Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Technology

Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream? 533

Posted by Soulskill
from the works-for-me dept.
New submitter some old guy writes "Marcus Wohlsen writing in Wired Business makes a good case for why no amount of marketing hype will cure Google Glass of its inherent dorkiness. 'Google Glass fails to acknowledge that walking around with a camera mounted on the side of your face at all times makes you look dorky. Think of the Bluetooth headset: it’s a really sensible way to use your phone without having to take it out of your pocket—so sensible that there’s really no reason not to keep that headset in your ear most of the time. But you don’t, do you?' He also makes an interesting comparison to the Segway debacle: 'If we were all riding around on Segways now, cities would probably be better places to live compared to the car-infested streets we still endure. But that transformation hasn't happened. And it won’t. Why? Because Segways are lame. They’re too rational. They fail to acknowledge all the irrational reasons people love their cars.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is Google Glass Too Nerdy For the Mainstream?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:02AM (#43620137)

    Yes

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:04AM (#43620161)

      Thread closed.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rtfa-troll (1340807)

        Thread closed.

        And yet this is more or less the same thing they said about mobile phones in the early 80's. No more than a few k needed in the world or something similarly stupid.

        Someone explain to me why you can't do the same technology on mirrored glasses in a way that nobody will notice the camera? If I look on Google for "camera sunglasses" most of the results are dorky, but some begin to look quite cool [fastcompany.com] (second photo; warning there may be some flash media my browser ignored).

        There also seem to be a bunch of ide

        • by tgd (2822) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:36AM (#43620553)

          Thread closed.

          And yet this is more or less the same thing they said about mobile phones in the early 80's. No more than a few k needed in the world or something similarly stupid.

          I keep seeing people using that argument, for some reason. Not sure why, because that wasn't actually the case. Not even remotely. The issue with cell phones in the early 80's was the cost and the combination of size/weight/battery life.

          Car phones were plenty common, and people wanted them. Sure, they were expensive. But claiming that people said they were too nerdy, or not many people wanted them, or needed them is, frankly, so far from reality the statement had to have first been made by someone who wasn't even alive at the time.

          • by Cenan (1892902) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:48AM (#43620709)

            Thread closed.

            And yet this is more or less the same thing they said about mobile phones in the early 80's. No more than a few k needed in the world or something similarly stupid.

            I keep seeing people using that argument, for some reason. Not sure why, because that wasn't actually the case. Not even remotely. The issue with cell phones in the early 80's was the cost and the combination of size/weight/battery life.

            Car phones were plenty common, and people wanted them. Sure, they were expensive. But claiming that people said they were too nerdy, or not many people wanted them, or needed them is, frankly, so far from reality the statement had to have first been made by someone who wasn't even alive at the time.

            Well I do remember the 80s and the impending doom of cell phones. I also went out and bought one of the first ones. Whatever.

            The difference here is that the cell phones solved a tangible problem: if you were not in your car or in your house, you were pretty much unreachable. Pagers could kind of stand in, but you'd still have to get to a phone to call back. Enter the cell phone and suddenly your grandma is texting all hours of the day.

            Google glass on the other hand doesn't solve anyones problem, they deliver already available functionality (via the phone in your pocket) in a new and nerdy package.

        • by ahem (174666)

          > Now if only someone could come up with a version where we could control the privacy a bit.

          You have complete control over the visual privacy of your face in the presence of any CCD camera: IR emitting glasses [slate.com]

        • by icebike (68054) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:50AM (#43620733)

          And yet this is more or less the same thing they said about mobile phones in the early 80's. No more than a few k needed in the world or something similarly stupid.
           

          Except that mobile phones filled an obvious need, one that had been long recognized.

          Being part of the borg doesn't.

          The current implementation of Google Glass is like those ridiculously large cell phones of 1973 [slate.com]. People laughed at those too.

          Google Glass will not survive in its current form. That is the only certain thing about it. But that doesn't mean it won't survive in some other form. I doubt it will always have a camera, because people won't tolerate being recorded 24/7 by everyone they encounter. People will insist you take them off when entering businesses, stores, and meetings.

