Quantcast

«

»

Mar 28 2014

The True Danger of Google Glass

19 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Zeno

    This guy is enrolled in one of my classes! But I see no glasses! He must have internalized the art of constant distraction. (On the days he bothers to show up, that is.)

  2. 2
    kerrymaxwell

    This is great! I’ve been looking for an expensive but convenient and hands-free way to Google Donkey Balls!

  3. 3
    left0ver1under

    “Google glass”? No, it’s

      go   ogle   glass.

    Stare at people, and take pictures of them without permission.

  4. 4
    Tommy Capitalist

    Hilarious!

  5. 5
    catlover

    Now — just imagine people driving while wearing Google Glass!!!!! Oh — they will — it’s only a matter of time.

    IMO, Google ought to be held partly liable for whatever damages and pain and suffering are caused by people wearing these stupid things. And throw the book at people who get hurt or cause others to be hurt wile wearing those stupid things.

  6. 6
    robro

    But shouldn’t the Impending Death Sensor (IDS) alert him to his imminent demise?

    Strangely reminds me of those compilations of Russian car-cam videos.

  7. 7
    sapperdon

    This isn’t the first time Frieddi W has made a video about Google glasses. The first video was similar to this one.

    I think they’re going to be a problem. We already have people texting and driving, now they’re going to be doing stuff on their glasses and driving. Military post commanders have already started outlawing them on post.

  8. 8
    PZ Myers

    #1, Zeno:

    I do not have such students in my classes. They are all fascinated and engaged, and are grooving enthusiastically on my lectures.

    Or they’ve blown off the whole thing and are home in bed, sleeping in.

  9. 9
    chigau (違恆)

    PZ
    It’s the pulsating brain…

  10. 10
    Crimson Clupeidae

    catlover@5:

    IMO, Google ought to be held partly liable for whatever damages and pain and suffering are caused by people wearing these stupid things. And throw the book at people who get hurt or cause others to be hurt wile wearing those stupid things.

    I agree. Unfortunately, the courts in CA, at least, don’t.
    http://www.zdnet.com/google-glass-driver-ticket-lawsuit-dismissed-7000025292/

    The officer cited California vehicle code 27602, which prevents a video display being used in front of the driver. Abadie said the headset was not being used at the time, and according to Reuters, San Diego Commissioner John Blair threw out the charge based on a lack of evidence that the device was in operation at the time of the offense.

    Lucky for google, it’s easy to turn glass off, so there’s no real way to prove it may have been the cause of why that otherwise reasonable person just ran over your 3 kids on the sidewalk and killed them…..

    As someone who spends more than 50% of my time on the road on 2 wheels (bicycle or motorcycle), this shit really scares me, and I get near misses on an almost daily basis.

  11. 11
    Muz

    And this is if they actually work properly. Imagine, instead of this, the usual way software and hardware roll out of the shop and now imagine the purple monkey dishwasher.

  12. 12
    richcon

    That ending is GOLDEN!

  13. 13
    edmond

    Whoa! Those bounty hunter portraits are awesome!

  14. 14
    A Masked Avenger

    I really don’t get all the Luddism thrown at Google glass. Perhaps it’s a generational thing? I’m from the pre-texting generation, but I don’t count–I work in software engineering. Nevertheless…

    “Go Ogle Glass.” Clever, but if I wanted to perv on strangers, I could think of much better ways to do it than strapping a camera to my fucking head, staring at them, and saying clearly enough for my head-camera to hear it, “OK, Glass, take a picture [of this hot little number].” You’ve got to be kidding me. Perverts are taking pictures now, and they know much better than to strap the camera to their fucking head. When I take even innocuous pictures, with my cell phone, people notice. Switching to a camera that can only look where I’M looking makes the problem worse, not better.

    Distraction [while driving]. Yeah, but people who want to text, call, etc., are already doing so with their cell phones. States are passing laws requiring hands-free devices. Glass IS a hands-free device, and people are hating on it. As someone who uses my cell-phone GPS a lot, I’d love to have a completely hands-free version. I’ve done my best, with a headset and voice command, to minimize distraction, but have still had problems that a HUD like this would potentially solve. People will tend to be less distracted, not more.

    I sure as hell won’t spend $1,500, period, let alone for alpha technology. But when it comes in near the price of other PDAs, I’m there. I plan to use it while driving, mainly as a GPS, and I anticipate a significant increase in my safety, and everyone else’s around me, as a result. (I recently drove a rental car that had built-in voice command, and associated to my phone using Bluetooth, and it was frigging awesome. Same principle.)

  15. 15
    A Masked Avenger

    Switching to a camera that can only look where Iā€™M looking makes the problem worse, not better.

    I left out, “…and can only be operated by voice…”

  16. 16
    anuran

    I actually googled “Donkey Balls” and came up with two recipes that I’m going to try.
    One is a sausage and cream cheese dumpling in puff pastry
    The other is a chocolate covered Macadamia nut.

  17. 17
    mykroft

    It reminded me a little of nerd sniping, except self induced.

  18. 18
    andyo

    From what I understand Glass only simulates an HUD like the ones in some cars right now which project information on the windshield, and it doesn’t block your field of view.

    I agree that if people ask you to take it off in their establishment, it’s the courteous thing to do, and I think people who complain loudly about that are entitled asses, but really it doesn’t seem that big of a deal, there just needs to be some established etiquette when using it in public.

    But that is also a problem with photographers. I do some photography and many photographers (especially “street” photographers) have this idea that if it’s not illegal, then people have no right to complain or let you know you’re bothering them.

  19. 19
    Kagehi

    Think I have to agree with the sentiment that the complaints are overblown, and based on people’s fears, rather than reality, like the guy they tried to arrest for filming a movie, only to find out that a) he had prescription lenses in them, and b) the camera was never turned on, recording, nor sending anything anyplace.

    We have people still talking about the idea of making camera, and transmitter, so small its less than the size of your little finger nail, and magnetic, or with stickum on it, so you could tag the damn things on any place you wanted, and be nearly invisible (yeah, crazy, but it was an idea being promoted not too many years ago, as a possible child’s toy, or the like), as well as, like others here have said, a whole bloody long list of secret, hidden, small, unobtrusive, cameras, being used by people all over the place, all the time, and, when it comes to distractions – damn near every bloody thing out there requires you look any place but where you are going, to use them, even MP3 players (unless you get the ones with no display on them).

    “Someone might be taking pictures of me!” Yeah.. personally, I would say, “So what?”, and not just because its probably already happening. But, the dumbest thing is, “Would they rather it be one of a thousand other wackos out there, including the ones that remove the IR filters from the things (to see through clothing), entirely unobserved, and secret, with no way of knowing it might be happening?” Yeah.. these things are just “so” dangerous, by comparison.

Comments have been disabled.