Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

eyetap.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 470 posts

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#161

Post by Schwolop »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #117
dsirijus wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thoughts exactly, though my sentiment is that Steve Mann deserves some thought from Glass engineers. I've been following his work for some years (decades) now, and while he is an "interesting" person, he has made many leaps in both design and tech involved, as well as testing.

Absolutely, the guy is a frickin' genius! All I know is we have three things: 1) A patent for the 'eyetrap' issued in 2003 with another 8 years or so to run. 2) A huge company with > $100B in the bank who has made a big publicity play betting on their technology that, on the surface clearly infringes. 3) No statements either from either party that a license is in place. In fact the Google Glass page should say "this…

The technology used in eyetrap and Google's glasses is sufficiently different that I doubt the eyetrap patent is really being infringed by Google. I doubt Steve has the money or desire to take Google to court anyway, and probably holds the patent as a defensive measure against himself being sued by someone like Google.

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#162

Post by Symmetry »

polyfractal wrote: post #39
alex_c wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The doctor's note is presumably to explain that the glasses cannot be removed easily and are actually implanted in him. A few years back he had airport security physically pull out wires out of him. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/14/technology/circuits/14MANN... (apparently "a few years back" is 10 years ago. Yikes.) Edit: a link to an old (1997) article about his glasses: http://www.wearcam.org/ieeecomputer/r2025.ht…

I'm trying really hard to understand why these glasses cannot be removed from his body. They are glorified video goggles...not an EEG connected to his brain. There is no good reason that they need to be bolted to his head. Hell, even gluing them on is excessive. Until someone can provide a good reason why this would be chronically implanted into him, I think this all smells like hype to me. And why no pictures of the…

The human visual system adapts to its inputs. If you wear glasses that flip whatever you see upside down you'll be confused for a few weeks, but eventually you'll adapt and at that point removing them will render you unable to see properly. I'd expect the same thing to happen with visual augmentation of the sort that Prof. Mann is wearing here. That is, without all the extra visual cues he's getting he'd have a hard time parsing normal vision.

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#163

Post by robomartin »

Oxryly wrote: post #137
robomartin wrote: post #126

> but I could use some help and advice as to how to resolve this matter This is bound to not be popular on HN, but, so be it. First bit of advice: Don't be such a dork. Respect others, their space and privacy. People don't want cameras pointed at them all the time. You might. I certainly don't. You can't just walk-up to people wearing a bunch of hardware and not expect a variety of reactions. If someone asks you to t…

Well good on you taking a reasoned but unpopular position. I agree that the description of the events seems to leave out a bit, particularly the emotional content of the interactions. The rig does look intimidating and I'm not sure how I'd react in person.

He goes from "we bought our food and sat down to eat it" to "this guy assaulted me". Really? Unless they have complete lunatics at that establishment I find that hard to believe. There's a large series of events before a non-criminal who isn't absolutely insane decides to attack you.

I'd love to see the store's surveillance video and read their account before choosing sides.

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#164

Post by robomartin »

nikatwork wrote: post #153
robomartin wrote: post #126

> but I could use some help and advice as to how to resolve this matter This is bound to not be popular on HN, but, so be it. First bit of advice: Don't be such a dork. Respect others, their space and privacy. People don't want cameras pointed at them all the time. You might. I certainly don't. You can't just walk-up to people wearing a bunch of hardware and not expect a variety of reactions. If someone asks you to t…

And don't wear your skirt so short, you're basically asking for it!

What evidence do you have that he did not provoke the incident?

Don't be so quick to take sides.

If you read my post carefully you'll notice that I did not blame him of the incident. How could I? Not one person reading this knows exactly what went on. People who jump at conclusions based on incomplete evidence scare me.

My comments had to do with manners and common sense. Don't go around rigged like a Borg and expect everyone to accommodate your presence. Be humble and respectful of others and seek permission before invading their privacy. It's that simple.

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#165

Post by Foy »

alex_c wrote: post #81
polyfractal wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying really hard to understand why these glasses cannot be removed from his body. They are glorified video goggles...not an EEG connected to his brain. There is no good reason that they need to be bolted to his head. Hell, even gluing them on is excessive. Until someone can provide a good reason why this would be chronically implanted into him, I think this all smells like hype to me. And why no pictures of the…

I stand corrected - it seems it was electrodes rather than implants. Some interesting comments on the old Slashdot story: http://it.slashdot.org/story/02/03/14/2051228/airport-securi... From reading the New York Times article, it doesn't sound like Mann had any "implants" "forcibly removed". It sounds like they tore electrodes off his body. In other words, they pulled tape off his skin, and it caused bleeding. Unplea…

In regards to that slashdot article's comment, the comparison to watching a movie screen doesn't really explain it for most of us, I think.

There was an experiment[1] that had participants wear vision-inverting glasses for a while. Eventually they started seeing everything right-side up through the glasses. In fact, their vision was upside down after they removed the glasses!! Although they re-adjusted after a little while, it'd certainly explain Mann's temporary disorientation and the subsequent need for a doctor's note.

Also, it'd be weird to conduct such experiments on yourself and not expect weird stuff like this to happen to you from time to time, especially when visiting foreign countries.

[1] George M. Stratton. Some preliminary experiments on vision. Psychological Review, 1896.

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#166

Post by einhverfr »

tibbon wrote: post #113
dr_ wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether it's money laundering or underreporting revenues, the implication is that something is awry at this McDonalds. The author is probably doing McDonald's Corp. a service by contacting them. They should address it, immediately.

Precisely. You could also put a kilo of cocaine into a cane or walker. Yet, assaulting every older/disabled person using such would be downright criminal.

Assaulting anybody is downright criminal in most jurisdictions.

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#167

Post by jbarham »

pg wrote: post #26

No one at an ordinary McDonald's would even notice such a device. Ergo this was not an ordinary McDonald's, but one with security people looking for cameras. Why would a McDonald's have security people looking for cameras? Possibly because it was a mafia front. If you wanted to launder money, a fast food restaurant in a popular location would be a good place to do it. The way the employees behaved is consistent with…

Call me crazy, but operating the highest profile McDonald's franchise in Europe is probably not the first thing I'd consider if I needed to launder some money.

But setting up a venture capital fund in Silicon Valley, given today's ridiculous valuations, seems like an excellent way to launder money.

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#168

Post by einhverfr »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #122
jlgreco wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You throw out the merchandise with the highest profit margins while reporting fake sales. Bars are traditionally popular for money laundering because everyone pays in cash, liquor has absolutely insane mark-up, and it's really easy to pour it down the drain. I imagine a fastfood restaurant would not work as well, but who knows.

Plus if you're not automatically controlling portions, a bottle of liquor can have a very wide range of plausible drinks-sold-per-bottle. Probably by a factor of two or so.

My brother was in a bar once where he ordered a shot of whisky and it came in at about 4-5 oz or so. Maybe it was money laundering?

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#169

Post by ww520 »

This is an outrageous assault and battery. This is a criminal act. I hope the police are involved and arrests are made.

Steve Mann is the father of wearable computer. I remember seeing him as a undergrad in MIT wearing those clumsy camera and computer at the belt. He is the pioneer in real cyborg tech.

Post reply on HN