Kane Kramer is credited with inventing the digital audio player in 1979 - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kane_Kramer

<comment><USER2> I am a Wikipedian. Wikipedia articles like this are frequently used to argue legal claims outside the court system. The sources of this article are exceptionally poor (a tabloid newspaper notorious in Britain for sensational articles) and not adequate to the task of demonstrating the claim in the submission here (which is NOT the original article title, contrary to the HN site guidelines).

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

I'm flagging this submission in the interest of keeping better quality articles on the HN front page. If there is really some factual basis for the claim in the submission title, there should be much better sources to submit.

<comment><AUTHOR> I originally read about this guy in a better researched article in a well known German newspaper magazine (well, in their online version). But since the original article was German, I couldn't really post it here, still found the whole story interesting though. I also thought that fellow hackers might be interested in this tale. So I searched a bit, and the best thing I could find was the Wikipedia site. You're right though, it lacks sources.

For what it's worth, here's the link to the original German article. [http://einestages.spiegel.de/s/tb/25583/kane-kramer- erfinder...](http://einestages.spiegel.de/s/tb/25583/kane-kramer-erfinder-des- ipod-urahnen.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > However, in 1988 a boardroom dispute within Kramer's company and the > subsequent failure to raise the £60,000 required to renew the patent > resulted in the patent lapsing and the designs entered the public domain.

So he couldn't get a product to market within 9 years (many more actually, since just because he lost the patent does not mean he wouldn't be able to produce a player). Seems like the patent system sort of worked here in the end. It would be much worse if he would still be holding the patent and could collect revenues/damages from everyone producing MP3 players today.

<comment><USER4> The patent systems idealistic idea is to protect the inventor from the big guys that copy his idea, because he himself does not have the necessary capital to manufacture the product.

The patent system certainly didn't work here, even if the outcome is better than if it did.

<comment><USER3> No, the point is to foster innovation by providing a _limited time_ monopoly to the original inventor (whether that actually works is of course a different question...), so that he can start manufacturing his product and have a decent shot at getting a profit from it.

He got a chance, but failed to make anything out of his idea, and years later other guys came along with the same idea. They most likely didn't really "copy" him, they came up with the idea independently --- a digital audio player is quite a natural evolution of, say, a Walkman. This time, some companies managed to bring a product to the market. There's no reason why they should pay him.

The patent system worked.

<comment><USER5> The time-limited monopoly is part of the deal, yes, but the ultimate goal is to prevent invention from being kept secret. The monopoly is granted _specifically_ in return for the (eventual) public availability of the invention. The reason behind the restrictions (obviousness, the existence of prior art, etc.) is that no public good can be obtained in exchange for the monopoly award.

Somewhere along the line, the idea that patents are meant to serve the public good seems to have gotten lost...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> What I find the most interesting (or rather sad) here, is that this kind of feels like a legitimate case for a technological patent because this guy invented the electronics, and foresaw a distribution mechanism just like iTunes, even some kind of DRM. And just here the patent system fails, because he wasn't able to pay the 60.000 pounds to extend the worldwide patents.

Wasn't the patent system originally devised for protecting businesses like his? Small companies trying to be innovative and trying to compete with the big guys.

This guy seems like a role model of what the patent system was designed for, and just (or _even_ ) there it fails.

Also, 8mb in 1984 sounds like a lot of memory. I wonder what storage mechanism / technology he used.

<comment><USER6> I talked to a lawyer (who is also my friend) about the patent system in Germany. I confronted him with the argument that patents cost so much money and small businesses/normal people cannot afford patents. He then said that this is true but you don't have to pay so much in most cases because of a trick: You can send the patent agency your patent paper and tell them to not evaluate it. They have to archive it for up to seven years and you only have to pay about 500 Euros for this. Assuming your papers are valid you can claim your "patent" at some point during the next seven years. If someone else files the same paper he is out of luck because you filed it first but without letting the agency evaluate it. I don't know if this is true (I trust my friend in that regard) and it does not help everyone in every situation but in may come in handy. Is anybody here who knows if this is actually the case?

<comment><USER7> And what about prior art? For example, you actually release a digital audio player but don't pay for the patent because you cannot afford it — you cannot be sued and somebody else can't claim a patent over it. Supposedly. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art>

<comment><USER6> One of my professors told me this:

In case you have a good idea you can simply write it down, print it out, sign it and send it to yourself via certified paper mail. When you receive the mail you don't open it. You simply put it in a safe place. Then you can use this to prove prior art because its more or less a official document according to the (German) law. Again: I am not a lawyer and this may be totally wrong...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I would not surprised if _hundreds_ of people have "invented" a fully digital media-free audio player years or decades before Apple perfected it into a consumer device.

This is a world of billions of people. Billions. The romantic idea of one man/woman inventing something - without another man/woman inventing the same unknowingly - is just not realistic for most things.

<comment><USER9> I had a conversation about the idea in 1987. Hell! In 1993 me and a group at a company were spitballing ideas for the video technology we had and came up with a home DVR. Hard drives were not quite up for the task for that so the idea got shelved.

To quote Heinlein:

"When railroading time comes you can railroad—but not before."

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I found the link to Bubble memory (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_memory>) in that article fascinating. I never thought that memory could work like that. The tutorial is also useful: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/How_bubble_memory_works>

</comment><comment><USER11> > Kramer also says he has plans that would end copyright infringement > altogether, however no details on this project have been released.

This statement is what caught my eye. Kind of ironic though.

<comment><USER12> That statement in particular makes him sound kind of like a crank.

<comment><USER13> And looking at his website agrees, he's stuck in the past and doesn't even have a photo if his device. Wikipedia claims he made prototypes that worked, so I would have thought that he would show off an actual working unit instead of a sketch.

I suspect he just never got it to work. And as others have said a digital music player was very likely conceived and invented by many people. The whole world was going digital in the 80's/90's everything from clocks to cameras to toasters to tv, so the little Walkman was an obvious stepping stone to a digital music player.

Apple didn't even invent the digital music player, they just put a click wheel on their design which was better than the competitions interface and the rest is history...

As an anecdotal aside, i went to see the new nano in the sf apple store and noticed that its in the back and I was the only person looking, on a very busy Saturday afternoon. I think the digital music player has finally reached its newspaper moment. The abundance of smartphones has made p&s cameras, watches and portable muaic players unnecessary. To to mention GPS navigation systems, atlases, encyclopedia...

<comment><USER14> Nano sales should pick up around Xmas time, because those seem to be what parents give to kids instead of smart phones (source: my wife is a 4th grade teacher and a bunch of kids seem to have them).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Colonialism and Identity in French Africa and African France - <AUTHOR> https://notesonliberty.com/2017/04/06/french-africa/ <comment><USER2> > For one thing, it's illegal in France to gather data about ethnicity.

Well that was unexpected. Good way to deny ammunition to xenophobes, I guess.

> Probably in an an effort to divide to conquer, the numerous (Arabic > speaking) Algerian Jews had all been granted citizenship in the 1880s.

Wikipedia seems to disagree - it gives the reason as "The decision to extend citizenship to Algerian Jews was a result of pressures from prominent members of the liberal, intellectual French Jewish community, which considered the North African Jews to be "backward" and wanted to bring them into modernity." [1]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Algeria...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Algeria#French_Algeria)

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting, thanks.

Whether it was divide-and-conquer or bringing "them into modernity," it still boggles my mind how questions about citizenship were framed in the late 19th century.</comment></comment>


Google Glass - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/glass <comment><USER3> The recorded videos' have a strange voyeuristic feel, probably due to the POV being so close to the wearer's eyes. That you can use the glasses do do a hangout in real time and broadcast seems novel though.

There's no shortage of sci-fi stories dealing with this sort of always-on recording. "Strange Days", "Black Mirror (#3)". I wonder about the legality of this product, if it becomes inconspicuous.

Some product ideas:

1) "Datecast" -- get real-time advice and tips while on a date (or at a job interview. Or a business meeting -- is this startup's idea really that original? Or while shopping for some more complex consumer product: your remote wine expert suggests you to buy this particular bottle based on your previous tastes).

2) "Lifecast" -- our team of professionals reviews a total stream of your life and gives you advice on everything. They remind you how your wife liked this necklace a few days ago (you forgot, but they paid attention for you). That business meeting where you discussed your database scaling issues? An hour later we give you a call with with tips how to solve it. That hallway conversation? Transcripted before the next day.

3) Vacationcast: too old or poor or busy to go on a vacation? Want to relive your youth? Be anyone you want, transmitted in real time, unedited (this assumes that there's some thrill that seeing things happen real time, unscripted has over a more edited vacation footage). If video and audio alone is not enough, the vacationcasting company could offer a comfortable room, with scents and texture from your vacation destination.

4) Crimecam: anonymously send bitcoins to a criminal, encouraging a rampage of crime, broadcasted to your group of backers in real time. Will he get away with it?

Although, justin.tv has been doing this sort of thing for a while, and I'm not sure what has come out of it.

<comment><USER4> Re: Datecasting

This was addressed in the short film called Sight:

<http://vimeo.com/m/46304267>

It was really well done for a small budget.

<comment><USER5> I love it, thanks for sharing. I especially enjoyed the real life fruit ninja part, if technology can be used to make mundane tasks more exciting I'm all for it.

<comment><USER3> I liked the dig on the perversion of gamification here.

"Achievements" have become very popular in games -- you might have fully complete a game level, but there's a bonus if you use a specific weapon or not kill people or not do something odd while doing so. So sometimes people spend inordinate amount of time in games that they've already completed, doing something over and over again to gain a perfect "score".

Here he cuts the cucumber imperfectly, not getting the perfect score and so he discards it. The date is also heavily scored, and the augmented reality wall seems to have plenty of other perfect achievements. He longer cares as much about the end result, but just about the achievement badge (perhaps to be flaunted to others).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I am seriously concerned about this.

I was in a long-distance relationship this summer. We would take turns visiting each other in our respective cities roughly 5 hours apart. It was a pretty long journey for a weekend - it would sometimes take 10 hours one way since you had to go through New York. Of course, it was worth it.

But whenever we would go on a walk, or I'd take her out to dinner, I got as much face time with the back of that fucking iPhone as with her. We'd be strolling down the street during a beautiful summer sunset, and she'd be holding my hand with one of hers, and with the other she'd be scrolling through Instagram. Craning her neck to stare at that stupid dim little screen instead of just looking around at the beautiful neighborhood I lived in. Same thing while I tried talking to her during dinner. She literally preferred it to looking at what was around her.

Gawking at fake vintage photos. Or reading her horoscope. Or online shopping. Or whatever.

I asked her to stop, I said it was rude. She couldn't. I started to resent the iPhone, for stealing my limited time with her. I know, I know. It was a flaw in her, and not _everybody_ does that, right?

Certainly not everybody. But I go to coffee shops now, I go to events, and people are just in cell phone huddles. A group of people will go out, and unanimously decide to prick and pinch and swipe their glass worship stones instead of having a fucking conversation or looking around them. This is _everywhere_. Every year it's more of a common sight. It's actually surprising now to see someone at the local cafe reading a book, or playing chess.

I might notice this more than most because I made a life decision to not use a "smart phone" and have kept using the same shitty Blackberry for 6 years now. It can only do calls, texts, and Sudoku. I couldn't do this kind of thing if I wanted.

I'm 20 now. I remember junior high, when the best cell phone was a Motorola RAZR. People never did this shit back then, because they couldn't. People spent time with each other. The cell phones would come out to facilitate people getting together, and then they'd go back in your pocket. That was it. They were actually phones. It was all they could do.

Phones today just aren't phones anymore. I don't know what to call them. They're more integrated with our lives. More intrusive. More attractive. They're addictive.[1] And they're used mostly for useless things.

Well, Google is taking the last remaining effort out of letting technology intervene with your actual life. And they know what to call it. Glass. Now you can _wear_ it. It's a default. You don't have to pull it out. It's just always there. If this becomes normal, I will probably have to run away to the Third World or something.

I am crossing my fingers that we just stop at smart phones, and this never takes off. But I'm scared, because in the back of my head I am pretty certain it will. Eventually there will be no strangers, and there will be no friends. Everyone's name will be public, and nobody will get to know each other. Despite your dinky little social networks and social apps, you are forgetting what it is to actually know someone.

I really hope I don't ever have to go on a date with some girl who's getting conversation tips from Google's magic headgear. Fuck that.

[1] <http://paulgraham.com/addiction.html>

<comment><USER7> I hear what you're saying, and I appreciate that you put the time in to write that out, but honestly I'm hearing this kind of argument from so many quarters ("we never look up!" "we all talk, but we never _converse_!" etc etc) recently that it's starting to get obnoxious.

Conversation is not dead. People have been moaning about how we're all becoming socially isolated since the publication of the first novel. The art of socialising has been declared dying ever since the first VHS was available to buy and watch at home.

Point is, it's bullshit. People still hang out (in person, not in "hangouts"). Yeah, people have mobile phones, and sometimes when hanging out as part of a group we check them, but it's not like it kills all conversation dead. A group of three people all looking at their phones is the exception, not the rule - it's not like that's what we plan to do when we arrange to spend time together.

As for your lady friend, like you said, that's her habit to break. But you can't assume everyone who hasn't taken a vow not to use a smartphone is the same - I have a smartphone, so do all my friends, and yet we're all somehow able to communicate to one another in person. When I go out and about in town I don't see crowds of people standing around looking at their phones. I see groups of people socialising and talking - if someone is by themselves then their phone can provide some distraction/semblance of "company".

There's also a tendency for us techy types to get caught in our own little bubble - I get my news from HN Reddit and Twitter, so my view on how people use these services is clouded. It's like when a journalist starts using Twitter and writes about how "everybody is obsessed with tweeting, you can only send short messages, therefore the art of meaningful conversation is dead". They don't realise that the "everybody" they're talking about is only those people in their immediate social circle.

I've kind of gone off subject, but my main point is this: Black Mirror isn't a documentary. It's so easy to project your own worst nightmares onto new technology. It doesn't necessarily make them a reality.

<comment><USER8> If you're hearing the same point made from a lot of quarters, then maybe there's an actual phenomenon behind it.

But more than that, Glass is fundamentally different.

It's designed, from the concept up, to always be in your awareness. That's what it _is_. That's the entire appeal of it.

That's not a book, and it's not even a smartphone that spends most of its time in your pocket.

It's something that _always_ demands some fraction of your attention.

It's different.

<comment><USER9> When it's been said forever, it's not really a new threat.

Small talk was always pointless.

<comment><USER10> >Small talk was always pointless.

I used to have this view. I like talking about interesting subjects, comparing understandings of complex issues, understanding different viewpoints.

However, I realized that small talk is an important part of that. It's a system that lets you and the other party feel each other out without committing social transgressions. It's what lets you guess that someone would say "Hitler was right," without allowing them to actually say it.

I don't really do small talk with my friends. With them, I talk about things that I care about, or they care about, and that's fine. With acquaintances and strangers, it's essential.

<comment><USER11> Has anyone else become hyper-specialized in their interests because of pervasive connectivity? I've gotten to the point where on some topics there are zero people I know personally that I could have a conversation with about these topics unless I did all of the talking.

I find people to talk intelligently about these topics through online niche forums. It's so weird sometimes because I've got a small talk personae for "normal people" and then everything I talk about online which is highly specialized and takes a while to explain, even to an interested listener.

<comment><USER10> I find that's true for a few of my interests, but not to the degree that I'm disinterested in talking about those subjects on a more basic level.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Dear god, so many haters in here. It's a brand new prototype product, and people are complaining about minor features etc. What is wrong with you people? I thought this was a board full of hackers. If you can't see the massive potential in this, you may be in the wrong place.

<comment><USER13> > I thought this was a board full of hackers.

Complete opposite. This board is full of people interested in startups and looking to get a better grasp of technology. But only a tiny minority here actually code, if you're looking for that you should probably try a more specific coding board or group.

Also, people around here are obsessed with, what they call "playing devil's advocate" or "offering a counter point". Which, in other parts of the planet would be called "trolling". But here that's encouraged as long as the post is well formatted enough to not immediately remind you of reddit.

Put those 2 together and it's very easy to understand the illogical negative posts on the top. It's just people trolling without technological insight. In fact, you'll hardly find any thread about a new technology on HN, which the top post isn't contrarian.

<comment><USER14> > only a tiny minority here actually code

I don't think that's true at all. I would guess that the majority of HN users can code, and that many of them - certainly not a "tiny minority" - do on a regular basis. If HN polls are at all accurate, they seem to bear out that conclusion:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1544581> (admittedly, old)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3785277> (less than a year old, and shows a majority have learned CS)

These are in line with what I've generally seen of the HN community.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have always wondered where are following hardware hidden in this design:

1\. CPU and really the whole shebang. where is it?

2\. It probably requires some sort of 3G/4G card and connection? Where the heck does it fit?

3\. Batteries! Where are those? Are they solar charged?

I understand people who are saying, it is not that much of a big deal just miniaturization of existing technologies but if all above 3 fit in that glass frame, I am genuinely amazed. If anyone who have used Google glass and can chime-in, that will be awesome.

<comment><USER16> I would have thought it'd pair with your phone, with the phone doing all the hard work. The glasses really just being a display and recorder.

<comment><USER17> That would indeed be the most obvious way to go, it would also make the device more powerful down the road since the computing is done on a smartphone which only get faster and faster by the year.

<comment><USER18> I'd say the computing is done "in the cloud". Low power transmission to your phone, then to the google datacenter.

It seems cool from a technology point, but I'm not sure I want to trust Google (and thereby the US Government) my life. Or am I doing that already by using Google Search and GMail?

<comment><USER19> Yeah, we're all doing it already. At this point it's more about managing what _I_ do online then it is about avoiding using the services.

Google Glass will be massively popular with the active crowd (kind of how the GoCam got its big break) - I would personally use it in place of recording videos with my phone! I would not wear it all the time though, that's ridiculous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> As cool as the idea sounds, I'm sceptical of the real life usage scenarios. It would be interesting for the first few days, but after that I think it would be simply annoying. Just think about getting notifications from FB, Twitter and other apps all the time - with mobile phone you can just ignore them and check later when you have time, with Google Glass they would be thrown right in your face. Not to mention ads, which I'm pretty sure will come sooner or later, and I won't even start about the privacy. Also, watching the Google Glass ad[1] I was constantly switching my focus between the display and the actual view - in real life it's a great way to have an accident. And one last thing, from the ad I've got the impression that the main use case is sharing your life with others, which I think is already at ridiculous level (like people sharing what they ate for dinner) - now it'll be even more ridiculous by people showing off they entire day (me walking in shopping center, me riding on a bike, me eating and so on).

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1uyQZNg2vE>

<comment><USER21> I agree with your sentiment. Privacy and ads are a huge issue for me (and the reason I will not own one).

As far as usage cases, I can see this being extremely useful while driving, if it's not too distracting. If it silently records and uploads everything while driving, it just became an internet-enabled dashcam. It's also a customizable, interactive HUD. While it's already used in the military (airplanes, helicopter helmets), I can see a case for ground troops having these (real time tracking, enemy location marking, aiming assistance, etc).

I also believe that it's not going to be a always-wear scenario. I think it's going to become a bluetooth-earpiece use case, i.e. wear it when you need it, put it away when you don't. If you recall, people used to wear those earpieces everywhere when they first came out, now: not so much.

At the end of the day, it's cool technology and potentially extremely useful. But it's created by a company whose core business is collecting data and selling ads, and the idea of embedding themselves into EVERY facet of my life is extremely unnerving.

<comment><USER22>
        "Privacy and ads are a huge issue for me (and the reason I will not own one)"

Has there been any indication this product will have ads? It is a paid _product_ , unlike Google services. Google's products so far haven't had any ads in them.

<comment><USER21> You are right, there is no indication it will have ads. But just because it's a paid product does not mean that the cost of the hardware cannot be subsidized by ads/data, or will not be in the future.

Either way, as I stated above, data and ads are Google's primary business model. It is more a (perhaps-irrational) distrust of Google having the potential to use my data, than of the concept itself.

I don't mean to single out Google -- they are generally good with non- intrusive ads in GMail and have a proven track record of security. But it freaks me out that any company would have access to _everything_ I see.

Also what happens to all that data when the terms of service are changed (like ToS was changed last year)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I didn't realise how bad it looks. The premise looks awesome. The demo video... awesome. The way the product looks on someone's face... this isn't the finished product right?

I think Google should look at designer glasses and outsource the design to someone who knows what they are doing.

<comment><USER24> <http://econogirl.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/braces.jpg>

The metal line is reminiscent of a head brace, while the projector makes you look like cyborg escaped from a Halloween party. They will need a stunning amount of marketing and advertising for this to become socially acceptable.

I guess it could be a little bit worse, I can see they were trying to go for sleek...

I think the greater problem was that the actual uses they showed were so uninspiring. They should get more creative. The utilities arise from where (a) where we have difficulty giving meaning to something in our visual horizon, or (b) we wish to use a handicap (this normally requires hands and is better if hidden.)

Imagine going to a band's gig and you don't need to worry about only knowing the verses to some of the songs because you can see the lyrics? Hopefully the microphone could tell you if you're singing off-key...

Imagine busking with the lyrics, chords and notes for the song appearing in front of you as you play. No need to memorise everything.

Imagine walking up to an acquaintance and seeing their name next to their face; or walking into a pub and a bubble appearing when you see somebody telling you that they are the family member or friend of a close friend.

Or speaking to somebody and the software recognising their emotional cues for you. Pupils dilating, nostrils flaring, a fake smile, self-comforting, etc. Maybe you say something and a bar alerts you immediately to signs you have said the wrong thing; or a change in the tone of their voice signifying seriousness or interest.

It's hard to care about the time or temperature. And car's already have GPS...

<comment><USER25> Turn-by-turn directions alone for pedestrians, cyclists and motor bikes is probably enough to make a successful product. Google Now with glass could also be pretty amazing, and since you always have the sound on it could actually make push to talk (or.. talk to talk) a reality (since before it was too cumbersome to hear something, open your phone, say 'what', they repeat... 'oh ok', repeat..)

Like your ideas though, hopefully third party devs can make them a reality (I'm guessing battery is the issue on the persistant video recognition stuff). Seriously upbeat about this, it could change lives

<comment><USER24> I think that niche of travelling which requires your hands is definitely worth it. This is the reason why I don't like using a bike for long journeys.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Several days ago - there were a bunch of stories about Google opening retail locations around the country. I think the reason they will do this is obvious: they want people to use their products in person.

To me - for Glass to be successful - they will have to allow people to play with them. This is the kind of thing that would sell amazingly in a retail setting. Imagine the line of people lining up just to put one on and _see what it looks like_.

<comment><USER27> Google needs to put as much Wonka into these stores as humanly possible. I would love to see an all robot sales staff starting from day 1.

<comment><USER28> Gene Wilder or Johnny Depp?

<comment><USER27> Come on, Gene Wilder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is only tangentially related, but I recently read The Shallows by Nicholas Carr and he referenced an interesting study:

Kansas State University scholars conducted a similarly realistic study. They had a group of college students watch a typical CNN broadcast in which an anchor reported four news stories while various info-graphics flashed on the screen and a textual news crawl ran along the bottom. They had a second group watch the same programming but with the graphics and the news crawl stripped out. Subsequent tests found that the students who had watched the multimedia version remembered significantly fewer facts from the stories than those who had watched the simpler version. "It appears," wrote the researchers, "that this multimessage format exceeded viewers' attentional capacity."

<comment><USER30> "Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of 'facts' that they feel stuffed but absolutely 'brilliant' with information. Then they'll feel they're thinking, they'll get a sense of motion without moving. And they'll be happy, because facts of that sort don't change. Don't give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy. Any man who can take a TV wall apart and put it back together again, and most men can, nowadays, is happier than any man who tries to slide-rule, measure and equate the universe, which just won't be measured or equated without making man feel bestial and lonely."

— Fahrenheit 451

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> How does Google Glass help me fly a plane or do the trapeze? It doesn't of course. But they're showing me that using Google Glass feels like flying a plane or doing the trapeze.

"How it feels" is not how it feels, it's other peoples' experiences. And I feel like it implies that you will have these great experiences if you use Google Glass. How does Google Glass add anything by displaying weather or recording a weird first-person video while playing with your kids or your dog in the park?

<comment><USER27> Well, it could make you WANT to do those things now that you have the glasses.

I've never considered sky diving but if I could easily record sky diving like this, then maybe I would do it.

<comment><USER31> I really don't see how being able to record sky diving would make me (or anybody) want to go skydiving. What about the experience itself? Is that worth nothing now, and only the recording of it is worthwhile?

<comment><USER32> Skydiver of 14 years here. I am eager to see something that has information regarding how close you are to others in the air. About half or more of the 20 fatal incidents a year are due to people colliding under a fully open/working parachute. A visual warning system to remove the blind spot behind you would be great.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Ok. So 100% voice-based. That makes sense. That's great. Except if you don't speak English as your primary language.

I've tried Google's voice-recognition on my native language and the results have been closer to sad than lulz-worthy.

Yes, I know English. Yes, I can both write and speak it fairly well. That's not the point: You won't believe how awkward a context-switch from "I'm talking to people" to "I'm talking to this machine, but I need to do so in English" actually feels.

It's just feels so fundamentally wrong, that despite how it _might_ save you time and effort you _always_ go for the option where voice-recognition is not involved.

Unless Google improves their voice-recognition for everything not US English, I predict this product failing horribly in most markets, even with everything else 100% perfect and flawlessly executed.

<comment><USER34> This seems like a silly beef to have with a revolutionary product that still is in beta. You know it's developed by an American company, right? It's not crazy for them to have the first language supported to be the language the people from the company speak. Give it some time.

<comment><USER35> The Google Glass device probably uses the same voice recognition as Android. Android is not in beta anymore, yet its voice recognition fails pretty bad on anything other than English. Google Now is almost entirely useless unless your device is set to US English.

I get that they can't exactly make everything work perfectly for everyone. But most of the planet is not american. They want to interact with technology on their own terms, in their own language. Google is long past the point at which it can make excuses now. While breaking new grounds with stuff like Google Glass is very cool, so is offering useful voice recognition to most of the planet.

<comment><USER36> The big difference between the two is that Glass is powered 100% by voice, Android is powered primarily by touch. I am sure that by the time Google starts rolling this out to the mass market in other countries, they will have those problems figured out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Wow. This is _marketing material._ This is going to be a real thing.

Wanna bet Google gives them away for free so they can sell advertising based on your exact context and needs; even what you're looking at? Maybe.

But just the idea and possibility of that is incredible. Imagine what this could be used for; not just what we can think of now, but a whole new paradigm of ubiquitous computing, a world to which mobile phones were only a stepping stone.

Come to think of it, I don't think we're ready for this.

<comment><USER38> They're charging $1500 to be in this "exclusive beta", seems unlikely they'll be free at release.

<comment><USER39> If Glass takes off and especially if it runs Android we can except Samsung and other major players in the cell phone market to start offering their versions soon enough. With Android phones it didn't take long for Chinese manufacturers to start offering phones under their own brands for a fraction of what major manufacturers ask for their products [1] shipped directly from China to the customer. If a technological difficulty doesn't prevent Glass clones from being manufactured then given its high starting price of around $1500 (I wouldn't expect retail price to differ too much; cf. $529.99 for Google Nexus One at launch in the US) Chinese-brand AR glasses might become the next big thing around the world.

[1] See [http://www.gizchina.com/2012/11/20/gizchina-exclusive- jiayu-...](http://www.gizchina.com/2012/11/20/gizchina-exclusive- jiayu-g3-unboxing-and-hands-on-video/) for what they offer for $200 unlocked. In, e.g., parts of Europe where pay-as-you-go is the norm and most phones are bought unsubsidized such prices are basically unheard for a similarly specced phone. Of course, those phones have their own problems (like worse QA) and come with little to no support. Despite that I personally know many technical types who have decided it to be worth it for themselves and sites like XDA Developers (<http://forum.xda-developers.com>) show a global interest.

Edit: expanded the footnote.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> "tell us what you would do if you had Glass" - uh oh, this is exactly how Google Wave started. They are asking because it is a cool tool and they don't know how people will get real value yet.

<comment><USER41> This isn't really comparable. Clearly there are hundreds of uses for a always- available video or photo recorder.

<comment><USER40> "Clearly there are hundreds of uses.." - and that was exactly the introduction for the Google code camp for Wave. Uses and value at Google scale are 2 different things.

<comment><USER41> I don't buy the comparison. Wave was a software product with a complete different paradigm for communication and had huge switching costs. This is a webcam you can wear on your head. The market for portable video cameras was validated in the 1970s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> The idea of Google Glass throws up a few red flags for me...

1) Safety - For some reason thinking about a wireless device strapped in a stationary position on my head brings about heightened concerns of the long term impact of having a electromagnetic field being constantly generated next to my brain... Thinking of horror stories from when cell phones first came out.

2) Safety again - The static position of the glass directly over just one eye makes me think of Steve Martin's downfall in The Jerk. If people are actually wearing these things all the time, I would be concerned with how something that you're constantly having to readjust your focus to see with only one eye may cause a disparity in vision. Of course google could adjust the focus of the glass to be some arbitrary amount of feet out to help with focusing but this seems like it would make for less usable space on that tiny screen and still doesn't address the long term effects of having something statically in the field of vision of only one eye.

Both of these may very well have been exhaustively researched and or studied by Google but I think that with the semi-controversial design of this computer, Google might put an "Is It Safe?" section to their marketing material explaining how they've addressed safety concerns.

Also, in regards to privacy... As some have mentioned the concerns of being video taped while in the presence of wearing Google glass may prompt a lot of businesses/agencies to disallow their use while in their establishment with signs posted on the door. I don't think jewelry stores or banks or other security prone establishments would want people to so easily be able to comprehensively case the joint with almost complete anonymity. Plus fears of an Orwellian future where everybody is watching everybody for some unknown third-party viewer would not be unfounded.

Aside from that, I don't really see the value in Google glass. Perhaps it's just the way they've marketed it.... but it just looks like a cell phone that's been moved to your eye. I really don't need to start seeing POV films of people eating dinner or highlights from a drunken night out. The glass does not seem to offer much more usability than a smartphone and some duct tape for POV filming. Not to mention that I believe Mom may have already patented this idea: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaHUpWuqNHY> (Futurama)

</comment><comment><USER43> You're paying $1500 to beta test a product. What's not clear is whether you get the final product when ready.

<comment><USER44> _You're paying $1500 to beta test a product_

You say that as if this is a USB dongle. This is _sci-fi_ stuff. Who cares if it's beta?

<comment><USER45> No to throw cold water here but Is it really? It seems to be rather trivial integration of currently known and available technologies with bit of miniaturization efforts. Nothing that 5 year old iPhone can't do with albeit more convenience. Space elevators, 100% artificial life form, fusion reactor of the size AA batteries - now that, my friend, would be sci-fi stuff.

<comment><USER46> IT'S A HUD FOR REAL LIFE!

WHAT ARE YOU NOT GETTING HERE?

<comment><USER8> My phone is a HUD for my hand.

<comment><USER47> A HUD is transparent.

<comment><USER48> If you are thinking HUD like we see in games then transparency is a relatively recent thing. If you look further back HUDs used to be opaque. The words "Heads Up Display" says nothing about it having to be transparent :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I think this technology could replace mobile phones. I just notice how often i need to grab my mobile phone, just to check some little peace of information I need. When i'm in the car I cannot grab it.

Note that the glasses look ugly, but they are already developing lenses with screens in it. This is basically technology becoming one with your brain.

I want one bad!

<comment><USER50> As a frequent user of public transportation, people who intend to replace their phone with Glass should burn in hell for all eternity.

<comment><USER49> Why? Are you afraid that you are on a video, or pictures being taken? That's indeed a problem. The voyourism with google glass.. They have to think of something to fix that. Like a led light wich tells you it's recordign.

<comment><USER50> I hate it when people have loud phone conversations - especially if I can hear the person at the other end. ;)

And you're right about the voyeurism element as well, although it doesn't really apply to me as a twenty-something guy. There is a reason phone cameras are required to make a loud "SNAP" sound. With Glass, that may very well not be the case. Although you will be able to notice the dude with the weird glasses ogling you, I guess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Here's one quirky thing though, there are moments in life where everyone around you wants to take a picture. Like, a celebrity walks by. Or you are at the top of a long climb. Or you're at the zoo. Are people in these situations going to be just a sea of voices saying in round "OK Glass take a picture, OK Glass take a picture"?

<comment><USER51> That's what I don't like about voice control. I'm too shy/reserved to do that kind of thing in public.

<comment><USER52> COMPUTER! Run sex offender search on current target!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Question that comes immediately to my mind: I'm wearing glasses (short- sighted), so an augmented pair seems like an easy step, can I wear GGlass on top of my prescription glasses ?

<comment><USER54> The officially suggested way is to put prescription lenses in a GGlass "frame" and some of the publicly seen GGlass usages have been with such frames/lenses.

<comment><USER53> Been discussing this with a friend today. Considering a short-sighted person, wearing prescription glasses: the problem is where to put the GGlass "screen".

* it makes sense to put it inside, i.e. before the lens, because as short-sighted, vision is fine at this distance. Problem is that there's not much space between the lens and the eye / eyebrow

* putting it outside, i.e. after the lens, appears more feasible but awkward as the distortion from the lens may be difficult to bear

* putting it on top of the prescription glasses frame makes sense again, but the lens usually covers a good chunk of the eye range, so this may put the GGlass to far on the periphery.

Not sure what makes the most sense here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> This Google Glass requires internet connection right? I like to know how effective it will be to those country with a limited or not so good data connection. Here in us, LTE is just starting, and mobile data service is not really that good. It's good to have this kind of gadgets, but I hope technologies in some non first world country can catch up. I really love to own one immediately, but I think, location wise, it's not a good idea yet.

<comment><USER56> It seems like some of its main attractions will require an internet connection. WiFi is not everywhere and my wireless network is really slow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> I don't understand why they keep pushing the niche GoPro-style use case, and there's no way it has the battery life to really work for the livestream use case for more than a few minutes. I think the main use case would be people that want to look like they're paying attention in social situations and can't have their heads buried in their phone but still want to check their email and texts. But maybe that's not a sexy enough idea to sell. One thing that's missing from this new site is the eye-gestures that seemed to be part of demos last year. If it's going to be only voiced-controlled that would ruin it for the discreet-email-checking use case.

<comment><USER58> Because its the only use case that will make sense at the beginning. These videos look interesting but they are staged, no matter how casual de look is.

As of this moment, Google Glass is just a glorified wireless webcam. It might turn into something more than that in the future, no doubt, and I'm hopeful like you are that it will, but for the first generations what you are going to see is a lot of people using them in extreme sports to film POV activities and sharing them on Youtube. Nothing more.

Even if it's not only voice controlled theres no discreet-email-checking use case in social situations. Have you ever tried to talk to a person who is constantly looking away, even if his head still points to you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> This actually lookes awesome. To bad Europe is left behind for a big launch :( (but i live in Belgium, i'm used to it by now :P)

<comment><USER60> You're still in EU... imagine us in the third world countries.

<comment><USER59> I didn't meant in a disrespectfull way.

I'm just saying that stuff like the Nexus (any of them) haven't been released here.

Which probably is the same thing as with you :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> One thing I'm curious about, and don't see mentioned anywhere on those pages (though I didn't watch the videos). Can you use Google Glass if you already wear glasses?

<comment><USER62> I asked at I/O. Eventually, yes, but for now, you'd need to wear contacts. I don't know if that's changed, but at the time, there was no way to mount prescription lenses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> This seems like an exciting idea, but they're going to have to find a way to make the camera more discrete. People won't be comfortable always thinking they're on camera.

I think these things will need to use cell phone technology to work? I wouldn't be comfortable having a cell phone up against my head like that all day, even if this is paranoia.

<comment><USER64> _In the area of biological effects and medical applications of non-ionizing radiation approximately 25,000 articles have been published over the past 30 years. Despite the feeling of some people that more research needs to be done, scientific knowledge in this area is now more extensive than for most chemicals. Based on a recent in-depth review of the scientific literature, the WHO concluded that current evidence does not confirm the existence of any health consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields. However, some gaps in knowledge about biological effects exist and need further research._

Source: <http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index1.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Wow. We're going to need more bandwidth. The carriers need to fix their business model or the get the hell out of the way.

<comment><USER66> This is why opening the portion of the spectrum no longer use for television brodcasting (known as White Space) is such a big deal.

Thanks to the accelerating bananafication of our republic, there's a very good chance that the most valuable applications are going to emerge outside the US. Whether or not this produces enough pressure to loosen the power of our wireless telcos remains to be seen.

<http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_spaces_(radio)>

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Can't wait for the next bunch of vomit inducing videos... or am I the only one who can't deal with all the head bobbing?

As for the HUD itself - I love the idea. But the problem is, while I love the idea, I'm not sure it wouldn't be super distracting in real life. Yes it works for fighter pilots and whatnot, but, to take the sample video as a benchmark, when I'm about to catch my girlfriend hurling towards me at high speed from a trapeze (which, like you I assume, I do on a regular basis), I'm not sure she'd be happy with me being distracted by some shit popping up in my view...

</comment><comment><USER68> Never used Glass, but I'm inclined to suspect that it's the Apple Newton: ahead of its time, ground breaking, probably the ancestor of many things to come, but not here yet.

What's missing: full viewports instead of just the top corner thing, probably better resolution, and most importantly cheap ubiquitous wireless broadband. I am not paying another $60/month to have Glass in addition to a smartphone, etc. Pretty much all progress in computer networking and networked devices depends on breaking the carrier oligopolies.

<comment><USER69> I agree that they're ahead of their time, but I totally disagree that it's missing full viewports. In fact, I prefer that it doesn't take up my whole FOV.

For one, it gives others a clear clue that you're somehow using the device, and it can easily be ignored if needed. Not to mention that full viewport wouldn't really be that much of an improvement - AR simply isn't there yet, and for most of the uses (I don't suppose you'd go around reading novels with this), this suffices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> Except for handsfree picture taking, I'm not sure what this device does that Pebble watch does not. I'm much more comfortable wearing a watch on my hand than mounting a camera on my face.

Also, whenever I do take pictures I really wanna take, I subconsciously take care of picture composition by moving my phone around a bit. In Glass, I'll be moving my face around?

<comment><USER52> I'm with you. For now pebble is way more interesting. maybe in 2-3 years google glass will have killer apps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Here's a use case: House shopping

You are driving through an older neighborhood close to commuter rail station looking for a house for you and your spouse. Driving past the station "posts" the schedule for the next three trains and bus. You can "see" the Zillow and the tax values of the houses you are looking are in real time. You glance at the elementary school on the corner and the rating comes up. Glance at another house and you see it is a rental where the police have been called 7 times in the past 6 months. Two doors down lives a sex offender. The trees in the are are a type that your wife is allergic to. The fire hydrant on the corner was last maintained in November. The street was repaved in 2007 when new water lines were installed. Animal control last patrolled on Tuesday. The deli down the street is expensive, but has good reviews.

And during this whole process, all you did was look out, while driving, not glance at your phone or car console.

<comment><USER28> If you can turn it off when you're done, that sounds great.

<comment><USER72> You could, you know, take it off your head. Or exit the house-hunting application.

<comment><USER28> Exiting applications is now considered advanced, hacker-level stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> I can't wait for this to be real. So many applications already being planned (in my head).

</comment><comment><USER74> Awesome video which looks almost just as awesome even if you take out the glass. But nevertheless, awesome product.

</comment><comment><USER75> This is a real bummer, I have to wear glasses and can't wear lenses. Is there any information if there will be support for custom glasses being attached?

<comment><USER76> Here's some pictures posted in one of the other comments:

[https://encrypted- tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQr6-v...](https://encrypted- tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQr6-vNh5qMQsc7Fm178YcATxtqh7RBX1BWVIyev5eohAM0VDj)

[https://encrypted- tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvbW54...](https://encrypted- tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvbW54qLIkleLXs6mwdqHyA1MuyMgAYd9HuOGeO-_5CZ5x1d7D)

They're definitely focused on support people who wear glasses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> Cue an increase in personal injuries. I really hope people are not going to drive with these :-(

</comment><comment><USER78> Sadly, as someone already wearing glasses, it's not an option for me.

<comment><USER79> Posted on other glass thread:

I think it looks better with glasses: [https://encrypted- tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQr6-v...](https://encrypted- tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQr6-vNh5qMQsc7Fm178YcATxtqh7RBX1BWVIyev5eohAM0VDj)

Here is sunglasses on Brin from opposite profile: [https://encrypted- tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvbW54...](https://encrypted- tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvbW54qLIkleLXs6mwdqHyA1MuyMgAYd9HuOGeO-_5CZ5x1d7D)

<comment><USER6> _I think it looks better with glasses_

In a high-contrast 200px image.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> Maybe I'm not seeing (no pun intended) it, but I don't want something distracting to me and others sitting on my face. I get lifecasting will be a cool thing but I'd rather have a discreet cam on my shirt collar or elsewhere on my person.

</comment><comment><USER81> Am I the only one, who hit reload for like 48 times, thinking the page is not loaded yet, Before realizing this is actually the page?

<comment><USER82> You're not. Maybe Google tested it and can prove it's good, but to me the landing page seems terribly confusing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> Demo video looks awesome. But what about privacy? I am not a privacy lunatic and not trying to complain (Scifi is here!) but wouldn't be this handling lots of problems against privacy?

Obviously photo cameras also have the same issue but still you can see when people is taking photos of you, in this specific case things are slightly different...

BTW, actually I like the design, looks like a totally new era of communication ;)

</comment><comment><USER84> There's a lot of comments here about how Glass will affect social interactions, which is fair enough as that's the easiest use case to grasp at the moment, but the thing that struck me most was the tiny snippet of footage of that jeweler (sculpter?) creating the glass tiger, almost like it was an afterthought in the marketing team's mind. However it struck me - <USER2> there is potential to introduce a HUD into industries everywhere, which I think could have some far-reaching benefits. For example, imagine a surgeon having vital signs overlaid on their vision as they worked, or a superimposed CAT scan, or whatever else would help them out. Or (being trained as an engineer myself, I understand how much value this would have), an overlay of the structural drawings as I inspect a large building site. To be honest I agree with most of the negative sentiment towards how Glass could damage social interactions, and I wouldn't be unhappy if it never saw the light of day in that use case. But there is incredible potential as a productivity tool.

</comment><comment><USER85> Part of me really wants one. The other part of me is concerned.

The concerned part is my developer self. I am having a hard time not seeing this as extremely limiting from an interaction perspective. All I am seeing is GPS and text input (from speech). I'd imagine there will be an accelerometer, but I couldn't imagine asking users to jerk their heads around to point at something. If it came with a glove that tracked a hand or something, I'd be less nervous.

If this takes off, everyone will get one. It _looks_ like the future. Many people already feel they can replace their computers with smartphones, what if they replace their smartphones with this? If I was an average american and didn't know better, I'd let me 5 year old computer continue to age, chuck my cell phone, and blow my technology budget for the year to get one of these instead... It's a device that as far as I can see has no decent ability to capture pointing.

How do you scroll in it without looking like an idiot that talks to yourself in public?

</comment><comment><USER86> Flawless, zero-latency voice recognition under those conditions is rather implausible. Otherwise though, an impressive vision of the promise of AR.

For all the doubters here, notice the enormous number of comments generated already. Even though we are (rightly) scared about some of the aspects of glass and ubiquitous AR, we sure are collectively fascinated by the idea.

</comment><comment><USER87> Google Glass project sets a new level of privacy infringement, I can't think of any necessity of it that deserves such a sacrifice.

</comment><comment><USER88> Can think of this helping productivity when assembling things/reading manuals.

Imagine how much quicker assembling IKEA furniture would become, no more downing tools and picking up the manual, the manual would update with you real time!

Also with tutorials on learning and making things like circuits, knitting, cooking etc. They should have highlighted use cases like this.

</comment><comment><USER89> I still don't get the practical use case for this. I see it could be cool, the ad campaign is good, but why do I use this?

</comment><comment><USER90> On private property you will need the owner's permission to record video; in malls you can be forbidden if signs are posted. Given the unease that some people feel being recorded, I wonder how soon it will be before these are banned in shopping malls and in businesses, like Segways were on many city sidewalks.

</comment><comment><USER91> I am really excited, but really does everyone wants Google to track your path everywhere you go, everything single stuff you're watching? :-/ I am assuming the glasses themselves have nearly no cpu capabilities, thus it must be mandatory to export any computation wirelessly toward Google servers, right?

<comment><USER92> >>but really does everyone wants Google to track your path everywhere you go, everything single stuff you're watching?

I feel like the speedy proliferation of smartphones into the fabric of everyday life has answered your question with a resounding, "No one cares". The benefits of what essentially amounts to ESP (text, email, telephony) and fact-based omniscience (access to the internet, real time directions, weather, etc.) far outweigh any privacy concerns in the vast majority of people's minds. I have my reservations and concerns of course, but the mental empowerment is just too much to pass up.

<comment><USER28> How much is empowerment, and how much is noise?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> Isn't the HUD a bit... distracting? I mean, I was looking the video and if I focused in the HUD I couldn't watch the "real life" and vice-versa, how would that work in the real Glass?

Also, it seems like for now it's only focused in social features... I should get some friends before getting the Glass.

<comment><USER94> I played World of Warcraft for a bit, and there was a HUD overlay onto the screen. After a while, you kind of get used to it. Also, the devs could make it so that you could control the opacity of the HUD, the position/size, or turn it on/off based on gestures.

<comment><USER6> _I played World of Warcraft for a bit, and there was a HUD overlay onto the screen. After a while, you kind of get used to it._

Exactly. These things are not for people who want to experience real life.

<comment><USER95> what is "real" life? I just bought a coffee, but didn't make it myself, a machine did. is it real?

<comment><USER6> Yeah. You drank it, right? You weren't watching a character drink a machine- made coffee on a screen.

<comment><USER95> And your girlfriend who was looking at instragram while she was walking with you, was she looking at the pictures, or was she watching another character look at them?

<comment><USER28> She probably smelled way better than her avatar.

(And if you think this is just being crude, then something essential and primal has been lost for you.)

<comment><USER72> Not if she's a WoW player...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> The fact that you could potentially stream whatever you see all the time makes me wonder if there will be places where it will be compulsory to switch them off, probably you won't be able to bring one at a concerts or sports event because of copyright.

And I guess it's a safe bet that you wouldn't want to take it with you on a night out, because there's always someone who'd rather not be filmed while being underage drinking, or on a date with their lover or doing drugs. Just think of the implications of being in a bar knowing that potentially a few people in said bar might be filming everything that's happening.

<comment><USER97> What's interesting is that you can already do this at concerts with your existing smartphone [1].

Not to mention people already take plenty of pictures at bars.

[1] <http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/stream-live-video-smartphone/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER98> I'd really love to have this in a non-voice activated version that would simply analyse my brain activity and execute the commands. It still feels slightly awkward or unintuitive to speak your commands to a phone in an open area. If you could think "Take a picture" and have the glass perform that command it would really be incredible. I don't think we're that far off either with fMRI studies regarding object recognition progress.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_resonance_i...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_magnetic_resonance_imaging)

<comment><USER99> 'simply' is not a word to use lightly in that sentence.

I've experimented with brain controllers and certainly at the moment, they leave a lot to be desired. At this stage, I'd rather have an unobtrusive clicker/keyer on one hand, a bluetooth throat mike or do gesture detection through the video than any kind of brain interface.

I do have an idea that maybe you could do something with pressure changes in the ear canal, but I'd have to do some experimentation to see if it's really practical.

Basically you want something unobtrusive that doesn't take significant chunks of your body out of action.

</comment></comment><comment><USER100> Brilliantly made video, Google are obviously using a good ad agency, their ads now sell a lifestyle rather than a product, as all good ads do.

the product itself will likely cause a few pedestrians to be kills, a few drivers to get into crashes and a few horse riders to fall off. Maybe in a few thousand years the brain will evolve to receive so much stimulation, but I find most people are already swamped with information overload.

I hope Glass picks up some buyers because this kind of technology will bring about other, more useful inventions, but right now this is a solution in search of a problem.

</comment><comment><USER101> Once again, Porno has reached a new level.

</comment><comment><USER102> Ok, if these images are real, I'm very impressed.

But I'm concerned that they're mockups. It is very, very dangerous to make people think you can do more than you actually can.

The "directions" demo image features full color, right in the middle of your field of view, with a display resolution that allows super light weight fonts and subtle glow effects.

Is anyone able to comment on whether this is a realistic portrayal?

I know they have _something_, but I hope what they've shown here isn't vaporware.

<comment><USER103> The technology part is easy. Google Now already does all of this basically.

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> It reminds me the Gargoyles from Snow Crash <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_Crash>

</comment><comment><USER105> This is a dream for retailers. "Augmenting" the in-store shopping experience has been a non-starter. Want to get product reviews and more info about this item? Well, why don't you pull out your phone, turn on the barcode app and scan the barcode. Now, you could ostensibly look at a item and get relevant additional information on-screen.

<comment><USER94> Depends on the retailer. This will just accelerate the process of turning brick & mortar stores into Amazon showrooms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER106> Any new sensors/hardware not on a typical smartphone? Is the big advantage essentially a pervasive screen?

I ask because a common way to think of mobile app innovation is in terms of hardware advances: Mobile Data: Blackberry Email GPS: Maps, Local Services (Foursquare) iPhone 4 Camera Upgrade: Instagram The list goes on...

What's the key hardware advancement here?

<comment><USER107> What's the difference between a smart phone and a laptop? A smart phone can go with you everywhere to a greater extent than a laptop can. I think that glass would push that farther.

</comment></comment><comment><USER108> #ifihadglass, standing on the shoulders of Prof Mann and MIT Media Labs I would reach into the future.

<comment><USER72> If Professor Mann would ever share any real information on how to make your own Eyetap, or share any of his software, or really tell anybody anything except, "Yeah, I claim I'm doing all this cool stuff, too bad you can't try it ner ner ner", I'd care more about what he's done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> Bluetooth headsets used to be cool. Now they just seem obnoxious when worn all the time. I wonder if Google Glass will ever reach the obnoxious level. A curved-screen watch device would be more subtle, and is probably the better all-around device.

</comment><comment><USER109> Bit tongue in cheek... but this sets the clock ticking for Microsoft going 'oh, crap, someone is defining a new computing paradigm. Let's get on that before they're way ahead of us again'. Any bets as to when Microsoft announces Windows for Eyewear?

</comment><comment><USER110> Now the Chinese Government Hackers can be at your birthday party too!

</comment><comment><USER111> So where do I buy a chinese knockoff version of this that I can run Debian on? It's a very exciting hardware notion, and I'd love to hack around with some software on it.

<comment><USER112> Not a Chinese knockoff, but Vuzix are trying to get a similar product to market: <http://www.vuzix.com/consumer/products_m100.html>

<comment><USER111> Looks plausible, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER113> Is there any chance that Google decided to start developing self-driving cars just to have an answer for the insane safety hazard the glasses are going to pose?

</comment><comment><USER114> I'm glad so many of you don't want them- increases my changes of getting one soon :)

"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

</comment><comment><USER115> I hope they give one to David Brin ASAP.

</comment><comment><USER116> So what's the battery life for USD 1500?

</comment><comment><USER117> Unfortunately, in such countries as Ukraine Google Glass is forbidden due to "spy devices restriction" :(

</comment><comment><USER118> where the videos (<http://www.google.com/glass/start/how-it-feels/>) recorded with Google glass, or another camera (GoPro?)?

