Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Google my glass
Newest release is Google's soon-to-be merchandised computer headband that reflects a computer image onto glasses or sunglasses - and can photograph what the wearer sees - all by vocal instructions.

Next will be the virtual fingertips or gloves that will allow a physical interface with something like the my glass. You type onto a virtual keyboard you see trough your glasses. After that, we will see a projected hologram, without even the need for glasses.

Dick Tracy had radio phone watchbands that were considered far-fetched. The inventions are truly coming at an exponential rate.
Google glasses will not be allowed at one bar in Seattle. Here.

[Image: Screen_Shot_2013-03-08_at_3.31.13_PM.png]
Most cellphones will take pictures and some even take videos, now. Will they ban cellphones, too?
(03-11-2013, 12:52 PM)Ron Lambert Wrote: Most cellphones will take pictures and some even take videos, now. Will they ban cellphones, too?

Well banning is not so unusual Ron. How many things are you in favour of banning?
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
I don't know how many things should be banned, John L. How many things are bad?
(03-12-2013, 12:22 AM)Ron Lambert Wrote: I don't know how many things should be banned, John L. How many things are bad?

Ron, who's responsibility is it to decide what is bad, and what is not?

Shouldn't adults be allowed to make informed decisions for themselves, as long as they do no harm to others? Or should there always be someone there to make sure they do what's best for them, i.e. Bloomberg?

Some of us would call this a slippery slope.

And again, there is this thing you have trouble remembering: free will.
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Free will is why God did not kill Hitler, or prevent the Holocaust. But would you ask God to resurrect Hitler?
You are not understanding my point Ron. It has nothing to do with resurrecting bad people. I'm talking about Free Will vs the Nanny State.

My question was, why do groups or individuals want to place restrictions on other individuals, who are not causing harm to others? And even if they are not doing what is considered sinless, or for their own good, who are they/you to enforce your morals on those people?

Remember, I am talking about people who are doing no harm to others.

Drugs are a perfect example. My son-in-law smokes pot, and claims things that are questionable. He claims to think so much better under the influence. However, having been taught by the head of pharmacy at USC(South Carolina) I know that is an illusion. That is why pot is officially a CNS(central nervous system) depressant.

But he is a good provider, and father, to my daughter and grandson, and he is discrete about his habit. As a traditional liberal I will not try to make him stop it. But he knows I do not approve of this. I consider it immature, and he is going to have to answer for this to his son when he discovers what he is doing. Ryan and Sherri are devout Christians and almost never miss church on Sunday.

But I would never try to force my morals on him, because it would backfire on me. That is what your 'Super-Moral Imperative' is all about. You remind me of the Inquisition, where it was important to save one's soul, even while destroying one's body. I find that morally repugnant. You are someone who has to save sinners from their sins at almost all costs, but forget that Free Will is a basic foundation of Christianity.
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Google Glass opposition

The fear is out there. However; there is no such right in the Constitution as Privacy. It is a made-up privilege that protects evil-doers who prefer not to be tagged with their actions. Many of us prefer not to be scrutinized by anyone who can make our actions look bad, but in general, the crime lies in the doing - not in the discovery of it. Invasion of privacy as a legal action is okay if it falls under the scope of property rights - but allowing a pedophile or rapist to get off because he does his crimes under the guise of "privacy" makes no sense. Otherwise, anything we can see with our own eyes would be inadmissible in court, as well.

Like owning a gun, the gun, itself, and its potential is not what should be branded as illegal - but the actions taken with it. If you use it to protect yourself or others, it is good. If you use it criminally - it is not.

i would like to have such a thing as a super-user-friendly computer that allows me to be more than I could be without it. That also goes for implanted chips that would assist at memory storage and retrieval, and communication. It would be handy to have something that can come up with complex math information or encyclopedic facts when needed. The start will surely be as aids for the disabled. How about that artificial eye that David Weber gave Honor Harrington; an eye that can see in the dark, telescopically, and microscopically?

Personally, I would like to have a recorded backup of what I see and hear - both for my own use, and for those rare moments when someone remembers things differently than I do, and the difference is important. I wouldn't require it to prove that I'm right and they're wrong - but having that to prove to myself that I'm not mistaken in something would be useful.

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  World's largest Spy Glass Inaugurated quadrat 0 542 07-24-2009, 11:29 PM
Last Post: quadrat

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)