          It will probably revert to only being a display device, a personal HUD.

      • by sycodon (149926)

        Google Glass is Google Jumping the Shark.

    • Ok, so, what exactly is something nerds were using 20 years ago that "mainstream" people aren't using all the time now?

      • by dzfoo (772245) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:18AM (#43620351)

        Pocket protectors. 20-sided dice. Fanny packs. Floppy diskettes.

        • Fanny Packs - Strange as I see many of them in use every damn day as they serve a functional purpose. The only reason pocket protectors died out wasn't from nerds but the fact that ball point pens don't tend to leak like Fountain Pens and Yes, I still use Quill and Ink at times.

      • by moeinvt (851793) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:23AM (#43620409)

        Personal computers running Linux? :-)

    • I don't know, judge for yourself. [tumblr.com]

      "In its favour, if Google Glass didn’t exist, all these Silicon Valley guys would be having affairs or buying unsuitable motorbikes”

    • by Russ1642 (1087959) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:19AM (#43620359)
      When I see 50 somethings wearing bluetooth earpieces I'm inclined to think that in ten years they'll be wearing these goofy glasses too.
    • by BenJury (977929)

      They key, like a lot of things, is with the kids. If the kids who are 15-18 embrace them it will become normal to that generation and thus the acceptability will propagate upwards as they get older. What Google has to do is make it fashionable, like Apple managed with the iPhone.

      I suspect most commentators here are of the generation after such an audience and so are slightly averse to radicle new things like this. Just like my parents were to mobile phones, and I am to social media.

    • This is /. what the hell do we care about the main stream? My big issue is the price & battery life :)
  • Yes. (Score:5, Funny)

    by NoImNotNineVolt (832851) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:02AM (#43620139) Homepage
    Betteridge's law of headlines is way off on this one.
  • by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:03AM (#43620145)

    Marcus Wohlsen writing in Wired Business makes a good case for why no amount of marketing hype will cure Google Glass of its inherent dorkiness.

    And walking around glued to your Smart Phone doesn't? Remember when hands-free Blue Tooth ear thingies came out? Tell me that's not dorky, walking around talking to yourself...

    Yes, today it is. But being tied to your mobile device (even *having* a mobile device) use to be very nerdy. In time it will be "nerdy" *not* to have a some type of Intertube connected HUD on your eyeball. Eventually there will be implants and the data will be âoeprojectedâ directly into your brain.

    Besides, we all know that "nerds" actually set the tech style trends. There will be a critical mass point, and weâ(TM)ll start seeing these things for sale at the Big Box stores.

    • by jythie (914043)
      If we are going to use mobile phones as a counter example, then Google should start marketing the glasses to teenage girls. That is what pulled cell phones out of the 'niche, geek, and executive' market and into the mainstream.
    • by phantomfive (622387) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:25AM (#43620437) Journal
      Let's be honest, walking around staring at your phone is nerdy too. So is pulling out your phone at lunch, and yet a lot of otherwise 'cool' people do both those things. Wearing sagging pants is incredibly dorky.

      If the things provide actual, real benefit to a lot of people, then soon everyone will be wearing them. If they don't, then they won't catch on. Stylishness is a side-issue in this game. If it's useful, it will become stylish. Like a codpiece.
      • Let's be honest, walking around staring at your phone is nerdy too.

        No, it's not. It's annoying. People can't pay attention to where they're walking when looking down, walk slower than other people thereby causing obstructions and generally make asses of themselves as they stare at the small screen looking at whatever is so important to them that they feel the need to interrupt other people.

        It's also very anti-social if you're sitting with people and instead of talking to you, their heads are buri
    • The average joes just get dumbed-down knockoffs of the nerds' tools, which then either become a niche product or a historical footnote.

  • by ZorinLynx (31751) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:03AM (#43620147) Homepage

    I think society would be a better place if people were less worried about "dorkiness" and more worried about being practical.

    Another example is fanny packs. They're incredibly convenient for carrying random crap around, but because society has deemed them "dorky", nobody wants to wear them.

    Heck, men can't even carry a small bag around with them because it will be deemed a "purse".

