Google Glass - a Confrontation Waiting to Happen

[Polish_Silver]

Re: book knowledge

I guess I simply don't understand the definitations that you're using here. What is "ignorant", exactly? Is it not knowing what everyone else knows? Is it not knowing what some so-called educated class knows? Is it not knowing what the authorized institutions communicate? Break it down for me on a bio-physical level in terms of how the brain functions.

An ignorant person would be someone who:

1) Is unaware of the germ theory of disease. Believes that diseases are caused by evil spirits, or by looking at someone who is diseased.

2) Doesn't understand nutritional categories. IE, thinks that you can be properly nourished by eating just white bread or white rice.

3) Doesn't understand conservation of energy. Believes that a perpetual motion machine is possible.

[reggie]

Re: book knowledge

An ignorant person would be someone who:

1) Is unaware of the germ theory of disease. Believes that diseases are caused by evil spirits, or by looking at someone who is diseased.

2) Doesn't understand nutritional categories. IE, thinks that you can be properly nourished by eating just white bread or white rice.

3) Doesn't understand conservation of energy. Believes that a perpetual motion machine is possible.

These are merely socially acceptable frames of "knowledge" within a given historical period [and these "frames' can be changed from generation to generation].

I would argue that an ignorant person is one who is unable to cognitively analyze all sensory inputs, [where both the sensory inputs and analysis are] free from soically established frames of reference .

And, this is precisely what Google Glass is designed and deployed to do, create "people" who fall into this definition. And this is an incredibly powerful system of control, because the sensory inputs are physically internalized in the subjects brain, whether they are rational, logical or otherwise. Go back to the Macy Conferences of the 40's and 50's for more on our current trajectory (see "Mechanized Mind").

[reggie]

Re: book knowledge

One of the few worthwhile TV media ever produced was The Prisoner series (circa 1966) with Patrick McGoohan. Many of these revealing episodes are now available online. This episode does an excellent job of addressing "knowledge", the Mechanized Mind, and the computer's role in a technocratic society. I highly recommend investing 45mins....

[Polish_Silver]

Re: book knowledge

One of the few worthwhile TV media ever produced was The Prisoner series (circa 1966) with Patrick McGoohan. Many of these revealing episodes are now available online. This episode does an excellent job of addressing "knowledge", the Mechanized Mind, and the computer's role in a technocratic society. I highly recommend investing 45mins....

The prisoner was a very interesting series. I could never figure out what the ending meant. He just drives off.

[metalman]

Re: Google Glass - a Confrontation Waiting to Happen

get your f**king camera off me, asshole . . . .

Thad Starner, just before he was dropped for a 10 count

By DAVID STREITFELD

SAN FRANCISCO — Google’s wearable computer, the most anticipated piece of electronic wizardry since the iPad and iPhone, will not go on sale for many months.

But the resistance is already under way.

The glasseslike device, which allows users to access the Internet, take photos and film short snippets, has been pre-emptively banned by a Seattle bar. Large parts of Las Vegas will not welcome wearers. West Virginia legislators tried to make it illegal to use the gadget, known as Google Glass, while driving.

“This is just the beginning,” said Timothy Toohey, a Los Angeles lawyer specializing in privacy issues. “Google Glass is going to cause quite a brawl.”

As personal technology becomes increasingly nimble and invisible, Glass is prompting questions of whether it will distract drivers, upend relationships and strip people of what little privacy they still have in public.

A pair of lens-less frames with a tiny computer attached to the right earpiece, Glass is promoted by Google as “seamless and empowering.” It will have the ability to capture any chance encounter, from a celebrity sighting to a grumpy salesclerk, and broadcast it to millions in seconds.

“We are all now going to be both the paparazzi and the paparazzi’s target,” said Karen L. Stevenson, a lawyer with Buchalter Nemer in Los Angeles.

Google stresses that Glass is a work in progress, with test versions now being released to 2,000 developers. Another 8,000 “explorers,” people handpicked by Google, will soon get a pair.

Among the safeguards to make it less intrusive: you have to speak or touch it to activate it, and you have to look directly at someone to take a photograph or video of them.

“We are thinking very carefully about how we design Glass because new technology always raises new issues,” said Courtney Hohne, a Google spokeswoman.

Developers, however, are already cracking the limits of Glass. One created a small sensation in tech circles last week with a program that eliminated the need for gestures or voice commands. To snap a picture, all the user needs to do is wink.

