I don't think it is a stretch, I think its irrelevant. I think calling it a faith when the word is used to describe methods clearly exclusive to empiricism is a malapropism, but nonetheless, I do believe empiricism is the only correct way to seek "truth".
Ouch.
I still think its relevant. If you exclusively limit yourself to empiricism, you negate an entire domain based upon non falsifiable statements. Logic precludes you from operating entirely upon empiricism without possessing some qualities and properties of faith.
To think otherwise is just as dismissive as those adhering to dogmatic belief systems dismissing our shared belief in empiricism being the foundation to cooperating with another.
Do you think people are condescending if they think you're wrong?
No, I think they are condescending when they instantly refute my statements without actually refuting them at all. The moment any aspect of non empiricism comes into discussion they can effectively Godwin the discussion.
That's frustrating. It makes any kind of lively discussions of an ontological nature difficult to have, and any kind of socio-political statements to be instantly without worth.
Yes, perhaps those are the militant people. I've got to be honest though, they are about as prevalent as the Tits-or-GTFO crowd. The level of arrogance present with strict empiricism is above average at least.
I'm not directing that at you specifically either.
It's about the empirical method I used to start and maintain a belief and my continual willingness to examine and synthesize new beliefs with the method. I also believe that I, and everyone else, would be better off if most people agreed with me.
I do agree with you. I just also believe that it doesn't preclude faith. You really can have your cake and eat it too.
Dawkins is of course going to be a net positive. That's a given. I just think that the movement would be far more efficient if it put more effort into the formal sciences around logic. They would reach more people, and find that they have allies they've been dismissing unfairly.
In a way, you're as fanatical, as is everyone. Everyone thinks that morality is something. I'm a relativist, so the only point I'm fanatical about is that morality is different for everyone, and we should keep that in mind when constructing social contracts and trying to be good to each other. Yet, I'm absolutely fanatical about this point, because I live by it, and think other's should, too. Whatever it is, you have an actionable belief that you think is the proper one, which you have clearly indicated by suggesting that Dawkins is just as fanatical as "religious fanatics".
I don't think you need to be fanatical at all. The truth does not require cheerleaders. I believe that there is a level of maturity such that a reasoned person is making the decisions, and will choose based up on reason.
That happens when you remove ego, and emotions, from the decision. I think the truly great leaders of our time acted exactly like that at least some of the time.
So I agree with you about what you want to be fanatical about. That's kind of the ideal world anyways. One in which people employ such reasoned decisions the majority of the time. That would be awesome.
Once again, you don't need to be fanatical at all. Embrace the fact that faith exists. Champion the good effects that come from it. Accept it for what it is. After that, just be passionate about explaining to people how they balance their faith in their decision making process.
Even atheism is faith. Oh yes it is. You can't prove or disprove the existence of deities and the various frameworks created around them. It isn't falsifiable. An atheist is not inherently correct even when you only apply well reasoned logic to it. It's the choice to only make decisions upon that which is falsifiable . That is a matter of faith that nothing else is operating that can affect your conclusion.
You might think that is a stretch. I'm only championing neutrality here. True neutral defaults to only that which we can work with in a tangible sense. When you employ that in your reasoning process, I think many things become self evident in nature.
The problem is you don't agree, 100%, with Dawkins method, and you don't think he should be trying to convert people to his method.
Not at all.
I think converting people over to the "method" is fine. It's not really belonging in a group of people anyways. What you are teaching is logic itself. Just teach the concepts of logic in its various disciplines. Can you imagine having that as 2 hours a day required for all children while in school? Yeah, holy shit. You would have some very smart people out there.
Applying logic can create a person that is beyond atheism. They just recognize what they know, and what they don't know. Everything else is logic. Even faith in a sense.
What I disagree with, is that Dawkins thinks he has to convert me in the first place. He doesn't. We are on the same team so to speak already.
I feel this way because quite often I get that reaction any time I discuss my faith (being asked) with so-called intellectuals that become a little bit condescending once you step outside of falsifiable territory. It's hypocritical to me.
I think this is a lot more simple. What complicates it are people's egos that demand they aggressively defend a position, and that's incredibly frustrating when it's a position derived from faith. No wonder they get so upset. The ego can't lose, yet it has nothing to defend itself with at all, and that's an animal backed into a corner. Reason solves that problem, but requires maturity at several levels to implement.
