Wearable Computer With Lightweight HUD

Holding my breath by Algorithmn · 2009-07-27 08:44 · Score: 1

I'll believe it when I try it... Have seen similar promises before...

Re:Holding my breath by JWSmythe · 2009-07-27 10:33 · Score: 4, Interesting

I still haven't seen one that truly interests me.
What I want to find is a setup that hooks up to both a long infrared (thermal imaging) and a short infrared (night vision) cameras, and overlays the images on reality through the glasses.
Imagine being able to not only see in the dark, but see the heat signatures from things.
My dad experimented with long infrared with the Army in the 60's and 70's. In some of the books that he had published, he demonstrated interesting things. The equipment was huge and static. He'd set up for a shot, take the picture, and then process it. At best, you were looking at hours to see the result. You could see a residual handprint on the wall, inefficiencies of insulation, etc.
Imagine seeing a real time feed overlaid over the world. Amazingly useful things would be seeing hotspots in a house, caused by overloaded power circuits or inefficient insulation. You may be able to see where someone had walked before you (temp changes in the footprints), touched items such as door knobs. Fire rescue would be able to see through smoke, take extra precautions on very hot doors, and very likely save more lives. Police could search darkened areas with ease, and avoid hostile suspects jumping out from the shadows. In every day use, you could see long distances ahead when you are driving at night, and even spot when someone you're talking to is lying.
It could open up a whole new world for us.
The idea wouldn't be very hard. You should be able to run a pair of fiber optic cables from the edge of a pair of glasses down to the cameras. A very small PC should be able to overlay the images in real time, and then display them through something resembling the glasses shown. I've been watching for cameras that are small enough, and are affordable. I have yet to find the kind of gear that I could afford. :(
An extra overlay of other data could be useful too, without causing an information overload. The time, ambient temperature, some GPS data (heading, speed, altitude). Things that you'd see on TV are a bit fanciful right now, such as threat detection. Determining a car is on an intercept path and may cause an impact is a bit beyond what a portable PC can do, but a human can determine it quickly by seeing it.
For fire/rescue and law enforcement, I would see it being amazingly useful to transmit that data back to a central location. Where or what happened? It would all be available.
I know a lot of people hate cops, but a lot of them are actually doing something very useful for our protection. We simply don't see it all the time, because most of our interaction is with traffic cops who may or may not be right, but they'll write the ticket anyways.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:Holding my breath by MrSteve007 · 2009-07-27 11:21 · Score: 1

Seems like it wouldn't be difficult to tie that to the output of the Fluke Ti25 - that thermal imager already can internally blend standard visual wavelengths to IR. It would be a bit bigger than I'd want, and expensive, but the tech seems to be already out there to do something similar to what you're suggesting. I've found having a thermal imager is very, very useful to have around - I could only imagine how nice it'd be to have a agumented reality HUD with one integrated. Great idea!

Here's a review I recently wrote up about my experiences with the Fluke IR cam: http://geekpi.com/?p=504
Re:Holding my breath by JWSmythe · 2009-07-27 17:30 · Score: 1

Aw, a $7,500 toy. :)
That does look to be around the right size to start working with though. I'm sure the handle and some of the plastic are extra. They're usually pretty good about making sure their equipment can handle folks bouncing them off the floor. :)
The pictures on your site are great. They're a good sampling of thermal imaging, for those who haven't played with it. I'd love to be able to see the world like that as a 50% opacity overlay.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:Holding my breath by mcvos · 2009-07-27 19:27 · Score: 1

I still haven't seen one that truly interests me.
Over 10 years ago I saw a project that did truly interest me: transparent glasses that project the computer's output directly on your retina, using fighter jet technology. No idea what happened to that, but I won't be happy with anything less than that.
The problem with the setup from TFA is that, while a tiny screen hanging in front of your glasses might look very cool and cyberpunky, it's not terribly practical. It does block part of your vision, and it doesn't really overlay the computer output over your regular vision, which is what you need for good AR.

What I want to find is a setup that hooks up to both a long infrared (thermal imaging) and a short infrared (night vision) cameras, and overlays the images on reality through the glasses.
I think that shouldn't be too hard to add to any system. Just add some cameras. The big question is: do you want to overlay that info over a transparent screen, or do you want it next to regular vision. For the second approach, the setup from TFA might be perfect.
Re:Holding my breath by abcjared · 2009-07-27 22:48 · Score: 1

A Sonar, Radar with some extra cameras could, with some pretty long scripts, detect threat, a few accelerometers in your clothing and pulse monitors would also be cool.

This wearable computer doesn't look particularly impressive, I could probably make something better, longer lasting and actualy portable with my eee pc, the frogpad and the glasses-screen.
Re:Holding my breath by Dan541 · 2009-07-28 01:53 · Score: 1

Have seen similar promises before...
Indeed, a "wearable motorbike" springs to mind.

--
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Re:Holding my breath by JWSmythe · 2009-07-28 04:26 · Score: 1

Back in the day, I had seen a hack for the old Sony Glasman visor. You could remove the front shield, and the back of the LCD. LCD's are inherently transparent. They have a coating on the back so they are opaque, usually reflecting light from a source like a small fluorescent tube. Something like that would seem to be almost perfect. From what I read, it worked really well, but I'd wonder how the focal length worked out. It would seem your eyes would be adjusting back and forth constantly to be able to read it.
I would think with color blobs overlaid, it would work out very nicely though. You wouldn't need to focus on it, just get the impression of colors over the real-world items. Even though the colors would be blurry, you should (I think) be looking right at it. Something hot would get a red color to it. If it was overlaid with a short infrared camera also, looking at a person in a pitch black room, you would get the shape from short infrared, and heat from long infrared, so even though you're staring at a black space, and your eyes may be focused to that distance, you'd get the impression of a shape and the heat signature.
The cameras would be the most expensive part though, unless there's some Chinese vendor selling them for cheap that I haven't seen yet. :)

