By Remember the girl who was given a ticket for driving with Google Glass? Ignorant observers have gotten the best of her again, this time in the world of aviation, where she got a less than pleasant greeting when boarding a United Airlines flight. The flight attendant made her remove Google Glass, citing “security concerns” as the reasoning, a misnomer from which we thought humanity had graduated.
She then proceeded to take the same picture she was planning on taking with Google Glass with her smartphone:
I’m taking a pic with my cellphone because I’m not allowed to take it with Google Glass. It had to be United the first plane that they asked me to take Glass off because of security concerns.
It raises the question: what sort of “security” is being compromised by the use of Google Glass? (spoiler: none)
Are they afraid that Mrs. Abadie is using her Glass’s front-facing camera to map out the innards of the airplane for use by some terrorist? Last we checked, airplane schematics were available online for anyone to view.
Another question — if they have a problem with Glass, where’s the uproar about the tons of tablets, smartphones, laptops and cameras that are even more powerful with even more functionality than Google Glass that are already approved for in-flight use? And furthermore, now pre-approved for pre-flight use?
It all sounds like another case of technophobia or ill-informed employees who are trained to exile anything that doesn’t resemble the shape of the aforementioned devices in their handbook. Come on, United, embrace technology… it’s all the rage.
Furthermore, what will they say once Google Glass becomes a necessity for the vision-impaired? Many folks are planning to replace their typical frames with the Glass Titanium collection, and at that point you’d be asking a person to compromise their safety and well being for the sake of making sure they aren’t taking some silly picture to post on Google+.
It doesn’t sound like all airlines are meeting Glass with as much resistance. In fact, a pilot from competitor US Airways was eager to try on Tim Moore of Rochester Optical’s pair just this morning:
And yes, he is holding that ancient corded telephone upside down.
This isn’t the first time Abadie’s name has been in the news for so-called “illegal” use of Google Glass. Her well-documented case against the city of San Diego for a ticket she received for wearing Glass while driving ended with a minor victory in what’s turning out to be a long war.
Abadie’s ticket was thrown out because the judge ruled that Google Glass is legal to drive with as long as the user isn’t actually using it (something which would be hard for any officer to prove or disprove). It might not be the hard legislature we seek to make sure Glass has a rightful place in today’s tech, but every little bit matters.
Some state representatives have already started lending their name to the cause of banning Google Glass for public use, whether that be due to safety concerns, privacy concerns, or all of the above paranoia-induced reasons they spew. A choice quote from Wyoming Senator Floyd Esquibel:
Common sense would tell you that you really don’t need to look at a little computer while driving, that it endangers you, your passengers and other drivers.
Apparently, GPS units and in-dash computers suddenly don’t fit in this category, but Google Glass does. Sensible thinking there, Mr. Senator.
Thankfully not all lawmakers feel this way, with one court ruling that using a monitor in the vehicle for purposes of GPS is not considered distracted driving and thus shouldn’t be considered an offense when citizens do it. Whether Google Glass fits into that category is still up in the air, and it’s something we hope will be worked out with an open mind in the months or years to come.
We also have to wonder what this will mean for smartwatches and other wearables. Most TSA agents and airline assistants probably wouldn’t take a second look at your smartwatch even though they have access to the same general features as your Google Glass, Android Phone, or Android Tablet. Perhaps it’s Google Glass’s “in your face” presence that adds an intimidation factor to the whole ordeal, but ignorance is not a good excuse for restricting what should be considered basic freedoms.
Unfortunately this has been going on since the day people stepped foot into private and public establishments with Google Glass on, and things aren’t expected to slow down anytime soon. Google Glass is considered emerging tech, and much of the world is still trying to figure it out. A lot of people have welcomed the technology and have been open to learning more, but for every interested soul there’s another who is just as quick to banish it.
That’s why we should be grateful for Glass Explorers like Cecilia Abadie and their willingness to evangelize, because it’s this early resistance that’s going to help Google break down these illogical taboos and continue moving technology forward. Keep fighting the good fight, Cecilia.
