I'm sure they'll tell you lasik is needed so you can see the Emperor's new clothes.
They need to be a lot less conspicuous to use/wear than currently pictured. The original DynaTAC was a bit odd when it was first released, but eventually as the devices became smaller and more widespread they also became less peculiar to the general public.
To be fair, the primary modern meaning of the verb "to emasculate" is just "to weaken". It does derive from an archaic word meaning castrate, and, specifically in relation to males, it can have the meaning that you quoted, but he may have been using it correctly in the sense of weakening interpersonal interactions. Still a dorkish comment though.
The thing is, he used the word expecting people to take its so-called primary meaning, when society is most likely to take the "losing masculinity" meaning because it's actually more common. That's like expecting people to understand that "intimate with" does not mean "had sex with," because the societal norm is to interpret as exactly that (sex).
Especially in societies like the USA where sex is an abnormally hightened obsession because of repression and insecurity around the topic.
The thing is, he used the word expecting people to take its so-called primary meaning, when society is most likely to take the "losing masculinity" meaning because it's actually more common. That's like expecting people to understand that "intimate with" does not mean "had sex with," because the societal norm is to interpret as exactly that (sex).
Especially in societies like the USA where sex is an abnormally hightened obsession because of repression and insecurity around the topic.
1) It's funny but its not his problem that too many people have such a limited lexicon. I can't imagine any adult that would read his quote to not be able to consider that a word can have multiple meanings.
2) Sex and gender are oft used interchangeably but sex typically refers to biology whilst gender typically refers to cultural or social differences. This means that you are pretty stuck with male and female for sex but society can create a virtually unlimited number of genders. One general example, a transvestite could be male by sex and female by their gender association. Also, in case this isn't known in 2013, it appears that referring to another human being by their chosen gender role is apropos and trumps the sex role, and gender neuter 'it' doesn't appear to ever be appropriate, even among the fringe cultures that actually strive for androgyny.
Well, that's the "modern" meaning, but as recently as the 1970's it meant "unmanly." That's just a very recent veneer of PC language really.
The literal meaning of the word is to "remove one's masculinity."
Besides, "weak" is hardly any different. It's somehow culturally okay for women to be weak, but not men. "Weak" is a dig against "wimpy" men.
If you want to insult a woman you use macho adjectives like "pushy" and "angry," if you want to insult a man you call him "weak" or "sensitive."
Which is why it's offensive, but also just so over-the-top stupid when you consider a skinny, nerdy geeky guy is who said it.
It's just a horrible, horrible, thing to say IMO but more stupid than anything else.
It doesn't even make sense at all because how is checking your phone all the time "weak" or unmanly? Checking your phone all the time is actually a power position thing. It's purpose is to let everyone in the room know that you have a cool smartphone, that you know how to use it, and that important messages might be on it for you. It says that you are rich, important, and connected.
It's about as manly as it gets really.
Never underestimate the level to which technology geeks, especially those in positions of capitalist power, can fail to comprehend human socialization and attempt to pressure to change it for purposes of making money. Look at the industrialization of food and the way industry tried, and succeeded, in re-programming housewives and people in general back in the 50s and on...
Mate, if someone comes into a public toilet wearing a pair of those Google Glass things, they are going head first into the urinal because of the constantly filming camera.
Google seems to be having trouble explaining what is its vision for its new hardware products. He trashes the smartphone but the Glass depends on it to fully work. He says smartphones are antisocial but wants you wearing something that will always be in your face even if you are not using it, and everyone will be oblivious wether you are using it or not... great way to promote trust. Actually you will probably use it more since it will always be there. Sure people stare at their smartphones and don%u2019t interact with others around, but Glass will be no different. People might seem to be staring at others but there are limits to how many things one person can pay attention to at the same time! Social behavior can only change if people choose to interact with others around. With technology always present there will always be another choice to not interact. Brin says "Is this what you're meant to do with your body?" That is a perfect question for "Glass"!! Are we meant to use his technology in our body? What for? So that he can feed us what his company thinks is important, paid by advertisers? Now that is emasculating...
They need to be a lot less conspicuous to use/wear than currently pictured. The original DynaTAC was a bit odd when it was first released, but eventually as the devices became smaller and more widespread they also became less peculiar to the general public.
The usage model of a phone is different though. With Glass, it really needs to be on your face constantly. With a phone, users can put it away when it's not being used.
There will be improvements to design and cost, but it's a bit troubling that they're trying to sell the first version of Glass as fashionable, note the DVF promotional video. Models can make anything look good, but it seems like it's going to be the Wayne Knights of the world that will latch onto it and make us curse Dr. Brin for making them.
