Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

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

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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.

  • by Dross50 ( 1333767 ) on Friday June 29, 2012 @11:03AM (#40494161)
    The brain can only handle split imagery for 10 - 20 minutes then it starts to flip between eyes uncontrollably. The AH pilots handle this by turning the brightness up to the point where the non-hmd (Helmet Mounted Display) eye shuts down (pupil gets small). Of course they get wicked ass headaches. BUT if you go stereo then there a image alignment issues, the eye does not handle non-alignment images well, which would make the eyeglass mounting/holder not stiff enough or stable enough to mount a stereo display......ah all the issues come rushing back.......some day I should tell you about the display we designed for pit traders.... When I worked on the Space Suit HMD and the Army Helmet Mounted (Helmid) fighting the Sun was near impossible, causing us to raise the non-transmissiveness of the reflector (combiner) plate to 80 and 90% opaque. Making it rather difficult to see thought and causing me to use a non-see through combiner for the Army. There are a host of issues, all of them well studied, which is why although this tech is like 15 years old, (I know I built this type of device before) I doubt it will go anywhere, all the advanges and apps I heard years ago. But still some of the most fasinating stuff I ever worked.
  • Re:Surprise! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rocket rancher ( 447670 ) <> 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" [] uncritically, and are ignoring Bruce Schneier's debunking of Brin's myth of the transparent society in this Wired article. [] 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.

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson