victor. >> welcome to al jazeera. i'm john siegenthaler. here are the headlines. a potential solution has been placed by russia, it wants the chemical weapons to be put under international control and destroyed. jeact john kerry suggested it could avoid a strike if it turned over all of its weapons by the end of the week. president obama called the russian proposal a potential break through. during an interview with television networks the president remains skeptical, and he's not confident that congress wi to authorize a strike.

the president will appear before congress to lobby for action, and address the american people on tuesday night. he hasn't said what he will do if congress won't support strikes. in an interview with cbs on monday, bashar al-assad said the u.s. should expect the worst. those are the headlines add this hour. consider this is coming up next on al jazeera. i'll see you back here at 11:00 eastern time and remember you can get all your news at aljazeera.com. >> an off hand remark on syria

by secretary of state john kerry, consider this: can president obama really trust the russian offer? and with several white house reversals in recent weeks would the u.s. lose respect with anything but intervention? meanwhile the senate and house aren't buying what the white house is selling on syria at least not yet. with growing opposition on a strike, where does syria stand as u.s. could be on the verge of firing on their home land. how the old version of the american dream is changing. plus papelbo apple is going pub. the technology rat race moves along, are we the consumer any better off. hello i'm antonio mora, welcome

to consider this. a political gaff that secretary kerry was qui quick to dismiss t will al jazeera kourtney keeley. >> he could turn over all of his chemical weapons to the international community turn it over all of it. >> an apparent off the cuff comment specifying what syrian president bashar al-assad needs to do to prevent international intervention. >> he's not about to do it, it can't be done obviously. >> but sergei lavrov seized on the possibility. >> we called on syrian leadership to not only place the stockpile of consequence under international control but to destroy them.

and fully join in the prohibition in chemical weapons. >> announced lavrov would begin working with the syrian government. the syrian government welcomed the russian proposal. >> syria welcomes the russian proposal out of concern for lives of the syrian people. >> kerry phoned lavrov soon after to clarify that his words were not a u.s. proposal. president obama now says there can be no stalling or delaying tactics, but kerry will continue a dialogue with russia. the obama administration's campaign to secure approval from congress to authorize force against syria remains an uphill battle. the most recent polls show americans are opposed to a strike against syria syria surg5

points, the president will speak from the white house on tuesday because pressure needs to be kept up. but the pressure remains on him. once a strength for him has slipped to 33%. only 29% approve of obama's handling of syria in particular. >> administration not only this one. >> a rare interview with charlie rose and unrepenaltiant bashar al-assad warned of repercussions from any american intervention. >> direct when the people want to retaliate, indirect when you are going ohave instability and the spread of terrorism all over the region that will influence the west directly. >> assad dismissed u.s. intelligence find that is his country used consequence in a damascus suburbs late in august. but the horrors continue to seize the headlines.

with more than 100,000 now dead, one of the worst refugee crisis in modern history according to the united nations, and no peaceful solution in sight. courtney k keeley, are al jazeea new york. >> with us is lally waymouth, she has interviewed both bashar al-assad and his father, haffas al assad. we have scheduled a number of these interviews even before the latest development. hereis what we told abc news diane sawyer, if bashar al-assad actually gave up his chemical weapons stockpile. judge absolutely if in fact that happened. and so i consider this a modestly positive development. i don't think that we would have gotten to this point unless we

had maintained a credible possibility of a military strike. and i don't think now is the time for us to let up on that. >> ambassador do you agree with the president om both of those -- on both of those points that a modestly decent proposal3 and it wouldn't have happened without the threat of a strike? >> do i in general. the russians have not been, put it this way, the soul of consistency in recent days. lavrov jumped at this. let us see if he can produce something. it's an opening and it has to be obviously followed up but i also agree with the president, now is not the time to back off. as difficult as it is, if he's made progress thus far by in fact being convincing, on the question of the use of military force, then he needs to have this in his hand. as a trigger he can pull if in fact this is just a stalling

