How to Wear Google Glass and Not Be a Glasshole

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
There have been a couple of parties with coworkers and friends of my wife where someone will show up wearing the glasses. The second they walk in, you see their smug expression as they seem to be convinced that the whole room, let alone anyone, gives a shit. "Yeah, I am in the Glass Explorer program. I KNOW people." Most people pretend to be mildly interested and anyone that tries them on is totally underwhelmed but pretends to be impressed because giving an honest assessment to the techie-hipster that owns them would feel too much like kicking an annoying little yap dog...maybe the dog deserves it, but it's just a little dog that doesn't know any better so kicking it is just sort of cruel.Then as soon as the glass-douche bails on the party, everyone can openly say how dumb they thought the glasses, and their owner, were. I am actually heartened by the fact that the majority of people seem to respond negatively to this product. It gives me some glimmer of hope for humanity's future.
 
I'm not sure why so many are being negative about this technology.
It's little different to various gizmos portrayed in Hollywood movies
which at the time were regarded as cool, eg. the tech in Minority Report.

Besides, people said the same negative things about mobiles 20 years ago.
Look where we are now. Ditto the Walkman and any number of clothing
styles when they first appeared.

Fashions change, things move on. What was once considered bizarre
becomes the norm years later. As soon as some big name celebs start
using Glass, or they show up in a popular movie, attitudes will change.
These things all move with mass opinion, and that's never a constant.

Irony is, some of the most useful applications of Glass may be in the
industrial/commercial sector rather than the consumer space, such as
rescue workers, police, fire, medical, environmental, engineering,
maintenance, mining, space sciences, etc. A device that provides data
I/O & coms with voice recognition while keeping one's hands completely
free is potentially extremely useful to a wide variety of people.

IMO it's a rather peculiar response to belittle this device so early in its
development based purely on personal opinions of fashion & style, and
I bet many would change their mind in a heartbeat if the majority opinion
didn't agree with their current negative view. Doubly so if one is only
thinking about its possible uses from an entertainment perspective.

Read your comment a decade from now, that'll be the real test.


Btw, given current events in Kiev, imagine this future scenario: protestors
can film what is happening in front of them, communicate with fellow
activists, etc., while having both hands free to do whatever physical
actions are required in front of them - building barricades, etc. Would
also mean vast numbers of video clips available for use as evidence
against illegal acts by police, etc. Just one example. Think about Glass
from a non-entertainment angle and its possible uses are just endless.

Glass is only the first product of its kind. Think back to what the first
reasonably viable commercial aeroplane was like, the early commercial
services of the 1920s, compare to what we have today with global
air travel. Gadgets like Glass will evolve too, become more powerful,
more flexible, etc. Could a passenger in 1925 have imagined Concorde
or the 777? Who knows what 2nd or 3rd generation Glass devices will
allow one to do? I suspect they will be welcomed openly by those in
future civil rights actions & protests.

Ian.

 
Read your comment a decade from now, that'll be the real test.
Click to expand...
A decade from now, my previous comment will read like some sort of backward-looking technophobic silliness. Everyone will be plugged into something like Glass. It is inevitable.My issue, and many people's issue really, is not that Glass is useless. It has tremendous potential for meaningful applications. The issue is that it is going to end up being the next evolution of instant gratification entertainment. TV, smartphones and Glass all have legitimate uses and can better humanity if used wisely. Instead, they are primarily big sources of brain-drain intended to get people hooked on them to ensure eyeballs are available for ads. People ARE the product with these things. Many people already treat their phones like electronic pacifiers, and Glass is just going to be the next evolution of that, making total-entertainment even more effortless. Cheap, effortless entertainment with 24/7 availability is bad for people because people are notoriously bad at moderating pleasure-consumption. I am sure that a Glass-like product will find acceptance in industrial and medical settings, but the real money maker is going to be getting people to treat this like an appendage that they cannot part with. Google is a business like any other, and their goal is to make money. All sorts of companies claim to have a "higher" goal than profit, but it's incredibly naive to believe any of them. I don't accuse Google of TRYING to make people dumber with glass, but if Glass is to be profitable, that will be the consequence. I hold the same criticisms for TV networks and various social media platforms. So do many others. It won't stop something like Glass from becoming the norm like smartphones have, but not everyone thinks that this fits the definition of "progress." It's hard to define it, but endless low-quality entertainment and the encouragement of narcissism don't seem to fit in there. They ARE incredibly profitable though, and we live in a society where profit is GOD.
 
