Competition For Occulous Rift?

[Perrie Juran]

Meet Glyph

[CheriColette]

Interesting but I will never afford it 

Could be great to be in sl though

[Sy Beck]

Why is this competition to the Oculus Rift?  It has no true head tracking so it cannot render a 360 3D environment, which is the Oculus Rift's USP.  I would also imagine that games or other software developed for the Oculus Rift would not or even could not be rendered on this device.  Therefore, gamers who have the cash to splash are going to pick the Oculus every time.  However, I do think it has more of a chance, as mentioned in the article, in competing against the Google Glass or in its own niche of a tablet/laptop plugin.

[LepreKhaun]

Anything that "promises to beam movies, video games or even video calls directly into your eyeballs" will soon be so yesterday...

 

Just need a few volunteers for my ocular nerve implant prototype tests and I'm off to Kickstarter. Anyone?

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

LepreKhaun wrote:

Anything that "

promises to beam movies, video games or even video calls directly into your eyeballs" will soon be so yesterday...

 

Just need a few volunteers for my ocular nerve implant prototype tests and I'm off to Kickstarter. Anyone?

---

Virtual reality goggles were "so yesterday" when I first saw them more than twenty five years ago. I think immersive virtual reality is dead, to be replaced by minimally invasive augmentations to real life. There will be small niches for such things as Oculus Rift, but I don't think the mainstream will never adopt them.

And implantible gizmos are a loooooooooong way off, even if you only consider malpractice insurance for such elective procedures.

[LepreKhaun]

Oh, yes, I've followed Steven Mann since the mid 90's, when he was doing things that are just now getting some attention.

[Madelaine McMasters]

I watched a little documentary of Steven Mann's work while at MIT. I was struck by the issues raised by the unfailing memory of his body worn video recorder, which did not match his personal recollections. The perpetual memory of the internet may be the biggest headache it brings to us. We are wired to forget, which allows us to forgive.

My first encounter with both augmented reality and "The Internet of Things" was in 2000, when I attended some conferences at MIT. I had interesting discussions with Neil Gershenfeld and others about the invisible encroachment of machine intelligence into everyday life.

At that time, Gershenfeld was working on "personal area network" devices that you'd wear on your body, and which would communicate with each other through you. One example was a thingie you'd wear in your shoe, which would conduct a signal up through your body to your hand, which would then complete the circuit with another person during a handshake, exchanging contact information with the thingie in their shoe.

One of the most interesting things I learned from Gershenfeld was how hard it was to harvest waste energy from human motion to power these things. Getting the power was actually pretty easy, but getting enough while going unnoticed was not. Extracting even 100 milliwatts of energy from the sole of a shoe was detectable by the wearer and 300mW was unbearable, making it feel like you were walking in sand.

In the more than a dozen years since those meetings, I can't count the number of excited, hand-waving news stories I've read describing how we'll power our cell phones and flashlights from "waste energy" produced by the human body. Meanwhile, Nike spends a fortune to engineer shoes that return as much energy to your foot as possible during each stride, because we are quite aware of losses in our footwear, and will pay good money for shoes that minimize it.

Maybe the rapid pace of technological advancement can't help but leave the lay press (and even much of academia) in the dust, but that doesn't decrease my frustration over the sensationalizing of things that are impossible, impractical or just plain useless in general.

Oculus Rift risks being something like that, just like SL!

Don't you love living in a niche?

;-)

[Coby Foden]

There is an interesting article about HDMs (Head Mounted Displays, like Oculus Rift for example) and VRD (Virtual Retinal Display, like the Avegant's Glyph).

It seems that HDMs in prolonged use will have some unwanted effects to our sensory system not solved so far - maybe never will be. On the other hand the VRD is claimed to be more natural way for the eye to at.

HDM has screens (one for each eye) which are very close to the eyes. VRD has no screens, the image is projected directly to the retinas.

There's also a difference so that Oculus Rift is totally immersive virtual scene what one looks at, the Glyph is like looking on a screen projected some distance in front of the user. For example wearing a Glyph one can still see the keyboard sitting on desk which is not possible with Oculus Rift.

Link to the article:
http://cityofnidus.blogspot.it/2014/01/altered-reality.html

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

It seems that HDMs in prolonged use will have some unwanted effects to our sensory system not solved so far - maybe never will be. On the other hand the VRD is claimed to be more natural way for the eye to at.

