Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Hardware

Sergey Brin Shows Project Glass Glasses to Journalists (Video) 117

Posted by Roblimo
from the goo-goo-googly-eyes dept.
Not too many years ago, people who carried on conversations with folks the rest of us couldn't hear were considered demented (or drunk). Then came the cellular phone headset, which meant normal people could walk along, carrying on conversations with people we couldn't hear, although many researchers came to believe that a large percentage of so-called "normal" cell phone users were also demented (or drunk). Now Google's Project Glass means people can walk along, seeing things no one else can -- and carrying on conversations with them. Are Google's Project Glass users demented? Are they drunk? Or are they looking at heads-up displays mounted on glasses frames or attached to prescription glasses? Inquiring Slashdot editor Timothy Lord wanted to know, so he joined a Glass demonstration hosted by Google co-founder Sergey Brin (whose company is not related to Barney Google, as far as we know) to find out for himself -- and to share his findings with you.


Note: Slashdot now accepts reader-submitted videos. Email tlord at geek dot net for more info.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sergey Brin Shows Project Glass Glasses to Journalists (Video)

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 29, 2012 @08:06AM (#40492231)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3azbb3f69A0&list=UUiWJgml6SpZBgNY6n-TZQew&index=1&feature=plcp

    • by scubamage (727538) on Friday June 29, 2012 @10:55AM (#40494069)
      It would be nice to see what the glasses actually show people. Seeing a lot of video showing things from a headcam isn't super exciting. I know it's an alpha product right now, but what we're seeing as "glasses in action" is nothing that my buddy's 10$ groupon headcam can't do already - and apparently at higher framerates and resolution. In the demo we see people saying that they see notifications around the room, but you get no sense of that at all.
  • Best use (Score:3, Funny)

    by seyfarth (323827) on Friday June 29, 2012 @08:08AM (#40492247) Homepage

    Now people can drive while watching porn...

  • by Anonymous Coward

    It's going to be like the Segway crowd. A bunch of demented, Aspergers, singularity freaks who think technology has all the answers and who have tunnel vision into their dream future while conveniently ignoring all the troubles of the world which their "cool tech" does nothing to help.

    This will not become mainstream.

    • by bmo (77928) on Friday June 29, 2012 @08:20AM (#40492319)

      No, you could never have technical documentation show up in front of you, hands free, while you're working on something like a car, machine, or plane or anything else. no, it would never happen. A soldier, police officer, fireman could never have a lightweight video feed coming from the drone overhead, either. No, never happen.

      --
      BMO

      • by justforgetme (1814588) on Friday June 29, 2012 @09:14AM (#40492817) Homepage

        Well, having had experience with this sort of worn hud in the past I think you are right, it won't happen.
        In my experience anything that needs you to actually focus on the details of the displayed images is
        impossible since your left eye (and brain) go crazy.

        I have heard that they have consulting optics experts so I guess they could have actually cracked it
        but afaik to be able to do real work with computer augmented vision you need a real hud, not a small
        blotch on the far right top side of your right eye's vision.

        • by bmo (77928) on Friday June 29, 2012 @09:31AM (#40492977)

          In my experience when something is merely a technological hump to get over (and not depending on a breakthrough in physics), the person saying "it can't be done" is invariably wrong.

          --
          BMO

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          This problem isn't actually HARD to solve, it's just EXPENSIVE (so far.) With a camera per eye and per-eye tracking you can figure out where someone is actually looking and overlay graphics intelligently. Without eye tracking it's just impossible. Some have suggested that Google is projecting directly into the eye; if so, they already have eye tracking.

          • Hmm...

            AFAIK no. There is only one camera on the headset and that sees what you see (with a bit of parallax).
            The premise is sound though, with eye tracking and projection on both eyes you would be golden. The
            Google headset though is far away from that thing since it possesses neither eye tracking nor stereo
            projection.