Judging by the accompanying photos I was expecting number one to be "Do be a hot babe/dude that can get away with anything with a coy smile."
 
I can't wait to start seeing people wearing these. I'll take the opportunity to walk up to them and test out the voice circuits by saying, "glass, display nude pictures of Ernist Borgnine".
 
Google is always with the people, off the people and by the people. Slowly but surely google glass is gaining popularity among us and such type of initiative should be taken. Good job Google.
 
Interesting that writers are talking about 'looking out a decade'. I think if you look out a decade you'll find that these devices will have legal limits placed on their ability to record. I'd think if google had just added an LED hard wired to the camera so that people would know when it was recording then most of the complainers you currently see talking about how "we'll ban it in our establishment" would disappear. The problem I see is that when I see someone trying to record strangers in public I immediately assume they're a creeper... so if you don't know if a glass user is recording... the automatic assumption... creeper... and who wants that sort of person in your bar/restaurant?
 
Want to always look like a glasshole? Just wear our Google glass, everyone will be looking at you and thinking, god I'm glad I don't look like that idiot. So if you starve for attention then this is the product for you. Have a great day ya glasshole!
 
They don't fold, their battery life sucks and users get headaches from eyestrain.Now we will start seeing the effects of distracted walking worse than the early days of Sony Walkmans.
 
bmwman91 writes:
> ... The issue is that it is going to end up being the next evolution of instant gratification entertainment. ...

Sadly you're right on that point for sure. It's always the way with any new tech, can't be avoided I suppose.

Hopefully though, any bad publicity from that sort of thing will not make it harder to exploit Glass for
more useful & sensible applications.


> Glass is just going to be the next evolution of that, making total-entertainment even more effortless. ...

If Glass becomes too much a product dominated by ads, etc., somebody else will make a rival
device that operates in a different way, assuming there is sufficient demand.


> ... Cheap, effortless entertainment with 24/7 availability is bad for people because people are
> notoriously bad at moderating pleasure-consumption. ...

Reminds me of Leslie Winkle's comment in BBT about the lab rat and the orgasm button. :}


> maker is going to be getting people to treat this like an appendage that they cannot part with. ...

Sadly that's probably not that hard to do given the way people already behave with modern phones.


rwinches writes:
> ... Now we will start seeing the effects of distracted walking worse than the early days of Sony Walkmans.

No different than the way lots of people today end up in accidents because their portable device earphones
prevent them from hearing an oncoming car or a shouted warning about some pending peril. Happens all
the time, but nobody really cares anymore. Even worse are the vast numbers of idiots who cross a road
while gawping at their phones, completely ignoring the traffic flow, etc.


d_kuhn writes:
> ... I think if you look out a decade you'll find that these devices will have legal limits placed on their ability
> to record.

That will depend greatly on one's location in the world. I can imagine it becoming very restrictive in the US,
given the way laws are progressing over there, but I expect it'll remain fairly open in much of Europe. Besides,
unless the device has a physical block that prevents recording somehow, I can't see how any laws could be
enforced. Beyond a certain point, expecting the legal system to control how these devices are used is just
too impractical, though won't stop many nations from clamping down in whatever way they can.

Ian.

