Slashdot Mirror
Theater Chain Bans Google Glass
mpicpp sends this report from Ars: A cinema chain announced Tuesday that it is now barring patrons from wearing Google Glass at its movie houses across the U.S. in a bid to clamp down on piracy. Alamo Drafthouse, which runs theaters in Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Texas, Virginia, and soon in California, is among the first U.S. chains to ban Google's computerized eyewear. 'Google Glass is officially banned from @drafthouse auditoriums once lights dim for trailers,' the chain's chief executive, Tim League, tweeted. The decision comes as Google has made the eyewear readily available to the general public, and it follows a slew of incidents in which wearers of Google Glass have had brushes with the law.
Hmm, previewing before posting makes sense; " and even better commercials "
Interesting, but even if we assume that the standard problems with google glasses are ignored/remediated like the GG's battery life when recording*, head movements and such, I could simply wear a button-up shirt with a camera in the pocket. A lot easier to sit still that way and get a good recording. Or better yet set the camera up away from me under an arm rest or something.
Besides, wasn't it found that most camcorder recordings of movies was coming from projector operators?
*Couldn't you run a cable to a supplemental battery pack?
I don't read AC A human right
It's inflammatory to say they are "banned" rather than "not allowed to be used". Banned implies that you cannot enter the theater with them... but "once the lights dim" implies you are allowed in, just not allowed to use them.
But don't pretend it'll help prevent piracy. Does anyone really expect someone to hold their head perfectly still and never look away from the screen to pirate a film? Of course not. Google Glass is invasive for a lot of reasons, but pirating movies in theaters is hardly a concern for them. It's easier to drop your cell phone in a cup holder pointed at the screen, and less obvious to boot. Not that I think many people are doing that, I suspect most decent cams come from theater employees.
The biggest single issue with 'banning' glass is that if/when it ever becomes remotely mainstream there will be a proportion of users (likely significant) who wear prescription glasses and who have no intention of carrying a spare 'non-glass' pair everywhere. As someone who wears glasses I know that if glass was near universally banned then I wouldn't buy it, but I would happily chose a different movie theatre or bar if some bars ban it and others don't. There's no risk of people recording films on it (it neither has the battery or camera quality) and anyone using it and distracting others can be dealt with the same as cellphone users. I know I, and expect the vast majority of users, would want it turned off to avoid having it interrupt our enjoyment of the film anyway.
Does google glass distract other people from viewing? Or is this just more paranoia about movie pirates masquerading as trendy tech-hate?
Yah, makes perfect sense to extend a ban to devices that distract from the viewing...after all, this is a place where (as in the Austin location) waitresses are taking orders and delivering food and beer throughout the whole movie!
Some of us certainly do mind when inconsiderate jerks think they're being clever and "discrtely checking there phone for a few seconds with the light dimmed". That's the thing: the franchise caters to people who actually want to watch the movie without kids/cellphoes/etc. From Wikipedia:
"When we adopted our strict no talking policy back in 1997 we knew we were going to alienate some of our patrons," [founder] Tim League posted on the cinema's website. "That was the plan. If you can't change your behavior and be quiet (or unilluminated) during a movie, then we don't want you at our venue."
Moral of the story - regulate your behavior or go somewhere else.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
How is it common sense to ban an emerging technology before it's even in the marketplace? Someone wearing GG does not impact your movie viewing in any way, unless you're just an intolerant douche. And what about when the technology comes around to let deaf people see subtitles in their HUD while watching the movie? There are all sorts of positive, enabling possibilities for this tech, but because of people like you with their self-absorbed mentalities, some may never see the light of day. Don't be such a reactionary twat.
Why in the world would you want to check your email, etc. if you're in the middle of watching a movie? No, I completely agree with Alamo Drafthouse from this one. There are really no good reasons to want to use Google glass in the theater other than discreet piracy. And it's not like you're completely banned from bringing the glasses into the building. You just have to put them away before the movie starts, and if something urgent came up and you needed to use your glasses, you could step out into the lobby and take care of it there.
I'm amazed that a head-mounted video camera has been banned from a venue that previously had a ban on video cameras. Same story with casinos.
It does if they want my continued business.
"their pretty nonsense" and "checking their phone" And yes, I do mind someone distracting me by "discretely" checking their phone. Because it's never "discrete". And Alamo is wildly popular here in Austin; not just with the petty movie-goers. Moral of the story: grow up and watch the movie.
Caught between my hatred for MPAA and my hatred for Google Glass... arghhh... don't..know..what..to..do..... SPLAT
I would guess the primary driver of this is not to ban annoying behavior but to prevent somebody from filming the screen to make and distribute cheap copies.
But I like your idea of subtitles via the glasses. Something that I have not thought off.
If they have banned noisy eaters as well, I would consider relocating and offer my patronage for each movie they show that I wish to see.
. .
If the device has flashing LEDs, bright backlights, etc., OK I see the point. If it simply bothers people that someone in there is a geek, then I'll just wait for someone to ban the gays, the blacks and my favorite annoyance, hipsters.
I don't own the device and it'll be a long time before I'm convinced it wouldn't make me sick, but "We don't want none of your kind here" isn't an emotion I sympathize with from any establishment for any reason.
There are several Austin locations, but they share that in common.
I mind.
This kind of technology is obviously going to evolve, and have better battery life, not to mention, increased miniaturization.
It's going to get interesting once people (other than CIA operatives) start wearing camera+audio recorder technology that masquerades as stylish jewelry, or a baseball cap http://www.amazon.com/Baseball....
I suspect that we're going to have to give up on being able to reliably ban such stuff.
That doesn't mean that certain uses of it won't still legitimately be considered douchebaggery.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Then they need to look at the employees. We did it up in the projection booth back in the VHS days. Only a morons would want a bootleg shot with what is basically a cameraphone on someone's head.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
their.
their.
their.
You managed to spell "their" each of the ways it's possible to spell it (they're, there, their), getting it right the statistical one chance in three. So, were you just guessing each time, or did you really think you were supposed to be using a different word each time?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
around here that shit will get ice/soda dumped on you
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Do they ban children and the demographic that talks to the screen?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Yes, can't have people pirating 20 year old movies. (If you've been to a draft house you know what I mean).
No we are shocked at the amazing lack of education people have when they act that way.
I personally have never had anything but a positive reaction and curiosity from people, I have NEVER had someone go all crazy and start screaming "STOP FILMING ME!" because it is insanely obvious when it is recording.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
if you are going to have rules about phone / device usage, they have to be black and white. you can't tell someone that they can use their phone, but not too long and how bright is too bright? everyone has an answer to that, and they are all different.
sort of like deciding not to set a speed limit and asking people not to go too fast.
What makes perfect sense is to ban them wherever tobacco is banned, basically in any public building, certain parks, and my house. Not that the issues are the same...HMMM...or are they?
Its like society at large has no fucking clue that google glass only has 45 minutes of battery life...
Go fuck yourself you egomaniac. Not everyone gives enough shits about you to get in your face filming you in public
because social media and a slew of reality tv shows has convinced many, many people that they are special snow-flakes who need to be in constant contact with the outside world, and that everything they do, see, think, feel is somehow relevant to anyone.
Though part of this is just due to declining decorum and manners in general. Maybe I'm getting old, but people just seem far, far more self absorbed and inconsiderate than when I was a kid.
see also:
-selfies
-photos of meals at restaurants
If your need for connection to your bffs or whatever the fuck they're calling it these days are so dire that you can't do without facebook/text/email for 2 hours, stay out of the theater. Put the cell phone down. It won't kill you, promise.
If the device has flashing LEDs, bright backlights, etc., OK I see the point. If it simply bothers people that someone in there is a geek, then I'll just wait for someone to ban the gays, the blacks and my favorite annoyance, hipsters.
I don't own the device and it'll be a long time before I'm convinced it wouldn't make me sick, but "We don't want none of your kind here" isn't an emotion I sympathize with from any establishment for any reason.
I don't think you understand the problem. They are not banning them for piracy. They are banning their use for privacy of other patrons. They have to look out for the interests of the majority of their customers.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Like...? Glass technophobes always remind me of the reaction to Kodak cameras in the 1880's. A few choice quotes:
I really don't get the vitriol. In 120 years people will laugh at the primitives from the early 2000's who reacted with shock and horror to Google glass. My biggest objection is that it's rude to glance at a notification when you're speaking to someone. But that's true of a phone, too.
Knowing how Alamo Drafthouse operates, this is more about minimizing distractions for other moviegoers. This is a theatre that explicitly states "No talking, texting, or using your cell phone during the movie or we will KICK YOUR ASS OUT" prior to every screening.
Who'd have thought that, between Google and theater chains, my
mind's with the former.
What do these Alamo airheads think -- we'll soon be inundated
with Glass pirated copies of the blockbusters on TPB?
