Adjusting to Google Glass May Be Hard 154
New submitter fluxgate writes "Steve Mann (whom you might know for his having pioneered wearable computing as a grad student at MIT back in the 1990s) writes in IEEE Spectrum magazine about his decades of experience with computerized eyeware. His article warns that Google Glass hasn't been properly engineered to avoid creating disorientating effects and significant eyestrain. While it's hard to imagine that Google has missed something fundamental here, Mann convincingly describes why Google Glass users might experience serious problems. Quoting: 'The very first wearable computer system I put together showed me real-time video on a helmet-mounted display. The camera was situated close to one eye, but it didn’t have quite the same viewpoint. The slight misalignment seemed unimportant at the time, but it produced some strange and unpleasant results. And those troubling effects persisted long after I took the gear off. That’s because my brain had adjusted to an unnatural view, so it took a while to readjust to normal vision. ... Google Glass and several similarly configured systems now in development suffer from another problem I learned about 30 years ago that arises from the basic asymmetry of their designs, in which the wearer views the display through only one eye. These systems all contain lenses that make the display appear to hover in space, farther away than it really is. That’s because the human eye can’t focus on something that’s only a couple of centimeters away, so an optical correction is needed. But what Google and other companies are doing—using fixed-focus lenses to make the display appear farther away—is not good.'"
They will cause head injuries (Score:5, Interesting)
A mugger attractant that's more visible than white Apple earphones.
Re:They will cause head injuries (Score:5, Funny)
But Apple has innovated and produced their own version of Google Glass [imgur.com].
I understand they have patented the technology and will be suing anyone who has rounded corners on their spectacles.
why glass should respect privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
From CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/25/tech/innovation/google-glass-privacy-andrew-keen
#ifihadglass ... might be the end of privacy as we knew it. Does anyone doubt this will be used as yet another way for Google to harvest our data?
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone doubt this will be used as yet another way for Google to harvest our data?
Of course that's what the real idea behind the Google glasses is. To catalog everything you look at and append it to what is doubtless a huge database of your search histories, preferences, emails, etc. For anyone that has ever logged into a Google service or had some cookies on their machines. Their revenue is based on selling, so the more they can catalog on any and everyone, the happier they will be. All the way to the bank with all that money those marketing firms over there just gave them.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you just say, "had some cookies on their machine"?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
From CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/25/tech/innovation/google-glass-privacy-andrew-keen
#ifihadglass ... might be the end of privacy as we knew it. Does anyone doubt this will be used as yet another way for Google to harvest our data?
You know? What stops you building your own... or contributing to a kickstarter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know? What stops you building your own... or contributing to a kickstarter.
Nothing, but that's not the problem I was talking about. There will be millions of stupid people who buy the Google version, and *my* privacy will be destroyed because of *their* decision to Follow The Marketing.
Re: (Score:1)
You know? What stops you building your own... or contributing to a kickstarter.
Nothing, but that's not the problem I was talking about. There will be millions of stupid people who buy the Google version, and *my* privacy will be destroyed
Not trying to troll, but... maybe I'm slow today... please detail on how exactly is you privacy destroyed more than it is now? I mean, letting aside CCTV, even now you can be recorded in public by anyone who owns a smartphone.
Re:why glass should respect privacy (Score:5, Informative)
But people usually don't run around holding their smartphone in recording position because it would be hard and look siilly. Google Glass is always in recording position by default, thus removing an important barrier to have it constantly recording. And there will surely be an incentive to have the camera always on (so that virtual objects can be put in the right place, or you can get extra information on what you currently see.
Imagine a simple application which uses face recognition and image search to find out the name of the person you are currently looking at, and displaying it close to that person. An immensely useful application if you tend to forget people's names, or have problems recognizing people. However it means that (a) the wearer will immediately know the names of all people they see (as long as they are stored in the system), thus reducing your privacy relative to the wearer, and (b) Google will know the position of any person the wearer sees and the system can identify, even if that person has never used anything associated Google in their lifetime, thus reducing your privacy against Google. And if you ask how that image gets into the Google system: For example, some friend of him has stored a photo on Picasa.
Re: (Score:3)
Fight to prevent it from coming into being if you like. But as with a nuclear North Korea and Iran, you'd better have a contingency plan for what to do whe
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No matter if you want to fight against it or adapt to it, in any case the first step is awareness of the problem. Only if you are aware of the problem, you can decide on how to act on it. Therefore the most important thing is to tell people about the problems. Only if you are aware of the problems, you can make an informed decision. And only if you are aware of the problem, you can take appropriate precautions. Such precautions may be quite simple, like asking everyone coming into your home to leave their G
Re: (Score:2)
You mean something like this:
http://vimeo.com/46304267 [vimeo.com]
?
