Sergey Brin Shows Project Glass Glasses to Journalists (Video)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sergey Brin Shows Project Glass Glasses to Journalists (Video)

Posted by Roblimo on Friday June 29, 2012 @12:03AM from the goo-goo-googly-eyes dept.

Not too many years ago, people who carried on conversations with folks the rest of us couldn't hear were considered demented (or drunk). Then came the cellular phone headset, which meant normal people could walk along, carrying on conversations with people we couldn't hear, although many researchers came to believe that a large percentage of so-called "normal" cell phone users were also demented (or drunk). Now Google's Project Glass means people can walk along, seeing things no one else can -- and carrying on conversations with them. Are Google's Project Glass users demented? Are they drunk? Or are they looking at heads-up displays mounted on glasses frames or attached to prescription glasses? Inquiring Slashdot editor Timothy Lord wanted to know, so he joined a Glass demonstration hosted by Google co-founder Sergey Brin (whose company is not related to Barney Google, as far as we know) to find out for himself -- and to share his findings with you.

21 of 117 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Here is the full video of the demo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-29 00:06 · Score: 5, Informative

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3azbb3f69A0&list=UUiWJgml6SpZBgNY6n-TZQew&index=1&feature=plcp
1. Re:Here is the full video of the demo by scubamage · 2012-06-29 02:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It would be nice to see what the glasses actually show people. Seeing a lot of video showing things from a headcam isn't super exciting. I know it's an alpha product right now, but what we're seeing as "glasses in action" is nothing that my buddy's 10$ groupon headcam can't do already - and apparently at higher framerates and resolution. In the demo we see people saying that they see notifications around the room, but you get no sense of that at all.
Best use by seyfarth · 2012-06-29 00:08 · Score: 3, Funny

Now people can drive while watching porn...

--
Ray Seyfarth, ray.seyfarth@gmail.com, http://rayseyfarth.blogspot.com
1. Re:Best use by Chrisq · 2012-06-29 00:24 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Now people can drive while watching porn...
  Why do you think google is working on the driverless car too?
Re:Yes, users are demented. by bmo · 2012-06-29 00:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, you could never have technical documentation show up in front of you, hands free, while you're working on something like a car, machine, or plane or anything else. no, it would never happen. A soldier, police officer, fireman could never have a lightweight video feed coming from the drone overhead, either. No, never happen.
--
BMO
Re:Yes, users are demented. by negativeduck · 2012-06-29 00:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

I disagree, I think that there is potential for things like this and we really are starting to glance the surface of what can be done when information can be readily snapped to the user without them even asking about it. In BioMed alone this form of technology can bring alot to the table. You wear a pair of //safety// glasses. as you enter a room the camera see's room number or a bar-code and snaps to your display the information on that patient without even looking. Even simple things like names or allergic reactions.
In Construction if you have a 3d blueprint you walk through the skeleton of a site and you see the plumbing that isn't yet installed on the display and an realize that 3 days earlier a cross member was installed in the wrong place. You can correct it now or advise the plumber in advance of a change keeping the project on track.
Likewise though, if you start out small then //larger// implementations become even simpler using the same technology they can easily expand to other fields having already licked the miniaturization.
hell map a large datacenter and "I need to find server XYZ, follow the yellow line!"
DIY kiddies, call a central company I'm installing X. They bring up your video feed and can football style draw circles lines and point to the part and help you through whatever has gotcha buggered.
Surprise! by OzPeter · 2012-06-29 00:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

A guy at Google is not concerned about the privacy issues of ubiquitous video recordings.

Everyone complains about the centralized government having tracking everyone, but surely it's the same thing if that tracking becomes distributed by actions of the citizens themselves.

I have curtains on my windows not because I just want to stop the government seeing what I do in private, but because I want to stop everyone else seeing what I do in private.

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
1. Re:Surprise! by ShieldW0lf · 2012-06-29 00:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The difference is, when the government does it, they have an asynchronous advantage over the citizenry. When the citizens do it themselves, they erase that advantage. Your privacy was always an illusion... now you're finally being empowered. It's a positive development.
  
  --
  -1 Uncomfortable Truth
2. Re:Surprise! by TrekkieGod · 2012-06-29 01:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  A guy at Google is not concerned about the privacy issues of ubiquitous video recordings.
  To be fair, there are no privacy issues with ubiquitous video recordings. You're filming things in public places, there's no expectation of privacy there. You can ask photographers who get harassed when they're taking pictures in public what they think. If anything, this would be great, as it would get people used to the idea, and they'd stop harassing photographers and people who take video of police. If you are walking into a private location with it, and the owners do not allow recordings, it's the same situation as it is now, as you wouldn't be allowed to record with your phone. You'd just be asked to take the thing off.
  Privacy issues come with the sharing of those videos. And I don't mean who the person who recorded chose to share it with, that's his choice. The question is what google will do with it when the video hits their servers. If you trust Google to handle your e-mails (I do, others don't, and that's ok), there's no reason you wouldn't trust them with these videos. The e-mails contain far more information about your life.
  
  --
  Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
3. Re:Surprise! by rocket+rancher · 2012-06-29 05:15 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It sounds to me like you've bought into sci-fi writer David Brin's theories on "sousveillance" uncritically, and are ignoring Bruce Schneier's debunking of Brin's myth of the transparent society in this Wired article. For what it is worth, cops can already seize recording equipment from by-standers at a crime scene; I don't think giving everybody a camera is going to change that. What I think is far more likely to happen is that the government will attempt to maintain their asymmetric (I'm thinking you meant asymmetric, not asynchronous) advantage by minimizing a citizen's ability to record cops/firefighters/soldiers, either legislatively or technologically. Ironically, this legislation, if I'm right, will probably be passed in the name of maintaining privacy. It's already illegal to publish photos of dead US soldiers being returned to the US for interment -- and that was done by an executive order issued by Bush II and reaffirmed by Obama. The technology already exists to disrupt communications -- selectively blanking cell and wi-fi transmissions over arbitrary areas is trivial to accomplish and DHS has policies and procedures in place to control information in emergencies, something they inherited from FEMA.
Any real demos? by JaredOfEuropa · 2012-06-29 00:28 · Score: 3, Informative

Any video of the glasses themselves, preferably a "through" view showing what the actual overlay looks like, and what sort of info will be displayed. I am really not all that interested in a video of a bunch of people wearing those things...

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:Talking to imaginery voices... by JaredOfEuropa · 2012-06-29 00:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Any video of the glasses themselves, preferably a "through" view showing what the actual overlay looks like, and what sort of info will be displayed? I am really not all that interested in a video of a bunch of people wearing those things...

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
The thing that comes to mind... by SomePgmr · 2012-06-29 00:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

As bad as I want one of these, I can't help but think about how badly we need a low cost, community developed version of this to function as a totally open, arduino-esque option.
Everything about these things coming to market as a popular, locked-down device creeps me out. Maybe it's too many years of scifi, but if history tells us anything, it's that we need a technological escape route at all times.
So uh, where can we source the display technology for these things? Because the rest seems entirely doable.
1. Re:The thing that comes to mind... by Greyfox · 2012-06-29 01:19 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Wired's been doing stories on DIY wearable computer people from at least the mid 90's. See also the remembrance agent web page. It never really caught on that much, though nifty feats like performing facial recognition on people and bringing up information on them, placing IR beacons to which data could be attached to locations and video-recording everything with a camera capable of slowing down the wheels on a moving car so you could read the manufacturer details have been reported. The early papers on the subject talk about what a ubiquitous computing device you carry around on your person would be like, and it pretty much describes today's cell phones.
  The limiting factors in the past have been I/O -- most of the early adopters went with one-handed "chording" keyboards and bulky, ugly head mounted displays. They also usually ended up carrying around a backpack with large-ish home made computer in it. Since a lot of people now carry around a computer with the appropriate capabilities and voice recognition has come along nicely, perhaps the I/O thing can be solved, too. I'm not sure a lot of people will go for wearing glasses full time, but if the value add is there, maybe I'm wrong.
  
  --
  I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Oblig. Dilbert reference by plate_o_shrimp · 2012-06-29 00:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1994-10-12/

--
This sig has exceed its monthly bandwidth allotment.
Re:Yes, users are demented. by jellomizer · 2012-06-29 00:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

I personally don't prescribe to the Gene Roddenberry future where technology will solve all our problems and make us good and happy people. Every technology you use has a trade-off. Now the trick is to determine if the trade-off is worth it.
When we went from horses to automobiles, it was haled as an environmental achievement. Horses make a big mess on the streets, that needs to be clean and can cause the spread of diseases to people. Automobiles also let people go longer distances, and faster. However there was a trade-off. With Automobiles we needed a smoother road infrastructure, that cost tax payers a lot of money. With less daily maintenance and newer cheaper cars more people have cars creating traffic concerns, and more people driving create a higher air pollution rate. Now if we all had cars and used them the same way people used horses last century, the earth will be a cleaner place. However we got trade-offs, faster speed, more efficiency = more use.
If we make a more efficient engine, that means people will buy bigger cars they will keep their consumption about the same, they will just get a bigger car... Unless gas costs are too high then they get smaller.
We have created a new computer infrastructure, at a trade-off.
1. We allow people to work from anywhere in the world... That means we can hire people cheap in other countries.
2. Computers automate a lot of repetitive tasks... That means a lot of good entry level positions that teach college grads the ropes of business are now gone.
3. We now have access to more information... So each person is expected to do more... Harder work.
We really can't hold technology back for the sake that it offers tradeoffs. however we need to think of new ways to adjust to these chances.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Input Mechanism by DaKong · 2012-06-29 00:45 · Score: 3, Interesting

I've been following wearable computing since the days of Xybernaut, during the Dot-Com era. Google Glass looks like it has the display issue nearly solved--it's functional without being overly intrusive. If they can wear it all day long then the battery issue would be solved enough for most people conditioned to the iPhone's evanescent battery life.
An input mechanism remains a quandry. Voice recognition has improved a lot beyond the days of Dragon Naturally Speaking, but it's still aggravating when you're trying to do something technical or even unusual. Are projected keyboards the answer, or those two handed-deals that ride under velcro patches on your knees? An arm mounted keyboard? Has anyone from MIT's media lab or similar place tried those options? How do they compare?

--
If not us, who? If not now, when?
Been there, done that by Dross50 · 2012-06-29 01:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

I can think of a whole host of problems this device will have, starting with it is see through device and therefore is competing with greatest power source in the solar system, the sun. Also, this device is interfacing with a set of genes that evolved millions of years ago on the plains of Africa. And it's a mono display, the brain does not handle mono well, just ask the Ah-64 pilots. These guys need to talk to some Army Aviation folks, at Mother Rucker. Been there done this, like about 15 years ago......
1. Re:Been there, done that by Dross50 · 2012-06-29 03:03 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The brain can only handle split imagery for 10 - 20 minutes then it starts to flip between eyes uncontrollably. The AH pilots handle this by turning the brightness up to the point where the non-hmd (Helmet Mounted Display) eye shuts down (pupil gets small). Of course they get wicked ass headaches. BUT if you go stereo then there a image alignment issues, the eye does not handle non-alignment images well, which would make the eyeglass mounting/holder not stiff enough or stable enough to mount a stereo display......ah all the issues come rushing back.......some day I should tell you about the display we designed for pit traders.... When I worked on the Space Suit HMD and the Army Helmet Mounted (Helmid) fighting the Sun was near impossible, causing us to raise the non-transmissiveness of the reflector (combiner) plate to 80 and 90% opaque. Making it rather difficult to see thought and causing me to use a non-see through combiner for the Army. There are a host of issues, all of them well studied, which is why although this tech is like 15 years old, (I know I built this type of device before) I doubt it will go anywhere, all the advanges and apps I heard years ago. But still some of the most fasinating stuff I ever worked.
Re:Yes, users are demented. by justforgetme · 2012-06-29 01:14 · Score: 3, Informative

Well, having had experience with this sort of worn hud in the past I think you are right, it won't happen.
In my experience anything that needs you to actually focus on the details of the displayed images is
impossible since your left eye (and brain) go crazy.
I have heard that they have consulting optics experts so I guess they could have actually cracked it
but afaik to be able to do real work with computer augmented vision you need a real hud, not a small
blotch on the far right top side of your right eye's vision.

--
-- no sig today
Re:Yes, users are demented. by bmo · 2012-06-29 01:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

In my experience when something is merely a technological hump to get over (and not depending on a breakthrough in physics), the person saying "it can't be done" is invariably wrong.
--
BMO