      • No, you could never have technical documentation show up in front of you, hands free, while you're working on something like a car

        I'm embarrassed to admit this had not crossed my mind. As someone who builds cars as a hobby (particularly electrical work on cars) that concept would be absolutely fantastic, and a relatively simple implementation considering the point they're at with the technology now.

      • by MickLinux (579158)

        Maybe the soldier is looking up documentation, or maybe he's playing network Quake.

        You'll know just as soon as he picks up -- either that pen, or a grenade.

      • by Huge_UID (1089143)
        Video feed from my drone... My next paintball weekend will be awesome!
    • by negativeduck (2510256) on Friday June 29, 2012 @08:21AM (#40492323)

      I disagree, I think that there is potential for things like this and we really are starting to glance the surface of what can be done when information can be readily snapped to the user without them even asking about it. In BioMed alone this form of technology can bring alot to the table. You wear a pair of //safety// glasses. as you enter a room the camera see's room number or a bar-code and snaps to your display the information on that patient without even looking. Even simple things like names or allergic reactions.

      In Construction if you have a 3d blueprint you walk through the skeleton of a site and you see the plumbing that isn't yet installed on the display and an realize that 3 days earlier a cross member was installed in the wrong place. You can correct it now or advise the plumber in advance of a change keeping the project on track.

      Likewise though, if you start out small then //larger// implementations become even simpler using the same technology they can easily expand to other fields having already licked the miniaturization.

      hell map a large datacenter and "I need to find server XYZ, follow the yellow line!"

      DIY kiddies, call a central company I'm installing X. They bring up your video feed and can football style draw circles lines and point to the part and help you through whatever has gotcha buggered.

      • by Nethead (1563)

        Greg Bear, in his book Quantico, has FBI agents examining a crime scene with 'glasses' days later that was recorded in 3Dish detail before it was cleaned up.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        For me the killer app would be for IKEA. Think of how annoying it is to build furniture. But, using augmented reality and 3d barcodes, when you looked at each part, you could see exactly where it goes. With 3d barcodes on each bag of screws, it could quickly tell you where each screw is.

        Also, it would be very useful with something like Pepakura Designer, which converts 3D models to 2D ones that can be printed on paper. People build full costumes with this like and iron man costume. http://www.therpf.co

    • by gmuslera (3436)
      At $1500 i really doubt that it gets mainstream. At $200 or less, this, or some evolution of it (or some other product from other company with a similar idea), with more functionality that it have now, will have a good chance to be the future. Most tech people that laughed at the whole ipad idea when was presented, and like it or not seem to be popular (even if don't help to solve the troubles of the world)
      • by durrr (1316311)

        It's a first generation prototype for a limited audience that's $1500 so it can have all the bells and whistles, think of it as a buying a beta key for a game, only that this time it's hardware, and it's really damn expensive. Force the price down to $200 and it will be like the Vuzix "vr glasses" that's absolute shit tier because they valued an attractive pricepoint more than a plesant user experience.

      • by Zerth (26112)

        1500 is the "we want you to be sure you are serious" price for IO devs.

        Going by other wearable displays which start at $200 for just dumb screens, that is probably a starting point for just the display. Even though it has only a single display instead of one for each eye, it also has a 2 axis(at least) gyro and camera. Add in the computing device that is presumably in that white box, and it'd be priced more like an unlocked Android phone.

    • by jellomizer (103300) on Friday June 29, 2012 @08:45AM (#40492509)

      I personally don't prescribe to the Gene Roddenberry future where technology will solve all our problems and make us good and happy people. Every technology you use has a trade-off. Now the trick is to determine if the trade-off is worth it.

