www. O S N E W S .com
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
Intel made smart glasses that look normal
By Thom Holwerda on 2018-02-07 01:10:31

The most important parts of Intel’s new Vaunt smart glasses are the pieces that were left out.

There is no camera to creep people out, no button to push, no gesture area to swipe, no glowing LCD screen, no weird arm floating in front of the lens, no speaker, and no microphone (for now).

From the outside, the Vaunt glasses look just like eyeglasses. When you’re wearing them, you see a stream of information on what looks like a screen - but it’s actually being projected onto your retina.

This looks amazing. I'm not entirely sure if I, personally, have any use for this, but such basic, simple, handsfree information could be invaluable to, for instance, construction workers, farmers, police officers, or other people who do hard, dangerous work with their hands.

 Email a friend - Printer friendly - Related stories
.
Read Comments: 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-30 -- 31-36
.
RE[4]: Retinal projection
By kwan_e on 2018-02-08 11:35:01
> How would you feel knowing that the surgeon that's about to cut you open learnt nothing during medical school and only passed because their friend fed them the answers during their exams?

Ben Carson (omg remember him?) proves that you can pass those tests and still not really be a good doctor, or intelligent.

Your example is actually a counter example to your point because it shows the assessment style is wrong for the job.

Surgeons, regardless of how well they pass exams, have to also demonstrate stamina and steadiness of the hand. Imagine how many people could be trained as surgeons if we assessed them based on how well they can perform long surgeries alone.

What we have now are overworked surgeons, because there aren't enough, leading to more and more mistakes, driving up insurance for both patient and surgeon, leading to even fewer people able to become surgeons. Surgeons already have a contingent of doctors and nurses working alongside, so what's one more person whose job is to know all the facts and can provide guidance during the surgery.
Permalink - Score: 3
.
RE[4]: Retinal projection
By darknexus on 2018-02-08 18:10:39
> How would you feel knowing that the surgeon that's about to cut you open learnt nothing during medical school and only passed because their friend fed them the answers during their exams?

Funny, you've just described education as it currently is, medical included. So I don't know, how do you feel about that?
Permalink - Score: 3
.
RE: Retinal projection
By Yoko_T on 2018-02-08 18:20:14
> I don't know. With Intel's recent reputation, I wouldn't want them getting anywhere near my retinae.

I don't want my retinae to meltdown, causing me to start seeing spectres everywhere.


Can you just see the accidents these things are going to be causing when idiots like Thom start paying more attention to what the data from the glasses are telling them instead of what their *EYES* are telling them (Hey, that Airbus really isn't approaching me head-on......)
Permalink - Score: -1
.
RE[5]: Retinal projection
By Megol on 2018-02-08 22:48:11
> > How would you feel knowing that the surgeon that's about to cut you open learnt nothing during medical school and only passed because their friend fed them the answers during their exams?

Funny, you've just described education as it currently is, medical included. So I don't know, how do you feel about that?


I feel that you are wrong.
Ever spoken to a MD? They tend to know their shit and also understand how to apply their knowledge.

Before being put under ask your anesthesiologist what they use, how they use it, what they monitor and why and how they handle emergencies (allergic reactions, oxygen deprivation, heart problems++).

10+ years of training: know their shit.
Permalink - Score: 2
.
RE[5]: Retinal projection
By PeterS on 2018-02-08 23:05:54
I think both of you are kind of missing the point(s) on memorizing & cheating:

(1) The big issue is not having access to facts but having somebody else take the exam at the other end of the line. Or several somebodies working in parallel… That in effect negates the purpose of testing (i.e. neither the ability to memorize, nor the ability to find/interpret facts of the person taking the exam is being tested – just their ability to copy.)

(2) Memorizing stuff does have its virtues – at the very least, speed of recall. Don’t take my word for it, just try reading any text while looking up every other word in a dictionary because you do not have to memorize words. You need a minimum amount of memorized info to carry out a meaningful conversation in any language (English, Martian, math, physics...)

(3) Back to cheating – at least until such technology becomes ubiquitous (or is school-provided), the ability of some students to afford better tech should not be allowed to give them an advantage during tests. When using external info on a test is allowed, it should happen in a controlled and equitable manner.

Finally, on creativity: I think it is overrated in the context of studying. While I do try to encourage thinking (and I do teach from time to time), creativity must come after you’ve learned a sufficient part of what others have done, so that you can push the boundaries. Otherwise it is just random rambling about – you might stumble on something interesting but most probably will not. (Same applies about drugs and music – I guess there are a lot more users than genius artists. It is just we do not pay attention to the negative cases.)
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE[6]: Retinal projection
By kwan_e on 2018-02-08 23:55:54
> 10+ years of training: know their shit.

Yes, 10+ years of training. Not 10+ years of just exams.
Permalink - Score: 3
.
RE[6]: Retinal projection
By kwan_e on 2018-02-09 00:01:55
> I think both of you are kind of missing the point(s) on memorizing & cheating:

> (2) Memorizing stuff does have its virtues

Uh no, I was pretty much on the side of learning memorization.

> While I do try to encourage thinking (and I do teach from time to time), creativity must come after you’ve learned a sufficient part of what others have done, so that you can push the boundaries.

Then you missed the point of creativity. There is no order to acquiring creativity. Saying it must happen after something else is to miss the point entirely. Creativity is not subject specific. It's the most general thing.

Creativity is not even about pushing boundaries. You can work within a predetermined framework and still be creative. In fact, most creativity comes from having to work within limits and current knowledge.
Permalink - Score: 3
.
RE[6]: Retinal projection
By Alfman on 2018-02-09 02:16:38
PeterS,

> I think both of you are kind of missing the point(s) on memorizing & cheating:

(1) The big issue is not having access to facts but having somebody else take the exam at the other end of the line. Or several somebodies working in parallel… That in effect negates the purpose of testing (i.e. neither the ability to memorize, nor the ability to find/interpret facts of the person taking the exam is being tested – just their ability to copy.)


Who says we missed the point? In another post I agreed with Brenden that it would be bad for students not to do their own work. I know that tests need to be fair. But one fact I don't think we can ignore here is that one way or another the technology is making it's way to the market (ie these smart glasses, mini projectors, digital tattoos, etc). The risks of cheating are increasing regardless of whether exams allow technology or not.

> (2) Memorizing stuff does have its virtues – at the very least, speed of recall. Don’t take my word for it, just try reading any text while looking up every other word in a dictionary because you do not have to memorize words. You need a minimum amount of memorized info to carry out a meaningful conversation in any language (English, Martian, math, physics...)

I had considered this, and it is true that speed can be important, however I see no reason it wouldn't just be factored into training and testing. Only the results matter in the end, right? I wouldn't punish doctors who get the same answers in the same timeframes through different means.

> (3) Back to cheating – at least until such technology becomes ubiquitous (or is school-provided), the ability of some students to afford better tech should not be allowed to give them an advantage during tests. When using external info on a test is allowed, it should happen in a controlled and equitable manner.

I assumed this would be a given, but yes absolutely it needs to be done fairly.

Bare in mind I didn't specifically have doctors in mind in my original post, but as an experiment I think it could be interesting to have doctors trained under both schools of thought to see how well each group performs at treating patients :)

Edited 2018-02-09 02:32 UTC
Permalink - Score: 3
.
Eye control is hard.
By przemo_li on 2018-02-09 10:48:02
There are two categories of users for such hardware.

Private customers, and business users. No microphone, no speakers, and no camera is only acceptable to first category.

For business users microphone and camera enables remote work for smaller tasks. Think, factory worker asking more experience worker for advice on dealing with unusual work, or same worker asking somebody else for ACK of his part of the job, etc.
Permalink - Score: 1
.
RE[4]: Retinal projection
By Alfman on 2018-02-11 22:55:27
Brendan,

> How would you feel knowing that the surgeon that's about to cut you open learnt nothing during medical school and only passed because their friend fed them the answers during their exams?

I just saw this news article, and while it's only tangentially related and not a response to you, it reminded me of the discussion we were having. Apparently doctors working for some private insurance companies and responsible for approving and denying coverage do not understand the medical conditions and do not even look at patient records.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/11/he...
> During his videotaped deposition in October 2016, Iinuma -- who signed the pre-authorization denial -- said he never read Washington's medical records and knew next to nothing about his disorder.

Questioned about Washington's condition, Iinuma said he wasn't sure what the drug of choice would be for people who suffer from his condition.
Iinuma further says he's not sure what the symptoms are for the disorder or what might happen if treatment is suddenly stopped for a patient.
"Do I know what happens?" the doctor said. "Again, I'm not sure. ... I don't treat it."
Iinuma said he never looked at a patient's medical records while at Aetna. He says that was Aetna protocol and that he based his decision off "pertinent information" provided to him by a nurse.
"Did you ever look at medical records?" Scott Glovsky, Washington's attorney, asked Iinuma in the deposition.
"No, I did not," the doctor says, shaking his head.
"So as part of your custom and practice in making decisions, you would rely on what the nurse had prepared for you?" Glovsky asks.
"Correct."
Iinuma said nearly all of his work was conducted online. Once in a while, he said, he might place a phone call to the nurse for more details.
How many times might he call a nurse over the course of a month?
"Zero to one," he said.


Yikes! How do you feel about that?
Permalink - Score: 2

Read Comments 1-10 -- 11-20 -- 21-30 -- 31-36

No new comments are allowed for stories older than 10 days.
This story is now archived.

.
News Features Interviews
BlogContact Editorials
.
WAP site - RSS feed
© OSNews LLC 1997-2007. All Rights Reserved.
The readers' comments are owned and a responsibility of whoever posted them.
Prefer the desktop version of OSNews?