---

I saw a VR headset for the first time in 1986, I think. We were on a family vacation, passed through Dallas and visited a SIGGRAPH conference. Yes, we're an odd family. I think it was there that I got to wear a headset connected to a computer simulation of a gridded room, in which I could grasp objects while wearing a sensor laden glove. I thought it was pretty cool at the time. A year later, Dad and I went to Anaheim to visit another SIGGRAPH.

While in grad school taking computer graphics courses, we discussed something like the "Tetris Effect". Some time after that, I recall reading a medical article about a California man who'd become addicted to an immersive VR headset game. He was having visual hallucinations outside the game which interfered with his ability to function. Physicians attending to the fellow noticed similarities to LSD "flashbacks", which were once believed to be perhaps caused by latent bits of LSD coming out of hiding, but were eventually determined to be the result of neural rewiring during the original LSD trips, as the brain attempted to make sense of the hallucinations.

Well, immersive VR is really a visual hallucination, right? So if you expose yourself to such a thing for extended periods of time, it's not surprising that your brain rewires in an attempt to make sense of a world in which you can penetrate solid objects, in which your body lags your intentions by hundreds of milliseconds, where audio cues are out of sync, gravity does not exist, etc. Once the rewiring happens, you may find alternate, unproductive or dangerous neural pathways being triggered when you are outside the game. Oops!

I have no idea whether the designers of Oculus Rift considered this during the design of their headset, but if they didn't, they will be deserving of every ounce of derision that comes their way.

Also back around the time I was in college, there was a movie called "The Last Starfighter" about a teen boy who was recruited by good aliens to pilot a space fighter to help them defend against bad aliens. The genesis of the movie was, as I recall, a story about the US Air Force recruiting young men with good video game skills, with the belief they'd have superior hand-eye coordination and might make good pilots.

A few years ago, I read a report revealing that extensive video game experience actually diminishes those faculties necessary to pilot a high performance aircraft. The explanation was that flying a real aircraft requires integrating sensory information from the entire body, and that video games where an emaciated substitute. The Air Force now considers extensive game play history as a minus when considering pilot candidacy.

I learned to fly when I was 16 and I'll tell you that "flying by the seat of your pants" means exactly that. If you can't correctly sense the g-forces on your plane via your buttocks, you're in trouble. Even the best video games provide only a small fraction of the sensory input of a real world experience, and training yourself via games is likely to lead to trouble when you encounter the real thing. This is why airline/military flight simulators are so damned big and expensive. They do nearly everything a real plane does, including give you five-point-harness rash.

There's a mountain of historical evidence that says immersive virtual reality is a dead end. There's also a mountain of evidence to suggest that young entrepreneurs don't study history. That's okay, there are more than enough people on Earth to allow a good percentage of us to waste our time. If only a small fraction of us discover something grand, it's been worth it.

;-)

[Perrie Juran]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

There is an interesting article about HDMs (Head Mounted Displays, like Oculus Rift for example) and VRD (Virtual Retinal Display, like the Avegant's Glyph).

It seems that HDMs in prolonged use will have some unwanted effects to our sensory system not solved so far - maybe never will be. On the other hand the VRD is claimed to be more natural way for the eye to at.

HDM has screens (one for each eye) which are very close to the eyes. VRD has no screens, the image is projected directly to the retinas.

There's also a difference so that Oculus Rift is totally immersive virtual scene what one looks at, the Glyph is like looking on a screen projected some distance in front of the user. For example wearing a Glyph one can still see the keyboard sitting on desk which is not possible with Oculus Rift.

Link to the article:

http://cityofnidus.blogspot.it/2014/01/altered-reality.html

 

---

I've been a bad boy not posting any comments up until now.  I happenned to see the article about the Glyph on one of my news feeds and because I knew of the interest in Occulous here I posted it up.  I thought there might be a general interest in it.

But getting to your post, years ago I read a book, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. 

It's a very interesting book and has some great discusion on the impact of visual imagery on people.  As I recall one of the issues he raised in the book was that the way an image is produced on a TV, that there is actually never an entire image on the screen like you would have when watching a film, that it had a negative physiological effect.

I can't argue for or against what he wrote in the book, especially since it's been ages since I read it.  After reading the book I did cut back a lot on watching television, especially when I realised how much the content I was seeing was being filtered by some unknown persons for me. Even to this day I watch very little TV, preferring reading or just being out with friends to it.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

There is an interesting article about HDMs (Head Mounted Displays, like Oculus Rift for example) and VRD (Virtual Retinal Display, like the Avegant's Glyph).