It is very impressive all that stuff can fit in a tiny body.
I don't recall Apple ever trashing any of their current/past products in favor of their next unreleased gadget. That's more of Microsoft's territory. Example:
"XP Service Pack 3 is amazing. It really ties up all those loose security ends."
Three months later: "Vista is amazing. It really is the most secure Windows ever! XP is garbage which you should uninstall immediately!"
Two years later: "Windows 7 is the most secure Windows ever! What's Vista?"
PhilBoogie
Don't bother to take your glasses off Sergey, before I punch you. The hospital will cut those out afterwards
"Sergey is so immature to make a statement like that!"
"Yeah, let's give 'im a swirlie!"
"What are you, a fag? Just punch him!"
Well done, way to take the high road, g'nite everyone.
SolipsismX
dysamoria
The thing is, he used the word expecting people to take its so-called primary meaning, when society is most likely to take the "losing masculinity" meaning because it's actually more common. That's like expecting people to understand that "intimate with" does not mean "had sex with," because the societal norm is to interpret as exactly that (sex).
Especially in societies like the USA where sex is an abnormally hightened obsession because of repression and insecurity around the topic.
1) It's funny but its not his problem that too many people have such a limited lexicon. I can't imagine any adult that would read his quote to not be able to consider that a word can have multiple meanings.
2) Sex and gender are oft used interchangeably but sex typically refers to biology whilst gender typically refers to cultural or social differences. This means that you are pretty stuck with male and female for sex but society can create a virtually unlimited number of genders. One general example, a transvestite could be male by sex and female by their gender association. Also, in case this isn't known in 2013, it appears that referring to another human being by their chosen gender role is apropos and trumps the sex role, and gender neuter 'it' doesn't appear to ever be appropriate, even among the fringe cultures that actually strive for androgyny.
dysamoria is saying that the fluid spectrum of human sexuality is completely lost on the typical American, who sees anything outside of one or two clear classifications as something to be disgusted with and mock derisively.
From what I've seen in photos, videos, and articles from establishments commenting on those wearing them, the placement of the mirror is slightly below one's eyebrow and the users look like they're gazing up taking one's eyes off from whomever they may be interacting with.
So honestly, I'd rather have some person looking down being visibly rude and inconsiderate as opposed to some guy mimicking a zombie looking around aimlessly.
I agree totally. I rather see someone "busy" by looking down, then deer in headlights look into space not knowing if they were thinking, ignoring, busy, etc. If he was really serious about bashing the "smartphone" then he quit Android period. Stop all production of the software to any smartphone. Stop taking any money from sales of Android and all it's products. Put a big red LED or flashing light in the middle of the "glasses" he is wearing so people know when someone is using them. Then MAYBE someone may take you seriously.
Someone needs to tell him putting up a product that is 1500-2000 bucks for what a free to couple hundred dollar "smartphone" can do, and trying to sell the product with the cheaper item is "bad" for you. Then why would someone spend massive amounts more for another product that would be "bad" for you???
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I'm sure they'll tell you lasik is needed so you can see the Emperor's new clothes.
They need to be a lot less conspicuous to use/wear than currently pictured. The original DynaTAC was a bit odd when it was first released, but eventually as the devices became smaller and more widespread they also became less peculiar to the general public.
The thing is, he used the word expecting people to take its so-called primary meaning, when society is most likely to take the "losing masculinity" meaning because it's actually more common. That's like expecting people to understand that "intimate with" does not mean "had sex with," because the societal norm is to interpret as exactly that (sex).
Especially in societies like the USA where sex is an abnormally hightened obsession because of repression and insecurity around the topic.
1) It's funny but its not his problem that too many people have such a limited lexicon. I can't imagine any adult that would read his quote to not be able to consider that a word can have multiple meanings.
2) Sex and gender are oft used interchangeably but sex typically refers to biology whilst gender typically refers to cultural or social differences. This means that you are pretty stuck with male and female for sex but society can create a virtually unlimited number of genders. One general example, a transvestite could be male by sex and female by their gender association. Also, in case this isn't known in 2013, it appears that referring to another human being by their chosen gender role is apropos and trumps the sex role, and gender neuter 'it' doesn't appear to ever be appropriate, even among the fringe cultures that actually strive for androgyny.
http://www-db.stanford.edu/~sergey/photos/drag96.jpg
Never underestimate the level to which technology geeks, especially those in positions of capitalist power, can fail to comprehend human socialization and attempt to pressure to change it for purposes of making money. Look at the industrialization of food and the way industry tried, and succeeded, in re-programming housewives and people in general back in the 50s and on...