Re: (Score:1)
Writes the Anonymous Coward.
Re: (Score:2)
OP is not me - but I often post as AC because I can't be arsed to log in.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember: they are after you anyway, no matter if you are paranoid or not.
(grin)
Re: (Score:3)
There is no solution to this problem, which already exists and will get worse, with or without Google Glass. Your best bet is to walk around with a ski mask, and even that will only stop some forms of privacy invasion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There will be millions of stupid people who buy the Google version, and *my* privacy will be destroyed because of *their* decision to Follow The Marketing.
You think you have a right to privacy in a public place, but somehow THEY are the stupid ones?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No I don't have expectation of privacy but I do largely have an expectancy of anonymity; I'm not someone so famous that TMZ will be following me 24/7. It is not that far fetched to think of an Orwellian world where we are identified and tracked everywhere, not by a Governmental Bigbrother but our Corporate Masters such as Google.
You're not that important. Nobody cares.
You will be anonymized.
Re: (Score:2)
People who are unimportant being compromised by a lack of privacy, those are not the ones I worry about.
Re: why glass should respect privacy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That is precisely why so many police departments have the view that recording a police officer (on duty, in a public place) is or should be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
no, I don't doubt it. Maybe you should explain what gathering public data and making it available is a bad thing?
The singkle best defence the people in the US have against abuse from police is cameras.
The only people who shoud be conerned are 'UFO' watchers, and conspiracy theorist. Becasue the expansion of cameras is killing that nonsense.
Re:why glass should respect privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
no, I don't doubt it. Maybe you should explain what gathering public data and making it available is a bad thing?
The singkle best defence the people in the US have against abuse from police is cameras.
The only people who shoud be conerned are 'UFO' watchers, and conspiracy theorist. Becasue the expansion of cameras is killing that nonsense.
Imagine looking at a constable and being able to bring up everything the public record has on him, almost instantly.
Imagine walking into a crowded room, "tagging" the best looking person there, and then doing an in-depth query on their back story. The next time you see them, appropriate info is fed to you to be able to act like you're someone they should know and like.
Both things have positive points, but can be used for great evil as well as great good.
Now imagine if Google mounted a laser on the glasses....
Re: why glass should respect privacy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, people will not trust someone whose face they have forgotten. Of course unless their own device tells them who it is.
...at which point, they guys who bury people's online history will have a new way to turn a profit.
If everyone depends on Glass, that would make social engineering MUCH easier; I could pretend to be anyone with a bit of photoshop, a high ranking page, and a fakebook account.
Re: (Score:2)
And that person does a back search on you as well and realizes that you have never been within a mile of them before this night, nor have you ever been to any of the places you claim to have been or done any of the things you claim to have done.
Ouch.
Re: (Score:2)
And that person does a back search on you as well and realizes that you have never been within a mile of them before this night, nor have you ever been to any of the places you claim to have been or done any of the things you claim to have done.
Ouch.
Or, you could just use it to do things like find topics of conversation that would get her excited and avoid doing things that would offend her, and have her enjoy her evening with you and hope to do it again sometime soon.
Perhaps finding out that the third best looking person there is an uninhibited sex freak like you who is going to say yes if you ask her is more your speed.
Then, a year later, you can use it to find other people who are HIV+ like yourself to approach.
The possibilities are endl
Re: (Score:2)
Wayne's World Flashback! (Score:3)
Reminds me of when I was a kid and I heard about this guy who, as an experiment, wore a pair of glasses that inverted what he saw. After a while (weeks, I think), his brain adjusted by flipping the image upright. When he stopped wearing the glasses, it took some time for his vision to return to normal.
[citation needed]
Re:Wayne's World Flashback! (Score:5, Informative)
Research dating back more than a century helps explain this. In the 1890s, the renowned psychologist George Stratton constructed special glasses that caused him to see the world upside down. The remarkable thing was that after a few days, Stratton’s brain adapted to his topsy-turvy worldview, and he no longer saw the world upside down. You might guess that when he took the inverting glasses off, he would start seeing things upside down again. He didn’t. But his vision had what he called, with Victorian charm, “a bewildering air.”
