Coming Soon: Prescription Lenses For Google Glass 195
When I first tried on an early Google Glass headset, I had to take off my glasses -- that made the Glass display usable, but made the rest of the room a blurry mess. When I asked the engineers and designers about this, I got mostly shrugs in return. But now, writes reader rjmarvin, "Google Glass users sporting the eyewear will soon be able to do so with a prescription for $99. Eyeglass manufacturer Rochester Optical will offer prescription options in differents colors and styles, even allowing Glass users to trick out their eyewear with transitions or tinted lenses. They're currently conducting a survey to gauge consumer interest and preference." I look forward to the day that online glasses sources like Zenni Optical have have even cheaper options for wearable computing integration, but Rochester's projected starting price is lower than I would have guessed.
Only when you can't tell that glasses have it (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as Google Glass looks like Locutus-of-Borg cosplay, there will be pushback from people who don't want to be seen with it.
The display needs to be embedded transparently in the lenses itself, and the other components need to be integrated into a thin, ordinary-looking temple piece.
Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it (Score:5, Interesting)
As long as Google Glass looks like Locutus-of-Borg cosplay, there will be pushback from people who don't want to be seen with it.
The display needs to be embedded transparently in the lenses itself, and the other components need to be integrated into a thin, ordinary-looking temple piece.
That will just make it worse.
If it becomes difficult for people to tell that you're wearing something like Google Glass versus just a regular pair of glasses, this is going to become a very unpleasant world to live in for those of us who require corrective lenses and who don't want to or cannot wear contacts. As the technology improves over time it becomes inevitable that "smart" glasses will become indistinguishable from normal glasses, but long before it becomes literally true the public will start to believe that it's already true. We're going to start having irrational assholes everywhere, even in completely public places, going up to people and demanding they take off their glasses and "stop recording me!". This will of course include some of the biggest assholes of all: law enforcement officers.
As a wearer of corrective lenses I do not look forward to this brave new world where everyone who wears glasses will be subjected to suspicious glares or even physically accosted for no good reason because no one can tell whether or not you're surreptitiously recording them. As we all know too well, when people aren't sure about something they instinctively default to "Kill it with Fire!".
Thanks a lot, Google. Like we needed another witch hunt trigger. I guess I better start saving up for Lasik treatments.
When we finally perfect wireless bionic retinal implants with decent resolution the world is going to go absolutely apeshit with paranoia about being secretly recorded.
Re: (Score:2)
You may want to have a rant against the people spreading the FUD rather than the people creating the technology.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem you're describing could be mitigated somewhat if the glasses had forward-facing LEDs which turn on whenever the camera is engaged. Then you could be reasonably sure that most people are not, in fact, videoing you all the time. For the small percent who want to do this anyway, sure they could paint over the LEDs, but then they could just wear a buttonhole camera anyway. You're not going to stop surreptitious recording now that the technology is small enough.
Here's one other way it can go down,
Re:Only when you can't tell that glasses have it (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem you're describing could be mitigated somewhat if the glasses had forward-facing LEDs which turn on whenever the camera is engaged. Then you could be reasonably sure that most people are not, in fact, videoing you all the time. For the small percent who want to do this anyway, sure they could paint over the LEDs, but then they could just wear a buttonhole camera anyway. You're not going to stop surreptitious recording now that the technology is small enough.
Here's one other way it can go down, though:
The next generation of teenagers becomes the first wide adopters of the technology. You can guess the marketing strategies: have pop idols be seen with them, have the next generation's Hannah Montana wearing them. They're fun, kids! Record good times with your friends! Record that important history class for a friend who's sick! Record a POV of your mad skateboarding skills and upload instantly to {hot social media platform du jour}.
In short, produce a generation that is used to filming and being filmed 24/7/365. The same way we've produced a generation that's used to being online all the time. It's possible, right? Especially if the parents are resisting it, the kids'll be wild for it.
