f13.net

No, really: Project Glass (https://plus.google.com/111626127367496192147/posts)



Project Glass: One day...  (http://youtu.be/9c6W4CCU9M4?hd=1)

X-ray vision!

But seriously... this whole idea is  :uhrr:

Honestly, I'm surprised we don't have something like this already. I guess miniaturization of the needed parts has allowed this to even be considered now.

Remind me not to be a missing or exploited child or a fugitive in five to ten years.

The flip side (http://youtu.be/t3TAOYXT840)

You know what I would like to see? A product that isn't a half-assed version of something that already exists; and actual privacy protection.

I'm so tired of google's bullshit schtick.

Only criminals and sneaks need to worry about privacy.  Why are you so nervous? You're a good person aren't you? What do you have to hide?   :awesome_for_real:

It'll be just like cell phones in 20 years.  You're the weirdo for not having it, despite the litany of concerns/ complaints.   I'll remain the weirdo, thanks.

I don't know... The whole bluetooth ear piece thing didn't really stick around for very long. I can see this going that route... since it is Google.

Even if this doesn't stick (and, as you say it's Google so it's likely it won't) something similar will eventually.  Someone will come up with the one that will explode and turn into the RFID/ Chip Implant/ whatever.   

I was mocking people with my statement, but I brought this very idea up at work and that was the response I got from those only a few years younger than me.  "This is cool, and only criminals care if anyone has your info.  You're just a paranoid techophobe. It makes life so much easier."   Further discussion will just push this to politics, tho.

So yeah, cool tech but count me out.

Preach on brother.

+1

/irony

Wut?

There's another product out there like this, and better, sky?

To spare the thread from its length...

:uhrr:

Get out of my way when I don't?  Anything that is popping a fucking incoming mail icon in my vision is in my way.  I don't even like to have my phone on anything but silent because I don't want to be bothered by phone calls.

Also, putting me back in the moment?  Could anything possible distract your attention from the moment more than this technology?

Still, I do expect this stuff will become normal eventually.

I'm sure this idea would make driving much safer.

I could seriously see this kinda thing in contact lenses at some point.
Oh and throw me into the "Only criminals and sneaks need to worry about privacy."
I have a friend that is paranoid when an app on his phone wants gps access. I really cant be bothered to give a shit about stuff like that.

That does not mean no one uses them anymore.

And I am sure there are 1 or 2 people left on Buzz. And I am just poking at it because the marketing behind bluetooth earpieces made it out to be the next WILL HAVE - make driving safer! OMG no moar radiowave cancerof the head! No wires!!

Meh...Engels link forgot to include being in the car and watching all the advertisements pop up every few seconds... but hey, by then, google will drive your car for you right?  :oh_i_see:

I'd like this sort of thing if it wasn't for the inevitable advertising that will come with it. Looking at that nice cup of coffee in your hand? Bam! Spammed with ads for more coffee, coffee filters, coffee mugs, and coffee pot makers over the next 10 minutes until you see a female walking by. Then you get spammed by So-and-So wants to chat! So-and-So2 wants to chat! Find singles! etc etc, which is then giving mixed signals when you see a guy walking by.....and so forth :why_so_serious:

I see shitloads of Bluetooth earpieces around.

Uh, yeah, I think the bluetooth thing is going stronger than ever before currently.  Its everywhere I look when ever I'm, well, anywhere.

Privacy is an illusion with or without computer goggles.  Let's not kid ourselves.  Given the option for on demand porn, the human condition is such that on demand porn will become reality.  Personally, that notion neither scares nor surprises me.  T'was the law of the sea, so to speak.

On demand porn isn't a reality right now?

As more locations adopt distracted driving laws, bluetooth headsets will continue to be sold. I have one . . . somewhere. I really need to find it and its charger. The iPhone earbud headset sucks because the buds don't stay in my damn ears. Chicago has a handsfree while driving ordinance, so it blows when I am in the city on business and driving.

Or, "so to spank."

Yeah but many cars have bluetooth speaker set ups already installed from the factory.

