Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Displays Technology

LeVar Burton On Google Glass 211

Posted by samzenpus
from the what-does-the-Geordi-say dept.
An anonymous reader writes "While he acknowledged that technology needs to keep going forward, LeVar Burton didn't seem comfortable with the idea of using Google Glass. '"It disturbed me. I was skeptical... [and] I'm a person that's very open to technology." That's the reaction LeVar Burton, the man best known from Reading Rainbow and Star Trek: The Next Generation, first had when encountering Google Glass backstage at Engadget Expand. Burton, a self-described edutainment pioneer, acknowledges the disruptive power new technologies can have on media and culture — after all, he did help transform television into a worthy educational tool/babysitter with his PBS program. But even with that storied success, and his company's current inroads into digital with an iPad Reading Rainbow application, Burton still had a "knee-jerk" response when confronted with Glass. Although his celebrity status and the resulting paranoia could have something to do with it.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LeVar Burton On Google Glass

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 10, 2013 @05:41PM (#45386465)

    ... Burton still had a "knee-jerk" response when confronted with Glass. Although his celebrity status and the resulting paranoia could have something to do with it.'"

    When you have employers looking at Facebook and college admissions people looking at Tweets [nytimes.com], um yeah, the average guy needs to be paranoid. You better be paranoid!

    And it's not just self published stuff. How many of you have had friends and family post pictures of YOU without asking?

    *raises hand*

    It happened to a friend of mine. She wasn't drinking. The waitress was asking us to pass drinks down the table. her friend just happened to snap a photo when she had a drink in each hand - and then she posted the photo on FB.

    And with editiing?

    Good grief, I can video anyone and with some creative editing, make them look horrible.

    And when you are say, trying to get a job, the person who's looking you up isn't going to contact you and ask what the story is! Fuck no! They are going to draw their own conclusions.

    People will take any little bit of information about someone and turn it into a complete profile about someone.

    It happens here all the time - people draw conclusions about others just from a single post.

    • by Bogtha (906264) on Sunday November 10, 2013 @06:45PM (#45386803)

      There's lots of problems with Facebook, but let's not pretend you're completely helpless about other people's photos of you.

      If you're tagged in a photo, you can exercise your privacy controls over it. If you aren't tagged in the photo, a prospective employer isn't going to see it when they look at your profile.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Rude Turnip (49495)

        "If you're tagged in a photo, you can exercise your privacy controls over it."

        I take exception to this. Why should I ever have to interact with Facebook in the first place? It is entirely possible to tag someone's name into a photo that does not have a Facebook account.

        My heart is warmed by the fact that kids are now moving away from Facebook and going back to private messaging like iMessage, Whatsapp, etc., to get away from compromising situations.

        • by crossmr (957846) on Sunday November 10, 2013 @08:43PM (#45387465) Journal

          But if you tag someone in a photo who doesn't have a profile, it won't matter. It doesn't link to anything.

          It's a shame you're on a tech site but so ignorant of the technology that you're speaking out against. The way HR sees photos of your on facebook is because they find your profile and you have privacy set to public, and photos of you that friends tagged, which you approved are also sitting there publicly on your wall.

          They don't find them via your friends profiles. They find them because of the connection to your profile.
          So if you aren't on facebook, there is no profile for them to connect to, and they won't be showing up in any searches.

          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            The way HR sees photos of your on facebook is because they find your profile and you have privacy set to public, and photos of you that friends tagged, which you approved are also sitting there publicly on your wall.

            They don't find them via your friends profiles. They find them because of the connection to your profile.

            Your friends' profiles are connected to your profile. Who's ignorant now?

            • by crossmr (957846)

              Holy fucking reading comprehension batman.
              Here is the original post:

              It is entirely possible to tag someone's name into a photo that does not have a Facebook account

              He was talking about people tagging people who don't have facebook accounts.
              So the answer to your question is: You

              • by drinkypoo (153816)

                And then you said "the way they find your pictures" blah blah blah, which is a bullshit unsupported statement. HR employees aren't all idiots, some of them can find you in pics you're not even tagged in. Stop assuming that everyone else is an idiot, because it only makes you an asshole.