The 5 Point Cafe, a Seattle dive bar, was apparently the first to explicitly ban Glass. In part it was a publicity stunt — extremely successful, too, as it garnered worldwide attention — but the bar’s owner, Dave Meinert, said there was a serious side. The bar, he said, was “kind of a private place.”

The legislators in West Virginia were not joking at all. The state banned texting while driving last year but hands-free devices are permitted. That left a loophole for Google Glass. The legislation was introduced too late to gain traction before the most recent session ended, but its sponsor says he is likely to try again.

In Las Vegas, a Caesars Entertainment spokesman noted that computers and recording devices were prohibited in casinos. “We will not allow people to wear Glass while gambling or attending our shows,” he said.

Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren famously noted in 1890 that “numerous mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that ‘what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the house-tops.’ ”

Glass is arriving just as the courts, politicians, privacy advocates, regulators, law enforcement and tech companies are once again arguing over the boundaries of technology in every walk of life.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted last month to require law enforcement to have a warrant to access e-mail, not just a subpoena. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s use of devices that mimic cellphone towers to track down criminals is being challenged in an Arizona case. A California district court recently ruled that private messages on social media were protected without a warrant.

“Google Glass will test the right to privacy versus the First Amendment,” said Bradley Shear, a social media expert at George Washington University.

Google has often been at the forefront of privacy issues. In 2004, it began a free e-mail service, making money by generating ads against the content. Two dozen privacy groups protested. Regulators were urged to investigate whether eavesdropping laws were being violated.

For better or worse, people got used to the idea, and the protests quickly dissipated. Gmail now has over 425 million users. In a more recent episode, the company’s unauthorized data collection during its Street View mapping project prompted government investigations in a dozen countries.

Like many Silicon Valley companies, Google takes the attitude that people should have nothing to hide from intrusive technology.
“If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place,” said Eric Schmidt, then Google’s chief executive, in 2009.

Glass is a major step in Google’s efforts to diversify beyond search, and potentially an extremely lucrative move. Piper Jaffray, an analyst firm, estimates that wearable technology and another major initiative, self-driving cars, could ultimately be a $500 billion opportunity for the company. In the shorter term, IHS, a forecasting firm, estimates that shipments of smart glasses, led by Google Glass, could be as high as 6.6 million in three years.

Thad Starner, a pioneer of wearable computing who is a technical adviser to the Glass team, says he thinks concerns about disruption are overblown.

“Asocial people will be able to find a way to do asocial things with this technology, but on average people like to maintain the social contract,” Mr. Starner said. He added that he and colleagues had experimented with Glass-type devices for years, “and I can’t think of a single instance where something bad has happened.”

An incident at a Silicon Valley event shows, however, the way the increasing ease in capturing a moment can lead to problems — even if unintentionally.

Adria Richards, who worked for the Colorado e-mail company SendGrid, was offended by the jokes two men were cracking behind her at the PyCon developers conference. She posted a picture of them on Twitter with the mildly reproving comment, “Not cool.”

One of the men, who has not been identified, was immediately fired by his employer, PlayHaven. “There is another side to this story,” he wrote on a hacking site, saying it was barely one lame sexual joke. “She gave me no warning, she smiled while she snapped the pic and sealed my fate,” he complained.

Critics lashed out at Ms. Richards, using language much more offensive than the two men used. SendGrid was hacked. The company dismissed Ms. Richards, saying there was such an uproar over her conduct, it “put our business in danger.”

“I don’t think anyone who was part of what happened at PyCon that day could possibly have imagined how this issue would have exploded into the public consciousness,” Ms. Richards reflected later. She has not posted on Twitter since.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/07/te...gewanted=print

walk into a conference room at work wearing these...



announce 'hey, i'm wearing video spy glasses that record everything'!

room clears.

walk into a family thanksgiving wearing same & say same. brother takes them away.

walk into a party wearing same & say same. friend knocks them off your face & steps in them.

etc.

[reggie]

Re: book knowledge

The prisoner was a very interesting series. I could never figure out what the ending meant. He just drives off.

If you're referring to the final episode, where he re-enters London, then this represents his re-assignment ("resign" or re-sign) into another part of the system. At no time during the entire series does he actually leave the system.... but he doesn't realize that. That's the show's most signifcant message to the viewer. "Resign", as so cleverly displayed on closeup at the bignning of each episode, really means to re-sign, or re-assignment..... it never means ones departure.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: book knowledge

The Banality of "Don't Be Evil."

Assange's take from the Sunday NYtimes...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/op...nted=all&_r=2&

[don]

Google Glass Critique

Robert Scoble

Shared publicly - Dec 31, 2013

Scoble says Google Glass is doomed

First, I love headlines that stretch the truth a bit. No one outside of Google got their Glass before March of last year. I got mine on the second day they were available, which was April 15th. So +Mathew Honan we really have had Glass, for, what, eight months now? Not quite a year, but that's just me being picky.

But Google Glass is doomed. Why do I say that? Because the tech press tells me so.

Now that we got that out of the way, what have I learned in my eight months of wearing Glass?

1. Nearly everyone wants to try it. Google is brilliant. They got us to pay $1,500 (plus tax) to be its PR agent. It's gotten to the point where even I don't want to wear them around. At one conference a few people in a bathroom wanted to try them on. I figure I've shared my Glass with 500-1,000 people.

2. Mat says people called him an asshole for wearing his. I never have had that happen. Instead, what happens is usually closer to this encounter I had in the street with three high school girls: https://soundcloud.com/scobleizer/wh...-will-be-a-hit

3. All of our angst is because of a prototype. One that still doesn't have a good API and doesn't really have much utility (I expect that Google will have a LOT to say when it introduces the final product in 2014). Things like battery life, and even design, or lack thereof, are going to change.

4. Price is gonna matter a LOT. But I'm hearing they won't be able to get under $500 in 2014, so that means it's doomed. In 2014. When they get under $300 and have another revision or two? That's when the market really will show up. 2016, I say.

5. The camera isn't that scary. Once you have them. Lots of people are afraid I'm recording them. Then I show them how it works. Then they smile and forget I have them on.

6. The really scary thing? The eye sensor. There's a reason why +Larry Page didn't answer my question at last year's Google IO: that thing can probably tell whether you are drunk or sober (think about THAT tonight). It also can probably tell you when you are checking out someone you shouldn't be (wait until the wife gets an alert about THAT). Of course Google will use it to tell what brands you are checking out at the grocery store (coupon alert) or when you are shopping in a shopping mall.

7. Do I still love mine? Yeah, I do, but I am frustrated with the speed at which Google has iterated on these. I am hopeful that Google is just holding back a ton of goodness for launch but it should have had an app store, a real API that allows full sensor and phone integration, and a plan for helping developers build real businesses on these by now.

I'm also worried at a new trend: I rarely see Google employees wearing theirs anymore. Most say "I just don't like advertising that I work for Google." I understand that. Quite a few people assume I work for Google when they see me with mine. I just hope it doesn't mean that Google's average employee won't support it. That is really what killed the tablet PC efforts inside Microsoft until Apple forced them to react due to popularity of iPad.

But, really, let's get back to the headline. I think Google Glass is doomed. In 2014. Why?

1. Expectations are too high. These are on our faces and are the most controversial product of my lifetime (and that's saying something). Everyone will compare sales of Google Glass to Apple's iWatch. That is going to bring a raft of "Google Glass isn't popular" kinds of articles. Translation: Glass is doomed.

2. These are too hard to buy and acquire. They need to be custom fitted and, because they have a new user interface, users need a bit of training on how to use them. This is what will keep the price high, not the cost of making the things. If you need to spend an hour or two with a Google employee in a Best Buy just to get them working, that raises the cost and will keep these from being a high-sales item. At least in 2014.

3. Not enough apps. Enough said. That will start getting fixed after a few months of release, but early users are gonna continually ask "where's the Uber app?" Or "where's the Foursquare app?" Or "why does the Facebook app suck?" Truth is, while there are many developers excited by Glass, there are many others who look at this and see no market and a very small one that will show up in 2014. So most "pro" developers are taking a wait-and-see approach. Google hasn't helped that by not showing off a store and by making weird rules against advertising without explaining what will be allowed.

4. The current UI can't handle lots of apps. If apps do show up by some miracle how many can you really fit into the small format of Glass? Not many. This thing is gonna break if I tried to put the 300 apps on my MotoX or iPhone onto it. Why? You simply won't scroll through hundreds of apps. Your arm will get tired. And if you add too many it'll decrease voice recognition quality. "OK Glass, take a picture," now, did you just mean to use the Path app? The Facebook app? The instagram app? The SnapChat app? The SmugMug app?

5. Battery life. Right now I want to use Glass for journalism. It works pretty well for that, if you watch my Sarah Francis video I filmed on Glass: https://plus.google.com/+Scobleizer/posts/D1jSBLQQvu2 But when doing video the battery only lasts 45 minutes AND it gets very hot. I expect that will get fixed, right now video is being compressed in software. I bet that when they release the public version it will be done in hardware. But, what is real-world battery use like? Already Google has had to ratchet back a bunch of features it wanted to include, like automatic uploads of photos. It now only does that when plugged in and on wifi.

6. Photo workflow sucks. Let's say I shot a bunch of photos on my Glass. Can I see them on my iPhone? No. Not immediately. I have to plug it in and be on wifi for that to happen. Can I share from Glass? Yeah, but how do I leave a description? Use my voice, right? But the problem is that isn't very accurate and doesn't work at all in noisy places like rock concerts, which is probably where you mostly want to use Glass. Google needs to make it much easier to push images over to my phone in real time and then let me upload photos and videos from there. Why? I can edit on my phone much nicer than trying to pick out good images on Glass (and try to do something like crop or change image to black and white before uploading -- you'll soon discover there are thousands of limitations to Glass' camera that your iPhone doesn't have).

7. Facebook is our main addiction and I can't do it in Glass. Sorry Google, but Google+ still isn't used by my family, friends, or those I speak with. At one recent conference I asked who isn't on Facebook and only one hand went up. Google+ isn't nearly as ubiquitous or as nice, truth be told, particularly for mobile users. This lack of Facebook support is the #1 thing that pisses me off about Glass. Do you really think Zuckerberg is gonna put his best developers on Glass? Hell no.

8. No contextual filtering. When I'm standing on stage, why does Glass give me Tweets? Why can't it recognize that I'm at a conference at least and show me only tweets about that conference? Hashtag style. But it can't because Google's contextual OS isn't done and probably won't be done until 2015. Google Glass desperately needs those contextual signals to know when to show you appropriate stuff. Skiing? Only show me stuff about the mountain I'm on. In a meeting? Do something like Mind Meld does (show me stuff about what we're talking about). Shopping? Show me coupons and todo lists. But today Google Glass is pretty stupid, context wise, and makes the experience of using it suck in a lot of ways.

9. Developers are being held back because there isn't any distribution system for apps or Glass experiences. That will get fixed, I'm sure, but right now if a developer wants me to test out a cool app they almost always need physical access to my Glass. That isn't a good way to get lots of people trying/debugging/hyping up apps.

10. The Gruber problem. He just doesn't like the idea of Glass, even if Apple were to bring out one. http://daringfireball.net/2013/12/th...n_google_glass I think I figured this one out after talking to hundreds of people. Most are disappointed in themselves and their lack of ability to put their phones down. They fear that if they were to go with Glass they would just totally lose themselves to their mobile addictions. They are right to be scared of that. If Glass actually worked the way I'm dreaming of I would be even more addicted to our online world than I am today. People are scared of losing their humanness. What makes them human. I get questions all the time about whether the Internet will decide everything in life for us and what that means. Personally after having them on for eight months I'm actually less scared of that than I was when first putting them on. Why? With Glass at least I'm looking at the real world more than when I'm using my phone. But it is a real fear and something Google will have to take on.

That all said, I'm still wearing mine. See you next week in Las Vegas at the Consumer Electronics Show. I'll have mine on, even if +Chris Voss takes me to a strip club. Oh, wait, maybe not. :-)

So, what would I do if I were Google? Reset expectations. Say "this is really a product for 2020 that we're gonna build with you." First release is in 2014, but let's be honest, if it's $600 and dorky looking, it'll be doomed -- as long as expectations are so high.

By 2020 I'm quite convinced this will be a big deal and there will be lots of competitors by then. So, if you make it about 2020, then it isn't doomed. If it's about beating the Apple iWatch in 2014? Yes, totally doomed.

[Forrest]

Re: Google Glass Critique

Is there a device that will conveniently blur all electronic devices as yet? Something that will deliver a nice stream of static?

[don]

Re: Google Glass Critique

You wish for too much.