Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wearing a Computer at Work

Posted by Zonk on from the practically-do-anyway dept.

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."

92 comments

  1. *BSD is Dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    It is now official. Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

    You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

    FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

    Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

    All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

    Fact: *BSD is dying

  2. While this might be badass... by Ekhymosis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder what the health issues might come out of this? Some of the 'wearable' monitors I have read about require a type of constant light flashing directly into the eye at a much closer range than the traditional monitors. I would love to have a very portable computer, but I also value my eyesight, especially since I have slight retinal decay.

    --
    Fighting over religion is like seeing whose imaginary friend is best.
    1. Re:While this might be badass... by explosivejared · · Score: 1

      I think being able to equip yourself like a character from an rpg will trump any health risks. In fact that's how I think they should market this. Optical HUD == +5 Productivity, never mind the increased value for a successful blindness roll, I'd wear one.

      However on a serious note, it seems to me that other than than the point blank screens these appear to be pretty safe. They're are apparently made for use in some pretty electronics hostile environments (the upper atmosphere) which I would assume they are shielded very well and therefore present no greater radiation risk.

      --
      I got a catholic block.
    2. Re:While this might be badass... by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I would love to have a very portable computer, but I also value my eyesight, especially since I have slight retinal decay.

      In a lot of the applications listed, it wouldn't be relevant.

      Underground mine rescuers already use equipment like BG4s, gas detectors, leaky feeder radios and more. Being able to combine the current half-dozen displays into a single HUD would be a godsend.

      There's nothing like dangling from a belay in pitch darkness with an armfull of gear, and having your SCBA's fault alarm go off, to make you wish the info screen was in front of your eyes instead of securely strapped away on the set's harness...

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    3. Re:While this might be badass... by ILuvRamen · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can't forget the severe damage to your vocal chords if you have to talk to your computer all day. I'd give the average person about a month before they'd have to have surgery on their vocal chords, especially during winter. That's especially because of the way you have to talk, all loud and slow and clear instead of lazy and low energy and slightly slurred so that a computer can understand you. Studies show that damages your vocal chords waaaay more. Then there's the whole motion based thing. If typing and moving a mouse can give you carpal tunnel and tendonitis, just think what waving your arm around or basically any other repeated, detectable movement would cause. Tennis elbow x 10!
      Oh and PS, old people work at the hospital where I also do (old = 40+ lol) and they're finally just getting settled using the keyboard and mouse and don't hate them anymore. If you try and tell them to suddenly get retrained on something completely different and still do their job, they'll either not use it or quit. Seriously, we swapped out a noteboook with a tablet and the doctor stopped using it because it had to be held differently. Even in the IT department, I don't think we'd wanna relearn some dumb interface. We can type and mouse as fast as we can think or at least as fast as the computer can react so there's no advantage to switching to a new interface system. When I use a laptop touchpad even the speed at which I can do tasks on the computer drops to about 1/5th. Nothing is more quick and effective as a mouse in my hands.
      But I would use a DDR pad as input just for fun when I wasn't in a hurry...that's it though lol

      --
      Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    4. Re:While this might be badass... by scottrocket · · Score: 5, Funny

      Irrelevant. We are the Borg.

    5. Re:While this might be badass... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because, you know, photons have to age at least two nanoseconds before it's safe to have them enter your eyeball.

      (Relativity pedants: Yeah, I know, speed-of-light, time dilation = infinity, tau zero, blah blah blah...)

    6. Re:While this might be badass... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm more worried about the choice of test cases. Emergency response, healthcare, maintenance? Those seem like things that NEED to always work, and we need to KNOW they always work -- not things to be testing new unproven technology on. I understand their point, to have lots of real-life field testing, but it seems to me you can find other beta testers that aren't so critical to, you know, people surviving horrible accidents.

      For instance, I've still never seen a voice recognition system that can easily identify everything I say -- any change in my tone or pitch (even after I train the system!), and it thinks I said "Eat lots of kelp" when I said "I need help!". Those couple seconds of confusion can make a difference in an emergency response.

      Unless they plan on doing mock trials based on real-life scenarios, but I didn't notice any specifics like that on the website (though I admit I didn't spend a whole lot of time reading about it).

    7. Re:While this might be badass... by billcopc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's no technical reason why that wouldn't be possible. You just need the individual devices to have a common data port, link those up to a compositing processor and off you go. If the gadgets don't have data ports, then you hem and haw at the manufacturer until they add one.

      There are a lot of "futuristic" things we can do today, people just don't want to pay for them.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    8. Re:While this might be badass... by mrhartwig · · Score: 1

      Nothing is more quick and effective as a mouse in my hands.

      I'm not trying to slam you nor am I trolling -- this is a serious question. How often do you have to move your mouse hand back and forth between keyboard and mouse, and do you take that time into account in your evaluation of "quick and effective"?