                • by crossmr (957846)

                  yes, they can follow your profile to friends profiles and check any public photos they have, but again that requires someone have a facebook account in the first place. This was a discussion about people without facebook accounts, and if someone just typed a non-account name as a tag on a photo. Those don't show up in searches, so doing so does in no way lead back to you.

                  The OP was claiming that it was basically a requirement that you signed up for facebook so that you could manage photos tagged of you sinc

                • If HR is paying people to go through your friends' photos on facebook and find ones you aren't tagged in, that's a major red flag you should get out of that company. For one thing, what kind of company goes to such lengths to spy on their employees? For another, that's just wasteful spending.

                  Not trying to commit a just world fallacy, I think privacy even in untagged photos is a concern, just that specific example doesn't strike me as very good.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

            ..or they find them because, you know, I don't have a social-media account but my dim-whitted cousin tagged me by name in a photo and when an employer types in "XYZ name and XYZ town they find pics of me on his feed. i have no profile so the tags float until i create an account and turn tagging off.

            Search engines index all the shit they can.

            You don't need a profile.

            I know because it's happened to me.

            -C.R.

            • by crossmr (957846)

              Never seen them index generic tags. People can write all kinds of random shit in tags, unless they were linked to accounts, there is no reason for them to even be indexed.

          • by tchdab1 (164848)

            This might be the ultimate fate of FB and other social sites: to avoid being mis-represented or privacy-violated people may choose to delete their profiles and content.

    • by wickerprints (1094741) on Sunday November 10, 2013 @06:57PM (#45386883)

      Not all technology is great, and questioning what constitutes an appropriate use of technology is not necessarily a bad thing, nor is it fair to characterize such people as having "knee-jerk" reactions. Who is the summarizer to assume or claim that Mr. Burton hasn't been thoughtful about his reservations, or to imply that he is being paranoid because he's a celebrity? That is, quite frankly, insulting and corrosive.

    • by Ardyvee (2447206)

      If I were an employer, beyond criminal record, I don't think I should care what my employees did or do or will do in their free time. It doesn't make much sense to me to try to use that information when hiring. Not even because "culture", because that should be something you see during what should be your interview.

      Of course this doesn't apply to sensitive positions where the person may have access to sensitive information, but whoever is doing that will probably employ more sophisticate methods to profilin

      • by tftp (111690)

        I'd like to hear what the reasons are for those that agree with using social networks and information found on the internet when hiring. I might be wrong or missing something.

        You would be perfectly correct if a human can wear one mind at work, and then wear another mind after work.

        But humans are not robots, and it doesn't work this way. If you possess a characteristic away from work, you will have some of it at work, or close enough to work that it matters. HR will decide on their own if those characte

        • by sjames (1099)

          Many people have a work persona that is different from other times. I never drink at work, nor do I watch TV. I have seen some of the most foul mouthed people who never hesitate to tell an off-color joke out and about act with the utmost professionalism at work.

          Over nearly 1000 tears we have moved away from feudal lords who dictate the lives of the serfs, only to rush back to it.

          • by tftp (111690) on Monday November 11, 2013 @02:03AM (#45388859) Homepage

            The behavior of feudal lords and HR people is caused by the same reason: mistrust. And they are not entirely wrong here. Many people - just as you are saying - are good, honest workers who always separate their work and their free time. But "many" is not a specific number. IMO, not more than 25% of all workers are inclined to maintain such separation. Some of them do not want; some cannot; some do not care; some are interested to work as little as possible. The majority of workers allow some leakage of their off the clock habits into their on the clock activities. Employers do not object to some of that, but abuse of trust is not a well defined line in the sand. Given the choice, HR picks employees who are less likely to become a liability. You can claim all you want that on weekends you are a completely different person than on weekdays, but nobody is going to spend time on evaluating your statements - unless you are a unique employee who has unique skills. Many programmers are like that, but very few accountants or pizza delivery people are.

