Slashdot Mirror


Designer Glasses With Microdisplay Unveiled

An anonymous reader writes to tell us about an Israeli company, Lumus-Optical, and their nicely designed eyeglasses featuring twin microdisplays and mini projectors. They will be demoed at CES in January. From the article: "The firm's latest prototype boasts dual 640 x 480 resolution displays as well as two wee projectors on each arm; the Lumus glasses can accept video inputs via an undisclosed connection, and projects an image akin to a '60-inch screen from 10 feet away.' Its Light-guide Optical Element technology allows the imagery to be reflected back on to the lenses so users can view them, all while being transparent enough to allow you to focus on the humans, trees, road block, or board room presentation ahead of you."

161 comments

  1. The goggles... by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...they do something!

    1. Re:The goggles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If these things turn out to basically be frickin' laser beams that attach to your frickin' head, then they will pretty much ruin an occasionally funny line :(

  2. Finally, by rednip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A way to watch porn 'in public' without being hassled by 'the man'. Better yet, can you imagine driving at 75 mph while your favorite 'artist' performs her special talent. Seriously, we'll look back to the 'good old days' when people were just distracted by their cell phones, and not email, porn, and shopping. Hopefully cars will drive themselves before 'Joe SUV' gets his hands on 'this'.

    --
    The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
    1. Re:Finally, by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      There's public transit where I live. Personally, I'd rather spend 45 minutes of stress-free commuting playing with some techno gizmo than worrying about paying for and maintaining an SUV. In Vancouver, the trains don't even have drivers. I think this classifies as "driving itself". I guess the point is that our future doesn't necessarily have personal cars, but rather entertainment to while away the minutes of our commute.

      mandelbr0t

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    2. Re:Finally, by dave562 · · Score: 1

      I can afford a car and I'm looking forward to getting a job where I can take mass transit to work.

    3. Re:Finally, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      A way to watch porn 'in public' without being hassled by 'the man'.
      Ah, to be young again...

      When you grow other, you'll be hassled by "the woman" when you watch porn...
    4. Re:Finally, by mandelbr0t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I never said I couldn't afford it. I just said they are a waste of money given the lack of stress and general efficiency of public transit. Of course, I can understand that the brainwashed masses might have an emotional attachment to their vehicles which they have worked Oh So Hard to pay for. Enlightenment is difficult to acheive, n00b.

      mandelbr0t

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    5. Re:Finally, by dami99 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      At risk of being called a "n00b", by oh-so-enlightened you, I will point out that many people enjoy driving.... and many of them enjoy driving SUVs.

      The $800+ CAD I spend a month on driving is not part of the enjoyment, but I get that much $$ worth of enjoyment out of it. (Not to mention saved time)

      I've never taken Vancouvers public transit, but Calgarys is hardly effecient and relaxing. (Unless maybe you work at a gas station and take the train at 12AM... oh wait, then there are the drunks to deal with.) --- nor is it time saving, it's a 15 minute drive for me downtown in the morning, and a 30+ minute train ride, including walking time.

      Do you never leave the city? Personally I'd be lost without a vehicle. Even in Vancouver, where I generally spend 3-4 weeks a year. (Richmond actually)

      I think YOU -- CAN NOT AFFORD!

      The only time I even think about taking public transit is if I am heading out to a pub/bar that is on the train line, and even then 9 out of 10 times I will call a cab instead.

    6. Re:Finally, by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      Not if you choose your woman carefully...

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    7. Re:Finally, by tehshen · · Score: 1

      When you grow other what?

      --
      Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
    8. Re:Finally, by biocute · · Score: 1

      A way to watch porn 'in public' without being hassled by 'the man'.

      Yes but I'm sure you (or the public) will be hassled by 'the other brother' if you're watching porn in the public.

      My apology in advance if I'm replying to a female.

    9. Re:Finally, by AI0867 · · Score: 1

      Just add this keyboard to it, some small I-won't-suck-200-watts-by-myself CPU with peripherals, a reasonable battery that doesn't explode and you'll have a computer that you can wear on your head, just think of the possibilities.

    10. Re:Finally, by Andrew+Kismet · · Score: 1

      I'm looking forward to getting a job where I can take mass transit to work.

      Tokyo or London? :D

    11. Re:Finally, by drsquare · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Personally, I'd rather spend 45 minutes of stress-free commuting playing with some techno gizmo than worrying about paying for and maintaining an SUV.

      Public transport is stress free? So what of:
      1. Standing in the rain for an hour waiting to see if it turns up
      2. Being thrown off because you don't have the right change
      3. Sitting amongst unruly, foul-mouthed kids
      4. Your shopping spilling all over the floor
      5. Getting there late
      6. Only being able to travel at certain hours
      7. Having to walk several miles to and from each bus stop
      counts as stress free?

      My journey to work is ten minutes in the car door to door. With public transport, well over an hour. Well that was until they cancelled the route, now it's infinity time.
    12. Re:Finally, by McTaggart · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just maybe the public transport where he is is better than where you are?

      1. Never had a bus not turn up
      2. Never had a bus driver not break a note for me (although I've never tried to buy a $1.30 fair with a fifty)
      3. Depends on the time, mornings and evenings, none. 3 in the afternoon it's still better than the unruly foul mouthed drivers that clog up the streets around where I live (I live near two schools)
      4. Bags are awesome
      5. I've only ever been late when it was my fault (ie, missing the bus)
      7. Nearest bus stop to me is about 100m away, though that bus only comes ever hour. Next nearest maybe 300m which two bus routes go past (both from the same train station) which effectively runs every 20 minutes.

      My journey to uni on the busses and trains is maybe 45 minutes, by car well over an hour through heavily congested freeways.

    13. Re:Finally, by Simon80 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You clearly just have money to burn.

    14. Re:Finally, by dave562 · · Score: 1
      Tokyo or London? :D

      I've never been to Tokyo but I did have a blast in London and if the cost of living wasn't so freaking high I'd love to live there one day. But actually it's looking like my commute will be from Long Beach, CA to Los Angeles, CA via one train and one bus each way.

    15. Re:Finally, by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      BS, in 95%+ of the US the public transportation system is SHIT. Grocery shopping is a giant PITA for me if nothing else. The only reason I can even sanely take public transportation to work is because my company provides free employ shuttle to the train station. Otherwise it'd take me well over 2 hours to go the 12 miles to work, even with all that it takes between 1 and 1.5 hours to get to work. Hell, I've biked 6 miles back (lived closer) a few times because I realized that it'd be faster than public transportation. Note that even at best I still needed to bike to the train station (or walk for 25 minutes) as no bus came near my house then. If I need to stay late the only way I can get home in under 2.5 hours is if I bring my bike with me (I'm not even sure a bus runs that late meaning I'd have to walk 35 minutes to the train station). All of this is decidedly not fun during a CA heat wave or right now during the lovely cold bay area nights.

    16. Re:Finally, by GuyWithLag · · Score: 1

      Not living in a suburbia-ueber-alles country has its benefits:
      1. Max 20 minutes between busses, and that on Sunday @ 23:30.
      2. Prepaid tickets
      3. We had some of these once, the dricer stopped and asked them to get out. And everybody else supported him.
      4. As the previous poster said, bags. Also, almost each square has its own mini-market.
      5. That is actually the fault of the bus?
      6. True, we don't have service from 01:00 to 05:00.
      7. Most sub-1000-people settlements have 2 to 3 bus stops...

    17. Re:Finally, by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. I think I'll have to agree with the "crappy public transit" comment. I live a considerable distance from work, and I like where I live and where I work, so that's not likely to change. All things being equal, the car is about 5-10 minutes faster for my commute. That means it would be 40 minutes in a car vs. 50 minutes or so by transit. All things are usually not equal. Yes, it affects transit too, but when it does, I've got this new gadget to keep me occupied. I can't really divert my attention from the road for too long at a time, even during a traffic jam. Also, the frequency of a traffic jam during rush hour versus problems with the train clearly favours the train rider. A normal commute of the length I'm talking about will hit a traffic jam on average 3 out of 5 days. That typically means there's no real difference in length of commute. Keep in mind that I can be comatose during that ride too, which is my normal morning state. I don't understand how the transit can be so bad as to have such large discrepancies in commuting time. Aren't the same roads in use? Isn't there a train system of considerable length?

      BTW, my immune system is really tough. Turns out that being exposed to all the bugs on the train keeps my immune system up-to-date with all the latest antibodies. I suppose someone else might still pick one up from me, though. Maybe I should start working from home to be more considerate.

      mandelbr0t

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    18. Re:Finally, by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Having to walk several miles to and from each bus stop [...] My journey to work is ten minutes in the car door to door. With public transport, well over an hour
      Well, I think it's pretty obvious that if you have to walk even two miles at each end from house to bus stop and bus stop to destination, then it's going to take you an hour of walking time alone at average speeds. That is a result of too little spending on bus infrastructure where you live rather than an inherent disadvantage.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    19. Re:Finally, by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      *shuffles papers* Anyway, back to video-enhanced sunglasses...

    20. Re:Finally, by drsquare · · Score: 1
      3. Depends on the time, mornings and evenings, none.

      Try after school closing time. Or after pub closing time...

      4. Bags are awesome

      Yeah now try keeping track of ten of them, full of stuff that breaks if you drop it.

      7. Nearest bus stop to me is about 100m away, though that bus only comes ever hour.

      So if the timing isn't right, you could be waiting for up to an hour waiting for the bus?

      And I've still never seen a bus service that runs regularly 24/7. Cars can do that.
    21. Re:Finally, by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You forgot:

      6. There is no #6!

    22. Re:Finally, by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      *shrug* For me the difference would be (not sure, no car to actually test it with) more like 20-25 minutes by car and 1.5 hours by public transportation. That doesn't take into account that public transportation limits me to leaving at certain times. To get to work I need to at best:

      -Take bus to train station (or bike): 10 minutes
      -Wait: 10-15 minutes
      -Take train to light rail station: 10 minutes
      -Wait: 10 minutes
      -Take company shuttle to work: 15 minutes

      If I'm less than lucky it's:

      -Take bus to train station (or bike): 10 minutes
      -Wait: 10-15 minutes
      -Take train to light rail station: 10 minutes
      -Wait: 10 minutes
      -Take light rail: 20 minutes
      -Wait: 10 minutes
      -Take company shuttle to work: 5 minutes

      I once had to wait an hour due to bad timing on my part, to be honest it's the fucking juggling of time schedules that I hate the most. Note the very nice and fast train which isn't so nice once you need to get to/from the train station.

      Also, the frequency of a traffic jam during rush hour versus problems with the train clearly favours the train rider.

      I can go to work anytime I want between 7am and 10:30am basically, meaning that traffic jams would hardly be a problem.

    23. Re:Finally, by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 1

      Hey, maybe you could use these 'goggles' to put unnecessary 'quotes' around everything you 'see'!

    24. Re:Finally, by McTaggart · · Score: 1

      After school closing time I can't reverse out of the driveway onto the street because of the traffic either. The trains back from the city stop at 2 am, sure they're packed, but they're not unpleasant. They're remarkably safe too. I'll give you that there are no more busses at that hour (applicable routes for me stop at 12:30 or 1) but I walk home at night anyway. I could drive my car to the station but stumbling home drunk is much better than driving home in the same state.

      I tend to buy small amounts of stuff more often, simply because it's easier to transport.

      If my timing isn't right I walk another 200m to the slightly further away stop and wait maybe 20 more minutes. If I know I can't use public transport to get where I want when I want I'll just drive or make another plan. I'm not saying the busses and trains are the be all and end all of getting around, just that in some cases it's really useful.

    25. Re:Finally, by Andrew+Kismet · · Score: 1

      Trust me, I've done both the Tokyo and London commutes (only as a student, though) and really... enjoying either could only be a product of masochism.

  3. Huh? by jrwr00 · · Score: 1

    Nothing to see here,
    (Hasn't this already been done?)

    1. Re:Huh? by SEMW · · Score: 1

      Yes -- but with large, heavy goggles that blocked out external light. Not with lightweight, normal glasses that still allow you to see through them normally, as the ones in TFA do.

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    2. Re:Huh? by MustardMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      http://www.bradleyrhodes.com/Papers/thad-glasses-h alf.jpg

      Thad Starner, formerly of MIT and now at Georgia Tech has been using a wearable computer with a display built into his glasses for YEARS. This is NOT a new idea. It wasn't a new idea a month ago when slashdot posted an article from another company doing the same thing, and it won't be a new idea a month from now when they post an article about ANOTHER company developing the same thing. Problem is, none of these things ever actually comes to market, so you get a bunch of people reinventing the wheel and no one actually mass producing it.

    3. Re:Huh? by SEMW · · Score: 1

      Apologies; I stand corrected. Well, technically, I *sit* corrected, but meh.

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    4. Re:Huh? by SeaFox · · Score: 1
      (Hasn't this already been done?)

      They're posting the topic once for each eye.
    5. Re:Huh? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I'm more interested in the word "designer" in the title of the article. At least one set of geeks was able to convince at least one person who gets paid for having fashion sense to hack their work to make it cool in a geeky way. Seriously, how often does that happen?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  4. Invest in Insurance Stocks! by wiz31337 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yet another way for people to get into car accidents, fall down stairs, and walk into poles!

    --
    /whisper/ Thanks for the candy!
    1. Re:Invest in Insurance Stocks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the smart money would sell insurance stocks short until they adjust their actuary tables

    2. Re:Invest in Insurance Stocks! by wiz31337 · · Score: 1

      Smart man! (or on the .01% chance we have a /. first, Smart woman!!)

      --
      /whisper/ Thanks for the candy!
    3. Re:Invest in Insurance Stocks! by Khabok · · Score: 1

      Yet another way for people to get into car accidents, fall down stairs, and walk into poles!

      ...other than me clubbing them over the head with copies of Norton, XP Home, and Duke Nukem Forever. >:}

    4. Re:Invest in Insurance Stocks! by egr · · Score: 1

      if you could plug those glasses somehow into your car with many cameras you could see in all directions without having to turn your head around, plus it could help to see useful information about your car. eh, that thing could help students to cheat on the exams

  5. heh by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

    displays as well as a wee projector
    is that like the sensor bar?
     
      allow you to focus on the humans, trees, road block
    for those of you driving in motor vehicles equipped with media players and the proper output connections. and if so - why not a hud built into the wind shield?
     
    i could see this as a cool thing but the whole lightness and cool factor drops a bunch when there's a cable running down your back and your tethered to whatever is feeding the projector.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:heh by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative
      for those of you driving in motor vehicles equipped with media players and the proper output connections. and if so - why not a hud built into the wind shield?

      In order for a hud to be viewable on the windshield in daylight the windshield must be special, which translates into expensive. People lose windshields to rocks falling off of semis and the like every day. That is why this is a stupid idea.

      Note that the HUD in a military aircraft does not display on the canopy. It displays on a transparent screen in front of the pilot, such as in fighter jets, or on goggles, such as in the Apache assault heli.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would still need to have a good enough battery life for the glasses. No idea where they would put that except probably around your ears. A video cable could be disguised itself as one of those piece of rope thing for your glasses.

      I remember Sony has recently filed a license for body conducted RF signals... That sound like that's another way of getting the video signals to the glasses.

    3. Re:heh by stoolpigeon · · Score: 1

      i'm pretty familiar with huds in jets. (and i wouldn't call the ihadss helmet setup goggles) that's a good point about glass damage - but it seems you could do something similar by placing the hud inside. but with cutting edge stuff you can't really talk about cost -- of course any of this is going to be expensive. the point is, this doesn't make sense if you are driving - as they allude to in their example. it also doesn't make a lot of sense for walking around, unless whatever is connected to the projector is pretty small too. although i guess that's pretty doable now. it seems it might work for someone at a desk - say a reception area, if they wanted to be able to keep up a view of the area and still have access to computer screens or something.

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    4. Re:heh by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Good point. Why can't they make a windshield that doesn't fucking break every time a pebble falls off the rock in front of me?

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    5. Re:heh by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      All the manufacturers would need to do is make the wire look like it is connected to an ipod. Coolness is no longer an issue.

    6. Re:heh by 644bd346996 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "They" can. It would just be very expensive. Lexan, for example, is used in race cars.

    7. Re:heh by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      People lose windshields to rocks falling off of semis and the like every day. That is why this is a stupid idea.

      Right... I've been driving cars for ten years, and never once had to replace a windshield. I've been wearing glasses far longer and replace them, on average, every 1-2 years. That is why putting a display in my glasses is a stupid idea.

    8. Re:heh by Jherek+Carnelian · · Score: 2, Informative

      In order for a hud to be viewable on the windshield in daylight the windshield must be special, which translates into expensive. People lose windshields to rocks falling off of semis and the like every day. That is why this is a stupid idea.

      It isn't really as bad as you make it out to be.

      The "specialness" is really just a coating to prevent double-reflections (one from the front of the glass and one from the back of the glass). You can purchase a user-applicable version of this coating yourself. Various cars already come with a HUD, like the Corvette which has had it as an option for probably over a decade now.

    9. Re:heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cable running down your back

      Cranial jacks built into the headrests. Didn't you watch Ghost In The Shell? Sheesh!
       

    10. Re:heh by ksheff · · Score: 1

      I only replace the lenses of my glasses when I need a new prescription. If these frames used lenses that could be replaced at a cost similar to normal lenses, it wouldn't be that bad.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    11. Re:heh by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was mostly trying to point out how silly the GP's argument is. I guess sarcasm doesn't translate well to text.

  6. Augmented Reality by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lets get some higher resolution in these things and start doing some augmented reality! I can finally store a face next to a name, recall it in a subtle form through my glasses, and never have an awkward moment at a cocktail party every again!

    --
    There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
    1. Re:Augmented Reality by Knara · · Score: 1

      I agree. 640x480 sucks ass, and is no better than the i-glasses stuff that was out in '95. Yeah, the chassis is better, but I'd gladly use a larger setup to get better resolution. That make it less expensive, of course.

    2. Re:Augmented Reality by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Ah yes. I don't know which is sadder. The fact that you're nerdy enough to think that out loud. Or the fact that I'm right there with you. ;P

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    3. Re:Augmented Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviousally know nothing about wearable computing saying that the resolution "sucks ass".

      I DARE you to use a resolution higher than that while walking or driving. when you are in a non critical mode using a wearable, you would have the font up to probably 36-42 point and not even notice a change from 320X240 to 640X480 resolutions.

      In fact you would be happier with a monochrome display when doing day-to-day tasks. caller id display nice and big, email notifications nice and big, quick display of the person standing in front of you as you select their name and it displays all the personal tidbits in a huge font so you dont look like you are faking conversation with them while you look up things you should have remembered.

      Learn about wearable computing, get a clue as to what you are talking about.

      640X480 is a HUGE resolution for the target use... fools like you that know absolutely nothing about it spouting off silly shit like that ruin it for those of us that actually have a clue.

    4. Re:Augmented Reality by Das+Modell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You could do a lot of neat stuff with those glasses if they had Internet connectivity and the right software. An overlayed GPS map should be easy enough. It could even three-dimensionally show your destination as an icon, and your distance to it.

      Artificial eyes and a computerized brain would be more handy, though.

    5. Re:Augmented Reality by Joebert · · Score: 1
      and never have an awkward moment at a cocktail party every again!

      Untill your glasses start saving the image of the last time you've seen everyone & you come across the people you met when you realized the bathroom door, was actually their bedroom door a few weeks later.
      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    6. Re:Augmented Reality by RealErmine · · Score: 4, Funny

      never have an awkward moment at a cocktail party every again!

      How about "Look at the stupid glasses that guy's wearing!"

      --
      Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
    7. Re:Augmented Reality by IdleTime · · Score: 3, Funny

      I need glasses that give me an image similar to watching a 23" from an armlength's distance

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    8. Re:Augmented Reality by thepotoo · · Score: 1
      More excitingly, link up your small web browsing device of choice, surf to Wikipedia during your college exams, and sleep your way to the top!

