Slashdot Mirror


Google Glass Is the Future — and the Future Has Awful Battery Life

zacharye writes "The concept of wearable tech is really buzzing right now as pundits tout smart eyewear, watches and other connected devices as the future of tech. It makes sense, of course — smartphone growth is slowing and people need something to hold on to — but the early 'Explorer' version of Google's highly anticipated Google Glass headset has major problem that could be a big barrier for widespread adoption: Awful battery life." Also, a review of the hardware. The current Glass hardware heads south in less than five hours, which doesn't seem too short relative to similarly powerful devices, but since it is meant to be worn all the time you'd think it would have a large enough battery to make it at least 8 or 10 hours.

473 comments

  1. Rev. 1 hardware, people by Enry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is what they were able to build. Rev 2. (probably when they get to mass producing it) will have better battery life

    1. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Luthair · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In truth this isn't even rev-1, its not even intended for consumers.

    2. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by jeffmeden · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is what they were able to build. Rev 2. (probably when they get to mass producing it) will have better battery life

      You have half of it right. Rev 1 has bad battery life because it was a prototype. Think outside the box about the need for better batteries, though; Rev 2 will simply plug into neural probes and power itself from your brain. What battery life problem?

    3. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will hit anyone wearing Google Glass. You are stealing privacy from all of us. Get ready to get kicked and your Google Glasses destroyed.

      I hope this becomes a trend, just like what happened to that guy who weared AR glasses in France. Break them and punch in the face.

      So passionate about this, yet you're constantly being filmed wherever you go and have no problem with it? Is the difference between this and a guy with a smartphone that you can tell the guy with the smartphone is recording you from his awkward hold of the phone? What if a "recording" indicator were placed on them (like a red light)? Would you still be so angry about this?

      And, just so you know, it's not recording all the time, only when you tell it to record. Not all that much different than an underpowered smartphone with voice commands, strapped to your head.

    4. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I will hit anyone wearing Google Glass. You are stealing privacy from all of us. Get ready to get kicked and your Google Glasses destroyed.

      I hope this becomes a trend, just like what happened to that guy who weared AR glasses in France. Break them and punch in the face.

      So passionate about this, yet you're constantly being filmed wherever you go and have no problem with it? Is the difference between this and a guy with a smartphone that you can tell the guy with the smartphone is recording you from his awkward hold of the phone? What if a "recording" indicator were placed on them (like a red light)? Would you still be so angry about this?

      And, just so you know, it's not recording all the time, only when you tell it to record. Not all that much different than an underpowered smartphone with voice commands, strapped to your head.

      The parent is full of shit anyway - posting as AC? And you expect us to believe that your balls will be big enough to walk up to a random stranger in a public place and punch them? Because of what they're wearing? Right. You'll do what the rest of us do: Mutter under our breath and turn our backs to them.

    5. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by MugenEJ8 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      While I agree... and I know people will down-mod me as trolling, but Apple will actually come to the rescue with iHUD or something similar and will put Google to shame.

    6. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Americano · · Score: 2

      Not all that much different than an underpowered smartphone with voice commands, strapped to your head.

      Well when you put it like that, it's hard to see any way that Google Glasses could possibly be a failure in the market!

      I'm sold.

    7. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's completely different. The vast majority of the time that I'm on video it's surveillance footage that never gets viewed by anybody at all, unless something happens. Comparing that with footage that's easily leaked online is disingenuous at best.

      Don't get me wrong, I don't care to be filmed in general, but trying to suggest that the two are equivalent is just laughable.

    8. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's completely different. The vast majority of the time that I'm on video it's surveillance footage that never gets viewed by anybody at all, unless something happens. Comparing that with footage that's easily leaked online is disingenuous at best.

      Don't get me wrong, I don't care to be filmed in general, but trying to suggest that the two are equivalent is just laughable.

      Of course they are different, on the one hand you are OK with every step of your trip to Starbucks being filmed, and on the other hand you are awkwardly paranoid about the 11 seconds you spend in the field of vision of someone wearing a Google Glass. Totally apples to oranges.

    9. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Lord+Grey · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... Rev 2 will simply plug into neural probes and power itself from your brain. What battery life problem?

      There are some managers where I work who would experience severe battery life problems, then.

      --
      // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
    10. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by unrtst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is what they were able to build. Rev 2. (probably when they get to mass producing it) will have better battery life

      Not only this, but the article is simply flamebait:

      But for all the hype surrounding another category of wearable devices — connected eyewear — early tests with Google Glass suggest battery performance may be absolutely awful.

      I would hardly call 5 hours of continuous use "absolutely awful". Personally, I'd put that in the "could be better" category. If I'm sitting at my computer, I'm probably going to take them off; If I'm playing frisbee or basketball etc, I'm taking them off; if I'm just sitting around the house, I'm taking them off; etc etc. I think 5 hours a day is more than I'd use them anyway... but all those times when you take them off, they could also be charging.

      The article gets much worse though:

      If the user captures longer videos and uses Glass a bit more regularly, Stevens believes the headset will only last “a couple of hours” before the battery dies.

      A device that only lasts two hours between charges is not the future of tech.

      That wasn't a test. That was what he thought would happen, and he didn't try it. I doubt that claim is accurate. The screen and communications channels are running the whole time anyway, and that's probably sucking the majority of the power. Recording while doing so probably won't make much of a difference... but I'm just postulating too. Maybe he should have actually tested it, since he has one!
      And then they follow it up with a statement, as if that was actually fact. That's rotten.

      I've looked at battery powered pico projectors over the years (never got one though), and most claimed around 2 hours life. That's *nearly* enough, but I want to be sure I'll be able to finish a movie on one. This, IMO, is similar. If it gets 2.5 hours or more, I think that's pretty good for constant recording or playing (besides, where are you storing 2.5+ hours of HD video?), and this isn't meant to replace video cameras. I don't know what they're thinking.

      A complaint about batterly life from someone that probably wouldn't wear this in public for more than 10 minutes... yeah, I don't care what he has to say. (I'm not saying I'd wear it all that much either... but I'm not going to berate the battery life of something I wouldn't use anyway)

    11. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by hedwards · · Score: 3, Informative

      I used to work in security and I'm well aware of where the cameras are located, and I'm definitely not being recorded every step of my trip to Starbucks. What's more, any cameras that I am caught on are unlikely to be looked at by anybody ever. They're recording in case something happens. And rarely if ever do businesses around here pool those tapes or otherwise share them. In most cases the footage is deleted within a month, provided they aren't specifically retaining a section, because storing footage with no value for years is expensive.

      What's more, they don't generally change their position, they're where they are, and what they see is relatively fixed. Whereas with Google glass and such, the cameras are constantly moving and unpredictable. What's more once the footage is uploaded, it's much more likely that it will be seen by people at large.

      Just because you don't get the situation, doesn't mean my views are paranoid, it just means that I'm well aware of the situation and have done actually thinking about it.

    12. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Keep us appraised of how the plethora of assault charges that you will face work out for you

    13. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Google's ultimate goal: being plugged directly into everyone's brain.

    14. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent is a Google marketer engaging in reverse shilling by attempting to associate Glass critics with idiocy.

    15. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vast majority of the time that I'm on video it's surveillance footage that never gets viewed by anybody at all, unless something happens. Comparing that with footage that's easily leaked online is disingenuous at best.

      Neither will the majority of Google Glass footage. It will be used like dashboard cameras (when battery life allows) kept running all day in the off chance something interesting happens. When you're in public you can be filmed get used to it.

    16. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right. This isn't even to the level of a product prototype. It's a prototype of a *class* of product, an entirely new thing. To use an obligatory car analogy, this isn't a Model T, or even something like an early Benz automobile, it's more along the lines of an early steam powered "road locomotive". Yeah, it's got a few rough edges.

      Google is feeling their way, trying to figure out how this technology might be applied. It has a long ways to go before mass adoption, if it even gets there. It's very interesting technology, so it's getting a lot of attention. Thus, "OMG!! Battery life SUX!!!!"

    17. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't have an issue with this. As long as it runs some form of linux, I have root, I can control what goes in and out of the comms system (including full IPtables and HOSTS) and it runs sandboxed from my grey matter.

      How would it be different from running on the phone in your pocket?

    18. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With rev 2. They will also have a bunch of new application areas that are not meant to impress you Twitter followers but has actual real life usable applications (that supposedly out weight the handicap of having to wear glasses).

      If you haven't guessed I leave my phone at the office; I'm not part of your system! /Ivan Apparatchik

    19. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by chowdahhead · · Score: 3, Informative

      They're using an OMAP SOC for the explorer editions. TI stopped development and is phasing out manufacturing of mobile chips. For Google to deliver the millions of Glass devices that they anticipate, they must find another hardware solution. That's a pretty good indication that the current hardware isn't final. The 4430 is overkill anyway, and a more purpose-designed SOC should be more cost-effective and yield improved battery life.

    20. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nah, I just bring my mother-in-law along. Yeah, it's mostly horrible, but her face emits an anti-photographic EM field.

    21. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how it is in the US, but in my country (Hungary) security footage must be destroyed in the two weeks if no incidents happened. But most security systems record in a rotating-log fashion anyway to save space.

    22. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 2

      Even so, it's something that is meant to be worn all day. Battery life is the first thing they should have sorted out especially when asking people to pony up $1500 for it.

    23. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's a lousy excuse to allow a company to shift a poor product. They're charging for it and besides the point for something meant to be worn all day battery life should have been at the top of the list of things to sort out. Otherwise it just shows poor planning.

    24. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    25. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      Let's see. No facts, no logic, no effort, no point? You're just making it obvious you have a blatant lack of anything to add to the discussion, and added it anyway. I did that as a child, and my Uncle pointed this out to me: that just because you can speak doesn't mean you have anything to say. You might do well to learn that. I assume you're older than I was (pre Kindergarten).

    26. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by bennomatic · · Score: 2

      Seriously. I'm not a huge fan of a cyborg future, but proclaiming the death of a future technology based on today's battery capacities is just silly. Once upon a time, most people only had 2400 baud access to the Internet; imagine if people had just looked at that and written off the possibility of high-bandwidth applications because they weren't feasible at the time. Just to name a couple, the Skypes and the Netflixes of the world exist because someone looked ahead and saw a time when bandwidth would be plentiful, and built technologies to allow its use.

      If I were a Glass engineer, I would build everything assuming that one day there would be a way to hold a full day's charge at constant use within the frame. To assume otherwise is to artificially limit what will be possible when society is ready for mass adoption of this sort of technology.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    27. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Early adopters willing to spend their hard-earned money on this product should be smart enough to know that they're buying a bleeding-edge product.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    28. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Oceanplexian · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In truth this isn't even rev-1, its not even intended for consumers.

      Why then is Apple capable of releasing polished products from the beginning?

      Google yet again comes out with a neat concept but fails at delivery. They're obviously trying to get journalists to review it and generate the fake exclusivity hype. Unfortunately, as usual, the prototype doesn't deliver, makes compromises in quality, and looks absolutely goofy. It's hilarious they have the audacity to charge a ridiculous sum of money for a 640x360 screen shoved in some sunglasses.

      I'm sorry, but great innovations are 1% ideas and 99% application. Google should STFU about concepts until they have something worth buying

    29. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by SuperMog2002 · · Score: 0

      Somebody's wearing a device that can record whatever they're seeing and upload it to a remote server in realtime, and you're going to respond to by committing assault and battery against that person. Yeah, that's going to end well for you.

      --
      Sunwalker Dezco for Warchief in 2016
    30. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by gagol · · Score: 2

      Quite the opposite, the weaker the mind, the more work it has to do to accomplish the most simple tasks.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    31. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by gagol · · Score: 3, Funny

      probably running some version of eyeOS!

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    32. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by russotto · · Score: 0

      Why then is Apple capable of releasing polished products from the beginning?

      Like the original Mac laptop, a 16 pound black and white device with a 68000 running at 8Mhz with 8MB of RAM? The original Apple tablet (a.k.a the Newton)?

    33. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that security footage gets saved to a local database that lasts a month at most in every place I've worked at. Archived video is kept for criminal and liability incidents, and it isn't shared except with police or company lawyers.

      Google Glass video of "something interesting" will most likely be something that the actors in that little film wouldn't want to be uploaded to YouTube, and the video will most likely be uploaded directly to Facebook/Google+, or the new Twitter video, and there's always the aforementioned YouTube account. Good luck having that video deleted after 30 days or even 7 years.

    34. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by bipbop · · Score: 2

      I don't mean to defend GP's assertion, but this strikes me as irrelevant. Apple now is a very different company than Apple then.

    35. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Google. We don't just ship beta, we sell it.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    36. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Macgrrl · · Score: 2

      Hey, don't knock the luggable - I typeset an economics textbook on one, carrying it to campus daily. It at least kept me fit.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    37. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      probably running some version of eyeOS!

      You mean like this?

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    38. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      an entirely new thing.

      Nope.

      These things have been around in academia for ages. In the distant past, they had a PC in a backpack powering huge bulky glasses. In the marginally less distant past they had a much smaller PC powering less bulky glasses with enough grunt to do computer vision on an attached camera.

      At that point the things (glasses, camera, other sensors) were usually bodged together on a plastic hard hat since they were cheap convenient and flexible. Duct tape may have been involved. The Sony Glasstron was a popular device since it could be hacked to be see through and stereo iof required.

      I lost track of the academic state of the art in 2006 or so.

      Basically the general principle was hashed out ages ago. The technology has now got to the point where it's feasible to produce it in consumerised form.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    39. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      So you know, the exact same problems with literally anyone carrying a cellphone today.

    40. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      I don't mean to defend GP's assertion, but this strikes me as irrelevant. Apple now is a very different company than Apple then.

      Which is why we had the iPhone 3G, 3GS, 4, 4S...

    41. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by myurr · · Score: 1

      Tell that to Apple's retina display department. I'm now on my 8th screen, with six of those being complete laptop replacements, all because of clusters of dead pixels and all in the same horizontal band across the screen (50-75% up). Sure I've probably been a little unlucky and maybe I've been better at spotting and complaining about the problem than some, but just how low a failure rate can that display have if I am now on my eighth brand new unit and am staring at yet another cluster of dead pixels as we speak?

      And Apple has had plenty of teething issues with a huge number of products over even just the last couple of years. How polished was Apple Maps? Or the iPhone 4 aerial? Or the already scratched before unboxing iPhone 5? Etc. etc.

    42. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by fearofcarpet · · Score: 1

      Maybe something like this? It's not like battery technology is just standing still while portable devices proliferate.

      --
      Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
    43. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Polished product? The iPhone had a ton of detractions in its first release. No threading of course, the app store was still getting started, battery life was terrible, it had a TCO around $3K. I know someone on that team and they were proud of getting the minimal viable product out the door and then shipping lots of updates and revisions as the ecosystem matured.

      But as far as shipping crap as a polished product, let's not forget the Apple Maps fiasco of less than a year ago before we consider Apple holy on this count.

    44. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by squiggleslash · · Score: 0

      (Original comment has disappeared, possibly due to abusive moderation - anyone who thinks the below is a "troll" might want to reply and explain why.)

      Right, if it follows the same process for Android phones, the first production model will have an even worse battery life, followed by the next version, that'll barely last 30 minutes between charges.

      And if you dare suggest this might not be, you know, enough for the device to be useful, all the trolls will come out and demand to know why you expect such a powerful widget to have a battery life measured in hours...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    45. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Enry · · Score: 1

      My GS3 has better battery life than the HTC Thunderbolt which had somewhat better battery live than my OG Droid. Your assumption of worsening battery life doesn't live up to what I've seen.