tactic or a diversionary effort. >> lally, do you think the president's threat of strike made all the difference here? >> i don't know if it made all the difference but america's credibility is in jeopardy. i do agree with ambassador pickerring. even the south koreans called the white house and said please, please get this through because remember what north korea could do to us. and i think iran is watching. many countries are watching to see. and this astonishing feat of the congress really not backing the congress in the use of force, even though he, assad has used consequence. >> the congressional vote has been postponed. but certainly ambassador it doesn't look terribly likely that congress will support the president. we'll see how things pan out this week. secretary kerry dismissed the idea that bashar al-assad would

surrender his consequence, in the press conference he was giving. syria said they welcomed it pretty much everybody else is saying they hope something will happen and that this idea will have some merit. goes it seem to you as -- does its seem to you that there is almost a desperation to find some way out of this situation in syria? >> there are people who are deeply concerned, some of the ramifications of military action aren't particularly appetizing. nevertheless if it can move a process forward then now is not the time to withdraw our relinquish the possibility. i think it's worth exploring but not endlessly what the russians have jumped on here as a way to move forward. they themselves are beginning to realize that the process we are engaged in only perpetuates the

conflict. i would like to see forward progress ending assad's use of consequence certainly at this direction, but i would like to see it linked to political discussions, however ephemeral and distant they may be, the only prospect of ending the killing, ending the radicalization of the conflict and ending the destabilization of the middle east. >> one interesting thing that happened today is after kerry made his comments early in the day the first reaction was, this is a tree gaff, that he had made a mistake. if this ends up working out and prevents a military strike, this could be one of the most successful gaffes in military history. >> i think that is true. >> it may be but consistency is not necessarily the heart, the central focus of this administration. it's been up and down and all around. we really has to listen to the president, he has the last word, he is the one who is paid to do

that. but the president has come forward and said he would like to explore this but not endlessly and not at the expense of the congress. >> i would say that. but going back to your point i think secretary kerry has been quite outstanding in this whole crisis. his testimony before congress was quite impressive. >> he dismissed his own words, but he said oh well that probably won't happen. >> he has a point bought even the deputy national security advisor has said, syria took a long time admit it even had consequence, let alone put it under international controls. member they were supposed to go to geneva, and iran sent in more power and the balance of power changed on the ground. >> let's talk about lavrov and how he responded to the kerry comment. he picked up on it quickly and

responded with enthusiasm, if the implement of international control over the chemical weapons will prevent attacks, we will begin to work in damascus and we are counting on a quick and i hope positive answer. why do you think kerry's casual offer appealed so much to the russians ambassador? >> well, i think russians see this as a dead end for their policy. and i think that it's been important, they've suddenly realized that they can't continue to keep on the way they are, financing a sense of killing machine at the same time destabilizing the region they hope to invest in. so i think this is at least an opportunity. >> true but until now they had seemed to be -- to have no problem being obstructionist. >> i agree. >> they have up until now. although at some sense, i was in russia in april and the russians were interested then in seeing the question move ahead. kerry saw them a month later.

and they seemed to be interested in moving ahead. russia has its own kind of schizophrenia on this issue as well. seemingly i think it was interesting, lavrov doesn't pick up quickly if putin is not behind him. lavrov wouldn't do anything out there individually. it may be kerry's throw away and lavrov's pickup had something, whether this was a carefully articulated effort. >> i think that's a good point. i heard the president say in one of the interviews that actually he had discussed it previously with russian president putin. >> how does this come out of nowhere? >> i think tom pickerring is suggesting it hasn't come out of nowhere. >> aren't you concerned this is just a delaying tack tactic on both the syrian part and russian

part? >> absolutely. they delayed talks endlessly while they created more and more enrichard uranium to make bombs of course. >> -- enriched urine to make bombs. >> he told reporters that the russian rhetoric does not match their activity on the ground they are going to have to prove they mean it. you know the russians well, you were ambassador there. do you think the u.s. and the allies will impose a really tight deadline to force the reiterations han--the russians d to really progress talks on this? >> the quote you just ran so it doesn't seem to me that we're now falling into a situation of an endles endless slep endless .

in principle if not in rhetoric on this particular thing that this should not be something that lasts forever. lavrov seemed to be kind of packing his bag and getting ready to go. i think we have to give it a little while to see whether in fact this is just a one night stand or whether in fact tomorrow morning we wake up and there seems to be an effort to make progress. i'm delighted the president has asked kerry to stay in touch with lavrov. that's the best channel and a channel that can quibltion determinquicklydetermine if we t square one. >> most egregiously in the runup of the gulf war, years and years of inspectors going to inspect iraq and still a war. >> they actually delayed i think the senate vote.