      I, for one, hope these things don't take off until I'm out of school or people will raise the bar for those of us who don't cheat.

      And then there's always the ability to watch porn anywhere, but that's a whole other can of worms.

      --
      Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
    9. Re:Augmented Reality by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      Lets get some higher resolution in these things and start doing some augmented reality!

      Why do you need a higher resolution for that? There was a time when computers worked with 320x200 resolution and people seemed to do well. How much info do you really need to be there? How well will you be able to focus on both the digital info and the reality in front of you? It's not because 1600x1200 is now the lower limit for graphics cards that _every_ application suddenly needs them.

    10. Re:Augmented Reality by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      How about "Look at the stupid glasses that guy's wearing!

      You bring up a very good point. This technology has existed for a while. Unfortunately its developed by geeks, not fashion accessory designers. What I mean by that is if it is not as sexy as an iPod, or a Bluetooth earpiece etc. then it will not be picked up by the mainstream. And the mainstream is DYING for something like this if they can make it sleek, sexy, cheap and simple enough for the mass market.

      If they made one of these suckers able to plug into a video iPod or other PMP, or a media cellphone, then this thing could be a huge hit. But that is the no-brainer part. Until they solve the aesthetics of such a device it will go the same route as calculator watches...something extremely functional and useful that only geeks end up wearing because it isn't stylish enough for the masses and thus the technology really never gets picked up and developed to its fullest potential.

      But if they can overcome this hurdle I fully expect it to be common to see people walking around with these on the streets, perhaps just a monocle version.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    11. Re:Augmented Reality by Knara · · Score: 1

      While replying to an AC is usually not worth the time, it is true that if you were doing _only_ augmented reality with simple text displays, 640x480 would probably be sufficient. For general purpose use, however (say I wanted to watch a movie on my glasses on the bus on the way home, or look at pr0n or something), 640x480 is still lacking in it's ability to show detail.

    12. Re:Augmented Reality by Knara · · Score: 1

      As I said to the AC earlier in this thread, while that resolution is fine for simple augmented reality, why have different glasses for different purposes. If I want to web surf or watch movies or something, I'd like greater than 640x480 ad in full color, thanks.

    13. Re:Augmented Reality by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Hah, you'll first have to get that name off of her, mr nerdy nerd :)

    14. Re:Augmented Reality by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Informative
      For general purpose use, however (say I wanted to watch a movie on my glasses on the bus on the way home, or look at pr0n or something), 640x480 is still lacking in it's ability to show detail.


      640x480 resolution is exactly enough to show a standard size and aspect ratio 480i/p TV picture; it'll be the equivalent of 480pX where X is whatever its refresh rate is, at 60Hz, it'll do DVD-quality playback (either at 480i60 or 480p24/30) and better (480p60).

      Admittedly, its not enough to show HD content.

    15. Re:Augmented Reality by Virtual_Raider · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You beat me to the GPS example =) But I thought of a couple more... I recently bought some bluetooth stereo earphones to listen to mp3s on my mobile. Imagine if you could also conect this 'designer glasses' to a cell phone and be able to read your sms =)

      It would be really neat to have the small envelope icon pop up in a corner of your vision as another mean of informing you. Of course, this is not for everybody and I'm already anticipating the reaction of the I-don't-want-that-therefore-it-sucks crowd. It would also take some good design to make it so that it doesn't block your field of vision, I wouldn't want to be driving in the middle of a busy road and have a giant sms envelope popping right in front of my eyes. Yet, done well it would absolutely kick ass.

      Since I'm day-dreaming, how about coupling that with those keyboards made of light ala Final Fantasy Movie that came out for the Palm. You could see the keyboard in your glasses and type in thin air a reply. And don't forget a cyberpunk favorite, the digital watch.

      The future in the mirror is closer than it appears.

      --
      +Raider of the lost BBS
    16. Re:Augmented Reality by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Well, anything can happen. 20 years ago the Internet was almost non-existent. 20 years before that, personal computers didn't exist (I think). I imagine that augmented reality will be completely mundane in 2026 (and the Internet will be wirelessly omnipresent).

    17. Re:Augmented Reality by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

      actually, wouldn't any images/video be downscaled on a 2" eyeglass at 640x480 look as if it were high-def? I know even 800x600 looks like crap anymore on a 17" monitor, but on a 2" screen - I would think it'd look damned good...

    18. Re:Augmented Reality by Clifton+Beach · · Score: 1

      Lets get some higher resolution in these things
      640 pixels ought to be enough for anybody
      --
      42 hidden comments
    19. Re:Augmented Reality by jumpfroggy · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered about this... 640x480 would be fine for video watching, etc. But will these ever make a good portable computing display, a direct replacement for the laptop screen? Say for a nice replacement, at least 1024x768. When will an affordable display come out with this resolution?

      The follow up question, once the higher-res goggles become affordable, is How comfortable is it to work on these things for 8 hours straight, vs. a normal LCD? They always say "looks like a 60 inch tv at 10 ft". How about a 17" monitor at 2 feet? I'd love to sit on the plane with a keyboard and be able to work without worrying about the seat in front of me reclining and smashing my laptop screen into 2 pieces. Or on a bus, working in privacy. Or walking down the street with my wrist-mounted keyboard-halves, for the 15 minutes it takes for me to be distracted and find my way under the front fender of a passing car.

      I can't wait.

    20. Re:Augmented Reality by cnettel · · Score: 1

      Not when the whole point is that those 2 " cover most of your field of view.

    21. Re:Augmented Reality by itlurksbeneath · · Score: 1

      The article mentions that the optics make the picture appear similar to a 60" screen viewed at 10' distance. Personally, I think that sucks. My 60" screen (well, ok, it's only a 52") has a whole lot more pixels than 640x480, for sure. For video's and such, it wouldn't be that bad, but running a computer display on it would bite. When was the last time you ran your desktop in 640x480? 1989?

      --
      Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
    22. Re:Augmented Reality by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

      I think you missed my point. If a 17"^2 monitor running 1024x768 (pretty much the minimum standard anymore for most of us right?) - and 2"^2 of that monitor is something like 200x150 resolution - then proportionally 640x480 is should be something like a *effectivelly* proportional 3 or 4 times the resolution with the glasses compared to a 17" monitor running 640x480. Remember now - thats *effective resolution* not actual resolution...

  7. They Look Aweful! by rhartness · · Score: 1

    These glasses look a lot better than the old, bulky VR glasses that first emerged a long time ago but the wearer still looks like a huge dork. (No offense to anyone who would consider owning these.)