    Why are we so caught up, as a society, on such idiotic things? We should just do what is convenient and works and not make fun of each other over it.

    • by dzfoo (772245)

      You should wear your fanny pack wit pride, and ignore what we say behind your back. Heck, put on camouflage cargo-pants and a pocket protector. We won't mind, really.

    • by evilRhino (638506)
      Social stigma exists to keep bad behavior in check. Also, there is nothing wrong with messenger bags or satchels. If you are scared to wear Google googles because someone might make fun of you, you probably shouldn't wear them.
    • by RoTNCoRE (744518) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:10AM (#43620231) Homepage

      Agreed. Also, I remember the 80's when the select few people who had cell phones/car phones where seen as self important douches. Now everyone is a self important douche with a cellphone!

      Just like cellphones, the glasses will become less intrusive.

    • Backpacks are more acceptable. The set of things that don't fit into my pockets that don't justify a backpack: sunscreen. I can literally think of nothing else.

    • I spent a good number of years as a college student, both undergrad and grad, and carried a backpack with me all the time. I've continued to carry a backpack even after graduation, and no one has ever given me a dirty look, much less said anything to me about it. I probably wouldn't take a backpack into a bar, but I do take one just about everywhere else.
    • by moeinvt (851793)

      I agree with the premise. I'd like to see people wear surgical masks during flu season when they're using mass transit. Americans are just too "cool" for something that practical however.
      Maybe something really nasty will come along and change that.

  • by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdo ... org minus author> on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:04AM (#43620153)

    In the 1990s you looked pretty dorky pulling a PalmPilot out of your pocket to browse the internet on, but it seems reasonably widely accepted nowadays. I mean, it still looks dorky, but it's mainstream anyway. Is an eyepiece one step too far to make that transition? Maybe, but I wouldn't have predicted the ubiquitous public use of smartphones, either (I would imagine people would have them, but not that they'd be willing to walk down the street typing on them).

    • I'm old enough to remember the pre-cellphone days...and I actually remember thinking "nobody is going to carry a phone with them all the time; who needs to talk on the phone that much that they would carry a phone everywhere they go, that would be so self-important that people will be embarrassed, I mean who's going to just whip out their phone wherever they are and start talking to someone, what a dork".

      I also thought that nobody would ever use bluetooth headsets, for the same reason.

      In 10-15 years, people
  • Problem is.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by camperdave (969942) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:04AM (#43620157) Journal
    The problem is, nobody wants to wear glasses, even people who need them for vision correction. That's why contacts were invented, and laser vision correction. So why, oh why, would we ditch glasses, only to wear different glasses.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by donaggie03 (769758)

      The problem is, nobody wants to wear glasses, even people who need them for vision correction. That's why contacts were invented, and laser vision correction. So why, oh why, would we ditch glasses, only to wear different glasses.

      Because normal glasses imply that your eyes are faulty and people don't like announcing thier flaws in such an obvious way if they could help it. Because normal glasses imply you do a little bit too much book readin', so you obviously need to be picked on. Conversely, Google Glass doesn't try to correct a physical impairment you have, so it isn't really a fair comparison.

    • First, while I hated my glasses growing up I have no problem at all with them now. I suppose if laser correction were cheaper than glasses I'd probably go for it but baring that I actually like my glasses just fine thanks. I know plenty of people who feel the same way.

      More importantly, why would we ditch glasses just to wear different glasses? Well, why did we (as a species) wear glasses in the first place? Because they gave people something they didn't otherwise have: clear vision. So glasses are anno

  • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:04AM (#43620159) Homepage Journal

    so sensible that there's really no reason not to keep that headset in your ear most of the time

    OK, this article is by a person who does not understand the value of hearing things as they exist in the real world.

    Next story.

  • And I ran into it with my Segway.

    Seriously, if everyone (or even a significant fraction of the population) rode one of these, pedestrians would be scattering in terror. Even the local mall, whose security people used to ride these, largely stopped. There were too many near misses (and a few collisions) where the incompatibilities between these modes of transportation conflicted.

  • Segways? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ArcadeMan (2766669) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:05AM (#43620175)

    If we were all riding around on Segways now, cities would probably be better places to live compared to the car-infested streets we still endure.

