Slashdot Mirror


Anyone Can Buy Google Glass April 15

An anonymous reader writes "Starting at 9 a.m. ET on April 15 anyone in the US will be able to buy Google Glass for one day. From the article: 'This is the first time the device has been available to the general public. So far, the face-mounted computers have been sold only to Google "Explorers," the company's name for early adopters. At first only developers could buy Glass, but Google slowly expanded the program to include regular people. Some were hand-picked, others applied to be Explorers through Google contests by sharing what cool projects they would do if they had Glass.'"

167 comments

  1. And there was much rejoicing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not.

    1. Re:And there was much rejoicing by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hooray for artificial scarcity!

    2. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not.

      Oh, I dunno.

      A first-person perspective of a self-important Glasshole getting a beatdown would be downright hilarious.

      And you know some clueless Glasshole is going to post his lame attempts at picking up women and getting bitch-slapped once they notice what he's wearing.

      Those are going to be hilarious. We need more Glassholes.

    3. Re:And there was much rejoicing by interkin3tic · · Score: 0

      How many product launches exactly inspired "much rejoicing?" When the iphone was launched, most of us were like "Huh? No keyboard?!?" Same with the tablet. The ipod of course launched with a dismissal from slashdot.

      How about we not call this one before it's even tossed. And how about we quit acting like this is the end of privacy and not CCTVs or the NSA.

    4. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And how about we quit acting like this is the end of privacy and not CCTVs or the NSA.

      Google Glass may not bring about the end of privacy, but it's part of the problem. This is proprietary garbage, so you don't even know what it's doing. Anyone who buys it is a damn fool.

    5. Re:And there was much rejoicing by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      And how about we quit acting like this is the end of privacy and not CCTVs or the NSA.

      So, ignore it and maybe it will go away? I don't think that's going to be effective.

    6. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Stickerboy · · Score: 1

      And how about we quit acting like this is the end of privacy and not CCTVs or the NSA.

      That's weird. I didn't realize because X and Y are worse on a continuum of bad things, it means Z is somehow A-OK!

      I hate the NSA and it's intrusions. I hate CCTV and the casual police state. Oh, and I hate Google Glass and its commercialization of the surveillance state.

      See? Is that so hard?

      --
      Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
    7. Re:And there was much rejoicing by fiziko · · Score: 2

      Google Glass may not bring about the end of privacy, but it's part of the problem. This is proprietary garbage, so you don't even know what it's doing. Anyone who buys it is a damn fool.

      You aren't a damn fool just because you've bought one. Buying one just means you are curious and somewhat affluent. The "damn fool" part only kicks in if the thing is on and being worn while, say, doing Internet banking. As a teacher, I could see this being very beneficial to something like distance instruction, as it would be much more liberating than either teaching on a single whiteboard or depending on a third party camera person.

      --
      - W. Blaine Dowler
      http://www.bureau42.com
    8. Re:And there was much rejoicing by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      There is no SIM in it. It can't send anything to Google without going through the attached phone. If you don't know what your phone is doing, the glasses don't make a difference.

    9. Re:And there was much rejoicing by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      I hate Google Glass and its commercialization of the surveillance state.

      And I hate shoes and their commercialization of the surveillance state.

      See, just because someone states an opinion as fact doesn't make it true. You hate progress and tech. Go feed you horse and work on your wooden buggie.

    10. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The major difference is that you are using examples of nerds who live in bubbles who have been consistently wrong about the future of technology. Glassholes are rejected by society at large.

    11. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What "progress" is it bringing? Google fangirls claim this in every post about Glass but never actually provide a single example of anything that it provides to society except more ways for attention whores to attention whore in more annoying ways.

    12. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The irony of it all is that Google products actually innovate, but the difference is that Apple went for the image-conscious crowd, and Google went for the people who know what they are doing... and there are far more hipsters than geeks in this world.

      Except the only people wearing Glass are hipsters. Oh and Android was not innovative either. First it was a Blackberry clone and once the iPhone was shown it became an iOS clone. Oh and lets ignore that they didn't create Google Earth, Maps, Blogger, Adsense/Adwords, Android, Picasa; SketchUp, etc. themselves. Those were all acquisitions. That sorta blows your whole theory of how "innovative" they are out of the water.

    13. Re:And there was much rejoicing by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Progress as in change, not necessarily as in "moving forward", as that is only defined later, as "forward" is the path to a destination, and until you get to that destination, you don't know if you were going forward or backward at any point in time.

      I am old enough to remember the same sorts of arguments against PCs. They were toys for the elite yuppies, and would never be useful for the poorer people.

      You are just jealous. Why all the hate?

    14. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, that depends. If Glass is cheaper than buying the relevant parts themselves and if taking them apart is doable by the average tinkerer...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    15. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are just jealous. Why all the hate?

      What an i jealous of? Looking like a hipster douche? Nah, not really.

    16. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are just jealous. Why all the hate?

      What an i jealous of? Looking like a hipster douche? Nah, not really.

      Then leave them alone. They aren't asking to be harassed or insulted.

      You could be wearing a jacket with hidden cameras or have it full of spiders or bees. I don't know and I don't care. No reason to get yourself involved with others over things you don't know or want to know.

    17. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "And you know some clueless Glasshole is going to post his lame attempts at picking up women and getting bitch-slapped once they notice what he's wearing."

      You really don't understand how the real world works, do you? The more likely scenario is that she wasn't going to give him the time of day until she noticed the Glass(es?), at which point she'll be at least interested enough to try to find out if he has millions or is just in the wealthy category. Seriously, the number of people who take issue with Glass elsewhere (i.e. not Slashdot) is exceedingly low. Here people like to paint it as a universally despised technology, but it's not. Also, I'm not entirely certain from your post, but: You do know that Glass doesn't magically render the capability to see women's underwear, right?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    18. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You do know that Glass doesn't magically render the capability to see women's underwear, right?

      Glad you brought this up. You just saved me from spending $1,500.

    19. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because by "hipster douche" you really mean "someone I resent for having something I want", as does everyone else who has ever used that pretentious teenybopper phrase.

    20. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > "Then leave them alone. They aren't asking to be harassed or insulted."

      Ummmm... strapping a camera to your face and pointing it at people IS asking for hate. Why leave them alone and not harass them? They are NOT leaving YOU alone. They are harassing YOU by pointing a camera at your face without your consent!

      You really don't care? You should.

    21. Re:And there was much rejoicing by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Like the people all jealous of the hipster douches in the '80s with those PCs. Only a hipster douche would have one.Since you have a computer of some kind to post, you are what you hate. I guess that explains all the hate. You hate yourself, so you have to hate everyone else.

    22. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't want a Glass. I'm not a pretentious douchenozzle.

    23. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, PCs were never "hip". They were boring, beige boxes for office workers. Basically the antithesis of a hipster fad like Glass. Keep flailing, though.

    24. Re:And there was much rejoicing by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      What IS going to be effective? I'd argue that nothing done in relation to google glass, getting upset about it or being cool with it, will revive privacy.

    25. Re:And there was much rejoicing by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Fair point, but I'd suggest focusing on google glass diverts attention from the other two.

    26. Re:And there was much rejoicing by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      What IS going to be effective? I'd argue that nothing done in relation to google glass, getting upset about it or being cool with it, will revive privacy.

      I'd say businesses banning the device on their premises is a good start. Admittedly, I'm not full of ideas - but I'm sure complacency is not the answer.

    27. Re:And there was much rejoicing by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You may lie all you want, but I remember the anti-yuppy sentiment, and hipsters are the new yuppies. I lived it, that you are too young or too stupid to have known doesn't change reality.

    28. Re:And there was much rejoicing by DrXym · · Score: 2
      Yes glass is potentially useful for certain roles e.g. order fulfilment in a warehouse (meaning someone can have both hands free), or your remote learning. But as a general purpose device, it is lacking any reason for existing. So I can take a picture or do a search without taking a phone out of my pocket? So what? Instead I have to talk issuing instructions to it like some crazy person to make it work. Worse than that, it invites open hostility from people it is pointed at who quite reasonably wonder if I am taking a picture of them, or if my attention is on them or the screen in front of my eye.

      It reminds me of Segways and bluetooth headsets. Some technologies simply rub people up the wrong way. They might find themselves a niche to exist in but they're very unlikely to ever enjoy public acceptance.

    29. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Surely the glass is half ERROR Redo from start

      --

      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.

    30. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have to have your consent if you are in a public location. If you don't like that, stay home.

    31. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! Because geeks get ALL the hot action!

    32. Re:And there was much rejoicing by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      I am old enough to remember the same sorts of arguments against PCs. They were toys for the elite yuppies, and would never be useful for the poorer people.

      I'm old enough to remember that isn't true. Nobody argued against h PC. AT first very few people even knew what they were. When I got my first computer I told my boss, and he just didn't understand how a person could own their own computer.

      Then gradually affordable home computers came along, and parents bought them for their kids.

      Then in time people got PCs on their desks at work, and eventually decided it'd be good to have one at home.

      Mobile phones, sure THEY went through the ridiculed "yuppie" stage. But not PCs.

    33. Re:And there was much rejoicing by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      You're clearly pretending to remember things you weren't around for, or having false memories. There was no such anti-yuppy sentiment regarding PCs. Plenty of other hate for yuppies, but not PC related. It didn't happen.

    34. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How am Iying? PCs were mocked throughout the 80s and 90s as boring, beige boxes. The only one lying is you.

    35. Re:And there was much rejoicing by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Maybe it was regional, but there was definately anti-PC sentiment where I was. Much like "your baby an read' is mocked more recently. A yuppy way of over-indulging your children.

    36. Re:And there was much rejoicing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate Google Glass and its commercialization of the surveillance state.

      And I hate shoes and their commercialization of the surveillance state.

      Shoes don't record and send on to the G Mothership now do they? Glass is still as mysterious as they get, and because it has an embedded cam, people automatically think that they will appear on someones Facebook page.

      It may be a myth that came from misunderstanding, but Google did once have a deal with the NSA so it's perfectly understandable to assume that the NSA will get to see everything a 'Glasshole' sees, even when the red light is off.

    37. Re:And there was much rejoicing by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      "Your baby can read" appears to be something that didn't work, and the creators quickly went out of business. That would be worth mocking.

      And yes, that was regional, I never saw the product, not the mocking. Whereas PCs were sold round the world, right from the early days.

      Completely different from the PC.

  2. No thanks by dreamchaser · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm often an early adopter of technology, but I'm not interested in this type of product until it's far more unobtrusive and obvious. I can perhaps see a time when having a HUD built into my glasses might be useful, and sure there are times when I wish I could snap a picture of something more quickly than I can by pulling out my phone, but I'm not about to pay $1500 for what amounts to a barely beta product. I won't even go into my concerns about all the data Google already gets from us.

