alright, I'll go point by point kid.

I wanted to let you know that just because you don't mean to be a tool, doesn't mean you're not a tool. Doesn't work that way, Tom.”

- I agree, you’re proving it to me right now.


“When you say things like:

"I just don't think you understand the full scope of what "augmented reality" is."

after someone submits a comic rant piece, guess what? You're a tool!”

- Good job, I’m starting to enjoy the name calling. At least you haven’t slumped to making fun of someone’s manhood or sexuality… oh wait, I just read your second point.


“Let's go back to the drawing board...

If you try to equate the designation of an "urban area" with "where the minorities are," instead of, "city with a significantly denser population than surrounding areas," you, Mr. Tuttle, are a tool.”

- I’m not equating the designation of an “urban area” as a racist code-word, society has. And while, yes an urban area is a city with a significantly denser population than surrounding areas, when used in the context of crime or criminal acts, of which petty theft is involved, it is, more often than not, being used as a racist code word. Similar terms such as “Inner City Crime” or “At-Risk Neighborhoods” or “Urban Crime” is basically referring specifically to certain demographics. And, a realist, one with the slightest knowledge of current events or the current political climate, would have realized their mistake instead of calling the person who was trying to get you to stop using a racist code-word a tool.

Robert Pierce said...

“- A pretty Iphone is around $200. Walkmen were about the same. Google Glass will start out at $1500. I'd LOVE for you to walk around New York City wearing your beautiful new Google Glass. Make sure you're uploading everything to Ustream, so we can enjoy the inevitable slapstick.”

- So, let me get this straight, because the Google Glasses will be both expensive and flashy, and thus, a target for people who want to steal it, that is the basis for never making it? Oh yeah, that’s a valid reason, I hear that’s why they stopped making Bugati’s, Ferrari’s, Mercedes and Ford Mustangs. Oh wait, they didn’t stop making them. While, I can understand your fear that someone will video tape you without your consent, I wouldn’t ban or deny this product to the population, just as I would not deny a video camera or a smart phone to the population. Nor would I deny the thumb drive sized life logger product, a device, hung around your neck, to video tape everything you see.


“I don't sit around worrying about getting cancer. I worry about a device shooting RF signals on any part of my body for a long period of time. Many other intelligent people are too. Whether it uses bluetooth or not is irrelevant, since whatever device serving as the RADIO will be kicking out RF signals full blast. If you want to have a cell phone in your front pocket running full signal, be my guest. I suspect it might be because you don't have much to lose down there. But have respect for people who still need to use their penis. Or maybe you plan to keep your cell in your manpurse. Many people aren't like you, Tom.”

- “Many other intelligent people are too.” – Which implies you believe you are one of them. Though, not many intelligent people would have to resort to questioning the size of someone’s manhood as well as their sense of style, though your referral to the man purse was most likely an insult alluding to the fact you think I’m gay. Now, if you really wanted to use that intelligence you believe you have, you would have come back at me with a specific study, not just state there are studies “out there” by the W.H.O. In addition, if you were truly intelligent, you wouldn’t say, and I quote: “I prefer to base my decisions on the study of one man who had a cell phone against his ear constantly, who developed a brain tumor – his tumor was behind his phone ear, in the shape of a cell phone.” This, after you stated that there have been and I’ll quote again: “Many conflicting studies have been done.” And while I do share your fear that RF signals may be potentially harmful (though no scientific study has shown this to be true), I’m not going suggest that the 6 Billion cell phones in operation around the globe, be thrown away. The study you refer to reminds me of the latin quote: “Post hoc ergo propter hoc”. Now, I know, you’re probably one of those people who abhor the use of dead languages, but it translates to “After it, therefore because of it.” It means one thing follows the other, therefore it was caused by the other. It sounds right, but is almost never true. And it is not the basis for a sound scientific study. Scientific studies dealing with RF signals have to take place over the course of at least 5-10 years, with a sample group size in the hundreds to thousands, and most likely using the double blind study philosophy.

Robert Pierce said...

“-Your astonishment at people being able to upload to the cloud, or some other method, while recording in real time, I find... astonishing. 15 years ago, you barely had enough bandwidth to upload your grandma's GIF. As long as there's money to be made, spectrum will never be a long-term problem. Seems funny you have all these grand designs for the future of Google Glass, but when it comes to bandwidth, you're stumped.”

