Not signed in (Sign In)

WorldWeird: the game changer?

Bottom of Page

1 to 17 of 17

  1.  
  1.  (7254.1)
    The applications this has across the board of multimedia is astounding. It would make digital comics "easy." Basically, the digital tablet is obsolete before it even began.



    The Future of Digital?
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeNov 19th 2009
     (7254.2)
    He built it from two mouses! That's so ingenious: to be able to build it from off-the-shelf hardware like that.
    • CommentAuthorRedwynd
    • CommentTimeNov 19th 2009 edited
     (7254.3)
    That is fantastic, but I'm doubtful of the mass appeal. Its a wonderful idea, being able to compute anywhere and on the go, but I for one like to have at least the illusion of privacy in my digital interactions.

    The tech, and thinking behind it, could change how we look at computing. Particularly when you incorporate the idea of ultra-fast wireless connections, the device itself doesn't necessarily need the ability to compute anything, simply to interpret the gestures and display, then send all of the computing work to a remote workstation. Cut down on the power needs, keep all the functionality.

    EDIT TO ADD: If this became integrated with goggles that allowed me to metatag the real world, I would jump all over that. I've no problem looking foolish as an early adopter, I'm just quite private.
  4.  (7254.4)
    Something is bothering me about this idea. I wish I could put my finger on it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorScribe
    • CommentTimeNov 22nd 2009
     (7254.5)
    Something is bothering me about this idea. I wish I could put my finger on it.


    Just be careful when you wipe your ass and take a piss.
  6.  (7254.6)
    The possibility that clicking your fingers at the right angle may eventually cause your phone to explode?
  7.  (7254.7)
    If this actually works, and can be produced with a pleasing aesthetic so I don't look like a complete fool, I would be all over this.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeNov 22nd 2009
     (7254.8)
    New Scientist is reporting on a contact lens with a video display built in - probably a few years away from commercialisation,

    That would solve the privacy concerns quite neatly.
  9.  (7254.9)
    and open source.

    my daughter was like 'wha ? ' and then 'woah' once he took his photos.
    •  
      CommentAuthoroddbill
    • CommentTimeNov 22nd 2009
     (7254.10)
    If this became integrated with goggles...


    Goggles are like commercial poison. Goggles as a peripheral have existed for over a decade and have not taken off for very good reasons - as a monitor interface they absolutely suck on too many basic, unfixable levels. The most basic being, nobody wants that crap on their face. People spend real money to have lasers shave their eyeballs so they don't have to put glasses on their face. People routinely mock and deride folks who walk around with bluetooth headsets on their ears, and those are much less conspicuous than goggles. Goggles, even in the form of glasses, will never be a viable monitor peripheral. Maybe goggles would work as a self-guided museum walking tour augment. But they will never, ever be embraced by the general population for just walking around the real world. This is a prediction I am confident in.

    I doubt contact lenses will fare any better.

    I'd like to pick apart the viability of this sixth-sense device as well, as it seems too weird and dopey, but as I try to find flaws in it, really, all the things I can think of are just engineering problems (luminary strength of the projector and projector light life, batttery life, quality of the lens, fashionableness of the crap hanging off your shirt or stuck to the ends of your fingers) for which, with adequate money, solutions probably already exist. (for example, I bet this could be made to simply recognize your actual thumbs and index fingers without the need for finger caps or special nail coloring or whatever).

    Using a piece of paper or the palm of your hand, as he does near the end of the demo, takes care of the privacy concern. You don't have to project this on a wall or table.

    People have embraced smartphones which demand some awkward behavioral adaptations. I don't see this as much worse. Maybe the privacy of others is the Achilles Heel, as you'd basically be walking around with an always on camera pointed out in front of you. Any concession the tech makes to warning others of this fact (light, sound, whatever) will make you look like a dork.

    As RandomEntity says, if this can be designed so as to not make people look stupid wearing it, I think it could probably work.
  11.  (7254.11)
    there's always the possibility that somewhere along the line the camera and projector could come down in size to look like buttons on a jacket or similar.

    with it being open source, will the larger technology firms shy away from it ? or will they embrace it, developing their own shinier, less clunky model ?
    • CommentAuthorRyan C
    • CommentTimeNov 23rd 2009
     (7254.12)
    I've seen pieces of this elsewhere but forget clothes and wearable things. Graph this onto my body and have the energy be supplied by my moving. Maybe with a back up for storage. As for privacy you would need to have it pull from a social media and you could limit what people can learn about you from those sites. Privacy is up to you not the people making devices, in my mind.
    • CommentAuthorMarty Nozz
    • CommentTimeNov 24th 2009
     (7254.13)
    This is very impressive. Brilliant work. I have the feeling that this type of computing will be the norm by the time my kids grow up. I'm sure once it goes commercial the actual design will be much more stylish.
    • CommentAuthorRedwynd
    • CommentTimeNov 24th 2009
     (7254.14)
    Goggles are like commercial poison.


    I've looked at googles as peripherals several times, over the last few years. I'd buy them and try them, but I have issues. My main issues around them come down to three things: portability, image resolution, and relative price.

    In terms of portability, none of the models I've seen have mentioned a thing about battery life, so I can only assume that they would be wired, and therefore not portable. I want to use this on the fly, for things like GPS location and mapping as I walk down the street (like a GPS for a vehicle, but for pedestrians). This can be done with a phone, but I'd rather have it overlaid on my vision, like the HUDs you get when playing video games, which is what drove the desire in the first place.

    Resolution is a more technical issue, that I'm not really qualified to discuss, but again I've never seen it actually mentioned in the specs. "Appears as a 50-inch television from six feet"? What does that mean? I'm looking at it from two inches, I want to know how clear the image will be, in term that I understand. I'm not spending $400 to find out it looks like shit.

    Relative price comes mainly from being a student. If I can get a screen that allows me to effectively multitask, consult multiple documents for a given task, and arrange my windows so I can watch everything at the same time, but for half the price, then I can't help but go for the cheaper option. A few years hence, when I'm actually earning some money after all this studying, I might be a little more willing to risk a purchase.

    Now, if I can get a pair that will last for a few hours, allow me to see the world around me, and interface with a mobile device, I'd be all over that.
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeNov 24th 2009
     (7254.15)
    Resolution is a more technical issue, that I'm not really qualified to discuss, but again I've never seen it actually mentioned in the specs


    http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=goggles+display+resolution suggests 320x240 is standard.

    http://www.stereo3d.com/hmd.htm#resolution suggests that the top end is 1024*768.

    http://www.rangevideo.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=23 says 640X480 (VGA) for $275.00.
    • CommentAuthorMarty Nozz
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2009
     (7254.16)
    I was looking through YouTube videos on this tech and I'm digging everything, but one of the speakers, Minsty's professor mentioned a little something about brain implants. Neat little tagline, but a horrible idea.
  17.  (7254.17)
    Good to know that Zizek is interested in it and is already philosophically questioning it

1 to 17 of 17

  1.