    46. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      My Galaxy Nexus has a 10-12 hour battery life under ordinary conditions with the standard battery - needless to say I ended up buying a long life equivalent. Reportedly the Nexus 4 is even worse than the Galaxy Nexus in practice (and the battery can't be replaced!), while my HTC myTouch 3G Slide had a battery life of about 30-40 hours.

      Complaints of crappy battery lives are getting louder, I doubt that'd be the case if my experience were atypical and your's was more representative. When I've raised the issue before, I've been told I'm out of line because I'd "expect" battery life to be poorer given the newer phone is more "powerful".

      Funnily enough, the newer phone is never that much more functional.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    47. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by MugenEJ8 · · Score: 1

      Let's see. No facts, no logic, no effort, no point? You're just making it obvious you have a blatant lack of anything to add to the discussion, and added it anyway. I did that as a child, and my Uncle pointed this out to me: that just because you can speak doesn't mean you have anything to say. You might do well to learn that. I assume you're older than I was (pre Kindergarten).

      Let's play a game where you throw all Android devices in one bucket, and all iOS devices in another. Let's take devices from the year the iPhone 4 was released onwards.

      Then you reach in to each of those buckets and grab a device for each hand. Then you power them on and use them in exactly the same manor, until the battery dies... The Apple device in a vast majority of cases will always live on passed whatever Android device you've managed to pull from the bin.

      Am I wrong?

      That's a logical statement, and for most circumstances, very factual. Maybe our current Android device vendors can get their head out of their ass and make a device that lasts past lunch with moderate usage.

      This is /. though, and I will conceed I didn't place a lot of effort into the original post... My fscking bad :P

    48. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      The comment you made was about how Apple will save the world by building an iHUD device that shames the unreleased beta of Google Glass. Putting iPhones in a bucket and Androids in another doesn't even remotely relate to what Google Glass will be. Apple quite clearly sucks at the cloud and this is heavily cloud/messaging/Google Now centric. I want Apple to build a good quality one of these and force the technology forward but iPhone 4 support is not related to this very much. It is /. .. Otherwise I wouldn't have been such a rude bastid in my comment. Cheers mang. enjoy the day.

    49. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by MugenEJ8 · · Score: 1

      It is /. .. Otherwise I wouldn't have been such a rude bastid in my comment. Cheers mang. enjoy the day.

      I laffed! Cheers mate.

    50. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by HappyPsycho · · Score: 1

      Until you know everything that is going to go into it and more importantly the usage patterns that are common, you can't determine energy consumption.

      Until you know the realistic energy consumption you can't determine what size battery to put into it to give a runtime of at least X hours.

    51. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Smart people also think something that is meant to worn all day shouldn't have a, at best, 5 hour battery life with possibly as little as 2 hours. That shows a real lack of intelligence on Google's behalf if they haven't sorted that out yet. It's possibly the most important thing.

    52. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      It's not exactly as multifaceted as a desktop system. There is only so many things you can do with it. One of the most obvious uses of the thing will be to record lots of video and take pictures. The two things it appears to really kill the battery.

    53. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by jseale · · Score: 1

      This is what they were able to build. Rev 2. (probably when they get to mass producing it) will have better battery life

      You say this and yet a lot of us are still having this problem with our smartphones which have come a long way since they were first introduced to the geek public. I think it's time we gave an X-Prize to the person who can create a better battery for mobile devices than the ones that are available now.

    54. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying you'd go to jail for it?

      On what level is that a rational thought? Is this one of those things where you just "know" everyone agrees with you despite the fact that there is no body of evidence that says everyone agrees with you?

    55. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet you didn't address the fact that you will probably only be in someones field of view for seconds at a time and the possibility (highly likely) that just like those tapes not being watched *you probably won't even be noticed at all*. As in, your existance means absolutely nothing, unless you are doing something to stand out.

      If I had Glass, and I was recording something, it would be of a subject I am interested in. I wouldn't be just filming for the sake of filming. And if I don't know you, you are definitely not what i am interested in. If you are in public, you've got no expectation of privacy anyway. So yeah, paranoid.

      and "because storing footage with no value for years is expensive." doesn't seem to be a problem for youtube.

    56. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just use a battery backpack.

    57. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by bennomatic · · Score: 2

      It's entirely possible that the only way to "sort it out" with today's technology would be to make something too heavy or clumsy to wear for any length of time. All design is about compromise; in six months or a year, battery technology will be better, but for the mean time, perhaps Google is trying to optimize the wearability and useability of the thing, and battery life is something they're simply not concerned about. Don't like it? Don't buy it; it's not for you yet.

      Maybe if people really do want to wear it for all their waking hours, Google will offer a battery pack. I'm sure someone will want to have an electrical cord going behind their ear into their inside jacket pocket.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    58. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by Luthair · · Score: 1

      It isn't shipping. Again this is not currently a consumer device, its intended for developers.

      Have you heard complaints that the Durango (nextbox) devkit is too big and too loud for the living room? The only difference is that Google has an open process which unfortunately has allowed moronic press to get their mitts on them.

    59. Re:Rev. 1 hardware, people by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      The difference though is Durango devkits likely resemble a PC more than the actual unit and the only way it's really meant to resemble the consumer product is the hardware specs and is strictly for developers and was almost certainly developed before the design of the unit. The first PS3 dev kit came in a server rack case. That would be like comparing it to the google glass version that looked like a raspberry pi on a pair of glasses.

      I don't think it's strictly true to say Google glasses is just for developers. After all one of the options for why you want Google glass on the site's form is "personal use". The ones given away on twitter could be given to anyone. Yeah, it should be devs that received them first because they ordered awhile back but the fact non-developers are getting them means that should really resemble the finished product for the most part so it should be fair to assume that. They're supposed to be launching the explorer edition at the end of the year. The year is already almost half way over and some needs to build the things ship them and they need to go through QA and maybe go to retail shops. There's just not that much time for them to be significantly different.

      Maybe you're right, maybe google just really screwed up by allowing something out that's half finished to the media and regular people but I suspect they're attempting to do what they've done with Gmail and other products and get people to want it by making it really exclusive. Maybe it'll work but it's also not a web based freebie so we'll have to see.

  2. Doesn't Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Early adopters are going to eat it up. Give it a few generations and it might be usable.

    But I think the real problem is it is ugly and goes on your face.

    1. Re:Doesn't Matter by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Give it a few generations to shrink and it will hide in glasses frames.

      For now the dorks that will buy it will want you to notice.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Doesn't Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd wear a prosthetic face wart with a camera.

    3. Re:Doesn't Matter by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      There might be a software fix. If they can tune Android (I presume that's what it runs) and the apps to be more efficient they could significantly extend battery life.

      The demos they gave suggest that it will be always on and always running the camera, in which case it is quite incredible that such a small battery gets even 5 hours. Still, if they can make it smarter and say improve the OCR code that it uses less energy to scan the world they can improve that figure with no changes in the hardware.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Doesn't Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even then I'm not sure it matters. Until these things come from Coach, Oakley, Ray-Ban, Michael Kors, etc., I don't think the vast majority will want them on their faces. I could be wrong, but I really think the only way *Google* can make these things successful is if they make them very attractive. People are very sensitive about their appearances, especially when it comes to their faces.

    5. Re:Doesn't Matter by Holi · · Score: 1

      With people like you around it's no wonder. You have added nothing to the debate except to insult someone you don't even know.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    6. Re:Doesn't Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in fairness, that person deserved to be insulted. Someone who doesn't even understand fixed-point math should shut the fuck up when commenting on optimizing code. one = 65536 hurr durr that's funny im smart.

    7. Re:Doesn't Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So?

      AmiMoJo wasting my time with elementary ideas is an insult. I repaid in kind. You probably deserve the same.

    8. Re:Doesn't Matter by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      My point. They will come from that one place that makes all the overpriced brands you listed.

      The only thing that _has_ to protrude is the half silvered mirror. Which is currently about a 45degree prism and pretty obnoxious. They can move the projector back and change the angle. Perhaps hide the whole reflector in the lens using a Fresnel type half mirrored grating. Tint the rest of the lens to match the transmission of the grating.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  3. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Great. That's where the camera is. I'll have some wonderful footage to provide the cops when assault charges are filed.

    See you in court jackass.

  4. "A couple to five hours" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There, don't have to click it now.

  5. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I swear that if anyone approaches me wearing those things I'm going to punch him in the face.

    Awww. *pinches cheeks* Remember when you said that about people using cell phones in public? That was just as cute.

  6. Poor Battery Life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The size of that battery is very small, especially for what this device is supposed to deliver to the user. Who didn't see this one coming?

    1. Re:Poor Battery Life? by pigiron · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So why not a version with a Ray Charles type sunglasses frame. Plenty of room for extra battery size in the arms and the oversize dark lenses could completely camouflage the fact that there is a camera and display behind the lenses.

    2. Re:Poor Battery Life? by anagama · · Score: 1

      Ray Charles type sunglasses

      Make the lens dark with translucent solar cells.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
  7. "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

    ORLY? Who made that rule?

    1. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Common sense. Jeez. This isn't underwear.

    2. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a rule, it's just common sense. Just like a smartphone is generally worn 'all the time'.

    3. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      Wrong again. I leave my smartphone at home lots of the time. That's what voicemail is for. BTW unless you are a total pimply faced geek, you carry a smartphone in your pocket, you don't wear it unless you work in an Indian call center.

    4. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such a low id, and such a stupid comment.

      The intent is to make something useful enough that it will want to be worn all the time. Rule? WTF are you talking about?

    5. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      Such a low id

      Au contraire, my id is quite active and often in control.

    6. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Such a low id

      Au contraire, my id is quite active and often in control.

      ^
      Ha, Freudian rimshot, where the cymbal hit is replaced by your mother.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    7. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

      Hello, generally pigiron, I've also heard that generally people make poor financial decisions and generally are out of shape. Any other generalizations which apply only to you which you would like to discuss?

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    8. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      You replied to the wrong post. I never used the word "generally." In fact I gave a "particular" counter-example. Learn to read.

    9. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Smartphones aren't worn all the time. They are carried.

    10. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Monsters!
      Monsters from the id!

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    11. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by admdrew · · Score: 1

      Who said it was a rule?

    12. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2

      You replied to the wrong post. I never used the word "generally." In fact I gave a "particular" counter-example. Learn to read.

      I responded to the correct post, yours. A 'particular counter-example' might mean something if the person you were responding to didn't literally use the term 'generally'.

      See, when someone makes a statement, "You generally don't find humans on the Moon." It doesn't add anything to the conversation to say, "But Buzz Aldrin was there!"

      Generally, those sorts of conversations occur between teachers and elementary students. I say generally, because sometimes it also happens on the internet.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    13. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      "it is meant to" sounds like a rule to me.

    14. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      You lose! :-)

    15. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by admdrew · · Score: 1

      I usually read 'meant' as just referring to the original intent, which is less forceful than a requirement.

    16. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not wrong, you're just dumb or obtuse. Just because one or two chucklefucks leave their cell phones at home doesn't change the fact that the rest of the world seems to carry it in their pocket all day until they get back to said home.

      Good job being an irrelevant unique snowflake and completely missing the point of the word "generally".

    17. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, you will get your wish when direct cybernetic brain implants are mandated at birth like circumcision.

    18. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by admdrew · · Score: 1

      Thank god for implants; Google Glass is too clunky.

    19. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      To be more precise: you're lost in the semantic weeds. Hope you remembered to bring your cellphone so you can find your way out with a GPS app. LOL!

    20. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Repeating over and over that we're the confused ones won't change the facts. Nice try, though.

    21. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by mark-t · · Score: 2

      More specifically, it's meant to be simply worn, even when it is not not being actively used at the time, and available for use at any time without having to fish it out of a pocket or case or what have you, or else the entire point of it being wearable in the first place is lost, and it offers no advantage over something you can carry in your pocket.

    22. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't say that for IndustrialComplex's sake. You were trying to convince yourself. And you failed. You will now scream your agreement.

    23. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      Repeating what "facts?" That cellphones are "worn" or that no one leaves home without one? I never take mine surfing.

      You lose.

    24. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      More specifically, it's meant to be simply worn, even when it is not not being actively used at the time, and available for use at any time without having to fish it out of a pocket or case or what have you, or else the entire point of it being wearable in the first place is lost, and it offers no advantage over something you can carry in your pocket.

      Yes, as has been pointed out it can't easily be folded away or ignored, hence my recommendation of a "Ray Charles" design.

    25. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by zlives · · Score: 1

      i am going commando

    26. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop being a thick idiot. You know damn well that what I mean is that people who own smartphones generally carry them all the time. You being different doesn't change this no matter how much you want to feel special.

    27. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 0

      Give up. You're only digging yourself deeper into the stupid fanboi hole.

    28. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you're talking about things that are irrelevant, like fanboyism. You're really desperate.

    29. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      are mandated at birth like circumcision.

      Wait, what? Since when? 10 years ago the common suggestion was to not cut your kids, there is very little benefit for the loss of feeling.

      Now cybernetic brain implants I could get on board with, except that 99% of the people who use computers have no clue how to remove a virus...and you know someone will target an implant to serve up advertising constantly...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    30. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 0

      Not at all. You are clearly a Google fanboi.

    31. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL what? You realize there are other companies that make smart phones, right?

      I'm currently migrating away from Google Apps and I have no interest in purchasing Google Glasses.

      You're the one digging, and it's fucking pathetic.

    32. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      The issue is whether or not smart phones are "worn all the time" as you posited in defense of Google's latest gadget. They are not "worn", they are carried and a lot of people don't carry them at all when engaging in all sorts of activities. Go back to answering the phone with your bluetooth headset. And don't try to wear your phone while texting. You'll end up with earwax over everything when you miss the entry "keys." Hahahahahaha!

      You lost with your first post. Give it up, you just sound more stupid with every subsequent one.

    33. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue is whether or not smart phones are "worn all the time" as you posited in defense of Google's latest gadget. They are not "worn", they are carried

      No shit retard, stop focusing on that because it's not the important part.

      and a lot of people don't carry them at all when engaging in all sorts of activities.

      Except the majority of the time, they *do* carry them when away from home. Obviously you're not gonna carry one while you go swimming or kickboxing, but that's why I used the word "generally" which you are clearly incapable of understanding.

      You lost with your first post.

      This isn't elementary school fuckwit. There's no losing or winning. And even if there was, looking at the rest of the posts here, it's quite obvious you're the sore loser who can't admit it.

    34. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, you're lying. I did not post anything in defense of Google. You're inventing my motive because you have a mental block that forces you to think we're either fanboys or not depending whether we agree with you or not.

    35. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 0

      Nice try, no cigar. You are the archetypal Slashdot fanboi.

    36. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      Except the majority of the time, they *do* carry them when away from home.

      You said "worn" not carry. You were refuted and exposed as a Google fanboi.

      Stop lying and stop posting drivel.

    37. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have yet to defend Google. You're the master of denial.

    38. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck, you actually think "wearing" a cellphone is a real thing? Looks like the other posters didn't have such a challenge to overcome when reading my post...

      Let me clear it up, since you're literally the only one on Slashdot so damn fucking stupid that he is still confused. I made an irrelevant mistake due to a language barrier. That's all that happened. And I never defended Google, so I don't know why you're still on that. Did they refuse to hire you because of your apparent lack of wit? When they showed you the door, did you stand still and say "YOU LOSE!!!" until police took you off campus?

    39. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      You defended the patently absurd statement that "it is meant to be worn all the time."

    40. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      you actually think "wearing" a cellphone is a real thing?

      Obviously not since I corrected your absurd statement to that effect.

      You ad hominem attacks just keep digging you deeper into that hole.

    41. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently I gave you too much credit when I assumed you noticed the trivial mistake after I replied the first time, especially since others had pointed it out already.

      I defended what I meant, not my grammatical mistake which everyone but you noticed. Maybe because they were paying attention instead of plugging their ears screaming "I WON! YOU LOSE!" like at the play yard.

    42. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      I defended what I meant, not my grammatical mistake.

      Your mistake was not grammatical. It was an error of fact.

      Does your boss know you are spending time flaming and trying to defend your own idiocy on Slashdot?

      Get back to work!

    43. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mistake was not grammatical. It was an error of fact.

      If you want to uptight about it, I made a translation error. Anyone with a brain knows that smart phones aren't actually worn, thus why everyone on Slashdot but you understood absolutely perfectly what I meant.

      Does your boss know you are spending time flaming and trying to defend your own idiocy on Slashdot?

      Get back to work!

      It's not my fault if you do this on company time. Stop projecting.

      Obviously not since I corrected your absurd statement to that effect.

      You didn't "correct" anything. You pointed out a grammatical error caused by a mistranslation.

    44. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      "You pointed out a grammatical error caused by a mistranslation."

      Jesus, you don't even know what the word "grammar" even means.

      "Mistranslation?" Go back to India you fucking wog!

    45. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know you've hit a nerve when the person stops trying to make their point and starts being a xenophobe. So cute. It's like your subconscious already gave up and is waiting for what's left of your brain to realize it.

    46. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 0

      Ah, it looks like I'm the one who hit a politically correct nerve in your brainwashed skull. If you think not understanding the meaning of words is a mere grammar error then you should get on the first plane back to wherever you came from.

    47. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one here is denying that I made a mistake confusing the words 'wear' and 'carry'. Are you unable to convince yourself that it was a mistake even though more than one person pointed it out, and even after I admitted it myself?

      Doesn't change the fact that I never intended that sentence to literally mean that people generally "wore" a smartphone. And every single person who took interest in my post except you understood perfectly what I meant, which was indeed carry.

    48. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      I never intended that sentence to literally mean that people generally "wore" a smartphone.

      And yet that's what you wrote. You also misused the word grammar. You are obviously not a native speaker. Get The Fuck Out you dirty wog.

    49. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? You're borderline mentally challenged, you don't understand the meaning of the word "generally" even though you're a native English speaker, and you're a xenophobic loser. You're making critical mistakes while I am making superficial ones. Watching you try to convince yourself and back tracking on major points is very amusing.

    50. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like the native speaker has more trouble understanding english than the alleged Wog. Pathetic.

    51. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      It's English with a capital "E." And questioning the "rules" is what we rulers do.

    52. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      I've back tracked on exactly nothing. Go back to China or Bangladesh or whichever hell-hole you crawled out of with your fake degree.

    53. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you don't even remember what you backed on. This is getting better and better :)

    54. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, you fail to understand the meaning of meaning itself. That's deep.

      Also, thanks for improving my English for free. I can't help to wonder why you do it though? I don't think a woman wants your touch, but if you have children, did you constantly insult them as they attempted to learn how to ride a bicycle? You must be a terrible dad!

      When I point out your mistakes, it's because you are unintelligent and unable to use the very basics of your native language. When you point out mine, you make me better. Keep doing it.

    55. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      Apparently neither do you. :-)

    56. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      you fail to understand the meaning of meaning itself

      Ah, just as I supposed, a filthy Hindu then.

    57. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong again. You discriminate on religion too? You're much more sad than I imagined :)

    58. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because unlike you I backed on literally nothing. Admitting a trivial mistake to someone who couldn't spot it due to his lack of intellectual prowess is not backing off. I could see why someone like you would be confused.

      Meanwhile, you keep switching your argumentation to more and more ridiculous statements, unable to make any real point of your own due to your intellectual weakness. By abandoning your previous statements, you admit defeat. One could mistake this for trolling, but your intentions were clear from the start. At this point the more illogical you get, the greater of a laugh you provide me with. Good job.

      Either the most effective and amusing idiot, or the least effective but most amusing troll. I can't tell which.

    59. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      Discrimination is the hallmark of the civilized mind.

    60. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      I haven't backed off jack shit as your lack of a concrete example shows. I certainly easily nailed you as an obvious fifth columnist Asian invader.

    61. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're so desperate and unintelligent that you can't find an example on your own, simply waste more of your time replying irrelevant drivel and I will make them more clear for your child-like mind. All of the weak "trolls" you have tried were pathetic attempts and were deflected effortlessly. It's much easier to ignore your own problems than facing the reality: you were wrong and remain so on every point, and backed off on nearly all of them (except the translation mistake which I never even denied to begin with). Drawing from your xenophobic views to cover up for your own insecurities is pretty clever! You must fit very well with the other socially challenged idiots who think the same you do. I apologize if you were badly treated as an immigrant, although I can certainly understand those who treated you like a stupid child.

    62. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      If you're so desperate and unintelligent that you can't find an example on your own

      Hahahahaha! You can't even substantiate your own ridiculous statements.

    63. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just proved my point perfectly. Don't worry child, I'll give you an easy one: there is absolutely no logical connection you can make between what I say and me being a Google fanboy. This is merely a single example of a point that you abandoned due to how ridiculous, wrong and baseless it was.

    64. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      On the contrary your comment was of its essence. It must be a real drag to walk around in a fog all the time not even knowing what drives your own thoughts. Go back home. I'm sure things will appear much clearer to you among your own people and culture however backward and unenlightened that may be.

    65. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inventing an illogical connection with no basis in reality does not count unfortunately. You have failed to convince me, anyone else here, or even yourself that I am in any way, shape or form a Google fanboy (one who for some reason would be moving away from Google products as we speak to prove his love of Google).

      I drive my own thoughts. More accurately, my brain does. Being driven by the will and actions of others is detrimental to mental health and intelligence. It's quite apparent from the way you post and project your own insecurities onto others.

      Funny you speak about fog. You are so constrained by your tiny, insane, unimaginative shell of a brain that you do not realize the very basis of your xenophobic comments is entirely flawed. You're the ignorant person who doesn't even know he is ignorant :)

    66. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      "Xenophobia" is merely a code word for White genocide.

    67. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice to see you give up. Perhaps a glimmer of hope.

    68. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      You hoped you were White but every time you look in the mirror you hopes are dashed.

    69. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh boy, you're running out of imagination quickly.

      Being perfectly white is weird as shit, climb the basement's stairs and go out or something.

    70. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1
    71. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try but you're most likely closer to RMS and other disgusting neckbeards than Grace Kelly.

    72. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      Nice try but you're most likely closer to RMS and other disgusting neckbeards than Grace Kelly.

      Wrong again, Stallman is some sort of Bolshevik Jew.

    73. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I meant in looks you disgusting neck beard.

    74. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      You're losing worse than ever. Better return to Asia.

    75. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, thus why you fail to even state a single reason why. Pathetic.

    76. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      Was that comment supposed to be written in English?

    77. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I forgot to adjust it for your two digit IQ.

    78. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      (Yawn...) You're starting to bore me.

    79. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not my fault you keep rotating between the exact same content. Probably out of desperation, mostly to convince yourself that what you say makes sense and isn't just illogical irrelevant shit. And I don't think you're accomplishing even that.

    80. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by pigiron · · Score: 1

      ORLY? Who made that rule?

    81. Re: "it is meant to be worn all the time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to 4chan.

  8. Re:Google glasses by zlives · · Score: 3, Insightful

    great just proves my point that I was being recorded without my permission?

  9. Re:Google glasses by hsmith · · Score: 0

    I doubt you have to worry about that in your mothers basement, Mr. Antisocial.

  10. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if they approach you while riding a Segway?

  11. Re:Google glasses by cute_orc · · Score: 1

    Contact Lenses version is coming soon.

  12. Borg is now powering down... by oxnyx · · Score: 1

    What Star Terk Captions didn't know was that Zapp Brannigan means of dealing with Robot Wars would have worked for them too. Kept seen waves of men until the batteries are drained. Also I wonder how long until people deaths are put down not see the real world but only at their screen. Headphones are bad but visual distraction is worst.

    --
    Life is like untied shoe laces; it always tripping you up and getting in your way.
    1. Re:Borg is now powering down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Sir,

      I realize that English may not be your native language, but I seriously have no fucking clue what you just said.

      Sincerely,

      AC

  13. Google glass makes me think of "The Jerk" by eagee · · Score: 0

    Which is probably an old guy way of thinking of it, but I can't get the image of thousands of irreparably cross eyed consumers filing a class action lawsuit...

    1. Re:Google glass makes me think of "The Jerk" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 for being old enough to remember the movie.

    2. Re:Google glass makes me think of "The Jerk" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Wow - this is just like a ride!"

  14. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will politely ask them to remove it and, if they don't, then punch them in the face.

  15. but its so awesome by alen · · Score: 1

    i got data flashing in front of me all the time. i know the news before anyone else. i'm so cool.

    1. Re:but its so awesome by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      I hope they come out with an HD versoin soon. Why should I have to go through life only seeing standard definition reality?! ;)

    2. Re:but its so awesome by RoknrolZombie · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now if only we had decent media outlets reporting real news...

    3. Re:but its so awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm kind of sad that this technology is first making its appearance as an entertainment device instead of somewhere more... inspiring. Surely there are professions where people don't have both hands free where an intelligent HUD would be useful. But instead, we're just going to watch as mobile newsreader image-sharing social networking companies add a 'Glass App' to their lineup so that we can all telepathically transmit videos of what it's like to drink a latte in our favorite Starbucks.

  16. Re:Google glasses by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Informative

    You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public.

  17. reality shows... sports... porn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everything will be the same, but with a new point of view

  18. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We will need a Google Glass version of WorldStarHipHop for this type of occurrence.

  19. Rocky road ahead by TrollstonButtersbean · · Score: 0
    This is an experimental technology.

    Steep obstacles: comfort, perception that you will be a privacy-invader, eye health, battery life .. these have an uphill battle.

  20. Or easily replacable... by NecroPuppy · · Score: 1

    Batteries.

    Since it's, effectively, a pair of glasses, make each of the temples or temple tips be a rechargable battery, with a good enough connector to handle connecting/disconnecting and plugging / unplugging hundreds of times.

    Design them so that it won't shut down if even one of the two power sources is present, and ship with two+, allowing people to buy additional. Power temple #L1 is low? Disconnect and plug in power temple #L2. Power temple #R1 is recharged, replace power temple #R2 that are on the glasses.

    Since google has been better at design (lately) than Apple (who came up with craptacular earphone jacks for the latest iPods), this should be easy.

    --
    I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
    1. Re:Or easily replacable... by rvw · · Score: 1

      Batteries.

      Wrong audience! I propose beer, and free of course. We're all for free, so why not beer! It can be a great powersource if those google people would put some effort in it, and if not, it will prove that google is on the right way with that other vehicle.

  21. Battery life is directly proportional to dorkiness by Control-Z · · Score: 5, Funny

    You could probably have a 48-hour battery life if you wanted to wrap the sides and back of your head with batteries. Go for it.

  22. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the time you don't need permission to record in public. You can't just change your point on a whim just because you were too stupid to make it right the first time.

  23. Has Apple taught us nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This model merely sets the baseline to be surpassed by Google Glass HD Maxx. Followed by Google Glass Mini. Next comes Google glass Hydro. Finally the product line peters out with the New Google Glass.

    1. Re:Has Apple taught us nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they're going to name them according to how much of a buffoon it makes you look like.

      I think the roadmap for the next couple years probably goes like this:
      First comes the Douchebag.
      Then the Twat.
      Then the Shitheel.
      Then the Flaming Asshole.
      Then the Justin Bieber (RED) special edition.
      Then the Complete Cock.
      Then the Cuntrag.
      And finally, the crowning achievement, the "Sergey On a Subway" Special Non-Emasculating Edition, in manly brushed gunmetal gray with all profits donated to the Autism Society of America.

  24. Of Course Battery Life Will Be Short by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 2

    ...of course battery life on these is going to be low; they're designed to attach to one side of your glasses! Even if they had the space to put more battery in, they wouldn't, because then you'd have a device that was always pulling your glasses down one side of your face, to say nothing of the extra weight on your nose and ear.

    Batteries are heavy. If you create a face-mounted computer, you're going to want to make it as light as humanly possible. This should not come as anything remotely close to a surprise or shock to geeks.

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    1. Re:Of Course Battery Life Will Be Short by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 1

      Following up on my own post after RT second FM--I see they're using the battery as a counterweight, so the imbalance issue is moot. The weight issue, however, remains.

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    2. Re:Of Course Battery Life Will Be Short by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      The battery life of almost EVERYTHING is low. About the only electronics that can be charged at my leisure and not that of the device are my eReaders.

      This isn't new. I bought a portfolio case for my Newton because it offered an AA battery pack instead of having to rely on the pitiful amount of juice that the Newton's internal AAA batteries could provide.

    3. Re:Of Course Battery Life Will Be Short by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      ...of course battery life on these is going to be low; they're designed to attach to one side of your glasses! Even if they had the space to put more battery in, they wouldn't, because then you'd have a device that was always pulling your glasses down one side of your face, to say nothing of the extra weight on your nose and ear.

      Batteries are heavy. If you create a face-mounted computer, you're going to want to make it as light as humanly possible. This should not come as anything remotely close to a surprise or shock to geeks.

      The current design *is* a pair of glasses, it doesn't attach to them. So, there is a bit of real estate but grow the batteries too much and you start to look ridiculous. Unless that was what you were going for...

    4. Re:Of Course Battery Life Will Be Short by Jamu · · Score: 2

      I would prefer a power cable. Put the battery in my pocket.

      --
      Who ordered that?
    5. Re:Of Course Battery Life Will Be Short by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I would prefer a power cable. Put the battery in my pocket.

      Kinda what I was thinking.

      Has no one at Google ever used a lav mic?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:Of Course Battery Life Will Be Short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know... they could have put the battery along *both sides* rather than just along the right, thereby making it a touch more balanced than the "sliding down the right side of your face" approach that made it's way into Explorer Edition.

    7. Re:Of Course Battery Life Will Be Short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my razr maxx disagrees.

    8. Re:Of Course Battery Life Will Be Short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...of course battery life on these is going to be low; they're designed to attach to one side of your glasses!

      On a related note, I imagine that someday Google will want to sell these to people who don't wear glasses. If you don't need glasses and don't plan to use your Google Glasses most of the time (e.g. at work, at home) then you can recharge them frequently. You get home from work and toss 'em on your Qi pad (if they don't support this yet, they will) and they'll be back to full power in time for your geekdate. :)

    9. Re:Of Course Battery Life Will Be Short by mrego · · Score: 1

      So people who already wear glasses won't be wearing those glasses if they want corrective vision?

    10. Re:Of Course Battery Life Will Be Short by vux984 · · Score: 1

      grow the batteries too much and you start to look ridiculous.

      Strange. I thought that was already the case with google glass.

  25. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Actually, in many places in Europe, it's illegal to record other people in public places. There's some amount allowed if the person is "public person" (ie. celeb) but not otherwise.

  26. Re:Google glasses by NecroPuppy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes and no.

    Depending on the location (nation, state, municipality, etc) there are laws about deliberately filming someone. ~Sometimes~ there are legal differences between casual recording (you walking past in the background) and deliberate recording, but sometimes not.

    Sure, you're not going to be (normally) busted for filming your friends at the beach and getting some random people in the background, but it's still possible. (IIRC, there was an Australian case very recently about this.)

    --
    I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
  27. The future I fear. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If GGlass is the future, I fear it. I don't want a world with padded utility poles, increasingly distracted drivers, and a society moving away from face-to-face confrontations for friendly interactions.