I guess in my part of the country, walking around with a bluetooth ear piece is still seen as dumb.

Disclaimer: I don't work on this and am pretty highly skeptical of gargoyle type gear going mainstream any time soon (but this certainly seems more likely than the MIT Wearable Computing type stuff...)

I'm a bit puzzled on the privacy front -- the implications are not much different from those of modern smartphones.

I also find "Even if this doesn't stick (and, as you say it's Google so it's likely it won't)" kinda amusing -- sure not everything Google launches goes big, but mobile hardware... 850K new android devices activating daily doesn't sound like the total and utter failure everyone's been predicting since the platform was announced in 2007...

That said, I hope they build a model for people who wear glasses, because the one they're showing off doesn't look like it'll be useful for me unless I want to get contacts...

Last I heard there was a lot of pressure to ban cell phone use while driving period (even with hands free) in Illinois.

My new car has built in bluetooth. Now I have no use for my jackass headset except when I am walking places!

Edit: Bashing google is too easy, eh.

China, "do no evil", Google Plus, privacy. Done.

Oh you mean those devices that happily gather and compile a profile of you that's kept in the hands of the completely trustworthy corporate entity who has no reason to profit off of it?  Yeah, I don't have one of those, either.   :awesome_for_real:

Far be it from me to interfere with perfectly good tin-foil hattery with facts, but just in case someone's actually curious -- one can opt to not use a Google account with an Android device and sync nothing with Google services, install alternate apps for email, etc, and so on.  Location and backup services are further, individually, opt-outable (during or any time after setup) even if one does use other Google services.

My point was simply that the fundamental privacy issues around a connected device worn as glasses vs carried in your pocket are not significantly different (at least for the user), and that it surprised me that wearable computing should get such a strong "omg privacy" reaction.  (my primary reaction remains "aren't bluetooth headsets dorky enough?")

The blogosphere wants updates from cool people.  Nerds and poindexters need not apply.

Opt-out != opt-in.

Yeah, i was thinking the same thing. I don't really see the current mock up working well with prescription glasses.


Oh oh oh! Maybe they will make a clip on version!  :why_so_serious:

There are strides in having LED basically printed onto normal glass so eventually you could have just normal looking eyeglasses with all sorts of built in features like this. I think down the road this kind of AR(augmented reality) stuff is probably the way things are going to go. If you can get normal looking eyeglasses basically acting like high rez LED monitors your screen is now literally the world around you.

Glad to see some of the big companies are starting the ball rolling on this tech.

So they are Google Goggles?

That wouldn't work though since you'd have to focus on the lenses of the spectacles to read the LED display. I'm not sure how these are supposed to work but in, for example, a HUD in a plane you have a projector and a mirror or lens so that the display is actually projected at infinite focus distance so you don't need to refocus your eyes away from the normal view to read it.

The thing that struck me when watching the video was that it all seemed to be voice activated. I can't imagine how annoying it would be to have loads of nerds walking around talking to their Google Goggles. I'd estimate <1 month after launch before some hipstnerd was killed by having them forcible inserted somewhere they weren't meant to go.

Having played with the Xbox voice stuff a bit, I'm going to state that all voice-commanded stuff is complete shit.

I concur.

(http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/i-wDXQbxt/0/L/i-wDXQbxt-XL.jpg)

Yeah.

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/33271127/nuclear_wessels.jpg) 

 :why_so_serious:

Garrus is clearly using an nth generation version of Google-Goggle though.

Let's be honest. 

When Augmented Reality capabilities were unveiled in iPhone everyone was ooooohing and thinking it's the future, yet how often does anyone here use it?   That, combined with the fact that voice and non-voice systems that try to bring up information based on non-textual contexts are usually annoying as hell (bringing up the wrong information, spamming with too much, etc..) this gets a big yawn from me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMS2VnDveP8

My cynical nature first wondered "bet the battery lasts all of 2 hours..."

Freedom!!!

Total agreement.  The way this is presented in the Android setup flow is while setting up your account, you're asked if you want to x/y/z and there are boxes you can uncheck. 