This is about power, not piracy.
No, it just means we're going to have to build reliable detectors for such stuff.
Add a bit of regulation to make sure that it's illegal to attempt to circumvent detection, and we'd be some way toward recognizing the traditional right to privacy rather than the modern right to invade privacy.
Well, weigh that against the new age of self selected abstinence that Glass will usher in for it's wearers. And for that -- Google should be commended.
How's the sand tasting down there?
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
I wish, though that is the exact opposite of what the theatres want. Notice that before every movie they play some ad that includes the sound of someone pouring a soft drink? You can hate that it works, but you know that your mouth just started watering. The smell of buttered popcorn and the sounds of people eating may drive away a few, but it's money in the bank from the rest of the cud-chewing masses. The people who aren't buying the concessions are a much lower profit margin anyways. Just look at what it costs to make your own popcorn at home.
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
No, it just means we're going to have to build reliable detectors for such stuff.
Or we can just make deception detectors that monitor people's brainwaves to determine if it seems like they are trying to do something they are not supposed to.
how does bootlegging the movie distract moviegoers?
I suspect that we're going to have to give up on being able to reliably ban such stuff.
You could never "Reliably" ban such stuff. I've NEVER seen theater staff inside a theater... ever... Whenever I go, I take a backpack filled with soda and food. You could take in a professional HD camera on a tripod in and if you sat in the back I doubt they'd even notice. Even if they did notice, all of those workers are making minimum wage. $20 and they'd suddenly forget all about you.
No worries, the theater industry will be long dead by then.
With Google Glass in its current iteration you couldn't even bootleg the trailers.
You've never been to Alamo Drafthouse. Each seat is serviced individually multiple times during the showing for their food/drink orders.
Only a morons would want a bootleg shot with what is basically a cameraphone on someone's head.
True. And I am always surprised by the number of morons and the amount of money they have. I would be surprised if one could get anything usable today. However, give it 5 years and I am sure the quality of GG, look a likes, or hacked glasses will be sufficent to the (camcorder level) task.
They are banning their use for privacy of other patrons.
Their other patrons expect privacy in a public place? I bet the cinema has plenty of surveillance cameras already aiming at those patrons.
Alamo shows very limited runs of niche films. It's not like this is a giant MPAA-related move, whatsoever. Just a relatively small chain trying to keep its business clean and without court appearances.
The anti-piracy thing is usually BS, but coming from this type of business I am less inclined to call them out on it.
What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
yeah, a shaky loud recording from inside a theater hurts tickets...not.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That sounds annoying.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
There's nothing new about recording devices that are disguised as something ordinary, like a pen, or a watch, or whatever. They've been around for decades, and are a hell of a lot cheaper than Glass.
The disincentive to using such devices is, and has always been, that they are often illegal, even criminal, as Glassholes are finding out.
Who cares if they distribute the movies? Can you imagine how bad they would be? it's a camera, on someones head. It's going to move and shake. Look there is the screen.. and now there the popcorn bucket..and back to the screen, the a side glance to his dates cleavage, back to screen.
You could take one and put it on every compute in the world and it would not hurt sales at all.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If it simply bothers people that someone in there is a geek, then I'll just wait for someone to ban the gays, the blacks
They are banning Glass, not geeks. You do realize you can be a geek and not wear Glass 24/7 don't you? And no it is not even remotely similar to gays and blacks so don't be an idiot.
How sensitive is Glass to IR light? I'm beginning to think there's a market for jewelry or clothing that is studded with high intensity IR LEDs that are invisible to the human eye. Certainly, movie theaters should be putting them all over the place.
You have to remember the Alamo is full of self righteous douche bag hipsters.
So they will hate Google glass becasue it's cool to be anti tech among those douche bags.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Because they cause cancer and stink up the place?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
until they have steadycam technology incorporated into GG, bootlegging a motion picture with them is a dream.
ah i bet your mom and dad told you how special you were all the time didn't they?
if someone wants to record me, i'd be quite flattered. the reality is that no one wants to record me (or you) because we are nobodies. thinking otherwise is narcissism at it's best.
Do they ban children
Yes, under 6 years old is not permitted and under 18 requires a parent or guardian to go with them.
and the demographic that talks to the screen?
Yes they have a no talking policy as well.
"no one minds someone discrtely checking there phone"
I do. I mind very much. Guess what? A bright light in a dark theater is NEVER not distracting. And a phone at any dimmed level that is readable is bright in a theater.
A cinema is where we go to quietly enjoy immersion into a film.
You are being a distraction, you need to grow up.
The fact that you are telling people who want other people to be polite to 'grow up' must require a huge ego to muster that much cognitive dissonance
" and enjoy the movie."
That's the problem, douche bags like you make it so we can't enjoy the movie.
Watch it at home if your damn phone is so important.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
As a person who makes this mistake frequently, I can say that it's not that I don't know the proper usage of these words, it's just that I seem to think in terms of sound (i.e. I *hear* my own internal monologue), and when I am writing quickly, I am just blindly transcribing this internal monologue. When I am writing in a more formal setting, I actually proof read whatever I have written after the fact. For slashdot comments, a lot of homophones slip through the cracks because I don't really spend a lot of time proofreading them.
I don't really have too many other grammar problems or spelling problems, because my internal monologue tends to have fairly good grammar, and I tend to remember (better than most people) how words are spelled.
"... other than discreet piracy."
or they need glasses to, you know, see.
or they want to record their one year anniversary date for latter?
or..well a thousand thing that have nothing to do with piracy.
Not that a movie filmed on google glass would stop anyone from seeing the movie.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Also consider: Google Glass isn't banned. You just can't use it once the lights dim, just like their cellphone policy. I'm willing to bet some patrons think they're being 'slick' by using glass...
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
They expect privacy in the sense that there would be nobody (other patrons) taking photos or video of them within the theatre.
In the dark? Not something I can imagine being too worried about.
I'd rather see everyone focus their privacy concerns in places that matter, such as the NSA, TSA, and all the other TLAs. Are people fine with being groped at the airport but too afraid to go the the movies because someone might snap a picture? It seems a bit silly.
It certainly seems that they are a reaction to people's perceptions that there are unacceptable oiks in the world.
They come across as the country club of cinemas. Deeply intolerant and with a sure sense of their own superiority.
I'm with the GP. No problem if someone has their phone open, briefly. Perhaps they are being texted with information about who is picking them up?
If the films were any good anymore, they wouldn't be so easy to distract us from.
Couldn't such a specialist, niche-market cinema just make their money from tickets instead of relying on attachments and add-ons?
It is just like if someone walked around holding their phone/camcorder/camera in front of him all of the time and was pointing it everywhere he looked. No one wants that.
I honestly don't care. And I don't feel like this is the same thing as someone pointing a camera at me.
There are security camera's everywhere. I don't freak out whenever a camera happens to be pointed at me (which is nearly all the time in public). If someone continuously focuses their camera on me (i.e. targeting me specifically) then I'd have a problem with it, because I don't know what their intent is.
I don't care if people glance at me as part of just the normal looking around and being aware of their surroundings. For the same reason I don't care if they are just filming their own experience (of which I might be in the background) without targeting me specifically, nor do I care if I am in the background of a security camera.
I don't care about being recorded. I care about being targeted.
And this business has the gall to say that checking a phone will be unacceptably distracting to others!!!!
If they were banning them for privacy, then they wouldn't allow them before the movie starts. The fact that they're only not allowed once the lights dim means the theater owners don't care about privacy at all; after all in the dark the glasses wouldn't be able to see much of the audience at all.
I don't know... I'm a big fan of popcorn.
Nullius in verba
Gee, I can't wait to see blockbusters on the big screen at 640 x 360. The pixels are going to about an inch in diameter.
Your and idiot.
Actually, this is a quite silly, rather paranoid policy.
Google Glass shoots only low-resolution video. And put that together with the fact that peoples' heads move around a lot, a Google Glass copy of a film would be one that enjoyed practically zero popularity.
About the worst they would do is supply free advertising for the actual theater movie. Banning them was an ignorant thing to do.
Right, because you're so important. I'm sure in the flurry of billions of GG videos that show up on the web, everyone will be watching for the ones with you in it..
Arghh.. "I hope she does not have the bad taste to use it when I am hosting a party at my house."
No good deed goes unpunished...
Hold on there bucko. To do so would make any assisted ability (for handicaps) null. Dont give away the future just because of copyright and your tenuous grip on the reality of privacy. The Alamo Drafthouse records you from the moment you pull up in the parking lot, you never EVER had privacy there.
Good-bye
Theaters already have that service for deaf folks, dumbass.
In Spanish? Korean? Any language the viewer needs? You're obviously just out to bash GG without putting any real thought into it. Go die in a fire -- the world doesn't need more shortsighted morons ruining it for the rest of us..
