Google Glass • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Glass

#521

Post by GHFigs » Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 2:50 AM UTC

Lagged2Death wrote: post #498

jgroome wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear what you're saying, and I appreciate that you put the time in to write that out, but honestly I'm hearing this kind of argument from so many quarters ("we never look up!" "we all talk, but we never converse !" etc etc) recently that it's starting to get obnoxious. Conversation is not dead. People have been moaning about how we're all becoming socially isolated since the publication of the first novel. The art…

People have been moaning about how we're all becoming socially isolated since the publication of the first novel. The art of socialising has been declared dying ever since the first VHS was available to buy and watch at home. You're not offering anything more than an assertion that they're wrong, though. That is, you're using the same anecdata standard of evidence that they are: "My friends and I have cell phones but…

See also Sherry Turkle[1], Nicholas Carr[2], etc.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Alone-Together-Expect-Technology-Other... [2] http://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp...

Re: Google Glass

#522

Post by runn1ng » Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 2:59 AM UTC

I know it's a terrible note.... but I can't tell if that black person with the google glass on the photo is a man or a woman.

I really can't tell.

Re: Google Glass

#523

Post by ghshephard » Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 3:01 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #499

vacri wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, you're only giving credit to google for the first year of their product. NASA was nowhere near the moon in 1959. Where's the level playing field here? Similarly 'access to the internet' isn't the same as use of it. Those 100 million weren't using the internet with any degree of the pervasiveness we see today. It absorbed all the highly talented engineers All of them? Wow. developed the technology that defined…

> Again, you're only giving credit to google for the first year of their product. NASA was nowhere near the moon in 1959. Right. But the .com bubble was ending the first year of Google's product in 2000, while commercialization of space technology through things like Space X (which are leveraging NASA's developments) is happening 50 years after 1959. If you're going to give Google credit for internet uptake, you have…

I was with you right up until you wrote this:

"Do a thought experiment. Say we don't have Google, or its clones like Bing, etc. And say we don't have a replacement"

You must be a very different knowledge work than I am. Every 3-5 minutes I'm typically typing something into the my URL bar to get the appropriate page on the internet to solve my questions. Google has become an extension of my mind - I guarantee you that AltaVist/AskJeeves/Excite/Yahoo never provided me that kind of ability.

Aside from that nit, I'm totally enjoying your general theme about putting Google's contributions in context though.

Re: Google Glass

#524

Post by adriand » Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 3:11 AM UTC

vibrunazo wrote: post #506

sshconnection wrote: post #438

Dear god, so many haters in here. It's a brand new prototype product, and people are complaining about minor features etc. What is wrong with you people? I thought this was a board full of hackers. If you can't see the massive potential in this, you may be in the wrong place.

> I thought this was a board full of hackers. Complete opposite. This board is full of people interested in startups and looking to get a better grasp of technology. But only a tiny minority here actually code, if you're looking for that you should probably try a more specific coding board or group. Also, people around here are obsessed with, what they call "playing devil's advocate" or "offering a counter point". Wh…

> only a tiny minority here actually code

I don't think that's true at all. I would guess that the majority of HN users can code, and that many of them - certainly not a "tiny minority" - do on a regular basis. If HN polls are at all accurate, they seem to bear out that conclusion:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1544581 (admittedly, old)

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3785277 (less than a year old, and shows a majority have learned CS)

These are in line with what I've generally seen of the HN community.

Re: Google Glass

#525

Post by discodave » Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 3:25 AM UTC

vicbrooker wrote: post #202

ceejayoz wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since it's attached to your head, it may be possible for them to match vibrations with speech input and verify that you're the one who said it. Would help in noisy environments, as well.

That's a really good solution - from memory a similar system is used on the headsets worn on Sydney Harbour Bridge tours. I'd forgotten about them until you mentioned vibrations. I'm actually going to be disappointed if they don't have this in some form. I guess the most elegant solution would be to read skull vibrations rather than use voice at all - I'm not sure how viable that would be though.

That's not for voice recognition, it's to replace the headphone SPEAKERS because it's so windy on the bridge. The thing sits on the bone just in front of your ear. It's a really funny sensation but works well.

But I assume the same system would work in reverse.

Re: Google Glass

#526

Post by vacri » Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 3:40 AM UTC

krapp wrote: post #516

vacri wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, when asked "how it's changed people's lives", the best you can come up with is "they watched it on TV"? That's one of the most banal examples possible of 'changing lives'. But I guarantee fifty years from now nobody's going to be telling their grandchildren where they were when Google came out with anything Which is part of the romantic thing, not the merit thing. I can tell you where I was when Lady Di died, but…

No, you're right. Seeing humans walk on the moon changed people's lives in the same way seeing 9/11 on tv changed people's lives, or seeing JFK get shot on tv changed people's lives. In that it was a monumental, historic and transfixing event. Not at all like the first time you opened maps and saw street view. I concede the point.

