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

Glasshole

penny-arcade.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 106 posts

Re: Glasshole

#71

Post by seanmcdirmid »

brk wrote: post #69
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like CCTVs are pervasive already. Anyways, they'll eventually get Glass down to where it's unnoticeable, then the awkwardness will disappear even if...the problem still exists.

The average CCTV camera shot has no audio and very poor overall detail. And, unless you happen to stand in one perfect spot for a long time, anything they capture is a fleeting moment at best. Glass is capturing full audio and video, in usable quality, of the person the wearer is interacting with.

It can capture, but their is a light on the device that turns on when it is capturing video to let people around know that. The problem is that people don't know about this convention, and so just assume the worst.

Re: Glasshole

#72

Post by lurkinggrue »

jessep wrote: post #70

I'm confused about the transition from Glass (Google product, no?) to discussion of Microsoft's messaging problems. Can someone explain the relationship?

It's a gaming comic and Xbox is major in the conversation this week.

The only reason for the Glass diversion is Gabe got one this week as well and they are living with it.

Re: Glasshole

#73

Post by mjn »

gaius wrote: post #5
ironchief wrote: post #3

He brings up a very good point that a lot the information humans pickup is from each other's faces. The nonverbal feedback facilitates turn-taking in conversation as well as emotional feedback. Perhaps Glass causes visceral reactions because of the combination of its foreignness (unlike glasses) and proximity to the face.

Over and above the privacy issues, you can never have the undivided attention of someone wearing Glass. That's deeply off-putting. Imagine trying to have a conversation with someone as they listened to headphones and stared at their phone the whole time.

That was the reaction I had years ago (2004), when I was interviewing at Georgia Tech for PhD positions, and had a meeting with Thad Starner (http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~thad/).

He's a really smart guy, and friendly, but his heads-up display came across as very distracting to me, mostly because of how it interfered with "intuitive" reading of eye gaze. When he was looking vaguely in my direction it was difficult to tell when he was looking "through" the heads-up display and focusing on me, and when he was focusing instead on the HUD. It made the whole conversation feel quite surreal.

Re: Glasshole

#74

Post by bilbo0s »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #55
doktrin wrote: post #29

It will take a while before I am comfortable with others wearing Glass around me. The thought of speaking to someone wearing the device makes me a little uncomfortable. I realize that may sound a little luddite-esque to certain members of this community, but there you have it. This is a resistance that I'm sure is shared by many in the general public. It's something we all may get used to eventually, but I honestly p…

It's not like CCTVs are pervasive already. Anyways, they'll eventually get Glass down to where it's unnoticeable, then the awkwardness will disappear even if...the problem still exists.

Well... the problem won't go away... I think people will just get more paranoid.

Basically... society will just be a bit uneasy [around people wearing glass]. Then, the first divorce case, or "loss of employment because of mistimed comment about ... say ... hispanics ... while at a bar" case will happen. At which point most people are going to start being VERY careful about who they talk to and where.

Re: Glasshole

#75

Post by joe_the_user »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #55
doktrin wrote: post #29

It will take a while before I am comfortable with others wearing Glass around me. The thought of speaking to someone wearing the device makes me a little uncomfortable. I realize that may sound a little luddite-esque to certain members of this community, but there you have it. This is a resistance that I'm sure is shared by many in the general public. It's something we all may get used to eventually, but I honestly p…

It's not like CCTVs are pervasive already. Anyways, they'll eventually get Glass down to where it's unnoticeable, then the awkwardness will disappear even if...the problem still exists.

Anyways, they'll eventually get Glass down to where it's unnoticeable

I doubt it. The awareness and general resistance to glass has so-far spread faster than glass itself. If a glass that looked exactly like ordinary glasses came out, there would be both a general complaint and general suspicion of anyone wearing ordinary glasses.

It's doubtful that they could make glass invisible without even more complaints and if glass wasn't invisible, it would be noticed because what people expands based on the focus of their attention.

Re: Glasshole

#76

Post by dgallagher »

doktrin wrote: post #29

It will take a while before I am comfortable with others wearing Glass around me. The thought of speaking to someone wearing the device makes me a little uncomfortable. I realize that may sound a little luddite-esque to certain members of this community, but there you have it. This is a resistance that I'm sure is shared by many in the general public. It's something we all may get used to eventually, but I honestly p…

It's common to walk around naked in locker rooms at gyms and what-not. I make it a point to remove my sunglasses before entering just so others can see my eyes, otherwise you'll come off as creepy. I've never seen anyone try to snap a photo with their phone either (never a good idea near people in-shape).

