StroppyChops wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:

StroppyChops wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:Eh, people bitch about smart phone users in restaurants as well. We still use them. As for the " I don't accept people taking my photo without asking"... people do it all the time.

Sure, and if they take mine or Mrs Stroppy's without asking, they'll be politely told not to, and if they continue their phone will be suddenly removed from them. Neither of us are shy about getting up in people's faces about this. "Doing it all the time" does not equate to it being acceptable. The easy thing about glass-holes is that you can immediately tell from what they're wearing that they actually deserve a punch in the face.

And you'd be violating laws in the process. And just because someone has a camera, doesn't mean they're using it. Populist hype crap. They could simply be deaf and using the visual heads up to translate sounds to text to make their world a better place to live in (a perfect example of how these things can better the world), but you decided since they have it on they should be beaten.

Well there's certainly some crap but most of it seems to be coming from you restating the premise such that you can not only be right, but be the only one who is right. I know you get sick of hearing it (and even stop posting for a while when it's stated too often), but this is old territory for you.

We were talking specifically about people using cameras to video strangers without their express permission, and I gave my perspective and how I respond to it. You've reworded my perspective, and given some other alternate reality version so that you can continue being the only right person in the discussion.

I was specific about not permitting people to photograph or video me in public without asking - and you turned it into some sob about deaf people ("ooh, Stroppy hates deaf people"), or folk who just happen to have their camera with them ("look how unreasonable he is. By default, I am right, I win the Internet for all time")

OrangeDragon wrote:

StroppyChops wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:

StroppyChops wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:Eh, people bitch about smart phone users in restaurants as well. We still use them. As for the " I don't accept people taking my photo without asking"... people do it all the time.

Sure, and if they take mine or Mrs Stroppy's without asking, they'll be politely told not to, and if they continue their phone will be suddenly removed from them. Neither of us are shy about getting up in people's faces about this. "Doing it all the time" does not equate to it being acceptable. The easy thing about glass-holes is that you can immediately tell from what they're wearing that they actually deserve a punch in the face.

And you'd be violating laws in the process. And just because someone has a camera, doesn't mean they're using it. Populist hype crap. They could simply be deaf and using the visual heads up to translate sounds to text to make their world a better place to live in (a perfect example of how these things can better the world), but you decided since they have it on they should be beaten.

Well there's certainly some crap but most of it seems to be coming from you restating the premise such that you can not only be right, but be the only one who is right. I know you get sick of hearing it (and even stop posting for a while when it's stated too often), but this is old territory for you.

We were talking specifically about people using cameras to video strangers without their express permission, and I gave my perspective and how I respond to it. You've reworded my perspective, and given some other alternate reality version so that you can continue being the only right person in the discussion.

I was specific about not permitting people to photograph or video me in public without asking - and you turned it into some sob about deaf people ("ooh, Stroppy hates deaf people"), or folk who just happen to have their camera with them ("look how unreasonable he is. By default, I am right, I win the Internet for all time")

No, we were talking about people wearing wearable tech which in some cases can also be used to take pictures of people without their consent. You were specific that anyone wearing google glass deserved a punch in the face. Plain and simple. I used the deaf person as an example of how stupid your blanket statement is. Bolded and underlined YOUR words to illustrate that.

StroppyChops wrote: So you're suddenly incapable of seeing obviously wild exaggeration as humour? Okay, mate, you're right, I'm wrong. Leave you to it. Happy for you to get the last word in now.

StroppyChops wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:As for the CES showcase products... where is the Google Glass right now?

Seriously? You're dumbing down the discussion (further!) by introducing that rubbish?

StroppyChops wrote:

OrangeDragon wrote:Overall it stood to do well, but its price point made it absurd..

I believe it was society's reaction to glass-holes that was most telling. I don't accept people taking my photo without asking, I sure as heck won't allow them to video me with an iProduct without asking. Those reports you hear about glass-holes being punched in the face? I'd be in on that.

StroppyChops wrote: their phone will be suddenly removed from them. Neither of us are shy about getting up in people's faces about this.

ryoon wrote: You're really bad at having valid information...
https://developers.google.com/glass/develop/gdk/

The google glass are neither considered VR or AR but simple connected object. AR is not I put an image in front of you to give you information but I put an image integrated in your environment. This mean of course that the hardware software solution as a way of analyzing what is in front of you so as to know where to put the projection . The google glass can not do this and will never be able to do this

OrangeDragon wrote:If i'm mistaken...

OrangeDragon wrote:
Hahaha... You should probably start googling what you think is true before posting as if you know it to be. Because that whole paragraph was total misinformation.

Lookup wiktitude for google glass. Or just google search "google glass augmented reality app" and get back to me with a count.

And here OD I will blow you mind by showing you something that you belived impossible.

I agreed with you on this point, upon examining the evidence submitted to me it appear that the goggle glass have an (if somewhat limited ) AR component.

You will notice the ease with which I adapt to new data, no trying to deviate the discussion, no dead end argumentation whose only sack is to says somethings.

As for the forums... Your making a pretty big assumption that I haven't read them. Simply because I don't agree with the fanboys like yourself?

Here for example one fact is stated which is true and upon this you build a double assumption that I can not qualify any other way than troll like.
The fact : Yes I believe that you did not read the forum any other way then very superficially, like what is the most recent topic.

The asumptions :
1 I am an fanboy ? This is false , like most of the member of oculus forum I do not root for oculus over all the other solution. There is this little fact that you persist in wanting to look around that you cannot develop for anything else. None of the 4 other competitor have anything to sell yet. THe google glass can do some AR this is true, but you can also do basic animation on a digital watch display.
2 I think you do not read the forum because you are not an oculus fan boy .
Nope I think you do not read the forum because you show a general lake of knowledge about the AR and VR world, the technologies, what can be done with it and what are the limitation.
I participated on this forum at numerous ocasion and was several time surprise by the in depth knowledge of some of the participant, some being in the VR world for some time.
Your answer clearly show that you are new to this technology.