    I can't wait until OLED technology (or something similiar) progresses to the point to where the display can be imprinted on the lens. We're probably still a few years off from that point but, until then, I don't think this type of techonology will ever become mainstream.

    1. Re:They Look Aweful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming you wear glasses, look at the frame and try to focus it clearly. If you don't, halfway down your nose should suffice.

      If you're a remotely normal human being you won't be able to do it. I personally can't focus clearly until about three times the distance where my glasses sit.

      Now ponder why you need to get more sophisticated than just embedding very small displays in your lenses in order to get this stuff to work.

  8. Two wee projectors on each arm by Timesprout · · Score: 1

    I can see severe beatings in store for users of these glasses on plane trips.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  9. Gadget Makers: get some fashion sense by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How freakin' dorky do those "designer" glasses look? What's so hard here, integrate your displays into a normal looking pair of sunglasses and make them no more bulky while doing so. Yes, that means you are going to have to do something revolutionary and hide that revolutionary technology in something that looks normal. Cause that's what people want when they are out in public; to look like everyone else; and that's where this product will be used.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Gadget Makers: get some fashion sense by SEMW · · Score: 1

      How freakin' dorky do those "designer" glasses look? What's so hard here, integrate your displays into a normal looking pair of sunglasses and make them no more bulky while doing so. Yes, that means you are going to have to do something revolutionary and hide that revolutionary technology in something that looks normal. Cause that's what people want when they are out in public; to look like everyone else 1.3 billion people would disagree with you. That's a pretty large fraction of the Earth's population who wears glasses (ignoring contact-lens wearers). Once 1.3 billion people are doing something, it *becomes* normal, and frankly, it's not only stupid but downright idiotic that you would imply that all 1.3 billion want to "look like everyone else" or "look normal".

      No to mention that you'd look pretty stupid wearing sunglasses indoors or when it's dark outside. But then, I'm guessing you do that already.
      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    2. Re:Gadget Makers: get some fashion sense by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Well, ya know, if they can make it look normal in a pair of regular glasses, that's fine too, I just think you have a lot better chance of doing it with sunglasses first.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Gadget Makers: get some fashion sense by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      No to mention that you'd look pretty stupid wearing sunglasses indoors or when it's dark outside. But then, I'm guessing you do that already.

      I'm Elwood Blues, you insensitive clod!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Gadget Makers: get some fashion sense by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Based on the popularity of contact lenses and PRK-like surgeries, I'm going to say that most of those 1.3B really would prefer to just look like everyone else.

      OP had it right - quit making these things so homely that you wouldn't wear them where anyone could actually see you. If they have to tint the glasses to hide the electronics, so be it - for now. They can work on the transparency as you get better, but there will be be no money to keep them going if the only sales are to demo companies and the odd rich-geek or three.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  10. why bother with a virtual 60" screen 10' away by mofag · · Score: 2, Funny

    when I can go buy a 60" widescreen plasma tv and sit 2 feet away from it?

    1. Re:why bother with a virtual 60" screen 10' away by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      I would like to see you carry it around with you (with matching powersupply)

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  11. Nice design, but is it functional? by Scothoser · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's a really nice design, but how does it function? Their website (www.lumus-optical.com) doesn't specify beyond potential application. Does it allow you to clip onto existing glasses, or do you have to use their display as well? It has a clean display in comparison to the My Vu specs (www.myvu.com), but there doesn't seem to be a lot more to it. Does it have built in audio, does it have a bulky adapter/controller? I for one would like to see more information on the website.

    Assuming these questions are answered to my satisfaction, I'd be happy to look into it in conjunction with a decent video playing PDA/cell phone. Integrate the bluetooth keyboard, and you have a real mobile computer.

  12. from the department of... by erbbysam · · Score: 1

    from the department of when-will-they-have-the-goggles-that-every-man-dre ams-of?

    1. Re:from the department of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just combine it with this and we're there, man, we're there.

  13. Undisclosed? by grassy_knoll · · Score: 4, Funny
    Lumus glasses can accept video inputs via an undisclosed connection


    Undisclosed? What, does the input jack require lube or something?

    "...So you see, the electrical impulses are carried along the central nervous system then back out through the epidural layer near the magnet on the glasses... "

    "Look, I don't care how it works that is Not an entrance!"

    [badum-ching]
  14. are they available? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where can you buy lcd goggles? newegg doesn't have them...

  15. engadget blogspam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


    another blog with a bit of blurb leading to the original story here

    and here is the company in question

    i swear "blog" is fast becoming a pseudonym for "spam" except its on a webpage rather than my inbox but both are garnished with adverts, banners, affiliate clicks and use ever increasing desperate tactics to attract viewers other than actually create an original article that people want to read or do some investigation themselves (but that would mean working for a living),
    i dont think traditional (professional) media has anything to fear from the blogosphere other than being ripped off for their content

    J

  16. Home page, earlier products by Victor+Fors · · Score: 4, Informative

    link to home page: http://www.lumusvision.com/ They have a technology section displaying an overview of the refraction elements used to display the image. They also seem to have developed (and brought to market) an earlier model of these glasses. I admit they do look shiny, but if i bought VR goggles i'd primarily use them at home. It's a cool toy, but would lug around something like that for everyday use?

    1. Re:Home page, earlier products by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      It's a cool toy, but would lug around something like that for everyday use?
      Some people do it!
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Home page, earlier products by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Aircraft mechanics: look at a part and call up the service procedures video while you're looking at the real part.

      Drivers of anything that has a blind spot at the rear, to watch the backup camera.

      Drivers at night, to watch the car's infrared camera without defocusing from the road.

      Parents: watch the nannycam in real time.

      Anybody with a swimming pool at home.

      Police: the police dog already has a harness, sometimes with a light so you can keep track of the dog as it follows a trail. Add an image-stabilized camera, and you're watching video aimed by someone with senses vastly better than your own.

      Morons addicted to television.

    3. Re:Home page, earlier products by bluesangria · · Score: 1
      Hmm! Thank you for that! I hadn't considered all those uses past the obvious entertainment ones, but you're right. I'll add another. How about doctors and surgery? Imagine being able to bring up a magnified version of the area you are working with. Or in cosmetic surgery, actually superimposing before and after images so you can follow the photo model.

      Wow! Suddenly this technology is ALOT more interesting.
      blue

  17. if only by LordMyren · · Score: 1

    microdisplays have been available at 320x240 resolutions for a long time now. i'm just waiting for a res boost. however, given the long sordid history of microdisplays, i suggest you not hold your breath for product releases. place little faith in a press release.

    1. Re:if only by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If you suggest that they do hold their breath, they're will be a shorter line when they finally release a decent resolution.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:if only by russellh · · Score: 1

      I saw headplay at DEMOfall 2006. it does 1024x768. Don't think it's ready yet tho.

