Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

eyeBlog 142

cottonbuds writes "Researchers at Human Media Lab, Queen's University in Canada presented the ECSGlasses: eye contact sensing glasses that report when people look at their wearer. When eye contact is detected, the glasses stream this information to appliances to inform these about the wearer's engagement. According to HML.Blog the ECSGlasses uses a wearable, wireless Eye-Contact Sensor (1.3MB .jpg) to gauge when the user receives eye-contact from an onlooker. eyeBlog uses this information to record and publish face-2-face conversations without dividing the user's attention between the event being recorded, and the device being used to record it. Moreover, because eyeBlog uses eye-contact to start and stop recording, users do not need to sift through hours of footage to find interesting segments. If you are the academic type you can read the paper (2.2MB .pdf), otherwise the video in .mpg (1:49min, 320x240, 7.5MB), or mp4 (1:49min, 320x240, 4.9MB) should explain everything. Video Mirror: .mp4 .mpg."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.


Comments Filter:
  • no? oh ok then.
  • why bother (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CaptnMArk ( 9003 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:11AM (#9171595)
    I am often able to sense eye contact without any sensors at all. Anyone else?
    • Re:why bother (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Johnathon_Dough ( 719310 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:25AM (#9171632)
      I am often able to sense eye contact without any sensors at all.

      Yeah me too.

      What I can't do is record a long series of video and remember the time stamp of when eye contact was made.
      Oh, I also can't make an appliance turn on or perform a specific task by looking at it.

      But yeah, I can tell if someone is looking at me.

      • Re:why bother (Score:2, Insightful)

        All a bit scary looking to be honest... But seriously, the technology seems to be technology for technologies sake (OK, I do realise I'm posting on Slashdot)- what's stopping u from pressing a button to indicate that the conversation is worth recording? As it is I make eye contact with shop staff all the time- but I sure as hell don't need to have access to digital copies of my interactions with my green-grocers! Eye contact is over rated- much of the important and beautiful moments are the ones where u do
      • by Glonoinha ( 587375 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:58AM (#9172837) Journal
        They need to release a female version that is triggered whenever someone is staring at their chest.
        • Re:why bother (Score:3, Interesting)

          But why limit it to females. I'd want a version to sense when some girl was staring at my ass or package. Reminds me of that episode of Weird Science where they have Lisa make them a handheld tv player that lets them see through the eyes of any woman they want. At the end they notice her checking out their asses.

        • They need to release a female version that is triggered whenever someone is staring at their chest.

          So just put the glasses there.
          And I'm sure what you're wearing on your head or chest has nothing to do with where people stare.
          Even if it is large sunglasses with lights, wires, and lenses.
          And a flashing sign saying "What are you staring at?"

    • by Lord Prox ( 521892 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:44AM (#9171677) Homepage
      What I would like to see is the MPEG of the look of pure horror in his eyes when he sees what we are doing to his web server. linking right to >1MB files.

      Oh the humanity!

      Eye-Contact Sensor (1.3MB .jpg) []
      PDF []
      mpeg1 []
      mpeg2 []
      • Re:why bother (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I don't think Queens University is suffering for bandwidth []. And just FYI, unless the files you're linking to are over 5MB, Freecache will simply pass the link to the original server anyways.
      • Re:why bother (Score:3, Interesting)

        by British ( 51765 )
        I love that pic of the eye syensor glasses. In the early 1980s(and the blondie video "rapture"), I had a pair of sunglasses with blinking LEDs in the lenses. This must be the high tech revival.
    • Re:why bother (Score:3, Interesting)

      I am often able to sense eye contact without any sensors at all. Anyone else?

      Animal instinct, I think. Spot the tiger that's just spotted you.

      IIRC research has shown that if a predator is eyeing up a herd of prey (e.g. cheetah lounging near grazing antelopes), typically one of the herd will start getting skittish while the others graze on obliviously, and sure enough the nervous one is the one that gets eaten.

      Of course, this instinct weakens if people are used to getting stared at, which is why it's a

    • I am often able to sense eye contact without any sensors at all. Anyone else?

      This is /., remember? Social interaction is unknown to many regulars... *g*

    • I am often able to sense eye contact without any sensors at all. Anyone else?