    This one day sale stunt is just that, a stunt. They are testing the waters and trying to stimulate demand.

    1. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More likely they are trying to expand the developer pool. If the developers believe they stand a chance to make a lot more than $1500 selling Glass apps, but weren't already part of the Explorer program, they'll buy in on the 15th...

    2. Re:No thanks by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It also crams the numbers of everyone with an interest into "first day sales" figures. Be ready for the April 17th "Google sells a bazillion Google Glass in one day!" articles.

    3. Re:No thanks by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      I'd have gone the opposite direction, rather than the lame Geordi LaForge effort, make it an ostentatious monocle, cyberpunk or even steampunk style. Offer a variety of skins to suit the early adopter market (mostly nerds) and bling that tech out.

    4. Re:No thanks by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      I'm often an early adopter of technology, but I'm not interested in this type of product until it's far more unobtrusive and obvious.

      Do you see yourself adopting the Nabu and if not, why?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    5. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It should cost $100 maximum. $1500 for something that isn't even as good as my phone is ridiculous and only a complete idiot would buy one.

    6. Re:No thanks by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

      I've looked at Nabu but I really don't see any value in it for me. I can get the same functionality from my smartphone if I want it, and I don't really.

    7. Re:No thanks by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      id pay 200 max, and will when it can be had for that

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    8. Re:No thanks by Wycliffe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm often an early adopter of technology, but I'm not interested in this type of product until it's far more unobtrusive and obvious.

      I'm the exact opposite. I would be more likely to buy it if it was more obtrusive. More to the point, I see little function in a side monitor
      while on the other hand allowing sunglasses with full overlay I think has alot more potential. For instance being able to enhance the
      center line on the highway on dark rainy nights or show outlines of constellations at night. I can think of lots of cool uses for a full
      wraparound wearable HUD but that's not what google glasses is.

    9. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, no thanks. I'll use my phone for pics/video since it's obvious to those around me when I'm recording and when I'm not. I don't point my phone at people and go "don't worry, it's off!" and expect people to take my word for it.

    10. Re:No thanks by mjwx · · Score: 0

      It also crams the numbers of everyone with an interest into "first day sales" figures. Be ready for the April 17th "Google sells a bazillion Google Glass in one day!" articles.

      Yes, the normal way of padding your first day sales stats (with 4 months of pre-orders) is so passe, even Apple is doing it.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    11. Re:No thanks by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 1

      I'd go up to $300 but my toy budget is pretty big.

    12. Re:No thanks by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Apple do nothing of the sort. It's Samsung that falsified their sales figures.
      http://bgr.com/2014/04/11/2014...

    13. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but from where do you think they stole the idea?

    14. Re:No thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't, considering Oculus Rift, which is a FULL HMD is supposed to only cost $300. Google Glass is a dinky, low resolution image that can only be seen with a single eye. It's worth about fifty bucks.

      And yes, they are for different purposes, but the fact remains if a startup like Oculus VR can produce something like the Rift for only $300, then why is a giant corporation like Google charging $1500 for something that takes far less resources and research to manufacture?

  3. TERMS AND CONDITIONS by Rhymoid · · Score: 3, Interesting
    1. You can "buy" Google Glass for one day only.
    2. Anyone can "buy" Google Glass, provided that they live in the United States of America.
    1. Re:TERMS AND CONDITIONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      April 15th will now be known as Fools Day.

  4. confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Went to glass.com and gglass.com and have to say I am surprised for this product they purchased neither domain.

    1. Re:confused by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2

      You should have gone with glass.google.com, since google.com is the only domain any sane person would expect to find google products.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  5. Cue the speculators by frooddude · · Score: 1

    How many of these land on ebay? Does Google have a way to prevent that? (not interested, so no I didn't read the bloody linked article)

    1. Re:Cue the speculators by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I don't know if they care; but a uniquely serialized and network connected device running Google's software doesn't really change hands unless suitably disarmed. "Oh, software is licensed not sold, license agreement not transferable, remote wipe. Do enjoy the hardware you purchased."

  6. The real reason.... by Raxxon · · Score: 1

    "Oh crap, we're running low on cash! We need more monies! Quick, let people spend $1500 for some tech from us!"

    Yeah, I'm interested, but at that cost (plus more for me since I wear regular glasses and need special frames and new lenses, etc) it's not really worth it. :|

    1. Re:The real reason.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I loathe Google but, low on cash? Unlikely.

    2. Re:The real reason.... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      ""Oh crap, we're running low on cash! We need more monies! Quick, let people spend $1500 for some tech from us!""

      You are evidently unaware that Google Glass is made by Google?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    3. Re:The real reason.... by Raxxon · · Score: 1

      What, Google has "enough money"? No one has "enough money"... ever.

    4. Re:The real reason.... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Those words were never used until you used them. Please try to pay attention.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    5. Re:The real reason.... by Raxxon · · Score: 1

      I would make a sarcastic reply indicating that your sarcasm detector is in need of calibration, but I think that due to said miscalibration the point of it would be missed.....

    6. Re:The real reason.... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Actually, the reason you won't do that is because there was no "sarcasm" (a word I'm not convinced you even understand), and to try to point out any sarcasm in an attempt to cover up your inability to follow a thread would be folly, as you well know.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    7. Re:The real reason.... by Raxxon · · Score: 1

      Given that it's Google anyone with half an ounce of sense realizes that they practically have the ability to print money and would have read the initial comment as sarcasm/humor. However since you seem to think I'm somehow mentally deficient with regards to this I have to assume that you either missed the point or just feel like being a pedantic jerk.