Also, for more info on Stratton's experiment check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_M._Stratton#Wundt.27s_lab_and_the_inverted-glasses_experiments [wikipedia.org]
Re:Wayne's World Flashback! (Score:5, Insightful)
Research dating back more than a century helps explain this. In the 1890s, the renowned psychologist George Stratton constructed special glasses that caused him to see the world upside down. The remarkable thing was that after a few days, Stratton’s brain adapted to his topsy-turvy worldview, and he no longer saw the world upside down. You might guess that when he took the inverting glasses off, he would start seeing things upside down again. He didn’t. But his vision had what he called, with Victorian charm, “a bewildering air.”
Through experimentation, I’ve found that the required readjustment period is, strangely, shorter when my brain has adapted to a dramatic distortion, say, reversing things from left to right or turning them upside down. When the distortion is subtle—a slightly offset viewpoint, for example—it takes less time to adapt but longer to recover.
Re: (Score:2)
You only need to RTFA, it is of course mentioned.
You must be new here (see post above ;)
[...] When the distortion is subtle -- a slightly offset viewpoint, for example -- it takes less time to adapt but longer to recover.
So, I have no proof whatsoever, not even a glance of a hint, but this always seemed logical to me:
If you provide the brain with some slightly different view (compared to its normal one), it adapts more easily.
But also, since the view is only a bit distorted (from a brain's point of "view") it seems logical to me that it will accept this (more easily) as the "normal" view, and thus giving it more trouble to re-learn the original views.
Makes sense?
Re: Wayne's World Flashback! (Score:1)
George Stratton's experiment (Score:1)
[citation provided]
George Stratton [wikipedia.org] did an experiment on perceptual adaptation [nyu.edu] in the 1980's.
This differs completely from the adaptation of expectation that takes place when lens of propaganda driven public education is promoted, a priori, then erased over time by continual exposure to reality. You don't just wake up one day and figure out that the American Dream should be referred to as the Grand Illusion. It takes much longer to figure out that your government, and other 'fiduciaries', might not be up t
It'll fail (Score:1, Flamebait)
Opti-Grab (Score:5, Funny)
They should attach a little handle to the nose bridge so people can easily adjust the fixed focus lenses.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly if prisoners were wearing it there would be an opportunity to review and discuss behavior inside what we laughingly call corrective incarceration. Recording individual experience offers some intriguing opportunities as well as threats. Its happening already - see the video of the south African taxi driver being murdered by the police as an example. We need to talk about pervasive monitoring and establish some new "constitutional rights" before it gets out of control and controls us before we
Re: (Score:1)
+1 for "The Jerk" reference.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter (Score:1)
People will still flock to it. Then, others will capitalise on treating the ailments caused by the optional eye-wear.
Re: It doesn't matter (Score:1)
Google Glass will be a bigger flop than (Score:3)
the Nintendo Virtualboy.
You heard it here first.
Re: (Score:3)
the Nintendo Virtualboy.
You heard it here first.
The laughable utility, stupid name, and quick demise of a touchscreen tablet device from Apple was also predicted here.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple themselves predicted that no-one would want a 7" tablet. Apparently predicting consumer demand for products is hard.
Prepare to be atomiz...ated (Score:3, Informative)
The word is disorenting, I have been reliably informated. Your misuse of suffixes must be cessated and desistated, or your poetic license will be cancellated. Although "(dis)orientation," "information," "cessation," and "cancellation" are verbs, the corresponding verbs are "(dis)orient," "inform," "cease," and "cancel" -- no "-ate" at the end.
Re: (Score:2)
is it?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disorientating [thefreedictionary.com]
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/disorientating [collinsdictionary.com]
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/disorientate [cambridge.org]
Re: (Score:1)
The word is disoriented, I have been reliably informed. Your non use of the letter i must cease and desist!
"Hard" is better than "Emasculating" (Score:1)
Isn't it?
Re: (Score:1)
For up to 4 hours, after that it becomes a medical problem, please see your doctor immediately.
Get off my virtual lawn! (Score:5, Interesting)
TFA:
AH-64 Apache Helicopter (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:AH-64 Apache Helicopter (Score:4, Informative)
The Apache systems completely replaces the field of view of the targeting eye and is designed to work alongside binocular vision, overlaying data atop what is seen by both eyes ; albeit in different colors (augmented reality). The perspective remains the same for both eyes though.
