Listening to the radio engages fewer cognitive functions, as you are merely listening. Plenty of cognitive overload studies related to adult learning and web page design (for example) show that humans can only manage a finite number of things at a time. Cell phone while driving exceeds this cognitive overload for most people, while listening to the radio doesn't. This is why there have never been rashes of car accidents blamed on listening to the radio, but there are plenty due to driving and talking on a cell phone. The cell phone phenomena is interesting in that normal conversation between two people in a car doesn't rate as a distraction, but the fact a "conversation between two people, with the introduction of a cell phone as a medium" puts cognitive overload into effect.
Using a navigation device generally doesn't exceed cognitive processing capabilities for most people, but depending on the ergonomics, could pose a risk while trying to operate one.
Looking in the back seat is something most non-retards can do safely, and have been doing long before the advent of cell phones.
The question is, should we authorize jack booted thugs to hunt down and persecute people, for no other reason, than (insert distraction source of the moment) while driving, regardless of whether they are otherwise displaying a problem controlling their vehicle. That is the ONLY question actually on the table.
If the (insert distraction here) = "talking on cell phone", then the answer is "yes".
Hey, I'm glad engineers exist, because without their inability to convey complex concepts to average people, tech writers and trainers wouldn't be needed. I rose through the ranks very quickly because I could translate Engineereze to Usereze on the fly.
Yes geeks often lack people skills, but MBAs aren't the fix.
I've always done well because I have a geek streak (but not truly geeky, relative to the geeks that work for me) and people skills. Without my geeks, however, I am nothing. I'd probably be in sales.
There is no gray area of taking pictures of specific people inside a store, because, a) it is completely lawful to take pictures of people in public, and b) the California court case I've cited a million times shows that being inside a store counts as being in public.
The only protection people have for privacy in a store is if they are in the bathroom, doctor's office, or any other place where reasonable privacy is to be expected. Browsing for a new Mac in an Apple store doesn't rate as "reasonable expectation of privacy".
With that, Apple is fully within their rights to have me leave their store, as long as it isn't for one of the protected classes of race, gender, religion, etc.
Yes, I neglected the California bit. Photographers have the right to take pictures of people IN STORES anywhere doing anything unless the person being photographed has the reasonable expectation of privacy (in the bathroom, doctors office, etc.). People shopping in a store are not reasonable expected to have privacy, by being in public in the first place.
Have you BEEN to an Apple store? They don't care one bit what you do to their machines. It doesn't seem to be hurting their business model in the least.
“a privately owned shopping center that attracts large numbers of people to congregate in order to shop and take advantage of other amenities offered by the shopping center is the functional equivalent of the traditional town center, which historically is a public forum where persons can exercise the right to free speech. (Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899, 910-911 & fn. 5 [153 Cal.Rptr. 854, 592 P.2d 341]”
Rules that stores, while privately owned, operate as public spaces and they can't just make up their own rules because they own the place.
And in a civilized society, you get the laws changed you don't like. Personally I like the fact that photographers are free to take pictures of people in public, even if I'm one of those people.
Yeah all that except you are wrong...at least in California.
In 1979, the California Supreme Court [107 Cal.App.4th 109] concluded that “a privately owned shopping center that attracts large numbers of people to congregate in order to shop and take advantage of other amenities offered by the shopping center is the functional equivalent of the traditional town center, which historically is a public forum where persons can exercise the right to free speech. (Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899, 910-911 & fn. 5 [153 Cal.Rptr. 854, 592 P.2d 341]”
Besides, this isn't about the photography (that's protected, even if you don't think so, especially since Apple didn't specifically prohibit photography), it's about the guy putting stuff on the computer.
And as for the park, you can write city ordinances that limit the hours, put age limits for unsupervised teens, and post "no loitering" signs. If you don't have the ordinance, you can't escort them out (or prohibit skate boarding, smoking, breast feeding, or anything else that is legal in public places).
Except that this wasn't in the public. This was on Apple's private property.
Apple's private property would be Apple's offices. Their retail stores are not afforded private property status because, imagine this, they are a store and invite the public in.
Also, it appears to have been done at least partially without people's consent under conditions that they would not have expected to be photographed.
The law states that you can’t photograph somebody who has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” By being in an Apple Store, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, unless you rent the place out for a private viewing, or you are in the bathroom.
This is not an issue of photography in a public place. The guy is in hot water for computer hacking or some nonsense. He is legally protected in that you can take pictures of people in stores without their consent as long as they are afforded "reasonable privacy" (you aren't photographing them in the bathroom or locker room).
A store, while privately owned, is considered public space. You can take pictures of people inside a store unless the STORE clearly posts limitations against it. Apple doesn't do this in any of their stores. They MIGHT after this event, but they don't as of now.
So you've got it backwards..you don't need "permission", you need to be told you can't take pictures in a store.
I realize a lot of socially crippled folks hang out here, but you should know that I can take pictures of you walking around the mall all day long as long as the Mall doesn't ask me to stop. YOU can't ask me to stop. Well, you can, but I'm immune to your buffed out Night Elf Paladin talent tree spells.