      Either way since the 15th is now passed it's largely a pointless discussion to continue.

    8. Re:The real reason.... by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Either way since the 15th is now passed it's largely a pointless discussion to continue."

      That certainly explains why you continued it ...up to the point where you said your peace on Thursday April 17, 2014 @04:51PM and then implied that any response would be inappropriate, what with it being past the 15th and all.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  7. You can become a glasshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you need is money to join a small exclusive group of Google worshipers which spend time collecting data to do the secret will of the almighty Google. You may want to make porn, or perhaps just stalk random people, but remember to choose Google when you do.

  8. Cool by kruach+aum · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Google glass seems like a really cool technology to me. It's weird that I have to qualify that statement with "and I mean this unironically."

    1. Re:Cool by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      10 years ago, I guess everyone here would have chimed in.

      But, ya know, in the meantime we had NSA, Snowden and Web 3.0 (2.0 was "you make the content, we make the profit", 3.0 is now "you ARE the content, we sell your soul"), stuff like that tends to make wary.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Cool by kruach+aum · · Score: 0

      The Glass hate started a couple of months before the Snowden leaks, so I don't think that's it.

    3. Re:Cool by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, people don't like the idea to be under constant surveillance. IIRC there was even a lab experiment with rats that showed that we're not the only species who thinks so.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Cool by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Since when is "ironic" a synonym for "sarcastic"? I hear people using it this way recently.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  9. Re:how many Glassholes will get mugged? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    And I cannot wait to see people who kick the shift out of glassholes facing legal consequences for thinking that they somehow have a right to enforce what they believe on others through violence.

  10. To little, too late. by VortexCortex · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Translation: "This is how you advertise a product as elitist." or "Shh, mobile enabled VR & AR gear does not exist yet!"

    Sorry, don't care Google. I'll just keep developing for the 3D VR and AR gear I already use daily with my smart-phone, rather than pay for the over-priced less capable system Google's selling. When Google finally gets around to pushing out a run of hardware that is publicly accessible then I might port some software I personally use in my business to the platform it if it's not completely shit, and there is a market share to warrant the expenditure. I'm not holding my breath for something that is little more than vapor-ware.

    Besides, that initial rejection of 3rd party apps for glass really turned me off, it seems they got the message but it doesn't bode well. Will I be able to use Glass apps with the Oculus Rift, or MS or Sony's offering, or Vuzix or True Player Gear, or the other umpteen hundred VR and AR headsets, many of which I've been using since the 90's when Quake and Descent came out, which STILL didn't attract a market? I don't think hardware should be tied to software, or that software should be tied to hardware needlessly. If that's the route Google wants then they can go fuck themselves. I already have AR and VR headsets for Android, and they work with iOS, Linux and Windows too.

    Release a product or don't. This carrot dangling makes the Glass team seem like a bunch of incompetent self-important elitist sperglords.

    1. Re:To little, too late. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Google Glass is not AR. Also, the apps I would use aren't available, and I'm not skilled enough to make them (and every app I'd thought up uses only the internal-facing camera). So it holds no utility to me, even if it is interesting.

    2. Re:To little, too late. by Antonovich · · Score: 1

      Be fair. I think Google are just trying to get their shit in everyone's faces so we don't get a repeat of the iPhone situation (possibly even with Apple). What did Apple do? They took ideas that everyone had been working on for decades, put it all together pretty nicely and the marketed the bejesus out of it. Jobs realised that the base tech had finally got to a point (or would by shipping) where it would all work together in useful ways. Being so dominant, he was able to make the process work without the ridiculous infighting at Nokia or silly arrogance of RIM. Then they started suing other companies for their "inventions".

      Google just wants everyone, including the lawyers, to know (actually to think) that *they* are the ones doing the inventing, and if anyone's going to be suing, it's them. The tech probably still isn't there but they aren't going to wait around this time, they'll just keep pushing vaporware till it is. Are they actually pilfering stuff left, right and centre? Of course, that's how real innovation works (and f'n Jobs proclaimed loudly!). I'd like to think they won't start suing people for other people's inventions though - time will tell.

    3. Re:To little, too late. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      The technology is there. It's just the market that isn't. If there was any worthwhile demand for this product, Google wouldn't have to do marketing stunts like one day sales.

    4. Re:To little, too late. by Antonovich · · Score: 1

      I'll make a random prediction then - by 2020 smartphones will be a "thing of the past", or at least we'll be in the phase of massive growth of eyewear and decline of smartphones, like dumb vs smart today. It might take till 2024-5 but I seriously doubt it. Huge numbers of people already wear glasses, and the Hipsters (TM) even wear them with empty frames. Immersive AR will blow phones out of the water when we get rich 3D interfaces (Minority Report styles). We'll need to be able to concentrate on text/video for long periods with little/no eye fatigue before we drop phones but I think that'll happen pretty fast, like by 2020.

    5. Re:To little, too late. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      And I think your prediction will be wrong.

      BTW "the Hipsters (TM) even wear them with empty frames"???

      Is that really true? Sounds like some media nonsense story to me, rather than some real trend. Those of us who wear glasses would really rather not.

    6. Re:To little, too late. by Antonovich · · Score: 1

      If the evil Beta monster hasn't killed /. then I'll see you back here in 6 years then :-).

      I worked with a guy who came to work occasionally with empty frames. I was working (in Ops!) at a marketing agency though... I also have a Chinese friend who used to wear glasses with zero correction to look smarter (that is definitely a widely held belief). The desire to headbutt was strong with me... But ok, one or two examples does not a fashion make.