This kind of thing always sounds great on paper, until this new adventurous and uninhibited UNDERAGE generation ends up "accidentally" recording and sharing videos of themselves in the nude, showering, taking a dump, and having sexy time with themselves and others in their age group. Until society at large, and especially law enforcement, learns to accept and avoid overreacting to underage nudity and erotic activities that any fool already knows underage people in every generation engage in almost without exception, the advent of truly ubiquitous 24/7/365 recording of human life is going to be an absolute disaster for millions of individuals in coming decades. It's going to set off a whole new epic level of moral panic.
Many young people who had the temerity to turn 18 while in possession of old nude camera phone images of themselves or their girlfriend/boyfriend taken while someone was still underage have already started to get into serious legal trouble, so don't even pretend this isn't going to be a huge issue once everyone starts walking around with a permanently attached and active video camera on their almost-invisible stereo bluetooth headset. Yeah, we'll see lots of cool POV skateboarding tricks and crazy base jumping and stuff like that, but we'll also see a whole bunch of things that tens of millions of really uptight adults are absolutely not ready to see being broadcast to the public on the FaceBooks of the near future.
Mark my words. Universal recording is something that's really going to knock society on its ear, and it will take quite a long time before things settle down. Probably two or three generations at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I fully agree. But the genie is out of the bottle. If tech companies can stir up a huge demand, and if the technology becomes ubiquitous, it seems a likely future.
There once was a time when store owners would toss you out if they caught you taking pictures of their displays -- especially if they thought you were spying for a competitor. But now, just try to run a business like that where you have to chase after everyone who holds up a phone in the vicinity of your shop. It's over. The Surreptitiou
Re: (Score:2)
It DOES have a forward facing red LED that comes on if you record something.
The media hate-frenzy has just latched onto "ZOMG THEY COULD BE RECORDING YOU AT ANY TIME!!!!!!!11!!1one"
Re: (Score:2)
It DOES have a forward facing red LED that comes on if you record something.
Yes, there's no way that could ever be disabled or fail to work. http://slashdot.org/topic/datacenter/mac-camera-exploit-shows-spy-potential-of-all-peripherals/ [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Lasik is worth every penny (assuming your prescription allows for it). i don't know why people would want to pay google glass at all, when they could could be completed glasses free for less money.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand when I brought this concern to my optomitrist, even most sighted people would need reading glasses when they get older. However you can operate mostly fine without them, you would just need them for reading (duh) or using the computer.
Re: (Score:2)
Your dystopian future is [deluxecctv.com] already [proofpronto.com] here [surveillance-video.com].
Re: (Score:2)
We're going to start having irrational assholes everywhere, even in completely public places, going up to people and demanding they take off their glasses and "stop recording me!". This will of course include some of the biggest assholes of all: law enforcement officers.
It seems to me that there's a significant call for a wearable display without an integrated camera. Losing the camera would make the glasses less funny lookin', would upset other people a lot less, and given that most of the functionality seems to be notifications and mapping, which don't have anything to do with the camera, there doesn't seem to be much loss.
I, at least, have no desire for Google Glass, but would quite like some otherwise normal glasses that could give me notifications.
Re: (Score:2)
Hidden cameras require a level of premediation, they basically require someone to make a concious premeditated descision to record secretly.
Phone cameras allow one to record video on the "spur of the moment" but it's pretty obvious when they are being used because they way you hold a phone when recording is pretty different to how you would hold it when just using it as a PDA.
If glasses with built in cameras become commonplace (and less obviously camera containing) then you will have to seriously consider t
Great (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
at least you'll see it coming...
Re: (Score:2)
Easier than pie because the police report will cover the assult. The hard part is getting your pistol back from the police after you shot the FUD that attacked you.
I know that any loser that tries to punch me will get about 4 rounds center mass, "I was afraid for my life officer, he just came at me."
Re: (Score:2)
You'll get a great Youtube video, "Goon punching me in face." Maybe a lot of them.
It'll be a meme, with all the other Youtube videos of people with Google glasses getting punched in the face.
"Here's one from when we went to France."
Re: (Score:2)
You'll get a great Youtube video, "Goon punching me in face." Maybe a lot of them.
It'll be a meme, with all the other Youtube videos of people with Google glasses getting punched in the face.
"Here's one from when we went to France."