- My astonishment came from the fact that you stated: “wearing a recording device that can upload simultaneously to the cloud”. You see what you wrote? The word simultaneously was key to my response. You definitely can go home and upload your video to the cloud or other device, but what I stated was that there, currently, was not enough band width to do so. And if one were to do it, the cost of doing so would be astronomical. “Seems funny you have all these grand designs for the future of Google Glass, but when it comes to bandwidth, you're stumped.”: You previously stated you were a realist, yet somehow fail to understand the facts on the ground. Currently, it is too cost prohibitive to have video “simultaneously” upload to other devices due to a lack of bandwidth, mainly because companies like AT&T, Verizon and Sprint have used their new infrastructure funds to pay out dividends rather than invest in a new cell network. And like it or not, no matter what we can do with Google Glasses, we are still held hostage to a cell carrier marketplace that is more concerned with investor relations than customer relations. I would expect, 15 years from now, the bandwidth will be amazing; however, currently, our cell phone network cannot and will not handle 20GB uploads per day per set of Google Glasses.


“- Regarding privacy, it's one thing to whip out a cell phone to record your friend vomiting on himself, it's another to have a ton of idiots wearing glasses, recording all the time, without the subject(s) having a clue as to whether they are or not. Google glass will take spying out of shopping malls, and into... everywhere. All the time.”

- I hate to break it to you, Google Glasses aren’t the only device that records video and can do so discretely. From Life Logging devices to your average phone, you can be spied on constantly. Your problem seems to lie with the fact that Google has produced this device, a bias I am sure is shared by others in the technophobe circles. If I were you, I’d be more concerned with the fact that Privacy is not an expressly stated constitutional right but an implied right, interpreted by the Supreme Court to be inherent. Thus, the ability for the Supreme Court to change their mind and allow privacy to be trampled upon is a possibility, one of which was tested this past week when they threw out a challenge to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Robert Pierce said...

“I will take for granted you don't have the brain power to consider what that might eventually portend. I suggest you watch the History Channel. Watch some episodes depicting civilized behavior breaking down for one reason or another. Then ask yourself how Google Glass could be a bad thing in some of those instances-unless you're trying to kill a lot of people at once–then Google Glass rocks the house.”

- Once again with the name calling, you keep this up and I’m going to start to think you dislike me. Watch the History Channel? Really? I would have though you’d suggest H2 rather than just the History Channel. Which show should I watch to broaden my horizons? American Pickers? American Restoration? Ax Men? Big Rig Bounty Hunters? Pawn Stars? Swamp People? Top Gear or the Ultimate Challenge? No, I think I’ll stick to reading books, you know, the things covered in dust in your basement.

“Then ask yourself how Google Glass could be a bad thing in some of those instances-unless you're trying to kill a lot of people at once–then Google Glass rocks the house.” And now we get to the core of your argument. Advancements in technology and science are inherently dangerous and need to be stopped before they hurt someone. That’s the basis of your argument, though you forget that it has a counter-argument, stating that technology and science will improve our lives immeasurably as well. From genetically altered plants such as the Dwarf Wheat (which has turned India from a famine nation to a surplus nation), to the invention of the internet, to social media and now, augmented reality. Each one of these advancements has had drawbacks, security and privacy concerns, has allowed Tyrants to rule with an Iron Fist and given hope to millions yearning for freedom. And if you cannot see that the pro’s advancements in technology and science outweigh the con’s, then you sir, are not the person I thought you were.

I’d love to go on further, but I actually have a job and wish to get back to it.

Have a great night Tom,

Robert

Wendy M. Grossman said...

Johnny: in the US.

wg

Terry Bellows said...

Jeez, Pierce....four long winded entries in a row so you can try and hammer your point home to a troll? You're the one who is starting to sound a lot more like a troll than the poster you are obsessed with. I see you have your own blog; why not go there to rant?

Robert Pierce said...

Terry, you are absolutely right. I apologize. The guy got under my skin and I shouldn't have allowed it to happen. I'll try not to do this in the future.

Anonymous said...

