Google Glass

rrrdbw

Well-known member
You bunch of simple minded ***holes. Glass is created to simplify life not complicate it, instead of fumbling with your phone/camera and miss that special moment when your child takes that first step you capture it forever. What about to help head trauma patients re train their brain , here's one for you shady tree mechanics ever wrench on your bike and have to look over computer or book for reference imagine actually watching video while your wrenching. Sharing with your friends/family when you leap out of an airplane/bungee jump thats just scratching the surface don't even get me started on how this will revolutionize PORN (POV) industry. Stop thinking of what Glass can do for you and look at bigger picture of what Glass can do for society. There are thousands(soon will be millions) of people patiently waiting in line for these $1500 device. Heads of corporations are fighting to get one, these are the people that change the way the world communicate/interacts. Its here to stay . For those that question it. Recall when the giant cells phones first came out, now look at the cell phone. We cant live without it. This is first Generation of Glass:twofinger
 

ilikefood

Well-known member
Also, how comfortable would it be to wear under a helmet. Hmmm...

And how safe. In an accident, I don't know how much I'd want to have a sharp-edged chunk of metal and glass next to my eyes.

I think Google Glass is a bad, bad idea in general. With everyone wearing always-on cameras all the time, you can wave good bye to the remaining shreds of anonymity and privacy. Everything you do will be recorded - and potentially handed over by Google to cops, to be used as evidence. Like driving faster than the speed limit? Or occasionally passing on the double yellow? Give it a few years, and the driver you just passed will have Google Glass, and record you, your license plate, and (via GPS) the location and speed of the car. And image processing software will recognize reckless driving and report it to authorities.

Just the other day I heard a talk by someone who went to a party (I think either at Google X Lab or maybe SXSW) where everyone was wearing Google Glass. Instead of interacting with each other, people were walking around like zombies, talking to their glasses. I'm telling you, this won't end well.
 

ilikefood

Well-known member
Stop thinking of what Glass can do for you and look at bigger picture of what Glass can do for society.

What Glass can do to society is exactly the problem. Do you really think that having a bunch of people filming everything all the time, and talking to their glasses instead of to the people around them is going to do anything good for society?
 

weasel

Eradicator
What Glass can do to society is exactly the problem. Do you really think that having a bunch of people filming everything all the time, and talking to their glasses instead of to the people around them is going to do anything good for society?

:rolleyes You're on camera everyday multiple times. What are you trying to hide?

tin-foil-hat_black-cat-150x150.jpg
 

Hoho

Ride to Eat
Engadget had one of their editors doing a test on a Streetfighter 848 with Google Glass... sadly, he only used it to capture video on his ride...
 

sanjuro

Rider
"In its favour, if Google Glass didn’t exist, all these Silicon Valley guys would be having affairs or buying unsuitable motorbikes”

http://whitemenwearinggoogleglass.tumblr.com/post/49185381448#notes

You should thank Google, otherwise this fellow would be on a Panigale. And do any of us want to live in that world?
Wait, what?

I forget there is a segment of riders which motorcycling is a fun activity, like playing golf, fishing, or visiting a strip club. With that segment, I can imagine making a decision between a bit of cool technology and a bike.

To me, motorcycling is life or death, a FU to the lemming march to the workplace, the culmination of all my skills and experience, and the outlet for my hatred of necessary rules to keep society moving at our master's pace.

I'm waiting for that technological device which does that for me.
 

ilikefood

Well-known member
:rolleyes You're on camera everyday multiple times. What are you trying to hide?

Yeah, exactly, I'm on camera every day multiple times, and that's enough. We don't need more cameras everywhere tracking our every move. You don't have have "something to hide" to dislike the invasion of privacy that ever-present cameras bring.

If you don't have anything to hide, would you be OK with putting a camera in your living room, publicly broadcasting the video feed online?
 

JPK

Well-known member
Yeah, exactly, I'm on camera every day multiple times, and that's enough. We don't need more cameras everywhere tracking our every move. You don't have have "something to hide" to dislike the invasion of privacy that ever-present cameras bring.