    If we were all riding around on Segways now, cities would probably be better places to live but our daily commutes would take two to five times longer. We won't even talk about having Segways all over the icy and heavy snowed streets in the winter.

    • Re:Segways? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by admdrew (782761) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:11AM (#43620259) Homepage
      Ugh yeah, I wish people would stop using Segway as an example of useful innovation. The technology behind them is interesting, but as a whole they failed to actually improve transportation in any fashion [thebestpag...iverse.net].
      • by Roogna (9643)

        Honestly, I've seen some VERY good uses of Segways (Most obviously one used by a physically disabled person in place of a wheelchair, which is just a beautiful use of technology)

        I also wouldn't use one myself, not because it's dorky but because I already have a system built in for movement over regular distances. Feet. I LOVE walking and I for one am happy to walk all day if I can. Which is the problem, as the best market for normal sales would be people in walking friendly places.

        'cep people just walk.

        T

    • by tacokill (531275)
      No, if we were all riding around on Segways, someone would have crashed by now and skinned a knee. In response, a class action suit will have begun and sued the maker of X part on the Segway (as well as Segway itself) and progress will have stopped.

      Don't you know the drill? Anything that is more risky than what we are already doing is to be shunned and sued out of existence. Progress or "leaps forward for mankind" don't matter anymore
    • 'If we were all riding around on Segways now, cities would probably be better places to live compared to the car-infested streets we still endure."

      I don't know where you live but replacing the car with a Segway isn't practical in most cases. In highly populated urban areas, people walk or use mass transit. Segways would congest the sidewalks. In rural areas, there is simply too much distance that makes a Segway practical. In the ideal setting would a Segway replace a car and even then I would prefer people use a bicycle instead.

      Because Segways are lame. Theyâ(TM)re too rational. They fail to acknowledge all the irrational reasons people love their cars.'

      Segways are not rational. They are for a niche purpose. There are practical reasons for cars. If you are a soccer mom w

    • Re:Segways? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Hentes (2461350) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:38AM (#43620573)

      The Segway was a solution looking for a problem.

  • by hsmith (818216) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:07AM (#43620197)
    The assumption is people will wear them 24/7 for some reason (or as long as the battery will last)

    Why do we assume the proper use case isn't to use them as bluetooth headsets were meant to be: when you needed it (ignore the idiots that wear them to dinner)

    In a medical setting, IMO it is a fantastic form factor. For the kid building sand castles, not so much. I see it as more of a device to enhance a particular activity you do that necessitates them, not as a device you sport all the time.

    But then again, what is normal about walking down a street staring at your mobile phone composing a text message and not paying attention to your surroundings?
  • Really. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ScentCone (795499) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:07AM (#43620203)

    Because Segways are lame. They’re too rational. They fail to acknowledge all the irrational reasons people love their cars.

    Yes, irrational reasons like ... rain. Or passengers. Or payload. Or personal security. Or range. Or speed.

    Google Glass fails to acknowledge that walking around with a camera mounted on the side of your face at all times makes you look dorky.

    Look, there are armies of douche-Borgs walking around with bluetooth earpieces in, thinking not that they fall enough below some painful threshold of dorkiness while wearing them, but rather that they look cool doing so. These are the spinning hubcaps of phone accessories.

    • by geekoid (135745)

      Or, you know, they don't give a shit what people like you think? Sure, you can judge all you want, but why do you care?

      I where my blu-tooth headset becasue it's convenient , has great sound, the mic is awesome. The people judging what other [people choose to wear are the douchbags.

      I find them to be Lobotastic!

    • I want to see this rational fellow drop a toddler and a four year old off at daycare on his morning Segway commute. Sadly I found no hits on youtoob for someone attempting this.
  • ..99% of time literally I am not talking on the phone. it would be more of a bother to take it off for putting on headphones or whatever. normally I just wouldn't want the extra weight to wear a google glass 99% of the time.

    segways aren't lame though. they're just impractical, costly and incompatible with legislation in most countries where people could afford them...

    you know what google glass will be used for though? hacked in tandem to produce porno to be viewed on future oculus devices... which gets us t

  • ...I could see them taking off. But man, even on gorgeous models they look dorky. Great idea - I'm a fan of the "dataglasses" or augmented reality concept (Virtual Light anyone?) but this, it cries out for a good designer.