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:Holding my breath by mcvos · 2009-07-28 05:19 · Score: 1

From what I read, it worked really well, but I'd wonder how the focal length worked out. It would seem your eyes would be adjusting back and forth constantly to be able to read it.
Exactly. That's why I was so intrigued by projecting straight onto the retina. No need to focus on it.
Re:Holding my breath by infinite9 · 2009-07-28 05:53 · Score: 1

The possibilities are endless. I have a terrible memory, so I'm always looking for ways to help with that. Facial recognition software could identify someone you're talking to. Information about them could be displayed to you, like birthdays, wife/kids names, notes you've taken in the past, etc. Whatever you look at (using eye tracking) could do an information lookup and display all sorts of information, or whisper it in your ear.
The computer could listen to your conversations and pick out and remember interesting facts. If they tell you their address or phone number, it simply gets recorded for your later use without you intervening.
Storage capacities are likely to get so high that you can just record video of everything you see all the time.
The eye tracking in the device could operate like a bluetooth mouse. Just look at the icon and blink. The device could superimpose a keyboard display over your vision so you can type in text privately. Or just speak what you want to type.
Then there's live real time language translation. I know babelfish sucks, but it's better than nothing. My french is ok, but not perfect. It would help me greatly to look up words in real time when I need them. You could learn a language a lot faster this way.

--
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
Re:Holding my breath by JWSmythe · 2009-07-28 06:24 · Score: 1

For the storage, I would say that storing it back to a server would be the more advantageous route. It would suck if you were to trip and fall, or say get hit (but not killed) by a car. Your stored history would disappear.
What would be better, assuming there's anyone you could trust, would be to have a communal pool of information. Say you and I were friends, and you met someone. It could tell me what I needed to know on demand about the friend.
Facial recognition, identification of key phrases in conversation, and eye tracking, are a bit beyond what most of us can get our hands on right now.
Heck, I wanted to do what seemed to be a "simple" project. I thought it would be interesting to have something crawl over the imagery from Google Maps and search for known patterns. To make it easy to start, I wanted to look at known air bases for the shape of a particular plane (C-130/KC-130). They're always the same shape, only rotated differently, and always against a flat background, or a background with just a few lines in it.
Extending that idea, I wanted to identify helicopters. They're a little trickier as the rotor can be rotated to any arbitrary position when it's on the ground. That should show you airports with major populations, and secret or obscure military bases, and some farms.
And extending that idea even more, identify vehicles to give new population estimates based on the number of cars in the area. There would be some error from parking garages and vehicles that were in transit between two areas as you may see the same car in several locations, but it would give an estimate none the less.
I never got far enough to do the pattern recognition of a single known shape aircraft on a tarmac.
Taking the idea off of satellite imagery, and closer to what you were suggesting, I would have liked to have it automatically identify faces in arbitrary images. I worked with an adult hosting company years ago, and was interested in doing this to identify known faces and make a library of unknown faces that could be identified through other information on the pages. Known faces in unauthorized areas (copyright violations) could be dealt with swiftly, rather than hoping someone trips over them, or waiting for the image owner or model to send a C&D. It could also be used to rate a particular models popularity. A large index of that kind of data could determine modeling rates. A new model with a similar look could be quickly identified. Just think, "You have features that have been proven to sell well, we want you." Casting for almost anything is a lot of "I think this person will work well", but it's a lot of gut feeling, and not a lot of hard data. It never made it past theory, which is what I found most of the information to be on the whole idea. Lots of theory. No good way to implement it.
Not to say it won't happen, it just isn't ready anytime soon.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:Holding my breath by Algorithmn · 2009-07-28 08:36 · Score: 1

Thermal, Near X-Ray, Radiological, RF Detection, Camera Detection/Jamming and the list goes on. The only reason to use glasses would be to conceal yourself in public. Got $20,000 to make one?
Re:Holding my breath by kbk7173 · 2009-07-28 11:14 · Score: 1

I took my son's cub scout troop to the local fire department a few years ago. They had a camera smaller than a shoe box that did thermal imaging - it could see foot prints left through shoes for a few minutes. They use it to find hot spots in the walls after fires, and talked about lending it to the police in hostage situations to determine where people were holed up.

Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by mcgrew · 2009-07-27 08:46 · Score: 1

I'd like to have one implanted in the eye like in the Doctorow book, kind of like IOLs are implanted for cataract surgery. I wonder how close we are to developing that?

I mean, I wore glasses from 1958 until 2002 when I got contacts, and since I had surgery in 2006 I don't even need contacts. Glasses suck. Contacts are better, but a multifocal IOL beats even them.

--
Free Martian Whores!

Re:Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by Flea+of+Pain · 2009-07-27 08:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

And I would like to see someone hack one. LOL. Can you imagine walking down the street and seeing some guy suddenly freak out because his wearable computer started blaring music and showing totse images?

--
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Re:Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by drinkypoo · 2009-07-27 09:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think contact lenses make a lot more sense. Then you could remove them. They'd be a lot easier to upgrade as well. I don't see any reason they couldn't have their circuitry embedded in them off near the edge, and have power beamed in.
Contact lenses might make a lot of sense as targets for a vision system like the one described in Snow Crash. Perhaps if you integrated some MEMS components into them they could contain a scanning mirror set, even, and perform a sort of DLP-esque function.
If I'm getting an eye implant, I want a lot more than a HUD. I expect telescopic vision via electrowetting lenses.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-27 09:17 · Score: 2, Informative

That won't work...try to focus on your contact lens...or more likely, some bit of dirt or smudge on it. You can't; there needs to be a bit of distance between the lens and the thing you're trying to optically perceive.
Re:Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by hobbit · 2009-07-27 09:42 · Score: 1

There only needs to be distance because your eye's lens has a minimum focal length. As long as you can arrange for the light to enter the lens *as if* it comes from some distance away, it doesn't actually need to do so. That's easier said than done, mind you.

--
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Re:Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by Cyberax · 2009-07-27 10:05 · Score: 1

Glasses rule!
They protect eyes and with photochromic lenses you won't need separate sunglasses.
Also, you can get some time to think by taking off glasses and slowly wiping them, when you're asked a question.
Re:Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by blackraven14250 · 2009-07-27 10:11 · Score: 1

It may cause headaches unless the displayed things seem to be pretty far.
Re:Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by RabidMoose · 2009-07-27 10:13 · Score: 1

I see you've been watching Torchwood.
Re:Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by YrWrstNtmr · 2009-07-27 10:30 · Score: 1

showing totse images

Little kids getting their diapers changed?
Re:Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by drinkypoo · 2009-07-27 13:20 · Score: 1

I haven't seen it. Where I live, "high-speed" internet means "can't stream shit". And there's no TV reception. And I refuse to get Cable or Satellite TV. I'll see it eventually, I suppose. I've been thinking about augmented reality for a real long time, even before I read Snow Crash... which was a long time ago too. I guess I started thinking about how to do it shortly after seeing Terminator as a tween or so, but I didn't have any useful thoughts on it until much later, when I saw adverts for the Sony Glasstron display, and started thinking about it much harder.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by Trahloc · 2009-07-27 16:14 · Score: 1

Adapt or Die.

I'll wait for when I can just replace the whole eye, pop in a new model like people do today with their glass eyes.

--
The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
Re:Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by mcgrew · 2009-07-28 01:18 · Score: 1

Well, like I said, contacts beat glasses hands down, but implants are even better. Contacts require maintenance, implants don't. It's really REALLY nice to be able to get out of bed and SEE without messing with contacts or worse, putting glasses on.
If I'm getting an eye implant, I want a lot more than a HUD. I expect telescopic vision via electrowetting lenses.
That will likely come before implanted HUDs. My implant already gives me better than 20/20 vision at all distances, although some people only have 20/25 vision with the same implant (still not bad vision).

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by mcgrew · 2009-07-28 02:00 · Score: 1

Normally I don't respond to ACs in my "new messages" list but I'll make an exception to clear up misunderstanding that others may take for gospel. What you say is true with LASIK, but not an implant. You become farsighted (presbyopia) in middle age because your focusing lens gets too hard for the eye's muscles to move, but the implant replaces that lens. The new accomodating lens I have implanted is on struts and moveable by the eye's focusing muscles.
I'm 57 years old. In my forties I did indeed have to pull my glasses down my nose to read, and when I got contact lenses I needed reading glasses as well, but the implant gives me better close up AND distance vision than most 20 year olds.
I journaled about it here, thought everybody had already seen that piece.

--
Free Martian Whores!

So this is like the mobile phone handsets of 1999 by ickleberry · 2009-07-27 08:47 · Score: 1

Except this time you'll look even more stupid wearing it

Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by timeOday · 2009-07-27 08:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

With the surge in smart phone adoption it seems that enthusiasm for wearable computers has dropped off a bit, which is too bad.

OK, the bluetooth headset seems to be winning out over the HUD as the main UI device. Other than that, how is a smartphone not a wearable computer?

Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by Freetardo+Jones · 2009-07-27 08:51 · Score: 1

Because I don't wear my phone?
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2009-07-27 08:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Smartphones are not really wearable computers for two reasons. First, they don't really count because, in general, you have to hold them during use, rather than actually wearing them. Second, they are not "wearable computers" in the sense that people with pacemakers or cochlear implants aren't "cyborgs": That is, they actually are; but they aren't what people imagine when they say so, so we don't really consider them to be.
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by CannonballHead · 2009-07-27 09:02 · Score: 1

I appreciate your point, but would like to clarify something - it's not just "stupid children" and "stupid parents" that get into accidents because of distracting new toys. I'm fairly certain that "very smart" people also get distracted.
Unless you simply want to say that everyone that allows themselves to be distracted by "new toys" while driving is stupid. I could go along with that. It's more of a conscious decision sort of stupidity than a ignorance or intellectual issue. Very, very smart and intellectual people can be extremely stupid.
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by Smivs · 2009-07-27 09:10 · Score: 2, Funny

Because I don't wear my phone?
This guy does!

--
Smivs on the intertubes!
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by mdwh2 · 2009-07-27 09:17 · Score: 1

He's not wearing this computer either - it's in the backpack, according to TFA.
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by mdwh2 · 2009-07-27 09:19 · Score: 1

He has a computer in his backpack and wears a headset. Compare with someone with a phone in their pocket, and wearing a bluetooth headset. I don't think even of them count as wearable computers. Yes, he's wearing a headset, and people talk about wearing bluetooth headsets with their phones too.
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by jollyreaper · 2009-07-27 09:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

OK, the bluetooth headset seems to be winning out over the HUD as the main UI device. Other than that, how is a smartphone not a wearable computer?
Wearable computers are supposed to make you look like a clumsy ass when using them. Smart phones typically don't unless you use a bluetooth headset.
Honestly, I think the conceit is a holdover of older technology where you ended up looking borgified with all the hardware you had strapped to your body. You used to have to wear heavy-duty batteries strapped to your waist, a funky keyboard strapped to your arm, doofy goggles, and the computer itself was on your back. Heady stuff for people who were used to computers having to be plugged into walls but this was even before laptops became practical, when luggables were still the latest and hottest shit.
The iPhone is pretty much representing the ideal of the Tricorder or the PADD from Star Trek. Pretty screen, touch interface, wireless everything, sound and video, cool stuff! The only way it could get any better is if you didn't even need to hold anything in your hands (or pay out the ass for the data plan). That'd be an ear piece that tucks away invisibly in your ear like a hearing aid, bone induction microphone imbedded inside the earpiece, and a display that either sits on contact lenses in your eyes or would be built into your glasses and either projects information onto the glass or shoots it onto your retina with low-powered lasers. Where would the computer be? Maybe still clipped to your hip like an iphone feeding data via wireless, or maybe it'll be small enough to be built into the hearing aid or contact lenses.
What's the ultimate UI goal? Terminator vision. Integrated lowlight vision, thermal vision, object tagging like a fighter plane's HUD, etc. The early concepts were mocked up for military maintenance crews, you could watch a video showing you what you're supposed to do as you do it.

