Google Glass: the definitive road-test.


Google Glass may or may not transform the future.
But one thing is beyond question: it elicits mighty strong reactions in the
present.

AFP/Getty

The first week I got my tiny new face computer, I wore it to a barbecue and sat down at a table to eat pasta salad. “That is the most annoying thing in the world,” snapped a mother of twins, pointing at my new gadget from across the table.

“I disagree,” I responded.

“No, really. It is.”

“One second,” I said. I tapped the black frames with my finger to turn the device on. “OK, Glass, ‘What is the most annoying thing in the world?’.”

In the mini-screen perched above my right eye, an article popped up. I clicked on it. I scrolled. She waited.“All right, I have a list from The Daily Telegraph with the top 100 most annoying things. There’s people who drive too close to you. Noisy eaters. Rude clerks. No Google Glass.”

She was unconvinced and yammered on about privacy invasion, the failure to embrace real life, the evils of distraction, the usual.

Yet, earlier that same day, several strangers had approached me as if I were a minor celebrity. “Are they as awesome as people say?” “Where can I get the Google Goggles?”  “Mind if I try them on?” (For all the fears of privacy advocates, it was mostly my privacy that was invaded.)

As with coriander and Hillary Clinton, there’s not a lot of middle ground. Google Glass – which will be released for sale some time in 2014 – has become the flashpoint in the war between tech-fearing, Jonathan-Franzen-admiring, our-kids-should-play-with-wooden-blocks types and the self-quantifying, singularity-loving, Cloud-computing-will-save-the-world evangelists.

After much cajoling, Google sold me an early prototype for $1,500. I would be one of 8,000 “Explorers” – a group of engineers, scientists, artists, and journalists allowed to test it out. At the Glass office in New York, I got a crash course on how to connect my Glass to the internet, take video, snap a photo, get directions, search for nearby fast-food restaurants, return emails, make calls, and watch CNN – all without the effort of reaching into my pocket for my smartphone. I was also advised about what I should definitely not do.

So that’s what I would do. My mission: I would push Glass to its limits to give me a glimpse of the real-life utopia and/or dystopia that awaits.

OPERATION: LITERATURE

The first few days are a mix of exhilaration and frustration. One minute I’m marvelling, “Holy crap, this street map moves when I turn my head!” The next I’m having heated arguments with Glass’s voice-recognition feature: “CNN. Not Rihanna. CNN! CNN!” That’s not to mention the added challenge of friends who sneak up behind me and shout inappropriate Google searches to clog my browser’s history.

The tiny screen (roughly three-quarters of an inch by half an inch) takes some getting used to. For a while, I was squinting half the day, but I’ve now learned to adjust. You have to point your eyeballs up and to the right, so you spend a lot of time looking as if you’re trying to do long division in your head.

Glass is designed to display short snippets of text: quick emails such as “See you at Sbarro at 10:00.” Or CNN headline updates, such as LIZARD SUSPECTED OF EATING NEIGHBOUR’S CAT (which I was helpfully informed of at the doctor’s office).

As the Google PR told me, Glass is not meant for poring over 2,000-word articles. Yet what’s the harm in trying? In fact, why not use my Glass to read something even more substantial, like Moby-Dick? Imagine the joy of having a tiny great work of literature in front of your face at all times.

As my wife drives the family to our friend’s house, I ride shotgun, tilt my head back, and dive into some 19th-century fiction. “OK, Glass, Google ‘Moby-Dick full text’,” I say. I find a free file from Princeton University. The problem? The sentences don’t fit on the screen. If I want to finish a line, I have to turn my head to the right, then shift it back to the left. I look like a spectator at Wimbledon or a five-year-old throwing a tantrum. I’m also carsick.

“Can you stop?” my wife asks. “It’s very distracting.”

After a half-hour break, I try again. I find another version of Moby-Dick that fits on the screen. I start to read. It’s both strange and wonderful. The words float against the sky. The text is so close to my eyes, the book feels like it’s inside my brain. I’m in my own secret world, like the kid with the flashlight under the blanket, but without the flashlight or blanket.

I’ve never read Moby-Dick, and the details seem so visceral up close: Queequeg harpooning the breakfast beefsteaks from across the table, or draping his tattooed arm over Ishmael during a forced spooning. And who knew Melville was such a cranky bastard, an early Louis C.K., with his urge to step into the street and start “methodically knocking people’s hats off”?