      Yes, but that doesn't mean we sense all of them, or anywhere near that. I find I can easily sense eye contact when I'm looking back at them, or close to it, but otherwise I have no idea who might be looking at me.
      • Re:why bother (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by geoffspear ( 692508 ) *
        It's not "eye contact" when one person is looking at another person without the other person looking back.
        • It is after I look back at them. Perhaps I'm seeing into the future. :)
        • It's not "eye contact" when one person is looking at another person without the other person looking back.

          As far as I can tell, these glasses detect when someone looks at you, whether the wearer is looking back or not.

          It's a good point; the original article confuses these definitions, and the answer to "Why bother?" then becomes that these glasses detect more than just two-way eye contact.
  • Similar items... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ArbiterOne ( 715233 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:11AM (#9171596) Homepage
    ... can be found in this month's issue of WIRED [] magazine. There was quite an interesting blogging device that looked like a can. It had a video recorder, audio recorder, and a fold-out screen.
    Can we expect this device to be on the market anytime soon?
    • by moz25 ( 262020 )
      Funny... the first item I saw when I clicked your WIRED link was "Getting Naked for Big Brother".

      Coincidental or not... any technology will eventually be (attempted to be) used for something that involves people being naked :-)
    • For women, how about a Cleavage Eye Contact Sensor. It would look like a necklace and snap a picture of everyone who makes eye contact with it. I guess it would basically snap a picture of every man that walked by.
      • For both sexes, how about the anatomy sensor? It snaps pics of the desired anatomy, while you impress them by keeping eye contact and not looking down.

        Actually, perhaps the device could record the things most worth recording by watching everyone's eyes, including yours, in the immediate area and then taking video of anything that seems to be getting the most eyeballs.
      • OMFG. that is a *great* idea. someone PLEASE MOD PARENT UP
  • Ugly (Score:5, Funny)

    by Vladimir9 ( 635161 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:13AM (#9171599)
    Im pretty sure if your wearing those glasses everyone will be looking at you...pointing and laughing.
  • by Pilferer ( 311795 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:14AM (#9171602)
    from the article on HP's site []:

    Your daughter's first smile. Your son's joy the first time he catches a ball. The wink your favorite uncle always gave you, but that he'd never do on camera.

    Uhhhh, WHAT?
  • by rootedgimp ( 523254 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:15AM (#9171603)
    i was all thinking "yay neat inconspicuous social paranoia spy stuff" before i clicked the 1.3mb photo button.

    i was wrong in that assumption, btw.
    • it's a clever idea, not a terribly advanced peice of technology. You could probably do the same thing with much fewer, and smaller components.

      It could be made much more inconspicuous.
    • All I need is to marry those specs to one of those webcams that were slightly too sensitive in the infra-red spectrum (they became famous for being able to see through things like blouses ;)), some mini-lcds in the lenses and I'm sorted Cheap, fun, x-ray specs :)
  • Good, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jayminer ( 692836 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:15AM (#9171604) Homepage
    Very interesting behavior, but social and ethical rules may not be tolerable to such device.
    • Maybe, but imho it's one of the many small steps which will lead to robots who can behave in a human society.
      As for tolerating, people seem to tolerate almost everything these days. Just use the magic "terrorism" word..
  • Better Use (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TheLoneCabbage ( 323135 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:17AM (#9171608) Homepage
    This could be very handy for computer control. For instance your computer might only accept voice commands from you while you are looking straight at it (as opposed to saying something stupid to your friend like "What is the FORM MATerial of the SEA DRIVE?")

    And depending on how large the return IR area is, it could also be used to determin where someone is looking at on the screen (with say 3 or 4 IR sensors to triagulate position based on return signal strength).

    Then again, the down side is now we geeks NEED to make eyecontact.

  • Like... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ArbiterOne ( 715233 )
    Could we be seeing something similar soon to the eye-scanning of Minority Report? This could definitely be used as an ID-device.
    Or what about the advertising potential? If someone looks at a particular type of ad repeatedly, that builds a profile of the person's interests.
    • Or what about the advertising potential? If someone looks at a particular type of ad repeatedly, that builds a profile of the person's interests.

      <tin-foil-hat> I don't want people knowing what I'm looking at. Especially bikini ads, for which my multiple impressions never end in a sale for them ... </tin-foil-hat>
    • Advertising Computer: We've identified that you often reflexively look at ads that FLICKER.