--
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by LandDolphin · 2009-07-27 09:23 · Score: 1

You just made a pacemakers sound cool. Too bad I have a good heart. Maybe I could get a pacemaker put in in Mexico so I could be a Cyborg?

--
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by mustafap · 2009-07-27 09:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

>You just made a pacemakers sound cool. Too bad I have a good heart. Maybe I could get a pacemaker put in in Mexico so I could be a Cyborg?
If you work in IT, don't worry, just be patient. You'll be needing one in 10 - 20 years time.

--
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by wall0159 · 2009-07-27 09:28 · Score: 1

Exactly. A video interface just isn't (in general) a sensible UI when you are walking around and interacting with the world. I think an audio user interface is what is needed -- but there's little consumer interest at the moment.
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by thedonger · 2009-07-27 09:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, what you said, and, for the love of Christ, a way to "talk" without having a one-sided conversation with the freaking air. I hate that. Fifteen years ago you would have been sent to the loony bin for talking to voices in your head. Now, we assume one half of a bluetooth-enabled conversation. Seriously, how many completely, balls-out fucking crazy people are walking the streets who we assume are on the phone?

--
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by PitaBred · 2009-07-27 09:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Stupidity is a mindset, not something that can be measured with an IQ test ;)

--
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by hobbit · 2009-07-27 09:49 · Score: 1

What's the ultimate UI goal? Terminator vision.
Which was pretty inexplicable in the context of the Terminator. The visual processing system derived information about the environment, then integrated it as text into the signal from which it was derived such that it had to be processed a second time to be acted upon?

--
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by vertinox · 2009-07-27 10:07 · Score: 1

Exactly. A video interface just isn't (in general) a sensible UI when you are walking around and interacting with the world. I think an audio user interface is what is needed -- but there's little consumer interest at the moment.
There seems to be a lot of interest in this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH6r2tIaRXU
Now if they could make it so you could wear bluetooth glasses that you can see through that don't make you look like a dork plenty of people would buy it.
You can read more about augmented reality on the iphone here:
http://www.tuaw.com/2009/07/25/augmented-reality-apps-on-hold-until-3-1/

--
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by Qubit · 2009-07-27 10:12 · Score: 1

in the sense that people with pacemakers or cochlear implants aren't "cyborgs"
One of my friends has a pacemaker and I totally think that she's a cyborg. She doesn't deny it -- sometimes she even gets this look in her eye, you know, one of those "one day we're going to rise up and kill all of you meat-only people" looks.
It's hard to draw the line between basic humans and cyborgs, but I'd say that, at the very least, if you are reliant on some kind of electronic tech bound to or inside your body to survive (she'd die if she didn't have the pacemaker), then you're a cyborg.
On the down side, she isn't allowed to play with hard drive magnets. And she told me that she didn't think it was a good idea to try to overclock her pacemaker.

--

coding is life /* the rest is */
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by JWSmythe · 2009-07-27 10:19 · Score: 1

So, what you're trying to say is, even smart people do stupid things.
"Why were you looking at your phone, instead of paying attention to your driving?"
The smart thing is to pay attention to driving, which would make opposite (stupid) thing to not be paying attention.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by Scrameustache · 2009-07-27 12:43 · Score: 1

in the sense that people with pacemakers or cochlear implants aren't "cyborgs": That is, they actually are; but they aren't what people imagine when they say so, so we don't really consider them to be.
Incidentally, a cochlear implants was one of the "powers" of the 6 million dollar woman.

--
You can't take the sky from me...
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by jollyreaper · 2009-07-27 14:12 · Score: 1

Which was pretty inexplicable in the context of the Terminator. The visual processing system derived information about the environment, then integrated it as text into the signal from which it was derived such that it had to be processed a second time to be acted upon?
For the benefit of the audience. I can forgive it for Terminator. Less easy to gloss over is something like the original Battlestar Gaalactica with robots sitting inside starfighters flying it manually -- even better, communicating via vibrating the atmosphere. Now some will say "The dialog is just for the benefit of the audience, who wants to watch computers bleeping at each other with subtitles?" And to that I would say embrace the alien otherness of machines. Don't explain their motivation, leave it as something to be speculated over by the heroes. Amidst all the other stuff they got wrong in the new Galactica, I liked that they at least didn't have robots sitting inside cockpits flying the new Raiders.

--
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by kylemonger · 2009-07-27 15:57 · Score: 1

Which was pretty inexplicable in the context of the Terminator. The visual processing system derived information about the environment, then integrated it as text into the signal from which it was derived such that it had to be processed a second time to be acted upon?

