People prefer symmetry and don't tend to like asymmetry, but your reasoning is absolutely ridiculous. If correct, we would be infuriated by eye patches too, right? By your reasoning, if a Google Glass had TWO cameras, people would be ok with it? You may not mind, but I don't think most people want their every move to be recorded and potentially become part of some stranger's social media mockery. We do not have any expectation of privacy in public (duh) but we don't have to like being recorded all the time.
If people are not infuriated by the Sony glasses, it will only be because they're laughing at them. The fact (and it is a fact) is that the Sony glasses will be equally unwelcome in gyms, locker rooms, and many other places. People will get those glasses punched off their faces.
Yes, thank you for bringing up two tangential cases that I chose to leave out of that post, for simplicity.
One is the eye patch, which is used in movies, advertising and visual storytelling to suggest villainy, swashbuckling, romantic peccadillos, etc., but never used for a character that is supposed to be the "mild-mannered reporter."
The other is the monocle, which in film is the mark of the evil wire-puller, the refined, cold-blooded guy who pets the cat in his lap while he orders your execution.
I rest my case with these two examples. When you want to signal the deepest fear layers of the human brain, use a distorted face, particularly around the eyes. It was shocking to me that the Google geeks would not have realized this, but then it makes sense because their brains are so asymmetrical, biased so heavily on the left that they can't see it.
Your other point about privacy violation is true also. It gave a rational reason for hating Glass, but the original visceral hatred comes from the violated infant/mother bonding system, face recognition. It's hard wiring, and the first thing we use our eyes for.
Edit: the deep-brain stuff is working without anyone being aware of it, which is why you never see what i'm saying pointed out. It's happening beneath conscious awareness. Those who study stereoscopic vision are more likely to be aware of it.
I really miss Jobs. Under him Apple developed fully functional iPod, iPhone, and iPad in house. Google and Sony can not release a fully functional device without developers' helps. Even so Google still failed. Apple under Cook can not release a fully functional Apple Watch in time and it costs so much that only rich people who have money to waste.
The unspoken failure of Google's Glass has not deterred Sony from forging ahead with its own face-attached augmented reality device
Steve Jobs was just as proud of the products he did NOT ship as the ones he did, even though the non-shipping products took years of development. Of course a few clunkers came out anyway. Sony should learn this lesson. Shipping crappy products diminishes your brand.
I really miss Jobs. Under him Apple developed fully functional iPod, iPhone, and iPad in house. Google and Sony can not release a fully functional device without developers' helps. Even so Google still failed. Apple under Cook can not release a fully functional Apple Watch in time and it costs so much that only rich people who have money to waste.
Either this is a dishonest cheap jab at Tim Cook, or you have an extremely naive/revisionist view of how things work. Which is it?
I am not sure what you mean by "fully functional device without developers' help," because you then go on to slam the Watch as too expensive, a non sequitur.
The Macintosh was Steve's baby. Yet one of the reasons it never caught on was a lack of third party apps. People went where that apps were. Those third party developers whom you regard as nonessential to Steve's creations are in fact a critical part of the platform's ecosystem. Apple knows this. They aren't relying on the beauty and quality of the hardware designs alone to move product. The same is true for the iPhone.
So what does that have to do with the watch? Maybe you are confusing "functional without third party apps" with "functional without additional hardware." Those are separate concerns. But even then, your example do not support your argument: the original iPod required a computer to load, edit, delete songs and playlists, and originally that meant a Mac running iTunes. Even the current iPod Shuffle and Nano require a computer.
Yes, thank you for bringing up two tangential cases that I chose to leave out of that post, for simplicity.
One is the eye patch, which is used in movies, advertising and visual storytelling to suggest villainy, swashbuckling, romantic peccadillos, etc., but never used for a character that is supposed to be the "mild-mannered reporter."
{snip}
I rest my case with these two examples. When you want to signal the deepest fear layers of the human brain, use a distorted face, particularly around the eyes. {snip}
Your other point about privacy violation is true also. It gave a rational reason for hating Glass, but the original visceral hatred comes from the violated infant/mother bonding system, face recognition. It's hard wiring, and the first thing we use our eyes for.