      When we went from horses to automobiles, it was haled as an environmental achievement. Horses make a big mess on the streets, that needs to be clean and can cause the spread of diseases to people. Automobiles also let people go longer distances, and faster. However there was a trade-off. With Automobiles we needed a smoother road infrastructure, that cost tax payers a lot of money. With less daily maintenance and newer cheaper cars more people have cars creating traffic concerns, and more people driving create a higher air pollution rate. Now if we all had cars and used them the same way people used horses last century, the earth will be a cleaner place. However we got trade-offs, faster speed, more efficiency = more use.
      If we make a more efficient engine, that means people will buy bigger cars they will keep their consumption about the same, they will just get a bigger car... Unless gas costs are too high then they get smaller.

      We have created a new computer infrastructure, at a trade-off.
      1. We allow people to work from anywhere in the world... That means we can hire people cheap in other countries.
      2. Computers automate a lot of repetitive tasks... That means a lot of good entry level positions that teach college grads the ropes of business are now gone.
      3. We now have access to more information... So each person is expected to do more... Harder work.

      We really can't hold technology back for the sake that it offers tradeoffs. however we need to think of new ways to adjust to these chances.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        1. We allow people to work from anywhere in the world... That means we can hire people cheap in other countries.

        And you can travel to those countries to keep earning your current wage (or slightly lower) and live there like a rich person.

        2. Computers automate a lot of repetitive tasks... That means a lot of good entry level positions that teach college grads the ropes of business are now gone.

        I fail to see what's wrong in not having to do boring tedious stuff and be able to move to more intellectually cha

        • by Anonymous Coward

          "3. We now have access to more information... So each person is expected to do more... Harder work.

          Yep, I don't see any correlation between A and B..."

          "I fail to see what's wrong in not having to do boring tedious stuff and be able to move to more intellectually challenging and stimulating jobs"

          I think you answered your own question before you even asked it. The problem is that instead of having people do the boring, tedious stuff, we're putting computers and robots on it. That means fewer jobs. And whil

      • by Robotbeat (461248)

        The problem hasn't come so much from technology itself, but the fact that the middle class (in America, at least) has been convinced that they shouldn't band together and fight for their interests. This is why you have productivity increasing, the general economy growing, but wages stagnant as working hours remain the same or increase.

        The idea with technology is that we can lower the amount of hours we need to work while having better incomes. Across the board. The only way this can realistically happen is

      • by cduffy (652)

        However there was a trade-off. With Automobiles we needed a smoother road infrastructure, that cost tax payers a lot of money.

        One point of correction -- the move towards higher standards for road construction was actually started in the 1890s by the Good Roads Movement, a project of the League of American Wheelmen -- the organization which still exists today as the League of American Bicyclists. It was this that resulted in the Office of Road Inquiry (federally funding research into road construction), whic

    • by acid06 (917409)

      You know, somehow, I have a feeling the parent comment should be remembered for posterity. :)
      iPod launch jokes, anyone?

    • by virtigex (323685)
      Slashdot readers, in other words.
    • right so you are not supposed to keep your cellphone close to your head for too long but you get to wear glasses. What are the numbers on wear and tear on the eyes and connected muscles and nerves, i can imagine this kind of tek gives you a lot of very small, almost spastic movements in short time. as bmo below, it seems like a great tek for work and practical use, but i don't see how it can be healthy when used for longer periods. Unless you're some kind of totally implanted syndicate soldier?
  • Just like how they have banned cellphones in many jurisdictions, now they'll have to ban glasses... or at least heads up displays... But isn't that proven technology, in use by the military?
    Maybe the glasses will have to be legally coloured so they are distinguishable...
    Or hopefully it is time to start mass producing that car they are developing.

    • (They referring to Google's Self Driving Car, not related to this article.)

    • The glasses could improve driving conditions just imagine an IR camera integrated with the glasses, it would allow the user to see better at night.
    • by fufufang (2603203)
      Surely you shouldn't be wearing one of these when driving?
      • The Jerk (1979) - IMDb
        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079367/ [imdb.com]

        I hope Google has serious liability insurance.

        These interactive glasses would be way more attention distracting than a cell phone call or texting.
        The fact that you are still looking in the direction of straight ahead doesn't matter at all.
        Your brain can only pay attention to one thing at a time.