No, this is about Alamo Drafthouse pleasing their customers. They get a big boost in attendance when they publicly crack down on stuff that people complain about. Such as when they kick out people for using phones during the movie. They know that banning Google Glass will make a lot of people happy, and will gain them some new customers, whether or not that ban actually improves the quality of the movie going experience.
This is probably not anything new anyway, they already ban using mobile devices after the movie starts. So this is just a reiteration of the policy, with emphasis that it does indeed apply to new technology and no special dispensation is given to Glass.
They could just put RF shields in the walls. But then someone would complain bitterly that there might be an emergency and that if they can't be contacted immediately then it is unacceptable. Which just makes me wonder how civilization survived before the advent of mobile phones (the baby sitters back then were apparently smart enough to be able to call the theaters and restaurants directly).
Who in the smeg watches these 'handy-cammed' movies? The quality must be crap. If you have the time to watch this stuff, go get a Golden Retriever and spend the time walking him / her instead. The Golden'll be up for the walk, I guarantee it.
Technically you're not allowed to take still photography either during a movie presentation. But more likely this is to prevent people from using the device in its other uses, such as texting people. Also I haven't seen one of these in the dark, but I suspect that there is enough light to be annoying to other patrons of the theater, maybe not as bad as pulling out a smart phone but if you're sitting behind someone who has some LEDs blinking then diminishes the movie.
Really, Alamo Drafthouse should really only need one and only one rule, if people were capable of following it: "don't annoy the people around you".
Theaters, and movie makers do *not* lose money as a result of manual recordings made in the theater.
When you record a movie that way, the quality sucks. The only people who buy those recordings are people who wouldn't have gone to the theater anyway. The set of theater movie-goers has no intersection with the set of second-hand-recording-buyers.
All this enforcement just makes things harder on everyone, without profiting anyone. It is stupid.
I've been wearing glasses almost all of my life, and since I am wearing them already, it would be great to have additional functionality. Its seems like all the privacy issues related to these already exist, except worse, because people pretend the issues dont exist, and it seems much harder to hide google glass. I really dont think you have to worry about somebody wearing 'smart' glasses following you around recording you, and if you do have to worry about that, then you are already in danger and already have an awful lot of your plate. Besides privacy the only other problem seems to be that people just dont like the users. Maybe Im under thinking this, but if the human behind the device is the worst part of it, then why demonize the technology
Then TURN OFF the Google Glass if it won't detach from the prescription glasses. Or if you're unable to turn it off then go to a different theater. Yes, it is someone's right to be annoying but the theater also has the right to disallow annoying people.
Camera quality doesn't matter, even low res pictures of movies are generally banned everywhere and can get you kicked out without a refund if caught taking them.
You say the device is distracting. How is it distracting? I notice people using their cell phones in a movie. How would I notice someone who is wearing a particular kind of eyeglass thing during a movie?
I swear I am not making this up, but I was at the first day opening of a highly popular movie (one of the Star Wars I think) and the guy in front of me has his phone ring, and then he actually answered it! And he talked to the other person, not whisper, so that just about everyone in the theater could hear him. And the place was packed. From the side we could hear it was not some home emergency. After people starting shusshing him he said, loudly enough for us to hear, "I have to go, I'm in the middle of a movie".
I can't begin to imagine how that sort of person even has a friend who would want to call him.
Granted, there are other distractions at the Drafthouse, since they serve food there. However I think the policy at least reduces the possibility of violence against the Glass wearer.
I think EVERYONE minds.
I have never heard of alamo draft house, but now that slashdot has advertised them to me as a sensible business that bans the glass holes, I will look up if one is near me!
I've never seen on of these in real life (even though I live in the bay area and have friends who work at movies). But they do have lights on them when they're on and active (not sure if the display has a backlight or not though).
I'm in agreement.
If they're banned in enough places, and enough people get their jaws cracked when they insist on wearing them in other places, then it will sink in: a lot of us DON'T FUCKING WANT some asshole recording us in public and putting it online with not even a chance to consent.
+1 insightful. GG will go down in the flames of an incinerator as a horrible product that allowed 1% of people to annoy the other 99%.
From what I understand, this chain is fairly mild as far as "intolerant and with a sure sense of their own superiority." The similar place by me - there are many such places that serve beer and have no-kids policies around the US - only shows boring films of the sort people think they're supposed to like, instead of the kind of films people actually like.
No problem if someone has their phone open, briefly. Perhaps they are being texted with information about who is picking them up?
Then leave the damn darkened cinema area to check it, or check it after the show! Have some impulse control if you consider yourself an adult.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
for pretty good reason. unlike a cell phone there isn't a brightly backlit screen but I can still get texts/updates/emails that may signal I should quietly excuse myself from the theater to take care of some personal business. It's even less invasive than a pager.
There are huge ways this can (and probably will at some point) be used to make technology less invasive to those around you and your life. I'd love to not interrupt a conversation to check if my wife just went into labor or needs me home ASAP while out having a beer with a friend. Or my friends who are doctors can get a low profile pop up that they are needed at the hospital rather than having to have their phone out.
How good would the recording be, say, compared to a typical commercial VHS? An analog recording from a cable box source? Sound looped from the projector/sound system or live miked (stereo or mono)?
I would imagine if you could shoot it with a telephoto lens on a hidef camera from the projection booth and grab line-level audio it would be reasonably watchable.
I'd worry about the generic cam videos, but maybe they're VHS/VCR cable recording OK.
If Google Glass and similar devices could allow people with "low vision" to see the movie (whereas conventional glasses do not), this would squarely place the theaters in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Theaters already have a horrible history of compliance with the Act, though. I'd surprised that the theaters doesn't confiscate the hearing aids of customers with auditory disabilities.
You have to remember the Alamo is full of self righteous douche bag hipsters.
remember the alamo!
I would love for Google to delist them. From everything. I love it if they didn't come on Maps or any android app that google maintains. Then see how long that ban lasts.
Maybe instead of impulse control, given that many people have a legitimate need to check a phone, people could stop being so petty and bothered by something so minor?
You know, if they consider themselves an adult.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Because movie popcorn is sorta like a experience.
Maybe I know the difference and was just overtired and made a mistake?
I'll never get over the inherent stupidity of grammar nazi's in assuming the person making the mistake is never aware of the difference and needs to be told each time.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
I suspect that laws will probably eventually be passed prohibiting inconspicuous recording devices from masquerading as something stylish without some type of legal permit for it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
First, the the Alamo, then there will be others.
After all, we can't have people wearing active recording devices into an area where they charge money to play copyright protected media to a limited audience, can we?
Besides, if you were sitting here in a typical theater with a smart phone in a little tripod-thingy recording the movie, you could reasonably expect to get in trouble, if spotted by any staff members, right?
So, how long before we see anal-retentive stars at ComiCon who charge an arm and a leg for a pic, setting their body-guards on Google Glass-wearing attendees for "stealing" pics/video of them at the Con? Next we'll see Google Glass Banned from such conventions...
Where does it end?
Society at large sees a futuristic and experimental Star Trek head visor. You can't buy them in the shops, nor online, and their rarity means the majority of people have not personally used one or even had a personal friend demonstrate how it works.
I have not personally seen any tech specs on the device, as a technologists my previous assumption was that it would be of comparable spec to a high end mobile phone, with some additional constraints imposed by miniaturization.
A non-techie sees a futuristic device that they don't fully understand through lack of direct experience and probably conceptualize something from a sci fi film. Many people are afraid of new technology they don't understand.
A bureaucrat simply sees the camera lens and says "no cameras allowed"
You self-absorbed, inconsiderate, halfwit! If you can see it, sure as shit so can everyone around you.. You think your dimmer switch is making a mini black hole which is sucking in light? That would be the only way your phone isn't visible.
It only takes a moment to get distracted from a movie. 5 seconds is at least 100 moments.
Get out of my cinema!
It isn't just a bit of regulation that will be required. The freedom of the press means that anyone who wants to, or even claims to eventually want to publish has a right to take pictures and video in any public place so long as their rebroadcast of copyrighted material falls into the fair use category. The right of free press doesn't give people the right to infringe on copyright or the right to privacy, but the right to privacy doesn't extend to public places. Even preventing perverts from taking upskirt videos and posting them on the web wasn't simple to legislate and that relied on defining privacy in a way that was painfully obvious already.
Consider that a ban on public photography is pointless if it applies only to g-glass since there are dozens of alternatives to clandestine video already available and dozens more will spring up as soon as g-glass is banned on a widespread basis. Contacts that take video and hidden cameras doing constant upload that melt without any provable trace of what they were doing will inevitably spring up to meet the demand. More sinister is that the fight against g-glass is is actually a fight against the right of the people to know what is going on. Nothing would make a corrupt government happier than to know that they need not fear public proof of wrongdoing.
The fight against paparazzi has been going on for many, many years and this is just a discussion of one of their most obvious potential tools. This problem isn't confined to g-glass, but the potential remedies to the problem it presents must be considered carefully if they are to have a result which doesn't cause other problems worse than the ones they solve.
You don't want to lose your privacy, and you have a right to that privacy. You're already guaranteed the right to privacy in certain circumstances, such as in your home and on your phone conversations, but that only extends to certain points. Federal wiretapping laws prohibit someone from recording your conversations on the phone unless the person you're talking to knows it is being recorded. Donald Sterling's recent time in the press shows that even in your own home, your privacy isn't guaranteed.
What kind of laws exactly do you propose where amateur journalists and bloggers can still record and report news they feel is in the public interest without having to fight a legal battle against big money and corrupt government interests?
Because if you like Google's and their ilks' never-ending surveillance, you must be a MS or Apple fanboy?
Each row has a table in front where you can look over the menu and write down orders on a slip of paper, ushers (waiters?) will once, twice or possibly thrice sneak through the rows behind the tables, not making noise or getting in the way, extract upright slips of paper or return with your food / drink of choice. Not distracting at all, and makes for quite a pleasant experience. Perhaps why they've gone from an Austin-only establishment into a multi-state chain in just a few short years.
Cancer? Maybe. Stink? Metaphorically perhaps. Addicts? Probably. Think there is nothing wrong with the habit? Yes. Fail to see how their behavior affects others? Yes. Think they should be able to behave obnoxiously without regard to others? Yes.
If your wife might be going into labor right now and you're out having a beer with a friend, the Google Glass you're wearing is not the first indication you're a douchebag.
Amen.
An Alamo Drafthouse Cinema opened up near me in Ashburn, VA mid-last year, but I only really learned what their pitch was this past March.
Until then, the last time I had been to a movie theater was for The Dark Knight in 2008, which was a rare event for me even then, but I vividly remember how that was the experience that killed cinema for me. I was stoked for that film. Like, super incredibly jazzed about it. I bought three IMAX tickets and walked out twice to see it once. I'll spare you the infuriatingly cliché details of the first two, but even the third "successful" outing was sub-par: the volume was cranked so high that half of the dialog was incomprehensible.
I've now been to Alamo eight times in less than three months and thoroughly enjoyed myself without exception.
But even if you remove their disturbance policy from the equation, you can just compare them to every other movie theater in the area and marvel at the fact that those shitholes are still somehow in business. The ticket prices are actually cheaper. You can reserve specific seats. The chairs are better and don't smell bad. The floor isn't sticky. The drinks are reasonably priced, with more variety. The popcorn is better. The soft drinks and popcorn are cheaper (as in, several dollars each)... and bottomless. The other food is actually fantastic, too. There's a burger joint in the same plaza... and Alamo's burgers are better. Has anyone mentioned the adult milkshakes, yet? I've had them before, but this was the first one I actually liked. In a darkened theater, no one can see your girly drink. :)
In preparation to see the new Godzilla, I went to their showing of Gojira; the original 1954 version, subtitled. They also had an all-you-can-eat spaghetti dinner for The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. For all three, I had a child-like grin plastered all the way across my face from start to finish. Just the fact that I can say I saw those classics on the big screen is so goddamn cool.
As far as I'm concerned, the petulant, self-absorbed assholes can trash talk Alamo all they like. It's free advertising. Anyone with manners will be able to put two and two together: this place is exactly what we've been looking for all this time. Alamo's success, rapid expansion, and high praise in an industry that has been withering for over a decade speaks to the truth:
YES, WE REALLY DO FUCKING MIND.
They come across as the country club of cinemas. Deeply intolerant and with a sure sense of their own superiority.
Maybe we need a little bit more of that. The current theater experience can be unacceptably poor.
I'm with the GP. No problem if someone has their phone open, briefly. Perhaps they are being texted with information about who is picking them up?
There are ways to do it while minimizing distraction to other theater goers. I wear a t-shirt, and slide the phone under it to create a "hood" where no light escapes. You can use the armrest of a chair so that the screen never comes into the field of vision of someone else. Lots of people just hold their phones right up like the house lights were still on.
For example - (Thinks)"Ah good, my spouse is picking me up at the north side of the car park at 4.30pm". [Puts phone away.]
Why do you need to get that text before the credits roll?
So, do you also kick out people wearing a tie, or using a phone you don't like?
Maybe it's a t-shirt for a band you don't like because they play the 'wrong' music.
Sounds more like the people that weren't wearing a headsup display accessory for their phone are ones being "glassholes".
Yeah, from what I've read, they'd be lucky to record the previews before running out of juice.
So apparently it charges with a micro-usb cable. I can fully imagine somebody having a small 12v battery pack and a car charger in their bag, or pocket.. just wait until the lights dim, plug cable in and off you go..
So, the glasses don't seem to be generating lights or noise that are annoying other people, and they were not being used to record anything, though if they were, the batteries would have run down so fast you'd have to have a whole bag of them to make it through the movie.
One of those listed in the article was OFF and also the wearers PRESCRIPTION GLASSES HE NEEDED TO SEE WITH!!!
Yeah, your torch wield mobs of conformity police are really doing of good job of proving yourself worse than that douche that talks on his phone everywhere.
It's amazing how pissed so many people are getting over somebody else having a new and expensive accessory. What's even more amazing is the massive and undeserved overreactions that people are having that far out weigh anything that I've seen reported for actual "glassholes" doing. So far, most of the reports boil down to "somebody dared to actually wear googleglass, so people immediately started doing awful assholish things to them, all of which were unfair and several were illegal, isn't it awsome". I'm embarrassed that you technophobic luddites even found out how to get to the internet.
Yeah, I know, now you're going to go screaming about how I'm an evil monster and threaten to burn me at the stake. You should really look at yourselves first, you've turned into a mindless mob screaming for blood and attacking the innocent. Metaphorically that is. Nobody has been killed yet, though there are reports of theft and assault, so I doubt it'll be much longer before your kind kills someone over a tech accessory. Maybe next you'll go after kids with tablet computers.
I expect that in a few years, you will be able to get something equivalent to the googleglasses, but with much better battery life and a price more in the range of $150-$250. I'll want to get that, and load up a variety of apps to help deal with some issues of mine.
My meds screw with my memory, so an intelligent scheduler and notes app is on the list. Popping up reminders in my vision works much better than me trying to remember to check my phone all the time, or the 10 million alarms that often aren't even heard over the noise.
Another app will help with my face blindness. Yes, that's right, the dreaded facial recognition software. I want pics of the people I meet stored with their names and reminder notes so when someone starts talking to me, I can figure out who they are in a few seconds instead of agonizing over it for hours. Even if people know you have that issue, they tend to get upset when you can't remember who they are.
Besides, it won't be that much of a change for me to wear them, as I need glasses to see pretty much anything in the first place. You know that big E at the top of the eye chart. Let's put it this way, the last time I saw that without glasses was in grade school. I've been banned from having glass lenses since I was in high school. Fortunately they have these fantastic optical polymers that are so much lighter and thinner than glass for lenses. Even so, a little bit of extra weight could be tolerated for the benefit.
So again, you want to ignore something what it can be used for and instead be an even bigger pain than someone you suspect might act like an entitled douche?
Well go get some rabies shots fido, because you're foaming at the mouth again.
Also consider: Google Glass isn't banned. You just can't use it once the lights dim, just like their cellphone policy. I'm willing to bet some patrons think they're being 'slick' by using glass...
And if you have perscription lenses in your Google glas, when they make you take it off, you see... Well... Some of the movie... Kinda...
"We don't want none of your kind here" isn't an emotion I sympathize with from any establishment for any reason."
It isn't the geek that is being banned ---- it's his gadgets.
The geek is as attached to his gadgets as a redneck to his guns, he feels naked and impotent without them --- and like a sex deprived adolescent will take his gadget-play into the theater or the church, where it is neither welcomed or appropriate.
OK, so wearing the camera makes you look like a voyeuristic dork.
But the biggest problem with Google Glass is that it is proof positive that you can't cut the cord that binds you to the machine --- and that is what really creeps people out.
You're an inferior specimen that natural selection would have normally weeded out and you step on a soapbox and preach to the healthy and beautiful? How droll. Face it: if you wear google glasses you're a pedo who wants to take pictures of children. We'll not just burn you at the stake, we'll blood-eagle you.
Under the ADA, it doesn't mater how large or small the business is. "Reasonable accommodations" have to be made at places open to the public. And so long as someone is not actively using Glass to record video, it's perfectly reasonable for someone whose prescription lenses include Glass functionality to be left alone in peace as he watches his movie. And yes, it is possible for someone's vision to be bad enough to bring the ADA into play; but still be adequately correctable with glasses.