The problem with Glass seems to be in forcing a spatially unrelated image onto one eye forcing the focus to shift from from the environment to the Glass display, the strain coming from the other eye having to focus somewhere in mid-air. That's unnatural and needs to be forced without a distinct object to look at.
Re: (Score:2)
the strain coming from the other eye having to focus somewhere in mid-air. That's unnatural and needs to be forced without a distinct object to look at.
I don't see this (no pun intended). It would be no harder to focus on than focusing on your hand held up in the air. (And it specifically avoids the problem Mann is talking about.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Rather tragically - When I was a kid my 'sport' in school was shooting. Rifle range... every day. For a couple of hours at a time.
I was advised to 'close my other eye' when sighting, but I found it tiring and I didn't. I was an excellent shot and my team won many competitions.
My vision at the time was excellent. I had a nickname of 'eagle eye' for my ability to see things at a distance, or spot things lost in grass, or pick things out of a wreck of a bedroom...
Later on in life though, I have found that my v
Re: (Score:2)
I did something like that before I wrote my comment. I put my left hand between my eyes like a curtain, held up my right hand close enough that it wasn't visible to my left eye. And just now, a better example; holding up a small notepad page and reading what's written on it. I just don't have the problem you are describing (nor the "readjustment" that Mann is describing.) I focus just as easily as I can with one eye closed.
Obviously, if I put my hand/finger too close to my eye, I have trouble focusing. But
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that experiment has much value, unless you try to model the
Re: (Score:3)
I was responding to mill3d's specific claim that he has difficulty focusing on something with only one eye, that he has to force it, strains his opposite eye, and instinctively tries to move his head back to the bring the target into focus. My own experiment showed no such effect. I now wonder if he mistakenly thought the Glass user had to focus on the display an inch in front of his eye.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:AH-64 Apache Helicopter (Score:4, Informative)
And a percentage of pilot-candidates flunk out because they can never adapt to it. The rest have to be trained to it. Not something you want in a general consumer device.
That said, I don't see Mann's objection. His first display worked like the Apache system, with the same problems. Google Glass works differently to both.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember that movie! The guy was left eye dominant and had to get 'trained' by driving around a jeep etc (montage scene) with the dominant eye covered so that his Apache controlling eye stopped being a lazy bugger. Then there was some great helicopter shoot-outs and America won.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Birds [wikipedia.org]
Harder than trifocles (Score:1)
I doubt it....
Umm, why would you take it off? (Score:2)
Hey, I'd rather have the direct neural link too. But seriously? Whoever manages to come up with a truly viable wearable "augmented reality" system wins. Why the hell would I want to take it off?
Let my brain adjust to having my left higher and further to the left! If I really need to react on a moment's notice to a loss
Re: (Score:1)
You'd need to take it off for repairs, for cleaning, for upgrades, when cleaning yourself, when going through airport security, when swimming or any other time it could get wet, when you get stopped by police for any reasons (speeding, they don't like the look, etc...), when met by a business owner on a power trip, places video recording isn't allowed (court house, some companies), during eye exams and many other medical procedures (x-rays, dental work, MRIs, etc...), and stupid people try to rip it off you
Navin Johnson... (Score:1)
What about people wearing actual glasses already? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Judging by the PR page [google.com] (third image from bottom), the GG can have your conventional lenses attached. But it looks like you can't wear regular glasses and Glass, so you'd need to get your Glass customised with your lenses. [Obligatory "Yo dawg..." taken as read.]
However, in some of the early demos, the display itself can be removed from its own frame and attached to any suitable pair of glasses, with the display sitting just in front of your normal lens. Ie, the included frame is just for people who don't we
Adjusting to Google Glass May Be Hard, OR: (Score:2)
Not AR. (Score:2)
The camera was situated close to one eye, but it didnâ(TM)t have quite the same viewpoint.
But I don't think that Glass is meant to be an AR system. It's a display in the corner of your vision, so it can't overlay things on the center of your vision (as was made clear in the latest 'preview' video).
It's this misunderstanding that might kill Glass, people have unrealistic expectations.
Re: (Score:2)
Single Eye Users (Score:2)
I wonder how different the Glass experience will be for those of us who have atypical vision. I can see fine, but I focus with one eye at a time. I had surgery on both eyes for strabismus as a child. Now you can't tell that my eyes are slightly out of alignment unless you get close and are very observant, or I get tired and they start going off in different directions on their own :)
Anyway, this has caused issues for me when trying to use binoculars (I just end up using them one-eyed like a spyglass). If I
For a guy who claims he doesn't record... (Score:1)
From the current article:
"The impact and fall injured my leg and also broke my wearable computing system, which normally overwrites its memory buffers and doesn’t permanently record images. But as a result of the damage, it retained pictures of the car’s license plate and driver, who was later identified and arrested thanks to this record of the incident."