            Besides, as I said in my example, if you are doing your daredevil stunts on weekends, it does not matter how honest you are if you are in a hospital with 123 broken bones, unable to complete that complex project where you are the leader. The same will happen if you get arrested, or lost in the woods, or sick - those are objective factors that do not depend on your intent. I knew people who got injured in a game of hockey and had to spend some days away from work. You would say that this is normal behavior and normal accidents that all people have from time to time, and that is true. However this does not prevent HR from selecting only those applicants who present below the average risk. After all, this is the primary function of HR - to evaluate applicants and to select only those who are the best for the company. This does lead to rejection of normal behavior; but what can anyone do about that?

            • by sjames (1099)

              Don't be surprised when the serfs storm the castle one day. The behavior is abusive and will only be tolerated so long and to a limited degree.

              Note that storming the castle could mean forcing employment laws similar to France. The best way for employers herec to avoid that uis to demonstrate that it isn't necessary.

              • by tftp (111690)

                Don't be surprised when the serfs storm the castle one day. The behavior is abusive and will only be tolerated so long and to a limited degree. Note that storming the castle could mean forcing employment laws similar to France.

                This will simply result in no new hiring in the USA. Companies are already overtaxed; right now they are additionally struck with healthcare requirements. Any employer of sufficient size will do well - from his business' point of view - if he just moves the whole company to China.

                • by sjames (1099)

                  I'm sure the CEOs will just love living in China!

                  Funny thing, people are still employed all over the EU in spite of the laws and taxes. Yes some countries there have problems, but then there's places like Germany. Just look at how businesses haven't fled California!

                  Your second option would get the 1% beheaded, just like in France. As it should be. The banks wouldn't stand for it, nearly 100% of their borrowers would default. Pretty much every market would crumble due to nobody being able to afford anything

                  • by tftp (111690)

                    I'm sure the CEOs will just love living in China!

                    CEOs don't have to live in China. Besides, San Jose looks like a medieval village, compared to Shanghai.

                    Just look at how businesses haven't fled California!

                    Hmm... I'm here, and I know examples to the contrary. New businesses are not hiring.

                    Your second option would get the 1% beheaded, just like in France. As it should be.

                    Perhaps. As I said, it's a risky proposition. But if you don't accept any of those two plans, what do you propose? As it stands,

                    • by sjames (1099)

                      You have fallen for the FUD. The fact that many other countries have managed is proof that it can be managed. Your 'evidence' seems to be anecdotal at best (lots of companies aren't hiring, lots are). Corporate profits are breaking records in the U.S. it just isn't trickling down. many companies are learning that outsourcing is a big problem and that you get what you pay for. Sure, they charge $10/hr rather than $50 but they take 10 times longer.

                      Shanghai has air you can cut with a knife. China may 'solve' i

        • by Ardyvee (2447206)

          Yes, this and child comments are exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for sharing.

    • It happens here all the time - people draw conclusions about others just from a single post.

      Listen, asshat, get off your paranoia soap-box and take off the tinfoil hat.

  • by Goody (23843) on Sunday November 10, 2013 @05:42PM (#45386475) Journal

    Because everyone who opposes some technology is having a "knee-jerk" reaction. Perhaps some people think that having a computer screen in front of one eye all day is a bit pathetic?

    • What's pathetic about it? Stephen Hawking has one in front of both eyes all day. Some blind people consider themselves lucky to have one implanted directly in front of both retinas.

      • by Goody (23843)

        The guy is paralyzed and can only move his eyes. He uses a device in front of his eyes to communicate because that's the only way he can communicate. It's not like he's surfing Google+ or masturbating to smartphone reviews with his device. If you're not paralyzed and have other ways to interface with the world, yes, it's pathetic.

        • From what I can determine, in all cases it is used to augment your ability to communicate and/or navigate. Why is wanting either of these pathetic in *any* circumstance?

          • by Goody (23843)

            If you feel you need your ability to communicate and navigate augmented, by all means, have at it. If you truly have that need or it's that useful, those around you won't think it's pathetic.

            • Prior to widespread use of electricity, nobody felt the need either. Yet where would we be today without cell phones? There's no way the economy could scale to what it currently is without them.

