William Gibson tries the Google Glass


43 Responses to “William Gibson tries the Google Glass”

  1. skyhawk1 says:

    Gibson should have been one of the first offered.

  2. DavidJ3d says:

    So … I am unclear here … which one of these guys is the felon for violating the CFAA?

  3. Jim Schmidt says:

    Looks like that might be Sergei Brin himself helping Gibson out. If anyone’s gonna get away with violating terms of service, I think it’s gonna be him :)

  4. Jonathan Badger says:

    I just hope that Brin isn’t planning to offer a product based on Molly’s *other* augmentation, although it could be useful for chopping vegetables, I suppose.

  5. mindtheink says:

    Bah. I want to see him with the Oculus Rift.

  6. But will it fit down the front of his cycling shorts?

  7. dodongo says:

    The person who loaned him those was simply helping to more evenly distribute the future.

  8. timquinn says:

    The terms of service mention him and Sterling under the section “Oh Christ, Don’t Even . . “

  9. Marko Raos says:

    Funny, we’re all up in arms against CCTV surveillance state but when Google wants to put an online camera on each citizen’s face we get all geeky and gooey and “I wants it” and “why can’t I has it.”

    • salsaman says:

      I for one am up in arms about it and want it nowhere near me.

      Not to mention it’s a million times more no-actually-you-look-like-an-idiot than a bluetooth earpiece.

    • Pobol Pobotrol says:

      I want to know if William Gibson went gooey and geeky when presented with the dystopia he speculated on and probably influenced.

    • Tynam says:

      It’s about power.  The biggest problem with the CCTV state is the selection process for who gets to use it.

      • Heartfruit says:

        I’m not sure I agree.  If the state put up cameras on every corner and let anyone they want access the footage, I’d still have an issue with it.

        • fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

          Aside from the value of privacy per se, the main elephant-in-the-room is that(in addition to ‘who gets access to the neat surveillance power toys?’ problem, which their sheer cheapness seems to be chiselling away at) is the ‘who has the power/influence/social acceptability to turn access to data into results?’, something where progress is… not so much… being made.

          Something like the ‘cellphone cameras documenting police misconduct’ feel-good story is only helpful if you are one of the fine folks that the police aren’t(as a matter of fact, or even of law) hired in part to rough up when they get uppity.

          If you are, access to surveillance data turns a ‘my word against yours’ losefest into a potential victory. If you are? Welcome to Youtube, please enjoy your stay and the masses of mouthbreathers fantasizing about how your beating-down should have been even more vigorious!

          See also, ‘sexting, sex-asymmetric consequences of’ for similar excitement.

    • fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

      This clear hypocrisy on the part of a dubiously defined ‘we’ is why the term “glasshole” has made it from prototype to wide production faster than the device has…

    • OgilvyTheAstronomer says:

      Nerds are nothing if not easily bribed…

    • austinhamman says:

      one is by the state, imposed upon the people without their consent, the other is the people explicitly consenting (save those being recorded, but that is never-the-less by people on other people) it’s why we are more worried about planes crashing, which rarely happens, opposed to cars crashing which happens all the time. with the former someone else is in control while with the latter we make our own mistakes and live with them. it ultimately comes down to “who controls it”

      • Marko Raos says:

        It’s very simple. Google controls it.

        • austinhamman says:

          google controls PART of it. they control the OS largely (it’s likely running android and may even allow for rooting. if not, people will learn how) but they don’t control when i takes pictures, or what it takes pictures of. the images and video, from what i understand, are stored locally so unless the user uploads the video to a google service (an ability which will no doubt be made very easy for them to do) then google doesn’t control the video or images. what google will control is what they send to you, and some of what you send to them (like your current location)

          • austinhamman says:

            i don’t think that either of those things are related to this. if google were to activate your webcam without your permission it would be a grave violation of your privacy and would in turn need to be in their TOS.
            that being said i believe the camera, and indeed ALL cameras, should have a manual shutoff. that is a switch which physically disconnects the camera from the computer. that would likely not help with glass (since it depends on that camera to give you things you bought glass for in the first place) but the person you would need to worry about with this is not GOOGLE but some random hacker, just the same as, to my knowledge, google does not currently record your phone conversations, capture video from your camera phone, or download your contacts though they are capable of doing all those things, however random hackers will.

    • AwesomeRobot says:

      The government controls CCTV systems, the people control Glass. 

      The CCTV is the boss, not the employee.

    • crenquis says:

       Everybody wants to be a Gargoyle?

      10 signs that Snow Crash’s gargoyles already exist | Mark Sarney

  10. i’ll bet his immediate response was “No.”

    • Robert Moser says:

      He tweeted about it:  “I also got to try Google Glass, if only for a few seconds. Was faintly annoyed at just how interesting I found the experience.”

  11. MrVidelog says:

    I think it will take some years to finish this. Maybe my 7 old yeat daughter will have glasses with these features….

  12. Booom game says:

    there will be no google glass on the market, anyone remembers vfx or
    vr200, those thingies caused severe nausea, can’t see what’s the diff
    here with human middle ear limitation.

    • Ladyfingers says:

       This doesn’t stop you from seeing real life.

    • hypnosifl says:

      But google glass isn’t a VR display, you would just see some extra stuff on top of what you would see out of normal glasses, like Terminator-vision. And unless you were looking at something like a map overlay, it shouldn’t even be necessary for the display to change whenever you move your head–I think the lag there was the main source of nausea. Speaking of VR though, I wonder if more modern displays would have better refresh rates so there wouldn’t be any noticeable lag–there’s a new VR headset for gamers coming out in 2014 called the “Oculus Rift”, this page says it will have “ultra-low latency” (display lag), and here is an entertaining video about someone’s grandma trying it out.

  13. Stryx Varia says:

    I’m sure he was like, pfffft- these things still don’t give a whuffie score…

  14. JonCarter says:

    Products in beta are often procured with strict language about use, sharing and resale. There is nothing different about Google Glasses that isn’t typically done with beta products. 

  15. gfish says:

    Um, Glass has a built-in mode for letting other people try it out. I’m not entirely happy with the TOS either, but let’s not exagerate here.

  16. TheMadLibrarian says:

    This is meta all the way down…

Leave a Reply