      This has got to be the coolest music video in the world though https://www.youtube.com/watch?....

    7. Re:To little, too late. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Hey, we all had stupid fashions when we were young. In my day it was New Romantics. Now that was far more pretentious and silly that the current youngsters can manage. :-)

  11. Hey look what I bought by istartedi · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Hey, look what I bought. I used my tax refu--"

    And the next thing he knew, he woke up in an alley. His wallet, keys, phone and shoes were missing. For the life of him, he could not figure out why they didn't take his cool new toy.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Hey look what I bought by Kjella · · Score: 1

      And the next thing he knew, he woke up in an alley. His wallet, keys, phone and shoes were missing. For the life of him, he could not figure out why they didn't take his cool new toy.

      It's a photo/video camera that might have been on, not even stupid crooks would leave that potential evidence behind.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Hey look what I bought by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Oh, they'd leave it behind alright. But it would coin a whole new meaning to Embedded Devices.

  12. Re:how many Glassholes will get mugged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but violence is fun. there aren't any laws against being an asshole so too many fucks can go around legally bullying everyone and there's nothing you can do about it legally. the only recourse these days is to kick someone's teeth in and wipe the smug look off their face.

  13. Who followed through? by petes_PoV · · Score: 1

    ... others applied to be Explorers through Google contests by sharing what cool projects they would do if they had Glass

    So I wonder if any of these people actually did any of the "cool projects" they claimed, or did they just pose around, with their newly aquired status (or otherwise) symbols.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
    1. Re:Who followed through? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe me, if there were a killer app for these things you would have heard about it by now.

  14. Re:An be subject of assult ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Buy Google glass and become victim of liberal assult in San Francisco.

    Bullshit. Those are CONservatives by definition. They use violence to solve problems. They're also the reason this city has such horrific mass transit. Their decades long stand against the poor and minorities has created a situation where only the people that can afford to not work can afford to work. That is the type of life they want for everyone everywhere. Also, they know that the liberals that buy Glass will film them doing what they do every day. We will embarrass them so they hate Glass and the people who wear them. They will attack us.

  15. May the beatings commence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    May the beatings commence, lets collect Beating Google Glass wearers points today!

  16. I *can* buy it but why would I? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Being an anonymous coward is bad enough but I don't want to be a glasshole.

  17. Cool and Glasshole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are a contradiction in terms.

  18. "Explorers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Explorers". That's what Google calls them, because they explore for Google. Google Glass essentially transforms people into data-gathering drones-

    And speaking of data gathering, did you know that after every time you post a comment on Slashdot or dice or whatever the hell the name is these days, you get PORTSCANNED? Yea, I thought you didn't.

    1. Re:"Explorers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which ports?

  19. Can I NOT buy it on April 15? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. and every other day?

  20. Re:how many Glassholes will get mugged? by Stickerboy · · Score: 1

    And I cannot wait to see people who kick the shift out of glassholes facing legal consequences for thinking that they somehow have a right to enforce what they believe on others through violence.

    And honestly, you may be waiting a while! For there are surely legal consequences for such things, but the police and judges are human and tend to view unexciting assault and battery cases as exactly that.

    I mean, seriously, how many people as a percentage actually serve jail time for bar fights? Not many, and there are some serious injuries from those. And let's not forget extenuation - if Peter gets up in the face of the elderly mother of Paul and starts screaming at her for road rage and Paul punches his lights out, Paul may be congratulated by the arresting police officer after he's let off with probation. If Paul claims Peter was harassing him with his Glassholeness Sarah Slocum-style, Paul likely walks with community service.

    And let's not forget, the police only have so much manpower and funding. Hell, they can't even muster up enough time here at my hometown to shut down any of the massage parlors for blatant sex trafficking of illegal immigrants. Robberies may take a while to investigate. Do you think police officers, who most likely already view Glassholes in a dim light, are going to be spending much time about finding out who Random Guy A was who punched the Glasshole recording him at a local bar?

    --
    Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
  21. Google is breeding glassholes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like they are trying to repeat Apple with "massive exclusivity". That's when everyone has the same iPhone and thinks he is special ;)

    I'm under impression that google's bosses are out of touch with the reality. That's the reason they "innovate" by creating new snoopware, people don't like it, isn't that obvious? But, having billions in hands, they are still trying to push it. The result is that Google becomes associated with something snoopy and nasty.

    1. Re:Google is breeding glassholes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly nobody buys an iPhone for exclusivity. But you go right ahead being completely wrong and retarded.

  22. Re:how many Glassholes will get mugged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems more affordable to simply act like a regular asshole, rather than a full blown glasshole. No need for expensive upgrades.

  23. And this is why I won't get Glass by Khyber · · Score: 3, Informative

    This Masonic exclusivity bullshit is the exact reason I got turned off of Glass in the first place.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:And this is why I won't get Glass by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Google (and many other companies) do this with their beta products... you know... because they are "beta" and they want to limit the number of users to something they can handle.
      For instance, Gmail was limited access at first and you had to be invited to join. I see that you are using a gmail account.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    2. Re:And this is why I won't get Glass by Goody · · Score: 2

      Making people pay $1500 to be their beta tester is a bit ballsy, though. Of course if you have customers who are dumb enough to pay for a half-baked and potentially buggy beta product that will be superseded by a new model in six months, have at it.