Even positions derived from science and reason can be fanatically defended by scientists that don't want to listen to any arguments that may just force them to reevaluate their position. Scientists can have huge egos in that regard, and I think we see quite a bit of problems evidenced by all the articles about publishing and reproducibility problems. They are not perfect either, and subject to the same periods when they lack reason as well.
Faith is actually a very simple thing to deal with once you remove ego from the equation. Easier said than done, I know.
I personally believe such and such to be true, despite the complete lack of evidence supporting it. I know there is nothing to support the position, therefore I don't attempt to hold anyone else to the code of conduct that the position demands. It's my faith. Go get your own.
I'm not atheist. I believe in many, many, concepts and abstract ideas derived from decades of ontological excursions into my inner self, and attempting to use that knowledge to explain the world.
Quite often I don't feel included in Dawkins movement against reason having been replaced with religion. That's a shame, because they're is not all that much we disagree on at all. I do feel that reason must be used in our governance and construction of our "base" reality, and faith can be a personal thing not regulated or subject to governance.
It's not required that I reject everything not solely based upon reason to participate in such a movement, yet I experience quite the opposite. Even around here.
Those that make the fanatical demand to only adhere to reason are just as much a problem as the religious fanatics IMHO.
I know corporations are evil little demons when it comes to actually playing on a level playing field in regards to taxes though.
It can also just as easily be possible.... that Nokia have been dicks for years trying to get around the taxes and India has finally had enough of their shit. An opportune moment? Absolutely. Egregiously So.
Just playing devils advocate for India here, even considering the massive levels of corruption in their government.
The only difference between India and the US, is that US politicians are already sufficiently paid to look the other way on taxes. Way too many assholes with their hands in the cookie jar to stop that over a few measly billion.
So would this in theory have created a universe akin to fluidic space from ST:Voyager? LIke would the whole universe be composed of this? Or just clusters of matter of stars and planets like today?
Frankly i feel very stupid for asking this question and using that reference (always thought fluidic space was a dumb idea), but I admit in my non-astro-physicist mind this idea sounds compelling.
It's not a dumb idea or question and makes sense from a certain point of view.
If you have fluidic space that means that you don't have space. Literally. Everything is so jammed packed right next to each other that it phase changes to a liquid.
My understanding of gravity tells me that would inevitably create whirlpools of "liquid" being drawn into high concentrations of liquid being compressed more and more by gravity itself. Then you have dark matter which some how is responsible for pushing matter away from each other.
What would result from that seems to be a hell of lot more chaotic than fluidic space implies. There would be energy trying to push you in one direction while at the same time fly over towards another particle with a lot more influence than you see today.
I honestly have a hard time seeing how stars could be formed, much less planets, under liquid space conditions.
That's a good point. It would have been the easiest time period to traverse the distances between the stars, and increases the chances that two different species would be interacting. Anytime you do that, it becomes possible for a Kirk-like explorer to go out an tap that which has not been tapped. This pleases me.
Not relevant that these 10 commandments don't specifically conflict with, or support the state constitution.
Even the appearance of supporting one religion over the other should be disallowed. The 10 commandments is recognized beyond it's content as being Christian in nature. The shape of two tablets with 5 lines each is also widely regarded as belonging to the 10 commandments as well.
You cannot put up a copy of the 10 commandments without making citizens feel as if Christianity is being state sponsored.
Why would even want that? It terrified me that Bush actually said that he commune with the dear ol' lord for guidance on stem cell issues. What? It's a simple freakin answer to an ethics question that can be solved without any knowledge of Christianity period.
Politicians that decide their actions upon faith, and refuse to even apply logic first, scare the crap out of me and I want them drummed out of office.
To add , truly equal treatment under the law means marriage shouldn't even be regulated
Marriage is, was, and will always be governed by societal and cultural modalities, and strongly influenced by religion.
What people cannot accept apparently is that there is no Grand Unification Theory type law that covers all possible religions and cultures. One religion is always going to be favored over another, or even the lack of one.
Considering that the law cannot regulate marriage to the satisfaction of all cultures and religions, and is comprised of concepts entirely belonging to faith and not of science, it follows that you regulate it for nobody.
The only laws that should be created are the "common sense" laws. No you can't murder that man for any reason. No you can't steal from your neighbors house. No you can't grab your neighbor's wife and sodomize her in front of the dog.
Is there some sort of "can't feed them past midnight" law of nature that magically turns gay guys into demons terrorizing the countryside the moment they adopt a kid or get married? Is it just a law to keep on the good side of some mythical man in the sky?
Obviously not, so there is no logical reason to deny the behavior, only religious ones.
Religion cannot coexist with government. Law is logically precluded by separation of church and state requirement superseding all laws.
The threat is fucking pathetic compared to even the greater threat of falling down in the bathtub.
I'm a big man and a I fell down in the bathtub once. It was terrible and awesome. Lucky to have survived quite frankly.
That being said, I still fear the terrorists more.
By terrorists, I mean our government. After all, they're the only ones taking away my freedoms, fucking up my economy, and conspiring with lobbyists and corporations to make themselves rich at my expense.
How about the simplest and yet most important one?
Being able to have a conversation with a couple of people about highly controversial topics without fear of the government recording your conversations, creating files on all of you, and adding you to watch lists that strongly curtail your freedom of movement?
I seem to remember the Founding Fathers being pretty fucking excited about getting that one into the framework of the country....
It's not the fact they are taking pictures in a restaurant at all. A few pictures is entirely reasonable.
The expectation of privacy I am speaking about, which is entirely reasonable as well, is that I can go into a restaurant with a few friends and not have a photograph of us analysed, tagged, and added to a huge database, only to be available later to everyone, especially LEO and Intelligence Communities.
That's the problem. Big Data.
You already have shadow profiles and facial/object recognition running rampant in society now. Ignorant people that have no idea the profound dangers involved in having FaceFuck exist in the first place eliminate my privacy by recording the banality of their everyday lives continuously.
The rights of others is very important. MY RIGHTS TOO. I should be able to exist in society without having a shadow profile showing me in a couple thousand different real profiles linking me to other places, activities, events, etc. in relation to other real/shadow profiles. That's a reasonable expectation of privacy. I never for one second opted in to such a dystopian society, and it's not sponsored/forced upon us in the name of security yet.
This needs to be fought tooth and nail with fanatic effort and it's a very good thing that Google Glass is getting such a cold response from restaurants and public spaces. Government is already trying to force us into a police state ostensibly to protect IP interests (as it seems to be the only real thing we produce now), we shouldn't rush towards it just because of some shiny gadgets provided by corporate america.
Having a LED as you suggest is a very good start as the problem with Google Glass is Google. If the Glasses themselves are not able to record images or analyze the environment in any way, shape, or form without a prominent visible signal to other people it goes a long way to mitigating the problem.
In such a scenario I can legitimately complain the management and walk out of the establishment the moment I see a purple light no differently than someone lighting up a cigarette. I find both equally as offensive in a public space.
What about public spaces like parks? Driving around? Walking down the street? It's very concerning that a world could exist with thousands of purple lights coming at me all the time.
that is, there is too much information for anyone to reasonably recognize or care about 99.9999999% of the people in the resteraunt.
False.
Technology exists, and is actively being pushed on us, that allows us to identify and tag all individuals in a particular location and have that location recognized via GPS. This information is not private, and has a vested financial interest to not remain private.
Technology or society is no longer a barrier to the analysis of very large data sets.
We actually have more privacy than we did 500 years ago
False.
Safety in numbers no longer works. A regular person can take a photograph of you and attempt a reverse image search with a reasonable chance of success. Using a site like FaceFuck only increases the chances of getting a hit.
There is profoundly less privacy these days precisely because of the advanced technology at the fingertips of those that would use it. These information is increasingly being used against people in ways they don't anticipate.
---
You're failure in understanding the impact of privacy from Google Glass derives from an unsophisticated understanding of the technologies and behaviors involved.
If Google Glass were purely stand alone and bereft of the aforrmentioned technology I would happily agree with you. I'm not afraid of the person with a handheld video camera. I am afraid, and do feel my privacy threatened by, a person uploading that data in real time and then using very sophisticated technology and huge server farms to perform analysis on the data. This is made several orders of magnitude worse when LEO and the intelligence community has access to the data, and employers increasingly perform their own biased background checks utilizing that data.