I wasn't referring to eye patches in the movies. In REAL LIFE people don't HATE eye patches or the people who might need them. I don't think people "hate" Google Glass. What people don't like is some jerks getting all in their business. You can't tell when you are being recorded by "glassholes" like you can when someone is holding up their phone or a camera. We're talking about violations of generally understood or perceived rules of behavior in a free society. When one is recording another person without their consent or even without their knowledge, it betrays an utter lack of respect for the other person. In this regard -->back on topic<-- the Sony glasses are not the least bit different from the Google glasses. If you want to prove there is any merit to your argument, find the people who don't like the Google Glasses but do like these Sony glasses. If anything, the feedback I've seen indicates that people like the Google design better.
Either this is a dishonest cheap jab at Tim Cook, or you have an extremely naive/revisionist view of how things work. Which is it?
I am not sure what you mean by "fully functional device without developers' help," because you then go on to slam the Watch as too expensive, a non sequitur.
The Macintosh was Steve's baby. Yet one of the reasons it never caught on was a lack of third party apps. People went where that apps were. Those third party developers whom you regard as nonessential to Steve's creations are in fact a critical part of the platform's ecosystem. Apple knows this. They aren't relying on the beauty and quality of the hardware designs alone to move product. The same is true for the iPhone.
So what does that have to do with the watch? Maybe you are confusing "functional without third party apps" with "functional without additional hardware." Those are separate concerns. But even then, your example do not support your argument: the original iPod required a computer to load, edit, delete songs and playlists, and originally that meant a Mac running iTunes. Even the current iPod Shuffle and Nano require a computer.
This is nonsense. You think Apple should wait developer apps before releasing the original Mac to the public. How is this possible? The hardware and developer apps are chicken and egg thing. The developer will create an app if he feels he can make money out of it.
I wasn't referring to eye patches in the movies. In REAL LIFE people don't HATE eye patches or the people who might need them. I don't think people "hate" Google Glass. What people don't like is some jerks getting all in their business. You can't tell when you are being recorded by "glassholes" like you can when someone is holding up their phone or a camera. We're talking about violations of generally understood or perceived rules of behavior in a free society. When one is recording another person without their consent or even without their knowledge, it betrays an utter lack of respect for the other person. In this regard -->back on topic<-- the Sony glasses are not the least bit different from the Google glasses. If you want to prove there is any merit to your argument, find the people who don't like the Google Glasses but do like these Sony glasses. If anything, the feedback I've seen indicates that people like the Google design better.
In real life, you do your best to interact with a person with an eyepatch as if he wasn't wearing one. You fix your gaze on the good eye self-consciously, all the time wondering if maybe you should aim for the center forehead instead, whereas with a person with two good eyes it's not an issue at all.
Yes, a study should be done, and goofy Google should do it, to see if a one-eyed or a two-eyed intrusive headworn video recording rig elicits more hostility. I'm basing my argument on my own reaction. I was, and still am, revolted by the design of Google Glass, whether it can record video or not.
To understand why I find it so painful to look at, I just brought up what I know of infant/mother facial bonding, and lifelong preferences for facial symmetry that are carried on by everyone in life into adulthood. Elementary stuff, really,
I wasn't referring to eye patches in the movies. In REAL LIFE people don't HATE eye patches or the people who might need them. I don't think people "hate" Google Glass. What people don't like is some jerks getting all in their business. You can't tell when you are being recorded by "glassholes" like you can when someone is holding up their phone or a camera. We're talking about violations of generally understood or perceived rules of behavior in a free society. When one is recording another person without their consent or even without their knowledge, it betrays an utter lack of respect for the other person. In this regard -->back on topic<-- the Sony glasses are not the least bit different from the Google glasses. If you want to prove there is any merit to your argument, find the people who don't like the Google Glasses but do like these Sony glasses. If anything, the feedback I've seen indicates that people like the Google design better.
In real life, you do your best to interact with a person with an eyepatch as if he wasn't wearing one. You fix your gaze on the good eye self-consciously, all the time wondering if maybe you should aim for the center forehead instead, whereas with a person with two good eyes it's not an issue at all.
Yes, a study should be done, and goofy Google should do it, to see if a one-eyed or a two-eyed intrusive headworn video recording rig elicits more hostility. I'm basing my argument on my own reaction. I was, and still am, revolted by the design of Google Glass, whether it can record video or not.
