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

Google Glass

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 591 posts

Re: Google Glass

#301

Post by waterlesscloud »

jgroome wrote: post #175
artursapek wrote: post #150

I am seriously concerned about this. I was in a long-distance relationship this summer. We would take turns visiting each other in our respective cities roughly 5 hours apart. It was a pretty long journey for a weekend - it would sometimes take 10 hours one way since you had to go through New York. Of course, it was worth it. But whenever we would go on a walk, or I'd take her out to dinner, I got as much face time w…

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…

If you're hearing the same point made from a lot of quarters, then maybe there's an actual phenomenon behind it.

But more than that, Glass is fundamentally different.

It's designed, from the concept up, to always be in your awareness. That's what it is. That's the entire appeal of it.

That's not a book, and it's not even a smartphone that spends most of its time in your pocket.

It's something that always demands some fraction of your attention.

It's different.

Re: Google Glass

#302

Post by stcredzero »

blhack wrote: post #228
artursapek wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. You drank it, right? You weren't watching a character drink a machine-made coffee on a screen.

And your girlfriend who was looking at instragram while she was walking with you, was she looking at the pictures, or was she watching another character look at them?

She probably smelled way better than her avatar.

(And if you think this is just being crude, then something essential and primal has been lost for you.)

Re: Google Glass

#303

Post by jedahan »

artursapek wrote: post #150

I am seriously concerned about this. I was in a long-distance relationship this summer. We would take turns visiting each other in our respective cities roughly 5 hours apart. It was a pretty long journey for a weekend - it would sometimes take 10 hours one way since you had to go through New York. Of course, it was worth it. But whenever we would go on a walk, or I'd take her out to dinner, I got as much face time w…

You may like this short film called Sight http://vimeo.com/46304267 . The ending isn't great, but pretty much everything else is neat.

Re: Google Glass

#304

Post by abraininavat »

lifeformed wrote: post #245
abraininavat wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I speak to human beings daily. I've known dozens, or maybe hundreds, of human beings who have never been so rude as to pay more attention to their devices than to me when in the middle of a conversation. Anyone who would do that would be the exception rather than the rule. Is it your opinion that I'm in some anecdotal bubble that's not representative of the rest of society? Or are you perhaps taking a bad experience…

I don't think artursapek is arguing that these technologies are bad. There's certainly a time and place for them all, but they shouldn't be a substitute for a social situation. If I invited my friends out to a dinner and everyone brought a book with them and just read the entire time, I'd be just as pissed as if they were on their phone the entire time. There's' also certainly something fundamentally different about…

What?

> Books are intentional - you've committed to a topic, and there's a finite amount of information to digest. When you're checking social media, you don't know what you're going to get, but it'll probably keep you occupied.

This is a bizarre argument. 1. In what way is a book more intentional than Facebook? How is visiting Facebook an unintentional act? I don't think you're using the common definition of 'intentional'. 2. "You've committed to a topic." How is this a substantial difference? What if I don't know the topic of the book before I start reading it? And when I read a newspaper, do I know the topic any more than when I browse social media? 3. "There's a finite amount of information to digest." Even admitting this is true (which is sort of a stretch), again, how is this a substantial difference? The fact that the information is infinite doesn't imply the amount of time I choose to spend on the information is infinite. 4. "You're consuming mostly trivial information." By what standard? What you're consuming is information about the people you know. How is this more trivial than reading 50 Shades of Gray? 5. "it's probably something best kept in moderation." Sure.. so is reading books for leisure. So is reading books for school. So is working. So is eating. So is everything you do, regardless of its nature.

You two aren't saying anything substantial.

The OP doesn't like social media, online shopping, or horoscopes, and he doesn't like people who spend lots of time engaged in them. Fine, we get it. I don't happen to like those things either. But I don't act as if that means anything.

Re: Google Glass

#305

Post by olefoo »

Dirlewanger wrote: post #235
artursapek wrote: post #150

I am seriously concerned about this. I was in a long-distance relationship this summer. We would take turns visiting each other in our respective cities roughly 5 hours apart. It was a pretty long journey for a weekend - it would sometimes take 10 hours one way since you had to go through New York. Of course, it was worth it. But whenever we would go on a walk, or I'd take her out to dinner, I got as much face time w…

You're preaching it brother. Same age bracket and same disdain for our smartphones. They are great utilities to have but some of the applications on them people can't help but be addicted to, and for many it spills over into physical interaction with others. Sad part is that many don't care. Seeing gaggles of peers out together at a bar, coffee shop, there's usually at least one with their head down, and then there's…

> They are great utilities to have but some of the applications on them people can't help but be addicted to

It's worth remembering that much of the addictiveness of consumer oriented services is informed by the work of BJ Fogg, a professor a Stanford [1]. While it's hard to lay the burden for Instagram/Facebook/Twitter etc. entirely at his door; it is the simple minded application of his ideas to the urgent necessity to grow and hold an audience that has created the recent plague of attention sinks that do little to make people's lives better.