Obvious, that was debugging output. The unfortunate SOB at CRS who wrote the code happened not to be wearing SPF 2,000,000 sunblock on judgment day and so died before he could #ifdef the debugging code out. Skynet left it in because, well, who can really guess why a strong AI does what it does?
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by mcvos · 2009-07-27 19:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

He has a computer in his backpack and wears a headset. Compare with someone with a phone in their pocket, and wearing a bluetooth headset. I don't think even of them count as wearable computers. Yes, he's wearing a headset, and people talk about wearing bluetooth headsets with their phones too.
The computer's output is definitely wearable. The big question is the input. Do you need to get your smartphone out to type stufff? Does it have voice recognition? Do you have an input device in your pocket that you can use without looking at it? Does it track your eye movement?
Ideally it has both audible and visible wearable output, and several types of wearable input. But with even one type of practical output and one type of practical input, it'd count as a wearable computer in my book.
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by mcvos · 2009-07-27 19:47 · Score: 1

Unless you simply want to say that everyone that allows themselves to be distracted by "new toys" while driving is stupid. I could go along with that. It's more of a conscious decision sort of stupidity than a ignorance or intellectual issue. Very, very smart and intellectual people can be extremely stupid.
Allowing unnecessary distractions during driving is definitely stupid. And yes, being very intellectual doesn't stop you from being stupid. You can be very informed about all sorts of interesting stuff that's completely irrelevant to your current activity, and completely ignorant about what's important right now (keeping your attention on the road, rather than elsewhere).
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by mcvos · 2009-07-27 19:52 · Score: 1

The big idea behind augmented reality is that it should assist you in your current activity, rather than distract you with irrelevant stuff. Consider fighter pilots who get extra visual input about their own speed and direction, and data about possible threats and targets on their HUD display.
Now translate that to your car: you'd get a good impression of how fast you're going (and if you're over the speed limit) without looking at the dashboard, you can get an extra warning if there's traffic in a place you weren't paying attention to, you might get automatic traffic info, etc.
AR could be incredinly useful in traffic and enhance your safety. As long as you don't go reading your mail while driving.
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by mcvos · 2009-07-27 19:56 · Score: 2

Yes, what you said, and, for the love of Christ, a way to "talk" without having a one-sided conversation with the freaking air. I hate that. Fifteen years ago you would have been sent to the loony bin for talking to voices in your head. Now, we assume one half of a bluetooth-enabled conversation. Seriously, how many completely, balls-out fucking crazy people are walking the streets who we assume are on the phone?
Why is that a problem? Suddenly crazies can pretend to be normal well-adjusted members of society too. Isn't that great?
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by mdwh2 · 2009-07-28 01:24 · Score: 1

The phone's output is wearable. Not anywhere as useful due to it being audio only, sure, but we don't define computing by the presence of a screen. Some phones have voice recognition.
It's a cool device, but so are smartphones - they're all example of portable mobile computers that you carry around with you. I'm not sure that "wearing" is a useful qualifier, or anything more than a matter of definitions. Consider, I "wear" my trousers, but I don't "wear" the phone in my trouser pocket - yet if I tied a bit of string and wrapped it round my waist, I'd then be "wearing" it. Yet little has changed from a practical or functional point of view.
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by Dan541 · 2009-07-28 01:56 · Score: 1

how is a smartphone not a wearable computer?
Because it fits conveniently in your pocket not making you look like an arse.

--
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by Dan541 · 2009-07-28 01:59 · Score: 1

Do you need to get your smartphone out to type stufff? Does it have voice recognition? Do you have an input device in your pocket that you can use without looking at it? Does it track your eye movement?
Is there a Tree, Pole or Bus-stop in your path?

--
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by nyctopterus · 2009-07-28 02:01 · Score: 1

I'm probably taking this too literally, but you don't get taken to the "loony bin" for talking to voices in your head. You're left to rot on the streets. So back in the day, we might have given the poor bastards a funny look--now we can completely ignore them. That's progress!
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by mcvos · 2009-07-28 02:17 · Score: 1

The phone's output is wearable. Not anywhere as useful due to it being audio only, sure, but we don't define computing by the presence of a screen. Some phones have voice recognition.
That'd count as wearable for me. If you can use it while wearing it, that is without having to dedicate hands to it, then it's wearable IMO. A smart phone that allows you to use its full computer-like functionality through voice control would fit my definition of a wearable computer.
If you can only make phone calls, it might be a wearable phone, but that's not nearly as interesting.
With the iPhone, there are apparently more apps that use voice control. I haven't tried it, but if you can open those apps through voice control, use them and close them without every having to touch or look at your iPhone, then it counts as a wearable computer to me. A very limited one, though, because I think the majority of the apps won't work that way. It's designed around touch, not voice.

I'm not sure that "wearing" is a useful qualifier, or anything more than a matter of definitions. Consider, I "wear" my trousers, but I don't "wear" the phone in my trouser pocket - yet if I tied a bit of string and wrapped it round my waist, I'd then be "wearing" it. Yet little has changed from a practical or functional point of view.
It doesn't matter if it's in your pocket or tied around your waist. What matters is if you can use it that way.
Re:Smartphones aren't wearable computers? by Ifandbut · 2009-07-28 08:15 · Score: 1

The iPhone is pretty much representing the ideal of the Tricorder or the PADD from Star Trek.
I think the iPhone is the Tricoder. However I think the Kindle is the PADD because it is lightweight, low power requirements and has a big enough screen to be able to read it for long periods of time.

Inertia by gmuslera · 2009-07-27 08:50 · Score: 1

Wonder how far your body will end if you are wearing one of those computers on the street and get hit by this slashdot effect.

Re:Inertia by funwithBSD · 2009-07-27 09:07 · Score: 1

"Apply the Confetti Rule."

--
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra

Resolution by chill · 2009-07-27 08:51 · Score: 3, Informative

640x480

While this may be fine for watching video without getting neck strain from being hunched over, it makes computing life a pain.

Until one of these things can give me a full 1024x768 or better display, it'll always be a niche toy for computing.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.