        There are many experiments demonstrating people looking straight at things and not noticing them because they are attending mentally elsewhere.
        Faceplants into

  • ...is not "demented (or drunk)", it's "psychotic (or high)".

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I was really disapointed with the demonstration in Google IO keynote. The only thing,they've showed for half an hour, was as a digital camera replacement. A digital camera that "doesn't get in the way of life".

  • Surprise! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by OzPeter (195038) on Friday June 29, 2012 @08:27AM (#40492371)

    A guy at Google is not concerned about the privacy issues of ubiquitous video recordings.
     
    Everyone complains about the centralized government having tracking everyone, but surely it's the same thing if that tracking becomes distributed by actions of the citizens themselves.
     
    I have curtains on my windows not because I just want to stop the government seeing what I do in private, but because I want to stop everyone else seeing what I do in private.

    • by period3 (94751)

      I agree with your concerns, but the cats been out of the bag for years. Video cameras are ubiquitous, as are telescopes and binoculars.

      I wish there was a way to block these technologies or legislate them, but practically it's not going to happen. Younger people are going to grow up in a world with much less expectation of privacy, and with fewer taboos. In some ways, maybe that's a good thing, but it's not the way I want to live.

      • by OzPeter (195038)

        I agree with your concerns, but the cats been out of the bag for years. Video cameras are ubiquitous, as are telescopes and binoculars.

        I see the difference as up until now you could see when someone was holding a camera in your face, and it was only people with "special needs" that bought and used cameras disguised as pens. With glasses like these (and I'm thinking of a slick public version and not just these prototypes) you will end up with no idea as to who is filming you - so you will have to assume that everyone is filming you. As a result I'd argue that society will develop more taboos, as you will have to conform to actions that ar

        • by drinkypoo (153816)

          With glasses like these (and I'm thinking of a slick public version and not just these prototypes) you will end up with no idea as to who is filming you - so you will have to assume that everyone is filming you. As a result I'd argue that society will develop more taboos, as you will have to conform to actions that are acceptable in public at all times - or be instantly called out .

          There's no reason to assume that; one could as easily assume the opposite. Society may cast off some taboos when we learn that the majority of people actually engage in them, through ubiquitous surveillance. The only real potentially unavoidable negative repercussion I can see is how much easier it makes it for government to keep tabs on every aspect of your life, which makes it much more difficult to work against unjust law.

          • by OzPeter (195038)

            There's no reason to assume that; one could as easily assume the opposite.

            Hey! It's my damned assumption and I'll go which ever way I want with it. And you are entitled to go your own way with your own assumption!

            But given the (partially religious based [1]) conformist aspects of US society I can see issues with privacy - especially with things relating to sex and/or naked bodies. Things that are perfectly acceptable by sub-cultures but are frowned upon by the more vocal aspects of US society

            [1] I say partially religious based as I have come across many non-re

          • There is an interesting Buddhist saying that one should try to act the same way whether one is alone or in public.

            On the other hand, can't we just require that these things have a visible LED turned on when they are recording?

        • People have used hidden cams (in bags etc) for years to record people in secrecy. Look for "upskirt" on your favorite search engine and you'll see what I mean.

          And I disagree with your conclusion - I think the more this stuff happens the less people will worry about their personal eccentricities being caught on film.

          Don't believe me? Make a fake Facebook account, go on FB and just browse through people's public profiles and pics - people are sharing things without blinking an eye that would have been horribl

    • Re:Surprise! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Friday June 29, 2012 @08:54AM (#40492607) Journal

      The difference is, when the government does it, they have an asynchronous advantage over the citizenry. When the citizens do it themselves, they erase that advantage. Your privacy was always an illusion... now you're finally being empowered. It's a positive development.