>> yes, it's been postponed until thursday. >> i would say it's unfortunate for administration and the house vote from what we can see in the papers and the polls looks very, very poor in the administration. the russians have thrown the -- >> i think lally, the delay was not unfortunate if it's a sure loser. there are two outcomes. the russians can produce something and it can go ahead and then i think we should certainly put the trigger in place so that if he violates it, we have the opportunity to do what we intend to do now. and if it doesn't work we have the trigger in hand so we don't have to worry about it. but it seems to me those are the two outcomes and a congressional option is important to reinforce both. >> you have to pull the trigger, and so far he hasn't got be the tritrigger. >> i hope this would lead us in the direction of some clarity, about what we need to make this process move. >> all right well thank you very

much. both of you. the two big questions are of course one, will they be willing to turn over those chemical weapons and two, given that they have possibly more than most nations that have consequence, they supposedly have massive amounts how to get those under control and get them back. thank you both for being with us, appreciate your time. coming up how do syrian americans feel about the possible imredgesz on their soil? -- impression on their soil? our social media director hermella aregawi is fielding those questions. please place your feelings on facebook and twitter, we'll be right back.

>> the critic on capitol hill on whether to intervene in syria has been postponed to later this week. but the fightings inside syria rages on, inflaming passions of syrian on whether the u.s. should attack the assad regime. dueling passions show that the country isn't the only divided. we are seeing a growing number of anti-violence syrian-americans. >> worried about what's going to happen in syria. they have the people choked and all damascus now waiting for any bombs. >> but many other syrian americans desperately want the tows strike. >> we consider assad as a murderer, more people are dying. and if anybody has human sense he should help strike this guy. >> joining me now are tina

ramani, who attended a prou.s. intervention rally today in front of the capitol building, in washington, d.c, he is in washington tonight and jumana hadid, a syrian american who more than held her own against senator john mccain, joins us from phoenix arizona. she is against american intervention. you are out on strike against syria today, your group is using to lobby congress to intervene. this is something you said. >> if you are really against the war, you should support u.s. strikes to end the war. >> are you hoping to get the congress to vote yes? >> first of all thank you so much for having me open the show. of course advocacy is an important part of being americans and having our right as americans. and for us, as syrian americans,

we've seen over the past two and a half years a -- in the words of john mccain, a brutal, brutal dictator, who is -- who is i'm sorry i forget the exact words. john mccain had words that he used in the town hall. john mccain and many others have characterized bashar al-assad as a merciless brutal dictator who has been killing his own people in the past two and a half years, over 120,000 people have been killed. for us as syrian americans to have seen these people being killed, we want our voice to be heard, we want an end to the war and we do believe that the u.s. intervention is necessary in order to end the war in syria. >> you're speaking about ending the war but the administration has repeatedly talked about doing just pinprick strikes a very limited attack on syria so

they're not talking about regime change, they're not talking about ending the war. >> the strikes which would degrade bashar al-assad's capabilities to use chemical weapons would be the right step at this point. because these chemical weapons, first of all they're banned internationally under the chemical weapons convention of the united nations. but the manner in which they kill, they kill children, they kill women, they can't discriminate between fighters and noncombatants and as we all saw and as i saw when i was sitting in syria on august 21st when the consequence attacks happened, the videos were absolutely heartbreaking. and children suffocating to death. spasming and uttering their last words and -- >> it's horrifying. and jamana, you have a dirchghtd opinion. are you -- a different opinion.