Thank you, Internet!
Anyway, I think we're on the verge of a new Twitter hashtag.
#Glasshole anyone? Is that trending yet?
EDIT - Nevermind there's already a twitter account for it that hasn't posted in three and half years. Shucks.
He trashes the smartphone but the Glass depends on it to fully work. He says smartphones are antisocial but wants you wearing something that will always be in your face even if you are not using it, and everyone will be oblivious wether you are using it or not... great way to promote trust. Actually you will probably use it more since it will always be there.
Sure people stare at their smartphones and don%u2019t interact with others around, but Glass will be no different. People might seem to be staring at others but there are limits to how many things one person can pay attention to at the same time! Social behavior can only change if people choose to interact with others around. With technology always present there will always be another choice to not interact.
Brin says "Is this what you're meant to do with your body?" That is a perfect question for "Glass"!! Are we meant to use his technology in our body? What for? So that he can feed us what his company thinks is important, paid by advertisers? Now that is emasculating...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
Patent denied.
Previous artwork
Same here: definitively prior art!
The usage model of a phone is different though. With Glass, it really needs to be on your face constantly. With a phone, users can put it away when it's not being used.
There will be improvements to design and cost, but it's a bit troubling that they're trying to sell the first version of Glass as fashionable, note the DVF promotional video. Models can make anything look good, but it seems like it's going to be the Wayne Knights of the world that will latch onto it and make us curse Dr. Brin for making them.
It is very impressive all that stuff can fit in a tiny body.
the product that isn't even a product should be renamed the 'headband'. no glasses involved.
One thing: http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/I_85a2f0_2607182.jpg
No, the guy's a jerk. I'm switching to Bing ...
I don't recall Apple ever trashing any of their current/past products in favor of their next unreleased gadget. That's more of Microsoft's territory. Example:
"XP Service Pack 3 is amazing. It really ties up all those loose security ends."
Three months later: "Vista is amazing. It really is the most secure Windows ever! XP is garbage which you should uninstall immediately!"
Two years later: "Windows 7 is the most secure Windows ever! What's Vista?"
PhilBoogie
Don't bother to take your glasses off Sergey, before I punch you. The hospital will cut those out afterwards
"Sergey is so immature to make a statement like that!"
"Yeah, let's give 'im a swirlie!"
"What are you, a fag? Just punch him!"
Well done, way to take the high road, g'nite everyone.
SolipsismX
dysamoria
The thing is, he used the word expecting people to take its so-called primary meaning, when society is most likely to take the "losing masculinity" meaning because it's actually more common. That's like expecting people to understand that "intimate with" does not mean "had sex with," because the societal norm is to interpret as exactly that (sex).
Especially in societies like the USA where sex is an abnormally hightened obsession because of repression and insecurity around the topic.
1) It's funny but its not his problem that too many people have such a limited lexicon. I can't imagine any adult that would read his quote to not be able to consider that a word can have multiple meanings.
2) Sex and gender are oft used interchangeably but sex typically refers to biology whilst gender typically refers to cultural or social differences. This means that you are pretty stuck with male and female for sex but society can create a virtually unlimited number of genders. One general example, a transvestite could be male by sex and female by their gender association. Also, in case this isn't known in 2013, it appears that referring to another human being by their chosen gender role is apropos and trumps the sex role, and gender neuter 'it' doesn't appear to ever be appropriate, even among the fringe cultures that actually strive for androgyny.
dysamoria is saying that the fluid spectrum of human sexuality is completely lost on the typical American, who sees anything outside of one or two clear classifications as something to be disgusted with and mock derisively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
From what I've seen in photos, videos, and articles from establishments commenting on those wearing them, the placement of the mirror is slightly below one's eyebrow and the users look like they're gazing up taking one's eyes off from whomever they may be interacting with.
So honestly, I'd rather have some person looking down being visibly rude and inconsiderate as opposed to some guy mimicking a zombie looking around aimlessly.
I agree totally. I rather see someone "busy" by looking down, then deer in headlights look into space not knowing if they were thinking, ignoring, busy, etc. If he was really serious about bashing the "smartphone" then he quit Android period. Stop all production of the software to any smartphone. Stop taking any money from sales of Android and all it's products. Put a big red LED or flashing light in the middle of the "glasses" he is wearing so people know when someone is using them. Then MAYBE someone may take you seriously.
Someone needs to tell him putting up a product that is 1500-2000 bucks for what a free to couple hundred dollar "smartphone" can do, and trying to sell the product with the cheaper item is "bad" for you. Then why would someone spend massive amounts more for another product that would be "bad" for you???