      --
      Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
    3. Re:And this is why I won't get Glass by mspohr · · Score: 1

      They don't seem to have any problem finding customers at that price.
      I personally am not interested. I just don't see myself walking around wearing this thing. Not sure what I would do with it. It seems really nerdy and creepy. However, if I had a specific application in mind... something like recording surgery, automobile repair (or service and repair in many industries) then I could see it.
      I do have a Google Chromecast which is really a beta device and has been a disappointment due to very limited functionality. They are slowly adding applications but still very much a walled garden. Hopefully it will be more useful some day. I only spent $35 on it so not much risk there.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    4. Re:And this is why I won't get Glass by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

      Yes but I said that about gmail too and now 8 out of ten people have it.

      --
      -
    5. Re:And this is why I won't get Glass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, Gmail went out of beta? Holy moly!

    6. Re:And this is why I won't get Glass by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "For instance, Gmail was limited access at first and you had to be invited to join. I see that you are using a gmail account."

      Which was created well after beta/limited access.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    7. Re:And this is why I won't get Glass by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      No, many other companies don't do this. Only Google. And your example being another Google product only confirms this.

      Other companies have real beta periods for products. Where they give the product without charge to a number of people to use so the bugs can be ironed out before a release a few months later.

      But using the word "beta" to get out of responsibility for all problems in a publicly released product for years on end, or to mask the lack of demand for a product, Those are quintessentially Google tricks.

    8. Re:And this is why I won't get Glass by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      They don't seem to have any problem finding customers at that price.

      Of course they do. That's why the marketing scam of only going on sale for one day, rather than on proper release like any normal product. They know if they release glass for real, it'll be as dead as Microsoft Kin.

    9. Re:And this is why I won't get Glass by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      8 out of 10? How did you come to that conclusion? It's possible that there are that many accounts in existence. The vast majority being dormant. After all, Google thrusts one upon you for using previously independence services such as YouTube. And of course they are useful as throwaway accounts for signing up to things without getting spam.

      But 8 out of 10 actually email addresses in use? No chance. Take a look at any email lists you have access to, or any well CCed emails. A tiny fraction of real in-use email addresses are gmail.

  24. Not artificial scarcity -- clearing of inventory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have it wrong. Soon(ish) there's probably going to be the actual market version -- maybe early next year.
    They probably just want to clear inventory while still making it clear that "it's not a real product yet, so caveat emptor."

  25. Meh by Moof123 · · Score: 1

    Just meh.

  26. Re:how many Glassholes will get mugged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    being legally right will be a small consolation as you slowly die in an alley somewhere from the internal injuries you sustained while smugly proclaiming your right to shove a camera in my face.

  27. Testing...testing...testing...1...2...3 by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

    Sounds like Google is testing the waters of demand for glass. It would be interesting to see the actual number of glass units sold. My guess it they are using this as an indicator if they should continue to push glass in its current form, abandon the project or make a big change.

  28. Re:An be subject of assult ? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    the anti-change liberals? Those are "conservatives". That the political area has co-opted and corrupted them doesn't change the non-political meaning. Unless you are bashing Democrats specifically. Unless you are saying you'll be assaulted liberally.

  29. Monopoly guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... make it an ostentatious monocle, cyberpunk or even steampunk style.

    Like a high tech Monopoly guy?

  30. Re:how many Glassholes will get mugged? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    And a person smugly proclaiming that it is their right to become physically violent in retaliation is any better?

  31. A fight with a bunch of Chowdaheads in Glass by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2

    Would that be a hassle with a passle of Masshole Glassholes? Asking for a poet.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  32. Re:how many Glassholes will get mugged? by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but violence is fun. there aren't any laws against being an asshole so too many fucks can go around legally bullying everyone and there's nothing you can do about it legally.

    You can ask them to stop... or you can go somewhere that the owner can tell the glasshole to get lost or be charged with trespassing.

    the only recourse these days is to kick someone's teeth in and wipe the smug look off their face.

    When violence becomes the "only recourse" to something that is not, by itself, physically threatening in any way, one may want to consider whether or not there is something already seriously wrong with their own world view.

    It's absolutely no different than those who have gone around killing nonbelievers in the name of religion.

  33. I have an idea by bitt3n · · Score: 1

    Cut out the middleman! Pay me $1499 and I'll punch you in the face direct from the source.

  34. Psychological trick by gwstuff · · Score: 1

    "I worked day and night on my taxes. Now that they're done I'm going to give myself the gift of Google Glasses. I deserve it."

  35. Google Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of my inner circle refers to this product as "google ass"

    do not want.

  36. Good to know... by Grismar · · Score: 0

    ... that /. is still mostly a local US site. "Anyone" of course refers to "anyone in the US".

    1. Re:Good to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Is there anything outside the US :-? But the earth is still flat and GOD still lives about US, isn't is?

    2. Re:Good to know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... that /. is still mostly a local US site. "Anyone" of course refers to "anyone in the US".

      /. has never pretended to be otherwise.

  37. Meet me at Molotov's! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    I'm sure you'll have something interesting, worth recording!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Meet me at Molotov's! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google Glass + Twitter == Cybermen

  38. gmail by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    > I see that you are using a gmail account.

    Yeah, me too. Didn't pay 1500 bucks for it, though...

  39. Speculators already queued by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    How many of these land on ebay?

    Anyone planning to sell them on eBay would presumably check the ebay prices first to see how much they can make.