are you convince they'd the assad regime used those against his own people and those horrors that we saw in the videos? >> based on the evidence that's been presented to us, i cannot say that this was compelling evidence. clearly, unfortunately, someone used chemical weapons. chemical gas. but we don't know who. and where. and why. and i think for us to jump to conclusions, before allowing the united nations to present their findings, i think it's rather foolish. >> well, you said your peace to senator mccain in a little bit of a confrontation. i want to show a clip from the town hall that you attended with him. >> senator mccain, enough is enough! we do not want another engagement in the middle east and we refuse to be forced to leave and flee, and be

considered a collateral damage. [applause] >> thank you very much, but to say that bashar asad is anything but a butcher, we have a strong disagreement. >> you should point out you are not a big fan of assad's but what do you think of senator mccain's answer? >> i think senator mccain for him to label another president as obutcher, i think that's -- i am not a politician. and i am not -- >> but with so much evidence of brutality in the past, not just now during the civil war -- >> in the past i mean this particular president bashar al-assad, i don't think he butchered anybody but his country is under attack by centermercenaries and extremisto are coming to the region just to kill. and i think he has every right to defend his people and to

defend the country. >> keenan your response to that? >> as germana knows, there are a lot of syrian protesting since march 15th, many of them included children, many of them included christians. the assad regime responded to them by shooting at them with snipers by shooting at them with tanks. >> i am not so sure that everything is credible that what we've been seeing actually unfortunately so many news media are not reporting the news. they are making the news. i mean so therefore -- >> fortunately the syrian refltion is one of the--revolution is one of the most well documented uprising in history and there are youtube videos showing syrian regime tanks firing at peaceful

protestors. >> i'm not disagreeing with you that sneeps. that [simultaneous speech] >> jermana admits that there have been atrocities. what do you think should be done then? because we do have 120,000 or so dead, we have millions of refugees. it is a humanitarian disaster. what should be done? >> absolutely. and i have to remind everyone too, that this 100,000 victims, they are not just from the rebel side. the majority of them are from the syrian military, unfortunately. >> absolutely. i think the numbers i've seen is that the majority are not from the syrian military but certainly tens of thousands are from the syrian military. >> clearly there are innocent people who died in this war from both sides and i am not taking one side against the other. i am advocate of peace and what i am saying right here, we cannot really go back and say

how things escalated to this level. like i said, any president of any country in any army of any country, if they are bombarded by terrorists to come and destroy and kill innocent people, i think they have the right to retaliate. and again i am not saying they're some -- there's some innocent people in syria who really in the beginning wanted a true change and they wanted to reform the government. and they have every right and i am for one, is one of those people too, that i was hoping that we will have a quick reform, and this -- this conflict will end quickly. but unfortunately, due to some outsiders, specifically, countries like saudi arabia, who they were funding those rebels, and paying them to come and

destroy the country and kill innocent people and this is not acceptable for a foreign country to do that to another sovereign country. >> but on the other hand keenan isn't there ample evidence of historical atrocities by bashar al-assad? >> i mean the assad regime since haffas assad came to regime and killed many in the army and in 1982 there was a brutal massacre in hammah that thousands of people were killed -- >> that was the father, judge not the man judge his father. i'm speaking to you as syrians defending syria. we need to think of the country. >> absolutely. protesting against the assad regime since day one, since

march 14th, 2011, for democracy, piece and justice for syria. this is not a regime that understands justice. they killed christian activists, and they killed -- >> i understand but the point is right now what do we do now? i don't want to talk about what happened in the past two years. >> you can't jump into the conflict today, without being able to assess it in the context of the past three years. you have -- >> are you talking about -- >> you have a dictator who has the blood of 120,000 people on his hands. >> okay let me -- we have a question from a viewer that i want to get to before we finish this. let's go to jamilla, give me one second, we want to go to are her mel la. >> thank you, a viewer ot

twitter says, why is it u.s.'s job to fix other countries' probes, will syria help us with ours? how would you respond? >> i want to answer as -- in as much solidarity with you as possible. i don't think it should be the u.s.'s job to police the world. we have a body called the united nations which has accepted a responsibility to protect are people from genocide. unfortunately due to russia's intervention in the united nations security council they have not even been able to pass a resolution condemning the assad regime for its two and a half years of merciless killing in syria. around because the u.s. hasn't been able to do anything on syria, it is our duty, as kerry put it -- there is a moral -- >> the united nations was created to keep peace in the world. >> i'm sorry, jermana, the

united nations is not able to keep peace in syria as long as russia continues to veto every single resolution. it is the job of other countries which have a moral conscience and can see ma that when 1400 people are gassed to death that we cannot sit by and -- >> we do not know for sure who used those consequenc chemical n those people. >> i'm going to have to leave it there, clearly the american people among them the syrian americans seem to be very divided over what america should do in syria and i very much appreciate both of you going on and giving us your perspective. thank you very much. why are so many americans are bolting for urban life and what does it mean for the american

dream?

>> ever since soldiers came home in waves, marriage children and good schools epitomized the american dream. even lucy convinced ricky to

leave the city for connecticut. >> you will have to speak up dear, i can't hear a thing over that city noise. why don't you sit down? i'm going to put our poor little city child to bed in his dusty little room. >> consider this. as we examine this suburban ideal, is that still the dream? joining me to discuss all this is lee gallagher, the assistant manager of fortune magazine and the end of a dream where is america leaving. lee, thank you for being here. >> thank you so much. >> the first time of 20 years, more people moving to the cities than the suburbs, why is that happening? >> the rate of growth in the exurbs had slowed, and then the first time in about 90 years the pace of population growth in the cities grew faster than any of

the outlying suburbs. this was a transformative event. >> are you seeing the days of ozzie and harriet and leave it to beaver are gone? >> our world has changed so much but one of the points i make in the book is that the suburbs started out as one thing. in postworld war ii america, it was that era. the wonder years, ozzie and harriet, all the iconic images that we know, they grew and expanded and grew and grew and grew and that looks like a lot more like the tv show weeds. they went to the village like homey communities to the sort of sprawl model based on strip malls and wide roads and cul-de-sacs. >> and further and further away from the urbs that they were supposed to be connected to.

>> from their jobs their friends getting a gallon of milk. the sprawl spaced people so far apart, california's inland empire where people are doing 70, 80 mile commutes every day, taking hours and hours each way. this is a railway of life that's not sustainable for many people. and partly because of the great recession and housing bust and partly because of the realization that this isn't the way people are wanting to live their lives. >> you have a series of causes you put in the book that you think are triggering all of this, one of it is the distances that are involved, also because of the distances the rise of the gas prices, are making it tougher and tougher to be in those farther suburbs. but you are also talking about increase in crime in the suburbs something that you don't think of normally. >> there were a number of reversals, where one thing used to go one way in the suburbs and one way in the cities just went

the other way. poverty is rising in the cities and dropping in the suburbs. >> residents in 2010 were living below the poverty line. that's ostriking number. >> it is, record number. and at the same time, you're seeing crime levels increase in some suburbs and they're plummeting in cities. you are seeing all things in the suburbs that you didn't think you used to see there. things like crime and gangs and all sorts of things. that's because the suburbs have grown so much, they all resemble are all of america, good or bad. >> talking about the poverty, poor people are moving into these exurbs because you can get property cheaper. >> drive till you qualify mania, they wanted the biggest house they could buy which usually meant people on lower incomes

going further and temperatures away from it, taking toll on people's wallets. people spend more on transportation than the cost of housing on a monthly basis. >> you had some really striking numbers. by 2025, an estimated 22% of hoaxtion would not contain children. , by 2025 there would possibly be more single person households than families. >> single person households are one of the fastest growing types of households in the nation. and it is true that the birth rate is falling in this country. which i don't think is necessarily a good thing. but the suburbs are turning into less the place where every single house is a mother, father, two children, that's not what all families are going to be, and there are more aging and baby boomers and senior citizens than there are families with younger children. >> three quarters of adults in

the 80 ps were married and -- 80' were married and in 2025 there won't be. >> those families aren't really going to be there to fill these houses, it will be other types of households to fill those houses and they are maybe not going to want to liver in those locations, a single person household or family without children might not care about the school or want to be there. >> you bring up the retirement age, people with baby boomers, now you have people between 45 and 64 in the suburbs than between 25 and 44. so it's really an aging of the suburbs and the question is going to be what happens when all those baby boomers end up retiring if there's not going to be a market for their houses? again it is something you raise. is it going to be amajor retirement problem for baby boomers? >> we are seeing baby boomers stay in their houses rather than