Ideally Apple should lock down the DVD drives and USB ports at the stores, requiring an admin to mount a drive, though I have no clue how to do that.
The goal is to sell hardware, not lock it down. Unless you are trying to sell a computer to a guy wearing a tin-foil hat, why would you want to lock it down to potential buyers?
Besides, you can muck with Macs at the Apple store using the free wireless much easier.
What if he murdered the first three customers in line?
But he didn't.
Taking pictures of people in public isn't illegal, but recording them with audio is. Murdering people is also illegal. Because this guy did something a lot of people on here don't like doesn't make it equivalent to placing audio bugs or killing people.
I can't believe you and I are the only 2 people in this entire thread who can see this for what it is -- legal pictures of people in public used for art. This guy should get a pro bono constitutional lawyer and sue his way into enough money for his next exhibition.
“A privately owned shopping center that attracts large numbers of people to congregate in order to shop and take advantage of other amenities offered by the shopping center is the functional equivalent of the traditional town center, which historically is a public forum where persons can exercise the right to free speech. (Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899, 910-911 & fn. 5 [153 Cal.Rptr. 854, 592 P.2d 341]”
While the wording here applies to 1st amendment, it clearly states that a place that invites people to come and shop becomes public.
Every time you hear a story about some shop owner who claims they own the place so you have to follow their rules, you should bait them into discriminating against you somehow then sue them out of business. Responsible business ownership should include the understand that you can't be a tyrant just because you own a business.
You don't care enough to type a 6 letter query into google and wait less than a second for an answer, but you do care enough to type a 173 character post...
Says a lot about the Apple haters, doesn't it? They sure go out of their way to demonstrate their insecurities.
Is there a policy at Apple stores that doesn't allow the customer to try the computers out? Isn't installation one of the things a prospective customer would want to see? I know as a Mac user, I'd show off the install feature since it's one of the best things about Mac OS X compared to other OSes.
Yes indeed , you are correct. I got the form factor confused because they were similar. Still, you could hold down the modifier key or buy a 3rd party mouse since about 1995. Stupid, stupid argument I wish would die in a fire.
I was able to boot from a SCSI zip drive in the early/mid 90s, so I imagine USB was supported as well (but never tried). It's not like the Windows world where you are constantly doing a clean install of the OS.
Slashdot Mirror
Listening to the radio engages fewer cognitive functions, as you are merely listening. Plenty of cognitive overload studies related to adult learning and web page design (for example) show that humans can only manage a finite number of things at a time. Cell phone while driving exceeds this cognitive overload for most people, while listening to the radio doesn't. This is why there have never been rashes of car accidents blamed on listening to the radio, but there are plenty due to driving and talking on a cell phone. The cell phone phenomena is interesting in that normal conversation between two people in a car doesn't rate as a distraction, but the fact a "conversation between two people, with the introduction of a cell phone as a medium" puts cognitive overload into effect.
Using a navigation device generally doesn't exceed cognitive processing capabilities for most people, but depending on the ergonomics, could pose a risk while trying to operate one.
Looking in the back seat is something most non-retards can do safely, and have been doing long before the advent of cell phones.
The question is, should we authorize jack booted thugs to hunt down and persecute people, for no other reason, than (insert distraction source of the moment) while driving, regardless of whether they are otherwise displaying a problem controlling their vehicle. That is the ONLY question actually on the table.
If the (insert distraction here) = "talking on cell phone", then the answer is "yes".
So it is your position that Apple doesn't have any talented engineers and is all about marketing. Interesting, yet typical.
A little secret: a lot of geeks (very talented ones at that) made the iPod.
Hey, I'm glad engineers exist, because without their inability to convey complex concepts to average people, tech writers and trainers wouldn't be needed. I rose through the ranks very quickly because I could translate Engineereze to Usereze on the fly.
Yes geeks often lack people skills, but MBAs aren't the fix.
I've always done well because I have a geek streak (but not truly geeky, relative to the geeks that work for me) and people skills. Without my geeks, however, I am nothing. I'd probably be in sales.
There is no gray area of taking pictures of specific people inside a store, because, a) it is completely lawful to take pictures of people in public, and b) the California court case I've cited a million times shows that being inside a store counts as being in public.
The only protection people have for privacy in a store is if they are in the bathroom, doctor's office, or any other place where reasonable privacy is to be expected. Browsing for a new Mac in an Apple store doesn't rate as "reasonable expectation of privacy".
With that, Apple is fully within their rights to have me leave their store, as long as it isn't for one of the protected classes of race, gender, religion, etc.
Yes, I neglected the California bit. Photographers have the right to take pictures of people IN STORES anywhere doing anything unless the person being photographed has the reasonable expectation of privacy (in the bathroom, doctors office, etc.). People shopping in a store are not reasonable expected to have privacy, by being in public in the first place.
Have you BEEN to an Apple store? They don't care one bit what you do to their machines. It doesn't seem to be hurting their business model in the least.
“a privately owned shopping center that attracts large numbers of people to congregate in order to shop and take advantage of other amenities offered by the shopping center is the functional equivalent of the traditional town center, which historically is a public forum where persons can exercise the right to free speech. (Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899, 910-911 & fn. 5 [153 Cal.Rptr. 854, 592 P.2d 341]”
Rules that stores, while privately owned, operate as public spaces and they can't just make up their own rules because they own the place.