 
How not to be a Glasshole: Don't go everywhere shouting "Hey! Look at me! Hey! HEY! I SAID EVERYBODY LOOK AT ME!"Wait, never mind. You're wearing them, so that's already what you're doing.
 
mapesdhs:Sadly that's probably not that hard to do given the way people already behave with modern phones.
Click to expand...
Thumbs-up for having a good discussion.<br>As with almost anything, this can all really boil down to a philosophical debate about the meaning of life. What does it mean to be human? Why are we here? If we could find the answer to those questions (not even the right one, just one that was universally agreed upon), we could then define "progress" and work unilaterally toward it.<br>Stephen Hawking has postulated that humans will inevitably take direct control of DNA and integrate themselves with technology to become cybernetic beings (in a century or two given our current rate of development). He has also said that that transformation would be met with a lot of resistance, despite its inevitability. I think he is right.<br>Maybe I am just too attached to our biological form as it is now, but I get worried by the idea of growing more dependent on technology because it can dull and weaken us if it isn't used responsibly. But, that is all predicated on my view that people should be self-reliant and capable in their own physical form. Too much integration with the virtual world created by technology seems to rob us of the experience of being alive, as arbitrary as such a thing may be.<br>If history is any indicator, we will simply continue to build technology that replaces more and more of the functions we do ourselves with people like me kicking and screaming. I just hope that it is the "right" choice for us to be making as a species. We won't know if it is "right" until we answer the big questions at the beginning of this post...in which case, we may never know!
 
And for god's sake, how do you get the comments on here to properly make new lines? Asking for an edit button may be too much, but the parser could at least allow the CR-LF character!
 
I feel like glass is a nice thing, but it isn't being properly marketed. It needs to be more marketed toward people that do things rather than tech hipsters with too much time on their hands. It should be marketed toward flight attendants and tsa for added security, journalists for easier filming, possibly a rugged version for soldiers and bmx/snowboarders to wear, police officers, those people.
Click to expand...
You go for where the biggest pile of easy money is. Tech hipsters are it right now, either with their parents' money or the high salaries that result from VC exuberance. Google is not a start-up, but I think that the following quote still applies. "It suddenly occurred to me that the hottest tech start-ups are solving all the problems of being twenty years old, with cash on hand, because that’s who thinks them up." - George Packer, "Change The World", The New Yorker 5/27/2013
 
bmwman91 writes:
> Thumbs-up for having a good discussion.

Thanks!!


> ... Why are we here? If we could find the answer to those questions ...

One of my favourite quotes: "The universe is indifferent to
our fates." Most humans have the arrogance to think we're
soooo important in the grand scheme of things. We're really
not. The cosmo and all within it plodded along just fine
before humans existed and will carry on regardless long after
humans have vanished utterly, whether from our own doing or
some natural event (anything from a virus to an asteroid, or
just the long term death of the sol), or perhaps having been
replaced by an evolved or newer species (who knows, I'm
talking millions of years). Perhaps the mistake is to assume
the question has any validity in the first place, as maybe
asking the question merely shows how focused we tend to be on
our own self importance. Maybe the answer is just, why not? 😀


> and integrate themselves with technology to become cybernetic beings (in a century or two ...

Recommended reading: the Hyperion series, by Dan Simmons.
Some very interesting ideas about the long term possibilities
for such self-imposed evolutionary changes. (Hyperion, The
Fall of Hyperion, Endymion, The Rise of Endymion). Would be
great if movies could be made of these, but they'd have to be
18/R certs to be done faithfully.


> ... but I get worried by the idea of growing more dependent on technology ...

Heh, once you get past 40, the idea of being robotised
becomes somewhat more appealing as one's frail biological
form starts to fall to bits over the next decade or so. 😀

I already find it offensive that I have to spend a 3rd of my
existence asleep. :} If we can genuinely customise how we
function to the nth degree, then being cyberised doesn't
bother me at all (I always liked the bit in 2000AD when Dredd
first gets artificial eyes; his closing comment after stating
the improved optical performance, "Infact, my only regret is
that I didn't have it done years ago...") But as you rightly
point out, initially any advanced bio tech will appeal to the
mundane & frivolous, or those with the cash, or both. Sadly
one must often allow that to occur before the more
interesting and serious uses can come to the fore. This is
what happened with conventional VR; initially touted as the
future of entertainment in the 1990s, it waned quickly, but
in the background gained solid use in numerous areas of
industry. Some examples can be found on my site:

http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/sgi.html#APPS

eg.:

http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/onyxre2hicig.html

I think the same thing will happen with Glass, and the future
tech ideas based on it.