[via Google+]
People seem to think Glass has some sort of capability of a recognition software, and spying on random people.. almost as if Glass gives you powers.
The security concern that the flight attendant was addressing? Privacy.
But as to the point you made in the article, it doesn’t matter, since phones and tablets all have cameras and are capable of the same functionalities as Glass.
Dumb people make dumb decisions, and maybe there should be more education of what Glass really is. I’ll leave that to Google.
You do realize that although in the public a plane is privately owned right?
And you do realize everything man-made is owned by someone right? If it’s a plane owned by a company is offering public transportation, then Idk what point you’re trying to make.
That private companies have an unalienable right to refuse service or allow people to do something they deem inappropriate.
You have the right to not use that company again, I am sure they wont care. You’re buying a service, not a rental that becomes yours like renting a house.
In other words what you deem as essential others may deem as dumb and unessential.
Just like there are restaurants that ban you using your cell phone in their restaurant. It’s their right to do that and it’s your right to not go to patronize those places.
Not only is the aircraft privately owned, but it’s also a federal offense to not comply with the instructions of aircraft crew members, which includes flight attendants. So if you want to break down Google Glass barriers on the airlines, I’d suggest you work at the corporate level and not at the aircraft level. Failure to comply with crew member instructions can get you kicked off the flight at best; at worst, you could be federally charged with obstruction of crew members and put in jail. It’s a serious offense, regardless of whether the flight attendant is right or wrong.
Federal law in the US is basically like an unpredictable Rottweiler. It can certainly protect people from nasty threats but it can also rip some innocent person pieces who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, doing something that was misinterpreted.
So if they’re refusing me service that I have paid for and their rules and regulations don’t dictate against my actions I must comply? No.
Up until federal law, which they abide by, or their own private business regulations deem my actions inappropriate, I can do whatever I want.
Your comment would make more sense if he was talking about how it’s unfair she had to remove her Google Glasses just because she was told too.
He’s pointing out how the reason to do so is dumb. Of course, rules are rules, she has too. But why? Privacy is not a valid reason. I mean, you can EASILY (and I can’t emphasize that enough) purchase actual spy cameras. Google Glasses at least has an obvious camera attached, so it’s not a spy device.
The driving concern is more plausible than the privacy one.
Not privacy but policy, private companies have the right to say what devices are used while riding in their vehicles.
To me it is dumb to allow a technology that is so invasive to everyday life, I can see a person holding up a huge 5.7″ cellphone and avoid possible videoing, but Google Glass is intended to be camouflaged and undetected, goes out of its way in fact, a little red light is not enough, it can be obscured with a piece of tape.
While they are private they are also bound by rules set forth by the faa and to a degree by the city that the airline’s terminal resides. They can’t refuse service on anything they feel like refusing if the faa or the city doesn’t agree. United Airlines a few years ago would not recognize domestic partnership to their employees. The city of San Francisco told them they have to for California employees or they can leave terminal 2 at SFO airport.
The FAA is just another US-controlled madhouse more paranoid than Vlad the Impaler on cocaine. That being said even hyped-up, borderline insane people can contribute to people’s health and safety (sometimes).
What? You do know that not all cellphones are 5.7 inches right? Even a 5in phone can be held like its being used to read while recording. It can be propped on a book on a table. It can be in your shirt pocket with the camera facing out. It can be in someones hand while they are looking the other way. And that’s where Glass is not camouflaged at all. The wearer has to look directly at what they are recording. And the whole viewing area lights up when its recording. Its not some little light and it would be obvious if someone had the clear glass block covered as its the whole point of the device.
There is nothing any more “invasive” about Glass than any other camera. In fact its more obvious to use than any other camera. You have to either nod your head or touch it to turn it on. You have to either speak to it to take a pic or press the button on it. You can also wink but its a pretty obvious wink to get it to work.
