Ok, fair enough. Then what improves something's fundamental utility?
...nothing. That's the point. "A phone" is a useful thing. "A phone you can carry around" is a more useful thing. "A phone you can put in your pocket" is a more useful thing. "A phone you can video chat with people around the world for free" is a more useful thing. "A phone that sits on your face" is a less useful thing because it's sitting on your face, where you've never needed (or wanted) a phone before. You cannot make a less useful thing a more useful thing.
This could very easily turn into a nother conversation where I am as much sharing my ideologies to your replies as the one about reddit, and if I am the only person who cares about pushing this, so be it If nothing improves something's fundamental utility, how did we even fathom building mechanisms to further utilize our endeavors to begin with? Think of the context of the EPD theory on Darwinian evolution that I quoted in that long reply in the other article. Why is a phone that sits on your face less useful? I feel you are generalizing the vision of all humans in that, because you do not perceive that a phone sitting on your face has any usefulness, it won't be useful to anyone else.
You have a phone, yes? Have you ever thought "gee, I sure wish my phone's display would persist in my field of vision regardless of how I turned my head?" Before you answer, put yourself in the position of everybody else. Consider: phones have existed for over a hundred years; the motorola startac is 18 years old this year. Digital watches are pushing 40. And "glasses" are hundreds of years old. So the necessary pieces to have a phone display that hovers near your face have been around for two decades, more or less. Yet attempts to marry the two together have met with no joy. Why is that? Think about how you use your phone. How often do you care what the display says enough to have it in your field of vision? Once a minute? Once every five minutes? Certainly not "always." After all, when your phone is demanding your attention, it's stealing it from somewhere else. Consider GPS. Let's get even more primitive with it - how long have compasses existed? How long has the basic technology to put a compass directly in your field of view existed? I'm no expert, but I'd wager 200 years at least. Yet no one has ever wanted that. Take a look here: This is 6-day underwear. Some clever(?) japanese dude invented it back in the '80s. It has 3 legs. You put your legs through A and B on day 1, B and C on day 2, C and A on day 3. Then you turn it inside out. Six days . Maximal utility. But nobody wants to wear underwear for six days. Nobody wants a phone on their face. Nobody wants a compass on their face. We've been able to put phones and compasses on our faces for decades. It's simply not something the markets have asked for. "Fundamental utility" means "having utility" at a basic level. A fork has fundamental utility. A ball point pen has fundamental utility. "Three legged underwear" does not have fundamental utility - "underwear" does but adding an extra leg doesn't help anything. It solves a problem nobody has. That's a hell of a sentence, pardner. I'd say "how do we invent stuff?" The answer is in solving problems that exist.Why is a phone that sits on your face less useful?
...how did we even fathom building mechanisms to further utilize our endeavors to begin with?
Well, I guess I'm just looking at a HUD display like this while envisioning the potential of where and how this technology could be used. Thus screwing my practical sense of current usefulness. Where would you see any form of HUD being useful. Or do you?
"Could" vs. "would." 3-legged underwear could allow you to go six days without changing. Nobody wants that, though. Wearable computing could give you a twitter feed in your field of vision. Nobody wants that, though. A HUD could give you a graphic equalizer of your Mudvayne MP3s as you sit in traffic. Nobody wants that, though. QED - HUDs are useful in places they've appeared. Fighters have had them for 40 years. Now jetliners do, too: http://www.owenzupp.com/Blog%20Images/HUD%202.JPG Importantly, however, the HUD on the 787 can be pushed out of the way when you don't want to use it, because it's kind of fucking annoying most of the time. Likewise, the examples of "wearable computing" I'm aware of where it demonstrates its utility are also in fighter jets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmet-mounted_display All of those can be turned off, though. Here's the bottom line - your information needs are very different when flying an F-35 in an air superiority dogfight than they are when walking to Starbuck's.
I sure wouldn't want a twitter feed broadcasting on my face... That graphic equalizer sounds like something I would actually like to check out, though probably not while waiting in traffic. Based on what you've shared and helped me understand, it seems like we'll need to modify ourselves to be able to use something like this.
Or... you know... NOT. You have now backed yourself into a corner where you're arguing that a practice to trivial and useless to deserve consideration should merit the revision of the human race in order to make it useful. Which is a brave argument to make, no doubt, but not a particularly good one. Surely you have enough trivial things competing for your attention. Are you really arguing that we need more? The graphic equalizer is a perfect example - you'd like to "check it out". Okay, look down at your car stereo. There. Checked out. No HUD necessary. You can get Twitter on your computer, your phone, your watch these days. You can "check it out" all day long. You don't need to monitor it constantly out of the corner of your eye. It's not a reactor waiting to blow. It's Twitter.
Most of my family and friends now live thousands of miles away from me. My connection with them gives value to the social media platforms I use, (ironically I do not have twitter, nor do I have much interest in getting it). I have made, and am maintaining social connections with people thanks to social media platforms. That gives a serious value to them (Facebook, Snapchat, etc.). Social media establishes a significant level of importance to my daily life. This is the opposite of what trivial is by definition. But you have one thing down, I have plenty of trivial things competing for my attention. Though if we were to synthetically engineer a new dimension of perception into our minds solely for the purpose of maintaining all sorts of things, like your phone, your twitter, or w/e on some sort of a 'alternate desktop' per se within your perception, that you could switch to and from on, I see this technology as being a precursor for precisely that. Of course we could go all ethical on that topic too. But I love spending my time reading and dreaming about the singularity theory.... And I might not want to have to look at my car stereo. Maybe I spoke too soon about solely modifying ourselves... Could we not also modify our environment around us to integrate with this type of technology? Apple is pretty spot on about pushing the seamlessness of their products to the customer. Let's say someone may not want to carry all the physical pieces that could be represented in this HUD display, and the representation on the screen is linked to an actual piece of hardware that performs the same utility. I just don't think it is fair for you to generally refute something as useless for everyone because you don't see its utility. Maybe twitter isn't the best example... how about your blood sugar level? Or your blood pressure? If they open up this device to such technologies already in place, this could become a much more universal mechanism than is being advertised, and you can always take them off. I'm starting to feel like a troll, so I may just take a whoa on this article, and come prepared to the next time we exchange words.
Now you're arguing the value of social media, not the value of social media on your face. That's like arguing for HUDs because dashboards are useful on cars. And I think it's sloppy and offensive for you to accuse me of calling something "useless" when three days ago I said this: I've defined "utility" for you about four times now, and you're waxing poetic about the singularity. I'm totally down with having a discussion... but if we're going to have this discussion, I need you to stick to the subject at hand. Or if you're not going to stick to the subject at hand, acknowledge that you're changing the subject and that arguments for or against sentient computing are not necessarily applicable to the subject of "Meta Spaceglasses - better than Google Glass?". Do you know your blood sugar level right now? How 'bout your blood pressure? When was the last time you checked either? How often do you check them? So why would you need that in your peripheral vision? That's what I'm talking about - you say "data is useful therefore you're wrong" when my whole point is that there isn't a lot of data you need all the time. Can you at least see the difference?I just don't think it is fair for you to generally refute something as useless for everyone because you don't see its utility.
There are legit reasons for a heads-up display. There are even reasons for a wearable heads-up display. I don't think those reasons are as ubiquitous as Google does, though, and I think the ability to dial your phone without taking it out of your pocket is highly overrated.