    For real... if I ever see someone with one of these get punched in the face, I will cheer on the perpetrator. I will also frequent places where they are banned outright. I already go to events which have an unwritten "no phones on the dance floor" rules, which interestingly enough, are frequented by young positive people who actually understand the value of in-person interactions and only use tech where it makes sense.

    1. Re:The future I fear. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had me until you started cheering for physical violence. Everything else I agree with you wholeheartedly.

    2. Re:The future I fear. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one look forward to snapping pictures of all the people texting and driving, while i am walking, and forwarding them to the police. You cant pull a camera out in time to catch people speeding by on the phone in a car. However if i can just say "picture, picture picture" and have 3 pictures in the time it takes to say it.

      Bonus points to wearing them for a protest and automatically uploading the pictures to the cloud when police start trampling peoples rights!

  28. Unbelievable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's almost like this is a working prototype or something

  29. External battery pack. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Would look like stereo headphone cords. Could have an arbitrarily large battery in your pocket or purse. They sell them now for cell phones-- basically double the life.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:External battery pack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about using a direct ethanol fuel cell and an ample fuel supply?

    2. Re:External battery pack. by nine-times · · Score: 2

      Or have it plug into your cell phone, and offload the processing there too.

    3. Re:External battery pack. by JWW · · Score: 1

      Yes! Then you can look even more nerdy using them.

    4. Re:External battery pack. by H0p313ss · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes! Then you can look even more nerdy using them.

      Said the Slashdot poster with a UID of less than 100,000.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    5. Re:External battery pack. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      You don't think people will listen to their music while wearing google glasses?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    6. Re:External battery pack. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot has gotten to the point where it's cooler to have a higher UID???

    7. Re:External battery pack. by Xaemyl · · Score: 1

      > Said the Slashdot poster with a UID of less than 100,000.

      lol wut

    8. Re:External battery pack. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      "Cooler" is always relative here. No one here will ever be as cool as the extras who play nerds in the background on TV shows.

    9. Re:External battery pack. by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has gotten to the point where it's cooler to have a higher UID???

      Unless you are a nerd, and believe me I am, having a Slashdot UID is the antithesis of cool.

      On the upside, I do get to to make fun of my brother the reddit addict.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    10. Re:External battery pack. by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      "Cooler" is always relative here. No one here will ever be as cool as the extras who play nerds in the background on TV shows.

      Not true, there's always Wil Wheaton

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  30. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? According to TFA his battery is dead anyway and it is enough punishment that he looks like a dork wearing them.

  31. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great. I'll secretly record you punching him/her with my smartphone.

  32. Re:Google glasses by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

    Apparently the future also has plenty of imbeciles...

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  33. Google Glass will be an epic fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's my call. In a billion years I just can't fathom the general public being OK with cameras recording them constantly. It will destroy society.

    1. Re:Google Glass will be an epic fail by babywhiz · · Score: 1

      Last night when I was playing with the Grandson, every time I attempted to use my phone to record, he was too busy looking at his reflection in the phone in my hand than he was at my eyes and face in which he was babbling at just prior to me trying to record him.

      So far, that is the only use I have personally witnessed a use for.... besides maybe a handful of tech troubleshooting issues that could not be seen unless the picture was taken at the right height.

      My problem with the whole thing is the same reason I have padded around in life without glasses at all....anything sitting on my nose will be endlessly adjusted until the screw for the ear piece falls out and the glasses fall apart.

      I wouldn't mind them for watching Netflix/Hulu, but I would have the same problem I have now with my tablet..unless I'm laying flat on my back I won't be able to properly view the screen and still be comfortable. (in the case of the tablet, my arms get sore holding the darn thing up..so then I do this stacking of pillows and blankets on my bed to prop the tablet up so I can watch The Daily Show laying on my side...woops...it fell face down again and paused the show...and look, now it skipped to commercial just because it fell face down....ugh....)

  34. Basic Engineering Constraints Google dreaming by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

    Google glass has to have a powerful ARM processor and a high resolution display to implement it's specs. 2013 technology can only reduce the power consumption for that to a certain extent. And glass is supposed to be a wearable pair of glasses, so the battery mass can only be so high before it causes pain for the wearer.

    A wire trailing down from the user's neck to a battery pack elsewhere is a potential solution...but wires like that get tangled up.

    Maybe a bleeding edge higher density experimental battery? There are a few like that with more power density (about double) than the best standard lithium ion packs. Of course, such batteries are more likely to fail by catching fire, and this would be in the worst possible place.

    Offload more computation to the android smartphone that goes with the glass? Still have to run the radios at a high bitrate to get things like the camera feed. Also this would make the smartphone mandatory.

    Ideas? The concept here is awesome, but it de fact REQUIRES a powerful machine that can do image recognition in realtime, monitor gps and heading, read street signs, etc etc etc. This in turn means many millions of active transistors.

    The only thing I can think of that just might work is a custom ASIC that provides hardware implementation of the most common mathematical functions performed by the most common glass application. You can get 10 :1 better power efficiency using a custom ASIC to implement the logic instead of a general purpose chip. The catch is, the cost to create such a chip is exorbitant.

  35. Who's Ready for.... by PortHaven · · Score: 4, Funny

    Blink Blink Revolution...

    ***

    Blink Right Eye

    Now Left,

    Right again,

    Left twice....

    You did it!!!!

    1. Re:Who's Ready for.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here comes a long one. Keep both eyes closed until it's done!

  36. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trip them from the side, stay out of the camera field of view, and laugh as they fall flat on their face.

  37. "I am glassholio" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I am glassholio"!

  38. Re:Google glasses by torgis · · Score: 1

    Sounds like we need a Google Glass version of WorldStarHipHop to capture first-person violence on a low-res camera.

  39. Re: Google glasses by PuppiesAndGoats · · Score: 1

    Laws regarding filming children (usually more restrictive, sometimes very much so) add to the stickiness of this situation.

  40. Re:Google glasses by mmcxii · · Score: 1

    Imagine how piss poor the battery life is going to be on those. Sheesh.

  41. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also great.
    I'll have a video of telling you to go fuck yourself, shortly before you make an ass of yourself.

    Because that's where the camera is.
    Also, I'll be able to upload it to youtube in quite literally a blink of an eye, so everyone else can laugh as you make an ass of yourself.

    I love technology.

  42. Re: Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Laws regarding filming children (usually more restrictive, sometimes very much so) add to the stickiness of this situation.

    Stickiness? Children? Really?

  43. Re:Can we stop talking about this vaparware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You clearly care enough to post.

  44. GOOGIE GLASS !! FUTURE NOT SO BRIGHT !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't gotta wear shades !!

  45. Re: Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You're supposed to think of the children -- but not like that.

  46. You mean easily lost by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    Since it's, effectively, a pair of glasses, make each of the temples or temple tips be a rechargable battery

    That is a really, really REALLY REALLY bad idea.

    People are supposed to put on the glasses (even if they don't wear glasses) and then also remember to bring three or four handfuls of batteries, and not lose them also? And you also have to remember to charge three or four sets of these tiny things every day?

    At that point the whole thing is only slightly more practical than just wearing an Occulus with a motorcycle battery in a backpack!

    Since google has been better at design (lately) than Apple (who came up with craptacular earphone jacks for the latest iPods)

    The latest iPod earbuds are the only ones ever made I can stand to wear more than an hour. That includes the custom shaped ones.... I spent a few hundred on a nice set of earbuds but after I got the newer Apple earbuds, the Apple buds are the ones I use on planes simply because I can leave them in. The sounds is not as good but the shape is far, far better.

    Apple also apparently understands that most people hate recharging batteries, a fact that seems lost on Slashdot.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:You mean easily lost by NecroPuppy · · Score: 1

      People are supposed to put on the glasses (even if they don't wear glasses) and then also remember to bring three or four handfuls of batteries, and not lose them also? And you also have to remember to charge three or four sets of these tiny things every day?

      People did that regularly with several models of cell phones.

      But there's also that new battery model, which if it scales well, could solve the entire problem. (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/153614-new-lithium-ion-battery-design-thats-2000-times-more-powerful-recharges-1000-times-faster) Seems like this is something Google should invest in.

      Since google has been better at design (lately) than Apple (who came up with craptacular earphone jacks for the latest iPods)

      The latest iPod earbuds are the only ones ever made I can stand to wear more than an hour. That includes the custom shaped ones.... I spent a few hundred on a nice set of earbuds but after I got the newer Apple earbuds, the Apple buds are the ones I use on planes simply because I can leave them in. The sounds is not as good but the shape is far, far better.

      Apple also apparently understands that most people hate recharging batteries, a fact that seems lost on Slashdot.

      I said jacks, not earbuds. The buds themselves are fine; I like them. (Far better than the "stuff into your ear" kind; I can't wear those at all.)

      But the (female) jack point in the iPod is fragile and has only one set of contacts, so if there is any significant lateral pressure on the connector, the jackpoint cracks slightly, allowing future pressure moments to cause intermittant disconnections of the plug from the contacts, turning off the sound.

      This lateral pressure can easily be applied if you have your iPod in a pocket and are just walking around.

      Apple's response to me (other than replacing the iPod) was, "Well, just keep the iPod in your hand; don't put it in your pocket."

      --
      I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
    2. Re:You mean easily lost by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      People did that regularly with several models of cell phones.

      Cell phone batteries are larger and less fragile than tiny Glass batteries would be. And people only ever carried ONE spare, if they even carried one at all (I never did for any cell phone I've ever owned)

      But there's also that new battery model, which if it scales well, could solve the entire problem.

      I totally agree but I was responding to how additional batteries would work. My original point comes down to they don't and that device needs something like a sealed battery that holds a charge for well over a day. For glasses additional batteries are just really impractical and will greatly limit the market for the device.

      But the (female) jack point in the iPod is fragile and has only one set of contacts

      Aha, that makes way more sense. I didn't realize the iPod jacks were not very good, the iPhone / iPod jack sockets seem OK to me, I don't have an iPod. Sorry for the confusion.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:You mean easily lost by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Apple also apparently understands that most people hate recharging batteries, a fact that seems lost on Slashdot.

      What does this sentence even mean? Did Apple invent a new battery that never runs out when I wasn't looking?

      Did you mean "replacing" batteries? Because that would at least make sense, even though it's still idiotic. I don't "like" tying my shoes, but I don't hate it either. It's not like it's a big fucking deal to have to do it to make my shoes useful, and I'm not going to wear velcro or slippers and make myself look like an idiot in the process of saving myself from such a minor inconvenience.

      You also completely ignore the fact that (for example) with my Galaxy S3, I don't change the battery. However, if I need to, I can. You don't get to decide what the criteria are for "needing" to. You don't get to decide why your method is so much better -- and by not doing it your way, I'm doing it wrong. You don't get to speak for anybody but yourself.

      I have more options than you. Period. You're a prime example of, "there are none so enslaved as those who believe themselves to be free."

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    4. Re:You mean easily lost by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      What does this sentence even mean?

      It means people hate recharging batteries. Try reading.

      Did Apple invent a new battery that never runs out when I wasn't looking?

      Why are you even talking about Apple? Apple devices have to be recharged also. Are you some kind of idiot?

      Did you mean "replacing" batteries?

      Because most people don't do that ever, the ones that do do so MAYBE once every three years. You need to learn about scale, something that happens daily is WAY more annoying than something you MIGHT have to do every three years.

      with my Galaxy S3, I don't change the battery

      I get it, you're an Apple Hater. Apple Haters make ANY argument all about Apple even when Apple was never brought into the equation before. Sorry, but the adults here are having a real discussion. Run along kid.

      P.S. it's just as easy to carry and use an external battery pack as it is a spare battery. That argument was lost long ago, when even Google started shipping with sealed devices.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  47. Re:Google glasses by MugenEJ8 · · Score: 1

    No way... By then, we'll have Time Crystals!

  48. Re:Google glasses by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    Great. That's where the camera is. I'll have some wonderful footage... ...or you would have if your battery had not run out about an hour ago.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  49. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Imagine how piss poor the battery life is going to be on those. Sheesh.

    you will be the battery, coppertop

  50. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No you wont, because you are a fucking pussy.

  51. It's not a launch product! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Google Glass version being handed out to people is meant as a field test. It was produced in limited quantities and I would guess the hardware and software will both undergo significant changes before being released. Reviewing this as if it's something you're able to buy today is ridiculous!

  52. Re:Google glasses by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Would the assault charge be worth it?

    Bearing in mind that if you happened to do this to somebody who just happened to be an off-duty cop, you'd be facing a whole world of grief.

  53. Re:Google glasses by skovnymfe · · Score: 1

    Unless this all occurs inside your house, I can't see what the problem is?

  54. Has anyone noticed ... by briancox2 · · Score: 1

    ... that Google's core competency is in cloud computing services? And not in hardware design.

    News release: company with no previous hardware sales success can't resolve real world energy problem. Yawn.

    --
    We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
  55. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no you won't

  56. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently the future also has plenty of imbeciles...

    well of course, where do you think they come from? right now!

  57. Glasshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    There may not be an "expectation" of privacy in public, but being "in your face" photographed and/or recorded in public by someone wearing this device makes the wearer a "Glasshole".

    1. Re:Glasshole by hedwards · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well, at least you've saved iGlasshole for the Apple fans.

    2. Re:Glasshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey has anyone checked into seeing if Glasshole® is ©

      same with iGlasshole,

      just asking who ever wrote this made me laugh.

    3. Re:Glasshole by zlives · · Score: 1

      hehe made me laugh.

  58. Re:Google glasses by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 2

    Given Google is in the US, I'm going by US based laws:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#Public_property

    http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

    It is legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on any public property.

    Photographing private property from within the public domain is legal, with the exception of an area that is generally regarded as private, such as a bedroom, bathroom, or hotel room. In some states, there is no definition of "private," in which case, there is a general expectation of privacy. Should the subjects not attempt to conceal their private affairs, their actions immediately become public to a photographer using an average lens or video camera.

    If you are in a city park for what ever reason, I can pop up a camera and video tape you as much as I want.

  59. Google made that rule by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    ORLY? Who made that rule?

    Google did, through design choices.

    Look at it. When not wearing, are you going to:

    1) Put in pocket with keys
    2) Put in pocket with phone.
    3) Put in backpack with books.

    Look at any image showing the whole thing. It doesn't even fold up like sunglasses so you cannot use a case. It would not fit in a pocket, and you'd be an idiot to do so anyway as it looks really fragile.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Google made that rule by pigiron · · Score: 1

      Not very good design choices in that case. Like I said, Ray Charles type frames would be a whole lot better (and stealthier.)

    2. Re:Google made that rule by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      ORLY? Who made that rule?

      Google did, through design choices.

      Look at it.

      Clearly the idea is that when it's not at eye level being put to use, you can stash it in your scraggly billionaire-beard.

    3. Re:Google made that rule by Tynin · · Score: 0

      Not sure if you can unclip it from the frame, but if so, it would fit nicely in my pocket protector. Who doesn't want to see pocket protectors make a come back? Next thing you know all manner of folks would be styling them up, looking fresh. Almost like a cultural revenge of the nerds.

    4. Re:Google made that rule by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

      Not sure if you can unclip it from the frame, but if so, it would fit nicely in my pocket protector.

      Even if you could do that (100% chance the answer is no because of the way it attaches to both the front and sides of the frames) where would you put the frames themselves? Leave them on? That would be even less acceptable to people than simply wearing the "dead" glasses.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:Google made that rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're really good at being intentionally obtuse and overly literal when it suits you. Bravo.

  60. Re:Basic Engineering Constraints Google dreaming by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

    A wire trailing down from the user's neck to a battery pack elsewhere is a potential solution...but wires like that get tangled up.

