Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Feb 2018 01:10 UTC

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.

Thread beginning with comment 653698
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Retinal projection
by Alfman on Fri 9th Feb 2018 02:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Retinal projection"
Member since:


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

Reply Parent Score: 3