doctorow at July 1st, 2014 17:00 — #1
brainspore at July 1st, 2014 17:10 — #2
The piracy thing is just stupid, but they do have a point about the red recording light. Anything that lights up (or beeps) in a darkened theater is annoying and discourteous to your fellow theater patrons. Either turn the device off or find a way to disable the light.
lemoutan at July 1st, 2014 17:15 — #3
I guess when we're going around with yer actual implants for improved hearing, vision (which just happen to be able to record) then we'll just be banned from cinemas and museums etc outright. No wonder the Borg were grumpy.
euansmith at July 1st, 2014 17:21 — #4
Night Vision? Really? Are they going to militarize everything?
stephen_schenck at July 1st, 2014 17:40 — #5
Infrared strobe lights for all!
benjamin_jones at July 1st, 2014 17:46 — #6
Why is this even noteworthy? Unless your head is under a hood, using Glass in a theater would be jerkish, as would any face-high sources of light.
timstellmach at July 1st, 2014 17:48 — #7
Won't somebody please think of the hypothetical sight-impaired user who has not yet been offended against??
shaddack at July 1st, 2014 17:54 — #8
Let's start working on the assistive-tech applications then. Even without the glasses themselves we can write use cases, functional specs, design proposals. And by the time we're done (this stuff takes time), AR glasses of various kinds will be almost dirt-cheap.
I can see for example an application with speech recognition for hearing-impaired persons, providing text data for dialogues. The same can be used with added machine translation, for hearing users, possibly with text-recognition and translation overlay. The non-asshole theaters then could even provide the subtitles in a bazillion languages as a wireless streaming service. I would love annotation of the actors/characters to not lose track of who is who because suboptimal face recog capability sucks spheres in both social settings and watching movies.
The future is here. Trying to stop it is futile. Better resource allocation is in making it better.
shaddack at July 1st, 2014 17:58 — #9
...e.g. a small square of electrical tape over the LED!
nonentity at July 1st, 2014 18:07 — #10
It's not using Glass that is being banned. It's posessing and wearing it. And that's much easier for someone who wears glasses to do if it's integrated into their glasses, which makes putting the device away much more difficult..
bzishi at July 1st, 2014 18:43 — #11
So what? Just paint over the camera with nail polish and remove it later. Problem solved and the glasses are still fully functional.
benjamin_jones at July 1st, 2014 19:08 — #12
Thanks for giving it some meaningful context.
I still file this under "Oh noes, most privileged people in the world feel oppressed!", but at least you've made me feel a bit bad for it.
catgrin at July 1st, 2014 19:21 — #13
My favorite take on the horribly oppressed users of Google Glass comes from the Daily Show.
nonentity at July 1st, 2014 20:34 — #14
That might be a valid suggestion, if 1) this wasn't pretty likely to cause damage to a very expensive piece of equipment, and 2) if the cinemas actually cared about the usefulness of the camera, which they obviously don't, because the way the device is built makes it almost useless for actually pirating movies.
hereticbranding at July 1st, 2014 21:44 — #15
Dear UK cinemas:
timwayne at July 2nd, 2014 02:30 — #16
On the one hand, wearing anything with a light in a theatre is rude.
On the other hand, this is one more reason to skip the theatre and watch the movie at home, a month later, on my giant, inexpensive, 3D flatscreen.
bzishi at July 2nd, 2014 03:28 — #17
File this under: not my problem. If you want to watch a movie with prescription lenses attached to Google Glass then there is a solution. It may damage the Google Glass, but it still allows a person with glasses to see the film. You can't claim disability discrimination as long as this option exists. And if you value your $1500 Google Glass more than the ability to see the film, then perhaps you will bring a normal set of glasses to the film instead.
Edit: and just to be clear, think about what you are arguing. You are saying that if you attach an expensive piece of equipment to something you need for a disability, then your expensive piece of equipment can't be discriminated against because that would in turn discriminate against your disability. I'm raising the BS flag on this one.
euansmith at July 2nd, 2014 05:49 — #18
Next thing you know, the cinema suffers a drone strike
euansmith at July 2nd, 2014 06:00 — #19
I'm not on the market for pirated movies (I think the only two I've seen was Rambo killing people with Arabic subtitles and Lara Croft with a fight with a multi-armed goddess edited out because it came from Malaysia) but I assumed that most piracy was an inside job, with the pirates procuring a copy of the film from a cinema or elsewhere on the supply chain.
nonentity at July 2nd, 2014 07:18 — #20
There's a perfectly good solution without damaging the Google Glass as well, and that's to not have a silly restriction like this. The chances of pirates using Glass to steal movies are practically nil, when there are so many other methods that will create a much better end result. Even aside from the storage restrictions, and the whole eyepiece lighting up when you are recording.... just think for a moment of what it would be like trying to hold your head perfectly still and pointed at the exact same direction, with your hand up by your ear (to hold down the 'keep recording' button) for the entire length of a movie! Every little unconscious or involuntary movement by the wearer would cause the picture to swing around.
What I'm actually arguing is that if a person with a disability has arrived at your business, turning them away or forcing them to do without something they need for their disability simply because you have an irrational fear of a piece of equipment isn't a very good option. And offering to damage that equipment in order to satisfy your irrational fear is NOT an option!
next page →