  • The Google Glass target market has two types of people in it. People who saw the Terminator movies and thought, 'that looks really cool' and voyeurs. Sell these things at the right convention and you'll make a fortune.

    The first hacks will be gaining root (already done) and when people start putting the Google Glass into glass frames that don't look like they'll get you kicked out of certain entertainment venues. I don't think these have a big future with the public at large since they will freak out most pe

  • Never had a bluetooth headset, but if you just leave it on all the time, wouldn't you get annoyed by having to recharge the battery so often?
    • by geekoid (135745)

      I have a blu-tooth stereo head set.
      When I get to work, I plug it in, and again when I get home.
      I've ran it 6 hours without a charge with no problems, I suspect it would go 12.
      Now it's just part of my routine. Well worth it.

  • The segway rant in the summary is ridiculous. Segways never caught on because they fail as a replacement for cars. People still need to get their groceries home and their kids to soccer practice, and they would still revert back to using their car when it rains. That fact alone makes Segways an addition as opposed to a replacement for cars, and Segways are way too expensive to be an additional cost. Secondly, if a large portion of a population started using Segways, there would still be a large portion that also used cars, so we couldn't just rebrand the streets for Segway use. A few Segways on the sidewalk is a novelty. Hundreds at one time would be silly. Whatever the "irrational reasons people love their cars," there are still a great deal of rational reasons why people love their cars, so the "irrational" argument is moo. Of course most of the large trucks and suvs on the streets are unnecessary, but those would be replaced by smaller cars, not moving platforms that people have to stand on for miles at a time. Maybe Google Glass will catch on and maybe it won't but that has nothing to do with the failure of the Segway to actually solve the problem it wanted to solve.
  • Not just fashion (Score:5, Insightful)

    by markdavis (642305) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:13AM (#43620285)

    >" 'Google Glass fails to acknowledge that walking around with a camera mounted on the side of your face at all times makes you look dorky."

    It isn't just dorky, it is rude, creepy, and invasive too. The author and Google (especially the CEO) seems to just completely skirt the entire issue of privacy- not only for the user, but all the hundreds of "victims" around the user, every day. Take out your phone and hold it up in the air, pointed at everyone you pass, meet, talk to, sit next to, and see what kind of reaction you get.

    So stop pretending it is just about fashion, it is really insulting.

    • by ranton (36917)

      It may take 20 years, or it may take 200, but eventually everything a human witnesses will be recorded in a fashion that can be backed up and disseminated. Even people who don't want to will be forced to. Who would want to hire one of the only guys who doesn't have photographic memory and is not a walking encyclopedia?

      The real issue is why aren't people admitting that living in a world where everything is recorded is going to be the new reality, and that society has to figure out how to adapt the that ins

  • the iHipster (Score:2, Insightful)

    Apple will just release a version with thick black frames and they'll sell like hotcakes.
  • by Culture20 (968837) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:14AM (#43620299)
    Segways might work for LA, but what about Seattle? How do you carry a kayak with a segway? How do you transport small furniture with a segway? How do you park with your best gal up on lovers'-leap with a segway? How do you seamlessly transition from one topic to another? With a segue.
    • by geekoid (135745)

      All those question apply to segways everywhere, not just Seattle. Add to that it seems to be a false dichotomy to think you can only have a car OR a seqway.

  • by geekoid (135745)

    just like comic movies, smart phones, computer games and roleplaying games~

  • It's Eye-Phone! The eye implant which links up to "the cloud" to record everything in your life.

    Actually... walking around with a camera on your head is pretty dumb unless you're shooting porn or some youtube skateboarding video.

    I don't even care -- I won't likely be using one of those things. I quickly tired of the bluetooth earset thing, though the little jabra speakerphone thing for my car is pretty nice.

    Who knows... perceptions change all the time though. The moment some celebrities start strutting a

    • Lawnmower Man 2 already used the 'eye-phone.' That movie used it as the name for a compact VR interface headset.