      --
      must... stay... awake...
  18. Nerd goggles by eclectro · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...they do something!

    Can I get a date by wearing the goggles? Or can I get a girl to date me by her wearing them? Or can I date the girl in the picture? How do they work exactly??

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:Nerd goggles by gamer4Life · · Score: 1

      Use beer goggles on her instead.

    2. Re:Nerd goggles by dw604 · · Score: 1

      1) Put up a picture of your favourite celebrity
      2) Face toward a (non-attractive) woman in your league
      3) Turn the transparency down until she's cute

      It's cheaper than beer!

  19. yar by snarfbot · · Score: 1

    well its only a matter of time before its integrated into the frame of the glasses, and it works better than the ones that were supposed to fire directly onto your retinas. it would be awesome if there were better mini pc motherboards, like fitting into a hard drive enclosure with a decent processor makes me kinda look forward to the amd cpu gpu integrated chip doozer. that would be awesome.

  20. Crappy marketing by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

    "This looks like VGA resolution displayed on a screen so big you can see the individual pixels!"

    1. Re:Crappy marketing by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Better than not seeing individual pixels -- with resolution that small, you need every one you can get! (Seriously, I've used something like this (a MicroOptical SV-3, to be specific) before -- if anything, I wish the pixels were bigger.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  21. Dangers of extended use? by dave562 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What are the implications of using something like this on a regular basis? It's pretty well documented that people experience eye strain from staying focused at a fixed focal depth for too long (ie. when looking at a monitor). I've had my own vision deteriorate pretty significantly since I have started using computers despite genetics to the opposite (ie. my mom and dad both have great vision and they are in their late 50s). I shudder to think about the implications of remaining focused at a depth of less than inch from the eye for extended periods of time.

    1. Re:Dangers of extended use? by some_hoser · · Score: 1

      HUDs always have the image focused at infinity, so it's like the image is on the horizon, and you don't have to try to focus close up

    2. Re:Dangers of extended use? by mpoulton · · Score: 4, Informative

      I shudder to think about the implications of remaining focused at a depth of less than inch from the eye for extended periods of time.

      You're not. The focal distance is much further away than that -- the apparent focal plane floats in front of the user at a comfortable distance. Thus, eye strain should be reduced compared to normal computer use.

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    3. Re:Dangers of extended use? by Shadyman · · Score: 1

      But what if there's a wall in front of you?

    4. Re:Dangers of extended use? by cnettel · · Score: 1

      What about it? I guess the brain might be a bit confused by the fact that the wall is suddenly translucent, but you see glass all the time. That's what it will look like, you'll think you're seeing something behind the wall.

  22. As if the bluetooth earphone wasn't dorky enough.. by broohaha · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can't wait to see people hanging out at the grocery store or at the local mall, just walking around with those hideously ugly glasses, completely oblivious to their surroundings and watching some tv show. I can see how it can be useful in some situations, but to the folks that I'm sure I'll see walking about in crowded shopping areas, I ask what the point of all that is, other than to simply show off?

  23. iPod uses by zptao · · Score: 0

    Can this be used to enhance movies watched on the Video iPod?

  24. Next release in 3-D? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Hey, maybe they can get this pixel to be 5 feet away and the next one over to be 61 inches away. Extend that to a "depth range" of a few feet and "Help me Obi-Wan" can't be far off.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  25. That wouldn't be pretty. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    However I doubt you'd want a Lexan windshield on a passenger car, because it would scratch too easily. Particularly since most people don't really wash their windshields, and just sort of let the wipers grind the stuff around while the nozzles squirt some blue water on it.

    A cracked windshield is probably preferable to one that's translucent from being sandblasted with road grit. I suspect, though I don't know for sure, that the ones on race cars probably have a very short lifespan.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:That wouldn't be pretty. by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      "I suspect, though I don't know for sure, that the ones on race cars probably have a very short lifespan"

      They do, about one race. Also, they use tear strips on the F1's helmets rather than cleaning them, and boy does it suck when you run out of tear strips!
      Fairly sure some of the Nascar guys use them on their windshields too.

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
  26. multipupiloptomy by norminator · · Score: 1
    Lumus glasses can accept video inputs via an undisclosed connection
    Undisclosed? What, does the input jack require lube or something?

    "...So you see, the electrical impulses are carried along the central nervous system then back out through the epidural layer near the magnet on the glasses... "
    "Look, I don't care how it works that is Not an entrance!"

    Of course, that input requires a special implantation surgery... From Hot Shots:
    "It's called a multipupiloptomy, but in order to keep from damaging the eye sockets they have to go in through the rectum... Ain't no man gonna take that route with me!"
  27. Efficiency by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    general efficiency of public transit This would be the definition of efficiency whick leads a public transit journey to take 2 hours, 15 miles, a change of route and a 30 minute wait in the rain compared to a 20 minute, 5 mile warm, dry journey in relative comfort.

    Enlightenment is easy.

    --
    Deleted
  28. Vegeta! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    What's the scouter say about his power level?
     
    It's over nine THOUSand!!!!
     
    What 9000?!

  29. Wow, arm mounted projectors by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

    as well as two wee projectors on each arm

    Wii projectors or wee projectors? Wii projectors, body movements, and arm mounted Wii projectors and things could get dangerous. We just need portable power for the Wii and projectors. :^D

    --
    My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  30. Obligatory Family Guy Quote by kypper · · Score: 1

    Dude, this car kicks ass! ..and I can watch Madagascar while I'm driving!

    ---------
    Madagascar plays:
    "What kind of music do you like, Gloria?"
    "Hippo-Hop. Woo-hoo, yeeah baby!"
    -----------

    Hahaha, DUDE, those animals are so FUCKING funny, they make me want to merge without looking!
    *cars crash*
    YEAH, RUMSFELD!

    1. Re:Obligatory Family Guy Quote by neuro.slug · · Score: 1

      At least post the video of the quote, too. Jeez :)

  31. great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    great, now we just have to wait until the porn industry adopts it and then wait another 2 to 5 years until we get some useful content.

  32. Needs faster wearable computers by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    Face recognition is okay, but to really do augmented reality well you need to first figure out the geometry of the whole scene. Hardware is just getting fast enough to do that in real time, but portable hardware that can do it is still a few years away. For example, OpenVIDIA is fast enough to track 1000 features in real time, but requires a high-end SLI setup to do it (at least, if I remember the benchmark correctly -- I can't find it again).

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  33. Wii Controller by TranscendentalAnarch · · Score: 4, Funny

    I was going to say that, at least with this type of display, you won't get any idiots chucking their Wii controllers at their 60" plasmas... But then I thought that, if you're stupid enough to do that, you'll be stupid enough to swing the nun chuck around and smack the crap out of your face and the glasses.