I agree that a company has this right, but I highly doubt United has explicitly written in their terms and conditions that Google Glass is forbidden. I think it’s more likely this this one flight attendant spoke based on her own beliefs on behalf of the company. If someone can find it in the TOS, I’d love to be proved wrong.
@hemipw54:disqus Google Glass is intended to be camouflaged???? Are you serious? If anything was it’s these; http://www.galls.com/i-kam-xtreme-digital-video-surveillance-sunglasses Google Glass is obvious about what it is.
Too bad the problems of excessive fear and ignorance about new ideas can’t be solved as easily as the light being obscured.
The new iPhone…
It’s not the same as having a GPS in the car. The GPS is not in your eye. And yes people are stupid, they will have it turned on while driving. They text and drive they will glass and drive.
The new Mazda 3 2014 has a way to update your Facebook from within the car. But the world is more concerned about Google Glass.
Yes and they should be, it’s intrusive and obnoxious and has no useful purpose other than to spy on people and take photos and videos. And don’t tell me there is a light that comes on when it records. That can be easily disabled. Also, no one on a plane wants that person near them, it makes people uncomfortable and no it’s not the same as using a phone or a tablet. It’s just there, making the wearer look like a fool and the people around him/her uneasy. Get used to it getting banned, would you trust someone wearing glass loitering around a playground where your kids play? Would you as a movie theater owner allow it in your theater? Would you as a restaurant owner allow it in your establishment if it made all your other patrons uneasy? Would you allow it in your office if you were the boss? Would you allow it in a classroom if you were a teacher? The answer is no to all of those. This is why glass will become the next segway.
So about that light, if you have to disable it by unconvential means, then this person IS trying to spy on people. This is also the same person that has a spy camera in their buttons. This person also downloaded the app from their appstore that shows a black screen when recording instead of the viewfinder.
The device can be used for spying, but that’s not it’s main focus. If that’s the case, then any person who buys a camera and walks around with it around their neck is trying to spy on someone and not take pictures because they’re a photographer.
Let’s focus on Google Glass invading privacy and not the $20 8MP 1080p recording spy glasses you can easily buy off the internet. You know, the ones that have the word “spy” in the title?
When they can come up with a use that will justify its high price tag then we can talk. As of now it’s a niche product with questionable use.
The Explorer editions are 1500, but the consumer version will not be that expensive. They will likely be less than the cost of a full retail flagship smartphone because they don’t even have a cellular data radio in them.
You hate the product. Good for you. You must feel special. Here’s a little tip: if you don’t like it, DON’T FSCKING BUY IT!
I won’t and neither will a lot people.
@thomasguide:disqus and a lot of people don’t buy a Lexus, but that logic does not mean that a Lexus is a poor vehicle. At the end of the day it might not matter how many people want it if there are enough specific applications for it to make it a profitable venture.
That’s what people said in regards to the burden you were on your parents. High price tag, questionable use (definitely not niche with that attitude, though).
Hey, none of that logic and reasoning here. Let @thomasguide:disquscontinue on his baseless tirade of spreading fear and misinformation.
No one can come up with a legitimate use for it, not even Google. What is it’s purpose besides being an expensive toy? If they market it as a toy and sell it Toy’s R Us then fine you have something. Give me a real world use, something that I can do with glass today that will make my life easier and can justify the cost. Not it’s really cool, not it will have something in a few years. Today! What can it do for me today?
@thomasguide:disqus you are incorrect that there’s no legitimate use for Glass. There are many Glassware apps already available and more coming. So you are incorrect. You should do a little more research.
Or these; http://www.galls.com/i-kam-xtreme-digital-video-surveillance-sunglasses
Because you lack the ability to see its usefulness it should be banned? Yeah that’s a great way to think. Btw, I saw a demo of glass for fire fighting where the fire fighter sees a graphical representation of a building even though the interior is filled with smoke thereby allowing said fire fighter to navigate the building. But I suppose because you can’t grasp that use we should all forget about it. If it was up to you we would not have cell phones today because the early versions of cell phones were so big and ridiculous looking.