      I absolutely agree that there are applications for which a mouse can't be beat. I'm know people that use other interface devices say the same about those, for the appropriate app. I can't agree more about touchpads -- they have the same problem with forcing me to move my hand, and they aren't as precise (or maybe that's just because I refuse to work with them) as a mouse. I **much** prefer a forcestick for most things, although some applications make it worthwhile to move to the mouse.

      otoh, being forced to use a mouse for some applications really ticks me off. For example: any text editor that lets me easily do normal operations without forcing me to resort to a mouse is, in my opinion, much more efficient. And no, I'm NOT going to even mention my favorite text editor; no need to start those flamewars. :-)

      And on the third hand, I could care less what interface(s) someone else wants to use. As long as you're not slowing me and/or my team down, if it works, it works. As long as you don't expect that your solution must work for me, too.

      As for your "old = 40+" comment -- I've been retrained and/or retrained myself many more times than years you've been alive, apparently. And I've run into way too many less-than-40 year olds that are too set in their ways & opinions to be useful. So quit sterotyping; your discussions will be much more effective.

      Damn young whippersnappers, anyway. Now where did I put my teeth?

    9. Re:While this might be badass... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too work in IT in a health care environment, and as far as I can tell the JCAHO and HIPAA people would have a field day with this. It's bad enough trying to keep patient information confidential by blocking computer screens, shredding documents, etc., without having to clearly and precisely enunciate patient information into a computer system, especially in an emergency room setting such as a triage area.

  3. The Way DHS and the White House Read This by explosivejared · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Imagine you have an intelligent assistant able to find any information you need, whenever and wherever.

    Imagine a TERRORIST has an intelligent assistant able to find THE WHEREABOUTS OF EVERY SMALL AMERICAN CHILD, whenever and wherever, and that assistant will help them SET THE AMBER WAVES OF GRAIN ON FIRE WHILE DEFECATING ON AN AMERICAN FLAG.

    --
    I got a catholic block.
    1. Re:The Way DHS and the White House Read This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell does that have to do with the article?

    2. Re:The Way DHS and the White House Read This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Bin Laden's trolling Slashdot now?

      Makes just about as much sense, at least.

    3. Re:The Way DHS and the White House Read This by tristian_was_here · · Score: 1

      At least Saddam can no longer do it.

    4. Re:The Way DHS and the White House Read This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's shown there is a wearable display, but if they use an http://eyetap.org/EyeTap it could get interesting, e.g. mediated reality, lifelong video capture, cyborg collectives in a shared computer-mediated space, etc..

  4. For the first time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    First post! Yipee!

    1. Re:For the first time by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      FAIL

    2. Re:For the first time by darkhitman · · Score: -1

      Man, that meme is below Slashdot. Here, we use the much more cultivated "-1 Overrated".

      --
      Tell me something...it's still "We, the people"... right?
  5. I work at the airport, you insensitive clod! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Why do you hate America?!

  6. PDAs and Smart Phones by Enderandrew · · Score: 0

    We already have devices designed for the mobile workforce, and they are called smart phones and PDAs and they get better every year with corporate research that doesn't cost tax payers anything.

    Why should the EU be funding research for the corporate world?

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:PDAs and Smart Phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Europe loves socialism?

    2. Re:PDAs and Smart Phones by Bartab · · Score: 1, Troll

      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.
    3. Re:PDAs and Smart Phones by markxsd · · Score: 1

      >Why should the EU be funding research for the corporate world?

      Put simply - it shouldn't. The EU isn't capable of administering this kind of project and the money is typically wasted. I was the lead technical architect for a similar EU project that delivered jack shit in the end in spite of my best efforts. About 10-15 million euros spent on that one. The majority of the money spent on "project managers" and "business analysts" who were in fact neither.

      Imagine a _very_ expensive restaurant in Venice with 30+ representatives (with their husbands/wives, flown from around Europe business class of course) from 15 public and private sector organisations from around Europe. I don't need to imagine it, I was there. And it was repeated many times over as the project roadshow travelled around Europe over a 2 year period. In my experience, that is where 90% of the research budget on this kind of project goes. Down bureaucrats throats. I used to be pro EU until I saw where the money went.

  7. mmm tumors by anarking · · Score: 1

    Who can say CANCER?

    it's ironic isn't it, how the MIT girl who did this same thing, sans functionality, was arrested on the terrorist hoax device clause.

    1. Re:mmm tumors by timmarhy · · Score: 1
      bah, everything gives you cancer.

      and the MIT girl was arrested because she's a social handycap who can't answer a simple question. honestly what tard doesn't realise that walking into an airport with an unknown object glued to your chest doesn't warrant questions? if she had of just said "Oh this is just some funky thing on my shirt, here see?" she'd had no problems.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  8. Maybe I'll accept it when... by hyades1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    they find some way to keep people using the interface from viewing pr0n. Especially if any of the gesture-driven controls they're contemplating get implemented.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  9. Gestures, eh? by lord_nimula · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can you imagine using Emacs with this?

    1. Re:Gestures, eh? by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I can't imagine using emacs, period. :P

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:Gestures, eh? by evanbd · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't people already gesture at Emacs?