Re:Resolution by hesiod · 2009-07-27 08:53 · Score: 1

You echoed my own thoughts exactly.
Re:Resolution by Freetardo+Jones · 2009-07-27 08:59 · Score: 1

Until one of these things can give me a full 1024x768 or better display
Only XGA? What is this? 1990?
Re:Resolution by chill · 2009-07-27 09:21 · Score: 2, Informative

No, reality.
I've spent a lot of time as an admin for some fairly large companies. One thing I noticed is that a lot of people who aren't into CAD, programming or graphics design, don't like resolutions above 1024x768. I've lost count of the times I've set shiny new LCD monitors to their spec res like 1280x1024 only to have people change the res back down. The fonts are too small. If you change the font sizes, programs start to look weird, so they change the res.
Hell, look at the number of web page templates that are hard set for 1024x768. Lots of white space on the margins.
If you're a web admin, set up a test and check your logs. Record the screen and window res of people hitting your pages and you'll be shocked to see the bulk are usually 1024x768.
It is sad, but it is the way it is.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:Resolution by mdwh2 · 2009-07-27 09:22 · Score: 1

Get off my lawn! I remember when 640x480 was a luxury...
For mobile devices, I don't see it's bad, unless you plan on lugging a massive screen around with you? It's only a pain because so many stupid websites/applications/operating systems assume you're running at least 1024x768, and they've yet to catch up with the wide availability of Internet phones and netbooks.
Re:Resolution by ODiV · 2009-07-27 09:23 · Score: 1

The iPhone resolution is half that, and it's doing fairly well, last time I checked.
I think you need to redefine what you think of when you see the word "computer".
Re:Resolution by LandDolphin · 2009-07-27 09:25 · Score: 1

Why is it sad?

--
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
Re:Resolution by Opportunist · 2009-07-27 10:22 · Score: 1, Insightful

Realize that you're dealing with a display that is inches from your eye instead of half a foot to a foot. 640x480 on less than 3" is heaps more resolution than what you get with a current 22" 4000something by 3000something monitor.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Resolution by chill · 2009-07-27 10:29 · Score: 1

Because all the resolution and associated benefits go to waste because there is no graceful way for the fonts to be bigger, but not fsck-up the interface. Or, if there is, it takes so much effort most people won't do it.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:Resolution by chill · 2009-07-27 10:34 · Score: 1

Mmmmm...not really. 640x480 still amounts to a small amount of real estate. It works on a 5" diagonal display, but I'm not sure how well it'll translate to the 45" display image of an HMD.
Still, there is a lot of potential. It wasn't until recently that we had a decent COMPUTING platform with a screen that size. The iPhone and other smart phones/PDAs have introduced something that could be very interesting. Prior to their arrival nothing was really that size except for video. Now...
It just means *designing* a display for that size as opposed to assuming everyone has a 17"+ huge display with almost infinite real estate.

--
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Re:Resolution by Hatta · 2009-07-27 11:00 · Score: 1

All you really need is 80x24.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Resolution by Stu1706 · 2009-07-27 12:02 · Score: 1

This is a good enough resolution to watch porn on. I would call it iPorn, but I am sure I would get sued.
Re:Resolution by GeordieMac · 2009-07-27 13:43 · Score: 1

Apple owns the patent to the letter i and any word with which it starts. In response I've applied to the USPTO for numbers which conform to the formula where 2^n-1 In addition to my patent for all the numbers with 2^0 to 2^40 binary digits. With the royalties I intend to buy the moon from Dennis Hope.
Re:Resolution by mcvos · 2009-07-27 20:02 · Score: 1

640x480
While this may be fine for watching video without getting neck strain from being hunched over, it makes computing life a pain.
Until one of these things can give me a full 1024x768 or better display, it'll always be a niche toy for computing.
It's not supposed to be a workstation. High resolution is mainly important for workstations.
Re:Resolution by Opportunist · 2009-07-28 00:19 · Score: 1

Of course, but 640x480 on 3" diagonal? We'd have to calculate the pixels per inch and compare it to ordinary TFT screens, then adjust for the distance to your eyes. Maybe a "pixels per degree (angular)" would be interesting to see, to decide whether the pixels on a TFT or a HMD would "feel" bigger.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Transparent screen, augmented reality by nine-times · 2009-07-27 08:56 · Score: 1

It seems to me like the real killer app for a HUD is when you can have augmented reality built into your normal glasses. It would normally require a transparent screen, though, or a virtually transparent screen (by mounting a camera on the HUD which shows you what is in the field of vision being blocked by the display.

Of course, there's some danger there, too. No doubt some dumbass would use that sort of thing while driving, only to have the "augmented reality" block his vision of real reality, thereby causing an accident.

It's a decent hack, but the HUD is problematic by MartinSchou · 2009-07-27 08:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

At least for what I have in mind for a personal project. I haven't been able to find a decent optical see-through HMD that is affordable for regular people.

Liteye makes a system for the military, but this seems like a rather limited system.

I wouldn't mind seeing an OLED system in this form factor. They're quite sturdy, allowing you to mount decent loads onto it, the bridge and resting pads are quite big making them rather comfortable even with a big load on them. The stems are wide allowing big mounting points for stuff like camera(s) and wires. Connect it to something like an nVidia Tegra and you'd have an optical see through display, head mounted cameras and a small computer that can handle augmented reality with apparent ease.

But I suspect I'd be better off hoping to see Megan Fox splayed across my bed.

Re:It's a decent hack, but the HUD is problematic by Hurricane78 · 2009-07-27 09:36 · Score: 1

Well, my friend... I have planned such a device for a loong time now. Technically, it's completely possible.
Give me an investor, and I'll sell you such a thing in some years.
Until now, their excuses mostly are the circular reasoning fallacy, that nobody would use or buy it because there are no applications or anything for it. (And there are no applications, because no device for it exists, of course.) So it's "too risky", with "no chance" to make a profit from it.
Stupid, stupid, stupid!
But imagine such stupid people thinking that they can tell you what to do because they pay for it, and suddenly the alternative doesn't look so bad anymore. :/

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Re:It's a decent hack, but the HUD is problematic by MartinSchou · 2009-07-27 09:54 · Score: 2, Informative

Of course it's feasible.
Samsung presented a transparent OLED display at CES 2009, another example from 2008. Sony presented a flexible OLED display in 2007, making a display following the glasses curvature easily doable.
And I picked the nVidia Tegra as the computer, as that's already been proven to be plenty capable of doing AR and HD playback.
You don't even need to mount batteries in the glasses. You can run power and data cables inside a tether for the glasses, similar to the thingie for the iPod with cables for the head phones. All you need then is input and bluetooth works well enough for mice. You could use a virtual keyboard, but I suspect that's suck horribly.
Re:It's a decent hack, but the HUD is problematic by crabboy.com · 2009-07-27 10:13 · Score: 1

But I suspect I'd be better off hoping to see Megan Fox splayed across my bed.
That depends on how good her security is and how dedicated you are...
KIDDING!!!