> ... Too much integration with the virtual world created by technology seems to rob us of the
> experience of being alive, ...

Funny how Star Trek never really dealt with the inevitable
addictive problems that might be associated with the holodeck
concept. In Hyperion, at one point we encounter someone who
is connected to the net 24/7; in the story the character is a
powerful entity within the virtual space, but when our main
protagonist finally encounters him in physical form (within a
chair he never leave), he is barely recognisable as human,
but then our concept of human is extremely transient. VR
experiments can demonstrate that our self of positional self
is easily fooled, eg. artificially inducing OOBE sensations
using remote cameras, mirror experiments for manipulating our
sense of limb possessiveness and position, etc. Thus, in
time, if people decide to modify their outer visual form
aswell, then one's idea of what it means to be a human will
adapt. Indeed, to a great extent one could say humans have
already done this - we make extensive use of artifificial
hearts, limbs and numerous other bits & pieces. It's only
because a lof this is hidden inside our bodies that we mostly
aren't bothered by the changes.


> ... replaces more and more of the functions we do ourselves with people like me kicking
> and screaming. ...

Ask yourself this: suppose you have a terminal disease which
means eventually your main body will become useless, but you
have the option of having your brain fully transplanted into
a cyborg form, complete with functional digestion and other
organs (eg. pure clone, or mixed bio/tech, or even a modofied
full body transplant via someone who has died via brain
death, an idea explored in Heinlein's, "I Will Fear No Evil",
); with respect to the basic idea of being able to continue
your existence, would it really matter to you if that
replacement body was very human-like in out appearance (such
as the robots so expertly being developed in Japan) or
something much more scifi in appearance such as the Robocop
body in the newer movie? There will be those who would prefer
the non-human type form, for various reasons. But I suspect
it becomes a matter of simply being able to not die, most
people wouldn't care given a hard choice. Initial efforts
will doubtless be clumsy, but we'll never develop better ways
of doing things if we don't start somewhere.


> I just hope that it is the "right" choice for us to be making as a species. ...

More than likely the species will split. In the end, those
who adapt & evolve, absorbing new tech as it becomes
available, will be the same group whose descendents are
capable of leaving the planet when the poop finally hits the
fan however many decades or centuries hence. This is the idea
which is explored in Hyperion, that humans could evolve
genetically and via advanced technology be able to exist
natively in space without the need for cumbersome space suits
and all the other items required to support our fragile forms
in zero g and no atmosphere.

We know now that DNA doesn't have to be based on the 4 base
pairs used by Earth life (developments covered in New
Scientist a few years ago), so who knows what may be possible
to construct artificially. It's easy to look at our consumer
gadget tech and think we're advanced, but we've barely begun.
New materials will probably be the origin of the next major
leaps in tech (it's a real shame that materials science is
one of the least mentioned in the media and in education, yet
it's very important overall).


> And for god's sake, how do you get the comments on here to properly make new lines? Asking for an
> edit button may be too much, but the parser could at least allow the CR-LF character!

What I do is type my reply (sometimes in a separate editor
like Textpad), select all the text, press CTRL+C to copy it,
post the reply, and then if the text is mangled I access the
discussion thread via the .co.uk profile panel ("Tracked
Threads") which does give buttons for quick edit and full
edit. I use the quick edit button, remove the mangled text,
CTRL+V to dump my original text with its proper layout, and
submit. It does seem to be taking a long time to sort out the
forum faults, but the toms staff are aware of the issues.

Ian.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom