The video shows goggles that completely block vision and a camera mounted in front of them to transmit a live image into the view screen. It’s the same NASA VIEW system from 1989.
If you read the text description you might get the impression of what something looks like without knowing what it really is. Eye blocking goggles are completely different than transparent eye glasses.
It’s functionally the same as a 1989 NASA VIEW system. The non transparent goggles are clearly visible in the video you linked. Under no circumstances would anyone confuse them for eye glasses.
I personally used ar glasses with greyed lenses, a projected miniature computer screen and a backpack just like those, so you won’t be convincing me any time soon that ar tech didn’t exist in the 2000s.
You want to change your definition further to secure a half point I’ve already given you since arc tech was actually but wasn’t mainstream, you go for it.
Dither all you like, it’s not changing the overall score of his predictions being largely correct.
Shoot, doesn’t even affect how overwhelmingly correct the predictions are on your “special rules” with the wrong dates list.
I can tell you’re serious, that’s why it’s such a bummer you can’t make any headway.
You seem so earnest but have all these assumptions you keep tripping over that facilitate you shooting yourself in the foot.
You constantly have to revise and change your “quotes”, guidelines and arguments to eke out over more flailing attempts where you swear, you swear, this one example will really shiw that kurzweil was in fact not one hundred percent correct on every prediction(which nobody is trying to prove).
You want to change your criteria further to secure a half point I’ve already given you hair a dozen comments ago since AR was available but wasn’t mainstream, you go for it.
Dither all you like, it’s not changing the overall score of kurzweil predictions being largely correct.
Shoot, doesn’t even affect how overwhelmingly correct the predictions are on your “special rules” with the wrong dates list.
Definitely doesn’t affect my original argument that kurzweil was correct about “tons of his predictions”.
I had no idea kurzweil was over 80% correct though even narrowly as you’re interpreting them, so thanks.
Sure. You might like these then:
2004: An outdoor helmet-mounted AR system was demonstrated by Trimble Navigation and the Human Interface Technology Laboratory (HIT lab).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL3C-OVQKWU
Boy, this seems difficult for you.
Goggles aren’t eyeglasses. Those are goggles. NASA had the VIEW ar system in 1989.
https://youtu.be/TY8CyUQOncc?si=zIeWUGSwlavoQLA_
It’s not a prediction if it existed 10 years earlier.
These are eyeglasses
https://www.meta.com/smart-glasses/wayfarer-shiny-black-clear
Eyeglasses for the reading impaired:
2004: An outdoor helmet-mounted AR system was demonstrated by Trimble Navigation and the Human Interface Technology Laboratory (HIT lab).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL3C-OVQKWU
Those are goggles not eyeglasses. AR goggles were invented in 1968. NASA AR goggles were invented in 1989.
Fail.
Those are glasses, but you can tomato whichever tomato you choose.
The video shows goggles that completely block vision and a camera mounted in front of them to transmit a live image into the view screen. It’s the same NASA VIEW system from 1989.
Fail.
No, it’s not.
Pass
I’m actually serious, are you visually impaired?
If you read the text description you might get the impression of what something looks like without knowing what it really is. Eye blocking goggles are completely different than transparent eye glasses.
It’s functionally the same as a 1989 NASA VIEW system. The non transparent goggles are clearly visible in the video you linked. Under no circumstances would anyone confuse them for eye glasses.
I personally used ar glasses with greyed lenses, a projected miniature computer screen and a backpack just like those, so you won’t be convincing me any time soon that ar tech didn’t exist in the 2000s.
You want to change your definition further to secure a half point I’ve already given you since arc tech was actually but wasn’t mainstream, you go for it.
Dither all you like, it’s not changing the overall score of his predictions being largely correct.
Shoot, doesn’t even affect how overwhelmingly correct the predictions are on your “special rules” with the wrong dates list.
I can tell you’re serious, that’s why it’s such a bummer you can’t make any headway.
You seem so earnest but have all these assumptions you keep tripping over that facilitate you shooting yourself in the foot.
You constantly have to revise and change your “quotes”, guidelines and arguments to eke out over more flailing attempts where you swear, you swear, this one example will really shiw that kurzweil was in fact not one hundred percent correct on every prediction(which nobody is trying to prove).
You want to change your criteria further to secure a half point I’ve already given you hair a dozen comments ago since AR was available but wasn’t mainstream, you go for it.
Dither all you like, it’s not changing the overall score of kurzweil predictions being largely correct.
Shoot, doesn’t even affect how overwhelmingly correct the predictions are on your “special rules” with the wrong dates list.
Definitely doesn’t affect my original argument that kurzweil was correct about “tons of his predictions”.
I had no idea kurzweil was over 80% correct though even narrowly as you’re interpreting them, so thanks.
I know, right?
You keep saying 1999 as if that was the year kurzweil made these predictions instead of the year the book was published.
You dang went and made a mistake again that refutes your own points again!