      • Re:Surprise! (Score:4, Interesting)

        by rocket rancher (447670) <themovingfinger@gmail.com> on Friday June 29, 2012 @01:15PM (#40496055)
        It sounds to me like you've bought into sci-fi writer David Brin's theories on "sousveillance" [wikipedia.org] uncritically, and are ignoring Bruce Schneier's debunking of Brin's myth of the transparent society in this Wired article. [wired.com] For what it is worth, cops can already seize recording equipment from by-standers at a crime scene; I don't think giving everybody a camera is going to change that. What I think is far more likely to happen is that the government will attempt to maintain their asymmetric (I'm thinking you meant asymmetric, not asynchronous) advantage by minimizing a citizen's ability to record cops/firefighters/soldiers, either legislatively or technologically. Ironically, this legislation, if I'm right, will probably be passed in the name of maintaining privacy. It's already illegal to publish photos of dead US soldiers being returned to the US for interment -- and that was done by an executive order issued by Bush II and reaffirmed by Obama. The technology already exists to disrupt communications -- selectively blanking cell and wi-fi transmissions over arbitrary areas is trivial to accomplish and DHS has policies and procedures in place to control information in emergencies, something they inherited from FEMA.
    • Re:Surprise! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by TrekkieGod (627867) on Friday June 29, 2012 @09:26AM (#40492909) Homepage Journal

      A guy at Google is not concerned about the privacy issues of ubiquitous video recordings.

      To be fair, there are no privacy issues with ubiquitous video recordings. You're filming things in public places, there's no expectation of privacy there. You can ask photographers who get harassed when they're taking pictures in public what they think. If anything, this would be great, as it would get people used to the idea, and they'd stop harassing photographers and people who take video of police. If you are walking into a private location with it, and the owners do not allow recordings, it's the same situation as it is now, as you wouldn't be allowed to record with your phone. You'd just be asked to take the thing off.

      Privacy issues come with the sharing of those videos. And I don't mean who the person who recorded chose to share it with, that's his choice. The question is what google will do with it when the video hits their servers. If you trust Google to handle your e-mails (I do, others don't, and that's ok), there's no reason you wouldn't trust them with these videos. The e-mails contain far more information about your life.

    • Think it would be great in Search and rescue operations as well as basic emergency services,
      Like Ambulance staff, they can use them to relay direct visuals to an A+E (ER for you yanks) Doctor, with the patients vital readouts being displayed on the medic's heads-up as well as in the ER for the doctor to advise and be fully prepared for when the patient gets there.

      Thinks like that have already been tried and usually the equipment is bulky and not that user friendly, a small unit like this might be a great in

    • I have curtains on my windows not because I just want to stop the government seeing what I do in private, but because I want to stop everyone else seeing what I do in private.

      But if you have nothing to hide, then you have no reason to have curtains!

      • I have curtains on my windows not because I just want to stop the government seeing what I do in private, but because I want to stop everyone else seeing what I do in private.

        But if you have nothing to hide, then you have no reason to have curtains!

        "They look nice", is a valid reason to me. Also, I like the way guns smell.

      • But everyone has something to hide, because the law requires them to hide it. People have to close the curtains when they are neked in their own homes because they will get arrested if someone from outside can see them.

        So, to extend that analogy, there are plenty of things that are legal and/or normal but that society or law requires one to avoid exposing to others. This whole nonsense about "not having anything to hide" is just that: Nonsense.

        Perhaps, after a few generations of ubiquitous invasion o
    • Then don't use this product and don't associate with anyone who is using this product and don't do anything private in a space where people who use this product can record you without your permission, or accept that you can't control everything and that trying to or worrying much about it is a losing battle.

      Privacy as we know it is dead, and the best we can do is a kind of anonymity through saturation. As more and more people get caught doing stupid shit on camera, fewer and fewer people will give a shit ab

    • Newsflash: Absolutely nobody cares what you do in private.

      You should be so lucky, to have one person who cares what you do in private.