1. http://captology.stanford.edu/projects/behaviordesign.html

Re: Google Glass

#306

Post by stcredzero »

wmeredith wrote: post #126
ybaumes wrote: post #95

I am really excited, but really does everyone wants Google to track your path everywhere you go, everything single stuff you're watching? :-/ I am assuming the glasses themselves have nearly no cpu capabilities, thus it must be mandatory to export any computation wirelessly toward Google servers, right?

>>but really does everyone wants Google to track your path everywhere you go, everything single stuff you're watching? I feel like the speedy proliferation of smartphones into the fabric of everyday life has answered your question with a resounding, "No one cares". The benefits of what essentially amounts to ESP (text, email, telephony) and fact-based omniscience (access to the internet, real time directions, weather…

How much is empowerment, and how much is noise?

Re: Google Glass

#308

Post by kbenson »

blazingfrog2 wrote: post #276
mkr-hn wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the one hand, I completely agree. On the other, we need people like artursapek to make us think about how far we're willing to go into the digital abyss. And we need people like you to offer the counterarguments to the counterarguments. And maybe people like me to remind everyone that our natural social checks and balances are still working perfectly. For what it's worth, I never see people with their smartphones…

I don't know you or your background but I'm going to guess you may not be part of that younger generation (late high school, early college years) who was literally born with a computer in their crib and came into their teen years with with a smart phone in their hand. I'm often reminded of the divide between them and my generation (born in the mid 70's) when I visit friends who have children that age, or even in publ…

When a mobile network terminal (which is really what these phones are) is seen as a logical extension of you brain (google is always at hand, stored notes, etc) and perceptions (a text message can be likened to a friendly wave from across the room, you get to choose your own interaction level from that point), it's natural to have it always at hand, and ready.

If others perceive you to be inattentive because you check your phone, that's old-world thinking. I'm sure many people have attention problems, and may not apply the correct amount of attention to local stimuli, but then again, maybe they just don't find what happening immediately around them all that interesting at the time.

A phone can enhance a conversation. One participant can take a few moments to research something that was just discussed while listening in on further conversation, and then re-enter the active portion of the conversation with new, and useful, information.

Is short, we are in a transition period. There's learning to be done about the best way to deal with all the new capabilities we have (because that's what they are, enhancements to us), as well as social norms that need to adapt.

Re: Google Glass

#309

Post by cpher »

lhnz wrote: post #43
bobsy wrote: post #14

I didn't realise how bad it looks. The premise looks awesome. The demo video... awesome. The way the product looks on someone's face... this isn't the finished product right? I think Google should look at designer glasses and outsource the design to someone who knows what they are doing.

http://econogirl.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/braces.jpg The metal line is reminiscent of a head brace, while the projector makes you look like cyborg escaped from a Halloween party. They will need a stunning amount of marketing and advertising for this to become socially acceptable. I guess it could be a little bit worse, I can see they were trying to go for sleek... I think the greater problem was that the actual us…

I disagree. I think around the home and at family gatherings it would be really cool. I can just wear the glasses as my kids do things, without worry that I might miss the "perfect" timing of an event. No more reaching for my Canon Rebel/iPhone/etc--it's just on. How many parents knew that their kids were about to take their first steps, only to miss the opportunity to record it. Yes, it's silly, but parents are very sentimental and the idea of preserving family memories like this is very attractive. Or even video conferencing with grandma, etc. I see the attraction to this product coming from private people rather than public. I.e. they'll want to use it as a way to record their private lives, share memories, etc.

Re: Google Glass

#310

Post by stcredzero »

artursapek wrote: post #150

I am seriously concerned about this. I was in a long-distance relationship this summer. We would take turns visiting each other in our respective cities roughly 5 hours apart. It was a pretty long journey for a weekend - it would sometimes take 10 hours one way since you had to go through New York. Of course, it was worth it. But whenever we would go on a walk, or I'd take her out to dinner, I got as much face time w…

When I was in my teens and 20's, if it was acceptable for you to kiss someone, it was just as acceptable for you to take off their glasses and remove whatever they were holding in their hand then kiss them. Is that still true?
Post reply on HN