    3. Re:Gestures, eh? by davester666 · · Score: 1

      With this, emacs can response in kind.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Gestures, eh? by Penguinisto · · Score: 1
      They mean with more than one finger this time...

      ...oh, wait. You meant in actually using it, not describing it. My Bad.

      /P

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    5. Re:Gestures, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about ed? Probably the best text editor for voice control.

  10. Just a | dream? by coppro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In my experience, voice recognition is overrated. I'll be impressed when someone develops software that can isolate and identify any single person's voice. Mind you, whoever designs that software will make billions. Imagine the potential uses... *Taps chest twice.* "Computer! Red alert!"

    1. Re:Just a | dream? by grumling · · Score: 1

      Forget the "computer" part. Just tap and start talking. The communicator will figure out who you are calling and automagically put the call through, just like in TNG.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    2. Re:Just a | dream? by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

      Actually, technically, what you've described actually is voice recognition.

      Speech recognition is the recognition of words and sentences. Voice recognition is the recognition of who's voice it is.

    3. Re:Just a | dream? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Methinks you better use T,Not G when you use the word automatically next time...

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    4. Re:Just a | dream? by fbjon · · Score: 1

      'Automagic' is a perfectly cromulent word.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
  11. We can rebuild him, by AngryLlama · · Score: 1

    ... we have the technology. The 23 Million Euro Man.

  12. why? by rastoboy29 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why on earth is the EU funding something like this?  Do they really think they'll do a better job sorting this sort of thing out than private industry?

    --
    expandfairuse.org
    1. Re:why? by m2943 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why on earth is the EU funding something like this? Do they really think they'll do a better job sorting this sort of thing out than private industry?

      Yes. And US history shows that they are correct: most high tech companies and inventions start out as university research; the private sector merely commercializes it.

      Without lots of government funding, there would be no hightech industry.

    2. Re:why? by grrrgrrr · · Score: 1

      Yes very true and to add to that and in the U.S an awful lot of this kind of research is funded by the pentagon.

    3. Re:why? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Without lots of government funding, there would be no hightech industry.
      I feel a great disturbance in Slashdot, as if millions of libertarian geeks suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  13. More Piquepaille? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why can't we have filters for submitters? We have the option to filter posters, why isn't such a simple thing available in this great day and age?

  14. US Security by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Try to go to an airport in the US wearing this stuff and you will probably be arrested/tasered for being a "terrorist".

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:US Security by c6gunner · · Score: 1, Troll

      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.

    2. Re:US Security by Himring · · Score: 0

      Not to mention how much the babes love it. Reminds of this intern wearing his cool tricked-out watch. He couldn't wait to show it to me:

      Intern:"And this button I rigged to pop my trunk. And this one I have fire-up my mp3 player wired to a 500GBHD mounted in the floor. This one turns the ignition."

      Me: "Very cool dude. And you will never show this to any woman whose pants you might remotely want to get into."

      [no pun on "remotely"]

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    3. Re:US Security by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      No. At least not until you stop invading countries and acting like complete assholes.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  15. Read Rainbows End! (Vernor Vinge) by StCredZero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you need a primer on the implications of wearable computing, read Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge (who is known for popularizing the Singularity concept.

    He's a math & computer science professor, and writes technically savvy sci-fi that wins Hugo awards.

    Just one example: give people the ability to invisibly send and read text messages, and you get something that looks just like Mental Telepathy. And this is just the surface! What if those invisible gestures and heads-up display contact lenses also let you Google something almost as fast and effortlessly as you can say the word? And for you nay-sayers, search existed before Google -- why did Google make things so much better? Research existed before the web & web search, why did the web make things so much better? Because if you cross certain thresholds in speed and accessibility, the quantitative difference becomes qualitative! Once searching for something becomes as easy as saying it, the very concept of *knowing* something changes. (Books already take us part way there. I "know" how to build a compiler. But if I couldn't reach for my copy of the "Dragon Book" I'd be awful lost!)

    1. Re:Read Rainbows End! (Vernor Vinge) by Rakishi · · Score: 0

      Just one example: give people the ability to invisibly send and read text messages, and you get something that looks just like Mental Telepathy. Which won't do anything a blackberry (or high end cell phone) does already except kill you when it goes off while you're driving (and no, you won't remember to turn the thing off every time you're in the car).

      And this is just the surface! Well hopefully as seems absurdly pointless so far.

      What if those invisible gestures and heads-up display contact lenses also let you Google something almost as fast and effortlessly as you can say the word? Have you ever googled anything? It doesn't matter if I can search as fast as I can say it, it still take me 200 times as long to parse the results as to say the query. If the query is complex it can take much longer, sometimes requiring multiple queries.

      And for you nay-sayers, search existed before Google -- why did Google make things so much better? Research existed before the web & web search, why did the web make things so much better? Because if you cross certain thresholds in speed and accessibility, the quantitative difference becomes qualitative! Speed is worthless, google and the web didn't make accessing data simply faster but they made MORE information accessible.