  34. 60" VGA = 13dpi by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, that'd look like shit, even at ten feet.

    How about we shoot for effectively 17" XGA ...at, say, two feet.

  35. Phase-array optics by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    Phase-array optics, implemented in a coating several nanometers deep on the inside surface of the lenses, will in theory be able to display virtual images at a comfortable viewing distance. See more here

  36. Solid Vision by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Since the display is a pair of projectors, each aimed into one eye, why aren't they boasting a stereo display, like a 3D movie?

    What I really want to see is tiny cameras on the fronts of the projectors, registering the 3D scene so the projected display can be mapped closely onto it.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  37. Virtual Light by starbird · · Score: 1

    Wasn't this the story about some courier girl that found a pair of sunglasses, and it if you turn them on, they give information about your surroundings? Peoples names, faces, backgrounds. Prices of objects your looking at, etc.

    I think to be useful in that sense the resolution would need to be higher, and you would need some kind of object for pattern/face recognition.

    Would be neat if this survives.

    1. Re:Virtual Light by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      A really shit story yes. About as painful a read as All Tomorrow's Parties; another dismal work by William Gibson. I don't know if he is doing more drugs or less drugs since Neuromancer, but he just never captured that "I don't really give a shit if it sells or not" attitude that made it great since.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  38. old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when i was in th 4th grade (1994) my teacher worn one of these and it spat out a freaking lazor light show..

  39. I'll let you in to a secret by geekoid · · Score: 1

    An economy car uses LESS energhy, and pollutes less then any public transportation.

    It is you who is being brainwashed. Enjoy your overly length commute to work while helping to spread the cold and flu to people.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:I'll let you in to a secret by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      An economy car uses LESS energhy, and pollutes less then any public transportation.

      And oddly enough 20 times as many people use that public transportation so it pollutes less (not to mention that electricity apparently is less polluting to produce than gasoline is to burn even by coal power plants).

    2. Re:I'll let you in to a secret by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Well, if you consider that economy cars get between 40 and 50 mpg in real-life, and a common, efficient deisel bus gets about 2mpg and wanders around town with two or three people on it during all but rush-hour, I'd say the economy car is the winner.

      BTW - that mileage could be going up to 2.5-2.6 when the new hybrid deisel-electric busses from DaimlerChrysler/Allison, so PT is getting closer to matching the insight/prius set.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:I'll let you in to a secret by shaneh0 · · Score: 1

      Actually, according to a CNET article (http://news.com.com/The+greening+of+the+city+bus/ 2100-11389_3-6079090.html) the average non-hybrid bus runs at 3.5 MPG. The hybrid types are coming in at 4.5. And while a 1.5 MPG difference doesn't sound like so much on paper, it's a lot when you consider it's nearly twice as efficient as you claimed. So please, stop trying to dress up your best guess as a fact. Your numbers for the hybrid buses were even further from the truth.

      Furthermore, while the bus might only have 2 people in it sometimes, the only way to actually determine efficiency is to take a snapshot of an entire week. That is, how many gallons of fuel per rider. In my midsized rust-belt city, where many bus routes also run with just a few people during most hours of the day, the busses are still more efficient as a whole than individual cars would be. Some of the routes were a net-loss, but others were such a gain that the system is justified. And even the losing routes provide a value to the service that probably increases total ridership on other routes.

      In summary, if you'd have prefaced your post with 'This is a complete guess, but...' then you'd have gotten no complaint from me. But you didn't. You just decided that you knew what you were talking about without actually interesting yourself with pesky things like 'facts.'

    4. Re:I'll let you in to a secret by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. The 2 and 2.5 numbers came directly from a DC/Allison presentation from a year or two ago. That doesn't mean I remembered it correctly. *shrug*

      At 20 riders per efficient mile, 2 vs 40 is a wash. Consider that car miles are more efficient than busses (this is a guess - I'll say 30% more on average), and 20 riders average is a pipe dream. The busses in my town probably only seat 30-32 (okay, that's a guess, too - it's been a while since I've riden in one as I live close enough to work to walk). If you get 30% of max utilization out of bus, I'd call that a pretty impressive system (that's from...I don't remember and am not going to look it up, I think 20% is actually considered very good, but I'd have to check with my neighbor who happens to run the local transit authority). So 32 riders *.3 filled average / 1.3 bus miles/car mile *3.5mpg = 26mpg for a single rider vehicle (33 for a hybrid bus). My wife's grand caravan

      Now, this doesn't address two of the big advantages to public transit - traffic congestion and parking. I'm all for efficient public transit - and there are very good reasons why it's valuable, but fuel savings over efficient in-town private vechles isn't one of them.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    5. Re:I'll let you in to a secret by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      No a bus doesn't hold 30 people at most, it holds as many as you can pack in there like sardines. I've lived in NYC and Warsaw, Poland where the buses and trains are regularly packed to the point of that being an annoyance in its own. I have yet to see any other system at similar capacity in the US, as to put it bluntly people in the US do not use public transportation. Most system may "look" good but are utterly worthless for full time use or except for travel between certain area. So saying that it's well used for a US bus system isn't saying much to be honest.

      Also buses aren't the only form of public transit; railed systems of various sorts (light rail, trolleys, trains) are probably much more efficient (in both time and fuel).

  40. Corrective Lenses? by TyrWanJo · · Score: 1

    Although the implications of this are somewhat grandiose in scale, the question that seems to be refused to be answered by any of the articles or press releases is whether or not this technology will work with corrective lenses. Even now, due to the fact that i wear glasses (and refuse to purchase contacts, which is another issue altogether) i cannot really find sunglasses without paying an exhorbinant rate - my options are 1) buy sunglas clips, which dont work very well, and rarely fit, 2) spend twice as much as i should and purchase a set of sunglasses and non-tinted glasses, or 3) buy a set of glasses with transition lenses, or 4) go without and hope that the migraines that manifest themselves from increadible ammounts of light will be easily and efficiently staved off. Granted, these glasses, if they ever are produced, are likely to be expensive, but will these new glasses afford me new choises, or will i be stuck with the aforementioned quandries, only intensified by the fact that now there is a new kind of optical technology that is making my corrective lenses more expensive, thus increasing the expense i already have to shill out at the optricians and for the various types of lenses i, even now, need but can't afford?

    1. Re:Corrective Lenses? by HaveNoMouth · · Score: 1

      Good question. The right solution would be to integrate two tiny cameras with the goggles and provide augmented reality, such that the goggles simply project what you would see anyway, with augmentations. Then you can toss your prescription glasses because the goggles would do that job. And if the cameras could autofocus closeup as well as far, the bifocals you would otherwise need when you got older would be unnecessary as well.

  41. We're all geeks, choice has little to do with it by Meph_the_Balrog · · Score: 1
    Not if you choose your woman carefully...