leaving, partially due to the housing crisis and financial crisis, a lot of them don't want to stay there. however you vacate out, we are looking at really a pretty serious imbalance between supply and demand, the kinds of houses that we are going to have built and the kinds of houses that we are going to need to fill the trends that are happening in a demographic nature are only going to accelerate. >> on a positive note though, won't people want to get out of the cities when they have a lot of kids? >> they do and this theory is not that everyone is going orush into a 40 story skyscraper in manhattan. people in america like their suburbs but they just like them a little bit closer to the things they need to do every day and they need walk places or at least drive your car and park it and take a stroll. >> the hope that this new urbanism going back to celebration florida or seaside florida you bring up a place in

maryland, kentlands, where you have these little downtowns in these suburbs where you have town houses or small apartment house wrest people can live closer in and have restaurants and shops and even traditional neighborhoods are creating those in their own areas. >> they want to get a short drive or walk to get a cup of coffee, is that too much to ask? millions of people can't do that without going ten or 15 or sometimes 20 miles. there are studies going on within the suburbs where you can have that lively kind of village, where there's stuff going on, where you can bump into someone where you are not at the strip mall or the stop n shop. >> we have a question from viewer. hermella. >> dan castro wants to know what will burb versus city mean,

smart drive cars delivery advance and hyperloops? are there environmental benefits in the shift towards more densely populated areas? >> that's a great question. there definitely are environmental benefits. there is a talk about driverless cars, a lot of people in the silicon valley area talking about that happen. this is a more sustainable way of existence. the closer thing you need to do every day is more environmentally friendly, one of the biggest assets is time. so it gives you more time back in your day. but the thing about driving that's interesting is that the younger generation is getting their driver's licenses in far fewer numbers than maybe you and i did. when i turned 16 it was the very first thing to do. and now i quote somebody in the book whose daughter turned 16. he said ready to go to the dmv and she said maybe next year. maybe next year? there are sweeping changes that are happening that really

collectively, foretell of a different future. >> ieft i've got a 16-year-old. it would be greatly interesting to see what america looks like in 2025 when even more of these demographic changes have taken place. lee gallagher thank you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> it's the end of the suburbs and available wherever books are sold. lee gallagher is the author. after the break the new iphones are coming how long will apple wait? a broader look at the technology you use every day. we'll be right back.

>> with tuesday's launch of apple's new iphones our data dive kicks on gadgets and how soon will your shiny phone feel like a ridiculously slow old piece of junk. apple announced its 2007, and people marveled of its. then 2008, the first version seemed a little bit slow. then 11 months, 3g s and we got siri a whopping 16 months later with the four s. you get the picture. now comes the iphone 5 s and 5c so apple lovers will be dying to upgrade. buy back programs can soften the financial glow, are giving you a few bucks to $500 to buy your

next piece of hardware, and a lot of you will, a lot. from april to june of this year there were more iphones sold every day in the world than babies were born. also with sox people using their iphones for cameras and watches those industries took a hit. estimates show that more than 1.6 trillion pictures are taken each year, a number that's widelwidely believed to have gop since then. global shipments of traditional cameras, olympus alone lost $235 million of camera business in the past fiscal year. many people abandoned their watches using their smartphones to tell time. now smartphones are headed to their wrist, samsung just

announced the gla galaxy gear w. coming up we'll have a closer look at all the changing technology being unveiled this year and how much of a radical shift we are about to face over the next few years.

>> the new iphone 5 s and 5c, will be announced necessary tuesday. next wednesday we heard about the samsung galaxy gear, available to everyone on september 25th. google glass was made available to a chosen few earlier this year. the rest of us will be able to get it next year. with all the competitive gadgets companies are offering us, are consumers better off, do we need all of this stuff? joining me from san francisco is tim stevens, c net editor at large. and from los angeles, gary small, professional of biology and behavioral sciences, the author of ibrain, surviving the technology modern brain. what should we expect from the

new iphones on tuesday? >> as we said, we are expecting two new iphones, the 5 s and 5 c. faster processor probably abetter camera. the one gotcha we're expecting is a fingerprint sensor. certainly a lot easier than typing in a four digit pin code. 5c is what we're hearing it referred to as, a lower cost device, available in different colors with a polycarbonate back. lower cost iphone and hopefully expanding apple's reach around the globe. >> and parents who don't have to pay so much for breaking their iphones so much right? >> indeed. >> we mentioned earlier there