If you don't have anything to hide, would you be OK with putting a camera in your living room, publicly broadcasting the video feed online?

The obvious answer here is, if it concerns you then don't buy one. Then nobody will be in your living room filming you.

If you're concerned about being filmed while out in public... that horse left the barn a long time ago. You are, after all, "out in public". Where does the expectation of privacy come from?
 

SFSV650

The Slowest Sprotbike™
I want a drone that flies 300' in front of my bike and feeds that information to my HUD, letting me see over hills and around corners.
 

ilikefood

Well-known member
The obvious answer here is, if it concerns you then don't buy one. Then nobody will be in your living room filming you.

If you're concerned about being filmed while out in public... that horse left the barn a long time ago. You are, after all, "out in public". Where does the expectation of privacy come from?

There is a HUGE difference between lack of privacy in public when someone sees you, vs. when someone films you, and then uses various technology tools to identify exactly who you are, and compiles data about you. Do you really want to live in a world where you're always tracked?
 

ilikefood

Well-known member
Do you seriously believe that we're not already living in that world today?

Sure, the world that is already like that to some extent. I don't see how increasing the number of cameras by 10x or more is going to make things any better.
 

JPK

Well-known member
Sure, the world that is already like that to some extent. I don't see how increasing the number of cameras by 10x or more is going to make things any better.

To play devil's advocate - how easily/quickly do you think they would have caught the marathon bombers 30 years ago?
 

ilikefood

Well-known member
To play devil's advocate - how easily/quickly do you think they would have caught the marathon bombers 30 years ago?

Why does this matter? Did the cameras help prevent the attack? Or save anyone? They helped catch the perpetrators, but how much good does that do for those who were killed or injured?

Thinking that cameras make us safer is utter fallacy. You could have cameras everywhere, and they will NOT protect us from a terrorist attack. They'll make it easier to catch the perpetrator(s) after the attack, sure. But that's not the same thing as preventing an attack, is it? Especially since many terrorist attacks are suicide bombings these days, and those guys really don't care whether they end up on camera or not.

Pervasive surveillance is sold by authorities as something that enhances public safety, but in reality it does no such thing. It just erodes rights and makes it easier for those in power to control everyone.
 

Hoho

Ride to Eat
Why does this matter? Did the cameras help prevent the attack? Or save anyone? They helped catch the perpetrators, but how much good does that do for those who were killed or injured?

Thinking that cameras make us safer is utter fallacy. You could have cameras everywhere, and they will NOT protect us from a terrorist attack. They'll make it easier to catch the perpetrator(s) after the attack, sure. But that's not the same thing as preventing an attack, is it? Especially since many terrorist attacks are suicide bombings these days, and those guys really don't care whether they end up on camera or not.

Pervasive surveillance is sold by authorities as something that enhances public safety, but in reality it does no such thing. It just erodes rights and makes it easier for those in power to control everyone.


It did prevent an attack. By all accounts, they were planning on heading to bomb Times Square... they were caught before they could do so. Of course, it could have been better by preventing the Boston attack.
 

JPK

Well-known member
Why does this matter? Did the cameras help prevent the attack? Or save anyone?

Yes, by most accounts the cameras did prevent another attack and save lives. As Hoho said, they were caught before they could supposedly carry out the rest of their plan. If it had taken months to catch them using only forensics, who knows what else they would have done.
 

Daks

Jersey Devil
I love it when people pass judgment on something that they have zero experience with. Have you used this? Do you know that it's distracting and can't be operated intuitively?

While we're at it, why don't we also outlaw radios in cars, passengers, scenery, or anything else that would require a driver to, you know, pay attention. I agree that distracted driving is a problem, but FFS where does the nannying end? There are already laws against distracted driving. We don't need more laws, we need to improve the level of training of drivers. I've somehow managed to live just fine driving for the last 25 years while occasionally eating, tuning the radio, talking to passengers, and yes even (shudder) talking on the phone.

These are all lesser distractions. You can't deny that the rise of texting has had a huge toll on accidents and distracted driving.