That is a hair brained scenerario cooked up by you to justify a dumb product that’s overpriced and overhyped. And if that firefighter should walk directly into the fire because his map was wrong ? What then hot shot ?
And the fear mongering continues. You should go work for Fox News, they’d love you there. You could be their technology adviser! Your segment could be called
“How $technology is going to allow predators to pray on your children and record you while you least suspect it.” and you could have scary music, out of focus and darkened images and videos to appear threatening, and use all of the famous buzzwords that will make people afraid for no good reason.
Sounds good to me.
I think Thomas is just trolling the forum. As hard as it is to ignore him probably it’s the best position. @thomasguide:disqus just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it won’t be a device that does well in it’s final form. There are many many Medical / Fire / Haz-Mat / Police uses for Glass. It would be ironic if you went in to cardiac arrest and someone used CPRGlass from Evermed to perform correct compressions-only CPR on you. Or if I was able to know the right places to cut you out of your crashed vehicle so as not to cut through a compressed gas cylinder, Or if I was able to triage and record vitals on dozens of victims in an MCI. Here I am happy that I can file my expense receipts, get medication reminders, and record important notes for myself to Evernote.
Try a Google search for “google glass firefighters” then come back and tell us it’s a “hair brained scenario.”
ATTENTION EVERYONE! Just realised user Thomas guide might have duped you into thinking his comments were those of Chris Chavez. He made his profile pic the same as Chris’s (heck knows why in reality).
I don’t normally blast folks like this but….
What a shortsighted post from an idiot!
Will they allow it in schools? WTF? I’ve seen firsthand schools wanting to build apps to incorporate it into education. Same thing is going on in the medical field, emergency services field, hell you name a field its going on….
I can’t say anything but I’ll just say it this article might end up being very ironic in the near future.
And I’m sorry but the only fools are the ones worrying about being recorded by a device where the person wearing it has to be looking directly at you to record. Meanwhile someone is taking your pic vid of you with a cellphone that you didn’t notice and uploading it to YouTube. Hell worse yet they could be live streaming you on Ustream or the like. Only the idiots of the world took and ran with the “what if they’re recording me” crap that sites like TechCrunch spewed early on. Same site will then post a YouTube video of somebody doing something stupid when they didn’t know they were being recorded.
But the good thing is that idiots like this are actually in the minority. Its only in certain places and around certain people that folks thing they are so cool that somebody wants to record them. Ask most Glass owners that wear the device out. They’ll tell you most people want to know how it works or what you see when you wear it and how they can get one. People ask if it would work for various things they’d like to do. Hardly anyone is trying to hide from the camera because they are to busy coming up to the Glass wearer to ask about it. The only time I’ve seen someone actually look stupid or creepy in public with Glass was when that dumb ass from TechCrunch stood in the middle of central park purposefully looking like a geeky child molester while wearing them to try to make Glass look creepy. Ironically I think that same day somebody from Phandroid walked through Central Park and shot a video and nobody around even noticed.
It will be niche product with so little use, it will be discontinued. Segway if they’re lucky. It’s a horrible product. No one is taking pictures of you or me with a cell phone. You reall have to go out of your way to do that without being noticed. With glass it’s much easier. I will not talk to anyone while they wear that stupid thing on the faces. You better take it off and make sure it’s completely off. Otherwise it’s bye bye.
You asked a lot of questions about how Glass is used. I have been wearing Glass for a year so I would be happy to answer them.
I would trust a Glass user wearing it at a playground as much as I trust all of the other parents taking pictures of their kids going down slides or on swings, which is common.
I go to the movies all the time while wearing Glass and the staff do not care. In fact, they are excited to see Glass. The MPAA issued a public statement that Glass is not a threat to content theft, probably because it lights up the users forehead and does not have the capacity to record a movie. It would be much easier to record a movie by placing a phone in one’s shirt pocket because it does not have a recording indicator.