To understand why I find it so painful to look at, I just brought up what I know of infant/mother facial bonding, and lifelong preferences for facial symmetry that are carried on by everyone in life into adulthood. Elementary stuff, really,
You're only partly correct.
Everyone's eyes are slightly asymmetrical. In fact, everyone's face is slightly asymmetrical.
Unless this technology is seamlessly incorporated into prescription glasses/sunglasses, I will never wear it. I don't have model looks, but I'm a good looking guy, I'm not putting something on my face that'll distract attention from it, only nice glasses that'll complement it. Where's the collaboration with Ray Ban on this?
Comments
Yes, thank you for bringing up two tangential cases that I chose to leave out of that post, for simplicity.
One is the eye patch, which is used in movies, advertising and visual storytelling to suggest villainy, swashbuckling, romantic peccadillos, etc., but never used for a character that is supposed to be the "mild-mannered reporter."
The other is the monocle, which in film is the mark of the evil wire-puller, the refined, cold-blooded guy who pets the cat in his lap while he orders your execution.
I rest my case with these two examples. When you want to signal the deepest fear layers of the human brain, use a distorted face, particularly around the eyes. It was shocking to me that the Google geeks would not have realized this, but then it makes sense because their brains are so asymmetrical, biased so heavily on the left that they can't see it.
Your other point about privacy violation is true also. It gave a rational reason for hating Glass, but the original visceral hatred comes from the violated infant/mother bonding system, face recognition. It's hard wiring, and the first thing we use our eyes for.
Edit: the deep-brain stuff is working without anyone being aware of it, which is why you never see what i'm saying pointed out. It's happening beneath conscious awareness. Those who study stereoscopic vision are more likely to be aware of it.
I really miss Jobs. Under him Apple developed fully functional iPod, iPhone, and iPad in house. Google and Sony can not release a fully functional device without developers' helps. Even so Google still failed. Apple under Cook can not release a fully functional Apple Watch in time and it costs so much that only rich people who have money to waste.
The unspoken failure of Google's Glass has not deterred Sony from forging ahead with its own face-attached augmented reality device
Steve Jobs was just as proud of the products he did NOT ship as the ones he did, even though the non-shipping products took years of development. Of course a few clunkers came out anyway. Sony should learn this lesson. Shipping crappy products diminishes your brand.
Either this is a dishonest cheap jab at Tim Cook, or you have an extremely naive/revisionist view of how things work. Which is it?
I am not sure what you mean by "fully functional device without developers' help," because you then go on to slam the Watch as too expensive, a non sequitur.
The Macintosh was Steve's baby. Yet one of the reasons it never caught on was a lack of third party apps. People went where that apps were. Those third party developers whom you regard as nonessential to Steve's creations are in fact a critical part of the platform's ecosystem. Apple knows this. They aren't relying on the beauty and quality of the hardware designs alone to move product. The same is true for the iPhone.
So what does that have to do with the watch? Maybe you are confusing "functional without third party apps" with "functional without additional hardware." Those are separate concerns. But even then, your example do not support your argument: the original iPod required a computer to load, edit, delete songs and playlists, and originally that meant a Mac running iTunes. Even the current iPod Shuffle and Nano require a computer.
Yes, thank you for bringing up two tangential cases that I chose to leave out of that post, for simplicity.
One is the eye patch, which is used in movies, advertising and visual storytelling to suggest villainy, swashbuckling, romantic peccadillos, etc., but never used for a character that is supposed to be the "mild-mannered reporter."
{snip}
I rest my case with these two examples. When you want to signal the deepest fear layers of the human brain, use a distorted face, particularly around the eyes. {snip}
Your other point about privacy violation is true also. It gave a rational reason for hating Glass, but the original visceral hatred comes from the violated infant/mother bonding system, face recognition. It's hard wiring, and the first thing we use our eyes for.
I wasn't referring to eye patches in the movies. In REAL LIFE people don't HATE eye patches or the people who might need them. I don't think people "hate" Google Glass. What people don't like is some jerks getting all in their business. You can't tell when you are being recorded by "glassholes" like you can when someone is holding up their phone or a camera. We're talking about violations of generally understood or perceived rules of behavior in a free society. When one is recording another person without their consent or even without their knowledge, it betrays an utter lack of respect for the other person. In this regard -->back on topic<-- the Sony glasses are not the least bit different from the Google glasses. If you want to prove there is any merit to your argument, find the people who don't like the Google Glasses but do like these Sony glasses. If anything, the feedback I've seen indicates that people like the Google design better.