Personally, I look forward with glee to the day when Glass IS build into prescription glasses, some business discriminates against them, and said business is crushed under the ADA. Unfortunately, it does increasingly look like that may be what it takes to finally slap this particular platoon in the luddite brigade down.
And all that is completely aside from the point that it's ridiculous and narcissistic for people to assume that the only reason anyone might be wearing Glass to to secretly spy in them. It has "substantial non-infringing uses", and all that.
Imagine all the people...
This is all you need to know about the Alamo Drafthouse. If there was one in my area, I would go for every movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs
We need more such intolerant country clubs of cinemas. I would pay membership to such an establishment, where people with such poor control of their compulsions to check their phone are banned.
The reason I dislike going to the cinema is not the movies. It's the audience being completely unable to keep sound and light discipline.
What is the point of checking - and thinking about - the pickup point DURING THE MOVIE?
Seriously, if that is your best contender for why it's a-ok to be an asshole to everyone else in the movie theater, then you have nothing. Your sense of priorities is completely screwed up, and you have no business in a proper establishment.
And for those five seconds you are ruining the movies for dozens of people around you. And you are completely oblivious to the fact that you are. And even if you realize you are, you consider such concerns beneath you.
Model citizen right there.
I don't think that this is a ban on this particular product model but rather about banning a category of products.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
Is the night vision on google glass really that bad?
Because my cheapy 2 year old cell phone takes great pictures when put into night mode. I even captured the moon and the visible stars during the last eclipse.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Just because you couldn't get Glass doesn't mean nobody should be able to use it. Never mind trying to get rid of the inevitable and wide-spread use of facial recognition also being a Luddite move as well.
That aside, the unmentionable place banning Glass is like Ryanair stating that they'll charge for restroom use on their airplanes. In both cases, they're going for sensationalism.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
It's something you should consider before deciding to only use google glasses (GG) as your primary glasses.. You know in advance that you are not allowed to wear the GG, so you should just have a second pair of regular glasses with you.. I even wonder how 3D glasses fit over the GG as they are much more protrusive as normal glasses..
Also you must be aware there are area's which also forbid GG like some bars and restaurants.. It's your own fault if you're a moron not to have a second pair of regular glasses at hand for cases like that..
The Alamo Drafthouse does not fuck around when it comes to theatre etiquette and rules.
It's a movie theater. Put away the gadgets and watch it. If you can't last two hours without reading a text then maybe a public theater is the wrong place to be.
Now if these are prescription google glasses, then I can see your point, as in the case of AMC theater this went too far (this is not same as Alamo Drafthouse). Of course that leaves the question, how do you prove this is a prescription and that it is not being used to take photos or videos (even photos are not allowed in many theaters)? There should be a way on these devices to detach the video and leave the glasses. Should be similar to cameras in museums; lens cap on and no one bothers you, take the lens cap off and the security guard taps you on the shoulder. Except with google glass you can't tell if it's off and deactivated easily.
Do you work for the MPAA? If not you should consider applying because that sounds a lot like their level of stupid... The video quality is awful the sound quality is awful. No-one in their right minds would attempt to record a film like this.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
You have the right to wear prescription glasses. You do not have the right to enter private property with a camera attached to your face if the property owner wishes to ban recording devices. If you can't tell the difference between the two, you are hopelessly stupid.
If someone where to enter a movie theater with a wheelchair with a camcorder glued to it and the movie theater kicks them out and then they file discrimination lawsuit against the theater claiming that the use and possession camera used for their own personal entertainment purposes is right under the ADA, simply because its was physically attached to the wheelchair with non-removable epoxy, they would be laughed out of court.
Eyeglasses do not require cameras and recording capability for their functionality. Google glass is not legally classified as a medical device, it is an entertainment device that has an option of having prescription eyeglass inserts placed into it. The core function of google glass is not to enhance your vision, and most google glass sold has no prescription inserts whatsoever. No optician is going to write a prescription stating that you need google glass to see. Google is simply going to have to make the electronics separable from the prescription inserts and eyeglass frame. Otherwise, glass users are just going to have to get used to being booted from various private establishments.
It's ridiculous for narcissistic fucktards like yourself to assume you have the right to covertly record people in private places.
I think your original line is correct. It implies there's a can of whoop-ass waiting when she brings it.
I've been banned from having glass lenses since I was in high school.
What? Can you elaborate on this please?
The reason cinemas are awful is that they are full of superhero nonsense, over and over again. Adults have no business going to see these films, unless they are taking their children.
If you go to films for adults, there will be no noisy teenagers and you can see a film in peace. The last "mainstream" film I remember really enjoying at the pictures: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. It was self-selectingly free of noisemakers. As for your fragile, delicate attention, you are in a minority. You have a favourite business that caters to you and your picky friends.
Just as a I prefer a relative minority choice of film and choose cinemas that are naturally free of noisy fools because, for example, those people are allergic to subtitles.
Comparing some dork who CHOOSES to break social norms to discrimination against race or sexual preference shows how ridiculous your argument is. You can always take the fucking things off. Just like wearing skinny jeans or a hipster beard, you choose this path and therefore I am quite entitled to judge you based of your (poorly thought out) choices.
As stated before the snobbery from people sticking up for this chain is really funny. If you avoid children's films there aren't noisy children there, no matter what kind of cinema.
For some reason you are still going to Crash Bang Wallop Heroes Fly Through the sky in Lycra in your late 20s or 30s???
"Oh yeah, man. Such mature themes."
If they're banned in enough places, and enough people get their jaws cracked when they insist on wearing them in other places, then it will sink in: a lot of us DON'T FUCKING WANT some asshole recording us in public and putting it online with not even a chance to consent.
Why is everyone complaining now about visible camera in google glass when secret spy cameras are available for years?
I think that the loss of privacy is inevitable. Your eyes are basicaly making constant record of your visual input into your brain. It's just matter of time before our brain is enhanced with non-degrading memory able to store photorealistic data forever.
I can imagine legal regulations which would prevent publication of recordings made withous the subject consent. That would make sense for me. I can't realisticaly imagine how you want to prevent enyone from recording you because you have no chance to find about it.
Can't really tell if you were joking. Everyone here seems to be a shill for this company or cursed with most fragile, deficit ridden attention ever.
???? "I can hear the person next to me existing, it's so horrid."
Reason upon reason piling up to go nowhere near the kind of person who goes there.
Even Rocky Horror Picture Show sells out. ...... Saturday night?
There's famously a cinema in London that did just that for literally decades.
It was full of people dressed up and making lots of noise.
You and your kind would have hated it.
If you want to cam, text, chat, or other things, there are plenty of theaters.
Yes there are, and country club snobs like you will drive me to them.
But why waste time replying to AC
Instead of banning the devices, they could have provided extra services through them. Closed captioning, for example.
*eyeroll*
The biggest single issue with 'banning' glass is that if/when it ever becomes remotely mainstream there will be a proportion of users (likely significant) who wear prescription glasses and who have no intention of carrying a spare 'non-glass' pair everywhere.
... and whose fault is that? Not the private property owner who sets the rules.
Sounds to me like it's only going to be an issue for people who intentionally refuse to be prepared.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Wheelchair ramps are a reasonable accommodation.
Providing special audio devices for the hard of hearing is a reasonable accommodation.
"You have to let me wear this recording device because I didn't bring a spare set of prescription lenses" is not a 'reasonable accommodation,' it's narcissistic bullshit.
Get over yourself, and respect the rights of property owners, or don't set foot on their property.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Google Glass (and similiar tech) is here. It's in the world, and it's not going away. Lots of people complain about it, and mostly they feel like it's an invasion of privacy.
I find that odd. Our privacy is invaded all the time. The US government records every text message and call you make and no one can seem to be outraged. Meanwhile, some guy has a camera on his face (and he's not even necessarily recording) and everyone is bent out of shape. No one bats an eye when someone takes out a phone to take a pic though.
There is ONE drawback to this tech. You might get recorded.
There are several HUGE benefits. For one, it turns the surveilance around. It's been shown that cop/citizen violence goes WAY down(I seem to remember a 50% reduction reported) when everyone is recorded. That's a good thing. For two, putting these things everywhere will turn everyone a lot more polite. I know it's a popular meme that an armed society is a polite society. Well, a recorded society might ACTUALLY be more polite. For three, carrying around an alibi might put an end to the practice of rounding up "the usual suspects". No more "He's black, it was probably him." We can all SHOW we weren't there. For four, I'd love to see it mandated that all public servants wear them. It's significantly harder to make backroom shady deals when everything you're doing is being recorded, but that's really just my pipe dream.