I always wear Glass in restaurants. Pretty much every time a waiter, restaurant manager or patron notices it, they are intrigued and excited when I demonstrate its features. Sometimes the managers give me free food after I give them a demo. Texts and phone calls don’t interrupt my dinner because I can see them without getting out my phone while using both hands to eat. If its an unimportant text, I was only distracted for a few seconds. If it is an important text, I am pleased that I did not miss it because I could not get out my phone.
Both bosses I have had are fine with me wearing it in the office, and I work in an environment with sensitive data. If I get a text while working at my computer, I can quickly see it instead of getting out my phone. This allows me to spend more time working and less time on my mobile devices. What boss wouldn’t want that?
I guess it would be up to the teacher. Students are allowed to have mobile devices as long as they aren’t using them so I don’t see how Glass would be any different. Teachers might even prefer Glass to a hand-held phone because they are more conspicuous. A student can hold a phone below his desk, out of sight of the teacher. Students using Glass would be much more noticeable because their forehead would be illuminated and they would be speaking voice commands.
How nice for you, I must join you in lala land. You don’t need to make up stories about how everyone loves it and they don’t mind. The only office that would be ok in is if you work at Google. I still haven’t heard of a good use for it other than being an expensive toy. Tell me, how does it make your life better? What can you use it for? Real world examples please and not using it for games. And not I don’t have to pull out my camera if I want to take a picture.
You are correct that I don’t need to make up these stories, they happen everyday to me and many other Google Glass Explorers.
I don’t work at Google or in the private sector. I am a government contractor who works at the Department of State. I also wear Glass when I visit my other clients at military bases and various government buildings. Nobody ever asks me to take off Glass, probably because the industy I work in is tech savvy so the people I meet are not intimidated by traditional techology in a radical form factor.
Glass is very expensive at $1500, but keep in mind this is the cost of entering the developer program. Unless you are a software developer who is planning on profiting from linking your products to this platform, it would not make sense for most people to fork up that much cash when the consumer model is around the corner. The Glass hardware is similar to a phone so it should cost about the same. Google’s phones are very reasonably priced so I would expect Glass to be as well, maybe in the $300 to $400 range.
The best way to understand its uses and how it makes your life better are to try one for yourself. Absent that, pictures do a much better job than words. I have publicly posted many screenshots that show how Glass improves the quality of my life on Google Plus. Just search “Robert Vorthman” and you will find them.
Basically it performs the same functions as a phone, but much faster and easier. Common interactions like texting, searching, navigating and photography are much faster and can be performed hands-free and even eyes-free. This allows the user to spend less time distracted by technology and interact more closely with the things and people around them.
Not interested in Googling anything, you keep proving my point by not providing any real use for it. Take away the camera and what have you got? A $1500 toy that can’t even be used for gaming. I’ve used Google voice recognition and it does a fairly good job. But for me to drop $1500 to do something that my phone can do is foolish. “texting, searching, navigating and photography are much faster” All things that can be done quite fast with a phone, plus you’ll have an extra $1500 in your pocket and you won’t look like a tool.
Here is a real use for Glass. You don’t have to Google anything I have pasted a link for you. This article describes how Google Glass helped save a patient’s life.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/google-glass-saves-life-steven-horng_n_5120371.html
I agree, it would be foolish for you or anyone who is not a developer to drop $1,500 on Glass when the much cheaper consumer model is around the corner.
Glass does have several games, but this type of device is not well-suited to video entertainment because the display is transparent and visible to only one eye. An immersion device like the Oculus Rift seems ideal here. Glass is not designed to immerse, quite the opposite, the display is tiny and above the line of site so that Glass is not in the way when not being used.
I agree, Google’s voice recognition is great. It makes activities that are quite fast on a phone even faster. However, it does not matter how fast a phone is if your hands are not free to access it. If you are carrying groceries, holding a drink, eating food, caring for a newborn, holding dog leashes, holding an umbrella, driving or performing any other common activity that uses your hands, then you are unable to use your phone at all. Glass solves this problem.