      Me: Damn!
  • by ValourX ( 677178 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:22AM (#9171622) Homepage

    And just what the hell will happen if you're giving a speech or performance for 10k people? All looking at you at once as your contacts get Slashdotted and fry to a crisp...

    No thanks -- I'll keep my old fashioned contacts.

  • Eye contact? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gary Destruction ( 683101 ) * on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:23AM (#9171627) Journal
    How does it determine eye contact? Someone could appear to be looking at you. But in reality, you could easily be in their line of sight. It doesn't necessarily mean they're looking at you, let alone making eye contact.
    • Re:Eye contact? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Hmmm ... what's next: eye-contact fooling glasses
    • the eye-contact can be detected by identifyng the position of the iris using an infrared detector.

      same kinda of technology is currently being tested for the fighter pilots, so that they can control various equipemnts only by looking at the controls.
    • How does it determine eye contact?

      Watch the video's, they make perfectly clear how eye contact is determined.

      Someone could appear to be looking at you. But in reality, you could easily be in their line of sight

      This is a problem even humans face. How do I know that someone who is looking in my direction is indeed looking at me. This is very common at train stations or air ports, where you gaze over a crowd in search of a friend or relative. You probably have them in your line of sight a couple of times

  • by Gary Destruction ( 683101 ) * on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:27AM (#9171638) Journal
    If someone is staring at you, the glasses take a picture for them so it lasts longer.
  • by domQ ( 760908 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:28AM (#9171641) Homepage
    Can't wait for these googles to be plugged into my window manager!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:28AM (#9171643)
    How about taking a photo every time you're transfixed on an amazing chest or bottom? That's a blog a lot more people would appreciate :)
    • My first thought when reading this story was similar, but reversed. Rather than being notified whenever someone looks at my eyes, I think it might be useful to be informed when someone looks at my ass.
  • by tilrman ( 234948 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:32AM (#9171652) Homepage
    Researchers found that the eyeBlog was only 28% effective when used by female wearers, but couldn't reproduce the effect in the lab. After some field trials, however, they discovered and corrected the problem. The new eyeBlog-II for women is 96% accurate and will be completed sometime next month. Rather than attaching the sensors to eyeglasses, the eyeBlog-II will be embedded into a bra.
  • /me clicks photo link

    Neo! It's you!

    The LEDs I first thought were gratuitous and unnecessary but after WTFV I know they are IR LEDs that are required for the function of the cam.

    Couldn't they at least put them behind some kind of casing so they couldn't be seen? I guess this is only a prototype...
  • The future's so bright... I gotta wear shades
  • Simstim is on they way. If only I could get those Zeiss Ikon eyes implanted! Remember though: Sendai eyes may be cheaper but they have severe problems with depth perception and may cause optic nerve degeneration.
  • why?! (Score:3, Funny)

    by fraccy ( 780466 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:50AM (#9171691) Homepage
    This reminds me of that device (I forget who developed it) which looked like a cycle helmet and had the ability to recognise objects. As with so much technology, I get concerned as to what we're actually trying to achieve here... I'm having a forgetful day, but who was it said man is just trying to make a machine in his own image? Seems increasingly valid...Show me a machine that shocks the wearer every time they perform a ridiculously stupid act, now that would be a step forward.
  • Privacy concerns (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rteunissen ( 740645 )
    Here in Holland you can't just take someone's picture and publish it. This toy seems to just that. Maybe i don't want my face on the internet at all.
  • by Karora ( 214807 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:52AM (#9171695) Homepage

    I wonder what the latency is between when someone hears something interesting, and when they look up at the person who is speaking.

    It seems to me that this sort of thing (great as the idea is) should be recording full-time, and then discarding anything that hasn't prompted the wearer's interest with "N" seconds.

    There are probably also ways to detect the wearer's interest outside of trying to figure if they are looking at a person. Eyeball behaviour. Head behaviour. Mental activity. Probably the sorts of cluster of patterns that some sort or neural net would do well with once it was trained to recognise them.

    It's all a great idea though, and naturally enough one that has seen more mature versions appearing in SF books for decades. Good to see reality moving in this direction too.