              Luddites are always wrong BTW, all technology ever does is allow the economy to grow larger than it was before. Sure, it causes frictional unemployment too, but that has never been permanent, nor is there any good reason to believe it ever would be permanent. (History has proven these so called "reasons" wrong numero

          • From what I can determine, in all cases it is used to augment your ability to communicate and/or navigate. Why is wanting either of these pathetic in *any* circumstance?

            Don't be naive. Do you really think that some clever sociopath is *not* going to figure out how to exploit his/her augmented ability to "communicate and/or navigate" to enhance their ability to fuck with people? C'mon. By your line of reasoning, a gun just augments our ability to throw things. Why is there no downside to throwing things harder and with more accuracy? I suppose you live in a (fantasy) land where armed robberies never happen?

    • Re:Right... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Sunday November 10, 2013 @06:17PM (#45386657)

      One can be opposed to the "Google" part without being against the "Glass" concept - although I do somewhat lean in the direction you mention anyway (I've got a smartphone and don't really see the added value here).

      I would not be opposed, in theory, to something like Google Glass that was completely under my control. But I've come to realize that using free services from companies like Google and Facebook means I also have to give away something I'd prefer they not have - more or less unfettered access to much of my personal data. And, perhaps more importantly, I've learned that even if I choose not to use those services, they're slurping up my information without my consent (via shadow profiles) if any of my acquaintances are using their services.

      • by msobkow (48369)

        I am not opposed to the heads up display over one eye.

        I am opposed to the hidden camera.

  • Marketed wrong (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 10, 2013 @05:54PM (#45386543)

    Google Glass is marketed in the wrong way. Just like Segway they're trying to hype it for use by everybody all the time and justifiably it's backfiring on them. They should market it quietly to niche applications, e.g. HUD-like instructions and videos for DIY jobs, easy-to-use trail maps / plant identification for hikers, or self-service tours for tourists. These are useful applications that don't impact society on a grand scale, and later on the public can decide if they want to adapt it to more widespread use, at their own pace.

    • Except your plan does not jibe with their business model.

      • by rsborg (111459)

        Except your plan does not jibe with their business model.

        Their business model for search shouldn't be the overriding principle for all other product areas. That's what caused Microsoft to stumble over the past 13 years... Ballmer's insistence of "Windows everywhere" was simply ludicrous - people still don't want Windows on their phone for example, despite 10+ years of Microsoft trying to make it work.

        If Google were smart they'd let the product and market establish the business model that's appropriate (in a Google way). If you're planning on selling cars, I'd b

    • by SeaFox (739806)

      Google Glass is marketed in the wrong way. Just like Segway they're trying to hype it for use by everybody all the time and justifiably it's backfiring on them. They should market it quietly to niche applications...

      Google doesn't want a "niche product" only people in specialized fields will ever know about, they want to release the next iPad. Unfortunately, they haven't really developed that product that will capture the hearts of the public yet.

  • "Celebrity?" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Animats (122034) on Sunday November 10, 2013 @06:13PM (#45386641) Homepage

    Never heard of this guy.

    There are bad, overhyped ideas that are well executed and actually work. The Segway, for example.

    A few historical examples:

    • The S. S. United States. Fastest transatlantic ocean liner ever built. 3 days, 10 hours from New York to England. Worked great. Still afloat and being restored as a museum ship. Built too late - by 1952, airliners were already crossing the Atlantic.
    • Home control. Tried over and over since the 1950s, first with 24VDC relay systems, then X10 ("X10! X10! X10!...") in the 1980s, and now being re-hyped again. Works fine. Solves a non-problem.
    • Maglev trains. Work fine. Go fast. Track costs too much.
    • Supersonic airliners. The Concorde worked well for decades. Supersonic booms over land were unacceptable, which limited routes. Supersonic fuel consumption is 3x subsonic. Just not economic.
    • Short takeoff and landing (STOL) aircraft. Not quite a flying car, but workable aircraft with very low stall speeds and very short runway requirements have been built for decades. Just taxi out of your driveway and take off on the street, right? No.