  • Any real demos? (Score:4, Informative)

    by JaredOfEuropa (526365) on Friday June 29, 2012 @08:28AM (#40492373) Journal
    Any video of the glasses themselves, preferably a "through" view showing what the actual overlay looks like, and what sort of info will be displayed. I am really not all that interested in a video of a bunch of people wearing those things...
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Is it a view through a piece of glass? I've heard considerable speculation that, to cover the FOV they're suggesting, they're probably using something to project the image at your eye (I guess Brother demo'd this not too long ago).

      https://www.google.com/search?q=projection+on+retina [google.com]

      Otherwise you only get little info bubbles in the upper right of your field of view. That's not particularly useful for real augmented reality applications.

    • by fufufang (2603203)
      You could have used a bunch of head-mounted camera to create the demo, no display required.
  • I started the video and got a brainful of loud alarm beeping in the preliminary advert. Should be a goddamn warning about that...
  • by SomePgmr (2021234) on Friday June 29, 2012 @08:34AM (#40492423) Homepage

    As bad as I want one of these, I can't help but think about how badly we need a low cost, community developed version of this to function as a totally open, arduino-esque option.

    Everything about these things coming to market as a popular, locked-down device creeps me out. Maybe it's too many years of scifi, but if history tells us anything, it's that we need a technological escape route at all times.

    So uh, where can we source the display technology for these things? Because the rest seems entirely doable.

    • by Greyfox (87712) on Friday June 29, 2012 @09:19AM (#40492859) Homepage Journal
      Wired's been doing stories on DIY wearable computer people from at least the mid 90's. See also the remembrance agent [remem.org] web page. It never really caught on that much, though nifty feats like performing facial recognition on people and bringing up information on them, placing IR beacons to which data could be attached to locations and video-recording everything with a camera capable of slowing down the wheels on a moving car so you could read the manufacturer details have been reported. The early papers on the subject talk about what a ubiquitous computing device you carry around on your person would be like, and it pretty much describes today's cell phones.

      The limiting factors in the past have been I/O -- most of the early adopters went with one-handed "chording" keyboards and bulky, ugly head mounted displays. They also usually ended up carrying around a backpack with large-ish home made computer in it. Since a lot of people now carry around a computer with the appropriate capabilities and voice recognition has come along nicely, perhaps the I/O thing can be solved, too. I'm not sure a lot of people will go for wearing glasses full time, but if the value add is there, maybe I'm wrong.

      • by SomePgmr (2021234)

        It seems to me the problem is a safe, small, retina projector. If you want to project something properly, anywhere in your field of view, it seems like it's exactly what you need.

        This company makes something like the kind of technology you need for that but is currently putting it in cellphones and the nicer picoprojectors you see... http://www.microvision.com/technology/index.html [microvision.com]

        All the processing power, sensors (multi-axis accel's, cameras, etc), are entirely doable.. demonstrated by all the augmented r

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      Everything about these things coming to market as a popular, locked-down device creeps me out.

      So far we've been able to get Android devices which are rootable. Is there any reason to believe that this product will be different?

    • I think the bigger problem is the backend infrastructure--datacenters and also logic.

      The logic we can do, the datacenters require money, and therefore some way of being solvent. 
  • Couldn't you have put any broadcasting camera on someone to get the same effect? The point of this tech is that it's supposed to be augmented reality. I don't see how this spectacle in anyway related to that.

  • Input Mechanism (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DaKong (150846) on Friday June 29, 2012 @08:45AM (#40492511)

    I've been following wearable computing since the days of Xybernaut, during the Dot-Com era. Google Glass looks like it has the display issue nearly solved--it's functional without being overly intrusive. If they can wear it all day long then the battery issue would be solved enough for most people conditioned to the iPhone's evanescent battery life.

    An input mechanism remains a quandry. Voice recognition has improved a lot beyond the days of Dragon Naturally Speaking, but it's still aggravating when you're trying to do something technical or even unusual. Are projected keyboards the answer, or those two handed-deals that ride under velcro patches on your knees? An arm mounted keyboard? Has anyone from MIT's media lab or similar place tried those options? How do they compare?

