Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   Legislators look up long enough from their dash-mounted GPS systems and touch-screen environmental controls to ban use of Google Glass while driving   ( ) divider line
    More: Stupid, Google Glass, Google, GPS, citizens of the United States  
•       •       •

1468 clicks; posted to Geek » on 25 Mar 2013 at 1:29 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

59 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

2013-03-25 08:47:56 PM  

Triumph: LasersHurt: According to whom?

According to just about everything I've read about them. The glasses have no memory storage capacity at all. If they are on, in order for them to function, they have to send data from the glasses back to Goggle and then Google sends data back to the glasses.

You can't just assume that, that's asinine. Since they're designed as a companion device, If/when they record video, it's probably to your smartphone/computer. I can't imagine any world where the bandwidth, storage, and everything else would align for Google to live record all of reality, and I can't imagine for the life of me WHY (it's way more sensible to only note key elements).

I mean I am not pretending that I can tell you 100% that they won't do that, but that seems like you're assuming the worst case scenario just because you don't understand the device.
2013-03-25 09:07:08 PM  

LasersHurt: If/when they record video, it's probably to your smartphone/computer.

Supposedly, the test devices they've come up with send it to "the cloud." Of course, none of this is set in stone, yet. Google is already under a 20-year consent decree with the FTC because of its previous privacy violations, so they really need to be careful with these things or they could wind up in very hot water. What they're testing and what they're willing to release are probably two very different things.
2013-03-26 02:01:58 AM  
Shouldn't this headline started with "Having solved all other problems,".  It's maddening all the petty B.S. they worry about instead of jobs, budget, gas prices, recession... but then all of that is old news and they're probably sick to death of going over all that again and again I'm sure.
2013-03-26 02:03:02 AM  
** shouldnt it HAVE started with... ftfm
2013-03-26 07:35:42 AM  

LasersHurt: I am flabbergasted at the backlash against Google Glass, particularly since it doesn't farking exist yet. It's absolutely amazing.

I mean the Bar that banned them was more of a publicity stunt than anything else, but sheesh.

Why are you so amazed?  There are many great reasons to be very, very wary of this product, and anything else like it.

"The key experiential question of Google Glass isn't what it's like to wear them, it's what it's like to be around someone else who's wearing them. I'll give an easy example. Your one-on-one conversation with someone wearing Google Glass is likely to be annoying, because you'll suspect that you don't have their undivided attention. And you can't comfortably ask them to take the glasses off (especially when, inevitably, the device is integrated into prescription lenses). Finally - here's where the problems really start - you don't know if they're taking a video of you."

I'm a huge tech geek, have been into personal computers since the late 1970s and have a huge love of gadgets of all stripes.  This is one gadget that has me truly concerned for humanity, from basic social graces (if you think some cell phones users and texters behave like asshats, especially while you're trying to interact with them, wait until they have something strapped to their face) to unprecedented privacy concerns.  So don't be amazed - be prepared for this to become a HUGE issue once this product is released, especially if it takes off and other products like it are released.  The more popular they are, the bigger the issue will be.

Personally, I hope it goes over like a lead balloon.
2013-03-26 07:49:57 AM  

karmachameleon: Personally, I hope it goes over like a lead balloon.

Here's the thing - fear of privacy is NOT a great reason to pre-emptively shiat on Glass. Anyone can already take your picture. Everyone has cameras that are easy to sneakily use. Furthermore, if they have a real camera with a long lense, they can get your picture from a distance. Hell, the government can look at everyone in a city at once from 30,000 feet.

People already take pictures of strangers. They put them online. They are dicks, but it happens.

It doesn't get easier with Glass. You can't take a picture in total silence with no interaction with the device (how would it know to?)

Beyond that, arguments tend to devolve into "I don't want to see people wearing a thing," which, well, go fark yourself? Kind of?

/Editor's Note - if I had Glass, I'd take it off in restaurants, in peoples' houses, etc, for the same reason I don't stare at my phone. It's a little rude and unnecessary to have 100% connectivity in social situations. I just don't think anyone has a right to demand other people not use them because it makes them uncomfortable.
2013-03-26 07:53:07 AM  

karmachameleon: Personally, I hope it goes over like a lead balloon.

This seems unlikely; among other things, the idea of a HUD is too omnipresent in sci fi and video games (and to a lesser extent, sci fi movies).  Futurists will perpetually dream of an augmented reality (both in the sense of Augmented Reality e.g. overlays, and the more generic sense of an extended sense of the world).  Overlaying visual information is the easiest way to augment our perception of the world.  Overlaying audio is problematic because it is too difficult to follow multiple audio streams; overlaying smell is currently functionally impossible; overlaying haptics is actually in progress but limited in data content.  Even if Glass bombs, you'll see competitors.

What is likely is that people will feel weird about someone having a camera aimed at them all the time, and initially people will take them off while they eat a meal, etc.  However, while absence makes the heart grow fonder it's clear that presence makes the mind grow duller.  We simply begin to ignore everything. When cellphones were new, it was the height of insult to look at one while talking to someone.  Now, even in polite conversation, it's usually okay to at least check it occasionally.  It's more polite not to check it, but politeness evolves; when was the last time you saw someone literally tip their hat at a woman?

Whether it's Glass or a successor, you'll see these displays become invisible.  Once they're invisible, they'll simply be.  I think the threshold is when Google implements their already-patented idea of projecting it directly on your retina.  With no visible 'display' object (like the prism is now), it will be even easier to forgot the person across from you has it on.

The work benefits are tremendous, too; I'm a prosecutor and handle several dozen files each day I'm in court.  I look forward to slapping a QR code (or some other identifier) onto each of my files, knowing that when I look at it my system (Glass or otherwise) will automatically pull up my electronic notes, monitor to record audio notes, etc.  Most jobs <i>could</i> be benefited by such stuff.
2013-03-26 08:58:11 AM  

karmachameleon: Why are you so amazed?  There are many great reasons to be very, very wary of this product, and anything else like it.

That seems to be a lot of paranoid guess work and very little substance. His fear is that The Great Googly Moogly will be recording and cross referencing everything you say, and putting transcripts online for future searches.

I hope Google Glasses has a light that indicates when it's recording. If I get a paid i'd also take them off when not using them, but I don't want some knuckle dragging trogolodyte who can barely form a basic sentence attacking me because he thinks i'm recording him.

How can Google possbly expect you to constantly upload video? No one would go for it, the data costs would be astronomical. IF, however, they do do that, and maybe cover the costs themselves, then that is a legitimate concern. Nothing else is, but it's an IF. I can't see Google being stupid enough to go for that.
2013-03-26 02:33:44 PM  
Aren`t google the ones with the best autocar anyway? this isn`t going to be news by the time it could be news...
Displayed 9 of 59 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.