I personally would prefer that the boxes be unchecked to start with (but I'm just an engineer, what do I know... those UX people never listen to me) but I'm at least happy that you can uncheck them before going to the next step which results in those features never being enabled.

Please.

Here are the actual facts:

1. You can opt-out on an account level but not on a geographic / IP / other identifying feature level. Google tracks data based on "unique device identifiers" and your phone number ffs, which are in turn linked to your account, so the fact that you can opt-out of account-based tracking is completely irrelevant.
2. It's a pain to opt-out (by design)
3. Not all Google services allow you to opt out or erase history
4. Even when you do choose to opt-out google "accidentally" records information anyway.
5. Google will share your personal information with other companies, regardless of any legal requirement or lack thereof to do so.

This is not "tinfoil hat" stuff. You cannot opt-out of Google tracking, you cannot opt out of google sharing your personal info at their discretion.

That might just be the issue.

See the issues with the Girls Around Me (http://www.cultofmac.com/157641/this-creepy-app-isnt-just-stalking-women-without-their-knowledge-its-a-wake-up-call-about-facebook-privacy/) app that covers a lot of ground about how social network information can be used. It's been pointed out that sure, you can just adjust the privacy settings, but companies like Facebook keep fiddling with such things to ensure it's a difficult process to complete effectively.

As for the Google project: let's see the version in commercial production, not something the lab boys whipped up for a PR event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Mirror_(TV_series)#3._.22The_Entire_History_of_You.22

The Glass folks have finally posted some more up to date video showing UI features (a first since the original "concept video", I think), as well as expanding their Explorer program (still pretty pricey at $1500), etc: http://www.google.com/glass/start/

www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1uyQZNg2vE

$1500 is indeed way too much atm.

Yeah, I think the most interesting thing here is that they're finally showing off some UI, not just pictures of the device or people wearing it.  Unlike that early proof-of-concept video, they show the overlay where it actually appears in your field of vision (upper right corner) -- probably a disappointment for people wanting fully-immersive-AR, but perhaps a relief to others.

I wish I could use this stuff, but I have a feeling you need binocular vision for it to be relatively safe and I'm profoundly blind in one eye.

I'm still unconvinced that voice recognition is the way to go on this.

The best way would be a watch like accessory with localized 3D sensing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d6KuiuteIA&feature=youtu.be) so you can continue to use hand gestures.

Still - the future is now!

Voice is most certainly NOT the way to go with this. 

Thanks to VoodooLilly I know what IS the answer, though.  Skin-surface pickups and transmitters.

http://io9.com/5985558/temporary-tattoos-could-make-electronic-telepathy-and-telekinesis-possible

HAHA blue tooth headsets. Around here the only difference between insane people muttering to themselves and business people is an ear piece.

I've got a Leap SDK coming in the mail hopefully soon.  I have big, big plans for the thing one of which is AR stuff.  The problem with these localized devices though (which are typically using tiny mag. fields) is that they need a stable surface to calibrate to.  Their entry-level software isnt designed for dynamic calibration.   Leap may have improved on this though, but we'll see.

Voice recog. does indeed suck, but I'm sure other inputs are allowed.  I could whip up a small 3d mouse ala ss-gyro that'd do the job nicely... I mean really, we're only talking about 2-axes of control here.  

That would be pretty cool for making instructional videos for painting minis!

I could make a good case, but it would also be $1480 short.

I'd be surprised (and disappointed) if they went voice-only control.  It certainly has its uses in some situations, but it's definitely not the primary interface I want with my computing devices...

I'm just wondering if there's any thought about folks that already wear glasses. If they could make google glass in prescription lenses that'd rule. Otherwise, they're cutting out a lot of market share with the nerds.

They've stated that future designs will support that, and they definitely get a lot of that feedback both internally and externally.  I'm wondering if it might be possible sooner rather than later now that they're showing pictures of variants  with integrated sunglasses.

I'd be interested in giving the product a look, but definitely don't want to wear contacts to do so...