--
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money
Re:It's a decent hack, but the HUD is problematic by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-27 11:49 · Score: 1, Informative

The display isn't the problem. It's the optics. You can't just put a display right next to your eye without a collimator to place it at a distant focus, or it will just be a blur and will create major eye strain.

Re:No demand by Flea+of+Pain · 2009-07-27 08:58 · Score: 2, Funny

As far as demand goes...I demand to own one of these...I mean really, the concept is just awesome, I can level up characters in all my favourite games while driving to work! Heck, I could play GTA while driving to work (as long as I don't mix up which eye is the game). What could possibly go wrong?

--
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

I was just thinking about this - buy! buy! sell! by Locutus · 2009-07-27 08:59 · Score: 1

there used to be a commercial on the boob tube in the 90s where a guy was in the middle of some courtyard and he was jumping up and down yelling buy! buy! sell! into his headset with an eyepiece screen and a small computer on his belt. I was just reading some news on Motorola doing Android phones and it made me wonder why we are not seeing devices like what that commercial showed. When an ARM chip and do 720P HD video in just a few watts, one would think that driving a tiny transparent display screen and doing some voice recognition would be within reason for a belt hung system. I don't know if the Snapdragon chips have DSP capabilities but the TI Omap processors have had DSP in them for years. IIRC, voice recognition fits the task of a DSP design quite well.

Now how much are those little LCD display screens?

LoB

--
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus

Then the terrible reality sinks in... by WoRLoKKeD · 2009-07-27 09:03 · Score: 2, Funny

"Oh, my God, you didn't turn into a gargoyle, did you?"

--
Immolation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Re:Then the terrible reality sinks in... by NigelTheFrog · 2009-07-27 09:13 · Score: 1

thank you obligatory snow crash reference man, you beat me to it.
Re:Then the terrible reality sinks in... by WoRLoKKeD · 2009-07-27 09:26 · Score: 1

Just doin' what I can to save others effort.

--
Immolation is the sincerest form of flattery.

What a huge leap in male contraception devices! by Phizzle · 2009-07-27 09:06 · Score: 4, Funny

Condoms got NOTHING on this when it comes to preventing reproduction!

--
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

Re:What a huge leap in male contraception devices! by TW+Burger · 2009-07-27 11:45 · Score: 1

He he, good one. I wish I thought of that.

Still waiting for my bicycle HUD. by MarkvW · 2009-07-27 09:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

When my bicycle HUD displays rear-views and navigational data I'll be all set.

Re:No demand by DNS-and-BIND · 2009-07-27 09:16 · Score: 1

No, it's called "a difference of opinion." It's absolutely flabbergasting how intolerant people are of diverse opinions these days. How about, "I disagree with you, and here's why" instead of mere assertions followed by insulting invective?

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!

/. effect has struck again by meist3r · 2009-07-27 09:20 · Score: 1

And the "OMG gargoyle" comments probably didn't help either ...

Been done by skrimp · 2009-07-27 09:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Xybernaut did this back in the 90s with a monocle hud, voice recognition, and a wearable cpu. It was underpowered, but saw some demand in the manufacturing and maintenance fields. I always thought it was a good idea and hoped it would go mainstream. Sony even threatened to make a 'ComputeMan' with the tech. I would have to agree that there's not enough demand and or it's too geeky.

Hrmm. by Anachragnome · 2009-07-27 09:24 · Score: 1

I wonder. (Sometimes too much.)

Has anyone ever been accused/found guilty of using an article post on /. as a means to perpetrate a DDoS attack on a website?

A website being "Slashdotted" may not always be a good thing...especially if you were not wanting/expecting the sudden influx of viewers.

Just curious...

Re:Hrmm. by religious+freak · 2009-07-27 10:00 · Score: 2, Funny

Yeah, we got this dude good. Looks like the server didn't just slow to a crawl, it's been pushed completely offline. Instead of an endless wait, I'm getting an instant connection refused message.

--
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Re:Hrmm. by Anachragnome · 2009-07-27 10:38 · Score: 1

Same here.
That is precisely why I asked. Seems an efficient way to do it. Post ONE article (real, or NOT) and let Slashdot do the rest.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not comparing Slashdot readers to Zombie Machines, but it is certainly an amusing thought.
Re:Hrmm. by kylemonger · 2009-07-27 16:03 · Score: 1

I continue to wonder why the Slashdot editors don't convert story links to the Coral Cache equivalents automatically.

site's down? by ForeverOrangeCat · 2009-07-27 09:24 · Score: 1

http://www.umpcportal.com/ = slashdotted right?

Re:No demand by Onymous+Coward · 2009-07-27 09:30 · Score: 1

... instead of mere assertions followed by insulting invective?

Yeah, like "This is just pointless narcissism ... furiously wanking ..."

In related news, Slashdot launches a by Phizzle · 2009-07-27 09:31 · Score: 1

Distributed Denial-Of-Service attack on a bandwidth strapped MyVu enthusiast website

--
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

You're doing it wrong! by Shads · 2009-07-27 09:32 · Score: 1

The iPhone or a smart phone of some sort is just the beginning of a wearable pc, it's a component in the mess. Bluetooth and other wireless technologies need to further develop and better batteries. No component except the central unit should be bigger than a bluetooth headset. Until they get that far its never going to catch on.

We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's first reasonable wearable computer.