” If you are carrying groceries, holding a drink, eating food, caring
for a newborn, holding dog leashes, holding an umbrella, driving or
performing any other common activity that uses your hands, then you are
unable to use your phone at all. Glass solves this problem.”
I don’t really see that as a huge problem, just a minor inconvenience.
Sometimes it is a minor inconvenience. Sometimes not. If you are unable to access your phone, you could miss a very important call or text. You could be grocery shopping while your phone rings but decide “I can’t answer that because my hands are full” and it turns out your family member is sick. You know that terrible feeling when you see a text on your phone that had been urgent but you had missed it? With Glass you don’t miss it.
Holy ignorance Batman. Where’d you get your facts? Sounds like you pulled them out of your ass.
You do realize that as soon as you leave your home and go in to any major city you are on countless cameras from all angles. Dash cams, traffic cams, building security cams, police cams, news cams, and hey, don’t look now, but you’re also showing up on satellites! Shhhh!
That’s not the same thing, you know you’re being recorded. I don’t like that product, I don’t foresee it having any viable use other than to annoy people around you.
They be climbin’ in yo house, recording yo people up!
I don’t think you understand, Google Glass isn’t directly in front of your eye, it’s above it. In fact, when you drive with it, the projected image isn’t even in the windshield, it’s above it. Where the sunshade is. There’s no difference between Glass, having your phone mounted with navigation/voice controls, your car stereo, or looking at your dashboard. Since Glass interaction is hands-free, it’s the same as replying to messages on your phone by voice.
It is a distraction your eye will always be looking at it to see if you got any new messages or texts.
Have you used Google Glass?
No, I and I never will. I don’t care if the whole phucking planet is wearing them. I won’t be.
OK, just wanted to make sure your strong opinions of the product aren’t informed by any firsthand experience, just by prejudice. I’m reserving judgement until I can use the product.
I bet you’ll change your mind very quickly if they have sex appeal. People have been known to change their minds for people they’re attracted to.
So, if it’s up at sunshade height, then your eyes do leave the road to view it. The main question is for how long. The average text read is 4.6 seconds. The average reaction time needed to avert a crash is 2.1 seconds. And, if you are interacting with it solely by voice while driving (then why have it?), then you are still open to the cognitive disconnect that moves up to 37 percent of the brain functioning needed for driving over to talking or messaging. See “inattention blindness.”
I have no problem with technology, just like I have no problem with alcohol. I just won’t do either while driving.
I haven’t used Glass before, Chris, and I know there doesn’t seem to be much of a distinction between the level of distraction between a hands-free phone system and Glass (maybe Glass is less distractive, even). That being said it already takes (or is highly recommended that it take) all your attention and focus to drive safely considering other people, keeping an eye on mirrors etc (no matter how good a driver you are). Anything in addition (whether it be Glass or any hands-free tech system) it diverts attention from your driving. I’m afraid the driving concerns are legitimate. The privacy concerns are understandable but not really acceptable since it’s being fueled by fear and ignorance. It’s way more fun (and profitable) for many media companies to spread dramatist news than actual facts. I’m not saying Phandroid or anyone of you do that, it’s just what’s done quite often.
Not being near your eye makes GPS even MORE distracting. You’ve got to divert your line of vision from the road even more… with Glass you continue looking forward.
Getting so you can’t tip a Glass anywhere huh. Good!
Goolroids whimper.
That concern is SO dumb!! I’m sorry, but Google Glass is NOT the first eye-wear to feature video cameras. They should be grateful that Google Glass makes it obvious that there is a noticeable camera.
At least she’s not walking around with one of those spy glasses. You know, the ones that look like ordinary glasses and have a camera in them? Okay, but Google Glass compromises privacy.
Yea, Ima go with your thoughts on techno-phobia.
:)
You have now brought fear into my eye.
Only you don’t look up at it, but hey.
Unless it’s worn directly in front of the eye, you do look up or over or over and up. If it’s directly in front of the eye, then while running, you are essentially blind in one eye, and have inattention blindness in both eyes due to the cognitive disconnect.