After 45 minutes, I get an ice-pick headache and have to stop. I later tell some tech-loathing book-world friends, who react with horror – as if reading on an iPad weren’t bad enough. In their honour, I read a long article on my Glass called “35 Arguments Against Google Glass”, which gives me an ironic thrill.

Literature verdict: Briefly fantastic.  Use caution.

OPERATION: TEXAS HOLDEM

One of Glass’s most impressive features is that it can live-stream video from your point of view. Anyone can see the world through your eyes. If you’re at the supermarket facing a baffling array of tomato sauces, just video-call your wife. On her laptop, she can scan the shelf and tell you to get the organic passata. Very useful.

Also useful? Invite some friends over for poker and have your cousin who’s a professional poker player in Vegas secretly observe your cards from his laptop and signal to you how to bet. I have such a cousin. He agreed to the plan.

We spend the day practicing our scheme. On his computer, he can see my cards. On my walnut-sized screen, I can see a teensy version of him holding up handwritten signs, such as FOLD. Or RAISE TEN DOLLARS. Or CALL. I keep my cousin on mute for two reasons: First, I don’t want my fellow cardplayers to hear him. And second, he’s kind of a cocky bastard.

At 8pm on a Thursday, my three unsuspecting friends come to my place. They know I’m testing Glass, but I tell them it’s only for email. I deal. I lift my hand to show my cousin my jack and six. And… the video goes black. I tap the side of my frames furiously to reconnect. We finally do, but 10 seconds later, his image freezes mid-scribble. Dammit!

After losing a bunch of hands, I excuse myself to go to the bathroom and call my cousin on my cell. We whisper-argue over who is to blame for the technical snafu.

Back at the table, we get the live stream running again. And he holds up the FOLD sign three hands in a row. Ugh. And then, on an ace-ten, he has me bet $10, then raise $15. It’s much more aggressive than my usual strategy. We win! I get a head-rush. Another hand, he writes, LET’S BLUFF. BET $20.

It’s thrilling, this freedom from choice, the comfort of knowing that I’m playing like a master. Granted, it’s far from a flawless plan. At times, my cousin can’t see my hand, even though I shove my nose right up to the cards. The video is spotty and slow (it’s a prototype, after all), so I spend a lot of time stalling. “Hmm. Let me think.” And, as I mentioned, my cousin has an attitude. CLEAN UP YOUR STACK!! he writes on his whiteboard.

At one point, my nine-year-old son joins the game. He gets a good hand, but my cousin senses mine is better and tells me to raise my son $40, the kid’s life savings. I can’t do it. My cousin writes, PUSSY.

But overall, the plan works surprisingly well. After two hours, I’ve tripled my money to $200, at which point I confess my sin to my friends and give them back their money. They seem more baffled than angry. “So what are you seeing? He’s in that little thing?” The next day, one friend emails to thank me for the night, adding, “despite the fact that I woke up with a somewhat violated feeling that I can’t seem to shake.”

Poker verdict: Delightful. Dangerous.

OPERATION: DICTATION

Three weeks in, class [correction: Glass] and I are getting along better. There are still plenty of annoyances, like accidentally tweeting a photo of a café counter. But I love taking video of my sons without them getting me and I’m rolling “Oh, Dad.” [Correction: without them giving me an eye-rolling “Oh, Dad.”] I’ve successfully Googled the “XYZ affair”, “flank steak against the grain”, and “burrata cheese”.

I’m also getting the hang of the voice-recognition feature. I find Glass prefers in order to perform [correction: Glass prefers a more chipper voice], like I’m a tour guide at a theme park. Not my favourite own [correction: tone], but I adjust.

In fact, I have dictated this entire section of the article. Perhaps most impressive: Glass is no prude. It understands and spells out every naughty word I can think of. And that includes blumpkin. See? Please do not Google that.

Dictation verdict: Lawless [correction: flawless].

OPERATION: MOVIES AND TV

More than 25 years ago, a heavyweight boxer named Mitch Green was arrested for allegedly driving with a working TV mounted on the hood of his car. Prescient.

I don’t plan to drive while watching my Glass, but what if I tried to watch video every moment of the day that I’m not operating heavy machinery? My first plan was to stream a series of back-to-back epic movies on my Glass as I ran my errands and made my calls. Unfortunately, Glass isn’t yet compatible with Netflix.

Instead, I had to settle for 16 hours of YouTube. I watch Ali G while at the shops. I watch a TED talk about bipolar disorder while scrubbing the dishes. While taking my kids to the Museum of Natural History, I creep myself out by watching the “Blurred Lines” video, squinting to make out the world’s tiniest nipples.