      Once searching for something becomes as easy as saying it, the very concept of *knowing* something changes. (Books already take us part way there. I "know" how to build a compiler. But if I couldn't reach for my copy of the "Dragon Book" I'd be awful lost!) BS, as I said searching is horridly time consuming to get information. For all intent sand purposes it doesn't matter if it takes you 1 second (saying it) or 10 seconds (use your cell phone) to open a search when it takes 10 minutes to parse the crap that you get.
    2. Re:Read Rainbows End! (Vernor Vinge) by Arterion · · Score: 1

      I think that's the line where it stops being technology and becomes magic.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    3. Re:Read Rainbows End! (Vernor Vinge) by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Troll

      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....
    4. Re:Read Rainbows End! (Vernor Vinge) by m2943 · · Score: 1

      Research existed before the web & web search, why did the web make things so much better?

      Did it? I've seen less scientific progress in the last decade than in the decades before the web.

    5. Re:Read Rainbows End! (Vernor Vinge) by StCredZero · · Score: 1

      Which won't do anything a blackberry (or high end cell phone) does already except kill you when it goes off while you're driving (and no, you won't remember to turn the thing off every time you're in the car).

      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.

      Have you ever googled anything? It doesn't matter if I can search as fast as I can say it, it still take me 200 times as long to parse the results as to say the query. If the query is complex it can take much longer, sometimes requiring multiple queries.

      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?

      Speed is worthless, google and the web didn't make accessing data simply faster but they made MORE information accessible.

      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!)

      BS, as I said searching is horridly time consuming to get information. For all intent sand purposes it doesn't matter if it takes you 1 second (saying it) or 10 seconds (use your cell phone) to open a search when it takes 10 minutes to parse the crap that you get.

      Demolished above. Hmm, seems like you have 0 points left! Too bad you didn't think ahead enough to think another second to consider simple queries. And the last quote indicates that you slipped up and took your complicated query example and conflated it with all queries. Oh, wait, maybe you've already got an encyclopedic command of all technical terms in all fields known to man. Yup that's *much* more likely than your having low intellectual curiosity and not often seeking out conversations with people knowledgeable in fields you don't know about.

      And this really is just the surface. Read Rainbows End -- if intellectual sci-fi would be your cup of tea. I'm not sure at this point.

      (Exercise for the reader -- think of others. Use of neurons may be required.)

    6. Re:Read Rainbows End! (Vernor Vinge) by StCredZero · · Score: 1

      google is not a replacment for proper research. idle curiosity maybe

      Being able to instantly satisfy curiosity instantly and effortlessly is what Google is about. That can be idle, or that can be a great time saver for research.

    7. Re:Read Rainbows End! (Vernor Vinge) by StCredZero · · Score: 1

      Research existed before the web & web search, why did the web make things so much better?

      Did it? I've seen less scientific progress in the last decade than in the decades before the web. Follow biotechnology much? And the boon to Computer Science / Engineering has been huge, just for a start.
    8. Re:Read Rainbows End! (Vernor Vinge) by Rakishi · · Score: 0, Troll
      Well since you love name calling and insults I'll take my jab at you. You're a small minded nit wit who thinks that because google is the hot shit right now everything must in turn directly tie to it (or search). It seems almost like you're incapable of differentiating between potential technologies from science fiction and their near worthless current versions. A soyuz capsule is not an ftl city ship, and it won't be for a very long time if ever. You can't cite one example of what this can do now that is actually useful and can't be done just as easily (or close to it) using other methods.

      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

    9. Re:Read Rainbows End! (Vernor Vinge) by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      Except it's neither instant nor effortless, and most importantly it only contains a sliver of the knowledge in the world (and only a subset of the knowledge on the web). That's great if you want to learn just the basics or summary of a subject but if you want proper depth you often have to look elsewhere.

    10. Re:Read Rainbows End! (Vernor Vinge) by m2943 · · Score: 1

      Follow biotechnology much? And the boon to Computer Science / Engineering has been huge, just for a start.

      Computer science/engineering in particular have made very little progress over the last decade; most of what is touted as progress now is research results from the 70's and 80's finally being implemented, combined with faster machines. That has had a lot of impact on daily life, but research has stagnated.

      As for biology, there has been an explosion of new data, but little in terms of fundamentally new understanding.

    11. Re:Read Rainbows End! (Vernor Vinge) by BlindRobin · · Score: 1

      Because if you cross certain thresholds in speed and accessibility, the quantitative difference becomes qualitative! Once searching for something becomes as easy as saying it, the very concept of *knowing* something changes. (Books already take us part way there. I "know" how to build a compiler. But if I couldn't reach for my copy of the "Dragon Book" I'd be awful lost!)
      This would be true if what one receives in response to ones query is valid information and not the noise on gets in response to search queries. Try searching for "Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics" and you will find a lot of confused people confusing others. Admittedly I searched for an obvious fallacy, but I think you get my point.

    12. Re:Read Rainbows End! (Vernor Vinge) by StCredZero · · Score: 1

      Well since you love name calling and insults I'll take my jab at you.