It seems that HDMs in prolonged use will have some unwanted effects to our sensory system not solved so far - maybe never will be. On the other hand the VRD is claimed to be more natural way for the eye to at.

HDM has screens (one for each eye) which are very close to the eyes. VRD has no screens, the image is projected directly to the retinas.

There's also a difference so that Oculus Rift is totally immersive virtual scene what one looks at, the Glyph is like looking on a screen projected some distance in front of the user. For example wearing a Glyph one can still see the keyboard sitting on desk which is not possible with Oculus Rift.

Link to the article:

http://cityofnidus.blogspot.it/2014/01/altered-reality.html

 

---

I've been a bad boy not posting any comments up until now.  I happenned to see the article about the Glyph on one of my news feeds and because I knew of the interest in Occulous here I posted it up.  I thought there might be a general interest in it.

But getting to your post, years ago I read a book,

Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television

. 

It's a very interesting book and has some great discusion on the impact of visual imagery on people.  As I recall one of the issues he raised in the book was that the way an image is produced on a TV, that there is actually never an entire image on the screen like you would have when watching a film, that it had a negative physiological effect.

I can't argue for or against what he wrote in the book, especially since it's been ages since I read it.  After reading the book I did cut back a lot on watching television, especially when I realised how much the content I was seeing was being filtered by some unknown persons for me. Even to this day I watch very little TV, preferring reading or just being out with friends to it.

---

Think of the mounting evidence that sitting in a chair is terrible for your health, then question the benefits of creating a headset that requires you to... sit in a chair. All those young kids getting together to ignore each other while texting on their phones are probably more active than their parents, sitting at home in... Second Life. People are not only social creatures, we're "natural" creatures. If the augmented reality of interactive maps on phones encourages us to wander out onto the streets and into the woods again, I'm all for it.

And finally, after nearly a lifetime without one, I now find myself sitting down twice a week with my Mom to watch episodes of "Sherlock" via Amazon Prime and PBS.org on... a TV!

;-)

[Perrie Juran]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

There is an interesting article about HDMs (Head Mounted Displays, like Oculus Rift for example) and VRD (Virtual Retinal Display, like the Avegant's Glyph).

It seems that HDMs in prolonged use will have some unwanted effects to our sensory system not solved so far - maybe never will be. On the other hand the VRD is claimed to be more natural way for the eye to at.

HDM has screens (one for each eye) which are very close to the eyes. VRD has no screens, the image is projected directly to the retinas.

There's also a difference so that Oculus Rift is totally immersive virtual scene what one looks at, the Glyph is like looking on a screen projected some distance in front of the user. For example wearing a Glyph one can still see the keyboard sitting on desk which is not possible with Oculus Rift.

Link to the article:

http://cityofnidus.blogspot.it/2014/01/altered-reality.html

 

---

I've been a bad boy not posting any comments up until now.  I happenned to see the article about the Glyph on one of my news feeds and because I knew of the interest in Occulous here I posted it up.  I thought there might be a general interest in it.

But getting to your post, years ago I read a book,

Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television

. 

It's a very interesting book and has some great discusion on the impact of visual imagery on people.  As I recall one of the issues he raised in the book was that the way an image is produced on a TV, that there is actually never an entire image on the screen like you would have when watching a film, that it had a negative physiological effect.

I can't argue for or against what he wrote in the book, especially since it's been ages since I read it.  After reading the book I did cut back a lot on watching television, especially when I realised how much the content I was seeing was being filtered by some unknown persons for me. Even to this day I watch very little TV, preferring reading or just being out with friends to it.

---

Think of the mounting evidence that sitting in a chair is terrible for your health, then question the benefits of creating a headset that requires you to... sit in a chair. 

All those young kids getting together to ignore each other while texting on their phones are probably more active than their parents, sitting at home in... Second Life. 

People are not only social creatures, we're "natural" creatures. If the augmented reality of interactive maps on phones encourages us to wander out onto the streets and into the woods again, I'm all for it.

And finally, after nearly a lifetime without one, I now find myself sitting down twice a week with my Mom to watch episodes of "Sherlock" via Amazon Prime and PBS.org on... a TV!

;-)

---

I don't think it was an example he used but one that I think of is the Television as a baby sitter.  It doesn't always work but it can quickly turn a group of rowdy kids into a very passive group.  What is it about a television that can capture a persons eye and they suddenly find themselves mindlessly watching even the Teletubbies?  

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

I don't think it was an example he used but one that I think of is the Television as a baby sitter.  It doesn't always work but it can quickly turn a group of rowdy kids into a very passive group.  What is it about a television that can capture a persons eye and they suddenly find themselves mindlessly watching even the Teletubbies?

---

Brain activity is lower while watching television than when we're sleeping.

That sounds shocking until you realize that, while we're sleeping, the brain is furiously working through the day's unsolved mysteries. Nevertheless, while we're awake, it's hard to find a more brain numbing actvity than watching television.

I've seen those Teletubbie things. They scare the bejeebers out of me!

[Sy Beck]

Get back on subject you two especially as one of you two is the OP of the question or start a separate thread on what you wanted to really talk about.  Just sayin'  :smileywink:

 

P.S.  It's Oculous not Occulous Perrie.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

However, I do think it has more of a chance, as mentioned in the article, in competing against the Google Glass or in its own niche of a tablet/laptop plugin.

---

Google Glass is entirely different. It's a standalone device overlaying real-time data on your field of vision, while simultaneously watching/listening to the environment. And it's got all of Google's magic behind it. Glyph is nothing more than the same virtual screen technology that's been around for 25 years, warmed over for the umpteenth time. It requires another device to serve the content and has no services behind it. It blocks your view of the real world, meaning it's immersive, which is dead, not augmentative, which is where the world is going.

Steve Jobs lampooned the Zune when it came out, with a comment that really got to the heart of the matter...

"I’ve seen the demonstrations on the Internet about how you can find another person using a Zune and give them a song they can play three times. It takes forever. By the time you’ve gone through all that, the girl’s got up and left! You’re much better off to take one of your earbuds out and put it in her ear. Then you’re connected with about two feet of headphone cable."

What chance does Rift or Glyph have with young men who, regardless of their love of tech, still eventually want a girl in their life? I'd much rather sit on a sofa with an iPad balanced on one of my knees and one of his than play Prince and Princess of Dork by wearing those monstrosities.

He can't find my knee if he can't see it, Sy. (Yes, of course he can, but you get the drift. Until the lights go out, he's going to want to see something, and so will I.)

I believe Glyph will be stillborn and Rift will die during childhood.

ETA: I can hope for the demise of Google Glass, but there's enough milk for it until its teeth come in.

[Sy Beck]

Oooh Maddy I almost saw your flashing rampant eyes before me during that  lambast looking to devour all that is unholy about the state of the art.  Anyway, while I wipe myself clean, I perceive that you agree with me that its (Glyph was it?) competition is with the Google Glass.

Google Glass is not much different than this "thang" other than its one selling point being that it has vastly better alpha layer from the Glyph from the fact that it is glass.  It will be down to the consumer whether they prefer wrap around immersion while their car drives autonomously or whether they would like to half see the gamble that they have embarked upon.

And while basing your assumptions about the future based soley on what you feel is emotionally valid it does not take into account what the early adopters of today and the future users will prefer or be conditioned to use.  And believe me, any man will put down any tool for the real life love or the chance of a real life encounter with woman.  The same as PC player now, a wrench holding guy in the 50s, a slide ruling guy in the 1800s and a club wielding neaderthal just trying to carve his name.  **bleep** always win otherwise we wouldn't be here.  When the software/hardware industry encroaches upon that then we are in serious trouble.

Anyway Oculus>Glyph getting back on SUBJECT

 

ETA No man or woman is as dumb as you or Steve Jobs think/thought they are

ETA Steve Jobs  was the most underrated crook in history

ETA The next generation as well as the present (SL included) generation of games are being made to be Oculus Rift compatible

ETA I still think Oculus will not be the leader in this field , but some company who will take it to the next level

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

I perceive that you agree with me that its (Glyph was it?) competition is with the Google Glass.

Google Glass is not much different than this "thang" other than its one selling point being that it has vastly better alpha layer from the Glyph from the fact that it is glass.  It will be down to the consumer whether they prefer wrap around immersion while their car drives autonomously or whether they would like to half see the gamble that they have embarked upon.

And while basing your assumptions about the future based soley on what you feel is emotionally valid it does not take into account what the early adopters of today and the future users will prefer or be conditioned to use.  And believe me, any man will put down any tool for the real life love or the chance of a real life encounter with woman.  The same as PC player now, a wrench holding guy in the 50s, a slide ruling guy in the 1800s and a club wielding neaderthal just trying to carve his name.  **bleep** always win otherwise we wouldn't be here.  When the software/hardware industry encroaches upon that then we are in serious trouble.

Anyway Oculus>Glyph getting back on

SUBJECT

 

ETA No man or woman is as dumb as you or Steve Jobs think/thought they are

ETA Steve Jobs  was the most underrated crook in history

ETA The next generation as well as the present (SL included) generation of games are being made to be Oculus Rift compatible

ETA I still think Oculus will not be the leader in this field , but some company who will take it to the next level

 

---

No, I do not think Glyph is competition for Google Glass at all. The stillborn never get into the race, Sy. But that's not the reason it's not competition. Glyph is forever tethered to a content delivery device, be it a phone, tablet or PC. Glass stands on its own. I don't think there's a comparison here.

I think the mention of Glass in that article (and perhaps the name Glyph) was just name dropping.

I don't think Steve Jobs thought people were dumb. I believe that's why he was ultimately successful. I also don't think you know what I think.

In the grand scheme of things, SL is a blip, Oculus Rift is a blip. There are sea changes afoot and I don't think immersive virtual reality is one of them.

If course I could be wrong, and I hope I am. If I'm right, I already know what's going to happen. Where's the fun in that?

[LaskyaClaren]

I think you're right. And, if not Google Glass, something somewhat like it is the future.

Had I money to bet on this, I'd bet on a hybrid of virtual and augmented realities, that liberates the augmentation from clunky mobile devices, and the virtual from boxy laptops and desktops.

It will be, I think, something like an enhanced Google Earth that you can stroll through in physical space and time.

I love living inside my computer sometimes, but how much more exciting might it be to liberate all of that creative potential and let it free to meld and blend and play with the Real?

[Sy Beck]

Maddy,

Look again at the question in the title of the OP.

Yes or no?  I'll argue your technophobia and nihilism in another thread.

ETA Steve Jobs was not dumb Mac adherents are dumb, yeah I said it.

ETA I know what you think because you write extensively, unless.....

P.S Can we have a baby?

[Sy Beck]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

I think you're right. And, if not Google Glass, something somewhat like it is the future.

Had I money to bet on this, I'd bet on a hybrid of virtual and augmented realities, that liberates the augmentation from clunky mobile devices, and the virtual from boxy laptops and desktops.

It will be, I think, something like an enhanced Google Earth that you can stroll through in physical space and time.

I love living inside my computer sometimes, but how much more exciting might it be to liberate all of that creative potential and let it free to meld and blend and play with the Real?

---

I'm intrigued, you write like a former forumite.  SR?

[Poenald Palen]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

LepreKhaun wrote:

Anything that "

promises to beam movies, video games or even video calls directly into your eyeballs" will soon be so yesterday...

 

Just need a few volunteers for my ocular nerve implant prototype tests and I'm off to Kickstarter. Anyone?

---

Virtual reality goggles were "so yesterday" when I first saw them more than twenty five years ago. I think immersive virtual reality is dead, to be replaced by minimally invasive augmentations to real life. There will be small niches for such things as Oculus Rift, but I don't think the mainstream will never adopt them.

And implantible gizmos are a loooooooooong way off, even if you only consider malpractice insurance for such elective procedures.

---

Right now we are typing on a forum, forums are a slightly advanced version of bullitinn board systems. We can embed some stuff, like images or vids. That was like available in HTML 3 or 4, we are only at HTML 5 with animation and programming features (like being able to stream a video with interface in the browser) and even with webcams and faster net we still see people using the forums.

Forums, webcams, virtual reality, real reality with augmentations ALL OF IT, MORE OF IT AND MORE. Wait, there is only so much time in the day? Labor saving and time saving devices have been around for many many milleniium! Humanity is obsessed with more life, more living within that more and more veriaty...MORE.

MORE. not one killing, this BS about disruption and death is a disease. We think big black albums are dead, more LP's and turntables BUT it is still selling. It just changes, makes room for other stuff and many individual business go dead. There are STILL horse and carriages, horese are pets these days and some are going BACk to using horses instead of tractors as we simply choose experiences and new markets, not new just MORE markets flux back and forth in size.

The more things change, the more things are more and the changes are changing. They may be different fluctuations, different arrangments of things barely familliar but they are still there. Molocules rearrange, death is when something is not recognizable and not funcitioning. No death of text has arrived, radio has many listeners despite the video star. Radio ga ga whatever.

Disruption? Who cares, morethings and hopefully not even letting them give space because hopefully the things we want rid of will be ridden more so.