    You must be new here..
  42. Addictive headset from TNG's Risa by Benson884 · · Score: 1

    Maybe they'll be replicated like the plague and the whole ship will become addicted!!! OH NO!!! http://www.g4tv.com/startrekthenextgeneration/epis odes/5156/The_Game.htmlThe Game episode.

  43. Lockheed Martin by rhinokitty · · Score: 1

    Yeah, these were developed by lockheed martin for fighter pilots originally. Its a way of projecting targeting and specifications in a pilots field of vision as a heads up display. Could be used with soldiers, etc...

    I am sure some jarhead just watched the terminator and tried to reverse engineer it. Science fiction always comes up with this stuff before the military.

    1. Re:Lockheed Martin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AH-64s use a helmet mounted monocle hud for targeting. Its a piece of glass that goes over one of your eyes. The helmet is tracked by sensors in the cockpit. The FLIR and chin mounted chain gun can be slaved to the pilots head, so he can fire or target where he is looking.

      Also, russian fighters use a similar technology. Instead of having a missile look straight ahead, the seeker can be slaved to the pilots helmet. So instead of having to point your fighter at the enemies plane to get a lock (boresight targeting), you can just look toward your enemy and get a missile lock.

  44. It's A Trap! by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

    Don't let them fool you!

    When they tell you that you can use the goggles to play an enjoyable game, RUN!

    - RG>

    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  45. Can we just swap displays? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone's complaining about the resolution, so can we just swap displays?

    Looking at Lumus-Optical's web site, it's clear that all they've done is fold the optics and are using a segmented beamsplitter embedded in an optically clear substrate to display the image on your glasses. Nothing new, just a slight twist on the low-obscurement transparent HMD designs. If you wear glasses, I see absolutely nothing keeping you from just moving the mounting bracket over to your own frames.

    For what it's worth, you can buy similar microdisplays and electronics directly from Kopin ( http://www.kopin.com/commercial-display-products/ ). This can also enlighten you to the "cost" of those XGA head mounted displays. They're still not cheap, but they're also traditional active-matrix LCDs. It would probably be simple for the company to upgrade resolution, but the price is going to skyrocket, too.

    I'd be FAR more impressed if they were using an RGB 2d MEMS scanner from Microvision ( http://www.microvision.com/ ). I actually believe that that a similar technology but using a segmented prism instead was to be used in ultra-flat rear projection TV's as an alternative.

    Also, as far as I'm aware, only 3D Visor ( http://www.3dvisor.com/ ) is currently using OLEDs in a commercial product, but their work is with standard enclosed nausea inducing stuff. There are rumors flying of a $1000 XGA product sometime in the near future, though.

  46. Some Decent images by jdkOne · · Score: 1

    The company's got a pdf file on their site with some higher resolution images at http://www.lumus-optical.com/Downloads/Tech/Produc tDescriptionPD20-060523.pdf

  47. Covered Under Health Plan? by sanman2 · · Score: 1

    Hey, my employer's health plan allows me to purchase a pair of glasses free every couple of years. So would this include video-augmented glasses?

  48. Insurance? Don't you mean Health Care? by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

    Insurance companies really don't want people to get hurt, since they have to pay for it. Invest in Healthcare instead.

    On topic, the only thing I really want is industrial diamond glasses. No more soft plastic lenses or thick glass ones, just a few mm of diamond for any eye adjustment you could need. As an added bonus, you could use them to sharpen your knives.

    1. Re:Insurance? Don't you mean Health Care? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      Um, that wouldn't help.

      Diamonds are hard in terms of "they don't scratch" but are (relatively) brittle. I believe if you smash a diamond with a hammer it WILL shatter along its crystal faces. (I could be wrong on this)

      For eyeglasses, while scratchproofing is nice, impact resistance is far more important. I don't want diamond lenses that will shatter into a bunch of tiny sharp pieces when a hockey player with no aim sends a puck into the opposing team's pepband and not the goal. (Yes, Harvard hockey players are THAT bad.) Polycarbonate shatterproof lenses (yes, that's right, PLASTIC is one of the toughest lens materials available in terms of impact resistance) saved my eyesight that day. I took a puck right to the lens, the lens distributed the impact around my eyes, resulting in a lot of stitches but no blindness. Oh, and after getting stitched up I bent the frame back into shape and popped the lens right back in.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    2. Re:Insurance? Don't you mean Health Care? by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      One of the big reasons for switching from glass to polycarbonate lenses it that glass has a tendency to implode when it shatters, whereas polycarbonate will explode when it shatters. An explosion is preferable because it sends the shards away from your eye.

      Also, while you might be able to shatter a diamond with a hammer, it will leave a good dent in your anvil. Most likely any projectile that would shatter a diamond lens would also have enough momentum to seriously mess up the rest of your face when the frame tries to go through your nose.

    3. Re:Insurance? Don't you mean Health Care? by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      Diamonds are hard in terms of "they don't scratch" but are (relatively) brittle. I believe if you smash a diamond with a hammer it WILL shatter along its crystal faces. (I could be wrong on this)

      As far as I can tell, diamond has a similar toughness to strong plastics. References from wikipedia on fracture toughness and diamond aren't really clear, but seem to put diamond between metals and general plastics in terms of toughness, hence my assumption that they are probably about as strong as polycarbonate lenses. I can't find any toughness values for plastic lenses or case studies of which material is actually tougher for use in glasses, though. I suppose I'll have to build a diamond press and try it for myself.

  49. might help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when did the mainstream media ever have anything against substituting a watered down story to attract you to their tacky nest of flashing banners? I'm always suprised to find any kind of substance in an article, I just look at the headlines now and make up my own stories.

  50. One problem... by Davey+K · · Score: 1

    What if you already wear glasses? And can you get these at Specsavers?

  51. Move to a city. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    It is more efficent.

    There is culture.

    There are buses.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Move to a city. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, a culture full of thugs and degenerates. cities suck

  52. Easy answers by PhoenixOne · · Score: 1

    To sum up all the posts in this thread on public transit: When public transit works, it's great. When it doesn't work, it isn't.

    --
    Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
  53. I'm patenting this by dosquatch · · Score: 1

    mini-projector eyeglasses + nightshot spycam with filter = FINALLY REAL X-RAY SPECS THAT WORK!! Huzzah!

    --
    "Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC
  54. Awesome for super futuristic transparent screens!! by bensch128 · · Score: 1

    This technology would make for awesome screens if they can scale it up to full resolution and make the glass larger.

    of course, they're probably hitting some kind of physics barrier which prevents more pixels or large size glasses to be made. Otherwise, this would be very big screen news.

    I doubt anyone's going to wear that attachment piece on their eye though, it just too big.
    Unless it's for work or something.
    Ben