      Insults? You got me started at: "Well hopefully as seems absurdly pointless so far." I just hate it when people try to paint their lack of imagination and inability to make connections as some sort of stupidity on my part. (see below)

      You're a small minded nit wit who thinks that because google is the hot shit right now everything must in turn directly tie to it

      Uh, no. Google is just a concrete example I can use to talk about a whole class of things. The comparison of Google to search that came before, and research tools are meant to sketch out a trajectory. And this trajectory has to do with how accessibility and ubiquity affect the use of a tool. At this point, it becomes obvious that you have never crossed such a threshold. This often happens in programming when going from one sort of environment to another, or one language to another. Either you don't have this experience, or you have had it, but didn't generalize it. Now that I spelled that out, are you also going to pretend you understood that all along?

      You can't comprehend the difference between a technology being useful COMBINED with other advances and being useful on it's own.

      Uh, the book Rainbows End is precisely about the combination of a variety of such technologies. That was what you were supposed to get in the beginning. BZZZZT! Thanks for Playing! You're now taking the very thing that you missed in the beginning and are now claiming it as your own?

      A future version of it may be useful on it's own but that would require either much better software or hardware.

      Uh, I *am* talking about future versions, and again, the subject of the book being discussed is about technology a decade or more down the line, and its societal implications. You, on the other hand, are the one talking about Blackberries and touting that as some sort of foresight that can deem research in this direction useless.

      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.

      50 terms ahead? You know, there's a difference between stretching yourself out of intellectual curiosity into related fields and going to random lectures with no preparation. Laptops and Smart phones -- my what a prognosticator of future tech you are! Hmm, weren't you just talking about the combination of technologies? Please apply some of the actual thinking you were doing up above when you were writing this bit: "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." You're finally beginning to catch up. Did you finally read the Wikipedia article about Rainbows End, maybe?

      Huh? Christ, learn to write proper comprehensible english.

      Covering for some reading comprehension deficiency? Ok, I'll spell it out for you: As a counter-example you write about complex queries that take 10 minutes to parse. Then you proceed to talk about all queries as if they are those complex queries. That is an intellectual slip-up I am taking you to task for again. (With a bit of sarcasm.) 2nd point: If someone with a healthy dose of curiosity has a good number of intellectual conversations with people working in other fields, they come to realize that there is a time-consuming negotiation of technical terms that occurs often. (And often they are different terms for the same thing.) Someone with this experience and a bit of imagination would realize the utility of being able to look things up as if you could Google things telepathically. I imagine that you lack one of those two things.

    13. Re:Read Rainbows End! (Vernor Vinge) by StCredZero · · Score: 1

      Except it's neither instant nor effortless, and most importantly it only contains a sliver of the knowledge in the world (and only a subset of the knowledge on the web). That's great if you want to learn just the basics or summary of a subject but if you want proper depth you often have to look elsewhere.

      Vinge also talks about this in Rainbows End. His main character notes that there are lots of kids who can instantly access information, but many of them seem to be unable to demonstrate a deep understanding. He calls these paraliterates. We have plenty of them, especially on this website. (I may be a prime example!)

      No, the future is not all roses, but there's a lot of potential there.

    14. Re:Read Rainbows End! (Vernor Vinge) by Rakishi · · Score: 1
      I think the problem is that I'm thinking in the short term while you're thinking in the long term. I find it foolish to depend too much on the later as it's impossible to predict new discoveries (which could have tremendous impact on the future). At the same time some discoveries may NOT happen, after all we still don't have those darn flying cars. Once you add in enough "well if this also existed"s in there anything is possible so the whole excersise is pointless.

      I actually I find it amusing that you weren't able to get what position/view-point I was talking from.

      Insults? You got me started at: "Well hopefully as seems absurdly pointless so far." I just hate it when people try to paint their lack of imagination and inability to make connections as some sort of stupidity on my part. (see below)

      Actually I'm thinking the exact same thing about you, your original examples really were lacking compared to what you could have given. Also your skin is way too thin for the internet if you so mind my mild jab at you in that quote.

      Uh, the book Rainbows End is precisely about the combination of a variety of such technologies. That was what you were supposed to get in the beginning. BZZZZT! Thanks for Playing! You're now taking the very thing that you missed in the beginning and are now claiming it as your own?

      You're missing my bloody point.

      Uh, I *am* talking about future versions, and again, the subject of the book being discussed is about technology a decade or more down the line, and its societal implications. You, on the other hand, are the one talking about Blackberries and touting that as some sort of foresight that can deem research in this direction useless.

      No I'm claiming that research is premature except as the general research toy, for the near future this is useless technology. The changes needed to make it useful would dramatically change it's design and implementation.

      50 terms ahead? You know, there's a difference between stretching yourself out of intellectual curiosity into related fields and going to random lectures with no preparation.

      The lectures I went to were at a high enough and advanced enough level that missing a couple terms is less damaging than missing the time needed to look up those terms. Then again I may be simply intelligent enough to fill in the gaps more quickly than I can realistically expect to look up the terms.