are more iphones purchased every day than there are babies born worldwide. why do we seem to get so excited and care so much about these apple announcements and apple products? >> they are really designed to make our brains happy. we spend hours online playing with our devices. and if we see there's a new device that makes our brain even happier. we may not even need it and it may not be as useful as the last version of the device but we're still going oget it. >> well talking about new, the man behind sam sunday's new watch says this is a feature with that changes the way we interact, capture and tell us about the samsung gear, sit something we are all going to want? >> i think at some point. yeah. it is a little early for the smart watches, there is a new

generation coming out with high res displays and color displays. they don't replace your phone in any way, this is just another way to get to the information that's on your phone. the samsung device will let you read your text messages from your phone, do run keeper, if you use trip it you can look at your flight information or use it to get directions to the hotel. it's giving you information but not a full into the internet like your smartphone does. it augments your phone and lets you get to a lot of information quickly but if you need to do a deep dive into that information you need to pull your phone out of your pocket. >> it works in conjunction for the phone. you have to pay for the watch pay for the phone. doesn't it get a little pricey for what it's worth? >> it's expensive, we're talking about $300 with the galaxy gear

and it works with the glax galay note. that's in the $600 range. this is the first of the new generation of smart launches so it's really for early adopters now. the next year will be a version of $200, then down to $149 and then down to $99 before too long. by that time, the phones will be thinner with better technology. really to get into it the hands of the people who have got a little bit extra money to spend and need the latest and greatest. >> dick tracy wanted a watch like his to do all sorts of things. but what do you think from the mind of the psychiatrist, what do you think this kind of thing will do to people? >> there are risks and benefits of all the new technology. first thing that comes to mind

was, the other day i was at a play and it seemed a little long so i glanced at my own low-tech watch momentarily and my wife noticed it. so i think the nonverbal cues, the behaviors that come about when we use these devices will have an effect on our relationships. it already is. people sit down with their smartphones and they're not talking to each other, they're checking their twitter feeds, i think that will add to the problems. on the other hand it will be nice, it will be convenient and people will find there are certain types of tools that they like to use on their watch on their smart glasses or anything they're using just as they do today. but there is some frustration. you've got a tablet you've got a laptop you've got a desktop and you've got a smart phone and smart watch and smart glass hes.

>> the smart watch is going to have a built in camera, battery life of up to a day, pretty substantial memory storage, bluetooth and wifi. what do you think about this tim, do you think people are going to be interested enough in wearing these glasses on their heads and what sort of social situations will these be creating? you're going to be talking to your glasses, a very odd thing to see people talking to themselves. >> in many ways. in some sense we have gotten used to that with ballot headsets. i spent a few months wearing google glass. now you have a camera on your head, and the connectivity of streaming this to the internet. in fact the early versions of

glass, could you take a picture by blinking. you can imagine the kind of querns that that sort of functionality could arise. there is potential from google glass, to see information, to look up directions, to pick up restaurant reviews, give me directions to a sushi place nearby or a great burrito restaurant or something like that. the problem with glass in my eye, it's a little bit too big, little bit too bulky, it's not the thing that people want to have on their face all day long. >> they'll get it smaller but gary the title of your book was surviving the technological modern mind. it seems to me these glasses would modify the modern mind more than anything else. >> these things seem strange ous when we look at them initially.

but 30 years ago, who would imagine that we would be walking around with personal hand held computers that would allow us to speak with anyone in the world and look up nir information we want. so the rapid pace of technological innovation is something that boggles the mind and we want it and crave it. >> we've got a viewer question. hermella. >> thank you antonio. it's becoming nearly impossible out of using technology in everyday life. he asks is this by design and why? >> that's a very good question actually. it's going to get hardener this new generation of devices. as i mentioned google glass is a camera built in. not only are you able to opt out, someone else wearing this device is opting you in. it's going obe harder to opt out of this technology for sure and in terms of the expectations a

lot of offices and managers will be expecting you to check e-mail which wasn't the case a few years ago. valuing convenience above all things, it's harder to push it away. >> privacy will be our concern. .tim only ten seconds left. do you think google glass will be successful? >> i think it will but i think it will take a few years to get there. >> really appreciate your conversation in joining us tonight and we certainly would like to have you back once these things are out there a lot of people have them to see how people react. so again thank you very much for being with us. the show may be over but the conversation continues on lj dom