And makes for an easy police report. This is why dashcams are so popular. This could be a logical extension of it.
uh oh, a Google glass story (Score:2, Insightful)
Cue the neanderthal luddites threatening to beat people up.
Re:uh oh, a Google glass story (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Cue the neanderthal luddites threatening to beat people up.
Not being keen on the idea of someone recording your movements at all times is not what I would consider a Luddite-ish value. Just seems reasonable to me.
I'll grant that threatening to cause people harm because they're doing something you don't like, but isn't explicitly prohibited, is a rather prehistoric attitude to have.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Thinking that someone passing you on the street wearing one of these devices is the same as "recording your movements at all times" is.
So, if you see someone walking around with one of those gigantic 1980's VHS camcorders on their shoulder, looking through the eyepiece, you don't think assuming "hey, that guy must be recording something" is a reasonable thought to have?
What self-blinded ignoramus goes through life assuming every camera pointed at him is turned off by default?
Re: (Score:3)
Hint: It's called paranoid schizophrenia, and it's no fun.
Re: (Score:3)
So every person with a cameraphone has it recording at all times?
When they're holding it in that certain way that screams, "I AM RECORDING SOMETHING RIGHT NOW," yes.
When it's in their pocket, or they're obviously on a call? Don't be obtuse.
What person goes through life assuming that every camera that's pointing at themis recording their every move
Celebrities and other values of person who put value on their privacy.
Hint: It's called paranoid schizophrenia, and it's no fun.
Don't use that term. You obviously don't know what it means, and just insulted every person who either suffers from the affliction or at least knows what that term means.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so it appears you do know what schizophrenia is, but can't distinguish it from good ol' fashioned, regular paranoia.
Take your meds. And maybe a nap, you sound like you could use a nap.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. If someone wanted to surreptitiously record your every move, they could do a very simple Google search for hidden or spy cameras and come up with hundreds of products. They would probably not use a device that emits a glow in front of their eye when recording, makes them look like a sci-fi character, activates when they tap themselves on the temple, and requires voice commands.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is if someone pulls out a cell phone or camera to take a picture, you can see them doing so.
There are no such visual cues with glassholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And, yes, if I see someone wearing them, I'm going to assume they're turned on and active.
What would be the point otherwise?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its luddite behavior because we have been under constant video surveillance for decades.
No, smashing cameras would be 'luddite behavior.' Smashing faces because of technological apprehension, while stupid IMO, doesn't exactly fit that definition.
If they REALLY had objection to it, they wouldn't go to places that have CCTV.
That statement is equally legitimate to "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide."
In that, it's not legitimate at all. Every major intersection in my city, for example, has CCTV cameras attached. So to "not go places that have CCTV" would mean to not go places, and that's just stupidly unreasonable.
Re: (Score:3)
Going to the bank is the same as walking out your frond door? Sure, there are places we expect to see CCTV and accept those locations as a trade off for giving banks the ability to catch robbers. This is not the same as being tracked by your mobile phone, NSA having access to turn on your web-cams, and people volunteering _your_ location and information because they think a gadget is "cool".
The scope of the majority of surveillance has been hidden from view, so claiming "everyone's okay with something" th
Re: (Score:3)
> Not being keen on the idea of someone recording your movements at all times is not what I would consider a Luddite-ish value.
I sure hope you never go outside.
Personally, I find it sad and not just a little fucked up how so many people have this attitude of, 'dur, if you're outside your actual home then it's all fair game!'
That's not how it works, goddammit, so stop saying stupid, mindless shit like that. Yea, in a public place you don't have a whole lot of privacy rights; however, and I want you to read this next part a few times so it sticks: not all out door areas are public fucking places. My backyard, for example, with its 8-foot privacy fence. Do you think
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>What about the satellites that fly overhead? Are they assholes too?
Uhh yes, that's why the operators work for intelligence agencies.
And yes we do have an expectation of privacy in public, granted it's a lower expectation, but we do not lose all privacy just because we leave our house. That is why "Stop and Search" is wrong and, regardless of what NYC says, illegal. But we do have the right not to be followed and recorded, hence the legal definition of harassment.