    Google's head-mounted things may be in this category.

    • by femtobyte (710429)

      Google Glass has an additional disadvantage over perhaps offering little of use to the user (beyond existing tech): it is disliked by people around the user. Flying on the Concorde or taking a maglev train probably doesn't make you a persona-non-grata jerk that people don't want around. Being a patsy for the advertising/surveillance industry often does.

    • Re:"Celebrity?" (Score:5, Informative)

      by SeaFox (739806) on Sunday November 10, 2013 @06:50PM (#45386833)

      Never heard of this guy.

      He actually is a celebrity, known amongst geeks for his character on Star Trek: The Next Generation.

      Asking his opinion on Google Glass is completely intentional, as his character on the series was a blind man who viewed the word through a device that sat at eye-level on his head [link to pics] [google.com] and interfaced directly with the visual cortex. The device allowed him to see the world in an unnatural but heightened way far outside the normal visible light-spectrum, closer to electromagnetic spectrum (someone will reply to this and give exact spectrum/wavelengths I'm sure).

      So some marketoid is trying to draw a parallel between the character's visor and Google Glass.

      • by T.E.D. (34228)

        He actually is a celebrity, known amongst geeks for his character on Star Trek: The Next Generation.

        In addition, back in the late 70's he also played the most famous and pivotal character (Kunta-Kinte) in the most watched TV series ever (Roots). His face is the large centerpiece on the cover of the DVD.

        He was also the host of Reading Rainbow, probably the last great PBS educational kids show, before cable destroyed the concept with Nick and Cartoon Network. Perhaps the GP never heard of the guy because he is young, or never watched a lot of TV. But in either case I fail to see why him not knowing a famo

    • Strange that you never heard of Levar Burton. Maybe you would prefer the opinions of current headline making celebs such as Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, or Kanye West?

    • STOL aircraft are the hottest selling GA aircraft there is right now, the "CUB" variants from super cubs to pipper cubs to the dozen other builders / models are selling like hotcakes and doing great in both certified and sport aircraft models and the Zenith STOL's are being built by the thousands.

      They were never designed to take off on the street like out of ones neighborhood, but people with a few hundred feet of grass can certainly do it. They're used for hunting trips, bush pilots, search and rescue, lei

    • by Bite The Pillow (3087109) on Monday November 11, 2013 @12:00AM (#45388357)

      "Never heard of this guy" usually means "I hang out everywhere, and the name doesn't ring a bell".

      It could mean, "I know a whole crapload of celebrities, and while many of you might know him, he's not a blip on the radar".

      Sometimes, it means, "I did a quick search to see if I could figure out which LeVar Burton you meant, and it could be a CEO in Chicago, or a babysitter in Shithole, LA."

      From time to time, it means, "I have read every horsecrap shitfilled cockgargling arsemunching word you assfucks have written in the last five years and this fuckstain doesn't even appear in the retarded, window-licking, drooling masses of fools who have managed to bang enough keys in the form of a not-immediately-dismissable-sentence, posts that I have subjected myself to in that time, so you must not know s/him either."

      In this case, it means, "I am not the target audience for the site I'm posting on, and I don't know this, and therefore everyone should ignore me because I'm an idiot who should take an arrow to the knee."

    • Never heard of this guy.

      Good troll.

      I for one am unsure why in the first place the original article was written. So the guy played a character with a vaguely-but-not-quite similar technology some 20-odd years ago, so now his opinion counts? What's next, Arnold Schwarzenegger on Roombas because he used to play the Terminator?

      Second, how did this end up on the /. frontpage?

    • by LWATCDR (28044)

      "Home control. Tried over and over since the 1950s, first with 24VDC relay systems, then X10 ("X10! X10! X10!...") in the 1980s, and now being re-hyped again. Works fine. Solves a non-problem."
      It is not a none problem. It is one of those techs that is creeping up soon. In many ways it reminds of LANs. They went from rare and expensive to cheap and everywhere. WiFI was a big help as it drove the cost down and flexibility up. Home automation is much the same. Remotes for TV, Stereos, and even fans are now com

    • Boy, what a misinfo about supersonic airliners. These airliners were not introduced to save on flying time (that was just a nice extra and a nice marketing slogan), they were introduced to save on fuel.

      Jet engines are more effective when you fly faster. On the other hand, the drag gets more as well, and at Mach=1, the drag rises considerably. (the airflow cannot go over the wing nose anymore, which causes a helping suction to disappear). But someone had calculated that there were supersonic speeds at which

  • by Gordo_1 (256312) on Sunday November 10, 2013 @06:26PM (#45386709)

    LeVar Burton played Geordie LaForge on Star Treak -- a character who could not see except by virtue of a digital visor he wore. Now the actor in real life tries something that's also sorta similar -- if you wave your hands, squint your eyes and gesture knowingly. What are the odds! The parallels must have been mindblowing! Life imitating art! The jokes must now write themselves! Queue the Benny Hill music...

    • by antdude (79039)

      But his visor could be like Google Glass. :P

  • by period3 (94751) on Sunday November 10, 2013 @06:29PM (#45386721)

    Burton still had a "knee-jerk" response when confronted with Glass

    He was asked what he thought of Glass, and he gave his opinion. Sorry, how is that a "knee-jerk" reaction? Would it have been so if he had responded positively?

    Here's my reasoned, non knee-jerk response: Google can fuck off, and -- within the bounds imposed by professionalism and etiquitte -- so can eveyrone else wearing these infringements to my privacy. (In what I consider the moral sense, as opposed to the legal sense)

    • by fluffy99 (870997)

      Burton still had a "knee-jerk" response when confronted with Glass

      He was asked what he thought of Glass, and he gave his opinion. Sorry, how is that a "knee-jerk" reaction? Would it have been so if he had responded positively?

      Here's my reasoned, non knee-jerk response: Google can fuck off, and -- within the bounds imposed by professionalism and etiquitte -- so can eveyrone else wearing these infringements to my privacy. (In what I consider the moral sense, as opposed to the legal sense)

      For anyone who didn't read the article (most of you huys I suspect), the knee-jerk reaction he refers to was to wonder and ask, "Am I being recorded?" This is going to be a reaction, just the same as wondering about someone holding up their cellphone while talking to you.

  • I predict that there will be a lot of businesses, restaurants, theaters and people who "Just Say No" to Google Glass. They will block people using Google Glass from being in their establishments and on their property. They will refuse to interact with people who may be putting them under constant surveillance and distraction.

    • by ArsonSmith (13997)

      You mean all the places that have a sign that says, "This place is under video surveillance."

      That'd be kind of amusing actually.

  • I think it will become accepted - there may need to be some etiquette established with it's use - not that that has happened with smart-phones.

    Just imagine - if you do something stupid - someone might tape it and keep it in your face for ever - the Internet never forgets. ,.,.

    What would you say to someone taping you with their Google-glass and you found it uncomfortable?

    What do we say to our kids when we try to talk to them, but the TXTing keeps interrupting?

    In the end we are still social creatures, wired t

  • by NynexNinja (379583) on Sunday November 10, 2013 @07:20PM (#45387015)
    The problem with Google Glass is not the hardware itself, it is the privacy implications of using the device, which sends everything to an untrusted third party. It would be different if they offered the option of never communicating with their network, but they don't offer that as an option. So, essentially anyone who has an agreement with google (NSA, FBI, other governments, other companies, etc) will get copies of your location, pictures coming off the camera, video, microphone data, etc. Those issues alone are the reasons why I would never actually use one. Until Google is serious about separating the umbilical cord from devices like this from talking to their servers, it remains a serious problem about ever using it for anything long term. It's bad enough you might be already using an Android or iPhone device which does almost the same thing, minus the video and audio stream.
    • by rsborg (111459)

      The problem with Google Glass is not the hardware itself, it is the privacy implications of using the device, which sends everything to an untrusted third party. It would be different if they offered the option of never communicating with their network, but they don't offer that as an option. So, essentially anyone who has an agreement with google (NSA, FBI, other governments, other companies, etc) will get copies of your location, pictures coming off the camera, video, microphone data, etc. Those issues alone are the reasons why I would never actually use one. Until Google is serious about separating the umbilical cord from devices like this from talking to their servers, it remains a serious problem about ever using it for anything long term. It's bad enough you might be already using an Android or iPhone device which does almost the same thing, minus the video and audio stream.