Now with glass-like tech, it's more subtle. You'll not only have to remove them, carrying an "always-on" camera in your hand might not resonate well either; you'll have to encase them away from light entirely.

Essentially, I think people would want some sort of indication that it's truly disabled in scenarios where they would be uncomfortable with it around. A whole new world of etiquette is about to open.

The last major change we had was with cell phones. That continues to evolve, decades after availability. I wonder what paths glass-tech etiquette will take?

Re: Glasshole

#77

Post by mitchty »

showerst wrote: post #60
ntumlin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people seeing footage of me in public. Well, not too much. I've always thought that since 1) the recording is legal (AFAIK) and 2) I'm okay with it, everyone else should be and if they aren't, too bad. I've come to realize that this is a Terrible Thought. PRISM is (arguably) legal, and there are plenty of people that support it, yet I am completely against the program. This is…

The interesting thing about glass is how quickly it blurs the definition of 'public'. I know that anything I say out loud on a street corner is fair game, and (less explicitly) in a restaurant or bar, but what about a house party? At a friends' dinner table? While watering my back lawn in my gym shorts? Right now the obviousness of (most) recording sets the social norm at "don't point a camera at someone in most situ…

Spot on, the issue that people have with the concept of everyone always recording (or at least being able to obtain what they saw over the past N minutes) has to do with an implicit part of the human social contract up until this point.

Basically you could go outside in "public" and within legal bounds do what you wanted with minimal repercussions or lasting impact. But if someone with these devices records you, now there can be a permanent record of you doing, say dancing crazy at a street corner because you felt like it, and that can be associated with you forever.

Yes you did this action in public, but up until these devices are ubiquitous, you likely had the ability to spot people recording you. In the future, anyone looking at you becomes a potential data broker. I don't foresee this doing anything but causing people to curb somewhat abnormal behavior in public for fear of the repercussions.

Or who knows maybe everyone will start doing crazy stuff like dancing for no reason really badly and nobody will care because it doesn't matter and eventually blurs the line of "normal in public".

eh, back to other stuff.

Re: Glasshole

#78

Post by Jach »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #71
brk wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average CCTV camera shot has no audio and very poor overall detail. And, unless you happen to stand in one perfect spot for a long time, anything they capture is a fleeting moment at best. Glass is capturing full audio and video, in usable quality, of the person the wearer is interacting with.

It can capture, but their is a light on the device that turns on when it is capturing video to let people around know that. The problem is that people don't know about this convention, and so just assume the worst.

And if I ever get a glass, that little feature is being hacked right out one way or another. Many others will do the same. In the meantime I get to watch and laugh as people forget there are billions of people in the world. People who are afraid of being "The Guy" because once upon a time your small social group was your entire world... Yet the vast majority of people in the world have no idea who Lena Söderberg is or have even seen her picture.

Re: Glasshole

#79

Post by dustingetz »

lmkg wrote: post #41

So I just remembered that I actually have some personal experience with this issue. My girlfriend is getting her PhD in computer vision, and one of her labmates was working on summarization algorithms (imagine a program that could take 6 hours of continuous footage, and spit out a 1-minute highlight reel). She volunteered to wear a camera for a day to gather data for him, and she asked me permission to do so while we…

weird for our generation, but our kids will grow up with glass.

Re: Glasshole

#80

Post by bentcorner »

lostlogin wrote: post #53
bentcorner wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thought of speaking to someone wearing the device makes me a little uncomfortable. I realize that may sound a little luddite-esque to certain members of this community, but there you have it. Not to me. It's the social equivalent of walking around holding your smartphone, recording everything. Sure, you might not actually be recording everything, but when you hold it up like that I have no idea if you are. An a…

Your behaviour doesn't change when someone points a camera at you? At least with a cell phone you get a few clues that someone might be recording and get a choice about whether to modify behaviour or not.

Sorry, I quoted poorly - I was agreeing with the parent

> "I realize that may sound a little luddite-esque to certain members of this community"

This does not sound luddite-esque to me at all, and entirely reasonable.

Post reply on HN