Please, we live in a society, where
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CCTV has been around for decades, google glass changes very little. People have been videotaped most of their adult lives. The genie was out of the bottle a LONG time ago. Your objections ring hollow when you dont even mention CCTV.
CCTV is a stationary system that monitors only what the people who own the property have a right to monitor.
Comparing Google Glass to CCTV is like comparing a cheap, Walmart brand telescope to the Square Kilometer Array - the only thing they have in common is the fact they're both telescopes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe i have the right
OK, well there's the crux of the issue - you believe you have a right, when you really don't. How does this make you any different than, say, a religious fundamentalist that wants to ban homosexuality, because he believes he has a right to do so?
I believe i have the right to record anything my eye can legally see.
Well, aside the fact that you don't, a video camera sees a lot more than your eye does, such as the IR spectrum. Remember when Sony first came out with the HandyCam, and it was discovered that if you turned on the night-sight during the day, it could see through peo
Re: (Score:2)
Add a roof to your fence and we're in agreement.
Re: (Score:3)
Better idea: don't intentionally violate people's privacy.
If someone in a plane flying overhead *happens* to glance out the window and see me sunbathing nude in my private yard, well, that's life - shit happens.
Conversely, if someone is using technology to intentionally circumvent the obvious and reasonable privacy measures I've put up, then they are violating my civil rights and I will do everything in my power to make sure they pay the legal price.
Add a roof to your fence
OK, I've heard some terribly ridiculous suggestions in my
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not suggesting that people be allowed to become peeping Toms and such. But to suggest that a fence protects you from being photographed is just as absurd as my suggestion that he add a roof. I have a friend who shows up on Google Maps. 1 in 1000 shot, but there you go.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't even bother to look at the 'reasonably prudent' link, did ya?
Personally, I still can't get over the fact that you think roofing a quarter acre of open space is a reasonable suggestion. I guess I can say goodbye to my garden, and grass, and trees...
Re: (Score:2)
>
Seems to me that anti-glass outrage is largely fueled by the Apple media cult and its astonishing capacity for being angry about any technology not invented in cupertino. Had this been "Apple iSight" it would have been widely hailed as revolutionary and obsoleting all other forms of computing overnight.
Well, that assumption is due to you being an imbecile. Grats on that by the way. If Apple had the same product, there would still be the same response because it's an issue of "PRIVACY" and not who made the thing.
And before you cry "ad hominem" you had best re-read your post and ask yourself if I was making a valid observation and not using ad hominem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dont forget folks looking for any excuse to bring up the NSA.
Stop doing that. You'll go blind. (Score:2)
Whats the killer app for this tech? (Score:2)
Outside of some sort of Tron: Uprising style AR view of things for mechanics and the like, why would a person wear these in their normal day?
Re: (Score:2)
So that they don't get hit by a train while looking down at their smartphone?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, common respect for those around them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Prior to the iPhone and andriod taking off I suspect people said similar things about smartphones.
Just because one generation of an idea isn't well enough executed to really take off doesn't mean the idea itself is doomed.
$99 real price but your Insurance billed $200-$900 (Score:2)
$99 real price but your Insurance billed $200-$900 for them
Re: (Score:2)
$99 price for someone what doesn't really need glasses, just the blanks for my glasses cost more than that (I'm a -13).
Re: (Score:2)
$99 price for someone what doesn't really need glasses, just the blanks for my glasses cost more than that (I'm a -13).
I've almost always paid for glasses out of pocket. Only 2 or 3 times have I had optical insurance paying. And while $99 sounds about right for the blanks, the grinding that comes afterwards is pretty creative. Plus it's either tint or do the whole thing over for sunglasses.
Still, it's the frames that are the real ripoff.
Re: (Score:2)
You guys need to check out Zenni. My wife is in coke-bottle territory, but we still pay nowhere near $100 for glasses. I'm only a -3 or so... my glasses are $7.
New! (Score:2)
Now with blind glassholes! :P
I Fail to See the Appeal (Score:2)
I guess maybe I'm the odd duck here, but I just don't see what's so appealing about paying Google to become one of their pet, Snow Crash style gargoyles.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, I expect to be their pet free of charge. ;-)
I find the non-glass versions of their products exceptionally helpful and useful. Glass would mean I don't have to carry a second gadget (I wear prescr. lenses). Right now, google can sift through my email at will, see where I'm going and what I'm doing (calendar), and know who I'm contacting (voice). Verizon knows the rest - they're my telephone provider and have access to all of the calls - home and mobile - and any texts I make. They even know where
Prescription lenses... (Score:5, Funny)
Will not fix a myopic product.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for a crowded streetcar or something, where someone just starts yelling "Ok Glass send a message to " and all the trendy hipster douchebags wearing these things have just blown up some random cellphone.
Only the owner's Glass will activate. My MotoX already does this very well... I've get to find another person to whose voice it will respond.
Re: (Score:2)
False, it currently responds to any voice... (Score:2)
If I take off Glass and give it to someone else - they can instantly use their own voice to issue commands without any calibration. If I or other people shout out commands while a random person is wearing them, it will respond.
The chink in his example is that the target device would have to be a contact in Glass already - and at this current time, Glass contacts are exclusive to Glass - they're not pulled from Google Contacts. As far as I know, you have to say "make a call " versus "make a call to 555-555-
Re: (Score:2)
I'm extrapolating from what my MotoX does. I think it will be highly useful to have personalized voice recognition for Glass, so strongly suspect that's the way it'll go. Like on my phone it'll probably be optional, but I think most people will turn it on.
Everyone at Google has 20/20 vision (Score:2)
"When I asked the engineers and designers about this, I got mostly shrugs in return."
So not a single person on the design and engineering team wears glasses, and it simply never occurred to them that there would need to be a prescription version?
I'll sign up... (Score:2)
If/when I ever need glasses, I'll certainly get the "loaded" ones like Google's or whatever the technology will be by then.
I am one of those people, who always lose things (gloves, umbrellas), so I like to carry as little as possible. Heck, I even sacrifice some privacy and carry only the employer-provided smart-phone — because I loath having to carry one more device. And I read e-books on it too — so as not to carry a separate item.
Classic case of a misunderstood product (Score:2)
While I suppose you could roll the video recorder nonstop, the glasses get warm and wear the battery out pretty fast. Glassholes as walking surveillance cameras is not reality. There are lots of clandestine cameras out there already and that's not what Glass is about. You can take a picture by winking, but that's pretty obvious, and also potentially unnerving.
I need reading glasses so prescription lenses will be a big
Re: (Score:2)
For the mentally ill that think that everyone is recording you all the time because of your paranoia and your inability to see that the record light is on?
You bet, you will get a free "Google Privacy protector" at any local shopping store for free. simply place on your head and cut holes for your eyes. The stores call them "grocery bags" but that is because they don't understand the Google nomenclature.
Note, these can be lined with a metal foil to further protect you from the government satellite system
Re: (Score:3)
You bet, you will get a free "Google Privacy protector" at any local shopping store for free. simply place on your head and cut holes for your eyes. The stores call them "grocery bags" but that is because they don't understand the Google nomenclature.
Yeah, that sounds great, except the trend is now to make it illegal to wear something that covers your face in public...
http://www.wtvq.com/content/localnews/story/Lexington-Adult-Masks-Illegal-To-Wear-In-Public/kduA8xtDwE6DV1LdXH5D5w.cspx [wtvq.com]
http://news.nationalpo [nationalpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have a little red light, but it has the light in front of the wearer's eye. If the screen is on, they could be recording you. They also have to stare directly at you to record, and they'd be using voice commands and tapping at the side of their head. It seems like a pretty shitty device for surreptitious recording - you can already fit a camera in almost anything [brickhousesecurity.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can always opt-out by directing a laser-pen onto the Glass...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're fiiiiiiine.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/reflected-hidden-faces-in-photographs-revealed-in-pupil [kurzweilai.net]
Re: (Score:2)
My eyesight is so poor, my lenses are quite $$$ and take month or more to get them made any time I buy glasses.
Even with the Glass fee, these may turn out to be comparable to my normal glasses with decent designer frames cost wise.