    As far as I can tell, Glass is not selling period. I offered a guy $20 to buy one but they didn't bite, so I guess people are not super desperate to discard them yet - but I don't think many in the open period will be buying to resell, there's just no market.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  40. Less than you expect by Jumunquo · · Score: 1

    Reading the reviews from developers who bought and used Google Glass, most of them say the same thing - it's not ready. You need an Android phone, and it's sort of an awkward extension of the phone. There aren't any killer apps for it because the APIs are not ready (it's mostly just popping text messages on the glass). I don't have Google Glass, but that's what I gleamed from the descriptions. The major reasons to get it seem to be for: 1) developers to get a head start on developer (on the belief that it will hit it big on a future rev) 2) journalists so that they can write about it 3) people with $1500 burning a hole in their pocket 4) people who want to brag to their friends (or brag to anonymous people on the Internet because we all know what a great satisfaction that is)

  41. Catering to real people by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Apple caters to the stylish, the people that matter, people who won't care about the presence/absence of a physical keyboard since they have never owned a smartphone before.

    I don't know about the stylish, since that never applied to me. But it did cater to people who mattered - real people.

    For you see, for real people the small physical keyboards SUCKED. They had very tiny hit areas, were sometimes hard to press. They took up a lot of space which meant tiny screens, and if you started typing anything not a-z you were totally screwed buy whatever whacky shifting mechanism that keyboard designed had chased to introduce.

    I had use blackberries and a variety of Palm/Windows phone devices before I got the first iPhone, and I was REJOICING that at last a mobile keyboard had reasonably sized keys, and I could type really fast - and also type pure numbers the way God intended, with a giant keypad.

    Just because you and a few of your kind didn't like virtual keyboards, does not mean the rest of the world agreed with you - including many very technically astute people.

    As they say:

    If you find such things unpleasant, then I suggest you develop a taste for forced labor because by the year twenty-twenty all that sneer is going to get you is a slot in the underclass boiling corpses.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Catering to real people by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      With a slide-out keyboard like the Sidekick had you can have a screen-sized keyboard AND a full-sized screen that isn't half-filled with a virtual keyboard that effectively makes the visible screen area smaller anyway. I just don't understand why we slide-outs aren't made anymore. They're superior to both the other options, in my opinion.

    2. Re:Catering to real people by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      With a slide-out keyboard like the Sidekick had you can have a screen-sized keyboard

      Even on those the numbers sucked. You cannot fundamentally change the fact converting the whole screen to a number pad dynamically is vastly superior to tiny little number keys, especially as the bulk of the population ages.

      And it added a lot of bulk to the phone.

      If you want the same effect now just carry a compact portable bluetooth keyboard. The fact that pretty much no-one does is a testament to most people hating tiny keyboards.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  42. The Real Real Reason by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they wanted to clear the decks of all the people selling Explorer invites on eBay (or trying to).

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:The Real Real Reason by Raxxon · · Score: 1

      I could buy that, but when they opened GMail for everyone it was kinda perm instead of the one-shot like this. I don't see it doing much other than possibly clipping things for a few days or maybe flooding the market for those invites to drop the price.

      Either way..... "not sure if effective"

  43. Re:how many Glassholes will get mugged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's not a good idea to enrage people in person.

  44. Anyone can buy Google Glasses right now, cheap. by Animats · · Score: 2

    Anyone can buy Google Glasses right now on eBay. The going rate is about $1100. Google Glass "invitations" have been for sale on eBay for months. The going rate is about $50.

    As an "exclusive launch", this is a flop. There have been XBox and Sony PSn launches where pre-order prices exceeded list price. Google Glasses are already selling at a discount before the launch. This thing is overpriced. It needs to launch at $995, and that will only hold until Samsung starts shipping.

    1. Re:Anyone can buy Google Glasses right now, cheap. by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 2

      Price isn't even the main sticking point with me. I recently paid someone a lot of money to burn off bits of my eyes with a laser precisely so I wouldn't have to wear glasses... and it was the best money I've ever spent. There's no way I'm paying another grand to get glasses back no matter how cool they are.

  45. Re:how many Glassholes will get mugged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wearing a glass is not "smugly proclaiming your right to shove a camera in my face". Nor do you believe that it is, that's just an excuse made up by idiots who throw temper tantrums at the thought of having to respect others' rights.

  46. Re:An be subject of assult ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the anti-change liberals? Those are "conservatives".

    And therefore, they are liberals.

  47. "Anyone" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, only those in the US.

  48. Triumph of marketing hype by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Funny

    wow I'm amazed that so many people are sooo desperate to pay a staggering $1500 just for a beta version of a head mounted camera that freaks other people out and makes you look like a twat. I think I'll save $1500 and just duct tape my phone to my forehead.ï

    1. Re:Triumph of marketing hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be. This is a trial run of sorts. It may be a completely different story 10 years from now.

  49. Was there controversy over PCs being in public? by jphamlore · · Score: 1

    Ironically wasn't one of Compaq's first PC computers a portable? I wonder if there was any reaction at all to a person carrying around an approximately $3000 USD computer in public. Also, did anyone try to just rip one off?

    1. Re:Was there controversy over PCs being in public? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Sure, grab that and run. You aren't going to run fast carrying that thing by the handle. Maybe if you got the optional (or 3rd party) backpack adapter. But that wasn't much better. The kids at school made fun of me when I carried it, but that's because it weighed as much as I did.

  50. Signed up - I think by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    Filled in all the spaces (not phone, not required) hit sign me up and nothing happened. I'd expected to be taken to another page or some acknowledgment.