(California law....your state/country might vary)
Yes, if by "ok" you mean "perfectly legal".
And in a civilized society, you get the laws changed you don't like. Personally I like the fact that photographers are free to take pictures of people in public, even if I'm one of those people.
Yeah all that except you are wrong...at least in California.
In 1979, the California Supreme Court [107 Cal.App.4th 109] concluded that “a privately owned shopping center that attracts large numbers of people to congregate in order to shop and take advantage of other amenities offered by the shopping center is the functional equivalent of the traditional town center, which historically is a public forum where persons can exercise the right to free speech. (Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899, 910-911 & fn. 5 [153 Cal.Rptr. 854, 592 P.2d 341]”
Besides, this isn't about the photography (that's protected, even if you don't think so, especially since Apple didn't specifically prohibit photography), it's about the guy putting stuff on the computer.
And as for the park, you can write city ordinances that limit the hours, put age limits for unsupervised teens, and post "no loitering" signs. If you don't have the ordinance, you can't escort them out (or prohibit skate boarding, smoking, breast feeding, or anything else that is legal in public places).
Except that this wasn't in the public. This was on Apple's private property.
Apple's private property would be Apple's offices. Their retail stores are not afforded private property status because, imagine this, they are a store and invite the public in.
Also, it appears to have been done at least partially without people's consent under conditions that they would not have expected to be photographed.
The law states that you can’t photograph somebody who has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” By being in an Apple Store, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy, unless you rent the place out for a private viewing, or you are in the bathroom.
This is not an issue of photography in a public place. The guy is in hot water for computer hacking or some nonsense. He is legally protected in that you can take pictures of people in stores without their consent as long as they are afforded "reasonable privacy" (you aren't photographing them in the bathroom or locker room).
A store, while privately owned, is considered public space. You can take pictures of people inside a store unless the STORE clearly posts limitations against it. Apple doesn't do this in any of their stores. They MIGHT after this event, but they don't as of now.
So you've got it backwards..you don't need "permission", you need to be told you can't take pictures in a store.
I realize a lot of socially crippled folks hang out here, but you should know that I can take pictures of you walking around the mall all day long as long as the Mall doesn't ask me to stop. YOU can't ask me to stop. Well, you can, but I'm immune to your buffed out Night Elf Paladin talent tree spells.
Ideally Apple should lock down the DVD drives and USB ports at the stores, requiring an admin to mount a drive, though I have no clue how to do that.
The goal is to sell hardware, not lock it down. Unless you are trying to sell a computer to a guy wearing a tin-foil hat, why would you want to lock it down to potential buyers?
Besides, you can muck with Macs at the Apple store using the free wireless much easier.
What if he installed audio bugs ...
What if he murdered the first three customers in line?
But he didn't.
Taking pictures of people in public isn't illegal, but recording them with audio is. Murdering people is also illegal. Because this guy did something a lot of people on here don't like doesn't make it equivalent to placing audio bugs or killing people.
I can't believe you and I are the only 2 people in this entire thread who can see this for what it is -- legal pictures of people in public used for art. This guy should get a pro bono constitutional lawyer and sue his way into enough money for his next exhibition.
It has always been "overtly innocent" to take pictures of people in public.
IAAP (I am a photographer).
The Supreme Court disagrees with your AC opinion:
“A privately owned shopping center that attracts large numbers of people to congregate in order to shop and take advantage of other amenities offered by the shopping center is the functional equivalent of the traditional town center, which historically is a public forum where persons can exercise the right to free speech. (Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899, 910-911 & fn. 5 [153 Cal.Rptr. 854, 592 P.2d 341]”
While the wording here applies to 1st amendment, it clearly states that a place that invites people to come and shop becomes public.
Every time you hear a story about some shop owner who claims they own the place so you have to follow their rules, you should bait them into discriminating against you somehow then sue them out of business. Responsible business ownership should include the understand that you can't be a tyrant just because you own a business.
Errm, I mean a public place...conveyance refers to transportation..not sure there's much of that going on in Apple stores.
No, every Apple store is a public conveyance. They may be privately owned, but the mere fact they are a store makes them a public place.
You don't care enough to type a 6 letter query into google and wait less than a second for an answer, but you do care enough to type a 173 character post ...
Says a lot about the Apple haters, doesn't it? They sure go out of their way to demonstrate their insecurities.
Is there a policy at Apple stores that doesn't allow the customer to try the computers out? Isn't installation one of the things a prospective customer would want to see? I know as a Mac user, I'd show off the install feature since it's one of the best things about Mac OS X compared to other OSes.
Yes indeed , you are correct. I got the form factor confused because they were similar. Still, you could hold down the modifier key or buy a 3rd party mouse since about 1995. Stupid, stupid argument I wish would die in a fire.
I was able to boot from a SCSI zip drive in the early/mid 90s, so I imagine USB was supported as well (but never tried). It's not like the Windows world where you are constantly doing a clean install of the OS.