      I have also gone to almost random lectures and taken exams while lacking much of the needed knowledge. It was somewhat amusing to fill in the gaps as I went along, and when the material was of a moderate enough level I even did quite well in the end.

      Laptops and Smart phones -- my what a prognosticator of future tech you are!

      The far future is mysterious and unpredictable, I talk about the near future which you can consider in some reasonable sense. Anyone who thinks science fiction is in any reasonable sense predicting the future if a fool, it's prediction rate is of the shotgun variety (ie: if you shoot enough pellets then one will hit). My point is that the other technologies needed to make this work would also be almost as useful (maybe more) if used in existing devices. So claiming this technology on it's own does X is a lie as it simply makes X slightly easier.

      Hmm, weren't you just talking about the combination of technologies? Please apply some of the actual thinking you were doing up above when you were writing this bit: "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." You're finally beginning to catch up. Did you finally read the Wikipedia article about Rainbows End, maybe?

      Why would I need to read the wikipedia article, as I said I'm capable of thinking on my own so I don't simply need to regurgitate the idea

    15. Re:Read Rainbows End! (Vernor Vinge) by StCredZero · · Score: 1

      Computer science/engineering in particular have made very little progress over the last decade; most of what is touted as progress now is research results from the 70's and 80's finally being implemented, combined with faster machines. That has had a lot of impact on daily life, but research has stagnated.

      True, but the way the implementation is going, and the dissemination of technology know-how is what I'm talking about. The ease with which I can cobble-together pieces of software technology is truly amazing. And this is rapidly getting out into the hands of ordinary people. It's this revolution in implementation I am talking about. And as for research stagnating, I doubt that Google has caused that. Also, I would look outside of academia for what's coming down the pike. (This is also a part of the history of Computer Science.)

      It takes time for technological revolutions to be fully absorbed into society, and for their full potential to be developed.

      http://www.cra.org/Activities/grand.challenges/kay.pdf
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2950949730059754521

      I think many the revolutions to come will be along the lines of human/computer interface.

      As for biology, there has been an explosion of new data, but little in terms of fundamentally new understanding.

      Again, the revolution here is in implementation. Not only has there been an explosion of new data, but an explosion in the tools that can produce the new data. But you're right, there needs to be some integration now.

    16. Re:Read Rainbows End! (Vernor Vinge) by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      That seems like quite a useless talent or rather it is given the current state of information retrieval. The best one can do now is get a very cursory or almost nonexistent understanding of a subject quickly. The time to read (and understand even at a shallow level) the information by itself makes everything else less than instant. Even then the understanding you have then is pretty much worthless for most purposes.

      The general problem is that right now the result is not a shallow understanding but rather and incomplete and broken one. Worse many such people seem to think they in fact have a complete understanding. I for example don't and while I know a large number of subjects but would never claim to have a proper (ie: at all usable) knowledge of most of them.

      Now my father has a useful way of doing things, he learns enough about a subject (a time consuming task) to be able to tie it to everything else he knows (and aims to never know more or less than this).

    17. Re:Read Rainbows End! (Vernor Vinge) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no, no, no.

      You've forgotten to factor your observational bias. It /seems/ like the policemen keep getting younger, but actually you're getting older.

      Or in this case, what's happening is that you used to think there was this instantaneous connection between people doing pure research (they're still doing it) and seeing results in consumer products but you were wrong, and now that your perspective is changed your patience is tried by the delay that was always there.

      For example, we take it for granted now that you can play an MP3 file back on a computer. But the people who did the research for that technology, going back 20 years or so, didn't have any computers powerful enough for that. For them it was pure theory, they thought it would be useful incarnated as custom hardware. So you shouldn't expect the high factor lossless image compression technology written about in research from the past 5-10 years to show up on your PC, because those high compression factors currently come at the price of waiting 3-5 minutes for a screen-sized image to decompress.

      Or take another example, the mathematics needed to make a salted password hash is pretty old but it took until last decade for major consumer vendors to realise they needed to use that technology in their products, and still, today in 2007 there are big name Web 2.0 sites that are storing md5(password) in the belief that it's the last word in secure authentication technology. Zero Knowledge Proof solutions to authentication have existed for a while now, and I'm sure that if you come back in 2020 you'll see those are starting to be really used in consumer applications, and no doubt by then researchers will be holding their heads in their hands because they'll have something easier and safer that no-one's using,

      It's always like this. Only in a real all-or-nothing war, when it's so urgently important to get new developments before the enemy, can you expect to shortcut the decades long journey from the laboratory to mass production. In 1942 if you invented a better radar system you could expect to see it fitted to aeroplanes (at least those on your side) in a few months. Today you'd be lucky to see it implemented in your lifetime.

    18. Re:Read Rainbows End! (Vernor Vinge) by smallfries · · Score: 1

      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.

      I'll answer you here rather than your original as I was going to pick up the same point with you. Although I wasn't going to insult you the same way as the other guy who comes off as some sort of troll.