  51. Why April 15th? by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    because in the US, April 15th is when income tax return forms are due. On that day many people find out if they are getting a refund of taxes withheld from their paychecks in the previous year. That refund money is often spent on TVs, appliances, etc., and now Google Glass.

  52. Re:how many Glassholes will get mugged? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's absolutely no different than those who have gone around killing nonbelievers in the name of religion.

    Damn right you are, it's an American tradition!

  53. test drive one if you can by peter303 · · Score: 1

    You may or may not find its limitations annoying. The two I found annoying are the short battery life 9two hours if using the camera) and relatively slow internet speeds. I expect them these to improve in the NEXT version.

  54. Forge Google Glass. by Scroatzilla · · Score: 1

    I'm holding out for Google 'Stache.

  55. Re:how many Glassholes will get mugged? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    Nobody has proclaimed any such right. Just two things: that people will suffer violence for wearing Google Glass. And that many of us will be amused when that happens.

    Pretentious, self-righteous pricks getting punched is just one of those funny things to see.

  56. Beta Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed. Modern "liberals" are conservatives, attempting to retain the ideologically and financially bankrupt 'progressive' nonsense of the 20th century.

  57. Re:how many Glassholes will get mugged? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    I'd argue that the people who are doing the punching are no less pretentious *or* self-righteous.... like they have made it their own self-appointed duty to, under threat of physical violence, try to make other people see the world as they do, and have a similar set of priorities and values.

    This is different from people killing in the name of religion how, exactly?

    And what kind of world is it that you live in that this sort of thing is actually amusing?

  58. Re:how many Glassholes will get mugged? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Someone who is so easily enraged that they would resort to physical violence over what ultimately amounts to a difference in beliefs over an intangible issue like privacy is no better than those who have, in the past, gone around killing nonbelievers in the name of God.

  59. Re:how many Glassholes will get mugged? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    I'd argue that the people who are doing the punching are no less pretentious *or* self-righteous.... like they have made it their own self-appointed duty to, under threat of physical violence, try to make other people see the world as they do, and have a similar set of priorities and values.

    No, they are just pissed off by someone thrusting a camera in their face, or not paying attention to the person they are conversing with when they should be.

    This is different from people killing in the name of religion how, exactly?

    In every way possible. You are beginning to sound hysterical.

    And what kind of world is it that you live in that this sort of thing is actually amusing?

    This one. For example, Buzz Aldrin punching this jackass is quite funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
    Some people just deserve a punch.

  60. They kept it scarce, now they can keep it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glass was moderately interesting a year ago, now its a bit of a joke. I don't like the elitism that Google exudes with their phony scarcity. I was able to order an Oculus Rift SDK on a first come first served basis. They didn't cherry pick or play favorites and that's the way it should be. Sure I expect any company to have partners and reserve units for partner programs but not to turn the entire launch into an elitist fiasco as Google did. Glass is a bit of an embarrassment from a capability point of view now and other technologies from companies like Atheer Labs already make Glass look embarrassingly bad. Thanks but no thanks Google, I was once interested in Glass, now I'd be embarrassed to be seen wearing it.

  61. Re:how many Glassholes will get mugged? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    I'm not saying that people don't have every right to be pissed off about having their privacy invaded.... I'm saying that when violence is *ever* the defaut response to simply being angry about something that is not physically threatening in any way, shape, or form, then there is already a problem with the emotional maturity of that particular person.

    I'd be inclined to not include Buzz Aldrin in that category because the person that he assaulted was physically stalking him, and deliberately creating a situation where Mr. Aldrin did not have the physical freedom to ignore him or walk away (since he and his camera crew simply followed him when he tried). That said, I think Mr. Aldrin should have told them to leave him alone, or he would place harassment charges on them if they tried to follow. It's not like he wouldn't have had a legitimate case against them.

    Anyways.... supposedly, human beings are a civilization... so maybe people should try acting civilized. Your neighbor being an asshole should never be any justification for you to be one. See ethical vigilantism (point 12) on the ethics scoreboard.

    Also... I'm hysterical how, exactly? Because I compare the threat of so-called "acceptable" violence today that would caused by what ultimately amounts to a mere a difference in beliefs (one person places more value on their privacy than another person places on the same person's privacy) to an example of violence in history over what also fundamentally amounted to a mere difference in beliefs?

  62. Re:how many Glassholes will get mugged? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    Also... I'm hysterical how, exactly? Because I compare the threat of so-called "acceptable" violence today that would caused by what ultimately amounts to a mere a difference in beliefs (one person places more value on their privacy than another person places on the same person's privacy) to an example of violence in history over what also fundamentally amounted to a mere difference in beliefs?

    You've moderated it now. Before it was "people killing in the name of religion". Which certainly is different to throwing a punch at someone who's getting in your face. To the point that if you think they are the same, you are being hysterical.

  63. Re:how many Glassholes will get mugged? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    They aren't the same literal acts... but both are violent acts perpetuated solely by a difference in belief. Whether you kill or simply beat up, both are ultimately violent acts spawned from nothing less than the exact same hatred of things that are different.

  64. Re:how many Glassholes will get mugged? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    both are violent acts perpetuated solely by a difference in belief.

    Belief? You're casting the Google Glass user as someone religious?

    No, Glass users aren't risking being punched in the face for believing in Glass or believing in Google or whatever. But for being in people's face with a recording device where it isn't wanted, or for showing disrespect by putting a computer screen in-between their eyes and the eyes of the person they are conversing with. It's about rude and inconsiderate behaviour not belief.