I asked how it changed lives, and you said "they saw it on TV". Nothing indicating what people now did once that event had passed.

As opposed to mapping, which doesn't wow you as much when you see it - it's not entertainment - but has made significant changes to the way people conduct their lives. People do things that they didn't do before because of maps. The moon shot, while an event in itself, yes, didn't in itself change the way people relate and interact.

Also, I was far more wowed when I first saw street view than when I first saw JFK's assassination. Prominent politicians have been assasssinated at least as far back as Julius Caesar, but showing me a picture of just about any street location in the developed world? That's something new, interesting, ambitious, and yes, even life-changing. I've seen people use it regularly to find out what their destination looks like before they set out, to make it easier to find where they are. JFK was just another head of state getting shot. Big event, sure, but hardly something new or original like you seem to be demanding here.

Re: Google Glass

#527

Post by narrator » Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 3:43 AM UTC

aeturnum wrote: post #431

Evbn wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it's been said forever, it's not really a new threat. Small talk was always pointless.

>Small talk was always pointless. I used to have this view. I like talking about interesting subjects, comparing understandings of complex issues, understanding different viewpoints. However, I realized that small talk is an important part of that. It's a system that lets you and the other party feel each other out without committing social transgressions. It's what lets you guess that someone would say "Hitler was r…

Has anyone else become hyper-specialized in their interests because of pervasive connectivity? I've gotten to the point where on some topics there are zero people I know personally that I could have a conversation with about these topics unless I did all of the talking.

I find people to talk intelligently about these topics through online niche forums. It's so weird sometimes because I've got a small talk personae for "normal people" and then everything I talk about online which is highly specialized and takes a while to explain, even to an interested listener.

Re: Google Glass

#528

Post by 6ren » Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 3:48 AM UTC

csharpminor wrote: post #500

6ren wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the first iPhone was embarrassing to use, would it have hindered or enhanced adoption? Jonathan Ive will design a nice version, Apple will own the market, and google will aghast "but... we were first...". Google glasses look cool as an object - it's just that they look bad when worn. For a start, make them symmetrical (even if the "other" projector is fake).

I completely agree. I think this is the reason why bluetooth headsets haven't really had overwhelming appeal (except with certain marked segments, such as businessmen). If a product isn't sexy, people won't use it – and that's especially true with wearable technology. For me, it's not the asymmetry of the projector but the massive back-end. You can tell even Google knows this is unattractive because their model is we…

Was that just in the early prototype? The bulk at the back of present design looks OK to me: http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/ (3rd image from the bottom). Just going by appearance, there are ordinary sunglasses with a similar bulk. And the compute unit will only get smaller year by year.

I'm actually kinda amazed they've managed to make it that small - OTOH, I see the key point of the project is a way to make hardware smaller yet still be usable (because we don't need a large screen).

Re: Google Glass

#529

Post by derekchiang » Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 3:53 AM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #517

waterlesscloud wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you're articulating as the vision, but I'm not seeing it in the promo video. I mostly see people recording a lot of activities. What specifically in the video excites you?

Off the top of my head, instant sharing of anything without futzing around with a discrete device. How many moments are missed because a camera wasn't ready or the app took to long to load? "Ok glass, record a video" Bam. If it works in real life at the same speed as in the video, I don't think this effect can be overstated. It allows you to share while still being a participant in the experience (as opposed to the g…

Yes, this will be very, very big.

Re: Google Glass

#530

Post by vacri » Thu, Feb 21, 2013, 3:54 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #518

vacri wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do a thought experiment. Sure, do one of your own. Have the developers of all your things use only the resource searching of the mid-90s. Watch all those technologies slow down considerably. This is part of what I mean when I say catalyst . Got a weird problem? I hope you happen to be in just the right group or forum that happens to have a willing expert. Personally, I like how you completely disallow me any influenc…

> This is part of what I mean when I say catalyst. Got a weird problem? I hope you happen to be in just the right group or forum that happens to have a willing expert. A catalyst, in common parlance, is something that gets a reaction going under circumstances which it would not otherwise proceed. Google cannot be a catalyst if the "reaction" was already roaring by the time it had any influence. Does Google make life…

Industrial America was brought into existence in 1901? I mean, you've been telling me that Google doesn't really count because they had predecessors, and here you are saying that Industrial America essentially sprang into existence in 1901 at the behest of US Steel. Again and again you refuse to play on a level field.

Also, in common parlance, a catalyst is also something that speeds things along. A catalyst for change' doesn't mean that change would never have happened, just that it was significantly facilitated.