The prescription lens thing would be one thing I'd want before I bought a pair of these -- I don't wear glasses now, but if I did I'd want them to fix my mildly defective eyeballs in addition to giving me a HUD.

Better UI would also be a requirement, as would making them not look like cyborg nerd fetish wear.


I expect in ten years when they've had more time to shrink the various components and come up with new UI solutions it'll be awesome.

hell if people like them I would not even say 10 years probably like 5 years and they will be small enough to look just like normal eye glasses.

Yeah, if this is successful (and the cyberpunk/futuristic me REALLY hopes this is going to be successful), I guess we'll see a lot of adjustments. If you think about it, a lot of tech devices started off bulky (or with oversized components here and there), only to shrink and adapt in subsequent iterations.

I always asked for this  :grin:

While that is cool, I cannot for the life of me seeing it take over from a mouse for desk-work. If nothing else, I can't see how your arm wouldn't be knackered after a couple of minutes of precision waving. Seems more like a toy than a solution.

Considering how well the wave-hand-to-get-paper-towel machine works in public restrooms, I'm completely unexcited about a 3D-sensing watch.

Think of all the new pov porn!

Holy hell those things are awful. The ATL airport ones are the absolute worst.

How about a cheap-er version?

http://www.ted.com/talks/pranav_mistry_the_thrilling_potential_of_sixthsense_technology.html

(Looks like it did go open source as mentioned in the video: http://code.google.com/p/sixthsense/)

I'm looking forward to a new career as a decker.

Google Glass now entered what they call an "open beta". Glass are now available to everyone ('til the product is out of stock) as long as they're over 18 U.S. residents:

https://plus.google.com/+GoogleGlass/posts/QLD88fE7qmE

https://www.google.com/glass/start/how-to-get-one/

Oh yeah, the price: $1500

Pay to "win"!!!  :grin:

I actually like the concept.  $1500 is too steep; I'm in the ~$200 camp.  It also needs to be thinner.

I find the gnashing of teeth over this thing interesting, especially the 'glasshole' term.  Some iteration of wearable computing will be the norm in 10 years and having it right at eye level with no hands needed seems like the right way to do it.  Current cell phones do more, yet people are scared to shit over this thing invading privacy. 

People are funny animals.

Yeah, Glass is way too high-ticket, but there are some others coming out in the $250-500 range that look very good (some of which are better integrated with frames for prescription lenses for us Luddites that don't want our corneas blasted with lasers).  A lot of the 'glasshole' stuff stems from the way Google has promoted this, almost specifically looking for people who would be as insufferable as possible about having them.

People are vaguely uncomfortable with the reality that they are on-camera nearly all the time while out of their homes (or in them, f they have XBox), and this is a comparatively safe way to push back against the inevitable.

--Dave

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/14/google-glass-price_n_5322986.html

Yeah... I'll wait.  :oh_i_see:

It's more obvious when someone with a smart phone is filming you.

Also the screen nature of the thing DOES provide a psychological barrier where people delve in to much more narcissistic modes. You're not insulting a water, you're watching a TV show where you're the clever hero.  You have the blog & video diaries to prove it. Those are the glassholes and each one documented has deserved the term.

People aren't socially caught up to smartphones and just using those they can lock themselves away into a fantasy world of echo chambers and personal hero fantasy.  It's only going to get more difficult from here.

I suspect I'd use it differently than it's intended for.  Personally, I'd use it to leverage information around me.  Where are things?  What is that?  Access information.  References.

Things I don't care to do:  Blog or take videos, except maybe something about my kid being cute.  I don't want to share it with the world, though.  I have no desire to use it 'socially'.  Rather, I want a wearable computer to interact with my surroundings more efficiently. 

This. I want a HUD with more info IRL. The price still has a ways to come down too, and I need to be able to get them in prescription.

I approve of the new term "glasshole" mostly because it sounds great.

It's an officially sanctioned term too (scroll to bottom):

https://sites.google.com/site/glasscomms/glass-explorers

Same here, I would use it exclusively as a HUD for any info about my surroundings (sightseeing, POIs, fiancée enemy location, ammo left, etc.). Not interested about videos or social sharing.