Things start to spin out of control. How could they not? It’s my childhood dream come true, this ever-present TV. My wife approaches me in the kitchen. I can see her mouth moving. I tell her: “I’m watching a Richard Pryor clip about the first black president. If it’s important, let me know, and I’ll pause.” She walks away.

I begin trying to improve life. When I’m out for a hike, I see a waterfall. It’s fine. But why not spice things up with a video of Angel Falls in Venezuela? Now, that’s spectacular. I have lunch at a local restaurant, but why not search for video of the inside of Le Bernardin? Sadly, I couldn’t find it. But I’m sure I will soon.

I’m worried for reality.

Movies-and-TV verdict: Incomplete. But promising.

OPERATION: OUTSOURCED CONSCIENCE 

This brings up the distraction issue. Many say Glass is taking our ADHD culture to its logical, horrible conclusion. Google argues that Glass will make you less distracted. Its position is that you don’t have to look down to see your emails. And no more fishing in your pocket to get your iPhone to snap your kid’s violin recital. Just click a button. Technology becomes seamless.

I agree with both sides. If used judiciously, Glass can make you more in the moment, less likely to steal glances at your smartphone. You are relaxed, free from what the kids call FOMO (fear of missing out). But the opposite can be true, especially if you over-eagerly subscribe to updates from email, Twitter, , The New York Times, and a location-based service that tells me I just passed the site of the 1981 movie My Dinner With André.

The constant dings have turned me into Mr Magoo. I’ve bumped into a parking sign and stumbled on the sidewalk. My friend Paul says that I’ll soon be saying, “OK, Glass. Google ‘Help me, I broke eight ribs.’ ”

Maybe I can put these interruptions to good use. I once read that in ancient Rome, when a general came home victorious, they’d throw him a triumphal parade. But there was always a slave who walked behind the general, whispering in his ear to keep him humble. “You are mortal,” the slave would say.

I’ve always wanted a modern non-slave version of this – a way to remind myself to keep perspective. And Glass seemed the first gadget that would allow me to do that. In the morning, I schedule a series of messages to email myself throughout the day. “You are mortal.” “You are going to die someday.” “Stop being a selfish bastard and think about others.”

I’m waiting in line at the pharmacy when I get a message from myself: “Think about what you are thinking.” I’m stewing about how this woman can’t figure out which way to swipe her debit card. Glass is right: This is not how I want to be using my brain power.

Outsourced conscience verdict: Could be a great business. Whose profits I would donate, of course.

CONCLUSION

Will I wear Glass in real life? That depends a lot on whether everyone else wears it. I’m impressed, but I don’t want to be one of those in the small cadre of Glassholes. I need social acceptance.

It’s hard to predict whether Glass will become a mass phenomenon. But if it doesn’t, something like it will. Perhaps a gadget that looks no more noticeable than a pair of wire-rimmed glasses. Technology won’t stop. We are all on a long, slow march toward becoming half-android. Will the good outweigh the bad? Who the hell knows? Well, that’s not entirely true. “OK, Glass, Google ‘Will Glass be good or bad for society?’”

Meet the code-breakers of WWII


“This is Norway checker,” echoed the voice through the scrambler. “I have a good stop for you in Stavanger.”

Nobody on the outside world could have known what she meant.

But inside Bletchley Park, a World War II code-breaking enclave in the English countryside of Buckinghamshire, 18-year-old Ruth Bourne had discovered a vital piece of intelligence.

Bletchley Park was once Britain's best kept secret, with all activity undertaken there strictly hidden for three decades after the war ended.

Working alongside thousands of other women to decipher encoded German signals sent between Nazi generals, Bourne’s discovery meant passing on the information to her superiors to assess whether this was another piece of the decryption puzzle.

With every room named after a country that had been toppled by the Nazis, and each machine christened as one of its towns, Bletchley Park’s simple yet effective checking system proved crucial in the defeat of Hitler’s regime.

A culture of secrecy

Far from being a group of experienced decoders, however, the estate’s recruits mainly consisted of young teenage military personnel, a smattering of crossword whizzes who had been able to complete The Daily Telegraph’s puzzle in less than 12 minutes, and numerous 18-year-old girls plucked from their quiet home towns.

“It was the middle of the war when I received a call saying I was to go into war work to support Britain’s efforts from home,” explains 88-year-old Margaret Bullen, a machine wire operator who served from 1942 until the end of the war.

“A letter from the Foreign Office then arrived saying I had an interview — but I had no idea what it was for, and two weeks later, I was told I’d be off to Bletchley.”

“Before starting work we were told to sign the Official Secrets Act, which was a rather frightening experience for someone as young and naive as I was,” says 90-year-old Becky Webb, who joined the war effort at age 18 in 1941. “I had no idea how I’d comply with it!”

But compliance was the only option, making these three young women — Webb, Bullen and Bourne — fierce guards of the country’s anonymous decoding history for several decades.

Indeed, it wasn’t until some thirty years later that Bletchley’s long maintained shroud of secrecy began to lift, after the publication of “The Ultra Secret” — a tell all book from former RAF officer Frederick W. Winterbotham, who later became an Ultra supervisor.

The 1974 expose revealed how Ultra intelligence had been used to intercept communication behind enemy lines and disseminate vital information to Britain and its allies. Though Winterbotham was accused of embellishing and aggrandizing his role in the tale, without his account, the real story of what went on inside the UK’s code-breaking operation may never have been known.

I never knew what any of my co-workers were doing, and vice versa, and my parents never knew a thing of it.
Ruth Bourne, naval recruit.

“It sounds strange that we knew so little about what was going on, but that was how it was,” reflects Bullen.

“I was sent to live with a couple who were ordered to take me in because of the war. They never once asked me what I was doing there–nobody did–not even the local village workers who’d serve us coffee at the café on our lunch break, in spite of the fact a group of 18-year-olds had suddenly arrived in this little hamlet,” she explains.

“I only heard the name Colossus–the machine I was working on–some three decades after the war ended, and it wasn’t until I later visited Bletchley Park that I said: ‘this is where I worked, this is what I did!'”

While Winterbotham’s revelations sent shock waves through the secretive decryption community, lifting the lid on what really happened inside the park ensued slowly and sporadically, with the bulk of the information being released in the early 2000s.

“I’m delighted that we can discuss our time there now that everything has come out, and I give talks on the subject whenever I’m asked,” enthuses Webb. “I’ve given 97 to date!”

Silent heroines

For many of the young women at Bletchley, though, the removal of the clandestine veil came too late, with the majority of workers’ parents having passed away before the decryption effort became public knowledge.

Bourne, an 18-year-old naval recruit who was sent to one of the park’s expansion locations in Eastcote — on the outskirts of London — was one of many who was never able to tell her loved ones about her contribution to the war.

“You led two lives there,” she recalls. “One life was in A Block, where you ate in the canteen, and talked about boyfriends, and getting trains to London, and where to find black nylon stockings.”

I was sent to live with a couple who were ordered to take me in because of the war. They never once asked me what I was doing there.
Margaret Bullen, WWII Colossus engineer.

“B Block was where we worked, surrounded by high walls, barbed wire and two naval marines guarding the place. If you could make your voice heard over the noise of 12 Turing Bombe machines, that was the only time you would speak about work — but you never would,” she explains. “I never knew what any of my coworkers were doing, and vice versa, and my parents never knew a thing of it.”

After the Nazi regime fell in 1945, many of Bletchley’s women returned home, while others stayed involved with the military’s work. Bourne was given work as a wire destroyer: desoldering the many cables that had been painstakingly connected during intelligence operations throughout the war, while Webb was sent to the Pentagon to paraphrase translated Japanese messages for transmission to officials.

“Upon leaving Bletchley, we really had no skills whatsoever,” remembers Bourne. “Apart from how to keep a secret!”

And that secret was very nearly never told, especially after the original estate was due to be knocked down some 23 years ago, with houses and a supermarket planned to be built in its place.

Preserving Bletchley

It was in May of 1991that Bletchley’s fortunes changed, after a small local committee gathered a group of veterans at the park to say a final farewell to the historic location.

But the group became determined to turn it into a heritage site after hearing the astounding stories of so many code-breakers, engineers and members of the Women’s Royal Naval Service (WREN) who worked at the park during the war.

The Bletchley Park Trust was formed the following year, and from then on, regular reunions and exhibitions at the estate have enabled its former workers and inhabitants to share stories that were on the precipice of being lost forever.

Winterbotham’s book might have been the first time that story of the World War II code-breakers entered the realm of popular culture, but it certainly wasn’t the last, with TV drama “The Bletchley Circle” proving popular in both the UK and United States earlier this year.

With a second series on its way, and exhibitions at the Trust attracting visitors from around the globe, the world’s fascination with the once elusive Bletchley Park shows no sign of slowing.

The culture of secrecy that once threatened Bletchley from being all but erased from the history books has well and truly ended.