      Although it is a small change from what we have now, it has large social implications (rather than technological ones), which is what Vinge was getting at in Rainbow's End. The ubiquity of mobiles (or cellphones if you're American) means that we have something close to longrange telepathy now. If I want to discuss anything with any of friends who have a phone (99.9999% of them) then I can do so regardless of where we both are. This ubiquitous availability and communication has drastically changed social organisation already.

      Making the technology invisible is a small step - it can be done now with off the shelf components, but it is currently rare. Once invisible communication becomes ubiquitous it will cause a large shift in social etiquette and norms. Currently whispering in public is considered rude, for the simple reason that people don't like to be discussed behind their back. With this technology everyone will be able to whisper to anyone they know at any time, without being discovered. That is a huge change for social norms.

      Just to go back to your point about conspiring - you miss cases where offline conspiricy is not as bad as online conspiricy. Think about the implications for job interviews, or exams. Would they still function in a society that uses this technology?

      I can't remember if I made it to Chapter 4 (probably because it was free extract somewhere) but I seem to remember that Chapter 1 covers the main characters time in school and manages to show how this technology has changed the environment totally. Well worth reading in its own right.
      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  16. Xfirst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    on my Pentium Pro election to the will not work. And BE ON A WRONG the hard drive to BBen the best, for a moment and [mit.edu] found do, and with any be treated by your else to be an

    1. Re:Xfirst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That link is even more pathetically transparent than the goat.cx on the google domain.

    2. Re:Xfirst by cloakable · · Score: 1

      Though you do have to give credit for the attempt to convince us that part of the link is to mit.edu :P

      --
      No tyrant thrives when every subject says no.
  17. Jon Katz reincarnated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Piquepaille, as gay as Christmas holly--surely he must perform special "favors" for Zonk and friends. It's the only logical explanation for the overt favoritism shown toward this bozo's nocturnal submissions.

  18. The Douglas Adams Prediction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "A loud clatter of gunk music flooded through the Heart of Gold cabin as Zaphod searched the sub-etha radio wave bands for news of himself. The machine was rather difficult to operate. For years radios had been operated by means of pressing buttons and turning dials; then as the technology became more sophisticated the controls were made touch-sensitive---you merely had to brush the panel with your fingers; now all you had to do was wave your hands in the general direction of the components and hope. It saved a lot of muscular expenditure, of course, but meant that you had to sit infuriatingly still if you wanted to keep listening to the same program."
    ~Douglas Adams: The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: Chapter 12~

  19. Interesting that airport maintenance is mentioned, by mathcam · · Score: 2, Insightful

    since wearing technology to an airport has been demonstrated to be a bad idea.

  20. The holders of the @Home and @Work trademark... by Bartab · · Score: 1

    ...are filing suit as we speak.

    Who did buy them anyways? Comcast? it's a hard name to google.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    1. Re:The holders of the @Home and @Work trademark... by grumling · · Score: 1

      They kind of faded into the background of Excite after the meltdown.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
  21. too funny by mycall · · Score: 1

    Do they realize the current state of speech recognition? Once pocket computers (on-host or via low-latency WiMAX'ish connection) can do speaker-independent natural language processing, a bit of machine learning (support vector machines?), and some grammar-free event-driven verb-object controls, then we will have a real interface. EyeTap.org is an interesting concept though.

  22. I can't believe it hasn't been said yet... by Creeker · · Score: 1

    My, what a big Hard Drive you have? What size is it?

  23. 23 million euros? That's like what, $100M? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    23 million euros? That's like what, $100M? Research in third-world countries is hot these days - send it off to the old U.S. of A. and get more bang for your buck, er, euro.

  24. Why do we have to keep doing this? by sootman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why does someone need to investigate this every few years? There's enough noise in the average cubefarm (where walls don't reach the ceiling)--do we really want to have everyone start talking to their computers too? And touchscreens, gestures, etc.--sure, RSI is bad, but keyboards and mice are flat, you can rest your arms a lot, and they work with more or less natural motions. (It's not a coincidence that a computer keyboard is like a piano keyboard but in two dimensions--you hit different rows by curling and uncurling your fingers.)

    I used to have a touchscreen monitor and it was fun to touch the screen to scroll and 'click' on web links by literally touching them but holding your arms out in front of you for any period of time is not easy. I had a tablet PC and holding it, even casually while walking around doing inventory with it and a barcode scanner, was a huge PITA. (Ha--"A" could stand for "arm" in this case.) Looking at the tablet-holding guy brought back all the bad memories: all the fun of walking around with a clipboard, but it's five pounds or so instead of a few ounces. Yeah. Super. Sign me up.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:Why do we have to keep doing this? by hiben · · Score: 3, Informative

      I work for one of the partners in the wearIT@work-project (not on the project but close) and can tell you that this is not about augmenting cubefarms.
      If you take a closer look at the project goals you'll see that there are areas of work where computers (Desktop, PDA, Smartphone,etc.) are more hindering than helpful in their current form because you need your hands to work.
      When your work consists of typing at the keyboard and pushing mice then there is no need to wear a computer. If you need your hands for other tasks you need a better (no WIMP) interface.
      Holding a tablet-PC is mostly no option either - but it totally depends on the task. Thats why there is a lot of interest in investigating this topic every few years. The devices get smaller and faster.