Anyway, people are bitching about glassholes. This is just... eh. Shrug. It's loosed upon the world. It's coming, and nothing you can do is going to stop it. I happen to think the benefits are well worth it. The only real drawback is that someone might record you being an asshole. :D
Dude - it's their property. Respect their rules or GTFO.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Sounds like another good reason to continue patronize the Alamo Drafthouse near me.
Google Glass is just like any other tech widget in a theater: Turn it off and put it away.
If you chose to put your perscription lenses into Glass, that is an unfortunate decision on your part. Go get the spare glasses out of your car (or whereever you keep them.)
You have to remember the Alamo is full of self righteous douche bag hipsters.
I don't know if you noticed, but that statement is hilariously ironic juxtaposed against all the comments from Glassholes about how they feel entitled to wear their toys every where they go, regardless of the property owner's wishes.
Yea, the other movie patrons are the "self righteous douchebags," not the asshat who refuses to remove the video camera from his face...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Which was not that you got it wrong, but that you got it wrong different ways in the space of a couple of sentences. While getting it right at the same time.
Before I read that, I would have assumed you'd get it wrong the same way three times, right the same way three times, or maybe right twice and wrong once (if you were overtired and made a mistake).
Instead, you get it wrong, right, and wrong (differently) in the space of a handful of sentences. And I really can't see a mental process that leads to that other than "there is no "correct" way to spell the word, so any of the choices is fine".....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Maybe instead of impulse control, given that many people have a legitimate need to check a phone, people could stop being so petty and bothered by something so minor?
Then leave the frickin' room first if you're so goddamned important that you can't go 2 hours without checking your texts and emails*.
Personally, I don't find it petty at all to expect that the other people who also paid $16 to see this movie are going to actually watch it (and thus, let me watch undistracted), rather than play with their toys.
* In my experience, about 99.9% of the people who say they "have a legitimate need to check a phone" while in a movie theater are, in fact, not important at all, and are just making excuses to justify their bad behavior.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
And of course ever since this happened they show it periodically as their "before the movie" video to tell you not to use your phone.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
The biggest single issue with 'banning' glass is that if/when it ever becomes remotely mainstream there will be a proportion of users (likely significant) who wear prescription glasses and who have no intention of carrying a spare 'non-glass' pair everywhere.
That's not an issue with banning glass, that's an issue with the poor design of glass. You should be able to disconnect it from the glasses, and pop it into its own little case.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Perhpas 4.30 is 1 minute after the film finishes, so I need to leave as soon as the film finishes, and the North side is not the normal side for driving home?
Then you should discuss that with your spouse prior to arrival, or excuse yourself from the theater before pulling out your phone. Have a little respect for the people around you.
As stated before the snobbery from people sticking up for this chain is really funny.
And the snobbery from people who think they should be able to break the property owner's rules and annoy other patrons because "reasons" isn't?
No, I guess it's not funny... sad and pathetic, maybe, but definitely not funny.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Yes and yes.
Also they serve beer.
Sounds like my kind of theater experience! Wish they'd open one around here.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I have a right to wear corrective lens. I have a right to have a red light blinking on them if I want to and you can't say anything.
And the movie theater has a right to not take your money.
The difference with the bakery was that they were being asked to do something that they were completely willing to do most of the time except for the identity of the person asking. If Alamo kicked you out for needing glasses at all, or for being white, or straight, or short, that'd be the same level of discrimination.
tl;dr: they can kick you out for your actions, but not for your identity
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
So... why aren't camera phones banned. I can make a full HD and even 4k quality video of someone with my phone. I can even make a 50 mpix photo of people in the theatre with my phone (Oppo phone).
They are at the Alamo with the same rules - once the lights go down, all gadgets get put away. Next silly quibble please.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Thing is, no one minds someone discrtely checking there phone for a few seconds with the light dimmed to the lowest setting
I mind.
Then you're a dick. A self-important wanker of the highest order.
Knowing that people are annoyed by cellphone use of any kind in theaters, a responsible and considerate person would sit in the back row, where nobody will even notice them using their phone. And if that was indeed your solution, then you would have said so instead of going wah wah wah.
Different strokes for different folks...
Is that how you got this way? I've heard that strokes can cause brain damage which can lead to alteration of personality.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So glad there is a separate venue for such utterly misanthropic, self-important types like you.
So... he's the one who's self-important for saying "be polite to other patrons," not you for insisting that you have some imaginary right to ignore the rules of a property owner and piss off the other patrons.
If they ever make Mental Gymnastics an Olympic event, you should definitely throw your hat in that ring. I mean, you managed to get geekoid and myself to agree on something, and that's no easy feat, so medaling in the Cognitive Dissonance field should be a sure thing for you.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
So by "keeping a running commentary", do you mean that it was obvious the person was actually using Glass to record his companion narrating the whole thing?
If so, then yeah, he's a Glasshole and deserved to get kicked out.
If not, then assuming that he was recording when he probably wasn't (was the display lit up the whole time?) is BS.
Don't call Glass users Glassholes unless they're actually BEING assholes.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
A battery big enough to record continuously on a Glass or a cellphone all day long and upload data to the cloud would weigh 5-10 pounds
Which is funny, when you think about it, since a reasonably modern laptop can happily run its camera and upload files for 7-8 hours while weighing far less, including all of the other laptop bits like a screen and keyboard.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
This is why I own a GlassKap. :)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Glass is the worst covert surveillance and recording tool on the planet for a variety of reasons, and this is one of them.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
So, what makes you so interesting that we would want to waste our limited battery/storage (mostly battery) recording you?
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
But but but I demand my right to take away your rights.
Requiem for the American Dream
Perhpas 4.30 is 1 minute after the film finishes, so I need to leave as soon as the film finishes, and the North side is not the normal side for driving home?>
So check once the house lights come on but before you magically teleport yourself to the wrong place in a fraction of a second? After all, you have to get up, wait for your row to empty, and walk to the exit - plenty of time to check a text that you seem to think you can check in a fraction of a second during the movie.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Should I be able to tell whether this is irony?
Requiem for the American Dream
people who think they should be able to break the property owner's rules and annoy other patrons because "reasons" isn't?
I have never and would never set foot in their business.
A cinema shouldn't be like the Athenaeum or the New York branch of the Harvard club.
As an adult, I no longer find children's or teenagers' films entertaining. So when I go there aren't any tiresome noisy, horny 15 year olds.
I just checked listings for this chain. This adults only, highbrow-respectable establishment is showing Godzilla and that Tom Cruise mech warrior bollocks. These are children's films.
For some reason you feel the need to keep paying to see Iron Man pt (x+1) but feel old enough to shout "get off my lawn" at any detectable humans.
As I have said before, there is a minority busioness catering to you and your kind. Good luck to you.
Like email?
Requiem for the American Dream
There must be a hell of a lot of shills here, or the computer enthusiast asocial autism steretype is what appeals to slashdotters in these country club cinemas.
There's a fairly broad range of time where a woman might go into labor. My son and I were born about two weeks before the predicted time, and neither of us were premature. Some women don't give birth until after that time. I've also had relatives months premature; my cousin once held the record for smallest baby to survive in our state. Are you suggesting that the husband hover over the wife for months? (Yeah, that can't possibly go wrong, particularly with the mother-to-be's hormones in serious imbalance.) Moreover, the start of labor isn't an emergency. The first pains usually come slowly, and quickening later, so there's probably hours before the woman really needs attention.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Given my prescription, my lenses are quite expensive. If I did have GG, I would not generally carry a spare pair around; instead, I'd avoid business establishments that didn't want me.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
people are annoyed by cellphone use of any kind in theaters,
Correction, some people are annoyed by any use at all. A larger number are annoyed by consistent or repeated use. The ones with zero tolerance have something wrong with their ability to direct attention. This is a skill that children typically develop by age 6, provide they don't have special educational needs. Maybe you do.
Is that how you got this way? I've heard that strokes can cause brain damage which can lead to alteration of personality.
Unfotunately for you, I have some education about brain injury, traumatic and acquired. Brain injury patients have difficulty with attention and have only single channel attention sometimes. Perhaps it is you, sir who have disabilities?
No matter, there is a business catering to your minority needs. Stay there with your autistic friends. The ones who need library silence while they watch CGI superheroes, at the same time claiming to be mature grown ups.