    Why not a battery that hangs around your neck? If you make it flat and thin enough and hang it from a lanyard it could be worn under the shirt with comfort and would also be discreet. It could easily hold a battery twice the size of that found in a cellphone. If the battery is built into the lanyard you can have a wire take the charge from the battery up through the lanyard to the back of the neck where the glasses can plug in. Get's the weight of the head and onto a part of the body than can handle the weight for a significant period of time and eliminates the need for a long wire going to a battery pack in your pocket.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  61. Re:Google glasses by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Until I ask you to stop, at which point your continued persistence could be construed as harassment.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  62. Re:Google glasses by hedwards · · Score: 1

    That's true, however, there's a legal difference between hidden cameras and ones that are in full view when deciding how reasonable it is. If you've gone to the trouble of going someplace that's technically public, but where there are no cameras, you may very well still have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

  63. Re:Battery life is directly proportional to dorkin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry! With this "Green Power" hat, you can harness the power of the sun with it's 12 mini solar panels, spoken so much about in science! But wait, we didn't stop there! You can harness the power of the wind the 5 inch turbine attachment to give you glasses that desperately needed charge: on a windy day, while you dodge the punches from the "stop recording me" crowd, or while you run from those pesky muggers who are always trying to take your glasses.

    Order within the next 15 minutes and get a free "green" extended battery pack made from reclaimed, glittered, car batteries, sourced from our supplier, Etsy.

    Order yours today!

  64. Re:Google glasses by hedwards · · Score: 1

    With an average lens or video camera, which means that it doesn't apply to super telephoto lenses and it doesn't apply to cameras that are concealed.

  65. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... or armed.

    Sure, punch me in the face without cause or warning. See how that goes for you.

  66. Re:Google glasses by backslashdot · · Score: 1

    So you rather be recorded discretely by a phone in a pocket or held in hands casually? At least with Google Glass you are able to tell you might be recorded as someone is staring at you or wearing one of those.

  67. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you're proving is that we need to punch you hard & repeatedly in the face until the Google Glasses break, nerd.

    This is not a disincentive to punching you in the face. This is encouragement to KEEP punching you in the face.

  68. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public restrooms.

  69. Re:Google glasses by Joreallean · · Score: 1

    great just proves my point that I was being recorded without my permission?

    People don't need your permission to record you in public.

    If they turn around and publish it publically that is a different matter, but in general recording in a public place is not against the law.

  70. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. You won't.

    Online tough guy.

  71. Re: Google glasses by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

    Sorry mom. Even with bringing me Mac-n-cheese, I'm gonna have to pop you one. Teh internets old me to.

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  72. Re:Google glasses by mmcxii · · Score: 1

    you will be the battery, coppertop

    The battery life is definitely going to suck in that case.

  73. Battery Life by mtrachtenberg · · Score: 2

    I wonder if some product developers have been operating on the assumption that battery life will triple in the next year or two. There have been reports suggesting that such a close-in timeframe for such substantial improvement is not impossible.

    1. Re:Battery Life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been reports suggesting that such a close-in timeframe for such substantial improvement is not impossible.

      Well, if we're making long-term plans based on things that are "not impossible," I'll just quit my day job and play WoW because it's "not impossible" that MMO-currency will replace government-backed currency as the primary means of trade on earth.

  74. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is probably a pic taken of you at some point once a week if you work in a city. You don't know about it though.

  75. And those of us who don't need glasses? by ducomputergeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm in my early 30's with better than 20/20 vision. I know that won't hold out forever, but I've never needed glasses. Why would I want to wear these?

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    1. Re:And those of us who don't need glasses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony is that if you wear glasses, you can't really wear these, because these are (so far) just frames with no lenses.

      To answer the spirit of your question, you may not have a need to wear them.
      I have a 6 month old who is always doing new cute things, and never when I have a camera in my hand. If I had a head mounted camera always on and could just capture her early moments as they happen, it would be really cool.

    2. Re:And those of us who don't need glasses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:And those of us who don't need glasses? by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      These are "glasses" in the basest of terms only. If you cannot think of a reason outside of their vision and vanity associated with it that someone might wear one of these then you should hand in your geek card at the door on the way out. Your comment is about as reasonable as dismissing the idea of a bulletproof vest because you aren't cold.

    4. Re:And those of us who don't need glasses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wear them for the features, not the corrective function.

    5. Re:And those of us who don't need glasses? by swillden · · Score: 1

      I'm in my early 30's with better than 20/20 vision. I know that won't hold out forever, but I've never needed glasses. Why would I want to wear these?

      You'd wear them to have a heads-up display, etc., of course.

      Currently, people who do need corrective lenses actually need to wear contacts in order to use Google Glass, because it doesn't support corrective lenses. It comes with a couple of lenses, one clear and one shaded, which can be attached if you want to protect your eyes from the elements, and I wonder why it would be hard to get corrective lenses manufactured in the same shape, but apparently it is.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:And those of us who don't need glasses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you've lubed up properly, because that is a non trivial amount of shite you're pulling out of your arse.

    7. Re:And those of us who don't need glasses? by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 2

      I don't need a cell phone - I have a rotary at home.

    8. Re:And those of us who don't need glasses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd wear them to protect your virginity.

    9. Re:And those of us who don't need glasses? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Maybe you need sunglasses. Can you use it with sunglass tinting? To keep your good vision, you want to protect your eyes from UV radiation, which prevents premature yellowing of the lens and helps prevent cataracts.

    10. Re:And those of us who don't need glasses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corrective lenses are regulated as medical devices (in the US anyway) so it's probably hard than it sounds for Google to just start manufacturing and selling these lenses.

    11. Re:And those of us who don't need glasses? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They are Google's version of the reality distortion field.

    12. Re:And those of us who don't need glasses? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The corrective function is the job of the psychologists.

    13. Re:And those of us who don't need glasses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct .. you have less than 10 years before you notice you need glasses.

    14. Re:And those of us who don't need glasses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would I want to wear these?
       
      Well, if you're a total fag you'll fit in with the other faggots.

    15. Re:And those of us who don't need glasses? by breeze95 · · Score: 1

      I'm in my early 30's with better than 20/20 vision. I know that won't hold out forever, but I've never needed glasses. Why would I want to wear these?

      If you have to ask then you are not in the target group.

  76. Re:Google glasses by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Funny

    Until I ask you to stop

    Fuck asking, I'm getting t-shirts printed up:

    By recording this person, you consent to him kicking the holy living shit out of you.

    Hey, it works for EULAs...

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  77. Re:Google glasses by unrtst · · Score: 1

    With an average lens or video camera, which means that it doesn't apply to super telephoto lenses and it doesn't apply to cameras that are concealed.

    This thing is hardly conceled. Certainly no more so than a cell phone camera, which is quite common. Heck, I'd argue that a cell phone camera is even more conceled, since it's primarily a phone, and there's lot of other stuff you can do on a phone, and it's not always obvious you're pointing its camera at someone; whereas, with Google Glass, there's this chunky thing attached to a weird partial glasses frame on someones face - it doesn't just blend in, and it doesn't look like ordinary glasses in any way.

    Here I was thinking that they should have built it into more normal looking glasses (like the mp3 player glasses that have been around for years, but a better style), but the wierd look might work to their advantage legally.

  78. Re:Google glasses by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

    Great. That's where the camera is. I'll have some wonderful footage to provide the cops when assault charges are filed.

    See you in court jackass.

    That goes back to the article's point... won't you feel like a doofus when you go to present evidence and find out that the battery died just before the assault?

  79. Re:Can we stop talking about this vaparware? by admdrew · · Score: 1

    The comparison with Segway isn't really fair, given it wasn't really "new" (wheeled transportation has been pretty common for awhile). Wearable computing, OTOH, is breaking into some uncharted territory and has a lot of potential for interesting/innovative stuff that we really haven't seen before.

    I don't really understand the massive backlash of hate Glass seems to be getting. Maybe it's because it's Google, and they're not really being too secretive about it, so it's in our faces more than standard R&D. I, personally, am pretty excited about the technology in general; it opens up the possibility of cool stuff that's very much been sci-fi, or too rare/clunky to be useful in every day life (HUDs aren't anything new): virtual interfaces a la Minority Report, high quality video without physical screens, incredibly immersive games/media, etc.

    What I *am* worried(/interested) about is the direction this stuff is going to take, and if we're going down the Matrix/Borg path. Will we be seeing virtual ads overlayed on buildings everywhere (probably)? How many privacy concerns will there be, beyond just recording/taking pictures (a lot)?

    In the end, however, a lot of the concerns we have with the current incarnation of Glass, and where the future will take us, aren't any different than the concerns about all other new technology - they exist, and we need to figure out how to best handle them as a society, instead of freaking out.

  80. Re: Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right on. I wish more people realized that this is definitely the answer to disagreements in technological fashion accessories. I saw a small child playing a game on their parent's phone. I grabbed it away and threw the iphone to the ground, shattering it. This caused the child to cry and the parent to come running to their protection. I slapped the parent and ran away before the cops showed up.

    It's the way the world works. You're wearing something electronic that I don't like, I will break the device and hurt you.

  81. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the lawsuit that ensues, as a result of "aggravated assault caught on video," leaves you sad, pathetic and penny-less, still living in your moms basement.

  82. Re: Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At some point, punching someone in the face over a disagreement stops being about the argument itself and becomes more about your own inner turmoil. Most likely due to having a small penis.

    Punch them once and you're just a psycho. punch them repeatedly, BAM! Everyone knows you have a tiny penis.

  83. use the host as powersource - a la Matrix by peter303 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You have a huge electro-chemical generator just millmeters from the glasses.

    People have also made mechanical power sources from footsteps or pedometer pendulums. Remember self-winding watches?

    1. Re:use the host as powersource - a la Matrix by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You're not really a huge electro-chemical generator, despite what thermodynamically challenged Hollywood would have you believe. You can sometimes tap a little bit of waste heat from a person. Or use some kind of kinetic generator. Either or both of those provide tiny amounts of electricity, at least an order of magnitude less than it would take to run something like Glass.

    2. Re:use the host as powersource - a la Matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While not likely to happen for something like this, you can tap blood glucose for energy. Already starting to happen with some devices such as embedded pacemakers.

    3. Re:use the host as powersource - a la Matrix by robi5 · · Score: 1

      As a reference, a strenuous ride on a bicycle generates about 500W of kinetic energy. Probably a light arm curl of one arm could easily generate 5% of that. 25W does not sound like much, because the Glass probably uses a few Watts, and 5 minutes of arm curl for every hour of use would be socially unacceptable, it would look funny.to say the least. Not to mention the contraption that one would need to wear on his arm to harvest the energy.

      I'm sure a special shoe could easily generate many watts just by the wearer walking, and it is socially acceptable (at least outside the US).

      Or there could be a special hat, which would have three functions:
      - solar cells on the top
      - casting a shadow so that less power is needed for the display projector
      - being able to switch between augmented reality and virtual reality

      It could look like this proven design: http://bit.ly/160kqxD

    4. Re:use the host as powersource - a la Matrix by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      There's also the problem of conversion efficiency. If you've ever cranked one of those flashlights with an attached hand generator you know that it's not something you want to be doing regularly. Actually, I read about a hand generator iPhone charger recently. The reviewer's conclusion was that it would be useful if you were lost in the woods and needed to send a text message to tell someone where you were, but wouldn't work for more regular use.

      The hat you linked to, however, has possibilities.

    5. Re:use the host as powersource - a la Matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google glasses could run on blood.

  84. Re:Google glasses by Ironhandx · · Score: 1

    Get me an order link and I'll buy like 20 of those. XXL Tall please :P

  85. Re:Google glasses by C10H14N2 · · Score: 1

    No, but short of standing in the middle of the street, most places people think of as "public" are in fact private property and the owners are well within rights to demand you turn that shit off and put it away or go play in traffic.

  86. Re:Google glasses by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

    Not true. You have no expectation that something made public can be retroactively made private, not that everything relating to public spaces is automatically non-private.

    Public restrooms are public access spaces in which a person can expect a great deal of visual privacy but little auditory privacy.

    There is also a consideration for the efforts people take to ensure that something remains private. That's why merely locking a container with locks that are trivially circumvented triggers legal protections regarding the contents of that container.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  87. Re:Google glasses by publiclurker · · Score: 2

    So, what is the recommended procedure to vacate the area when you want to take a few snapshots?

  88. gas power? by inputdev · · Score: 1

    what about generators that run off of cigarette lighters? Here's my attempt at a calculation:
    Butane lighter ~ 70kJ (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100426110511AAIvSgM)
    hmm... I also see 600J, here (http://cadlab6.mit.edu/2.009.wiki/anchor/index.php?title=Butane_cigarette_lighter)
    which is it???
    assuming 50% efficiency, that leaves 35 kilojoules = 9.7 Wh
    or from the second reference 300J = 0.083 Wh
    the iPhone 5 has 5.45 Wh battery...

    1. Re:gas power? by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      There's a fair amount of effort focused this way, but the punchline is that you're not going to see 50% efficiency easily. Then you've got waste heat, fire-hazard issues and at that level of effort and expense you're better off going full on with methanol fuel cells (which can do 80%+ efficiency fairly easily).

  89. Re:Can we stop talking about this vaparware? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    It's not that unique and the wearable aspect is just a monocle.

    What does it let you do that a smart phone doesn't do already? And consider that it places so many burdens upon the user that previous tools do not.

    Refine the technology RADICALLY and I might consider it.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  90. What Year is This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey the iglass sure looks neat, wake me up when its 1994, i mean seriously, ppl act like wearable computing is some new big thing, i have lots of old HMD gear i'm not using, if some svelt kid wants to borrow,

    ISWC zurich many moons ago was fun as fuc.

    my regret was not buying a com port clip on HMD, i mean it only did like ascii or something low end and was in amber color, that fucking thing had the easyest txt i've ever read, using a HMD, i think the company was microoptical, i guess they are no longer around darpa funds being such.

    heck ok here check out one of my other toys, the Sony PLM-A55, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasstron

    see decade ago, i had a problem wearing geek gear on my face all Overt, i want a pair of glasses that can display, simple txt, 10 characters wide by 4 deep, covert, something like that was built ages ago, at the time it cost 5k or something crazy, yeah hind site is 20x20, i should have bought a pair, then i'd not be bitching.

    Best Regards,

    J

    1. Re:What Year is This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wake me when the holodeck is a reality.

  91. They aren't even that good at cloud by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2

    Although the parent is rather obviously trolling, Google has a bit to learn about marketing. They are after all the brainiacs that launch social hubs by generating massive publicity and intrest for it, then letting people in only slowly so that by the time most people can actually use it, the hype has completely died off and the early birds have left because the places were deserted.

    Google Glass has a simple answer for both power and battery life and price and reception. It is called a wire, the kind of wire that is attached to headphones. Gadget freaks already carry a large battery, a powerful cpu etc. They also are highly likely to carry a pair of headphones. So... why is Google Glass not equipped for decent headphones or a wire?

    Simply connect it via USB to a phone. Then you use the touchscreen on the phone in your pocket, use its cpu and its reception without wasting battery life on a short range radio that has to deal with close promiximity of a human body (always plays merry hell with bluetooth).

    I think Google was terrified that the device would be to nerdy and not hip enough but lets face it. This will only appeal to the terminally uncool and that is okay because I long since given up on the idea that any woman will go "meh, why not, just how bad can it be" by just seeing me and would be perfectly at home... but I also like my gadgets to be functional and a gadget that is out of power before mid day, isn't functional (or do you think that as you use a device, battery life goes up?).