It is most certainly possible that while at a restaurant you are being recorded as being there along with several other individuals. While the people responsible for the recording may not care in any way, shape, or form care about you, Google and FaceFuck most certainly does . This is the era of topological data analysis and people with vested financial interests being extremely interested in the data.
That is precisely what Google and FaceFuck facilitates whether or not you are actively participating with them.
In short, the problem is not Google Glass, but Google itself.
The privacy concerns are going to kill this technology in its infancy, and we'll have to wait a decade to try wearable tech again.
You say that as if the privacy concerns aren't valid. We should have to wait a million years before having this technology again.
There must be a reasonable expectation of privacy at all times. For restaurants that does mean you are not worrying about people making video recordings of the environment showing that you were there, who you were with, and what you were doing. At least with a phone it would require the person holding it or otherwise acting in a visible manner. Even then, I can see some places objecting. If I'm paying a couple hundred dollars for a nice romantic experience someplace (stop laughing) I fully expect some measure of privacy.
With Google and FaceFuck's penchant for sorting and identifying everyone in video and pictures it very much has become a valid concern whether or not you have any privacy left anywhere.
Privacy is important whether or not your personal choice is to divest yourself of it.
I think the question was about Toshiba handling the warranties. If Toshiba buys them, they will need to honor the warranties. OTOH, if they just purchase IP they will not need to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it is a stretch, I think its irrelevant. I think calling it a faith when the word is used to describe methods clearly exclusive to empiricism is a malapropism, but nonetheless, I do believe empiricism is the only correct way to seek "truth".
Ouch.
I still think its relevant. If you exclusively limit yourself to empiricism, you negate an entire domain based upon non falsifiable statements. Logic precludes you from operating entirely upon empiricism without possessing some qualities and properties of faith.
To think otherwise is just as dismissive as those adhering to dogmatic belief systems dismissing our shared belief in empiricism being the foundation to cooperating with another.
Do you think people are condescending if they think you're wrong?
No, I think they are condescending when they instantly refute my statements without actually refuting them at all. The moment any aspect of non empiricism comes into discussion they can effectively Godwin the discussion.
That's frustrating. It makes any kind of lively discussions of an ontological nature difficult to have, and any kind of socio-political statements to be instantly without worth.
Yes, perhaps those are the militant people. I've got to be honest though, they are about as prevalent as the Tits-or-GTFO crowd. The level of arrogance present with strict empiricism is above average at least.
I'm not directing that at you specifically either.
It's about the empirical method I used to start and maintain a belief and my continual willingness to examine and synthesize new beliefs with the method. I also believe that I, and everyone else, would be better off if most people agreed with me.
I do agree with you. I just also believe that it doesn't preclude faith. You really can have your cake and eat it too.
Dawkins is of course going to be a net positive. That's a given. I just think that the movement would be far more efficient if it put more effort into the formal sciences around logic. They would reach more people, and find that they have allies they've been dismissing unfairly.
In a way, you're as fanatical, as is everyone. Everyone thinks that morality is something. I'm a relativist, so the only point I'm fanatical about is that morality is different for everyone, and we should keep that in mind when constructing social contracts and trying to be good to each other. Yet, I'm absolutely fanatical about this point, because I live by it, and think other's should, too. Whatever it is, you have an actionable belief that you think is the proper one, which you have clearly indicated by suggesting that Dawkins is just as fanatical as "religious fanatics".
I don't think you need to be fanatical at all. The truth does not require cheerleaders. I believe that there is a level of maturity such that a reasoned person is making the decisions, and will choose based up on reason.
That happens when you remove ego, and emotions, from the decision. I think the truly great leaders of our time acted exactly like that at least some of the time.
So I agree with you about what you want to be fanatical about. That's kind of the ideal world anyways. One in which people employ such reasoned decisions the majority of the time. That would be awesome.
Once again, you don't need to be fanatical at all. Embrace the fact that faith exists. Champion the good effects that come from it. Accept it for what it is. After that, just be passionate about explaining to people how they balance their faith in their decision making process.