Listen to me, Tuttle. I came in here to bring to light a few things:

1. Google Glass is likely not good for a number of reasons. Your claim that cell phone radiation isn't hazardous is false. The jury is still out, and in the meantime, I'd keep it away from vital parts, including the head and the crotch. I understand that those two places died on you long ago, but that doesn't mean people who still love life should be like you.
btw, here's one of many citations easily available on the internets:

http://www.sfgate.com/business/prweb/article/Cell-Phone-Radiation-Lawsuit-Update-New-Study-4030442.php

2. Your contention that video amulets, pens, and condoms already rob us of our privacy was never in dispute. The difference is with the Glasses, I don't KNOW when I'm being filmed. You could be filming me across the table, or not.
If I have a Go Pro or phone pointed at me, at least I have a general idea I'm being filmed. With a lot of people walking around with "glasses," I never KNOW. I don't like that going on all the time, which the Glass would facilitate. The answer to that, as we go forward, is for me to carry an easily obtainable transmitter to block any cell phone within a 20 foot radius of me, as I walk around town. I'll keep it in my backpack, at least a foot away from my body. There will be many like me. You want a privacy clusterfuck? You got one.

3. Your analogy of a pair of Google Glasses and a Ferrari is ridiculous, since I can't rip a Ferarri off your head and immediately sell it on ebay, or a fat German tourist at half price.

4. I believe you are a condescending bucket of unrepentant fuckery. Your unsolicited lesson in Latin sealed the deal for all the fence sitters, as well as your faux offense taken of an inferred gay slur, while advocating a device that is being heralded by it's facilitator as a replacement for swishy smart phones.

For my closer, I'm quite satisfied that not only have I made my case competently, with style and flair, but also, I suspect at least half the jury wants to kiss me. And there's nothing wrong with that, Tuttle. There's nothing wrong with that.

Tuning You Out,
At Toon

David K. M. Klaus said...

Anyone under the mis-impression that the radio frequencies or broadcast intensities of their cellphones will cause neuro-blastoma (brain cancer) only has to read the work of Professor Robert Park, Ph.D., former chairman of the Physics Department of the University of Maryland, http://www.bobpark.org .

He wrote "... the energy of microwave photons is about 1 million times too low to cause ionization. No ionization, no cancer. If the laws of physics don't work for you, I should point out that the radiation emitted by a smart [electrical power] meter adds up to about one Watt when it's transmitting, which it usually is not; that's less than a cell phone. Moreover, people don't usually hold their power meter against the side of their head for hours. However, if you choose to crouch down behind the rhododendrons and hug your power meter all day long you will still suffer no ill effects from microwaves."

( http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN11/wn020411.html )

In other words, YOUR CELLPHONE CANNOT GIVE YOU CANCER. HONEST-TO-SCIENCE PHYSICS PROVES THIS OBJECTIVELY.

Only in a fantasy universe in which a Moe Howard-wielded sledge hammer would not fatally shatter Larry Fine's skull would a cellphone give you cancer.

David K. M. Klaus said...

Geordi LaForge's VISOR (it's actually an acronym) as used on Star Trek: The Next Generation is not an augmented-reality device, it's a vision-enabling device: the character's history is that he was born blind, without the VISOR he could not see at all.

An augmented-reality device exactly like the Google Glass was depicted on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine -- instead of having a big viewscreen at the front of the bridge, Jem'Hadar warships were controlled by one individual using exactly that sort of device, who was the only person able to see outside of the ship. So, as with the

microtape cassette / 3-1/2" diskette

PADD / iPad

chest-tap communicator / hospital i.d. badge with a tap-activated voice link within the hospital

a version of Star Trek anticipated an actual electronic device -- again.

(And anybody who calls me a "nerd" because I happen to know these facts probably uses the other "n"-word, probably in front of their children as a bad example, and should be shunned in polite company as we do with other racists and anti-semites.)

Robert Pierce said...

Considering I have horrendous luck, this YouTube video of Google Glasses in operation might have just changed my opinion of them.

http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2013/03/13/google-glass-meets-st-patricks-day/

Anonymous said...

Taking video with them will be my primary interest, if they can get the cost down. No holding a camera, digging out my phone and fumbling for the record setting, etc. I do a lot of tech videos so having my hands free and not having to move a tripod will be AWESOME.

Safety? Waaaaay safer than phone/texting while driving, nobody actually stops that you know. ...dont get me wrong,I long for the day when I only had a pager, sigh.

Ill still buy one of those pocket keyboards to use with it though!

Didnt watch the video, but thrown out of mcdonalds?! The jerk would have wound up on the floor with two nice 100,000 volt burn marks in his chest and been more concerned with getting to the bathroom to wipe the poop out of his pants. You dont want to be videotaped? Stay home. I cant make the state or *resturaunts* stop videotaping me so Ill be damned if they will controll me.