Slashdot Mirror
Wearing a Computer at Work
Roland Piquepaille writes "The European Union has funded an ambitious project related to wearable technology. The project, named WearIT@work, will end in one year and invested funds are expected to exceed 23 million euros. The goal is to replace traditional interfaces, such as screen, keyboard or computer unit, by speech control or gesture control without modifying the applications. This wearable system is currently being tested in four different fields including aircraft maintenance, emergency response, car production and healthcare."
Is it possible for a single article to be posted on here without idiots like you whining about some aspect of US policy?
Seriously, get a life.
google is not a replacment for proper research. idle curiosity maybe
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Why should the EU be funding research for the corporate world?
Somebody somewhere decided that Science Doesn't Happen if a gov't isn't engaged in it. Then they tried to sell that idea to everybody else and used stem cell research to "prove it". They were, unfortunately, very successful.
A close corollary is the idea that Charity Doesn't Happen if it doesn't come from a gov't. Such an idea is what people use to "prove" that European countries give more than the US in international charity.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
You can't comprehend the difference between a technology being useful COMBINED with other advances and being useful on it's own. On it's own this is pretty useless as you can already do almost everything it does with other technologies. A future version of it may be useful on it's own but that would require either much better software or hardware.
IF search was much better than it is now this could be useful but search is not, search is quite bad right now (compared to what a user would WANT it to do). That's for sane subjects, anything such as actual research is much worse. IF the interface was better then it could be useful but copying existing interfaces isn't a giant leap. I mean it having sub vocal commands, brain activity reading, proper eye tracking, working AI (in the light sense) help and so on. IF the software was better it could be useful but again it's not. I mean an artificial memory and mini-brain, self-organizing (but allowing for user input) and easy to use.
Unlike you I am able to comprehend the technology not just regurgitate random somewhat related tid-bits that others have said. I KNOW how I'd find this useful if needed and google type search has NOTHING to do with it, search is too slow and inefficient. I'd instead use it as more or less memory augmentation, helping me store "links" to things I already know or have read but don't remember in detail. Global www search is too slow at a personal scale unless it is done personally and by the use (or with them in mind as an individual). Even then it'd be useless unless a lot of specialized software was written which could almost as easily be used on a laptop (but doesn't really exist).
Ah, another one who *thinks* he's clever but posts before thinking ahead one or two steps. It's different for one key reason: they can't see you using it, so you can use it in *any* conversation - This means that you can conspire in ways that a blackberry won't allow you.
Why even bother with fact to face conversations? You can conspire before the conversation, after the conversation and have a partner do it during the conversation.
Ah, another example of "cleverness" -- finding the one strawman example and not considering the real ones, then presenting that as *cleverness*. There are lots of simple queries that *are* useful. There are lots of technical terms in fields that you don't know that would be immediately useful in contexts like lectures, business meetings, meeting people for the first time, intellectual conversations... Have many of those?
And google is useless for most of them. I know because I search for such things a lot due to my indecently varied interests. By the time you know what the term means from finding the proper reference and reading it the lecture is 50 terms ahead. Likewise you can already do this with smart phones, laptops and so on.
For one thing, it's obvious I am talking about accessibility, of which speed is only a part. The phenomenon of a quantitative difference in speed/accessibility leading to a qualitative difference has been touted by persons like Linus Torvalds and Alan Kay. I think I'll take *them* over you! (On the basis of their good past performance intellectually, and your poor one in your post, so no crying argument by authority, baby!)
How is accessibility any better, all you've mentioned and talked about is speed. The speed with which you can