    2. Re:Why do we have to keep doing this? by couchslug · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Why does someone need to investigate this every few years?"

      To inflict awkward equipment on innoncent users?

      A major drawback of wearable computing is interference with manual tasks along with damage to the wearable equipment.

      The aircraft maintenance world (one of their target groups) is under great pressure to have portable data access and easy-to-use test equipment. Networked maintainers can produce the data management want much quicker if they do it on the spot.

      A rugged notebook (REALLY rugged) works well enough, and one can put it down when changing a hydraulic pump and getting covered with fluid. Nothing smaller is suitable for viewing maintenance instructions.

      Barring miracles, wearable computing gear will get trashed faster than any other maintenance equipment. When bits break off they will present a FOD (Foreign Object Damage) hazard (= more shite to fish out of cockpits).

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:Why do we have to keep doing this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silence is golden. Give the world pure Linux with Wifi on a Tandy TSR - 100, Palm or any handheld that accepts a standard usb keyboard plug-in with 3+ hrs. of battery life and you have perfection - then try to invent and/or sell voice activated computers of any size!

  25. Snow Crash by Pancake+Bandit · · Score: 1

    I have been wanting a wearable computer ever since I read about the gargoyles in Snow Crash. Though, for some reason I doubt this will be as cool :(

    1. Re:Snow Crash by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Heh, so many people here have read that great book.
      Love it :)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
  26. Re: What's another word for thesaurus? by StCredZero · · Score: 1

    I think that's the line where it stops being technology and becomes magic.
    --
    What's another word for thesaurus? Onomasticon! They both sound big and scaly.
  27. Re:Interesting that airport maintenance is mention by hughk · · Score: 1

    This is for aircraft maintenance not airport maintenance. The difference being that you are working on plane either on a ramp or in the hangar and don't particularly want to carry the entire maintenance handbook library around with you. Note that getting specialised tools through is less of an issue when you use the airport's 'backdoors' for staff as long as you have id to go airside. As a passenger, I would admit that it is another issue.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  28. Trying to get geeks outside again... by master5o1 · · Score: 0

    Yep, this is just annother plot to get the geeks and nerds out of the house... and into the sunshine!!

    --
    signature is pants
  29. Re:Interesting that airport maintenance is mention by suburbanmediocrity · · Score: 1
    Wearable computing has been around for a long time and remember airplane mechanics being mentioned 7-8 years ago as being one of the first applications for this technology, but within 5-10 years this will be as ubiquitous as the bluetooth ear bud is today. I used to use a PC104 for these types of things, but now carry my Linux N770 around in my pocket and use it for the majority of web surfing that I do.

    Sure we'll have a bunch of dead people in airports for a few years, but it is a small price for the advancement of technology.

  30. Old ..., but evolving .... by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    Telemaintenance (I think) prior to ~1995 was systems-sensors reporting status of equipment at remote locations.
    Telemaintenance (I think) post ~1996 becomes the wearable wireless computer diagnostic tool-set for telemaintence.

    http://www.media.mit.edu/
    http://www.media.mit.edu/wearables/mithril/
    http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/
    http://e-science.caltech.edu/

    I am an old guy ... I remember .... You can Yahoo/Google "Telemaintenance YYYY" to confirm/learn.

    In ~1996 (I think, I remember) the telemaintenance acronym APES [Avatar Populated Experience/Environment Simulations/Synergy] in a CCT [Collaborative Community Technologies] proposal/paper. Considering present social-web environments, games .... Anyway, it is all still very interesting.

    For SoA (State of Art), Yahoo/Google ("wearable computer" MIT CalTech hardware software) or ("ubiquitous computing" MIT CalTech hardware software 2007) to confirm/learn.

    Nope, I never attended MIT, CalTech ..., I ain't got a college degree, I dropped out of high school in 1969, then too the USMC at 17yo, Honorable Discharge at 19yo ... I always think about where education is going for individuals like me (more of US than there was), I mean, look at POTUS Bush ... he is far less educated then most folks I talk to every day, and VPDryDick has more ability to deliver humor/torture/terror than a POTUS-puppet performance. Oh, I do have a GED and over 160SemHrs in many subjects.

    !HAVEFUN!

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  31. Tecktonik by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

    The goal is to replace traditional interfaces [...] by speech control or gesture control without modifying the applications.

    If you can administrate your company's infrastructure by performing Tecktonik dance moves then count me in!

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  32. I guess we'd call this ... by darkuncle · · Score: 1

    vaporwear? :)

    seriously though, this might work for office apps or web browsing or whatnot, but until neural interfaces surface, I can't see anything replacing the keyboard for programming or command-line interface tasks.

    --
    illum oportet crescere me autem minui
  33. European tax-payers' money at work by drsquare · · Score: 1

    If they have money like this to throw around, then I don't see why Britain should have to give back our rebate. Still, better spending the money on this, than subsidising French farmers to go on strike.