Unfortunately, I've heard it's pretty worthless for augmented reality purposes so far.

The battery life needs to be much, much, much longer before this is anything but a conversation-starting toy.

FIFY

The main purpose of Glass is to make it easy to quickly identify douches.

For now.  Eventually this is what happens:
(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view1/1676477/terminator-o.gif)

Like I said in another message on this topic: "I always asked for this"  :grin:

Aside: Duff is/was a pretty cool guy. Sponsored my little league baseball team for one or two years

The display technology is not at all optimal for AR -- you get a reasonably sharp display in the upper right of your field of vision in your right eye -- you sort of have to glance up and to the right to read it. (Thus, for anyone who's worried that they'll never know if a Glass user is not paying attention to them, no fear, it's quite obvious both from the loss of eye contact and from the fact that you can see the display light up through the backside of the optics assembly).

In addition to sufficient battery life for more serious "always on" use, I think you'd want display technology that can drop annotations anywhere in your field of view for "true" AR applications.

It'd also need to track your eye movements in order to overlay information onto what you were actually seeing.  Or be directly in/on the eye (i.e. contact lens or some kind of implant).  We're still a little ways off from Rainbows End.

How are we on the Jarvis Hud ?

:nda:

I'm still really skeptical of gesture-in-the-air interfaces -- lack of useful tactile feedback is really limiting.

Yeah. Something like a sign language interpreter is far more likely than magical menus that you can use your hands on without being some kind of master mime, and at that point, how much convenience are you actually gaining?

The funny thing is that people want to make air keyboards but forget that interfaces drive design.  Please see Console v PC.

But.. but... but it's so cool in all the sci-fi movies!  :why_so_serious:

I'm just happy to see there's people 'round my way of thinking about them.  Last few times its come up I recall more were defensive of the idea.  I still think we'll find a more intuitive interface than keyboard and mouse, but it's not hovering or laser keyboards.

Glasshole is a glasshole (http://valleywag.gawker.com/glassholes-use-google-to-destroy-a-restaurants-rating-1580779355)

I have no problem that one person had a negative experience and left a poor review of her experience.  For her, she had a terrible experience at the restaurant and it is only fair that she let others know of her experience.

The problem is that Google's ratings system doesn't consider that most reviewers didn't actually eat there.  That's a faulty review system and it invalidates Google's ratings to decide on restaurants. 

Quality ratings systems require content moderation.  Also, any article with the term 'glasshole' in the title is clickbait.

Why is someone politely asking you to remove Google Glass because it makes other customers uneasy a "terrible experience"?

Just remove the glasses you entitled fuck.

She didn't have a terrible experience. She didn't have any experience. She threw a tantrum and left before experiencing anything because she refused to stop making patrons uncomfortable. This is like giving a movie theater a bad review because they asked you to not text during the movie.

At least her review is her own, misguided opinion. Getting her glasshole friends to also give negative reviews is just a dick move.

Did any of you actually read the article? I'd paste the exact text of the girls post, but they didn't transcribe it - almost as if they new it was such a non-thing they didn't want me to be able to cut and paste it.

Seriously, she made a post that stated she was asked to remove them because other customers expressed privacy concerns in the past, so she left. Then she stated that that has never happened to her before. Nothing more, no mighty call to arms, or angry rant, no comment on the restaurant at all. Yes, its pathetic that her followers then 1 starred a place they never ate at, but trying to say this blogger "incited" that reaction is a bit much.

Her actual review says "Got denied service a Sunday afternoon for wearing Google Glass."  Based on the article, she wasn't actually denied anything, just asked to take the glasses off.  I get the feeling that she probably could have refused to take the Glass off and that would have been the end of it, rather than walking out.

And yet the restaurant itself has cameras mounted on the wall.

And really this just calls into question the ratings system for restaurants, not the establishment itself. I never rely on yelp or any of those things because trolls are everywhere and can knock down ratings on a whim. Kinda like the reviews on shopping sites. They can be helpful, but not reliable.