Or girl watchers
Either this is a dishonest cheap jab at Tim Cook, or you have an extremely naive/revisionist view of how things work. Which is it?
I am not sure what you mean by "fully functional device without developers' help," because you then go on to slam the Watch as too expensive, a non sequitur.
The Macintosh was Steve's baby. Yet one of the reasons it never caught on was a lack of third party apps. People went where that apps were. Those third party developers whom you regard as nonessential to Steve's creations are in fact a critical part of the platform's ecosystem. Apple knows this. They aren't relying on the beauty and quality of the hardware designs alone to move product. The same is true for the iPhone.
So what does that have to do with the watch? Maybe you are confusing "functional without third party apps" with "functional without additional hardware." Those are separate concerns. But even then, your example do not support your argument: the original iPod required a computer to load, edit, delete songs and playlists, and originally that meant a Mac running iTunes. Even the current iPod Shuffle and Nano require a computer.
This is nonsense. You think Apple should wait developer apps before releasing the original Mac to the public. How is this possible? The hardware and developer apps are chicken and egg thing. The developer will create an app if he feels he can make money out of it.
In real life, you do your best to interact with a person with an eyepatch as if he wasn't wearing one. You fix your gaze on the good eye self-consciously, all the time wondering if maybe you should aim for the center forehead instead, whereas with a person with two good eyes it's not an issue at all.
Yes, a study should be done, and goofy Google should do it, to see if a one-eyed or a two-eyed intrusive headworn video recording rig elicits more hostility. I'm basing my argument on my own reaction. I was, and still am, revolted by the design of Google Glass, whether it can record video or not.
To understand why I find it so painful to look at, I just brought up what I know of infant/mother facial bonding, and lifelong preferences for facial symmetry that are carried on by everyone in life into adulthood. Elementary stuff, really,
I wasn't referring to eye patches in the movies. In REAL LIFE people don't HATE eye patches or the people who might need them. I don't think people "hate" Google Glass. What people don't like is some jerks getting all in their business. You can't tell when you are being recorded by "glassholes" like you can when someone is holding up their phone or a camera. We're talking about violations of generally understood or perceived rules of behavior in a free society. When one is recording another person without their consent or even without their knowledge, it betrays an utter lack of respect for the other person. In this regard -->back on topic<-- the Sony glasses are not the least bit different from the Google glasses. If you want to prove there is any merit to your argument, find the people who don't like the Google Glasses but do like these Sony glasses. If anything, the feedback I've seen indicates that people like the Google design better.
In real life, you do your best to interact with a person with an eyepatch as if he wasn't wearing one. You fix your gaze on the good eye self-consciously, all the time wondering if maybe you should aim for the center forehead instead, whereas with a person with two good eyes it's not an issue at all.
Yes, a study should be done, and goofy Google should do it, to see if a one-eyed or a two-eyed intrusive headworn video recording rig elicits more hostility. I'm basing my argument on my own reaction. I was, and still am, revolted by the design of Google Glass, whether it can record video or not.
To understand why I find it so painful to look at, I just brought up what I know of infant/mother facial bonding, and lifelong preferences for facial symmetry that are carried on by everyone in life into adulthood. Elementary stuff, really,
You're only partly correct.
Everyone's eyes are slightly asymmetrical. In fact, everyone's face is slightly asymmetrical.
Did I say that, or are you so confused by your own BS that you think that's what I'm saying?
And yes, I know what I said. Do you?
Did I say that, or are you so confused by your own BS that you think that's what I'm saying?
And yes, I know what I said. Do you?
Then your argument of the Mac is not related to what I talk.
This guy was widely promoted for US president starting in the 50s (?),
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Neuman
then in 2000 we got his spittin' image.
http://www.texastribune.org/directory/george-w-bush/
A study a few years ago showed that women are most attracted to men with highly symmetrical faces. Eyes matter, you might say.
My point stands. Asymmetry of the face evokes a visceral reaction. And yes, it's a matter of degree.