If somebody texts me during a movie, I'm going to feel two distinct vibrations against my chest. I then know to check the phone immediately after the movie, which is the earliest possible time I need to know about that.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I have no problem with having a HUD on glasses. As a biker I could think of many uses of such (a HUD on my visor would be very nice for reading speed/gear/tach/general status without looking down at my gauges, as well as nav). My question is, why does it need a mounted camera too? As a biker, I could make use of a camera rear mounted on my helmet to use as a wide angle rear view. I could also make use of a wide angle feed coming off my front fender to get a different perspective on the road. But to have a feed coming from a camera mounted right beside my own eyeball would be roughly useless. When you need augmented reality or facial recognition or such, sure, attach a camera to the rim; but take the bloody thing off when it's not necessary for what you do.
saying "be polite to other patrons,"
The problem is you and your kind are attempting to define "Be polite" as, "your presence must be literally undetectable at all times." I am happy to avoid places frquented by such asocials.
right to ignore the rules of a property owner
Did you read the post? No you didn't. I made reference my happiness that people with undeveloped attention skills like you have a separate venue. Have never been there, will never go there. Typical 6 year old children can pay attention in the face of moderate noise, under sixes might still be developing these skills. Are you 5?
No reasonable person has their blood boil because a person two seats away got their phone out, read the text on the lock screen and put it away promptly.
Here's your cognitive dissonance -
"I am a proper grown adult who can be silent for 2 hours, but I still watch films with explosions and ass-in-lycra, so I need a special place that shows me these adolescent films but bans young people."
If you go and see films for actual adults, there aren't any noisy people in the cinema. For me these country clubs for hipsters are redundant
The ones who need library silence
Straw man. You are permitted to laugh and so on. You are not permitted to interfere with others' experience, which is what they're paying for. If they only wanted to consume the content, they could wait for it to hit video. If you don't want to participate in the shared experience, why are you there? Solely to grief people with your device?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No, you're just a petty idiot. You wouldn't see the screen, although you might know what I was doing which would be enough to infuriate you, even though it wouldn't be any more distracting than reaching down to grab a packet of candy and open it loudly. Far less so in fact.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
No, no one cares, except petty idiots who need something to complain about.
I've seen other people do the same thing, it barely affects the movie. Someone sneezing is 100 times more distracting.
If I thought for a second it was a legitimate concern, I wouldn't do it.
If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
Personally, I look forward with glee to the day when Glass IS build into prescription glasses, some business discriminates against them, and said business is crushed under the ADA. Unfortunately, it does increasingly look like that may be what it takes to finally slap this particular platoon in the luddite brigade down.
Be careful what you wish for. You may not like the result. Using the ADA to further the Google panopticon? I've heard of more ridiculous, but it's not Glass that the ADA is protecting, but the prescription lenses. Maybe the solution is not to bind the two together.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
A microcell inside that only passes emergency calls would handle that. Someone should start making such a thing.
This company doesn't tolerate distractions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Bright lights and noises are far worse than creeping footsteps on carpet - especially when you're talking about a theater with a wider gap between rows, and stadium-style elevation from row to row.
I've never been, but the legends have spread far and wide.
people who think they should be able to break the property owner's rules and annoy other patrons because "reasons" isn't?
I have never and would never set foot in their business.
Good for you, voting with your feet.
A cinema shouldn't be like the Athenaeum or the New York branch of the Harvard club.
Why not? It's a privately-owned business, not a taxpayer-funded park. Their property, their rules.
As an adult, I no longer find children's or teenagers' films entertaining. So when I go there aren't any tiresome noisy, horny 15 year olds.
I just checked listings for this chain. This adults only, highbrow-respectable establishment is showing Godzilla and that Tom Cruise mech warrior bollocks. These are children's films.
That's your opinion, which you're welcome to. Obviously not everyone shares this opinion of yours, as the Alamo Theater has apparently enjoyed quite the rapid expansion.
For some reason you feel the need to keep paying to see Iron Man pt (x+1) but feel old enough to shout "get off my lawn" at any detectable humans.
Actually, I don't go to movie theaters very often; most of the crap they put out these days, both adult and child themed, isn't worth $16 per person to go see, IMO.
I think the last movie I saw in theaters was War Horse, and the one before that was How to Train Your Dragon. Like I said, not a regular movie-goer. But that's not the point.
The point is, when someone else invites/allows you onto their property, you have a silent (or, likely in this case, clearly-posted) agreement to follow their rules. If you cannot or will not follow them, you can and likely will be asked to leave, which is their right to do as property owners. It's no different than if you invited me over and made it abundantly clear that smoking was not allowed in your house, but I lit up anyway.
As I have said before, there is a minority business catering to you and your kind. Good luck to you.
Minority businesses that cater to boutique crowds tend to do rather well for themselves, it seems. I'm certain Alamo and others will do just fine without the custom of Glassholes who have no respect for other people's property.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If they only wanted to consume the content, they could wait for it to hit video
Not so. The "big screen" (bigger than the biggest TV) is one of the appeals, is it not?
Solely to grief people with your device?
You see, developmentally delayed types like you consider brief and very infrequent checking of a phone without talking to be intolerable. It's unfortunate that you cannot focus your attention. You are free to attend your bizarre members club.
I don't need it, because I don't have a taste for adolescent films while hating adolescents.
It might be that the only way to guarantee to stop excessive use is to prevent all use.
I haven't really ever been annoyed by phones in a cinema, ever.
We might also be generally more polite in my part of the world, with less need for the cinema equivalent of the gated community.
FYI, I always turn a phone off when I go to the cinema, but there are myriad reasons why someone might need an alert. On vibrate, of course.
saying "be polite to other patrons,"
The problem is you and your kind are attempting to define "Be polite" as, "your presence must be literally undetectable at all times." I am happy to avoid places frquented by such asocials.
You keep saying "you and your kind," like you know me intimately based on a couple of Slashdot posts. That's pretty narcissistic IMO, and definitely asocial.
Trying to marginalize all people who disagree with you by referring to them as "you people" only serves to tell the rest of us that you have no intention of entering into a reasoned debate from a position of logic.
right to ignore the rules of a property owner
Did you read the post? No you didn't. I made reference my happiness that people with undeveloped attention skills like you have a separate venue. Have never been there, will never go there. Typical 6 year old children can pay attention in the face of moderate noise, under sixes might still be developing these skills. Are you 5?
One might question your intellectual age level, considering how you choose to eschew logical and reasonable arguments in favor of ad hominem attacks and playground insults.
No reasonable person has their blood boil because a person two seats away got their phone out, read the text on the lock screen and put it away promptly.
No reasonable person calls another person "utterly misanthropic, self-important" because that other person complains about self-absorbed assholes interrupting the event they paid good money to go see.
Here's your cognitive dissonance -
"I am a proper grown adult who can be silent for 2 hours, but I still watch films with explosions and ass-in-lycra, so I need a special place that shows me these adolescent films but bans young people."
All that proves is that you don't know what the term 'cognitive dissonance' means.
If you go and see films for actual adults, there aren't any noisy people in the cinema. For me these country clubs for hipsters are redundant
Then don't go. They'll survive without your patronage.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You can't just mark up a movie ticket and fix your profit margin. After a fixed allowance ("house nut"), most movie theaters lose 85-90+% of the ticket price to the distributor during opening weekends as part of their agreement. So to get a decent amount of profit, ticket prices would have to way more than double. I'd rather leave it to the person who buys way too many concessions to subsidize my visit under the current system.
The other fix is to have a dozen screens so that you're making profits on running older movies that are much cheaper to show. Which is being done these days. But that has a limited audience.
The ones with zero tolerance have something wrong with their ability to direct attention.
Are you sure it's not the cell phone users that have a problem keeping their attention directed?
To state it again, logically - Inability to focus attention in adults is developmentally abnormal. That is a medical fact.
Your demand for fully adult attention and sobriety is bizarrely hypocritical. If you go and see films for adults you will get that anyway. Teenagers and the ill-mannered that you so despise don't want to see "boring" films, do they?
You want teenager films without the teenagers.
Claiming serious minded adulthood while consuming children's fantasy films and feeling good about yourself for it would be a very good example of cognitive dissonance.
Finally, I despise the gated comunity, private members attitude that you want to bring to a trip the movies.
The only reasonable justification for these rules (other than marketing) is that it's much easier to enforce zero tolerance, rather than prohibit the genuinely annoying.The marketing is the main part, exclusivity justifies a price premium to many who want to feel special.
Next up, I'm going to the local Islamic bakery and asking for a cake with a topper depicting a pig defecating on the Koran. I'm sure they'll be happy to accommodate my particular tastes.
And, assuming that they regularly made cakes showing pigs, defecation, and the Koran for other people but not for you, you'd have a case.
When the only difference is the substitution of one regularly-used wedding topper for another regularly-used wedding topper, not so much.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Believe it or not the light from that bright little screen is perfectly visible from all around you in a dim room. The image may be totally out of focus, but most of the light doesn't make it into your pupil, and it becomes a bright annoying spot in the room that moves and demands attention from everyone else with every shift of your head.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
> Someone wearing GG does not impact your movie viewing in any way
No? I'm the guy sitting behind and to your right, and I've got this bright spot floating in the air, darting around and blinking on and off (as the frame blocks my LOS) whenever you move your head, demanding my attention while I'm trying to enjoy the movie.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I am bothered by the zero tolerance attitude displayed by people who are simply looking for something to complain about.
