That depends. What is the definition of "reasonable".
In the case of personal information, I would say the definition is "anything I don't actively and knowingly make public."
Facebook post? Not private.
Text message history? Totally private.
It's really not all that complex, the problem is that people who want access to your private information pretend that it is in an attempt to confuse us into giving up more than we should.
...small wheels may be strong, but they're going to need to be. Stuff that is a relatively minor obstacle for a larger wheel is going to outright stop this bicycle.
"Aw crap, someone spit out a sunflower seed shell! EVASIVE MANEUVERS!!!"
Don't worry. The plucky geek sidekick will - via phone - talk him through reprogramming his entire GPS operating system by pushing five buttons in the right order. The sidekick will then try to help more by remotely hacking into and reprogramming the mafia terrorists' car to disable the steering.
Through a 3D VR interface! Running NMap in a terminal! Using Nintendo PowerGloves for the input, of course.
OT: I kind of miss those terrible moments from 90's hacker movies, don't you?
This latter bit is a real problem in our Prius: you can't enter a destination without stopping. It lets you do other things, just not that. Really annoying, because it's almost always the case that when we need to enter directions, we're driving somewhere together. It would be nice if the NHTSA rules allowed for passengers.
Question: Is pulling over for 30 seconds to reprogram your toy really that big a deal?
I tend to work around this problem by planning my trips to unknown territories - this includes Googling my intended route, alternate routes, and taking a bit to study the roadmaps of my destination, to give me a general sense of direction when I get there. If I end up needing to alter the destination address, I always find somewhere safe to pull over, as piloting 2 tons of rolling steel death kind of takes precedent over pretty much any other activity I could be doing.
Honestly, the only thing I ever use a GPS app for is verifying the route I already know.
The argument for nominative use of a trademark is much stronger if you use only the name "IKEA" in the same font as the rest of the logo, not the logo or trade dress. But then "FlatpackHackers" would have worked just as well, covering hacks to both IKEA and Sauder brands.
Hmm, you know, flatpackhacks.com does have a nice ring to it...
Data collection by large private corporations is scary because these corporations have privacy rights and their profit motive to get you every which way and how.
Yea, isn't it funny how you have no right to keep your data private from them, but they apparently have a right to keep data about you private from.. you.
Data collection of underfunded powerless advocacy group should not be compared to the first two.
I certainly hope you're not referring to this group, bankrolled by CEOs of some of the wealthiest, most powerful corporations on the planet, as "underfunded [and] powerless."
I am Data Jesus and I have come to intelligently design a new kingdom....
Hey, there are plenty of Christians who have no problem with the idea that the classification algorithms use evolutionary algorithms to optimize their results. It's just that they're unwilling to assume that the objective function is undesigned.
Since believing that the objective function is undesigned is an assumption, and believing that it is designed is also an assumption, seems to me that either belief structure would be equally valid.
Personally, I don't care if a person thinks all existence is the result of a Tolkien-esque dwarf wiping his ass with an orc's favorite axe handle, so long as they aren't trying to force me to believe the same thing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
You're not free to yell fire in a crowded theater.
You are if the theater is, in fact, on fire.
That depends. What is the definition of "reasonable".
In the case of personal information, I would say the definition is "anything I don't actively and knowingly make public."
Facebook post? Not private.
Text message history? Totally private.
It's really not all that complex, the problem is that people who want access to your private information pretend that it is in an attempt to confuse us into giving up more than we should.
...small wheels may be strong, but they're going to need to be. Stuff that is a relatively minor obstacle for a larger wheel is going to outright stop this bicycle.
"Aw crap, someone spit out a sunflower seed shell! EVASIVE MANEUVERS!!!"
Especially the ones with the super-bright LEDs. Those things damn near give me seizures, and I'm not even epileptic.
That's because they get their 'facts' from Fox News.
No, actually, we don't.
FYI, quickest way to prove yourself wrong? Generalize about people you disagree with.
Don't worry. The plucky geek sidekick will - via phone - talk him through reprogramming his entire GPS operating system by pushing five buttons in the right order. The sidekick will then try to help more by remotely hacking into and reprogramming the mafia terrorists' car to disable the steering.
Through a 3D VR interface! Running NMap in a terminal! Using Nintendo PowerGloves for the input, of course.
OT: I kind of miss those terrible moments from 90's hacker movies, don't you?
This latter bit is a real problem in our Prius: you can't enter a destination without stopping. It lets you do other things, just not that. Really annoying, because it's almost always the case that when we need to enter directions, we're driving somewhere together. It would be nice if the NHTSA rules allowed for passengers.
Question: Is pulling over for 30 seconds to reprogram your toy really that big a deal?
I tend to work around this problem by planning my trips to unknown territories - this includes Googling my intended route, alternate routes, and taking a bit to study the roadmaps of my destination, to give me a general sense of direction when I get there. If I end up needing to alter the destination address, I always find somewhere safe to pull over, as piloting 2 tons of rolling steel death kind of takes precedent over pretty much any other activity I could be doing.
Honestly, the only thing I ever use a GPS app for is verifying the route I already know.
Didn't you know? Even more regulation is all we need to a happier and more prosperous life.
Didn't you know? All we need for a happier and more prosperous life is to go completely Thunder Dome!
Why not? I already run Barter Town...
It's weird how Libertarians never cite any data to support their statements.
Says the guy whose premise essentially boils down to, "Regulations are good because I'm pretty sure they're the reason some people still exist."
That sounds a lot more like unfounded opinion than supporting data to me, Mr. Pot.
He's saying that you can't get into an in-car-map-aid related accident if your car does not have in-car-map-aids.
AC's statement is bit convoluted, but not that hard to parse if you actually bother to try.
The argument for nominative use of a trademark is much stronger if you use only the name "IKEA" in the same font as the rest of the logo, not the logo or trade dress. But then "FlatpackHackers" would have worked just as well, covering hacks to both IKEA and Sauder brands.
Hmm, you know, flatpackhacks.com does have a nice ring to it...
Data collection by large private corporations is scary because these corporations have privacy rights and their profit motive to get you every which way and how.
Yea, isn't it funny how you have no right to keep your data private from them, but they apparently have a right to keep data about you private from.. you.
Data collection of underfunded powerless advocacy group should not be compared to the first two.
I certainly hope you're not referring to this group, bankrolled by CEOs of some of the wealthiest, most powerful corporations on the planet, as "underfunded [and] powerless."
BINGO!
What do I win?
I am Data Jesus and I have come to intelligently design a new kingdom....
Hey, there are plenty of Christians who have no problem with the idea that the classification algorithms use evolutionary algorithms to optimize their results. It's just that they're unwilling to assume that the objective function is undesigned.
Since believing that the objective function is undesigned is an assumption, and believing that it is designed is also an assumption, seems to me that either belief structure would be equally valid.
Personally, I don't care if a person thinks all existence is the result of a Tolkien-esque dwarf wiping his ass with an orc's favorite axe handle, so long as they aren't trying to force me to believe the same thing.
Well, if there's one thing that the GOPs hold in higher regard than religion, it's money.
Well, finally! Something D's and R's can agree on - how much more important money is than anything else.
and the auction by the government only legitimizes it further as a real asset worth being taxed.
FTFY. And now you know their motivation.
Maybe they're all at Starbucks (which, by the way, editors, has no apostrophe).
What, you mean this isn't an article about Galactica?
I feel cheated.
This one looks promising:
http://www.instructables.com/i...
http://www.instructables.com/t...
Take your pick.
Hm, would have expected there would be more than 11 of them, considering the number of plaques on that wall...
FYI, if that link to the picture doesn't work, go read the comments on the Tesla blog post, that's where I found it.
Read through the blog post, didn't see a link or listing of the patents that they've 'open-sourced.'
Anybody know where to find them? I'm curious.
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.
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.
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.
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.