  • by denzacar (181829) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:17AM (#43620335) Journal

    On what planet exactly?

    They are slow scooters that require the entire world to adjust to them so those with more money than sense could walk less.
    They take up more room than a walking human, have zero cargo capacity AND can't do stairs.

    But most importantly they represent an overpriced way of doing something most people can do by just walking - moving slowly in a straight line.

  • by ZombieBraintrust (1685608) on Friday May 03, 2013 @11:17AM (#43620341)
    A product doesn't have to be used by 1 billion people to be successfull. Not everyone carries around pepper spray but it is still a big industry. Even if Google Glass is only used by security guards, police officers, dectectives, tabloid jurnalists, and debt collectors is will be a success. It just needs to be usefull to a fraction of the population to make a ton of money.
  • I can't think of any time I would rather drive a Segway than a car.

    I could think of times I would rather Segway than bike, or walk. Segways are far too slow to replace a car for any meaningful distance.

  • ... they're best designed for workers or students to operate within a radius of a mile or two which is why you see lots of security people use them at larger companies or campuses.

    You can't get groceries in a Segway. You can't pick up the kids after school. If the weather changes unexpectedly you'll have a misserable ride. Segways are expensive and would make attractive targets for theft. You can buy a decent bicycle or even a motorcyle for far less. People change their plans during the course of a typ

  • No. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by istartedi (132515)

    It's too creepy and douche-baggy. Nerds should have smart minds, not necessarily smart devices anyway.

  • I don't expect google glass to ever become popular for everyday use but do think it will have niche markets but the reasons that Marcus thinks it will fail are completely flawed.

    I've never seen anyone use bluetooth and then put it away or have it away and then put it on just for a call, from what I've seen people either leave it on all day looking like douches or put it on the entire time while driving. ie. if they have the headset with them then they are wearing it.

    He says segways are lame because they are

  • when a product is hyped to death by futurists, plugged incessantly by bloggers, fetishized by cyberpunks and danced around by investors the only purpose in damning it as 'too nerdy' is to make it an even more appealing item for the mainstream 'nerds are sexy' culture.
  • Corporate controlled drones, just to give a different time horizon.

    A primitive singularity.

    CC.

  • Not all people have an irrational love for their cars. Not even most people have such an irrational love for their cars. Even the people who love their cars hate the car companies, and oil companies in general. The reason why segways have not displaced cars as the preferred mode of urban transporation is, that they are impractical.

    Limited charge, exposed to the elements, limited speed and range. So other than places like warehouses, parking lot attendants, sight seeing tours, there is no real market for i

  • by Infernal Device (865066) on Friday May 03, 2013 @12:13PM (#43621027)

    The inherent non-acceptability of Google Glass was somewhat predicted by Snow Crash over 20 years ago. One of the characters, a "gargoyle" walks around in full-recording mode at all times, trying to capture every bit of information possible. The description, as given, is at best neutral and my takeaway was that it wasn't considered a positive thing by other information gatherers of that world.

    Crapflooding ones own info stream is still crapflooding.

  • 'If we were all riding around on Segways now, cities would probably be better places to live compared to the car-infested streets we still endure. But that transformation hasn't happened. And it won’t. Why? Because Segways are lame. They’re too rational. They fail to acknowledge all the irrational reasons people love their cars.'"

    Only a complete dork could make such a moronic comment. Everyone riding around in Segways would:

    • Abolish what little physical exercise many people get. This would significantly exacerbate an already monstrous health crisis in the U.S.
    • Require vast and expensive changes to the public thoroughfare to accommodate such a huge shift in traffic patterns.
    • Demonstrate just how irrational and gullible people can be. It is little more than idiotic fashionista fanboyism. There is nothing rational about moving from cars to Segways.
    • Overload the electrical grid and require enormous investments there as well. Who will pay for all of this?
    • Require the fools who buy them to move back to their cars after they realize the utter impracticality of commuting via Segway.

Mathemeticians stand on each other's shoulders while computer scientists stand on each other's toes. -- Richard Hamming

Working...