<comment><USER119> I'm guessing at least some of it came from Glass. This clip from Fashion Week last fall was shot on Glass and part of it made its way into this video.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=30Pjl31cyDY#t=134s)

</comment></comment><comment><USER120> It's like human will become the typical "wall-e" movie humans consuming content, becoming fat and no time for interaction at all. I dread the future where no one talks to anyone by looking into eye , since their eyes are already preoccupied with "glass".

</comment><comment><USER121> What is to stop a malicious person standing next to you saying

"Ok Glass... rm -rf /" ?

<comment><USER122> Umm, Google not allowing password-less sudo voice commands?

<comment><USER123> I wouldn't expect keyboard input to be interpreted by a root shell, but Android did that too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER124> Looking forward to being able to adblock all the billboards in Tokyo

</comment><comment><USER125> What are the specs of the specs? And don't tell me to Google it.

</comment><comment><USER126> Every law enforcement officer should be required to wear this.

</comment><comment><USER127> Love it! Despite all the negativity here, I still want one :)

</comment><comment><USER128> I'll take one with a wayfarer blue blocker attachment!

</comment><comment><USER129> so it turns out that people sound pretty dumb saying aloud a lot of the things we would otherwise tap without hesitation... hmm...

</comment><comment><USER130> I love google glass when it launch.?

</comment><comment><USER131> I know it's a terrible note.... but I can't tell if that black person with the google glass on the photo is a man or a woman.

I really can't tell.

</comment><comment><USER132> I hate this in the exact same way I hate drones.

I will hate people who use this in the exact same way I hate people who use drones.

</comment><comment><USER133> this glass is a prosthetic device ... "aug·men·ta·tion", please.

</comment><comment><USER134> Those are the use cases ? Are they serious ? Not a single one of those occurs routinely enough to warrant you wearing glasses all the time.

I don't understand why they aren't positioning this for more serious markets e.g. education, training, factories, stock taking, hospitals, administration etc. Could have been far more interesting and allowed some far more interesting tie ins with their existing products.

<comment><USER135> _"Those are the use cases ?"_

Those and making pornos. I see a whole Glass getting its very own tag.

<comment><USER136> I don't think so. "GoPro" isn't a common tag either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER137> Glasses from ad company. Good luck with that, I'll skip.

<comment><USER138> They will really have your eyeballs now!

I am still interested though cause perhaps we will have one by canonical in 2020!

</comment></comment><comment><USER139> Well. Excellent marketing video, targeting a modern, active, sophisticated consumer - exactly what they think about themselves.

A completely new kind of a _status gadget_ to show your "success" (as a consumer) that everyone could see.

A innovative way to deliver location and context aware ads right to the consumer - better targeting.

Well, it could be bigger than iPhone (without major software glitches).

Time to buy GOOG.)))

</comment><comment><USER140> <https://plus.google.com/+projectglass>

"Project Glass [Verified Name]" ...riiiiight.

</comment><comment><USER141> But does it have a CLI?

</comment><comment><USER142> okglass.com has been registered by Google already - [http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=okg...](http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=okglass.com)

[Someone posted this on Gizmodo's comments]

</comment><comment><USER143> When some guy on the subway with a camera attached to his face starts staring at me .. my desire is going to be to rip them off his face and stomp on them.

enjoy your intellectual leashes

<comment><USER144> You mean like this?

[http://io9.com/5926587/what-may-be-the-worlds-first- cybernet...](http://io9.com/5926587/what-may-be-the-worlds-first-cybernetic- hate-crime-unfolds-in-french-mcdonalds)

It seems you're not alone, sadly - I disagree with your professed desire for violence, but I appreciate your honesty in putting it into writing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER145> They can't even get themselves to put this on a fresh domain, because then they'd miss out on all the search engine user cookies. How surprising.

</comment><comment><USER146> Page doesn't load video on Firefox 19 (Mac) for me (with Adblock disabled). Anyone else have this problem?

</comment><comment><USER147> Which rock have you been hiding under?

<comment><USER148> This news is actually just out, the next phase has started: 8000 more glasses available, apply before feb 27th for a (albeit slim) chance to get one.

[edit: mistakenly wrote wrong month]

<comment><USER149> Which rock have you been hiding under? Its almost the end of February.

<comment><USER150> "The deadline for applications is February 27th."

<comment><USER149> His original comment said "January"</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Feedify is compromised with code mirroring Magecart - <AUTHOR> https://threader.app/thread/1039585850848362497 <comment><USER2> If you're responsible for a website that collects payment details or other sensitive information you need to stop what you're doing right now and create a job that downloads all the JS libraries on your site and diffs it against a known "clean" copy. Run that job daily/hourly as your level of exposure demands and have it reviewed by someone who knows Javascript at a deep level.

Yes, that sucks and isn't fun, but this isn't going away and these guys are good at what they do.

Next step is versioning of JS libraries, which enables you to utilize SRI, and then look at implementing CSP. You can lock this down, but it'll likely require a lot of buy in from people across the enterprise. The diffing job requires none.

CSP and SRI info:

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/CSP)

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/Security/Subres...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/Security/Subresource_Integrity)

<comment><USER3> Isn't that the wrong approach? That's not something to do hourly, that's something you do once when deploying the site, and then again when you update the libraries. Which you host locally. If the code on your site happens to change every hour there is no way you have a chance to assure security.

<comment><USER4> If you're using a third party cdn to serve js assets then you have no chance to assure security.

<comment><USER5> Not quite true; you can set a Content-Security-Policy header which whitelists scripts by their cryptographic hash. Assuming you know the exact contents of the script you want to run (which you should, if the only issue is that you're using a CDN), this should be fine. Just set the header yourself.

If you're letting third parties load arbitrary code on your site, that's harder to deal with. Then a compromise of them is likely to also be a compromise of you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looking at Twitter it sounds like they remove it and the attacker adds it back. Maybe a generous interpretation is they don't know yet and have multiple servers backing cloudflare with only one compromised so it's switching between caching the two versions. The alternative that they are breached and can't contain it is terrifying if you're their customer.

<comment><USER7> They are breached and can't do anything about it. Some websites hacked by the same group tried to remove it, and later, they added in "IF YOU WILL DELETE MY CODE ONE MORE TIME I WILL ENCRYPT ALL YOUR SITES! YOU VERY BAD ADMINS" [0]

Terrifying indeed.

[0] [https://www.riskiq.com/blog/labs/magecart-ticketmaster- breac...](https://www.riskiq.com/blog/labs/magecart-ticketmaster-breach/)

<comment><USER8> Not that I don't believe you, but the linked page doesn't seem to mention that fact.

<comment><USER2> It's in one of the images:

[https://cdn.riskiq.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/07/rsz_image1...](https://cdn.riskiq.com/wp- content/uploads/2018/07/rsz_image13-2.png)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I posted a writeup a few months ago reverse engineering the same code, but hosted on a different website:

[https://blog.jse.li/posts/marveloptics- malware/](https://blog.jse.li/posts/marveloptics-malware/)

<comment><USER2> Very nice work! Best breakdown of the magecart code I've seen by far.

edit:

One of the clever things they do is have a different response for the GET and POST on what looks to be a JS file:

> hxxps://webfotce.me/js/form.js

Like with the new one( hxxps://info-stat.ws/js/slider.js ) if you do a GET you just get some innocuous looking JS:

       jQuery.noConflict();

But the malicious JS posts to that URL as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you embed third-party code, you expose your users to dangers like this. Please at least use Subresource Integrity ([https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/Security/Subres...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/Security/Subresource_Integrity)) but best host the code yourself, as that also protects your users' privacy.

</comment><comment><USER10> Is presume this is only an issue if you were directly linking to Feedify's site instead of serving your own copy?

<comment><USER2> Yes, if you're hosting that file, you'd be fine, although I might worry about the security of the rest of their architecture (I'm not sure what feedly does, tbh).

The one caveat to the above statement is that some places give you a file to host, but it's more or less a script that just document.writes another script tag which loads an external JS file. If that's the case, then you'd still be vulnerable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is there any way to find out who's using Feedify?

<comment><USER12> A quick search on PublicWWW seems to reveal a few websites: [https://publicwww.com/websites/feedify/](https://publicwww.com/websites/feedify/)</comment></comment>


Stop using the Agile Testing Pyramid: a case for writing fewer unit tests - <AUTHOR> http://hecodes.com/2018/07/stop-using-the-agile-testing-pyramid/ <comment><USER2> "If you spend 50% of your time writing tests, and if your tests break every time you refactor your code, then you're not going to move fast, are you?"

If your tests are breaking all the time, then you are not using your unit tests for their intended purpose: putting pressure on your design.