 

So, more time to do as we please so we can do MORE. maybe som forums, then some video's and then some virtual reality and then go out for the night....maybe at that location we can try out some new augmented reality and then go sit with friends and make home made ice cream as the sun rises on a warm summer morning with NO bugs biting us, NO job that requires us to go in early to handle things that should be automated. Why should a vintage ice cream maker not sit beside a pair of goggles or 3d scanner as the next day for you to scan it and then make fun with it in a virtual world as well? Then pics of that posted on a forum?

MORE.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

Maddy,

Look again at the question in the title of the OP.

Yes or no?  I'll argue your technophobia and nihilism in another thread.

ETA Steve Jobs was not dumb Mac adherents are dumb, yeah I said it.

ETA I know what you think because you write extensively, unless.....

P.S Can we have a baby?

---

When did OPs start constraining threads here?

I don't believe Glyph is competition for anything. So that would be a "no".

Technophobia? I retired from a career as a technologist.

Nihilism? I'm an optimist and I've no idea what the future will be like. But I would be surprised to see Oculus Rift or Glyph mentioned in the history books. But Glass will be, even if only by virtue of being the brainchild of the world's largest historian.

Adherents might be dumb, I don't go by the book because of that concern. But I don't know that Mac adherents are any different than Windows, Democrat or Catholic adherents. Nor do I believe my concern prevents me from being an adherent.

I'm not sure what I think, so I'm sure you don't know.

Unless you're an RL woman, wish to adopt, love changing diapers and have a ready and compelling explanation (because my little world will surely ask) for why there's a woman and a baby living with me... no.

;-)

[LaskyaClaren]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

I think you're right. And, if not Google Glass, something somewhat like it is the future.

Had I money to bet on this, I'd bet on a hybrid of virtual and augmented realities, that liberates the augmentation from clunky mobile devices, and the virtual from boxy laptops and desktops.

It will be, I think, something like an enhanced Google Earth that you can stroll through in physical space and time.

I love living inside my computer sometimes, but how much more exciting might it be to liberate all of that creative potential and let it free to meld and blend and play with the Real?

---

I'm intrigued, you write like a former forumite.  SR?

---

Out of curiosity, I once consulted a Past Second Life Therapist.

 

The best she could offer me was merely a past existence as an Egyptian princess. And Joan of Arc.

 

You can imagine my disappointment. :-)

[Sy Beck]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Sy Beck wrote:

Maddy,

Look again at the question in the title of the OP.

Yes or no?  I'll argue your technophobia and nihilism in another thread.

ETA Steve Jobs was not dumb Mac adherents are dumb, yeah I said it.

ETA I know what you think because you write extensively, unless.....

P.S Can we have a baby?

---

When did OPs start constraining threads here?

I don't believe Glyph is competition for anything. So that would be a "no".

Technophobia? I retired from a career as a technologist.

Nihilism? I'm an optimist and I've no idea what the future will be like. But I would be surprised to see Oculus Rift or Glyph mentioned in the history books. But Glass will be, even if only by virtue of being the brainchild of the world's largest historian.

Adherents might be dumb, I don't go by the book because of that concern. But I don't know that Mac adherents are any different than Windows, Democrat or Catholic adherents. Nor do I believe my concern prevents me from being an adherent.

I'm not sure what I think, so I'm sure you don't know.

Unless you're an RL woman, wish to adopt, love changing diapers and have a ready and compelling explanation (because my little world will surely ask) for why there's a woman and a baby living with me... no.

;-)

---

OK standard courtesy is to address the question or the title.

Yay for answer...I agree btw , but that was already obvious.

Retiring does not mean you give up your beliefs or practices.

Glass will not be attributed to one person and all three will be recorded in history somewhere and may even be avaiable on Glass 2.5 Wiki section

Umm a Mac adherent would be very different from a Windows adherent wouldn't you think?  I would agree on the other differentiators though.

It matters not what you think of yourself, write enough and people will form a popular opinion of what you think.

Just so you know, nobody loves changing diapers, but I readily except that there might be a fetish for it.  I shall have to ask LeeHereAbsent who is my go to woman on these matters.

 

It's now way past stupid o'clock here so expect no response till October.

[Snugs McMasters]

---

LaskyaClaren wrote:

You can imagine my disappointment. :-)

---

Just so you know, I'm biting Maddy's tongue at the moment, so she won't blurt out...

"Imagine it?. Hell, I could create it!"

Be thankful I'm here to stop her.