Re: (Score:2)
I know...like I said, my eyes are REALLY bad. My lenses alone are like $300-$350+ each normally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be glib. There is a difference and you know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I hate that? It's pretty obvious and and would never become ubiquitous. You won't see all kinds of people wearing these things downtown. You don't really get it do you. You just don't see the problem with Google Glass which is totally different then this. Glass is going to evolve to the point where you won't even be able to distinguish them from regular glasses. Oh did you think I was totally against being caught in a video at some point in my life? What I hate is the idea of being swept in
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's a good thing some of us remain skeptical. You just make it too easy. This isn't about Google, I would feel the same about it if it were .
Re: (Score:3)
Yes I could actually, but your mind is already made up so what is the point.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So if I walk up to you and point my cell phone camera in your face - No problem? I think you'd get annoyed rather quickly.
Also, let's be honest, the security camera argument is a false argument, since we all know how crappy the footage from security cameras are and that there are more controls over the purpose and use of that footage.
With Glass you may become part of some weirdo's "art project" or have your image stored with Google in perpetuity for them to eventually add to their facial recognition databa
Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Class-based? Seriously? Everybody just pining for Glass and we hate anyone who has it because we don't? I will have you know that I can afford a rainbow of Glass colored frames and I still do not care for this technology and prefer to not be around people wearing it. Not everybody records you without your knowledge, but sooner or later there is going to be one douche who just can't help themselves. They would never stick a phone or a camcorder in your face but will happily record away with their glasses.
Re: (Score:2)
I can assure you I could buy a whole fleet of Google Glass if I wanted to. The class argument is laughable.
Also, unlike you, I've actually tried Google Glass and I can say that the only worthwhile feature was the ability to record video by taping the side of it. The very small display (it's like 8 lines max, maybe 5 words per line) and constant looking up and to the right do not make for a good user experience for any real information, imho.
Re: (Score:2)
All the whiners apparently have never used a cellphone before. Do they not have them in the Libertarian paradise of Somalia or something?
No, they're from the socialist paradise of North Korea.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting, there seems to be plenty of CCTV footage on youtube. Did everyone in this compilation get fired? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGSFQxxJaZk [youtube.com]
Re:Oh noez, it's teh Google (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you be okay if I followed you around a store with my camcorder on? Don't mind me, just filming you. (licks lips).
In that case the creepy part is "followed you", not "camcorder". It would be equally objectionable to follow around one specific, unwilling person even if you didn't take any recordings or photos.
Re: (Score:2)
And I know people that have had to have it twice and are wearing glasses again. I refuse to as it's not worth the risk. Unless the doctor has $10M in cash waiting for me if he screws up, I am not risking my eyesight for vanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you have a small circle of people you know personally, of you're young.
Laser eye surgery isn't particularly effective as you get older, and as your eyesight changes more rapidly.
Re: (Score:3)
You could make the same argument about sunglasses with prescription lenses, but people still use those.
Contacts can only be made so strong, and there isn't as much precision in the prescriptions as with glasses. Laser surgery should only be done if/when your prescription has been stable for 2-5 years, which for some people never happens and for others can take decades (my father's eyes didn't stabilize until age 40). It's also expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? $99 can buy you nearly the most complicated lenses no-line bifocal lenses anyone wears on their face unless you demand a brand-name photochromic+progressive (instead of generic branded) as long as you don't insist on buying them from the mall.
Re: (Score:2)
1.74 polymer is still under the magic $99 price point at Zenni, which, at a glance is a fairly high RI for eyeglass material.
I'll certainly concede, however, that if you require a very special prescription and don't want to wear coke bottles, you might have to pay more.
You've read a different book, or failed English (Score:2)
No, I'm not talking about the missing y in the title ("Nineteen Eight-four.")
If you've read the book you'd realize that while certain elements have come to fruition due to the march of technology the actual content of the story is about governmental control of what occurs, keeping people in intentional poverty, controlling the media, modifying history to support the changing governmental priorities, and imprisoning and brainwashing anyone who does not conform.
Quite the contrary, the government has little or
Re: (Score:2)
Go to the site. It seems like you get one special lens for dealing with the actual Glass unit. I believe you could easily have a normal lens installed for the other eye.