This chain of "exclusive" cinemas is catering to their pettiness.
The only legitimate need to check anything is being on-call for something important, such that you'd immediately leave the theater and go to work if paged. Anything else? Leave your phone off for 2 hours, the world will be there later.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Once more, a movie theater chain takes an action that makes people think they are cracking down on piracy. That's also the real reason they ban texting during the movie; the audience distraction thing is a smokescreen.
But very little video piracy is done by going into theaters and recording the movie with a camera, and those bad recordings probably have little effect on the box office or on sale of legitimate videos in any case.. Most of it is inside jobs where somebody gets access to the movie server and rips the film from there.
Forget attention. The point of watching a movie in a theater isn't attention, it's immersion. If cell phones had a near-zero brightness level that could be enabled that would be a start (they don't - because users wouldn't be able to see well enough to turn it off in normal room lighting). A cell phone screen is always distracting and annoying. It may not break attention, but it breaks immersion - something that makes or breaks theaters. The ideal field of view for proper film immersion is 30 to 40 degrees (depending whether you ask SMPTE or THX). Setting this up at home with the proper sound is not easy. People pay for a movie for what they can't get at home.
There are very few reasons that require checking a cell phone once that can't simply wait until the movie is over. If you suspect an urgent situation involving one or a few persons, set the phone to vibrate for those contacts, silence for all others. No need to check the phone - just leave if that call comes in. Anything else is pure impatience. Zero tolerance is because when you multiply that "once" by 200 people, there's a light popping on every minute. It seriously adds up.
You see, developmentally delayed types like you consider brief and very infrequent checking of a phone without talking to be intolerable.
You continue to claim that people who don't want you to be rude are developmentally disabled. But in fact, you are the sociopath here.
FYI, I always turn a phone off when I go to the cinema, but there are myriad reasons why someone might need an alert. On vibrate, of course.
Oh, so you're arguing about something you don't care about, just to argue? We have a name for that, and thy name be troll.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If the device has flashing LEDs, bright backlights, etc., OK I see the point. If it simply bothers people that someone in there is a geek, then I'll just wait for someone to ban the gays, the blacks and my favorite annoyance, hipsters.
Don't be a drama queen. Geeks aren't banned. Google Glass is, whilst the movie is showing.
No, I don't work for them and neither do I have any desire to do so (and I doubt they would be interested in me, since I am not currently permitted to work in the USA) In fact, there was nothing stupid about my message.. The previous commenter said "The two big issues are" and listed two. I merely pointed out that the second one was not an issue at all
Regarding the issue you are focused on (the poor video and audio quality), well of course technology improves at a rapid rate. If a device such as this was not available with better recording capabilities within a few years, I would be very surprised.. The other poster mentioned that a head mounted cam is likely to be jittery.. thats true also, but software and hardware solutions exist to remove jitter already.
I'm not saying, that this theatre banning such a device is a great idea. I think that it is a futile idea! Miniscule devices capable of streaming high definition video to external storage are going to be ubiquitous in a few years. If you want to oppose banning them then you really need to start thinking about non-technical reasons for that. If you base your entire argument on the fact that they are rubbish, then when they get better as they inexorably will.. your argument collapses!
The theatre asks you not to do it. It is annoying. Please, for the love of gawd, stop being a douche bag; just turn off the phone and leave it in your pocket. That "dim" light is distracting.
To state it again, logically
- Inability to focus attention in adults is developmentally abnormal. That is a medical fact.
What's it called when someone shows an inability to distinguish between inability and preference? Because that seems to be what you're doing here.
Nobody (well, other than you) is saying that they are physically or mentally incapable of not being distracted by some asshole who can't leave their phone alone in a movie theater - what we're saying is that we shouldn't have to. The property owner in this case agrees, why can't you accept that? Put your phone away during the movie or don't go to that theater. There's no need to make a federal case out of it.
Your demand for fully adult attention and sobriety is bizarrely hypocritical. If you go and see films for adults you will get that anyway. Teenagers and the ill-mannered that you so despise don't want to see "boring" films, do they?
You want teenager films without the teenagers.
I want people to respect property owners. That's all. You can extrapolate that to mean whatever you want to (as you've already done), but that's the full of it - if the property owner says, "you can't do that here," and you do it anyway, you're being an impolite asshole, and they are well within their rights to kick you off their property.
Claiming serious minded adulthood while consuming children's fantasy films and feeling good about yourself for it would be a very good example of cognitive dissonance.
No, it's not. Hell, Einstein watched cartoons, and Bill Hicks (Google him) used to say that the Simpsons was the only thing on TV worth watching. Both were quite serious-minded adults, I assure you.
You seem to have this notion that 'anyone who doesn't think exactly how I do is not a "serious minded adult." That's about as immature and narcissistic as one can get, FYI. Glass houses.
Finally, I despise the gated comunity, private members attitude that you want to bring to a trip the movies.
The only reasonable justification for these rules (other than marketing) is that it's much easier to enforce zero tolerance, rather than prohibit the genuinely annoying.The marketing is the main part, exclusivity justifies a price premium to many who want to feel special.
Then open your own damn theater and make your own damn rules. You do not have a right to tell other people what they can do on their property or how they run their business, assuming they aren't doing anything illegal.
Personally, I'm not a fan of this apparent generation of self-entitled egomaniacs who believe they have an absolute right to do whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want, and other people's rights (as well as common courtesy) be damned, and if you disagree, oh, well, then you're just "not progressive enough" or "a hipster" or some other marginalizing term that exists solely to invalidate that person's opinion.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Obviously I'd turn it off. The last thing I want is notifications popping up while I watch a film. However it's irrelevant because the theatre chain is banning it entirely, not asking (or checking that) people to turn it off. It's not rocket science, it is explained in the summary after all.
I don't think it's a rights issue. I think theatres are entirely entitled to ban glass if they want to. However I would happily select a different theatre if some banned it and some didn't.
You seem to be jumping without reason (how unusual for someone on the internet) to the conclusion that I think anyone is at fault.
Mobile phones ring when they are called. Their are also ways to silence them, and this is what people are instructed to do at the start of a movie.
Do you know if Google glass does not have a similar feature to turn off lights and sounds in order not to disturb people (analogous to putting your phone on silent)?
Nope; actually, what I'm doing is pointing out that if a person with prescription Google Glasses doesn't think to bring a non-Glass pair for places/times where Glass would be inappropriate, that's their own fault for not planning ahead, not the fault of the venue who doesn't allow Glass.
That you would choose to not frequent businesses that disallow Glass, rather than carry a spare set, is a perfectly valid and reasonable response; but if you read through the comments on this thread, many supporters of the product do not share your sense of logic - they'd rather whine endlessly about how a private property owner won't let them do whatever they want to. My comment was directed at them, yours just gave me the jumping-off point I needed for this particular rant.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Personally, I refuse to use plastic lenses, because I've had bad experiences in the past with their ease of scratching. I'm told that the compositions have improved ; "fine", I'll let someone else find out. I'm told that I'll find it so much less uncomfortable with the much lighter plastic lenses, and I say "I'm not uncomfortable with them at the moment." I'm told that they're much more stylish and that plastic lenses will make my dick bigger, but my dick is already stretching the wife and I don't give a shit about my appearence. But even so, as my prescription changes through the years, I'm coming close to the limit of what I can get in glass lenses and will probably have to start ot take plastic in the near future - within one or two sets of lenses.
You may have more choices in America, but since I'm already using German lens suppliers (in standard size blanks, fitted by a local optician), with a 300-odd million market, I doubt you'll have much more choice.
I wonder if I can get a glass outer surface (for scratch resistance) bonded to an inner of optical plastic?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I've been to several more modern mainstream theaters in the past couple of years, and they do seem to be changing for the better. Well cleaned and comfy seats, and pre-movie warnings that threatened to eject you for phone abuse (not that they actually would, but at least it deters some). If I go after the movie's been out 2 weeks, so that there are just a handful in the theater, it tends to be OK. But the volume thing just makes some theaters impossible.
Of course, if I were in Texas, I'd have better options!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Yes, the other patrons are.
People are only looking at the first generation Glass. What they are missing in the debate is that eventually this technology will be ubiquitous, and will be visually indistinguishable from ordinary eyeglasses. The genie is out of the bottle; we as a society just have to learn how to deal with the existence of this technology, not launch a misguided and doomed attempt to ban it.
Oh, so you're arguing about something you don't care about, just to argue?
Something doesn't have to affect a person directly for them to care about it. This does not have to affect anyone at all, since attendance at such businesses is voluntary.
I still find them to be at best, sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut.