Google's Glass Half Full

Like many others in the UK I received an email from Google last week inviting me to buy a pair of Google Glass.  I registered an interest last year when the programme was launched, not necessarily to spend £1000 but to get more information.  Since that time I've heard nothing from Google (but of course they've provided plenty of information on their website), however there's been plenty reported in the press in that time.

It seems that Glass has had a bit of a rough ride in some states in the US, less so in others.  There was the case where a Glass wearer was approached by the FBI after wearing a pair to the cinema.  That showed a limitation in the device, especially as film piracy is a federal offence in the US.  Today it was announced that wearing Glass in UK cinemas was not going to be permitted. Then there has been a raft of pre-emptive decisions by citizens running businesses who have decided themselves they don't want Glass wearers in their establishments.  I guess they don't want to lose a large share of their customer base due to fears of privacy infringement caused by a minority.  I expect some UK establishments would take a similar view.  We're already believed to be the country with the most CCTV per capita without citizens adding to the list.

Over here in the UK the reaction to Glass has been muted anyway.  Fair enough we're in the middle of a series of prosecutions of celebrities who have allegedly abused their celebrity status to take advantage of fans and friends of family.  Some previously regarded 'national treasures' are now either in gaol or about to go there.  So putting yourself in a position that people could think you're a closet pervert is good enough reason to not spend that grand, because there's enough opportunity to film legitimatelyon your mobile phone in plain sight without resorting to covert methods.

Even if you are confident enough to try and wear these devices in public, there are still issues.  A British newspaper recently carried out tests that showed Glass wearers could capture PIN data being input into an ATM.  You could probably do that without Glass, but they allow you to record the activity and replay until you've worked out the correct combination.  As I can barely remember my own PIN, recording someone else's is probably the only way I'd manage to steal it, if that was my aim. Other concerns have been aired, such as capturing information on computer screens.  Google have played down these risks by suggesting that the camera isn't actually that good (despite their website suggesting it was actually quite reasonable) and saying that as the screen lights up when in use it should be obvious when someone is using Glass.  Maybe, but we're not all that observant, so I'm unconvinced.

One of the features suggested by Google is the ability to use Glass as a sat nav device on the road.  The British driving authorities have roundly suggested that drivers are not to use devices like Glass while driving, as it could present a distraction.  I'm sure that will be ignored, as the use of hand held mobile phones while driving appears to have been ignored, however the UK has just quadrupled the potential fines for such offences, up to an eye watering £10,000, so perhaps Glass might make a headline for itself by being the first to get the top fine?  Several US states are understood to have taken a similar stance regarding banning Glass use while driving, for much the same reasons.

So, we won't want to wear Glass in public for fear of being branded a pervert or a data thief, we certainly can't wear them in cinemas and forget about wearing them when you are driving.  You can use them in the  privacy of your own home, but I'm struggling to see the advantage.  I guess my £1000 is not going anywhere near Google for some time, at least until I can see a legitimate reason for using them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                         
Visit my Book Website here

 

    
    Visit Project: Evil Website here                                        Visit DLF Website here

        Follow me on Twitter  - @RayASullivan

        Join me on Facebook -  use raysullivan.novels@yahoo.com to find me

Google Glass in Piracy Allegation

In my local cinema there are repeating images promoting the cinema chain, its products and services while you wait for the commercials, previews, trailers and film to start.  Of course, most people don't get to see the repeating images because they're too busy paying for over-sized and over-priced snacks while these are on, but a few of us do get to see these nuggets of information.  One that makes me smile is the one that warns against piracy, the act of filming the film in the cinema during its performance.  In an attempt to strike fear into the heart of anyone inclined to set up a tripod in a busy cinema - and I know some people have filmed in these places, producing poor quality films including the tops of other patrons' heads, candy wrapper rustles and the odd sneeze into the bargain - a warning is flashed up on the screen. 'We use night vision technology in this cinema'. So that'll be a torch then, same as they've used since the Nineteen Forties, when they used to sell snacks in normal sizes at reasonable prices.  Or maybe the tee-shirted minimum wage slaves are force-fed carrots.  I've yet to see anyone entering the auditorium with night vision goggles yet, so I'm kind of discounting that thought.

But piracy is an issue for the industry, although I'm not sure cinema recorded items are a major cost issue.  Review DVDs and Blue-Ray's sent to individuals and organisations pre-release so that the word can be spread about the new big film probably account for a lot of illegitimate recordings, and of course once a film is released anywhere in the world on such media for general consumption there will be illegal copies being sold. Personally I wouldn't tolerate someone filming in a cinema I've paid to see a film, having to avoid tripping over tripods, putting up with the noise of the motors, being told to shush when I'm opening my foil wrapped sandwiches...

It has been reported today that a man in Ohio was intercepted by FBI agents when he left a cinema there because he'd been watching the film wearing prescription Google Glass. That probably sounds way more dramatic than it actually was, they probably just approached him and asked him to join them somewhere private for a chat, but the film theme just makes intercept seem more appropriate. It turns out that he was able to prove he hadn't recorded the screening - I don't know if they looked in his cloud, but we expect a lot from the FBI so I guess they did - and he'd been wearing the Glass for the simple reason that they are prescription and he needs them to see.  Additionally he claimed he'd been to see two other films previously while wearing Google Glass and there hadn't been any problem.  I'm not sure that is actually a defence, if he'd claimed during a robbery that he'd carried out two and the FBI hadn't visited him, that wouldn't make it right.  Perhaps it was just a confession?

I think that Google Glass and other wearable tech is going to face a lot of this resistance in the coming months. It's not the act, it's the potential.  I'm not too concerned about cinema piracy as long as they don't get in my way, make a noise and arrive early enough - what is it with these people arriving after the trailers have started, can't they get up in the morning?  It's the covert nature of the Glass that people will fear, the filming on the street and at school yards, the act of being observed, potentially, even more than we are now.  Glass would appear to be a stalker's dream, a perverts eyewear of choice and that will permeate into the consciousness of those who want to use them for legitimate purposes to the point that people may stop wearing them for fear of being accused of using them for nefarious reasons.

It's also possible that legislation might start cropping up.  Perhaps wearable recording tech will be required to have an externally visible recording light to indicate to observers that the wearer is in the act of recording.  It isn't unreasonable, while you can covertly record with your phone and other similar devices, to do so in a way that allows you to guarantee that you have captured what you want tends to be quite obvious, whereas with devices like Google Glass there is no doubt for the wearer - he or she is capturing exactly what they want to record.

And cinemas will probably just put a blanket ban on Google Glass, so don't throw away your old prescription glasses when you buy your Google Glass - I don't really expect anyone would be so rash as to assume the tech glasses could be as robust as normal prescription glasses anyway.  Of course there's nothing to stop someone hell bent on recording a film through them from putting them on once in the cinema, once the trailers start.  That's where the night vision technology comes in - just don't forget to pack spare batteries and a bulb.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                         
Visit my Book Website here

        Visit Project: Evil Website here                                        Visit DLF Website here

        Follow me on Twitter  - @RayASullivan

        Join me on Facebook -  use raysullivan.novels@yahoo.com to find me

One In The Eye For Google Glass

If memory serves me correctly it was in 1978 that the digital camera was invented by a researcher at Kodak - remember them?  Only the pre-eminent popular camera and film maker of all time.  I think they're still scratching a living out of tertiary photographic products, but for sure, Kodak aren't the mega-company they once were.  It was, of course, digital photography that brought them to their knees and I'm guessing they probably promoted the guy who invented digital photography.

To be fair to Kodak they did realise fairly early on that their dominance of the film market would count for naught in the digital age and did try to leverage their reputation onto the new media, but sometimes the consumer decides it wants a new leader.

That first camera had an incredibly poor resolution and was basically a rudimentary lens coupled up to a sensor linked to a portable hard drive.  It took something like 30 seconds for the image, grainy that it was, to write to the hard drive and you wouldn't want to flick through an album comprising of similar standard images, even if you had the time to take them.  The camera was hardly portable, either, so you wouldn't be thinking of carrying it around with you.  It probably ran off the mains electric as well.  But crucially, Kodak had proven the principle and that was all that matters.  Proof of concept.

Today we've all got digital cameras in our phones and on our laptops.  I've got two on the Microsoft Surface RT I'm typing this up on, one to keep an eye on me, the other to look at what's behind the screen.  The resolution on the RT is acceptable - it'll beat the living pants off the original Kodak camera but it is far inferior to the images obtainable from pretty much any one of the main mobile phones available, let alone purpose designed cameras.

Now we're braced for the camera being used in the Google Glass product.  Of course most of us have only seen the promotional images on the Google Glass website, which isn't exactly the least biased source of information.  I have to raise my hand at this point and state that I'm personally a little sceptical about the Google Glass screen concept - I can take the camera idea and recognise that it will be pointing at whatever you point your head at, but being able to view images such as photos you've taken, sat nav maps and so on - well I'm unconvinced.  Look at it this way, put your finger where the Google Glass lens appears to be located on the images Google have shown us and try and focus on your finger.  I'm fairly confident your finger, while recognisable, will be pretty blurred.  I'm struggling to see how any of us will be able to use the Glass product that close to the face.

But the speculation may be short lived as hot on Google's tails comes Samsung.  They want to produce a wearable computer and their vision - if you'll pardon the pun - is even closer than Google's.  They've been working with a number of universities to design a wearable camera built into a contact lens.  In fact they've suggested that their aim is to build a device in a contact lens that is capable of doing exactly what Google Glass can do, but right now they're just proving the technology.

The hurdle they've just overcome is to build a single pixel camera in a contact lens and then have a rabbit wear it for several weeks.  In case you're wondering, apparently rabbits have similar eyes to humans. They're also cheaper to use for trials and make a super stew afterwards. The trick is to sandwich the electronics in-between two layers of material suitable for contact lenses, or so it would seem.  Well, I still don't believe we will be able to focus on an image embedded in a contact lens, but even if it is 'just' a lens based camera then I think the fears about privacy being shouted about Google Glass will pale into insignificance.

However one pixel embedded in a contact lens is a long way from a working camera that can take photos of anything you look at.  Just like that first digital camera was in 1978.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                          Visit my Book Website here

        Visit Project: Evil Website here                                        Visit DLF Website here

        Follow me on Twitter  - @RayASullivan

        Join me on Facebook -  use raysullivan.novels@yahoo.com to find me

Google Glass - Here's Looking At You

It must be a measure of how successful an innovation is likely to be when people are complaining about it before it exists, or at least is available for use.  By that measure Google Glass is likely to be the most successful innovation we've seen for a long time.

Civil liberty groups have been complaining about the potential for breaching personal privacy with Google Glass since it was launched as a concept, now that the product is apparently being tested live in the US the rhetoric is rising.

I'm a little cautious about the beta testing reports that seem to hit the internet almost daily - some make me think that it is being tested thoroughly by independent users, others make me think the reports are just marketing copy.

Some retailers are saying they won't allow people wearing Google Glass into their premises, to protect their customers.  I guess the fear, and it isn't unreasonable, is that someone wearing a video camera on their head could film customers entering their Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) into credit and debit card readers in-store.  I guess cinemas won't be too keen on Google Glass wearers either, especially as many cinemas are waking up to the wonders of free WiFi - helping customers to steal the latest blockbuster film by providing the means to beam it to the internet isn't a smart move.  Quite how they expect to police customers popping the glasses on once the lights go down I don't know.  My local cinema does make a big thing about having night vision technology, but that's kind of a tradition in cinemas - it's how the ice cream seller shows you her wares in the dark.

What about in the park on a summer's day?  How many of us are going to feel that comfortable about taking the kids for a run around the park if there are men walking around with Google Glasses on?  I mean, if we saw such a person filming the kids with a hand-held video camera we'd either call the police or search the car for a handy entrenching tool to bury the pervert with.  Google might find that customers wearing these devices in any public space might find themselves fending off an irate public. 

So we won't be able to wear them in shops or in public spaces.  Where else won't we be able to wear them?  I'm guessing that at home might be OK, but the spouse may have reservations.  One specific concern being bandied about regards facial recognition.

Google are responding to some of these concerns by saying they won't allow any facial recognition applications to be approved until privacy controls are in place.  That's a strange statement as I can't see any privacy control that doesn't include the tacit approval of everybody who may be recognised facially being in place.  I make that six billion plus signatures, with no dissenters.  That might be a reach.

To be fair, civil liberties aside, I think facial recognition is one of the areas that Google Glass might have a real benefit to society.  I'm sure I'm not the only person to reach mid fifties who struggles to recall the name of people I should be able to recall.  And what about the very real problems with early stages of Alzheimer Disease?  Wouldn't it be great if those struggling with this terrible disease had the opportunity to help them act like the rest of us?  What about bank clerks and shop assistants trying to determine if the person who has presented the cheque is the person it names?  What about the Immigration Officer attempting to spot known terrorists entering the country?

If we're honest, Government agencies are probably designing facial recognition applications for Google Glass as we speak.  No matter what Google say or do I don't think they'll stop this work being implemented in their product.  They may try, but I suggest there's more likelihood of Google paying their taxes to these governments then stopping them applying facial recognition to them.

And what governments do today, criminals will have done yesterday if only because they won't bother with the full project lifecycle.  So government agencies, public and covert, plus any criminal organisation that wants to be able to identify individuals (including those who may be working undercover to thwart them) are going to have access to facial recognition, whether Google wants them to or not.  In fact the only people who won't will be the rest of us, but to be fair once the first few people spotted walking past a public park have been beaten to death by a mob of enraged parents I guess most of us might not actually want to wear the device in public.

Hopefully the persons who get themselves beaten to a pulp by a mob of marauding mothers are actually perverts or criminals and not some government agents working undercover to protect our freedom.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                          Visit my Book Website here

        Visit Project: Evil Website here                                        Visit DLF Website here

        Follow me on Twitter  - @RayASullivan

        Join me on Facebook -  use raysullivan.novels@yahoo.com to find me

Apple Endorses Google Glass

Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, would appear to be the anti-Jobs, the man who Steve never was.  Despite having the best top job in the world - and let's be fair, most top jobs look great from where we're sitting, so running Apple has to be the top job of top jobs - he's never looked that comfortable in the role.  He always looks like he's waiting for Steve to pop up and when's the last time you saw Tim Cook wearing a turtle neck sweater?  That's no way to run a hip tech company, surely?

He's been talking about what is coming up in the Apple world ahead of the announcements expected real soon - it's a tradition that Apple like to maintain that they deny anything true and dismiss anything they forgot to invent as a fad.  Like seven inch tablets, for example.  Of course, if Steve had been right then Apple would have been laughing all the way to the bank, but nobody would have remembered he dismissed seven inch tablets as too small to be of practical use.  Now Apple are just laughing all the way to the bank.

So Tim has been talking about Apple - he's really sorry about Apple maps, by the way.  Tell that to the driver who used it to cross the San Francisco bridge and came off the other side in Widnes, Cheshire.

He's pretty dismissive about the iWatch, which pretty much confirms it's nearly ready. Unfortunately the interviewer forgot to ask what colours it wasn't going to come in so we'll have to guess, but I reckon white has to be up there.  And black, for variety.  I guess between the two colours they'll go with anything you choose to wear as long as it's a black turtle neck sweater.

He was extremely dismissive of Google Glass - something about it only appealing to a very specific market, so I guess the bookies will stop taking bets now.  Google must be cock a hoop as Tim has practically endorsed their product.  Is it too late for me to patent the iBowTie?

But Google have another celebration on their hands because Apple are thinking of producing Android apps, which means they've already produced them and are trying to work out how they can launch them without losing face. How about they try mentioning they may be thinking about it?  That might work.  The first App to be ported? How about the iShovel?

Finally he did confirm that iOS is going to be overhauled, like that's been a secret.  It's better than throwing the towel in.  We all know by now that it is going to be a lot less fussy than the current version, visually, but actually I think most users want it to work better, not keep on moving backwards with each iteration.  However Tim has alluded to a more customisable desktop - he's not committing which means it's a done deal, of course.

Apparently all of the above will be confirmed - or denied if we're reading this on a parallel universe - on June 10th.  If Google could rush the production of the Google Glass forward then someone could record the whole presentation using them and upload it onto YouTube on the fly.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                          Visit my Book Website here

        Visit Project: Evil Website here                                        Visit DLF Website here

        Follow me on Twitter  - @RayASullivan

        Join me on Facebook -  use raysullivan.novels@yahoo.com to find me

Where Are the Wearable Computers?

Already this year wearable computing has been a hot topic.  Apple iWatch to Google Glass there is talk about integrating computing power with the ordinary items we place on our wrists and faces every morning.  In many ways it is an obvious extension to the way computing has moved, from large bulky boxes to compact tablet computers, some of them masquerading as mobile phones.

Not all the hype is being believed - there's justifiable scepticism over the do-ability of some of these projects.  For a wristwatch to be wearable it has to be pretty small, for spectacles that will be mostly lenses there's virtually nowhere for the electronics to reside.  There's nothing inherently radical about what any of these devices are proposing to do - they are mirroring the capabilities of mobile phones, tablet computers and digital cameras but in a very compact package.  It's the package coupled with the advertised seamless integration of the functions that is setting the interest levels to high.  And the doubt levels are up there too.

There are some rumours floating around that that Google Glass is an elaborate hoax.  If it is, it's an indication that you can have too much money, and if anyone has too much, it's probably Google.

But let's suppose that the wearable computing concept is in fact very doable - and as I said there's nothing technologically difficult here apart from the integration at the minuscule scale.  In fact, the dimensions are probably only an issue if you're aiming at a budget, and for these to take off as consumer devices you have to.  So, it is possible that until economies of scale are achieved, Apple and Google may have to subsidise these products.  Well, maybe not Apple - they have a knack of stringing out a new product, working up the faithful and the packaging it in a way that makes it irresistible - but I'm not convinced Google have that skill-set yet.   The Nexus range of tablets are bumping along despite being good products - I use a Nexus 7 every day and love it - and the Chromebooks, aggressively priced that they are, don't seem to be making much of a dent in the market despite aggressive TV advertising.

So maybe the Google Glass product is giving the impression of a hoax simply because they are trying so hard to work up a head of pressure on the product launch.  They've tried the Apple approach of denial, then a series of carefully leaked reports.  They even allowed a group of  people to apply to trial beta versions for a year before launch as long as they paid $1500 for the prototypes.  Coincidently, $1500 is the projected price for Google Glass when launched.  Some find that a little bit suspicious.  I see two possible scenarios that might be considered possible.

First, they are truly prototypes and the $1500 is a significant enough sum of cash to make sure that only the serious apply to help with the trial.  But of course, $1500 is nothing to what a rival manufacturer would pay for access to a beta product to disassemble and maybe reverse engineer ahead of launch.

Second, running a competition publicly to gather applications for trialling this product provides a realistic focus group of those who probably are the target market for the finished product.  Tell a little porky to say that the successful applicants have been selected and everyone who might be a potential purchaser goes 'shucks' and awaits the launch.  In the meantime, successful 'applicants' are seen wearing the Google Glass in public, in the press and on the web.  They blog, they write newspaper columns, they promote.  But they could be wearing dummy Glass.  Or maybe the real deal, but who says they aren't Google employees?

Now look back at how Apple are managing the iWatch project.  The concept has been leaked, but virtually all the functionality has been second guessed by the on-line Apple community.  Critically the technological aims are relatively modest to that being pursued by Google, but tangible.  And one really important thing to remember about Apple is that they rarely invent new ideas, no matter what the patent lawyers keep insisting. There were MP3 players aplenty before the iPod, even very good MP3 players such as the Creative Zen (we've got a couple of these at home), but the iPod was better.  The Mac Air is hardly the only laptop in town and the iWatch isn't the first attempt at a wrist-based computing device.  But it will probably be the best example.

So the iWatch will appear and it will be a success.  No doubt about that.  When, I'm not sure, but it will come in a fantastically designed box when it does and will cost way more than it should.  Apple fans will queue around the block for days to get one.

Google Glass - fact or hoax?  If they are a fact, then they will turn up late this year or early next.  If a hoax then someone, somewhere will make them a fact, and Google will buy that someone to make sure it's them who sell them. When?  No idea, but expect it won't be more than a couple of years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                          Visit my Book Website here

        Visit Project: Evil Website here                                        Visit DLF Website here

        Follow me on Twitter  - @RayASullivan

        Join me on Facebook -  use raysullivan.novels@yahoo.com to find me

Here's Looking at Google

When I was a kid, wearing glasses wasn't cool.  In fact, anyone seen wearing glasses was automatically labelled 'four eyes', which was unfortunate given that I'm short sighted.  And come to think of it, I wasn't that cool to start with either. Now it seems that wearing glasses is going to be the coolest thing going.

Google have announced the API specification and target pricing for the much awaited Google Glass they are planning to launch next year, perhaps towards the end of this year.  For those who like to cut to the chase, expect to have to find around $1500 or the UK Sterling equivalent for early adopters.  What does that get you?

Well, Google Glass is a wearable computer - there's been a lot of talk about this subject this year already and I've written the odd speculative blog post about smart watches.  The specification for the Google Glass is a 16 GB computer with about 12 GB available to use.  It'll also connect to the Google Cloud to allow files to be stored off the glasses.  It uses WiFi and Bluetooth - I'm not aware of a 3G or 4G option yet, but you may be able to transfer files to your Nexus if you need to make a bit of space on the fly, I guess.  And of course, the lack of a cellular option doesn't limit them from acting as your mobile phone as you can Bluetooth the call from your phone to the Google Glass.

In practise it is a spectacle frame that Google say will accommodate prescription lenses, with a monitor lens that acts like a Head Up Display (HUD) in the right hand eye-piece, just off to the side.  Pretty much in your peripheral vision most of the time unless you choose to look directly at it.  Some reports say the HUD is like having a 25 inch monitor at normal viewing distances and the Google resolution is claimed to be High Definition.

It also has voice activation and, judging by the Google videos out there on the web, gesture response.  As well as pushing information to you, you can capture information by taking photographs or videos of events in front of you, hence the reasonable amount of storage and the Cloud upload capability although given the rate devices like the Google Nexus 7 and the iPad eat up storage I suspect users will need to be disciplined when using these devices.

In use you can photograph or video items you see in front of you, upload them to social networks or email them by dictating the name of the person you want to send the picture to.  Or, faced with an object you don't recognise, you can Google it - don't even think of asking about Binging - and of course simple translations are notionally available.  At least the promo adverts show simple one or two word phrases being translated, but if you've followed my blog earlier this week you'll know I think there's a way to go with on-line translation.  However, come the day it is a practical reality, this is probably a good way to use it.  In time, perhaps this will become the universal translator of the Star Trek series.

Sound is conveyed through bone transducer speakers, that is vibrations along the arms of the glasses that resonate the bone just above your ears.  I've no idea how effective that is from an aural perspective, but it would be unusual if Google provide High Definition video and not something of a similar standard for sound.

Other uses that Google are pitching are using their built in Sat Nav - no more looking down from the screen to see where you're being directed to.  And of course, the nagging voice will be in your head and not annoying your passengers.  Hopefully you can argue back with the Sat Nav when it starts to send you down a farm track - if you've taken the time to look at Digital Life Form you'll understand why I'm quite keen on that concept - but I guess only time will tell.

Another use could be watching instructional videos while learning a new skill; trainers should be sitting up around the world right now thinking of ways to harness this possibility   Perhaps Computer Based Training might actually become a realistic option (I'm still waiting to see a really effective CBT solution that betters human instruction, however I'm biased and a bit old school).  If on-line training isn't your bag, how about watching a film on Netflix while rustling up the evening meal, or maybe just looking up the recipe while making the meal?  In work you could watch that film while pretending to square the company accounts?  So nothing new there.

Google reckon that you'll get a day's use out of one battery charge, but qualify that with a caution that video usage will probably reduce the effective usage time.  I assume that users will be using these devices quite intensively in that day frame - hopefully Google have made the same assumption.  They may look cool, but if the battery is dead, I'd probably revert to my own glasses.

I'm not sure that I'll be an early adopter of the Google Glass product, especially at the introductory lead-in price, but I can see that it has a place.  In fact it could be a game changer.  Only time will tell if it is as slick and usable as the promotional videos suggest - my hunch is that it probably isn't quite as good all the time - it's a computer, for goodness sake, which is another reason to avoid being the early adopter - but in the medium term I think this could become a normal way for folk to access their portable computing needs and should be way cooler than dragging an iPad around.