    Nice try google but either invent a battery 10 times more efficient then current tech or break out the wires. And really, WHERE ARE THE EARPLUGS!

    because there MIGHT be 1 woman out there crazy enough but if I am seen with these glasses on and STILL talking in my phone... forget it... oh wait, she just texted me... oh. right... oh well... send me a pair over Google, seems I don't need to worry about how it will look any more.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:They aren't even that good at cloud by briancox2 · · Score: 1

      I would love an explanation of the obviousness of my supposed trolling. Any understanding of business strategy theory should make it clear that any company which has no track record of organizing around the success of a business focus is very likely to fail when it ventures into that unknown territory. And instead, concentrating on core competencies allows a business to strengthen the areas that they are already knowledgeable at managing.

      That seems very relevant to the fact that they have apparently misjudged the technological requirements of their new endeavor. It is hardly news and shouldn't cause any surprise to any analyst. Itâ(TM)s fairly obvious that the hype created around these glasses is also a failed attempt similar to how they handled Google+. But I'll take the high road and I wonâ(TM)t accuse you of trolling for mentioning it.

      --
      We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
  92. Re:Google glasses by ehlo · · Score: 1

    Google US is in the US. Google UK is in the UK and follows local law with no regard for US law. And so on and so forth ad infinitum. You are right, of course, to apply US law in the US. My point with this post is just that you should not assume that the law you state above will be the case everywhere, merely because Google has its HQ in the US.

  93. "OMG! MY PRIVACY!" is not a license for violence. by denzacar · · Score: 1

    While your privacy MAY be protected to some extent by local laws, it is trumped by the protection of other people's (and yours) bodies from physical harm.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  94. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you change that to "By looking at this person"?

  95. Re:Google glasses by Holi · · Score: 1

    So you come on a site that about News for Nerds and you think it's an insult when you call him nerd. But you go ahead and try and assault me because of the glasses I choose to wear. I say try because your attempt would be laughable and in the end the assault charges would be the least of your concerns. Don't worry though I hear broken jaws heal quickly.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  96. Logical conclusion of this in Black Mirror episode by bshell · · Score: 1

    Try downloading and watching this episode of Black Mirror, "The Entire History of You" (Season 1, Episode 3) in which most people (in a not too distant future) have a 'grain' implanted behind their ear which records everything they do, see or hear. This allows memories to be played back either in front of the person's eyes or on a screen, a process known as a 're-do'. Google Glass feels like the beginning of this, and [spoiler alert] what do you think happens at the end of the episode? You can read the whole synopsis on the Wikipedia page for it.

  97. Re:Battery life is directly proportional to dorkin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its always been about battery life for us old school HMD ppl,

    watts per weight lith/ion was nice, me i'm not so concerned about weight, 30lbs of seal lead acid is a lot lower cost

    objective, being able to see what i type into my note book, i'd rather not walk around talking to myself and having machine translate things, as that would look crazy.

    I have found a solution partial Audio based wearable computing, i can type and the buffer reads back what i enter, all in my ears stealth like.

  98. Re:Google glasses by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you're in a crowded theater, the best way is shouting "Fire!".

  99. Re:Google glasses by mynameiskhan · · Score: 1

    You mean I cannot walk without being seen and memorized by someone in the public?

  100. Re:Google glasses by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    I'm going to start making shirts with IR LEDs sewn into them.

  101. Re:Google glasses by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    I swear that if anyone approaches me wearing those things I'm going to punch him in the face.

    So, you spend a lot of time in Paris McDonald's do you?

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  102. Re:Google glasses by mark-t · · Score: 0

    An armed response to being punched in the face would be considered a disproportionate response, and not one that a person could rationally justify later except with the excuse that they simply reacted without thinking. Which itself would be an admission that such a response to an unarmed assault *IS* an overreaction.

    If you are carrying a weapon legally, then you need to be responsible for maintaining a good sense of judgement *AT ALL TIMES* of when it is actually appropriate to use such a weapon. Armed response to unarmed assault might only be a legitimate and justifiable reaction if the unarmed assault were to continue without relent, even if you did not initially respond violently at all.

  103. Re:Can we stop talking about this vaparware? by admdrew · · Score: 1

    It's not that unique and the wearable aspect is just a monocle.

    The uniqueness is "wearable" + "computing"; If monocles overlayed dynamic information, then you'd be right. Segways combined wheeled transportation with gyros, which in the end doesn't provide any additional functionality; stationary stability doesn't add much to personal transportation.

    What does it let you do that a smart phone doesn't do already?

    It opens the door for virtually placing that information in the real world, something that hasn't been done on a large scale. While smartphones are pretty revolutionary, in that they give us powerful network-connected computers to use almost anywhere, wearable computing is a pretty significant innovation in displaying information.

    Think about it like this - in general, computers haven't changed that much in 20 years; the last significant change was broadband networking (and thus, the internet) becoming ubiquitous. Since then, we've still been using physical devices for input and output, we've just been able to increase the quality of each. Smartphones made computing that much more mobile, but we're still typing stuff in and reading stuff back on a screen.

    Virtual displays, made possible by wearable computing, *do* allow for radical changes, namely the first real marriage of real and virtual worlds. Helloooooo Holodeck!

  104. Re:Google glasses by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    Sure it is. Because people haven't been working on that for a decade.

  105. Battery life, robustness etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yesterday I bought a second hand HP11c programmable calculator. This was high-tech in 1981 and cost $135 at the time, the equivalent of about $350 now.

    The old HP calculator was designed to withstand being dropped from shirt pocket height onto a concrete floor and still work. My one still works perfectly (self test complete), though I did have to replace the batteries to make it wake up. The original set of batteries lasted over 20 years.

    I also have an NEC PC8201a laptop computer. This was built in 1983 and I used it heavily through the 1980s and early 1990s. It was the first machine which I used for internet access, back in the early 1980s with a 300 baud modem. This computer has been dropped, accidentally stood on, chucked in the bottom of my bag, rattled around on my bicycle and generally abused. It still works *perfectly*, and still runs for weeks on a set of four AA cells. In fact, the battery life now should be better than when it was new because modern NiMH cells have a much higher capacity than early 1980s NiCD.

    Now what sort of progress is it that results in modern devices being so irritatingly fragile and having such poor battery life ?

    1. Re:Battery life, robustness etc. by Minwee · · Score: 1

      >Now what sort of progress is it that results in modern devices being so irritatingly fragile and having such poor battery life ?

      The kind that has you buying a new device every few years, instead of spending twenty or more years using the same one and selfishly holding onto money that you really should be giving to Your Local Electronics Retailer.

    2. Re:Battery life, robustness etc. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      What sort of progress? Oh, I don't know -- perhaps the six-order-of-magnitude increase in memory size, or the four-order-of-magnitude increase in processing speed, or the one-order-of-magnitude-plus reduction in weight, or the two-order-of-magnitude reduction in volume, or...

      Look, if what you want is a machine with the power, storage, battery life, and durability of the PC8201a, we can easily hook you up. Of course, you're going to pay for it, because there's no economy of scale in manufacturing it -- nobody wants a machine with those specifications, unless it's in the wristwatch form-factor, and dedicated to a fairly simple task. I'm guessing that a heart-rate monitor is a pretty close match.

    3. Re:Battery life, robustness etc. by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Love to see how long it would take you to compress a single frame of 720p video with that P8201a's 0.5 MIPS processor... Could it compress 30 frames a second, whilst projecting another 30 frames per second, and maintain a full interactive 12 Mbps network connection?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:Battery life, robustness etc. by gagol · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the wonderful world of planned obsolescence and adults that never really grow up needing expensive toys to be happy. Thank god I moved back to the back country, where men are men, not glorified adolescents.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
  106. Re:Google glasses by admdrew · · Score: 1

    Pfft, you crazy early adopters. I'm waiting for the retinal implants (support to be added in Android Tiramisu).

  107. Not a Google Glasses issue by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    Miniature cameras have been very accessible and affordable (much more affordable than Glass, in fact) for quite some time. Why are you punching the one guy in a ten, who openly displays his camera?

    A person wearing GG is like the known teacher's pet. You know to not talk shit about Ms. Crabapple when the pet is around. It's the secret snitch who is the real problem. That's who tattles on you. And there you are, punching the pet.

    It's not that there aren't real privacy concerns out there, but the way people are reacting to this product is just plain sad and exemplifies how amazingly stupid people are.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Not a Google Glasses issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Miniature cameras have been very accessible and affordable (much more affordable than Glass, in fact) for quite some time. Why are you punching the one guy in a ten, who openly displays his camera?

      Except (1) those are extremely rare while Google wants Glass to be a mainstream product, and much more importantly (2) Glass recordings all go to Google. There is a big difference between 100 million people all with their own cell phone cameras who occasionally upload their stills and videos to the internet and those same 100 million people wearing a camera on their face that may or may not be on at any time and if it's on, then the data is going to a single entity (Google). That is an awful lot of surveillance data to have in one place. We know that there are a lot of cameras everywhere but at the moment their data doesn't get combined unless there is a crime and law enforcement gathers it all together. That's why Glass is different.

  108. Propeller head by sinij · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or you could go for renewable energy source with a propeller hat.

    1. Re:Propeller head by Control-Z · · Score: 1

      Ooh yeah, and the propeller could have solar panels on it!

    2. Re:Propeller head by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of some sort of a piston attachment which would generate power every time you took a bouncing step. You could even have four or five of them on your head to ensure that you get optimal power throughput regardless of your angle of attack. Now that would be awesome.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    3. Re:Propeller head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :)))) best comment so far!

    4. Re:Propeller head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :)))) Best comment so far!

  109. Long battery life not required. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    but since it is meant to be worn all the time you'd think it would have a large enough battery to make it at least 8 or 10 hours.

    The battery only has to last long enough for it to get stolen, when you to get mugged wearing it, or take it off, when entering a posted "No hipster douche-bags" area - which I'm betting will become more prevalent over time...

    Seriously, what is the purpose of this device? Do you really need that level of interactivity with your surroundings? Do you need information pop-ups about what you see - probably in your own town? Like that Ford Sync feature shown in commercials - "Find Chinese restaurant." Perhaps useful for the first week you live there, then not so much...

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Long battery life not required. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make the same argument about smartphones about 5 years ago.

      Seriously, what's the purpose of ranting against technology that you're not forced to use?
      You can call them hipsters or worse, but most people couldn't give two fucks about what you think of them as long as their gear makes their lives easier by having access to information in a more convenient manner.

      Striving for this kind of technology improves all sorts of aspects in existing tech; because we'll need to miniaturize a smartphone into something you can clip on glasses, we'll be making batteries with higher energy density, developing better human input interface from the eyes or even from brainwaves, redesigning augmented reality for everyday use...etc whereas otherwise, there'd be much less monetary incentive to go that direction.

      But nooo, you seem to be malcontent on your perch shaking your head while apparently wishing early adopters to be mugged and discriminated against.

  110. Re:Google glasses by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

    I swear that if anyone approaches me wearing those things I'm going to punch him in the face.

    No, you've got it all wrong.

    First you go up to them and say "Wow, are those the new Google Glasses?" like you're really excited and interested. Then you grab them off his face, throw them on the ground, stomp on them a few times, and THEN you punch him in the face.

  111. Re:Can we stop talking about this vaparware? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

    What does it let you do that a smart phone doesn't do already?

    Well compared to the more traditional blackberry, the iphone... Oh wait, we had this discussion already.

    The thing is, this device doesn't need to replicate every function of other PEDs to be useful. My smartphone has replaced a lot of what I used to use my laptop for (checking email, looking up directions, pulling up cooking recipes), but for some situations, I still prefer the laptop.

    The problem with the Segway was that it was a VERY expensive solution to a minor problem. IIRC the entry level Segway cost over $5,000. People could buy a literal car for that price (or a good motorized scooter for less than half). It wasn't sufficiently better at anything that what other options could provide for less.

    Augmented reality HUDs on the other hand, are features which a lot of people want, and the price is not such that it would drive people away.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  112. You're doing it wrong. by istartedi · · Score: 1

    The proper response to somebody wearing Google Glasses is to look at them for a second and then address them as follow: "Hey Google, you want to know everything about me? Great. You can start with my ass". Then, you moon the wearer.

    If you do this in the US, there is legal precedent for it as protected speech.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:You're doing it wrong. by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      And then you are arrested for sexual assault.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:You're doing it wrong. by istartedi · · Score: 1

      I suppose it depends on context. Definitely don't do it at the office. FWIW, me and several other co-workers received such a display in the office one time. I suppose we could have filed sexual harassment complaints; but we were all guys. None of us were litigious douche bags; but that's not always the case. So yes, you have a good point here. Maybe it's better to just "start with my middle finger"... but still, not in the office, or church, or somebody else's home... but they really shouldn't be conducting mobile surveillance there anyway.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  113. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait a minute! You mean you would hit a person with Glasses!

  114. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's wrong. You can film and take pictures of whatever you want. You're limited in the use of that footage, for example uploading it for other people to see. In that case it depends on where and how many people you filmed/took pictures of.

  115. Was trying to warn people about this but ... by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I tried to warn people that this wasn't like their usual 8-12 hour devices, and that they had to trade off battery weight for comfort.

    Seriously, if we could use wearable clothing that would power this, or even a solar cap with battery units woven in, we might be able to make it "wearable tech".

    We're not quite there. Energy has to come from somewhere, and video really burns up watt hours.

    The other way to go is hipster retro sunglasses, Mad Men bulky style, and use the stems plus the ear hooks to store battery power.

    The military versions are way cool, but they make soldiers carry a lot of weight already.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Was trying to warn people about this but ... by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Oh, just had another thought. Anyone remember Star Wars and the City in the Clouds?

      That form size would have enough battery life.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  116. Re:Logical conclusion of this in Black Mirror epis by admdrew · · Score: 1

    ...and some people were mistrustful of photography because they thought that cameras could 'steal' their souls, or worried that automobiles traveling faster than 50mph would rip our bodies apart. This is really like saying that 1984 is the "logical conclusion" to the internet and government intervention, when in truth we, as a society, are generally pretty good at voicing concerns, and we're able to deal with and temper those concerns.

    I'd certainly agree that there are some major negative side effects of this technology, so in the end I think comments like yours are good to bring up. I still, however, remain pretty hopeful that this is a technology that will have tangible, positive effects on our lives. Eventually.

  117. You guys are tough! by cyn1c77 · · Score: 2

    Why is everyone so critical of this technology?

    It's new and interesting. Obviously it is going to take a few iterations to be fully functional, but why should that stop the early adopters from beta-testing the device if they want to pay for it? Other companies make us do it all the time with computers, phones, software and cars.

    Also, how much battery life is enough? The hardware is very small... would you rather have a gigantic Lithium ion battery strapped to your head? (That might help with balancing the device center-of-mass.) Or maybe a micro-nuclear reactor? Just like your phone: If you want it to last all day, don't use it all the time.

    Have we really become so elitist that we cannot appreciate novel technology unless it is completely and utterly perfect?

    1. Re:You guys are tough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why we can't have nice things, Gary!

      I especially like the people claiming that they will just walk up and start beating people wearing them. Shit just makes me laugh, you have to balls to walk up and punch someone for wearing something but you're SCARED of having your picture taken? I'm not one to poo-poo privacy concerns and i'm not oblivious to the kind of data collection going on these days. But if you're scared of someone getting a picture of you.. you're not a tough guy.

    2. Re:You guys are tough! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, this product doesn't really offer anything. It's very useful technology that would be great if put to use in the right place (eg pilots, and any other situation where someone needs hands free but has to have critical information all the time), and I'm sure Google's engineers are (or should be) learning a lot about practically making displays smaller, lighter, longer lasting, more durable, etc. etc., but that doesn't explain what Glass does.

      I have a feeling this thing is going to be the new iPad. Everyone who refers to themselves as 'techie' will want one, we'll be plastered with stories about how the newest version is coming out, software developers will sprint to develop for this platform they think is soon to be omnipresent, just as hardware developers will sprint to copy this platform before they think software developers are about to release a killer app. Businesses will purchase them for all senior positions and then wonder what problem they're supposed to solve, and industries will rise and fall around something that's really just a toy.