Even atheism is faith. Oh yes it is. You can't prove or disprove the existence of deities and the various frameworks created around them. It isn't falsifiable. An atheist is not inherently correct even when you only apply well reasoned logic to it. It's the choice to only make decisions upon that which is falsifiable . That is a matter of faith that nothing else is operating that can affect your conclusion.
You might think that is a stretch. I'm only championing neutrality here. True neutral defaults to only that which we can work with in a tangible sense. When you employ that in your reasoning process, I think many things become self evident in nature.
The problem is you don't agree, 100%, with Dawkins method, and you don't think he should be trying to convert people to his method.
Not at all.
I think converting people over to the "method" is fine. It's not really belonging in a group of people anyways. What you are teaching is logic itself. Just teach the concepts of logic in its various disciplines. Can you imagine having that as 2 hours a day required for all children while in school? Yeah, holy shit. You would have some very smart people out there.
Applying logic can create a person that is beyond atheism. They just recognize what they know, and what they don't know. Everything else is logic. Even faith in a sense.
What I disagree with, is that Dawkins thinks he has to convert me in the first place. He doesn't. We are on the same team so to speak already.
I feel this way because quite often I get that reaction any time I discuss my faith (being asked) with so-called intellectuals that become a little bit condescending once you step outside of falsifiable territory. It's hypocritical to me.
I think this is a lot more simple. What complicates it are people's egos that demand they aggressively defend a position, and that's incredibly frustrating when it's a position derived from faith. No wonder they get so upset. The ego can't lose, yet it has nothing to defend itself with at all, and that's an animal backed into a corner. Reason solves that problem, but requires maturity at several levels to implement.
Even positions derived from science and reason can be fanatically defended by scientists that don't want to listen to any arguments that may just force them to reevaluate their position. Scientists can have huge egos in that regard, and I think we see quite a bit of problems evidenced by all the articles about publishing and reproducibility problems. They are not perfect either, and subject to the same periods when they lack reason as well.
Faith is actually a very simple thing to deal with once you remove ego from the equation. Easier said than done, I know.
I personally believe such and such to be true, despite the complete lack of evidence supporting it. I know there is nothing to support the position, therefore I don't attempt to hold anyone else to the code of conduct that the position demands. It's my faith. Go get your own.
I'm not atheist. I believe in many, many, concepts and abstract ideas derived from decades of ontological excursions into my inner self, and attempting to use that knowledge to explain the world.
Quite often I don't feel included in Dawkins movement against reason having been replaced with religion. That's a shame, because they're is not all that much we disagree on at all. I do feel that reason must be used in our governance and construction of our "base" reality, and faith can be a personal thing not regulated or subject to governance.
It's not required that I reject everything not solely based upon reason to participate in such a movement, yet I experience quite the opposite. Even around here.
Those that make the fanatical demand to only adhere to reason are just as much a problem as the religious fanatics IMHO.
Sure sounds like it.
I know corporations are evil little demons when it comes to actually playing on a level playing field in regards to taxes though.
It can also just as easily be possible.... that Nokia have been dicks for years trying to get around the taxes and India has finally had enough of their shit. An opportune moment? Absolutely. Egregiously So.
Just playing devils advocate for India here, even considering the massive levels of corruption in their government.
The only difference between India and the US, is that US politicians are already sufficiently paid to look the other way on taxes. Way too many assholes with their hands in the cookie jar to stop that over a few measly billion.
So would this in theory have created a universe akin to fluidic space from ST:Voyager? LIke would the whole universe be composed of this? Or just clusters of matter of stars and planets like today?
Frankly i feel very stupid for asking this question and using that reference (always thought fluidic space was a dumb idea), but I admit in my non-astro-physicist mind this idea sounds compelling.
It's not a dumb idea or question and makes sense from a certain point of view.
If you have fluidic space that means that you don't have space. Literally. Everything is so jammed packed right next to each other that it phase changes to a liquid.
My understanding of gravity tells me that would inevitably create whirlpools of "liquid" being drawn into high concentrations of liquid being compressed more and more by gravity itself. Then you have dark matter which some how is responsible for pushing matter away from each other.
What would result from that seems to be a hell of lot more chaotic than fluidic space implies. There would be energy trying to push you in one direction while at the same time fly over towards another particle with a lot more influence than you see today.
I honestly have a hard time seeing how stars could be formed, much less planets, under liquid space conditions.
It always gets my nipples taught when ever I have a reason to quote Lovecraft.....
I guess it's the same with you?
The only one I can think of is why all almost all Star Trek aliens look like humans with different foreheads.
It kinda had to be that way in order for Kirk to be able to get it up....
That's a good point. It would have been the easiest time period to traverse the distances between the stars, and increases the chances that two different species would be interacting. Anytime you do that, it becomes possible for a Kirk-like explorer to go out an tap that which has not been tapped. This pleases me.
Thanks.
Not relevant that these 10 commandments don't specifically conflict with, or support the state constitution.
Even the appearance of supporting one religion over the other should be disallowed. The 10 commandments is recognized beyond it's content as being Christian in nature. The shape of two tablets with 5 lines each is also widely regarded as belonging to the 10 commandments as well.
You cannot put up a copy of the 10 commandments without making citizens feel as if Christianity is being state sponsored.
Why would even want that? It terrified me that Bush actually said that he commune with the dear ol' lord for guidance on stem cell issues. What? It's a simple freakin answer to an ethics question that can be solved without any knowledge of Christianity period.
Politicians that decide their actions upon faith, and refuse to even apply logic first, scare the crap out of me and I want them drummed out of office.
Hey... you just shut up... Jesus said so. Read a Bible you heathen...
Exactly. Just because I choose to side with the Imperials and the Sith, does not mean that I still don't worship at altar of George Lucas.
Although, worshiping at the altar of George Lucas does feel like Satanism post Phantom Menace.
To add , truly equal treatment under the law means marriage shouldn't even be regulated
Marriage is, was, and will always be governed by societal and cultural modalities, and strongly influenced by religion.
What people cannot accept apparently is that there is no Grand Unification Theory type law that covers all possible religions and cultures. One religion is always going to be favored over another, or even the lack of one.
Considering that the law cannot regulate marriage to the satisfaction of all cultures and religions, and is comprised of concepts entirely belonging to faith and not of science, it follows that you regulate it for nobody.
The only laws that should be created are the "common sense" laws. No you can't murder that man for any reason. No you can't steal from your neighbors house. No you can't grab your neighbor's wife and sodomize her in front of the dog.
Is there some sort of "can't feed them past midnight" law of nature that magically turns gay guys into demons terrorizing the countryside the moment they adopt a kid or get married? Is it just a law to keep on the good side of some mythical man in the sky?
Obviously not, so there is no logical reason to deny the behavior, only religious ones.
Religion cannot coexist with government. Law is logically precluded by separation of church and state requirement superseding all laws.
Problem solved.
The threat is fucking pathetic compared to even the greater threat of falling down in the bathtub.
I'm a big man and a I fell down in the bathtub once. It was terrible and awesome. Lucky to have survived quite frankly.
That being said, I still fear the terrorists more.
By terrorists, I mean our government. After all, they're the only ones taking away my freedoms, fucking up my economy, and conspiring with lobbyists and corporations to make themselves rich at my expense.
Ohhh, shit.
I'm going to write that one down...
There's no such thing as inappropriately horny. Just inappropriate reactions to how horny you are.
I don't know why you were modded funny. We all know that it will turn out to be +informative.
Dude... I'm dying over here.
That would be the perfect user interface design for such a device. Nipple.Navigation(tm)
How about the simplest and yet most important one?
Being able to have a conversation with a couple of people about highly controversial topics without fear of the government recording your conversations, creating files on all of you, and adding you to watch lists that strongly curtail your freedom of movement?
I seem to remember the Founding Fathers being pretty fucking excited about getting that one into the framework of the country....
It's not the fact they are taking pictures in a restaurant at all. A few pictures is entirely reasonable.
The expectation of privacy I am speaking about, which is entirely reasonable as well, is that I can go into a restaurant with a few friends and not have a photograph of us analysed, tagged, and added to a huge database, only to be available later to everyone, especially LEO and Intelligence Communities.
That's the problem. Big Data.
You already have shadow profiles and facial/object recognition running rampant in society now. Ignorant people that have no idea the profound dangers involved in having FaceFuck exist in the first place eliminate my privacy by recording the banality of their everyday lives continuously.
The rights of others is very important. MY RIGHTS TOO. I should be able to exist in society without having a shadow profile showing me in a couple thousand different real profiles linking me to other places, activities, events, etc. in relation to other real/shadow profiles. That's a reasonable expectation of privacy. I never for one second opted in to such a dystopian society, and it's not sponsored/forced upon us in the name of security yet.
This needs to be fought tooth and nail with fanatic effort and it's a very good thing that Google Glass is getting such a cold response from restaurants and public spaces. Government is already trying to force us into a police state ostensibly to protect IP interests (as it seems to be the only real thing we produce now), we shouldn't rush towards it just because of some shiny gadgets provided by corporate america.
Having a LED as you suggest is a very good start as the problem with Google Glass is Google. If the Glasses themselves are not able to record images or analyze the environment in any way, shape, or form without a prominent visible signal to other people it goes a long way to mitigating the problem.
In such a scenario I can legitimately complain the management and walk out of the establishment the moment I see a purple light no differently than someone lighting up a cigarette. I find both equally as offensive in a public space.
What about public spaces like parks? Driving around? Walking down the street? It's very concerning that a world could exist with thousands of purple lights coming at me all the time.
Minority Report?
that is, there is too much information for anyone to reasonably recognize or care about 99.9999999% of the people in the resteraunt.
False.
Technology exists, and is actively being pushed on us, that allows us to identify and tag all individuals in a particular location and have that location recognized via GPS. This information is not private, and has a vested financial interest to not remain private.
Technology or society is no longer a barrier to the analysis of very large data sets.
We actually have more privacy than we did 500 years ago
False.
Safety in numbers no longer works. A regular person can take a photograph of you and attempt a reverse image search with a reasonable chance of success. Using a site like FaceFuck only increases the chances of getting a hit.
There is profoundly less privacy these days precisely because of the advanced technology at the fingertips of those that would use it. These information is increasingly being used against people in ways they don't anticipate.
---
You're failure in understanding the impact of privacy from Google Glass derives from an unsophisticated understanding of the technologies and behaviors involved.
If Google Glass were purely stand alone and bereft of the aforrmentioned technology I would happily agree with you. I'm not afraid of the person with a handheld video camera. I am afraid, and do feel my privacy threatened by, a person uploading that data in real time and then using very sophisticated technology and huge server farms to perform analysis on the data. This is made several orders of magnitude worse when LEO and the intelligence community has access to the data, and employers increasingly perform their own biased background checks utilizing that data.
It is most certainly possible that while at a restaurant you are being recorded as being there along with several other individuals. While the people responsible for the recording may not care in any way, shape, or form care about you, Google and FaceFuck most certainly does . This is the era of topological data analysis and people with vested financial interests being extremely interested in the data.
That is precisely what Google and FaceFuck facilitates whether or not you are actively participating with them.
In short, the problem is not Google Glass, but Google itself.
Okay Krieger. Put the pipe down buddy...
I guess ease-of-use trumps security...
Remember you have George W Bush in charge for 8 years. Anything more complex than a big red button would have been beyond him
Even then it was a 50/50 shot he could push the red button...
Whatever you're smoking please share.
The privacy concerns are going to kill this technology in its infancy, and we'll have to wait a decade to try wearable tech again.
You say that as if the privacy concerns aren't valid . We should have to wait a million years before having this technology again.
There must be a reasonable expectation of privacy at all times. For restaurants that does mean you are not worrying about people making video recordings of the environment showing that you were there, who you were with, and what you were doing. At least with a phone it would require the person holding it or otherwise acting in a visible manner. Even then, I can see some places objecting. If I'm paying a couple hundred dollars for a nice romantic experience someplace (stop laughing) I fully expect some measure of privacy.
With Google and FaceFuck's penchant for sorting and identifying everyone in video and pictures it very much has become a valid concern whether or not you have any privacy left anywhere.
Privacy is important whether or not your personal choice is to divest yourself of it.
I think the question was about Toshiba handling the warranties. If Toshiba buys them, they will need to honor the warranties. OTOH, if they just purchase IP they will not need to do so.