I agree that going about it in an educated way is a far, far better way to go, but the cost, implementation and required rate of success will be tremendous at this point. Everyone can drive a car these days, no matter how stupid. And I'd love it if we had to re-take driving tests when we renewed our licenses and have stricter standards on passing...but now our society requires vehicles. Most people need to drive to live. They would all need to be re-educated and have enough brain cells to pass it and then retain that information and apply common sense and logic into their driving activities.

Then there's entitlement issues. Everyone knows you shouldn't drive distracted already, but many still do. They'll just answer this one text. They'll just eat this sandwich real quick this one time because. They'll get into a car with 5 drunk and rambunctious friends because the alternative is too inconvenient.

Believing that people will just understand is unrealistic at this point. Facebook and twitter and the internet will be in front of their faces at all times. And they'll all go "oh, I'm technically still looking at the road but it's behind this screen" which is about as effective as holding your phone up to the windshield and saying it's safe because you can look at the road right there.
The point is, you're not focused on it.

Someone posted that we need to think of how this benefits society. They're right. As a society, not you personally, do you think people will be responsible enough to wear something like the Glass while driving? Or is it going to be you and your bike plastered to their grill because a "omg did u c wut -insert celebrity- did" tweet was more important than paying attention to that blind corner that just snuck up on them?

Until now with the constant need of connection to others, the distracted driving problem had been relatively minor. You'd see the occasional crazy shit like people shaving in the car, or reading or turning around in their seat to smack kids in the legs for being little assholes. Changing the radio, having a passenger, eating finger food and admiring a view were minor problems in comparison to what we face now.

They won't outlaw them because they are still minor problems.
What I am saying is that the Glass will be even more of a problem than texting, which needs to be illegal because many people are too stupid, stubborn and entitled to stop even though they know very well they should.
 

JPK

Well-known member
These are all lesser distractions. You can't deny that the rise of texting has had a huge toll on accidents and distracted driving. (snip)

Sure I can. I haven't seen any data to support this. Have you? I've heard lots of fear-mongering and hand-wringing about it, but these sorts of emotional responses are typically without much data.

Whatever 'data' is presented, usually goes something like this.... "distracted driving deaths are on the rise, so we have to outlaw texting", as if texting is the only form of distraction and before the advent of cell phones we all focused on the road 100% of the time.

Think of it another way. I can buy a car that has a built-in GPS and radio that I have to look away from the road to operate (perfectly legally, mind you). What if I could see GPS directions, operate my music, make and receive calls, all without ever having to touch anything or look away from the road? Wouldn't that actually be safer than having to look down to see when the next turn is, or look down to use the built-in phone controls on my fancy in-car bluetooth? Why is the assumption that new technology is always inherently more distracting?

Take Siri as an example. I can have my cell phone sitting on my center console. I never have to look down at it. I can reach over and, by feel, press the iPhone button, invoke Siri, and voice dial someone. I can even have Siri read me text messages or send a message for me by dictating it to it (her). Isn't this an example of how technology has eliminated distraction?

My point in all of this is that the knee-jerk reaction that if it's new technology it must be bad is such an overly simplistic perspective, and to want to ban something before you've ever laid hands on it because you're afraid it might be distracting just panders to the lowest common denominator.
 

ilikefood

Well-known member
Yes, by most accounts the cameras did prevent another attack and save lives. As Hoho said, they were caught before they could supposedly carry out the rest of their plan. If it had taken months to catch them using only forensics, who knows what else they would have done.

That's true in this case, but this case can't be generalized to a "typical" terrorist attack. In a "typical" attack, the perpetrators would have blown themselves up, so the only benefit of the cameras would be to satisfy our curiosity about what exactly happened.

Even if cameras can, on rare occasions, prevent attacks, the disadvantages of living in a total-surveillance society aren't worth it.
Americans are about as likely to be killed in a terrorist attack as they are to be crushed to death by their own furniture. It's definitely not worth giving up what little remains of our privacy and our freedoms to "keep us safe" from something so incredibly rare.
 

JPK

Well-known member
It's still not clear to me why you would expect to have privacy when you're out in public.
 
Top