    • It seems the latency wouldn't be such a problem: usually when getting someone's attention you start with something very general that could be inferred from the rest of the conversation or something that doesn't really mean anything. (eg "Hey Frank, did you see the ECSGlasses on the /.?" or "Hey Frank, IN SOVIET RUSSIA, ECSGLASSES INVENT YOU!") It might be a little confusing if they weren't your own conversations, and if you were going to keep a big archive of them, they'd probably need a little labeling; ot
  • eye implant (Score:2, Funny)

    by hax0r_par ( 776404 )
    what we need is an eyeball implant that will do this same task (w/o wearing those glasses...) and then dowload the info from your brain, or possibly some wireless device in your head, hooked up to your router. i need to download some vids off my brain.
  • by martin-boundary ( 547041 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:57AM (#9171708)
    Or did anyone else feel creeped out by those shiny eyes? I had no idea there were so many Goa'uld walking around? Brr, I may have to wear my trusty Joo Janta 200 super-Chromatic contact lenses undertneath.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 17, 2004 @05:58AM (#9171714)
    Mmm. Does the system provide flood protection in a magic house of mirrors ? Hate to see ones brain explode due to a infinite recursion failure in his or hers glasses.
  • by softwave ( 145750 ) <`eb.savlavda' `ta' `sneppoc.divad'> on Monday May 17, 2004 @06:02AM (#9171723)
    Actually, I think this is great for people who suffer a physical handicap (eg. paralysed).
    Nowadays there are similar systems. A paralysed friend of mine uses a small LED beamer attached to his glasses to use the computer. By moving his head, he moves the red dot on the screen which functions as the cursor. A sensor of some kind interpretes the signal and moves the cursor.
    Pretty expensive piece of equipment, though.
    Well, instead they could use some of those sensors to track eye movement and position in relation to the computer screen.
    Being given the proper use, I think these gizmo's will eventualy find their way on the right market.
    • That is one of the applications which they have looked at. I had this guy as a prof. (while the area he is in is very interesting he can be a real ass). There are applications in computing such are being able to use your eyes instead of a mouse.

      I think one of the best applications (which combines some other parts of his work) is something that can tell if you are busy or not and then take / not take action. For example, if you are connected to the internet and you receive an e-mail, but at that point yo
    • It seems sad that such a device would be a "pretty expensive piece of equipment". It's been 20 years since the first shoot-em-up type video games came out with technology that could detect where you were aiming (minus the

      Maybe its getting the extra accuracy to really pinpoint a character sized block of pixels that causes the issue, but seems like even that would be solvable via a software search. i.e. paint a small inverse color block on every other frame and move the block around in the area that you th

  • If you're wearing this outside the lab, be sure that everyone will avert eye contact with you! Not very practical for real life testing :)
    • I was thinking the exact same thing. According to the post "because eyeBlog uses eye-contact to start and stop recording, users do not need to sift through hours of footage to find interesting segments". After seeing these bulky goggles, I'm thinking "Who would want to have a conversation with someone wearing such silliness?"

      The person who wears this will have social hadicap, and will most likely be the unspoken subject of conversations when people say, "Whatever you do, don't make eye contact."

  • by psoriac ( 81188 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @06:21AM (#9171768)
    Dave, although you took thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.

  • Neat! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by carvalhao ( 774969 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @06:23AM (#9171773) Journal

    I find that this technology actually makes a lot of sense in a business environment, specially if coupled with some sort of retina light beam scanning [] technology. I can envision a meeting where businessmen, while negotiating, could access relevant information about the person they were talking to on the fly, including important corporate information.

    There are, however, two major showstoppers. One is the matter of privacy. I may not be interested that everyone I gaze at gets an instant picture of me without my authorization, specially because I'm not all that pretty ;). Second, in societies and cultures where eye contact is just not important or is considered as intrusive an menacing, such as in Japan, the system would just not be functional

    But still... great for nerds who can't really tell if a woman is giving them the eye... perhaps with a computer telling them so they'll be more confident ;)

  • by CdBee ( 742846 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @06:43AM (#9171831)
    My first thought on seeing that image was
    "I am Lokutas of Borg: Resistance is futile!"
  • by Snaller ( 147050 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @06:51AM (#9171852) Journal
    ...when you wear that thing, everbody looks at you!
  • I heard... (Score:3, Funny)

    by m00nun1t ( 588082 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @06:58AM (#9171874) Homepage
    I heard they made another version of the software that would distinguish the sex of the person and alert the wearer when a female looked at them, useful in "social" situations. However, fields tests were unsuccessful as not a single female looked at the test subject during a 4 hour party.
  • In a recent episode of Alias, Sloan wore less conspicuous glasses and had to get eye contact with 5 people so as to collect their retina patterns which they used to access a retina scan security entrance.
  • A good example (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A little offtopic, but enough people whinge about badly submitted posts that I thought it would be worth thanking the submitter for clearly outlining the links to large files and videos as well as providing mirrors.

    Incidentally, I'm not normally the paranoid type, but video-(b)logging all face to face conversations? Seems a little risky/extreme. For the general public that is, as opposed to whacky cyborg professors. []
  • Engagement (Score:3, Funny)

    by ozbird ( 127571 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @07:20AM (#9171935)
    When eye contact is detected, the glasses stream this information to appliances to inform these about the wearer's engagement.

    I read this as "the contact's engagement."

    Bodybuilder boyfriend
    Single - WE HAVE A WINNER!
  • Just because you don't make eye contact with someone, doesn't mean you aren't having an important conversation. Some people are shy and don't make very much eye contact, so it would be really hard to auto-detect something like that.

    And besides, we all know that the only people who would want this are geeks, and the only people who could use this would not be people with friends. *coughMutualy Exclusive?cough*

  • Much better to have a "floor recognition system" or for those rare occassions, "boob recognition system" if you want to record conversations.

    In fact, how about a sensor that picks up the vibrations of your jawbone when you speak to turn on the camera instead of an "eye contact" camera.
  • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Robawesome ( 660673 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @08:11AM (#9172128) Journal

    eyeBlog uses this information to record and publish
    face-2-face conversations...(emphasis added)

    Get it through your heads, people: Numerals are not syllables and connot be substituted for them. "2" is NOT the same thing as "to". "1" cannot be substituted for the "one" in "someone". "4" is NOT the same thing as "for".

    If you are going to use these kinds of sloppy, illegible, ugly, non-standard substitutions, just go whole hog. No point in half measures. Example:

    eyeBlog uss ths in4m8ion 2 rec0rd n puhblihs face-2-face convers8ions w/o dvdng teh usrs attntion be2ween teh event bng rec0rded, n teh devIce bng usd 2 rec0rd it.

    Is that what you want? To sound like an illiterate 14 year old girl on AIM? Then understand it now: Numerals and syllables are not interchangable. When you act like they are, you cheapen the quality of life of everyone who accidentally reads your fetid heap of alphanumeric garbage.

    • I know you are joking, but shorthand notation online has evolved to make number substitutes for words (not parts of words necessarily, although there are exceptions) increasingly acceptably. So while "u 2" might be acceptable, "in4m8ion" would not be.

      The great thing about language is that it is highly flexible, and that even if you substitute numbers, people still understand you, and if used in certain ways, can even let you read things quicker.

    • eyeBlog uss ths in4m8ion 2 rec0rd n puhblihs face-2-face convers8ions w/o dvdng teh usrs attntion be2ween teh event bng rec0rded, n teh devIce bng usd 2 rec0rd it.

      So *you're* the one that's been filling my inbox with spam.
  • old news? (Score:3, Informative)

    by vivIsel ( 450550 ) on Monday May 17, 2004 @08:20AM (#9172184)
    The Context Aware Computing group at the MIT Media Lab produced Eye aRe [] years ago. These devices detect attention paid to another such unit (yes, everyone needs to be equipped with one, which is a difference from the canadian item), and not just staring in the general direction: There is a demo, for instance, wherein the wearer can look at a computer, which prompts it to unpause movie playback. Looking away--without turning of the head, eyes only--repauses the movie (this is insanely hard to demo without sound; you can't really tell if it has paused or not when you're looking away, so you look back at it. oops.). The Eye-Are units are certainly smaller, at the very least. To be fair, they're using different technologies, but the optical advanced-ness of the canadian unit seems wasted on a supid application. The usefulness of having inanimate objects--say, appliances--know where you're looking, when, and how (the Eye aRe detects blinking, an increase of which can signal any number of things) seems to dwarf that of some hyper-blogging solution. Both devices, of course, offer a sort of unconscious appliance-control possiblilties, but one is much smaller, and cheaper to manufacture (namely, the Eye aRe).
    • One could argue that some sort of unviersal remote control would be more smaller, cheaper, etc, and nearly effective. The advantage of the Canadian device is that it is something to be incorporated into the appliance without requiring any extra hardware on the user's end, while MIT's requires the user to be wearing the Eye aRe. Given that it's a technology which is supposed to allow greater integration of other technology into our lives through promoting a somewhat more passive control scheme, the requireme
  • now, if they adapt this technology to womens bra's and underware.

    then no more free looks?

  • That tremor ... about 85 bad science-fiction screenplays have been started as of 5am...

  • Does it have software to filter out small mammals with the uncanny ability to stare down a mirror? Have they tried it the presence of cats?

    My first thought, by the way, was for it to detect when people were averting their gaze. "He's lying", the eyePhone whispered into my ear, "he's only making eye contact for 20% of his statements".

    Have it measure pupil dilation and a few other things and you'll have a heck of a Date Meter. Things were looking up, until my eyePhone's warning buzzer went off. "Pupil dilation reduces 5% every time he makes eye contact, and increases 30% when he looks over your left shoulder." I glanced back to see who my competition was...
  • by Anonymous Coward
    The typical socially awkward geek doesn't MAKE eye contact, so how would this work then?
  • Eye contact (Score:3, Funny)

    by bromoseltzer ( 23292 ) * on Monday May 17, 2004 @09:54AM (#9172796) Homepage Journal
    The other half of this project is eyeglasses that make eye contact with other people in the room. So we can go through life staring at the floor in social situations...
  • So, if the wearer of these has eye contact made by someone else wearing these, neither would work, because if the dark sunglasses?

    They actually prevent each other from working?
  • by Ra5pu7in ( 603513 ) <> on Monday May 17, 2004 @12:20PM (#9174170) Journal
    I find that a lot of people do not maintain eye contact during a conversation - particularly in a situation with many people around. First of all, there are those who will make eye contact as they say hello, but from then on their eyes are scanning the crowd for people they haven't greeted. Secondly, those who are shy or uncomfortable tend to meet eyes rarely and look down more than at the person they are speaking to. Finally, some people just don't seem to be able to hold eye contact -- it is threatening, or some such thing -- and might glance once or twice in your direction while talking. Seems like an awful lot of conversations to lose. (OTOH, great-aunt Josephine is fully willing to maintain eye contact - and physical contact - while she tells you all about her physical ailments. Ack!)
  • by NoData ( 9132 ) <> on Monday May 17, 2004 @12:34PM (#9174293)
    The thing is, men make eye contact to initiate a conversation, but usually do NOT maintain eye contact throughout the conversation. It's a well known ethological fact that men look away often during conversations, sometime conducting entire face to face conversations without almost no eye contact. It's a primal aggression thing: looking away signals submission, trust, or goodwill, while holding gaze is a challenge. The same does not generally hold true for women, or men talking to women. Eye contact is held much more consistently.

    Notice next time you're talking to a male colleague. Feel the discomfort if you try to prolong eye contact. Then compare when talking to a woman.

    Oh, wait. This is Slashdot....
  • ...will wearers of these glasses, with center-mounted camera, start to contract Optigrab [] syndrome? []
  • This is only mildly related, but some years ago I heard about a device which sits in your shoe, generates tiny amounts of electricity via piezo-electrics, and when you shake someone's hand (who is wearing a similar device), the settling of the potential difference between you and that person is used to exchange a few bytes of data - in effect, a business card through a handshake. I haven't heard anything of is since.
  • by truthgun ( 62387 )
    This is gonna suck for us with nystagmus [].
    Ah well, perhaps in my next life. =)
  • until i saw the video. Interesting concept in how it works, but I guess any two eyeBloggers can't talk to each other and expect it to work or talk to anybody wearing sunglasses either. Not to mention people talking when they aren't making eye contact. I'm surprised they aren't recording always (a la Steve Mann and his Wearable Computer camera) and associate the eye contact with a pitch of a persons voice to tag potential conversation that occured pre- or post-eye contact; if that's possible of course. I

Vitamin C deficiency is apauling.