      The always-on (or potentially so) aspect of Glass is very off-putting to me. I don't want to deal with Glass-users, because I don't know if they're live-streaming to youtube. I wouldn't wear one because I don't want to put others in the same uncomfortable position.

      The fact that there's no clear indicator that it's recording video/audio is a huge social faux pas, and will likely lead to conflicts that shouldn't have taken place.

    • by LWATCDR (28044)

      Nothing has only one side. Imagine a city with a good number of Google Glass users.

      Say you have a special needs person that is lost. Upload a picture of his face and every set of Glass starts looking for him. When spotted the location is sent to the police and he is reunited with his family.

      The downsides are there are well but most are in the category of "Google could do this".
      I guess it depends if your an optimist or a pessimist.That and I think it has become "fashionable" to talk about how Google is big b

    • Interestingly enough, this idea was (partly) tackled in the Generations movie with Geordi, LeVar Burton's character. Somebody got a hold of his visor, figured out the passcodes the Enterprise was using for shielding, and destroyed the Enterprise. It's probably part of the reason why his occular implants were changed when the next movie rolled around. (That and it looked cooler than the banana-clip-inspired head piece.)
  • It's not Google Glass that he doesn't like. After all, the guy wore what was basically (a prop version of) Google Glass on camera when he worked on TNG. If he had concerns about the technology it then something tells me they would have addressed it in one of the episodes.

    His problem is with the ability to communicate across long distances quickly. He doesn't like the idea that anyone could take a picture *and then send it everywhere* in the blink of an eye. An interesting concern, but let's make sure th
    • His problem is with the ability to communicate across long distances quickly. He doesn't like the idea that anyone could take a picture *and then send it everywhere* in the blink of an eye. An interesting concern, but let's make sure that we're addressing the proper problem first.

      This is clearly a privacy concern, and it's a biggie. If Glass existed without the video/audio recording features, for me at least, it'd be a very compelling product - I would love a heads up display with GPS. Google aimed too far with Glass - society isnt' ready for it yet - with the backing of Android, and their search product, they could have made it useful and cool without making it a massive privacy concern - and then added those features in a subsequent release.

      • by LWATCDR (28044)

        Except that for the people that have Glass guess what their favorite feature is. The camera. They love the fact that they can take pictures quickly and that they can catch pictures they could not if they had to get their camera out of their pocket. As to the heads up display with GPS just how often do you use GPS? How often does the average person use GPS? I know my city pretty well and never have to use GPS at home unless I am going to someone's home for the first time. I do live a city that has a terrible

  • by glwtta (532858) on Sunday November 10, 2013 @11:16PM (#45388185) Homepage
    Apparently "knee-jerk response" now means "opinion I disagree with". Good to know!
    • by ArsonSmith (13997)

      Those are the only ones I care about. If it's a Knee-jerk response in a way I favor, why the fuck would I make anything out of it?

  • Almost all old people are scared and confused by the technology of a generation one or two iterations down the line. It doesn't matter if they played pretend with the idea at some point. It's just an age related inability to adapt to new situations. This is like a shocking story that Stallone can't take a punch as well anymore, or has heart issues despite playing Rocky. Age fucks with people, that's life. Doesn't matter if we're talking body or mind.
  • emphasis mine:

    "Meanwhile, in the course of this "Terrorist Generation" campaign, for Obama to claim, "you know, I'm really worried about terrorists, so I have to to read -- well, they claim they don't read it -- I have to get information about your email, where you are, who you're talking to, what you have on Facebook; I've gotta put that on my big database"... actually, we're moving into a world which was described, pretty accurately I think, by one of the founders of Google... I don't know if you followed

"From there to here, from here to there, funny things are everywhere." -- Dr. Seuss

Working...