And who would have thought a couple of years ago that wearing glasses might be considered cooler than carrying an iPad?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                          Visit my Book Website here

        Visit Project: Evil Website here                                        Visit DLF Website here

        Follow me on Twitter  - @RayASullivan

        Join me on Facebook -  use raysullivan.novels@yahoo.com to find me

Lost in Translation

I have a meeting coming up later this week with a gentleman of Chinese extraction to discuss a technical subject.  Unfortunately, the gentleman in question doesn't speak much English and although he has family who do, they won't be available during the visit.  However I do have some knowledge of Mandarin, but it's unlikely I'll be spending much time in the meeting discussing Cantonese menus or Mah Jong tilesets.

When I agreed to the meeting a month ago I was quite relaxed about the challenge - I have access to a translation service via my mobile phone so I can ask a question that will be relayed to the gentleman, who will reply to the person on the other end who will pass the answer to me.  It sounds long winded and it hardly lends itself to a smooth transfer to information.

Consequently, at somewhere near the eleventh hour, I started to wonder if there were other technological ways to assist.

I started with Babelfish, however simple exploratory questions returned a null answer - Babelfish returned the sentence (in English) 'Sorry we are unable to translate your request'.  I even tried 'Hello' and got the same response, so I guess Babelfish is out.  I've used it to translate documents into European languages before now and been greeted with howls of laughter, so perhaps it's as well that it just gave up.

So I dug a little deeper and discovered that Google have been investing in online translation for years, buying up the best language scientists from around the world and putting them into laboratories to develop language solutions.  In fact, they are aiming much higher that that, they are funding research into the whole Artificial Intelligence field and apparently are leading the world at it.

Most attempts at automating language translation examines sets of documents that have been professionally translated and looks for clues to the nuances involved in the process.  Let's face it, just getting one language right is difficult enough for most of us, so then translating it into another and conveying the same feeling as the original message is a tall order.  Historically researchers have had access to a limited number of documents such as those translated by the United Nations and have built their models on them.  Google, however, have access to billions of other documents, many not too high brow or technical, but with many of them translated by real people in the real world to assist their own country folk.  This access to original translated pairs is providing fantastic insight to the researchers and scientists employed by Google for this project.

It turns out that freeing up all of the information on the web independent of language has been a long term Google aim, determined before the aim to make them the richest and most powerful organisation of the planet, but only by a few weeks.  And now they are thinking right out of the box and beyond the Google Glass project as they firmly believe that in the future we will have a Google chip implanted that can access Google as soon as the fleeting thought passes by it that indicates you don't know something.  I hope they're ready for a busy chip if it gets in my head.

Of course it may not be in my lifetime, but I'm guessing that if Google are talking about it now, they're well on the way to developing it as well.  Good luck with the FDA approval, mind, those guys can be a bit sticky.  Also I suspect there might be an Anti-Trust aspect to be thought through, perhaps literally.  Will Google have to provide an opportunity for the chip host to reconfigure it to use Bing instead?  Judging by my failed attempts to make Bing the default search engine on my Nexus 7, I don't think so.

The research Google is funding is ground-breaking and truly has the potential to liberate the human species in a way that Gutenberg did.  However I did find what I think is a flaw in their approach.  You see, the Google vision is that the chip in your head recognises the thought that indicates you don't know something - perhaps you spot a new food and wonder what it is - Google chip slips off and finds out it is a delicacy known alternatively as 'Kung P'o or 'number 39', finds a list of the common ingredients, identifies some of its history and, finally, tells you where you might buy some nearby.

In fact, it seems that Google is convinced that what we ultimately want is to know where we can buy items we search for. I accept they are ultimately a business and this Artificial Intelligence thing is mind-numbingly expensive, but many of my searches, on Google and Bing or Yahoo (or Yandex if I'm searching for Malware) are not to find things to buy, but just to find out information, pure knowledge.

So the Google chip probably wouldn't help me later this week, given Google's vision.  In essence the ability to say something in my native language to the proverbial Chinaman, have it translated into something meaningful and accurate in his head so that he can reply to me his language ready for my chip to do some work is an exciting concept, but if it results in an endless list of shopping suggestions, sponsored ads popping into our heads and SEO skewed results deviating away from the topic on hand then I guess I'll have to stick with the mobile phone and the faceless translator for now.

Or discuss Cantonese food and Mah Jong tilesets instead.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                          Visit my Book Website here

        Visit Project: Evil Website here                                        Visit DLF Website here

        Follow me on Twitter  - @RayASullivan

        Join me on Facebook -  use raysullivan.novels@yahoo.com to find me