--
Shadus

Re:No demand by paeanblack · 2009-07-27 09:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Instead of furiously wanking while trying to stand out from the crowd by wearing highly visible equipment, these guys should be finding a niche where mobile computing makes sense.

-Anybody working in a factory or a warehouse, where nobody cares how you look.
-Field service techs that need access to a ton of reference data.
-Anybody that climbs up a telephone pole or down a manhole.
-Anybody who needs use of both hands and access to information simultaneously to better do their jobs.

It's not exactly a "niche" market. Designing a wearable eyescreen that doesn't suck will be worth a ton of money.

Self Induced Cataracts by sgt+scrub · 2009-07-27 09:52 · Score: 1

The thought of signs and arrows on my glasses or beamed directly into my retina doesn't sound like an improvement to me. It sounds more like purposefully giving myself a cataracts. Augmenting the way I see the world by improving my mind would be a much better thing.

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.

Re:No demand by charlieo88 · 2009-07-27 09:55 · Score: 1

Quick, somebody mod this +5 unintentionally ironic for schooling some one for being insulting when replying to his insulting comment.

Re:No demand by vertinox · 2009-07-27 09:56 · Score: 1

This is just pointless narcissism. There's no demand for this sort of thing currently.

I dunno. I could really use a wearable hud for my iPhone.

Sometimes I always feel rather awkward having people read my conversations especially taken out of context.

--
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)

People are slugs by itomato · 2009-07-27 09:57 · Score: 1

Because people are content with the status quo, same as always, and just as sad.

Re:People are slugs by LandDolphin · 2009-07-27 10:26 · Score: 1

But if the status qou provides a better service, it does not seem sad anymore. Higher rez = small text = harder to read. Why is not wanting harder to read text sad?

--
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment

Re:No demand by MaskedSlacker · 2009-07-27 10:10 · Score: 2, Funny

Where's the +1 Hilarious Hypocrisy mod when you need it?

Re:So this is like the mobile phone handsets of 19 by davester666 · 2009-07-27 10:23 · Score: 1

but nobody can tell you like goatze...

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!

Re:I was just thinking about this - buy! buy! sell by Opportunist · 2009-07-27 10:30 · Score: 1

I was reminded of that same commercial. I think I saw it maybe 2 or 3 times, never to hear of it again. Either it was a real load of vaporware or it contained one of the best HMDs I've ever seen, tacked/glued to glasses, along the bottom edge, with the rim doubling as the cable canal. One of the gags of the commercial was that you simply did not see that the person was wearing a wearable, thus seemingly yelling "buy!" and "sell!" until you saw that he is watching a ticker on the bottom of his glasses.

How complicated could it be to develop a display like this?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:No demand by DNS-and-BIND · 2009-07-27 10:42 · Score: 1

It'll certainly start off as a niche. That's good, niches are usually quite profitable. Your first three cases, I'd say an eyepiece would be too expensive for the work they do. The fourth, however, is spot on and figuring out where that case makes sense is the key to the future of wearable computers.

What's NOT the future of wearable computers is some dorks putting on an eyepiece in a bid to make everyone look at them. Narcissism is bad, mmmkay?

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!

Re:No demand by Phurge · 2009-07-27 10:42 · Score: 1

or -5 Pwned

--
I'll see your hokum and raise you a boondoggle.

Re:I was just thinking about this - buy! buy! sell by TW+Burger · 2009-07-27 11:49 · Score: 1

There have been several in eye (it's not a HUD, that's a projected screen) displays available through the years. They all sucked and disappeared. The military targeting versions seem to be pretty good though.

I don't get it by roc97007 · 2009-07-27 12:29 · Score: 1

I don't get it. All those modules and wires and heads-up display and stuff, so I can see the Windows desktop wherever I go? This is a good thing how?

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.

Re:Linux is gay by Anonymous Coward · 2009-07-27 15:25 · Score: 1, Funny

No, Mac OS is an OS for fags by fags. Linux is just insignificant.

This is not augmented reality yet by S3D · 2009-07-27 16:19 · Score: 1

Augmented reality need camera, so that camera image can be registered in 3d and overlay drawn over it could be seen as organic part of the scene. As it is this is just a wearable display.

Perfect! by electricprof · 2009-07-27 17:35 · Score: 1

Yet another application for the SphincterMouse I am developing! Totally hands-free.

Re:No demand by hesiod · 2009-07-28 01:26 · Score: 1

Narcissism is bad, mmmkay?

WHAT??? Now you tell me... I could have saved ten grand on my last car!

Re:Needs some work by Loko+Draucarn · 2009-07-28 02:59 · Score: 1

appropriate use of meme; +0.5.

Personally, I'd like to see such a power-sensing function be more like the 'con' command, i.e. ' You can take him easily', or 'This guy will wipe the walls with you', or 'Do not pursue Lu Bu.'

Ugly! by BurzumNazgul · 2009-07-28 03:16 · Score: 1

And I thought bluetooth headsets were ugly. Soon we'll see armies of cocky salesmen at McDonald's with a belt full of electronics, BT ear pieces and a silly pair of sunglasses with their computer monitor hanging off the end. I can't wait.

--
I can say [REDACTED] anytime I want!

doktor sleepless by agentultra · 2009-07-29 08:46 · Score: 1

A neat comic by Warren Ellis which delves into a future-now scenario.

One concept he brings to light are a class of subculture hackers called "Shrieky Girls" which use lo-tech hacks to provide hi-tech wearable interfaces and networked haptics. They're a sort of sub-subculture derived from the "grinders" -- people who hack their bodies. I haven't been too deep in the series since its pretty hard to collect from my brick and mortar suppliers, but there is a wiki tracking all of the details.

Pretty neat stuff.

I look forward to a future with more passive/unconscious interfaces.

Slashdot Mirror

Wearable Computer With Lightweight HUD

119 of 150 comments (clear)