From his blog, in relation to an incident at McDonalds (http://eyetap.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/u
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So, what's his view on POV porn on these devices?
I'd say... augmented? You now, with an overlay of arrows and directions and labels and what not [ieee.org], how else?
Re: (Score:2)
Take a body- or at least groin-oriented version of that EMS force feedback [slashdot.org] thing, combine it with the glasses and 3d- or anime-model augments, and you too can have your very own cyber-succubus only fully visible to you! (Guaranteed both to tire you out and raise the eyebrows of the typical witness, not privy to the visuals.)
Capcom would make truckloads from one made with Morrigan [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it would have shown up i the testing; which they have done a lot of.
Maybe it's better to say:
I find it hard to believe a company that has tested this device wouldn't have had this problem reported to them?
Not that any company is perfect, nor that spending more means it won't be flawed, but It's not a small problem to have detected.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In what testing? The testing conducted exclusively by Google, and a hand-picked bunch of people who lined up eagerly to suck their cock and pay $1500 for the privilege of an Alpha-quality device?
Yeah, I'm sure those people are likely to have: 1) Used it out and around long enough to have actually identified problems with it; 2) the balls to tell the emperor he has no clothes.
They lined up to PAY GOOGLE for the privilege of being testers.
That's pretty much a guarantee you're going to get your dick sucke
Re: (Score:2)
Google have been testing it internally for a long time, and judging by their other products they seem to be quite good at it. You would think that the developers getting headaches and eye strain constantly would be a pretty big and impossible to ignore problem.
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know, some of us are very sensitive to these sorts of things, while others not so much.
People still think I'm making stuff up when I say "shakey cam movies make me vomit", or Portal 2 for that matter. Most people have absolutely no problems, a few feel mildly queasy. But some of us get physically ill. Shakey cam movies continue, and don't announce themselves as such until AFTER they've taken your money, and some video game companies still restrict FOV options or don't provide ways of disabling "head bob", and other disorienting effects. They simply don't believe there's a problem, and their testers aren't picking up (perhaps being desensitized to it from long hours anyway).
I don't think they missed anything "fundamental", but it would not surprise me at all if they missed something significant but outside their test group.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know, some of us are very sensitive to these sorts of things, while others not so much.
People still think I'm making stuff up when I say "shakey cam movies make me vomit", or Portal 2 for that matter. Most people have absolutely no problems, a few feel mildly queasy. But some of us get physically ill. Shakey cam movies continue, and don't announce themselves as such until AFTER they've taken your money, and some video game companies still restrict FOV options or don't provide ways of disabling "head bob", and other disorienting effects. They simply don't believe there's a problem, and their testers aren't picking up (perhaps being desensitized to it from long hours anyway).
I don't think they missed anything "fundamental", but it would not surprise me at all if they missed something significant but outside their test group.
My sympathies for your condition (and I mean that), but you now KNOW about this flaw, so they'll be no "taking" of your money as if you didn't have a clue. That being said, If you still hand it to them, I doubt my sympathy will remain intact. You of all people should know by now that companies do not make products that cater to 100% of humans. This unfortunately, is likely going to be one of them. But you probably knew that simply by looking at it from day one, knowing your particular quirks.
Re: (Score:2)
I know that I won't pay money for shakey cam movies and I avoid certain 3D game genres (like FPS, which is a lot of games). However I do not know what will upset me until it does, or someone else with similar issues warns me.
Do I sink quite a bit on google glass, w/o knowing if it makes me sick? Probably not, and this article helps me want to steer clear of it unless/until they fix the problem.
Sure you can't cater to 100% of anyone, and if it's expensive to do so I understand. It may be a long time before I
Re: (Score:2)
I find it hard to believe a company that has tested this device wouldn't have had this problem reported to them?
How many years did it take to create 3D movie glasses that didn't give a sizable proportion of people headaches.
Well, lets see. They started doing mass market 3D movies in the 1950s. And despite stepwise improvements since then, 60 years later, 3D glasses still give a sizable proportion of people headaches.
Of course Google Glass is going to give people headaches. For similar reasons: If the focus and parallax of your two eyes don't match, you'll get headaches. Or at least a lot of people will.
