And you defend an even more idiotic viewpoint of the OP. Filming in public does not protect a private conversation, it is public, because you are in public. If you want to have a private conversation take it private.
when I text it is pointing at the ground. When I am talking it is pointing at people. When I use aps it is looking at people. When I sit it on the table it is looking at people. I have taken 2 videos and maybe 50 photos (mostly of things I am selling) with my phone.
Looking at your glass is not holding your camera up and pointing at the room with the screen towards you under the same logic. The camera is normally on the back of the phone, they are the same.
That still changes nothing of what I stated..The OP assumed she was in their face , the article says otherwise, where is your article confirming she was in their face with it. If her friend escalated the escalation it has no bearing on the start of it.
It does revel a problme, that you make assumptions, and dont understand how the device works.
It is obvious that not everyone took it to mean that, as it was upmodded.
How is someone supposed to know, by paying attention. If they they are talking and the light is on then they probably are not recording, if the light is staying on when they are not talking it probably is on.
Google glass does not piss people off, people become pissed off because they are idiots and let their own anger get the best of them.
I can turn my video on, and sit it on the table with the screen off, or I can pretend to play a game. That is no where near as obvious as someone staring at you with the glass on.
It is not apparent why people who escalate a rude glass user by being rude or violent themselves., when the proper course of action would be to kindly ask them not to record you, if they refuse take it to the bar owner/manager, and if the manager/owner does nothing maybe you are in the wrong place.. If you cannot understand how to act civilized maybe it is not the glass owner who is being the jerk.
Who said LED? There is a light, as you stated. When you use glass the light on the display will go off if you dont use it for a brief period of time. In addition I have to stare at what I want to record, both of those things would be very telling. Now I can do the exact same recording with my cell phone and you would have absolutely ZERO idea I am doing it.
Your analogy is the poor one, she was not holding it up as if she was recording, it was not even originally on her face until people started making rude gestures and calling her names. The cell phone analogy is much better.
So if I walk into a bar and take my cell phone out of my pocket to show a friendl I should expect people to object? She was not in thier face according to the article, she was showing people how it works.
That is flimsy, they arrested him without evidence and came back to get the evidence once they got him out of the way. It is easy to say well you suspect you of doing something can we search your place, no? ok we will arrest you and ask someone else later, once we setup the scene how we want so we can get access.
Many is subjective, you assumed that the author meant many as in most, which then he would have probably used most and not many. Many people use the word many to describe something between 10% and 49%.
First of all you are incorrect. They are willing to pay, not just a flat fee that may be more than what uses generate, they want a better percentage fee that can go up and down. Do try to learn to read.
In addition GEMA is the one forcing youtube to block the videos, therefore the statement is 100% accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
there are any number of reasons, broadness, obviousness, just to name 2.
It could also mean they are doing extra due diligence to ensure that he cannot appeal. Of course that would be a whole lot...
No, they dont, unless the patent is overly broad. If it is narrow, as it should be, MegaCorp could come up with a work around and continue to compete.
Give it a few more years, most of the population will be in jail, probably for every day things.
When has google sued someone over their patents? I mean that is like the largest requirement to be a patent troll.....
And you defend an even more idiotic viewpoint of the OP. Filming in public does not protect a private conversation, it is public, because you are in public. If you want to have a private conversation take it private.
when I text it is pointing at the ground. When I am talking it is pointing at people. When I use aps it is looking at people. When I sit it on the table it is looking at people. I have taken 2 videos and maybe 50 photos (mostly of things I am selling) with my phone.
Looking at your glass is not holding your camera up and pointing at the room with the screen towards you under the same logic. The camera is normally on the back of the phone, they are the same.
That still changes nothing of what I stated..The OP assumed she was in their face , the article says otherwise, where is your article confirming she was in their face with it. If her friend escalated the escalation it has no bearing on the start of it.
It is obvious that not everyone took it to mean that, as it was upmodded.
How is someone supposed to know, by paying attention. If they they are talking and the light is on then they probably are not recording, if the light is staying on when they are not talking it probably is on.
Google glass does not piss people off, people become pissed off because they are idiots and let their own anger get the best of them.
I can turn my video on, and sit it on the table with the screen off, or I can pretend to play a game. That is no where near as obvious as someone staring at you with the glass on.
It is not apparent why people who escalate a rude glass user by being rude or violent themselves., when the proper course of action would be to kindly ask them not to record you, if they refuse take it to the bar owner/manager, and if the manager/owner does nothing maybe you are in the wrong place.. If you cannot understand how to act civilized maybe it is not the glass owner who is being the jerk.
Who said LED? There is a light, as you stated. When you use glass the light on the display will go off if you dont use it for a brief period of time. In addition I have to stare at what I want to record, both of those things would be very telling. Now I can do the exact same recording with my cell phone and you would have absolutely ZERO idea I am doing it.
You mean besides the light, the staring and the verbal commands?
Your analogy is the poor one, she was not holding it up as if she was recording, it was not even originally on her face until people started making rude gestures and calling her names. The cell phone analogy is much better.
So if I walk into a bar and take my cell phone out of my pocket to show a friendl I should expect people to object? She was not in thier face according to the article, she was showing people how it works.
Your quote makes no sense. It was not in the article, and glass has many other features other than recording.
That is flimsy, they arrested him without evidence and came back to get the evidence once they got him out of the way. It is easy to say well you suspect you of doing something can we search your place, no? ok we will arrest you and ask someone else later, once we setup the scene how we want so we can get access.
No, he would also say that there are flaws, such as monopolies, that would also have to be watched and prevented.
Ask Adam Smith how the free market Handles everything.
Except we are talking proportions here. If it was more than 50% would you use many or most?
The licensed part is referring to between GEMA and the author of the music, not Youtube or the uploader and GEMA.
Many is subjective, you assumed that the author meant many as in most, which then he would have probably used most and not many. Many people use the word many to describe something between 10% and 49%.
In addition GEMA is the one forcing youtube to block the videos, therefore the statement is 100% accurate.
People lined up at chick fil a is not the majority so I fail to see your point.
Then they would be indifferent and not care about the political side of it, or if someone purchased from them.
I am replying to your second sentence. You assumed because I said many I was talking about you specifically.