DailyDirt: Boys Don't Make Passes At Girls Who Wear Augmented Reality Displays On Their Heads...

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Smartphones and tablets are popular devices nowadays, but what's going to come next? Smartwatches or smartglasses or smartshoes? Besides Google Glass, there are a bunch of wearable computers on the market already. So far, the smartglasses haven't quite caught on, but maybe they just need a bit more time for people to get used to the interface. Here are just a few examples of smartglasses that you can buy if you want a glimpse into the "future" of electronic gadgets.

• The Oculus Rift virtual reality headset could be free someday (now $300), subsidized by a VR game subscription or with advertising (or both), perhaps. Oculus Rift CEO Brendan Iribe predicts that the hardware could become cheap enough that the device could be given away or bundled with software services. [url]
• The Recon Jet is a pair of sunglasses that's also a wearable computer. It's a bit bigger and heavier than Google Glass, and it puts its heads up display in the lower right corner of the user's field of vision -- so that it doesn't make the user look towards the sun and because research has shown that looking down is easier than looking up. [url]
• GlassUp is another wearable heads up display that costs about $400 and pairs up with a separate mobile device so that it doesn't use much power on its own. GlassUp puts its heads up display info near the center of a wearer's field of vision -- and early adopters can get a discount by supporting its Indiegogo campaign. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: augmented reality, gadgets, glasses, heads up display, headsets, hud, smartglasses, vr, wearable computing
Companies: glassup, google, oculus rift, recon

DailyDirt: Now You're Cooking With Gas... Or Something Better Maybe?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There are all kinds of kitchen gadgets that promise to save time while cooking meals. The microwave oven is probably the best example of technology making our meals significantly faster to prepare, but there are plenty of other cooking methods that are catching on in more and more kitchens (induction cooking, slow cookers, etc). Here are just a few more examples that might clutter your countertops.

• The next ubiquitous cooking gadget could be a thermal immersion circulator for "set it and forget it" sous vide cooking. Cooking food in plastic bags is not quite as convenient as microwaving stuff, but it's not that hard -- and your kitchen never smells like burnt popcorn after you use one of these. [url]
• You might remember: Ron Popeil presented his Ronco Showtime Rotisserie & BBQ in an infomercial that aired for the first time on August 8, 1998. Total sales for the Ronco Showtime Rotisserie exceed a billion dollars -- far surpassing similar cooking devices like the Roto-Broil 400 from the 1950s. [url]
• The Wonderbag is a twist on a slow cooker -- and it uses no electricity. Okay, you might need to use some electricity (or gas or something) in order to heat up the food, but once your food has been heated to boiling -- put it in this somewhat unwieldy beanbag and just wait for a few hours while your food slowly cooks. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: cooking, food, gadgets, kitchen, microwave, ron popeil, ronco, rotisserie, slow cooker, sous vide, thermal immersion circulator, wonderbag
Companies: ronco

Glory Be To The Window Seat: A Bizarre 'Spiritual' Defense Of The FAA's Airplane Gadget Ban

from the getting-a-bit-overzealous dept

By now, you've probably heard the news that the FAA is reconsidering its policies on using electronic devices on airplanes. In truth this is primarily a technical issue, coupled with an administrative question of who will pay to actually test devices, but that hasn't stopped some people from expressing their support or opposition on a variety grounds. Peter Bright at Ars Technica is one of those people, offering a defense of the existing gadget ban that I honestly thought had to be a joke—but the punchline never came. The crux of Bright's vague argument is two-fold: that there is still a valid safety concern even if the devices cause no interference, and that we should support the ban for "spiritual" reasons.

There is still a small safety argument that resonates. ... If something goes wrong—which is admittedly rare, but not unheard of—it is probably to the advantage of all involved that they're paying at least some attention to what is going on around them. As safety measures go, they don't get much cheaper or more inoffensive.

But the more important reason to preserve the current rules is a spiritual one. There is something to be said for not being transfixed by an electronic gizmo. These devices have encroached on almost every aspect of modern life. Even in places that should be sacrosanct—at the cinema or theater, for example—sporadic buzzing, bleeping, and illumination courtesy of pocket-sized gizmos is abundant. I freely admit, I'm no angel here. Many's the time that I've interrupted a romantic meal at Buffalo Wild Wings to investigate a surprising Buzztime answer.

Those brief stints in which we must turn off our machines—the few minutes between push back from the gate and the extinguishing of the seatbelt sign, and the corresponding blackout at landing time—are something almost unique in modern life. Those rare moments in which our entertainment must come from within, not without. This is a perfect time to reflect on the journey ahead or the trip just taken. An all-too infrequent opportunity to quietly contemplate the world we live in and our place in the universe. A brief calm juncture in our otherwise hectic lives.

I'm not sure I'm convinced that the 0.5 seconds it takes to drop a Kindle and start screaming is going to cost anyone their life in a plane crash, but at least Bright admits that's the "small" argument. Unfortunately the only thing that's "big" about his other argument is the ego it must have taken to make it. I too think there's "something to be said" for switching off your gadgets once in awhile, but I'm not about to tell anyone it's necessary for their spiritual health, and I fear declaring cinemas to be "sacrosanct" is a bit much.

But even if you subscribe to this school of thought in full—and are the type of person who isn't satisfied with turning off your own gadgets, instead needing to tell other people to turn theirs off too—what does any of this have to do with airplanes? Every time a new technological tool is adopted into a new part of the average person's routine, someone is out there complaining that it "encroaches" on our lives, and those people have yet to accomplish anything except making themselves look increasingly foolish as time goes on. Many of us still know at least one holdout who bizarrely refuses to even own a cellphone (but will gladly borrow them from others when the need arises), and regardless of whatever "spiritual" benefits they think they are reaping, it generally hasn't delivered them to nirvana. Just because airplanes happen, randomly, to be one of the places that people are forced to tear themselves away from their gadgets, it doesn't make them temples of the Luddite religion. Philosophical questions didn't enter into the inception of the FAA's ban, and they shouldn't enter into the debate about its future.

Filed Under: airplanes, gadgets, landing, safety, spirituality, takeoff

Will Always-On Gadgets Change The Way We Think About Knowledge?

from the hopefully dept

While Nick Carr is getting a lot of attention for his weakly supported conjecture that the internet is making people dumber, perhaps a much more interesting question is how technology is changing the way we think about knowledge and information. Carr's piece was sort of the modern equivalent of parents from a generation ago worrying about kids using calculators in school and forgetting how to do math. Of course, that didn't happen. It just allowed individuals to better use the tools at their disposal to do even more interesting and complicated mathematics.

The same thing appears to be happening with modern technologies as well. They're acting as an extension of what's available, and changing the way we think about knowledge and what's important to remember. That lets people "outsource" parts of what they used to need to remember to a backup brain (i.e., technology), and use their primary brain to work on more important things. This becomes even more interesting when you connect it to studies that have shown the real determinant of intelligence isn't necessarily how much you remember, but what your brain decides to forget. If we can train ourselves to ignore easily accessible data, and leave our brains to focus on more important tasks, then it's quite possible that technology can enable people to do much more complex thinking.

Filed Under: gadgets, knowledge

Is Technology Making Everyone Shy?

from the tell-that-to-the-anonymous-cowards-and-the-trolls dept

We've seen technology blamed for all sorts of things over the years, but this may be the first time we've seen the rise of gadgets blamed for a "shyness epidemic" (via The Raw Feed). Apparently, the number of "shy" people out there is increasing -- though, the article is quite short on details. It only says that 40% of people used to report being shy, and these days 50% do. However, it doesn't say when that change happened or look into whether or not there's any sort of self-reporting bias for this data. Instead, it appears that folks just want to blame technology, saying that the lack of face-to-face or voice communication means that people are somehow losing the ability to be comfortable in those types of interactions. It would be nice to see this backed up with a little more than just the fact that more people self-report being shy -- though, it's certainly possible that these gadgets do put up a shield that prevents people from getting over shyness. It would just be nice to see some additional research that looks at the actual impact, rather than just jumping to the conclusion.

Filed Under: gadgets, shyness

Ridley Scott Warns That Gadgets Are Ruining The Movies

from the you-may-have-that-backwards,-actually dept

Two years ago Italian writer and director Roberto Benigni was so upset by plans to offer full-length movies on mobile phones, that he called the idea blasphemous. That seemed like a bit of an overreaction, to be sure. However, he seems to have some company. Famed director Ridley Scott has apparently stated that watching films on mobile phones and computers is killing cinema. Unfortunately, it seems that he has it backwards. He's blaming the wrong thing when he says things like: "We try to do films which are in support of cinema, in a large room with good sound and a big picture. But we're fighting technology." As we've pointed out time and time again, people want to go out to the theater, but they want the experience to be enjoyable. They don't want to be treated as if they're criminals. So, the problem isn't that people can watch movies on gadgets like mobile phones and computers -- but that the theater industry has done its best to drive people away from actually wanting to go to the theaters. Despite Scott's claims, the massive success of home theater systems lately shows that people really do want to see films on big screens with good sound systems. The problem isn't that the movies are available on tiny screens, but that the theater industry has completely given up in giving people what they want.

Filed Under: gadgets, movies, ridley scott