Fix that.</comment>


Starting up a floral startup looking for cofounder - <AUTHOR> must be the ninja of PHP! <comment><USER2> Can you provide any contact details?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes sure

<comment><USER2> so.. can you? :D</comment></comment></comment>


Deploying Python WSGI applications with Puppet - <AUTHOR> http://journal.uggedal.com/deploying-wsgi-applications-with-puppet/

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll release complementary Puppet modules for Redis and UFW soon. I also might extend the webapp module to support Ruby with Unicorn, RVM and Monit.

</comment><comment><USER2> Forgive the noob question, but I would be curious what people use to deploy WSGI applications in the wild. Is apache+daemonized mod_wsgi (possibly running behind nginx) a typical solution? The article mentions gunicorn, which I am likely going to give a try to see how it performs.

<comment><USER3> I'd also like to know. I've played around with apache and mod_wsgi, both with a framework (Django) and by writing my own mini-framework. Both were good exercises, but I'd also really like to know if there are other approaches, and why you would use one over the other.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This looks good, but the tutorial seems to stop before actually doing anything? I'm new to puppet and thus confused.

Edit oh what the fuck, it seems to have overwritten my nginx config :(

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry about that, I added a note to the article about Puppet overwriting any files you have in place before you started. Its generally unwise to run anything you download from the Internet as root without examining what it does.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, I'm not mad, it was my fault for doing it without understanding really :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Edit: Please disregard my comment. Puppet does a lot more than simple deployment scripts. See <http://www.puppetlabs.com/> for more information.

Can someone please explain the advantages of deploying with Puppet over Fabric.

(Fabric is a Python library for writing deployment scripts.)

<comment><USER6> I'm pretty sure Puppet _uses_ Fabric for its fundamental foundational layer. I want to get around to integrating it into my workflow - right now I just a lot of custom Fabric w/ rsync.

<comment><USER7> _I'm pretty sure Puppet uses Fabric for its fundamental foundational layer._

Hmm, doesn't look like it:

      $ git clone https://github.com/puppetlabs/puppet
      $ cd puppet
      $ grep -r 'fabric' *; echo $?
      1

EDIT: Puppet is written in Ruby.</comment></comment></comment>


A Large-Scale JavaScript Re-Learning Initiative at trivago - <AUTHOR> http://tech.trivago.com/2017/01/11/a-large-scale-javascript-re-learning-initiative/ <comment><AUTHOR> Author here. Open for discussion.</comment>


Show HN: Ballotter, an Online Video Debating Platform for Our Discussions - grif-fin https://www.ballotter.com/ <comment> grif-fin We have created Ballotter as an online (live/recorded) video debating platform to bring the discussions worth sharing on an online stage. Ballotter has just came online and is at the beta stage. We hope to gather a collection of amazing debates and people who want their voice heard with spectators voting and sharing.

Couple of questions for HN:

\- What is your take on Ballotter?

\- Any suggestions on the product?

\- Any suggestions on user gathering?</comment>


Freshwater from salt water using only solar energy - <AUTHOR> http://news.rice.edu/2017/06/19/freshwater-from-salt-water-using-only-solar-energy-2/ <comment><USER2> 6 litres / metre-squared per hour.

We require 130 litres / person per day in Europe. A town of 10,000 people would require 1,300,000 litres / day = ~54,000 litres / hour = 9000 metres- squared.

A facility of 100 x 100 x 1 m seems feasible. Based on those calculations, this all seems quite practical. I do wonder how frequently the filters need to be changed, though.

<comment><USER3> I thought 130 litres/person was quiet high and probably included things like water to grow vegetables, but no, one shower is between 30 et 50 litres and each time you go to the bathroom, it's 10 litres of drinkable water.

Of course, I you have saltwater and no freshwater, you would probably use saltwater in your toilets, so that could reduce the daily usage of at least 20 litres. But then, if you consider agriculture and manufacturing, I guess that the number of 130litres/person would blow up completely.

<comment><USER4> Wouldn't salt water in toilets require two sets of pipes leading into each home? Seems like an expensive proposition unless you're building a new community from scratch.

<comment><USER5> It does, but it isn't.

Similarly multiple out-going pipes to split off various levels of grey waste (some direct to garden, others, to soakways, or to septic processing systems).

Capex for these kinds of systems is ultimately dwarfed by savings on opex - just like we find with mandatory double-glazing & other insulation regulations.

<comment><USER6> Makes sense. But out of curiosity, where are you getting that info? Personal experience? Research in some field?

<comment><USER5> Mostly personal experience including some stories from permaculture types who've been approaching these problems for a while. I'm designing a habitat that will have an additional complication of both low-pressure gravity fed and electric-pump (city pressure) circuits.

Regulations lag behind optimum configuration, though parts of EU, especially in the north, legislated triple-glazing (f.e.) quite a few years ago (can't find a cost analysis of break-even points, unfortunately). I'm sure there's plenty of assumptions wrapped up in these regulations around estimated abode longevity, energy pricing over that period, etc. But as to multiple water sources into abodes, I haven't seen much formal work on it. I think the idea gets touted in London periodically - it'd be a nice solution to the dual problems of high water table and (surprisingly) occasional potable water shortages. But retrofitting this to an existing, massive, badly planned metropolis would be a nightmare.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Dear God, do you realize what we've done? We've invented evaporation! (Sorry, the title struck me as funny.)

<comment><USER8> Not really - evaporation is used to trap the residue _in_ the water, and dispose of the water itself.

This is the reverse - dispose of the residue, keep the water.

<comment><USER7> I appreciate your recognition of my plea for a refresher in middle-school science. Most people can't perceive my pain in the midst of the sarcasm.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The general problem with membrane-based desal methods is membrane fouling and lifetime.

I'm not sure that increasing the complexity of the membrane substrate itself is a positive step here, or that a complex heating mechanism offers significant wins.

The alternative of more traditional membrane reverse-osmosis processing focusing on cheap substrates, whilst provisioning power separately (conventional solar PV would be suitable, and could be located on-site or remotely) seems rather more tractable.

<comment><USER10> Yeah. After the initial excitement my first thought was if using nanotechnology could make the amortized cost of a panel prohibitively expensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Solar desalination is not new. KKR invested $100b in SunDrop farms which uses solar desal that produces energy (steam) and water for greenhouses in the desert.

<comment><USER12> Solar desalination is not new ... I performed the same feat in the '70s during Boy Scout camp-outs in Virginia Beach (Fort Story) [0]. What is new is the level of efficiency!

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_still](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_still)

<comment><USER13> IMHO, scout troops should teach the kids how to acquire fresh water before how to make fire, but for some odd reason the kids find fire to be more interesting.

Who wants to worry about wells and sump holes and and filters and bleach tabs when you can burn things?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Frequently I hear how persons stranded at sea or on a small island die of thirst, and I wonder if they could have used the evaporation method in conjunction with the sun or fire, and a cloth set above to capture the evaporated water.

<comment><USER15> METTC dependant, a 'solar still' could work. With the right vegetation and a plastic bag you could even collect transpiration. Off topic, but interesting nonetheless.

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_still](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_still)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Dumb question: would it be possible to turn the desert green? I'm imagining something done little-by-little, through farming and maybe public trusts. If this kind of technology were to continue to fall in cost, could we have farms and forests in the Sahara?

<comment><USER17> Water is not the only problem. You'd also need soil as not much can grow in a sand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Desalinization is becoming better understood, as well as cheaper, but the biggest challenge is still what to do with the leftover salt. We can't pour it back into the ocean because it will kill everything. Hopefully someday we find a way to clean and safe way to dispose of salt.

<comment><USER19> > _We can 't pour it back into the ocean because it will kill everything._

That's simply false. The amount of water that would need to be permanently removed from the ocean in order to measurably increase the salinity would be astounding. Let alone the amount that would need to be permanently removed to kill anything.

If local salinity was a problem (which it isn't) there's an extremely easy solution: Simply pump more water, remove less salt from it. Dump it in over a wider area of shore. Let mixing take care of the rest.

<comment><USER20> Most of the water we desalinate gets dumped right back in the ocean, add the salt back. Even the water that doesn't get into the sewage system ends up back in the ocean again via the water cycle/rainfall. (meaning we need to worry about local salinity issues but not global)

Actually most sewage systems output water that is safe to drink so we can put that water right back into our drinking water system and forget the whole problem over an over again. (If you ban lawns there might even be water left over as food is turned into water and the food probably isn't grown with city water). People generally don't like the idea of drinking sewage though so this will never happen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Let's not forget that solar cannot be used for anything critical where reliability is expected. It requires backup from a reliable source to be practical.

</comment><comment><USER22> Any particular reason you couldn't do a siphon-pumped multistage flash still with solar heating? That would be just glasswork.</comment>