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't matter. We have TWO articles on Slashdot in the last couple hours about people re-engineering the wheel and ignoring everything that came before. All these hotshot idiots with their attempts to get into orbit "their own way" are no different than Google Glass doing it "their own way" and ignoring all prior art, prior study, and prior expertise.
I've met Steve Mann. He's misunderstood, horribly geeky and incredibly brilliant. I was shocked that Google hadn't consulted with him first before they decided to chunk together their own wearable HUD. Mann has been doing this for longer than Google has existed. He is a walking laboratory and he knows, from experience, what the fuck he is talking about.
I'm sure Von Braun is laughing from his grave at these space jockeys, saying "You did WHAT?" Similarly Mann is shaking his head at Google.
Re: (Score:3)
Mann has written papers and I'm sure they must have read them. He isn't the only expert in the world, so presumably they hired some other people who know about this stuff.
Bottom line is that so far no-one has reported having issues with glass, but we won't really know until lots of people have them on for extended periods.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering his main complaint is about replacing the users vision with that from a camera is moot I think it's fair to say that the skepticism is well placed.
Google Glass doesn't have a complete AR viewfinder. It's screen is only in the corner of your eye, so you don't have to look at it unless you want to.
And testing the effect he describes doesn't take any fancy equipment either. Just try walking around by looking through the viewfinder of your smartphone or compact camera. Even that is quite disorientin
Re: (Score:1)
No, saying "Google's design is nice," or "I think it sounds like a cool project," is perfectly reasonable.
Dismissing the quite-reasonable points of the guy who more or less invented the product category to which your device belongs with a blithe, "i'm sure GOOGLE couldn't have missed anything!" is "sucking Google's dick."
It'd be like me deciding to implement some sorting algorithms, and Don Knuth saying, "Well, the way you've implemented those is pretty inefficient," and me responding to that criticism with
Re:Hard to imagine missing something fundamental? (Score:5, Informative)
That's a pretty bid assertion. How does it feel to be old enough where you need to keep up excuses about young people so you don't have to think about your age?
Going into wearable computing, especially glass, and not knowing of Steve Mann would be like looking into fast food burgers and not stumbling upon McDonalds*
it all old dead tree stuff? really?
http://eyetap.org/publications/index.html [eyetap.org]
As if the guy who has been wearing computer glasses, he built, wouldn't use digital storage.
Re: (Score:3)
The OP is simply stating what many of us have experienced, a young work force can innovate better, because they aren't handicapped by experience, but the younger workforces lack of experience handicaps their wisdom and knowledge.
I have no doubt Google will come up with an amazing and neat product, I also have no doubt that they will overlook some problems that will be very serious for some people in the wider world. The experience to know that and to reach out to experts in the field comes with wisdom and a
Re: (Score:1)
Hard to imagine Google missing something fundamental? No it's not. Sure, Google's business is powered by search, but consider the age of the papers they'd have had to read to know about Steve Mann's work. 30 years? The engineers fooling with Google Glass are younger than the papers in question. :P Which means they suffer from that peculiar brand of cognitive myopia that afflicts their whole generation: if it's not digital, it doesn't exist.
I think what that comment meant was that with all the people in and around Google that have used these glasses for extended periods of time it's hard to imagine that there are any serious problems that haven't been reported by these users. It's not like they haven't been testing them extensively.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite possibly. And that makes more sense.
I haven't exactly been avidly consuming Google Glass media, but from what little I have seen, it doesn't sound like they're ever trying to block vision and provide a vision substitute with a camera. Instead, it's built like the HUD used by military pilots for decades now (only cheaper). It presents an overlay, rather than a complete substitution for vision in that eye. So yes, there's a camera in them, but the camera data is used for recognition of people and pl
Re: (Score:2)
Look at this Slashdot posting from just a couple of weeks ago. They got a patent replicating mainframe techniques from the 1970's.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/02/19/2316227/google-patents-staple-of-70s-mainframe-computing [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously haven't read the other slashdot articles on him; he figured out the solutions years ago; that's why this issue with Google Glass is odd; if they'd read all his research, they should have been aware of the problems and the fixes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
" that's why this issue with Google Glass is odd; if they'd read all his research, they should have been aware of the problems and the fixes."
Doesn't really matter whether they know about the issues or not; it's that they obviously haven't designed for them, which is odd. Not worth calling them ignorant or saying their solution is inferior... it's just odd that they've ignored or intentionally rejected key studies in their initial design.