The value is hard to see now, but go back 20, or even 10 years ago. Having a plain English conversation with a computer was absolutely painful. Not in a "that fact isn't true" or "that citation doesn't exist", but more like "this thing didn't understand the question at all" or "it seems like all these responses are canned".
We've gotten to the point where it's almost a baseline expectation that an AI can be indistinguishable from a person. Now the question is -- how smart is this person and if this person has any traits that are problematic, e.g., hallucinating.
This is the worst argument in my opinion. People can record you in private spaces using cell phones and watches without you ever knowing. Not to mention security cameras.
That's all a far stretch from the idea of interacting with someone who you know has a camera pointed at you all time.
Glass is new form of something that is currently: done covertly (hidden cams, sneaky smartphone use), obtrusively and temporarily (holding up a camera/smartphone) or by entities that already eschew social convention for their own business ends (security).
I see the act of wearing glass as a social confrontation. A dare that says the wearer think upping the intrusiveness and pervasiveness of recording should be fine because Google said so. And the reaction to the first roll out shows that people feel similarly.
This sort of notion ignores major realities of Google Glass: That it is not realistically capable of continuous recording, and that taking a photo with it has always been pretty obvious/distinct of a behavior.
If I wanted to take a photo of you with Glass, you'd have plenty of time to turn away, put your hand up, or whatever. And you'd certainly know I was doing it.
Not bothering with privacy rules because of on the technical constraints of today's technology is a dangerous game, because when better technology comes along you might find what "everyone does" is already on the wrong side of all the clear lines in the sand.
I mean, 50 years ago it would have been ridiculous to suggest the government could transcribe and search all phone calls - consider the incredible cost of all those typists, filing cabinets and reel-to-reel tapes! If someone had said "because we already have technical constraints, there's no need for ethical or legal constraints" we'd be in a difficult position when the technically impossible became possible.
Sure, but this is no different than smartphones. The parent comment above mine says Glass is a "new form", but it really isn't. It's just an Android device with a worse-than-average camera and a worse-than-average battery life and a worse-than-average capability to covertly record other people.
In the vein that you can buy a pen camera that'll do a much better job for $30, worrying specifically about Glass seems silly.
Why do you take this article so personally? I feel like your comment is way overblown. My personal impression is that this person felt affected by what happened and that this blog post is one way of expressing that. I think it's natural when someone dies this way for someone who feels that loss to question why it happened. I certainly felt that way about Aaron Swartz and I didn't know him at all. That's all I see here and I have a hard time understanding why you are so offended.
It looks way more like an iPhone than what I have generally associated with the name Blackberry where half the device is a landscape screen and half of it a keyboard. I also think it's fair to say that the iPhone popularized the look of having the general shape and design of an LCD panel. While the comparison is certainly not black and white, I don't think it's fair to snarkily claim OP is pretending. I do think it's fair to say the new device has a similar overall shape and design as the iPhone. Watching the video review on the Verge I was also struck that they had chosen to go in a visual direction similar to iOS and Android rather than strike off in a new direction like Microsoft.
You can say it looks like a phone, but saying it looks like an iPhone specifically is just going too far in a time when every phone "looks like an iPhone".
I could say my new SUV looks like a Model T, because the Model T popularized the look of having a general shape and design of an SUV. My new car has a similar overall shape and design as the Model T, and I was struck by how Chevy chose to go in a visual direction similar to Ford and Chrysler rather than strike off in a new direction like Cessna.
The impression I got at some point was that the reason for the absence of nudity or porn in apps sold on the iOS app store was not to nanny what users do with the device, but rather that Apple/Steve Jobs did not want to be the purveyors of nudity or porn in the same sense that if I owned a news stand I wouldn't want to sell magazines that promoted racism. I can see where the strictness of the current app store in that regard might be in line with the uplifting side of spirituality. Having said that, I'll add that I think there are things about the app store that don't fit with that quest for spiritual enlightenment.
Then why do all the hardware buttons (sleep, mute, volume, home) exactly match the layout of the buttons on the iPad? It looks exactly like a stretched out iPad with a mocked up screen shot.
"Mac users were always defending the boutique, specialist, quality over quantity arguments on the desktop and then suddenly it was all a numbers game for a while there.".
The truth is, that the kind of people who say things like that are the kind of people who look for opportunities to argue about that kind of stuff and your statement reads like you have a clear bias. That's not a very objective perspective to my mind.
From information found around the web it sounds like you are stretching the truth a little bit.
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_Pro), Emagic and Logic weren't around until the 90's, even though Logic was based on ideas from previous software. It's stated there that Emagic and Logic, as software named "Logic" didn't exist until '93. Then Emagic was acquired by Apple in 2002 at which point the Windows version was discontinued. The information there, if factual, would mean that Logic was only being developed by Emagic for about 10 years before they were acquired by Apple.
Information here implies (http://www.tweakheadz.com/history_of_notator_and_logic3.html) that the Mac version came in '93 followed by the PC/Windows version in '95 or '96 which would mean that Logic wasn't being used on PC/Windows for more than 6 or 7 years or so before the Windows version was discontinued by Apple. Logic and all the previous software whose ideas it was based on were also originally on Atari.
My apologies if it seems that I have misrepresented anything, I was giving numbers from memory. I'm not a Logic user myself. Even assuming that no Logic users upgraded from the Atari ST to the PC, I think the point still stands that six or seven years is a long time to sit in front of the same piece of software. It's a heck of a lot of "continuing professional development", of setup tweaks and hacks and workarounds and little bits of expertise.
The extent to which those skills accumulate is highlighted by the fact that "Pro Tools Operator" is a job title in the industry, and that their pay varies more widely than that of session musicians. Using a DAW isn't just a secondary task, like a writer uses a word processor - at the high end, operating a DAW is a job in itself. People have built whole careers simply off the back of being very quick at piloting Pro Tools. Being told that your DAW is being discontinued is a bit like being told that all your old electric guitars are obsolete and won't work with new amplifiers. It's vaguely tolerable if you're a hobbyist or an artist who can afford to be fussy about their kit, but if you're a professional who needs to get the job done every time, it's a catastrophe waiting to happen.