Technophobia doesn’t seem to connote these acts and these people strongly enough. How about technobigots or technobashers. So ignorant… So misguided. I don’t have Google Glass and I’m not sure I ever will but I can’t stand the illogical reasoning behind stepping on our liberties to prohibit people of wearing on their persons items that are well within the law.
If your going to ban Glass you should also ban cell phones or any electronics with cameras. If your trying to create and experience for your customers then you need to make sense and ban all things fairly. Watches, phones, camcorders, cameras, etc. Google needs to put a light on the end to indicate the camera is on and enabled. Small flashing light that indicate I can take a video of you at the drop of a hat.
Agreed. By the logic of the fear-mongers no one should have ever had cell phones, tablets or digital cameras. They’re too dangerous to be allowed.
don’t worry, as soon as Apple comes out with glasses, then all the Senators will be clamoring to wear one themselves…
yep!
Or at least not flipping their lids about concerns that are quite often unfounded or simply irrelevant.
It’s good to hear that she took off her Glass without a fight. That would have made things worse.
The greatest road block of technology advancement are those who are technology ignorant /phobic but in a position of authority. It’s all voodoo witchcraft to that lot.
Dancing with a chicken and sacrificing people to some deity that doesn’t exist. Science has always seemed like magic to the shortsighted.
She must be pretty obnoxious with it if she keeps running into problems like this. Or is she just looking for publicity?
Yea no one would even notice or care about it. She’s obviously just looking for press and no one cares there either.
Thumbs up for telling things how they are and for a most excellent example of sarcasm (I’m not trolling or being sarcastic, btw).
I think the problem here is that United has clear policies about camera use and the stowing of the small lightweight devices that are enforced. The camera policy has already been in the news but the other policy is new because the whole using electronic devices thing is new: they have to be put away or in your hand. Having something on your head during the most dangerous moments on a plane isn’t safe unless it helps you evacuate
What about Google Glass that have prescription lenses?
Use your regular pair of glasses and have some common sense. Something this woman is severely lacking in.
The girl in the middle is cute
G glasses are the most ridiculous things ever. I like how they make three cute girls pose with them on in that pic. Google’s just spoon feeding everybody until youre numb to noticing how ridiculous you look. Think bluetooth 15 years ago.. As well as that “guy” who wears one to dennys for a shortstack. Might as well grab your hammer pants out of the closet and pop in a milli vanilli (sp) tape…
What the hell are you talking about? If you want to rant about tech looking stupid (and question the fact that sex sells and that it’s questionable ) at least make that last sentence of yours make sense and make it contain references people understand.
A. Didnt mean to reply to your comment initially. Thought I hit the new comment link.
B. Sorry – I didnt realize you were still is grade school. Maybe you’re right.. I guess i should’ve used Creed and Capri pants to make my sarcasm appeal to a wider audience. Thank you – point taken.
C. I’m sure those glasses will look incredible on you. Don’t listen to my rambling opinions. Rock them with pride!
Typical
UAL worker mentality. “United’s superior operating
procedures”?
You seem to forget that you were in BK for a decade while everyone else was
modernizing and adapting to the new realities.
It’s hard for the CAL folks not to look down at you when instead of working
together towards a merger, your single minded vision since the merger was to
destroy everything Continental.
Perhaps you should do a web search for “great stories about flying
United” and “awards won by Continental” and see what a
superior airline you worked for http://bit.ly/1hwfrts
Funny thing is, Virgin Atlantic doesn’t seem to have a problem with it: http://www.euronews.com/2014/04/01/airlines-start-to-look-through-the-google-glass/
That’s because Richard Branson and his company probably don’t give in to the type of fear-mongering and ignorance that is so prevalent in the United States.
i would love to be a google glass tester…but I aint paying no 1500 bucks..
.
Money says this is her extended family:
http://www.cnet.com/news/google-glass-mocked-mercilessly-in-bank-ad/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWnjRyWwo9c