On 03/11/2013 01:34 PM, turquoiseb wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@...> wrote: >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: >>>> On 03/11/2013 11:59 AM, John wrote: >>>>> Like it or not, this is the next fad for the internet. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/03/10/Seattle-dive-bar-bans-Google-glasses/9881362922347/?spt=mps&or=1 >>>> I have a Swann pen camera. Looks just like any other nice >>>> ballpoint pen. Push the button on top and it starts >>>> recording video. Didn't cost $1500 either (of course by >>>> the time Glass is available to the public it'll may be >>>> only $200). It cost $20 after rebate. Records video >>>> (640x480) and audio. They have an HD version for a little >>>> more. >>> Small world. I have a Schwanstucker 1000, which is not a >>> pen but IS pen-is mounted, and also records in full HD. >>> >>> The results are far less interesting than you'd imagine... >>> >>> :-) >>> >>> As for Google Glass, can you *imagine* the pathology of >>> someone who needs to be THAT "connected" to the Net? >> Did you ever watch the Predator with Arnold S.? > I did, enough times that I'm tempted to reply because > I honestly don't get the connection to that movie you > seem to see. Please explain it to me. My memory may > be faulty. > > Per Ahnold, I actually have a cool story about him. > Please don't take this wrong, because I actually like > Ahnold in many of his screen roles. But, living in LA > as I did at the time, I once wound up sitting next to > him in a Westwood movie theater, watching "Body Heat." > You kinda have to have seen the movie to get this, > but when it was over Ahnold turned to his girlfriend > and had to have her explain the movie to him. He didn't > get it. I'm willing to cut Ahnold some slack as regards > possible language difficulties at that time of his > career, but not being able to "get" what happened in > "Body Heat?" So NOT the sharpest pencil in the box. > > As for Google Glass, I'm more than willing to expand > upon my earlier rap. Yeah, it's WAY cool. Neat toy. > But to imagine oneself *needing* it, or even *wanting* > it on a regular basis, that I definitely view as > verging on the pathological. > > Every day in Europe I watch people walk around lost in > their mobiles. Mobile technology has created a group of > people who don't have to think twice while navigating > their way through a heavy marketday crowd without ever > looking up from their mobiles. They admirably manage > to navigate fairly well, only bumping into every other > person. But still, being that lost in the Net, as > opposed to looking up and seeing the wonder of what > is going on all around them on a Dutch market day? > > Now imagine the impact of Google Glass. Hordes of folks > walking along the same street, but now looking up, as > if they were actually paying attention to the people > passing them by. But alas, they're not. They're talking > to their glasses, and telling them to look up the > Facebook profile of the person they just told their > Google Glass to photograph as they walked by. > > It's cyborg city, and this may mark me as an olde fart, > but I'm SO not ready to dwell that much in cyberspace. > I'm still down with looking up, mobile device-free, and > just interacting with what and who I pass in the streets.
Glass is also not going to work well for people who wear glasses. I also wonder about the focus problem (try focusing on the rim of your glasses) and I suspect might even cause vision disorders. But like I say it might be as big a success as Google TV.