  118. Good luck by Kludge · · Score: 1

    Good luck on finding a jury to convict me.

    1. Re:Good luck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What you mean is "good luck finding twelve people who understand that it's not okay to attack someone for wearing something I don't like". That will be easier than you think.

      Or it would, if you were actually going to hit anyone instead of just muttering passive-aggressive comments not quite loud enough to be heard. But we both know you won't, Internet Tough Guy.

  119. For those who where glasses... by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

    ...and don't like contacts.

    I suspect a lot people in a position to will get corrective laser eye surgery just to use this device and similar things that will follow. If the concept really catches on in a smartphone or tablet kind of way, that would leave a lot of people out in the cold. Of course, the idea of people having their bodies augmented just to interface with technology, and having that not seem weird, would be very promising.

    We will soon see. Strange times are knocking on the door.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:For those who where glasses... by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

      wear

      --
      Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    2. Re:For those who where glasses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well google did say they were working on making them so they could be used with corrective lenses. so there is that.

    3. Re:For those who where glasses... by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Implanted Contact Lenses are the way to go IMO. 20 minute procedure, removable and replaceable if your eyes change substantially. Expensive though - but I'm looking into getting them since my own eyes are starting to fall on the "really can't see" side of things.

      Though I suspect I'll be doing the augmented for technology thing soon: my new S4 has NFC and the first thing I looked up for it was how I could have an NFC activated lockscreen. You can buy the implantable chips for that cheaply, and with that and device encryption it would be an incredibly convenient solution.

  120. Re:Logical conclusion of this in Black Mirror epis by bshell · · Score: 1

    ...and some people were mistrustful of photography because they thought that cameras could 'steal' their souls, or worried that automobiles traveling faster than 50mph would rip our bodies apart. This is really like saying that 1984 is the "logical conclusion" to the internet and government intervention, when in truth we, as a society, are generally pretty good at voicing concerns, and we're able to deal with and temper those concerns.

    I'd certainly agree that there are some major negative side effects of this technology, so in the end I think comments like yours are good to bring up. I still, however, remain pretty hopeful that this is a technology that will have tangible, positive effects on our lives. Eventually.

    Well, still: as an exercise, watch the episode. It's a fast torrent download. And then let's discuss.

  121. Of course you can have a bigger battery... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More dribble from Slashdot. Portable devices can ALWAYS have bigger batteries by simply choosing to carry a bigger battery on one's person, and connecting the device to this power source. With Google Glass, for instance, users can choose the inconvenience of a waist-mounted battery pack, with flying power lead up to one's head.

    You see, you moron Slashdot editors, there is a distinction between the nature of the mobile device you need to build, and the way in which you will power said device if you MUST have a longer operating life. Google Glass needs to meet the requirements of a head mounted system suitable for the greatest number of potential users. This fact alone sets a maximum weight, which in turn creates a limit on the internal battery. HOW IS THIS FACT NOT OBVIOUS?

    To be doable (and maybe Google Glass still falls short), technology has to allow various minimum factors to be met. Weight. Battery life. Processing power. Quality of display. Quality of camera. From its specs, GG teeters at the edge with respect to display quality- the persistent issue with these minimum weight head-mounted systems. Indeed, it is hard to see how GG improves on the decade+ old 'private-eye' device which, if memory serves, actually had a better resolution (albeit in monochrome). Of course, 'private eye' was a display-only device.

    Does anyone here think hard-core GG users would baulk at a walk-man like battery pack belt attached to their waist? Can we please grow up over this battery issue? All mobile devices made light enough will have battery life issues, including the coming 'smart watches' from just about everyone.

    There is a flip-side to this. Ordinary (not stupid air-book/ultra-book) notebooks are heavy enough to have magnificent amounts of battery power versus the coming new generation of low power CPU/GPU internals from AMD and others. Previously, dreadful designs from Intel have sucked the life from even the biggest batteries in notebooks. Now, using the same approach found in Android and iOS devices, notebooks can target vastly longer usage periods on a single charge. The real question is NOT how long GG runs from a charge but how long we can get a real mobile computer operating for.

    The real issue for GG is keeping the initial battery life. Battery powered devices tend to get worse in this regard against time. GG should have a cheap, easily replaced battery.

  122. Re:Google glasses by paiute · · Score: 1

    Great. That's where the camera is. I'll have some wonderful footage to provide the cops....

    Not if he follows you for five hours beforehand.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  123. Re:Google glasses by paiute · · Score: 1

    I'm going to start making shirts with IR LEDs sewn into them.

    Remember not to wear one to the airport. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2007/09/mit_student_arr.html

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
  124. Re:Logical conclusion of this in Black Mirror epis by admdrew · · Score: 1

    I read through the wiki synopsis (off topic - I'd like to watch it eventually, but don't currently have good access to a connection where I should be torrenting), and I would agree it *is* scary. To me, though, it falls sorta in the same realm as the Matrix - a seemingly logical extension of technology that somehwat ignores the fact that humans are cranky enough to eventually prevent the darkest aspects of that from widely occurring.

  125. Re:Google glasses by BLToday · · Score: 0

    In that case, I'll wait until you pass by. Punch you in the back of the head, rip the GG off and stomp on them.

  126. Short attention span by robi5 · · Score: 1

    Dear poster, don't you remember an article a short while ago, explaining how a pretty old chipset is used in the device? With a chipset that's many years fresher, it will be possible to both go down in power consumption and increase performance. I'm sure most other components, including the battery, were thought to improve in energy efficiency.

  127. Re:Google glasses by Zelucifer · · Score: 1

    That's actually incorrect. On public property, in the USA, people have an unabated right to record, regardless of permission. Obviously there are exceptions, such as shoving a camera in your face, stalking, etc, however I can record you in public as much as I like within reasonable limits, even with your expressed desire that I stop. What I can do with that footage is however, more limited.

    --
    The corner of a round room
  128. Re:Battery life is directly proportional to dorkin by c · · Score: 1

    A hat with some discrete solar panels and some hidden batteries would be practical and not be too dorky. Depending on the hat.

    Real dorks would wear a beanie with a propeller for recharging. Although I'm not sure there's enough wind in their parents basement to make a difference.

    --
    Log in or piss off.
  129. Re:Logical conclusion of this in Black Mirror epis by bshell · · Score: 1

    Actually, to be honest, I totally agree with you and your position. I'm not a luddite and I've used your argument similarly many times with friends. It's interesting that in the end the guy cuts the thing out of his head though. Also, by far the most attractive woman in the episode has no "grain", but she also shows the horrible scar it left, demonstrating what an ordeal it is to get the thing out of you.

  130. Give me a google necklace! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dont need a screen, make me a necklace and work on the speech-recognition and AI!
    More room for hardware and batteries and i don't have akward glasses on my head which will make everybody feel uncomfortable.
    Google, please, it's the logical thing to do, a star trek computer in your necklace, i want it! :-)

    1. Re:Give me a google necklace! by gagol · · Score: 1

      Modern geeks being the modern day lady-man, it could just work! Then again, they see themselves as being somewhat manly or is aspiring to be... tough one!

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
  131. When did /. lose their appreciation of nerds? by spacepimp · · Score: 1

    This is a HUD combined with wearable computing and cloud syncing using Linux/Android as an OS and /. of all places can't think of something more interesting to say "You will look stupid using these". Or "I'd punch anyone wearing Google glass 'cos there is a camera in those things too. If you cannot see past your own vanity or that this might be more than a camera, then honestly you have no right to call yourself a nerd. Seriosu

    1. Re:When did /. lose their appreciation of nerds? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      some people who call themselves "nerds" also dress up like freaks and go to conventions. they probably think google glasses look cool. don't lump us in with those whackjobs.

    2. Re:When did /. lose their appreciation of nerds? by spacepimp · · Score: 2

      haha... iggymanz... OK LARPER's aside... when did /.'ers become so scared about what other people think about what they are wearing? If you're genuinely secure in your own self, that confidence attracts women much more than your safe and acceptable iPhone does. To all those internet tough guys aka Anonymous Cowards preaching violence for seeing a person wear something they don't approve of: Each and everyone of you is a pathetic little insecure bitch. Can't even stand up behind your own comments and you want to be the guy stomping a nerd in real life for daring to have the balls to wear what he wants? First off, you aren't interesting. You are pathetic little cowards scared of what people think of you. You would make for a horrible subject to film. That is what actually pisses you off that nobody cares about you or your sad little insecure AC lives.

    3. Re:When did /. lose their appreciation of nerds? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      I do get recorded all day at work. then on the public transit for an hour commute. maybe I should powder my face in the morning?

  132. Re:Logical conclusion of this in Black Mirror epis by admdrew · · Score: 1

    I'll definitely check it out; I hadn't even heard of the show before your comment, so thanks!!

  133. Google Neck Brace by Freddybear · · Score: 1

    The next product in the Google line, for people who wanted a larger battery in their Google Glasses.

  134. Re:Google glasses by mikael_j · · Score: 1

    Here in Sweden you're allowed to photograph or film anyone in public as long as you aren't specifically harassing them. Publishing photos on the other hand...

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  135. Re:Google glasses by PhamNguyen · · Score: 1

    I'm more concerned about your magical ability to turn anyone approaching you into a man, than your propensity for violence.

  136. Re:Google glasses by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter, you can't punch someone just for being annoying. That kind of thing can land you in jail.

    A similar situation people are more familiar with is shooting an intruder. Just because he broke into your house doesn't mean you can shoot him. Just because he's filming you doesn't mean you can punch him.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  137. Re:Google glasses by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    If I made t-shirts with big breadboards, a bunch of wires and a nine volt battery hanging off the chest I don't think I'd sell very many. And if you're in an airport wearing such a thing, somebody asks you about it, and you just walk away without answering, you really shouldn't be surprised by a little extra scrutiny.

    I'm someone who gets dragged into the back room every single time I cross the US border. Sometimes there are unholstered guns and handcuffs involved, all because I share a name with someone they're scared of (and a few million other people). I don't have much respect for border guards who can't read a physical description, or airport security who make everybody take their shoes off but can't find real weapons. But I also don't have much sympathy for idiots who do unreasonably suspicious things in such an environment.

  138. Re: Google glasses by Darinbob · · Score: 0

    Most children are sticky. The job of a parent is an ongoing struggle to keep the stickiness to a minimum.

  139. Re:Google glasses by Darinbob · · Score: 2

    Most of those companies that use EULAs have purchased a few members of congress. How many do you own?

  140. Re:Battery life is directly proportional to dorkin by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    Why not get a lot of batteries taped to the inside of a jacket, then wear that through airport security while filming? What could go wrong?

  141. By Neruos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I can see you with my own eyes and hear you with my own ears, then it's public. Don't like it, become a congress person or lawyer and change the laws. Until then, stop whining about privacy, you don't have it anymore. Get over it.

    American's are not worried about privacy, they are worried what people above them will do with it, that's an issue between the people and those above, not the tech.

  142. Re: Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At some point, trying to claim someone else has a tiny penis stops being about the other person's penis, and becomes more about your own inner turmoil - most likely due to having a small penis.

  143. Re: Google glasses by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Extra points for being funny and topical at the same time.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  144. Re:Google glasses by neonKow · · Score: 2

    I don't see why these devices are creating so much anger. Seriously? You're so ticked off by someone wearing a device that you're going to physically assault them?

  145. Re:Google glasses by neonKow · · Score: 1

    What if the unarmed assault was unprovoked? There's no reason to believe that the stranger you've never met before who is randomly hitting you in the face is suddenly going to stop.

  146. Re:Google glasses by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

    I'll have some wonderful footage to provide the cops when assault charges are filed.

    Assault is just threatening to punch someone in the face. If you carry through with it, now you have battery.

  147. Re:Battery life is directly proportional to dorkin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're fooling no one.

  148. Re:Google glasses by foobsr · · Score: 1
    You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in public.

    Perhaps in your jurisdiction. Here, in Germany, you own the right to pictures taken of yourself (Recht am eigenen Bild), unless you are a person of public interest (politican etc.).

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  149. Solar Hat by slash.jit · · Score: 1

    How about a hat with solar cells? would it provide enough electricity to run Google glass ?

    1. Re:Solar Hat by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      How about a hat with solar cells? would it provide enough electricity to run Google glass ?

      Would it sit atop of my aluminium foil hat?

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Solar Hat by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      Damn beat me to the comment. At least it serves dual roles.

  150. Re:Battery life is directly proportional to dorkin by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    Actually, the first thing I thought of was a power lead down to a battery that clips on your belt.

  151. Re:Google glasses by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    BUUUUULSHIT, otherwise CCTV would be illegal. If an establishment can record you, why not another person?

    --
    Good-bye
  152. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd think people who had to deal with paparrazi would have already tried something like this.

  153. Re:Google glasses by foobsr · · Score: 1, Informative
    Given Google is in the US, I'm going by US based laws

    American asshole.

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  154. Re:Google glasses by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    You can ask, but im under no obligation to comply. Just because you dont like being taped in public does not automatically constitute harassment.

    --
    Good-bye
  155. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tiramisu?!? damnit i was hoping to have that feature in Android Muffintop

  156. Re:Basic Engineering Constraints Google dreaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having rigged my headphones in a similar manner for a while, the problem is that the wire has to lay flush with your neck to avoid causing irritating tugs on wherever it connects to the rest of you (in my case the ears, probably similar for the Glass), but every neck movement stretches that surface of skin a lot farther than a wire can respond to. So if I turn my head to the left, I'm now either pulling on my right ear or hoping the arrangement I've rigged has enough local give. Even if the battery were at your clavicle, the issues with the neck itself would still be there.

    If you don't let the wire lay flush with your neck, then it's incredible how much there is to get tangled on around your neck. Even with a finger-length loop of free cord, my headphones were still getting tangled around my jacket zipper, the buttons of my shirt collar, everything.

  157. Re:Google glasses by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    You do realize that Google Glass is just the tip of the iceberg right? Wearable cameras are here to stay, get over it.

    --
    Good-bye
  158. Re:Google glasses by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    What amazes me is that these people have literally been taped for DECADES by businesses.

    --
    Good-bye
  159. Re:Google glasses by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Armed response is disproportionate to unarmed attack, regardless if it was unprovoked.

    You have a legitimate right to defend yourself, certainly... but if your first response to somebody punching you in the face, before they can even get a second punch in the first place (and this is further assuming that they were ever even going to, which you have no reason to assume either), is to respond with armed and possibly lethal force, you may have anger management issues and probably need to just grow up.

  160. Re:Google glasses by mrego · · Score: 1

    As long as you don't record sound (which could be "wire tapping") as well without posting a notice !

  161. Re: Google glasses by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

    I love my brother, but since he's had kids his whole damned house is sticky, cluttered, noisy, and smells funny. It's like walking into Lindsay Lohan's vagina.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  162. Re:Google glasses by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    The sound exclusion is going to die in court eventually. When almost every camera made includes a mic, its an untenable legal position.

    --
    Good-bye
  163. Re:Google glasses by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    On paper? All of them. Practically? None.

  164. Re:Google glasses by smg5266 · · Score: 1

    Combined with a form of fusion

  165. Re: Google glasses by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

    Recursive insult!

  166. What a stupid criticism to make. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are very small in size, its brand new, and its new technology (generally speaking). Of course the battery life isn't that great. Nothing ever has great battery life as soon as it comes out, especially when its essentially a brand new tech.

    My cell phone gets great battery life but hell I remember when they first came out and my dad had one. Damn thing worked for like 20 minutes and ran off a battery in the bag that was 20x bigger than my entire cell phone is right now. Ripping on something because of a growing pain that virtually everyother piece of tech has gone through when it first came out is lazy and stupid.

  167. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suppose you walk up to me, and I'm wearing Glasses. You say "Stop recording me." I say "I'm not recording you, if I do that it kills the battery life." What happens then? Do you continue on your way with a spring in your step?

  168. Re:Google glasses by foobsr · · Score: 1
    First hand, they are assaulting me.

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  169. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, you spend a lot of time in Paris McDonald's do you?

    No, I prefer Paris Hilton.

  170. Re:Google glasses by foobsr · · Score: 1
    Don't worry though I hear broken jaws heal quickly.

    A different problem is when I insert my hand underneath your ribs and tear your chest apart.

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  171. Re:Google glasses by invid · · Score: 1

    Combined with a form of fusion

    In twenty years. Fusion is twenty years away, and always will be.

    --
    The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
  172. Re: Google glasses by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    I thought this was only a problem with the male children...

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  173. Re: Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's like walking into Lindsay Lohan's vagina.

    Yes, I know exactly what you... Wait. What?

  174. Solar Cell Charging Hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plug a charging solar cell hatwire into your right temple and 'seeya later girls, we'll be right back'..

  175. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no, with a brick.

  176. Wifi wavelength radiation strapped on my head by cynop · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one worrying about having a device that emits signals at 2.45GHz stuck directly on my skull all day long? Sure, the intensity may not be big enough to damage brain tissue immediatly, but I' would wait till I can see some long-term effects.

  177. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    off to the public pool with the google glasses

  178. Re:Battery life is directly proportional to dorkin by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

    "You could probably have a 48-hour battery life if you wanted to wrap the sides and back of your head with batteries. Go for it."

    I guess this would be a good time to bring up the fact that batteries often fail explosively. I'm thinking the "battery pack helmet" would be similar to the packing around a plutonium core, only there is no packing on the face, so...well, I think you get the idea. Could get messy.

  179. Solar by FishTankX · · Score: 1

    This may sound absurd,but I wonder if you would get enough power by wrapping the rims and frame in high efficency thin film solar panels. Or you could include a solar hat as an accessory. It would likely generate more than enough power to allow for perpetual usage in sunlight. And would likely extend battery life in indoor level conditions.

  180. Re: Google glasses by gagol · · Score: 1

    Most children are sticky. The job of a parent is an ongoing struggle to teach its children good habits.

    FTFY ;-)

    --
    Tomorrow is another day...
  181. Re:Google glasses by stenvar · · Score: 1

    Really? Which "places" would that be? France and Germany, for example, restrict the distribution of likenesses of non-famous people, but they don't restrict the recording.

  182. How ubiquitous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So your mangers would tired and blind then after a full days use. The blind leading th....

  183. Re:Google glasses by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

    In twenty years, fusion will be 149,600,000 km away, and will continue to be for the next 4.5 billion years or so.

    Just sayin'

  184. Re:Google glasses by gagol · · Score: 1

    Sure I can, but I don't have the right to do it. As in "Can I go to the bathroom?" vs "May I go to the bathroom?". The first my be asked to your doctor after some weird accident, the second should be asked in a classroom.

    --
    Tomorrow is another day...
  185. Re:Google glasses by gagol · · Score: 1

    ALL recording devices should show an "on air" led near the lens.

    --
    Tomorrow is another day...
  186. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google US is in the US. Google UK is in the UK and follows local law ...

    It is local law that you can choose not to pay taxes in the UK?

  187. Re:Google glasses by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    > Just because he broke into your house doesn't mean you can shoot him.

    In Florida, for all intents and purposes, it does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_your_ground

    If somebody breaks into your home in Florida, you can empty a semi-automatic rifle into his back as he runs to the door, and you're unlikely to face charges once investigators have established that 1) he was a bona-fide intruder and 2) you had even the slightest excuse to believe he was endangering you (like, "I feared he had a weapon left outside and was running out to retrieve it").

    The main thing that makes Florida's law unique is that it extends beyond your home to all lawfully-occupied locations. So, if somebody pulls a knife on you and makes you give them your wallet, you could quite legitimately empty your gun into their back while they run away with it & claim they threatened to come back and injure you if they heard you call for help. Things would get messy if your own possession of the gun wasn't entirely lawful, or there was evidence that you yourself were somehow involved with an illegal act involving the dead alleged assailant (like a drug deal), but if the police investigation determines that you were the victim of a straightforward mugging that involved threats of violence or the use/brandishing of a weapon by the mugger & your own possession of the gun was lawful, that's pretty much the end of it. None of this is really *new* -- the main thing Florida's law did was codify the de-facto case-law norm into statute law, and provide automatic administrative procedures to nip prosecution in the bud before it ever got to the point of a real trial.

  188. Re:Google glasses by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    Yes, but the surveillance camera footage from those businesses doesn't get archived forever and published to the internet in a way that allows strangers to upload a scanned photo of your face and search through yottabytes of video footage for segments where your face was autodetected.

    Most people have no real issues with being recorded by businesses, because real-world storage isn't free, and the overwhelming majority of that video footage gets autodeleted within hours, days, weeks, or at worst, months, unless something noteworthy happens and it's explicitly set aside for longer retention.

    If Google archived Glasses video footage on the server for 72 hours absent a court order demanding longer retention, the only way to view it was on a device with DRM-enforcing videocard that protected it at least as well as Blu-Ray content (or Glasses that enforced similar end-to-end transport-layer encryption), Google robustly watermarked it & threatened site owners who allowed content with that watermark to exist on their servers (say, photographed off the monitor screen) with eternal banishment from Google search results unless the site owner actively scanned files for the watermark and deleted them), and its long-term searchability was extremely limited, people might not mind it as much. But when when you get into things like "eternal retention" and "casual, anonymous searchability via geotagged face-recognition", it absolutely DOES change the very nature of the video and the consequences of its existence.

  189. Re:Google glasses by rocket+rancher · · Score: 0

    It doesn't matter, you can't punch someone just for being annoying. That kind of thing can land you in jail. A similar situation people are more familiar with is shooting an intruder. Just because he broke into your house doesn't mean you can shoot him. Just because he's filming you doesn't mean you can punch him.

    lol. break in to my house, please. if I catch you, you will be dead. I *might* be charged with manslaughter, but you'll still be dead. I *might* have to pay a lawyer to make sure that the DA understands that uninvited guests are not entitled to the protection of the law, but you'll still be dead. I *might* face public scrutiny from the anti-gun folks, and have my name dragged around by them for awhile, but you'll still be dead. It might be inconvenient, expensive, and somewhat embarrassing for me to shoot you, but I wouldn't hesitate in the slightest.

  190. Re: Google glasses by HydroPhonic · · Score: 2

    "... now you have battery" Does it last longer than five hours?

  191. Re:Google glasses by spire3661 · · Score: 1

    We are there NOW. Facial recognition and mass storage are happening NOW, even in businesses like bars. Going on about how the limits of storage tech is what separates this is incredibly naive. I have an 8 camera surveillance system i picked up for under $400. I can compress that video down even further on my regular 3 year old PC overnight easily. I have over 2000 hours of movies on a NAS server the size of a toaster i paid $300 for. It uses 17w and has a real-world throughput of 50 MB/s.

    Im working on a cheap license plate scanner system for our condo complex. Log all plates in and out of two entrances for under $1000 on a 200 unit condo complex. My CAR alone has 2 cameras. a dashcam and a 24/7 surveillance cam. If im doing it, almost certainly others are too. We are absolutely living in an age where you should assume you are being recorded at all times while in public.

    If you come over for a barbecue and act like a druken ass in front of my home surveillance on my deck outside and i post it to the web, what then?

    --
    Good-bye
  192. Re:Google glasses by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

    And that's not even counting the fact that sunglasses with hidden cameras have been common for around a decade as well. And that's just the cheapo bargain basement stuff. I feel like people are going to start being shocked to discover that mp3 players exist too.

    --
    Everything will be taken away from you.
  193. Re:Battery life is directly proportional to dorkin by SirAdelaide · · Score: 1

    I guess this would be a good time to bring up the fact that batteries often fail explosively.

    ...for unusual definitions of "usually", yes.

    --
    I'm a fruit pirate. I bought a watermelon once, and spat the seeds in the back yard. They grew into another watermelon,
  194. Re:Google glasses by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 1

    It's that lack of self awareness that really amazes me. It's one thing if it's an 18 year old raging about this. But most often it seems to be older people who already went through one "I'm so mad if you have this device!" stage of life before adapting to it and jumping on board. Even if one wasn't personally part of it, you'd sure think that the very recent example there would highlight the nature of changing social trends in the wake of new technologies.

    --
    Everything will be taken away from you.
  195. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pfft, you crazy early adopters. I'm waiting for the retinal implants (support to be added in Android Tiramisu).

    They named it Tiramisu because of the complexity of the software stack. ;-)

  196. Re: Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's penises all the way down...

  197. Re:Google glasses by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    Actually, in many places in Europe, it's illegal to record other people in public places. There's some amount allowed if the person is "public person" (ie. celeb) but not otherwise.

    what kind of bullshit is this? many places? the many places including german military bases and the crappier of the pope?

    in general you're allowed to film - by law - in any public place. some public place rent-a-cops try to limit this right, but the right is there if it's a public place like a railway station and similar places.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  198. Re:Battery life is directly proportional to dorkin by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    just a medal to be worn around the neck would do it just fine for bumping the use to 18+ hours.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  199. Re:Google glasses by smash · · Score: 1

    "publishing" = uploading to the internet? e.g., with google's live upload crap?

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  200. Re:Google glasses by smash · · Score: 1

    Closed circuit monitoring is different to video/photo that is automatically uploaded to Google+, potentially geotagged, processed for facial recognition (and thus tagged to a user profile), etc.

    For a crowd usually so up in arms over privacy matters due to fucking web browser cookies, you'd think this level of free government surveillance would get a little more concern.

    But hey, it's google, they can do no wrong, right?

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  201. Yes, this is the most practical solution for now by Su27K · · Score: 1

    I do this with AAA powered mp3 player all the time, very convenient, it's too bad that none of the manufacturers seem to realize this and newer mp3 all have un-replacable batteries.

  202. Re:Google glasses by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 2

    The most notable effect of Google Glass has been a resurgence of the internet tough guy.

  203. Re:Basic Engineering Constraints Google dreaming by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

    A battery around the neck is not going to be light. Most of the weight of current-gen devices is now tied up in the batteries.

    I think a better solution would be for us to actually put some thought into workflow of hot-swapping rechargeable batteries for a device used for long periods - the iPaq had this with a secondary NiMH cell so you could swap the Li-Ion battery way back in 2000. Surely, with some attention paid to design, the swap action etc. this could actually be made smoothly usable.

  204. Re:Google glasses by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    Don't forget to mention the "Killer Laser Sharks" :)

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  205. Re:Google glasses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Citation?

    Where in Europe?

    I've certainly never had an issue in:

    Belgium
    The Czech Republic
    England
    France
    Germany
    Greece
    Italy
    The Netherlands
    Serbia
    Spain
    Sweden
    Switzerland

    Other nations in Europe, I can't account for, but I'm surprised not to have heard about this in my travels.

  206. Re:Can we stop talking about this vaparware? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    And I could buy a literal laptop or desktop computer for whatever the glass is going to cost.

    It does less then those systems while encumbering me.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  207. Invest in video editting software now! by Reprint001 · · Score: 1

    ...because every Google Glass user is going to need some. I don't have one, but I'm guessing Google Glass, when recording, will capture everything I look at/towards. So it'll pick up every glance the user makes toward a woman's legs, backside, breasts, face (yup that's often the order). There'll be plenty of idiots initially who'll share lots of instant video captures where halfway through they take a glance down a girl's blouse... they'll learn and they'll need video editting software!

  208. Re:Can we stop talking about this vaparware? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 1

    I can buy a literal laptop or desktop computer for the price of my smartphone.

    I don't really see how you can honestly say that the Glass is going to encumber you more than a freaking desktop computer...

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  209. Re:Google glasses by mikael_j · · Score: 1

    Well, it depends on whether you're uploading something which others can see and also whether the persons you've filmed/photographed are clearly the subjects in your video/photo or just random people who happened to be there.

    If you stick a camera in someone's face and then upload it for the world to see then yeah, you need permission. If it's a newsworthy event, a celebrity/politician or simply that the person was in the background when your friend did something funny then you don't need permission to upload it.

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
  210. Great. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I have more to worry about than looking stupid wearing it.

  211. EULAs by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    "Holy Living shit" might be hard to interpret in court. I suggest making it longer using specific examples.

    I would also suggest you only print it on XXXXL size shirts as it will have to be that big in order to hold it all.

    In addition, on the inside of the tag, make sure you use the standard "This agreement is valid upon visual inspection, and may be amended at any time and in any way in my head and I need only notify you verbally after said beating."

  212. iwatch by chris.evans · · Score: 0

    I rather put my 1500$ to a iwatch that has better screen than this google glass thing.

  213. Re:Battery life is directly proportional to dorkin by chris.evans · · Score: 0

    so thats that thing in starwars that guy wears at cloud city

  214. Re:Can we stop talking about this vaparware? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    You want to strap that thing on your face and look absurd. GO FOR IT.

    It will do nothing for you that the smart phone doesn't already do as well. While at the same time being on your face letting everyone know what a sucker you are for new gizmos that are poorly designed and conceived.

    No no... Don't disagree. Put it on your face. More people need to know.

    I am a strong supporter of live and let die. I offered my opinion... you want to do something dumb... Go for it. Not my problem.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  215. A solution to the power problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are we forgetting that the body that is wearing this tech moves?
    As such there are 2 ways that I know of that can generate power that could be used to charge the battery while in use: -
    1 Wearable generator at a joint such as elbow or shoulder.
    2. Clothes (or part thereof) that generate some static electricity.

    Using something like that would ensure that the device (google glass) as plenty of power.
    The only downside is that you still need to connect your generated power to the glasses battery - can we transmit that wirelessly too?

  216. Re: Google glasses by Xeranar · · Score: 1

    Only if it actually impedes you physically. Following you is considered an impediment but again itnwould be up to a court to decide. Simply asking and their answer is strictly voluntary.

  217. Simple reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google is a software company, not a hardware company.

  218. Re:Google glasses by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

    Once again, it comes down to a question of scope and scale. Thousands of balkanized islands of photo and video data that are mostly offline are of little concern. The act of making that aggregate bulk data trivially searchable by anyone, anywhere, fundamentally changes its nature. Bars and stores might archive lots of data, but they keep it to themselves. When it comes to maintaining personal privacy, high barriers to entry, roadblocks to use, and restricted availability of personal data are a GOOD thing. Back when you had to go to the courthouse and fill out request forms to look at court documents, nobody cared about redacting social security numbers and similar private information from exhibits and evidence. The moment it became possible to automatically scrape court websites and do automated bulk OCR on the documents obtained from them, it became a HUGE problem.

    As far as your condo complex goes, you might want to talk to your association's lawyer before holding onto the license plate data for TOO long, unless you want to start getting hit by subpoena after subpoena from divorcing couples doing discovery on each other at your association's expense. The cost of complying with those subpoenas can become expensive, and your ability to recoup those compliance costs by charging for the information might be limited or nonexistent. That's why most condo complexes intentionally destroy and discard such information after a while -- after a month or two, that information becomes a potential liability to the association.

  219. Meh, so I'd need two of them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this really a problem so early in the product's life?

  220. Reasonable compromise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would be a lot happier if they had a conspicuous LED that came on whenever the camera was operating. But I'd still prefer to see Google Glass banned from clubs and other places where people can reasonably expect some measure of privacy.