    • I'm hopeing a future version will incorporate eye tracking and wink-controls. Nasty for typing, but very good for picking options in a menu or wink-clicking on icons.
    • I would think once tech gets there, a projected display where you grab/move things in space (a la Minority Report) would be pretty effective, particularly if combined with eye tracking/wink controls.

      Unfortunately they'll probably hire the guys behind Unity and Gnome 3 for the project.
      • by BoberFett (127537)

        Combine this concept with Kinect's tracking abilities (after a few years of improvements to both) and you could do exactly what you're talking about. Detailed input could be done via a virtual keyboard where the device tracked your finger movements in space.

    • I don't know where I read it, but from what I understand the Google Glasses are supposed to have a touch-sensitive surface somewhere on the frame next to the temple.
  • by Dross50 (1333767) on Friday June 29, 2012 @09:07AM (#40492745)
    I can think of a whole host of problems this device will have, starting with it is see through device and therefore is competing with greatest power source in the solar system, the sun. Also, this device is interfacing with a set of genes that evolved millions of years ago on the plains of Africa. And it's a mono display, the brain does not handle mono well, just ask the Ah-64 pilots. These guys need to talk to some Army Aviation folks, at Mother Rucker. Been there done this, like about 15 years ago......
  • There are 2 options here. 1, it can artificially seem focused when your eyes are actually focused on something distant which has been proven over and over to be bad for your eyes and brain. 2, it can actually be out of focus until your eyes adjust to an object about a quarter inch in front of them, which is straining and difficult and throws off your left-right eye depth combination abilities. This is going to be found to be bad for anyone's eyes at any age and kill the project before it even causes peop
    • If you think you have fast eyes, take the 5 minute, or 10 minutes, test at Panamath to see how could you really are.

      The test isn't so much about how fast your eyes are, but rather, how quickly you can "guesstimate" or perceive quantities in a limited time frame. From their site:

      Panamath measures your Approximate Number System (ANS) aptitude. The simple task of deciding whether there are more blue dots or yellow dots in a brief flash can tell us a lot about the accuracy of your basic gut sense for numbers.

      T

      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        If you think you have fast eyes, take the 5 minute, or 10 minutes, test at Panamath to see how could you really are.

        it's almost like the people who made it have never played a game before. "Y" and "B"? I didn't take the test just because that's retarded.

    • Option 3: Virtual retina display.

  • I'm so keen to see what that little screen displays in your eyeball, so these video promos annoy me a little that I don't get to see live action shots.

  • by wonkavader (605434) on Friday June 29, 2012 @12:34PM (#40495403)

    This thing REALLY needs a tally light (an led showing when it's recording) so we'll know when we're being photographed or video recorded.

    In a world with of facial rec software, a camera like this WITHOUT a tally light is very valuable. Just record everything, do facial rec vs. people with facbook accounts, and dump the video, keep a signed still every few seconds. Now you can sell movement info with gps locations to facebook or anyone else. A fraction of people with Glass do this, and you can keep a database and sell location info and a photo (and proximity to other people) at any instant (or a short duration) for ... $100? (Maybe the service doing the facial rec and agregating the results keeps 70% of that. You get $30.) In a crowded city, you could make some serious change by just farming people's identities and locations complete with image for proof, signed with a private key known only to the recorder, who could be called upon to testify at te divorce trial that the images were his/hers.

    At some point enough people would be doing it that it wouldn't be very profitable, but we could also assume that everyone would know where we were at all times.

    And that's without big brother watching (Google capturing this themselves), because we can't trust our peers.

    If these things don't have a tally light, I'm buying a gorilla mask as soon as glass become popular. Hmm. No, I guess we'd all have to start buying the SAME mask...

  • Resistance is futile. You will be distracted.

  • yes google glass is something great achievement.

It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

Working...