If you think it is an exaggeration, then you need to watch the typical people around you. SLOW.
I am always fast, and I can almost guarantee I can use a swipe credit card just as fast as any "phone" user.... unless the cashier puts obstacles in my way...
No credit cards have that because you are talking about a debit card. I will not own a debit card with a credit card logo- it is just ASKING for trouble.
If I want to use a credit card, I use a real credit card- which is using SOMEONE ELSE'S money until I pay for it. There is zero risk of my bank account being instantly drained for who knows how long.
And I will just repeat what I said when they first came out- why do we need this? Swiping a card is not difficult nor time consuming. Yet contactless is more expensive, more complex, and has remote "skimming" possible issues. It is far enough distance to be potentially dangerous, but not enough to be REALLY convenient (like leaving it in your pocket or purse). Meanwhile, the only problem with the old [card] tech has been reliance on magnetic strips that can and do wear out or get erased. So replace them with invisible IR barcodes or something. Or maybe *contact-full* chips that require touching something.
It reminds me of the phone pay-with-phone thing. I have to carry a wallet anyway for ID and other important documents (and yes, cash, which is the ultimate fall-back and non-tracking/anonymous payment method). Yes, I will also carry my phone. So it is somehow faster and more convenient to take my phone out of my holster, turn it "on", unlock it, launch a payment app, enter some stuff, position it correctly on a terminal, press some confirmation keys, turn it back off, and put it back into its holster. That is faster?
Yet we still don't address the MAIN problem with [credit] cards [at least in the USA]- the lack of confidential PIN codes to secure them from unauthorized use- and all us consumers are paying for that. At least I have noticed gas pumps and some other devices asking me for my zip code.... better than nothing I suppose.
>"It constantly amazes me - the two parties have focused the electorate against each other, while they collude in common cause - building and maintaining power."
And spending more money and making the government bigger. Year after year. Decade after decade. They also seem to agree in removing personal liberty in the process.
I call them, collectively, "republicrats" because they are really a lot more the same than different. Nothing will EVER really change until we change the system to allow other parties to actually win seats (like with instant runoff voting and potentially dismantling of the electoral college).
Perhaps you should read any of my several replies in the thread that tells you EXACTLY why it is different. And this has nothing to do with it being Google. It could be ANY company- pick one.
Such a tired an non-original argument. There are no cameras pointed at my face at my table in a restaurant or in my meeting at work or in the public bathroom, or at the family reunion at my Uncle's, or on the bus... but there could be with something like Glass.
This is nothing like security video, which is far away, fixed position, non-audio, usually not full motion, not following you around, and not uploaded to Google and the Internet at large en mass. Security video is usually looped and discarded quickly (days to weeks) and automatically when there are no incidents.
Oh, and even though security video is different topic, there *is* public outcry. Perhaps you should first visit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance Then there is the ACLU and the EFF. And the whole drones thing all over the media. And the never ending articles about Britain's video surveillance "big brother" state.
>"Everyone is walking around with their cell phone cameras pointed up at everyone else all the time. Is it just because I live in a college town?"
Must be, because I have never been anywhere where people hold phones up like that unless they are taking a picture or recording video. Otherwise they are held in a totally different way- cradling in one hand, at an angle, ready for the other hand to control.
And surveillance cameras are typically far away from the subjects and also not recording audio. They also don't follow you around or go into bathrooms either.
>"I think this is the exact kind of reaction people from 20 years ago would have if you told them about today's social media."
And you know what? A lot of people still do find much of "social media" to be rude, invasive, privacy-eroding, and detrimental. Even some people that actively use it.
The issues were valid then. And they are still valid now. Do people get used to their privacy and freedom being eroded? Yes, that is certainly true.
>"They just need it to have a "recording" light, like a webcam. Problem solved."
Is it? What prevents the user from disabling it through settings, software hacks, firmware changes? What keeps someone from just covering the light with a sticker or paint?
It might help, but it certain doesn't solve the underlying issues.
>"We have. It's called Facebook and YouTube. Since those pictures and videos keep coming out, the people making same have yet to be torn to shreds by an angry mob, and there's no sign of either Facebook or YouTube stopping any time soon, I can quite confidently say the kind of reaction we ARE getting right now is one of apathy at worst."
Wrong.
Pulling out a phone and recording something is usually something people around you are aware of, if for no other reason that it usually requires an eye-level position, pointed at a target, and with your looking at the back to see what is being recorded so it can be framed properly. And the movements to keep it pointed at a target are usually quite obvious.
It is something completely different when the device is positioned like Glass on glasses, where it is pointed at people all the time, everywhere, and with with people around it not knowing if it is being used to record audio/video or not. Huge shift in use. There is no current paradigm for this yet.
>"And before you start up with it, no, nobody really cares how much you SAY you'd beat the shit out of anyone who tried"
I would never resort to violence for such a thing, and implying it is just silly. However, I consider the use of such a thing around me to be EXTREMELY rude. If I were in any position to leave, I would not stay around such an individual in most any setting. And if I were in a position of control over the private space/environment, I would ban the use of such devices there (for example, in a bar or restaurant or store I owned, as an employer, etc).
>"This. 20 years ago I was fantasizing about having a low-profile wearable computer with internet access always attached to me in a low-profile package, so it wouldn't be too socially conspicuous."
Didn't we all.
But did your dream include a company tracking, saving, sharing, and identifying your every move down to the square foot? Did it include handing over access to your passwords, your list of apps, your texts, your Email, your contacts, your calls, your photos, your files, and pretty much everything else to some company (and government possibly without even a warrant)?
And yet, can we imagine life without this little package? Ability to contact anyone anywhere anytime, call for help if needed, answer all our questions, guide us to where we need to go, entertain us when we have some time to kill...
There is usually a flip side to every technological advancement. The idea of strapping an internet-connected camera and mic to your head, pointed AT OTHER PEOPLE, all the time, is certainly another issue society will have to deal with. Hopefully it is more about privacy, manners, freedom, and etiquette than just fashion.
>"Man people with eyes and ears are rude creepy an invasive. How dare they look at people and remember what they see"
Do you seriously think there is any similarity between someone seeing/hearing something with their eyes/ears vs. someone going around possibly recording everything and then possibly "sharing" any or all of it with the entire Internet and in a way that can be indexed, aggregated, identified, and with no limit to how long it is stored or controlled?
And to think I was wondering why people were skirting the real issues...
>" 'Google Glass fails to acknowledge that walking around with a camera mounted on the side of your face at all times makes you look dorky."
It isn't just dorky, it is rude, creepy, and invasive too. The author and Google (especially the CEO) seems to just completely skirt the entire issue of privacy- not only for the user, but all the hundreds of "victims" around the user, every day. Take out your phone and hold it up in the air, pointed at everyone you pass, meet, talk to, sit next to, and see what kind of reaction you get.
So stop pretending it is just about fashion, it is really insulting.
We are all "society" and I, for one, will not tolerate people wearing that Glass crap around me, if I have any say in it whatsoever. I can't think of anything more rude, egotistical, and invasive than continuously pointing an audio/video camera at someone else without asking or permission and proceeding to possibly record anything seen or said and possibly share that with other people and companies and government.
Legal status is one thing, but common courtesy is far more important. Many people will talk about how great Glass is, but that is coming from the perspective of a person choosing to wear it, and not really caring about their own privacy. I suspect once such a person is around groups of other people being subjected to the Glass-toting's choice, the result might be quite different.
Do we really want to have to carefully analyze and control everything we do and say every second of every day when we are not alone? How will that information be twisted or possibly misused? What is "private" in this new coming world? Is it acceptable for someone to wear that thing in a pubic bathroom? At a table having dinner with family? In the car with your friend? In the waiting room in a hospital or doctor's office? At school as a teacher or perhaps a classmate?
And to those who dismiss these concerns without even considering them, I propose an experiment. Take out your cell phone and carry it around all day, holding/pointing it like you are recording audio/video at everyone around you on the street, at work, at home, eating out, in the store. See what kind of reactions you get. Then realize it is far worse when it is not quite that obvious/overt and some company much be just as much in control as you are.
Just about the only time I use torrents is when downloading Linux distributions- Mageia, Fedora, CentOS, etc. Occasionally iso's for grub magic, ultimate boot CD, and such. All of that legal. And I usually leave it up at least long enough that my share ratio is 100% (1.0).
I have no idea what parts of my post you think are "OCD", but there is no "building" your own ultrabook. They are mostly unconfigurable. However I do build (which is really more like "put together") my own desktops, servers, and thin clients, and have for many years. Except for servers, it is always more expensive, but they are also much higher quality and usually perform better too.... and, of course, they all run Linux.
Well, my new Lenovo Twist Thinkpad Ultrabook running Fedora 18 also "just works" (including the touch screen) and didn't require any special "project" to accomplish.
We have heard this line from Dell before. I trust them about as far as I could throw them. Most potential Linux customers don't need a preinstalled Linux laptop from these companies or even a special support division. ESPECIALLY if they plan to charge *MORE* than for their MS-Windows model. For one, many customers won't want Dell's choice of Linux nor the way it was installed.
What we need is commitment from the vendor that the hardware is not Linux hostile and they won't try to avoid their warranty obligation using Linux as an excuse. Even better, how about a nice support page describing the hardware in detail and the names of the Linux drivers and in what kernel for each component and some install tips. None of that is expensive or complex.
>"Apple will likely be able to offer something along those lines through iTunes on Windows, but for the most part it'll be a strictly iOS/Mac affair."
That is no surprise. Just what we need- another platform-locked streaming radio. So far, Spotify has better options than Pandora, but it doesn't run on Linux, severely limiting it's usefulness to me.
iWhatever be certainly be less useful, since at least Spotify AND Pandora are available on the #1 phone platform (Android) and the #1 or #2 (depending on your sources) tablet platform (Android). If they ignore Linux, Android, and even MS-Windows, I can't believe they would make that much of an effective competitor.
>"I bet every real estate agent in the world would like one of these hooked up to a database of houses for sale, so they could instantly scan all the relevant information."
And why can't that just be done with your phone? Point it at a house and up comes the info. Far less expensive. Far less geeky. Far less intrusive. Far less privacy issues.
Nothing like an article stating the obvious. MS just won't give in- they continue to ignore users, businesses, reviewers, just about everyone. Treating your customers like enemies is not good for your business, MS. You are not quite the monopoly you once were.....
I use gscan2pdf http://gscan2pdf.sourceforge.net/ with my multifunction "printer" and then save the bills and documents in properly named and organized directories as pdf files. Simple as pie. (Why is pie simple?)
Oh, if we want to count machines running desktops, laptops, tablets, smartphones,and servers then Linux wins over both Apple and Microsoft.
First take 70% of all smartphones on the world market, which are running Android Linux. Then add the 50% of all tablets which run Android Linux. Then add the many millions of Linux desktops, and millions of servers running Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think it is an exaggeration, then you need to watch the typical people around you. SLOW.
I am always fast, and I can almost guarantee I can use a swipe credit card just as fast as any "phone" user.... unless the cashier puts obstacles in my way...
No credit cards have that because you are talking about a debit card. I will not own a debit card with a credit card logo- it is just ASKING for trouble.
If I want to use a credit card, I use a real credit card- which is using SOMEONE ELSE'S money until I pay for it. There is zero risk of my bank account being instantly drained for who knows how long.
And I will just repeat what I said when they first came out- why do we need this? Swiping a card is not difficult nor time consuming. Yet contactless is more expensive, more complex, and has remote "skimming" possible issues. It is far enough distance to be potentially dangerous, but not enough to be REALLY convenient (like leaving it in your pocket or purse). Meanwhile, the only problem with the old [card] tech has been reliance on magnetic strips that can and do wear out or get erased. So replace them with invisible IR barcodes or something. Or maybe *contact-full* chips that require touching something.
It reminds me of the phone pay-with-phone thing. I have to carry a wallet anyway for ID and other important documents (and yes, cash, which is the ultimate fall-back and non-tracking/anonymous payment method). Yes, I will also carry my phone. So it is somehow faster and more convenient to take my phone out of my holster, turn it "on", unlock it, launch a payment app, enter some stuff, position it correctly on a terminal, press some confirmation keys, turn it back off, and put it back into its holster. That is faster?
Yet we still don't address the MAIN problem with [credit] cards [at least in the USA]- the lack of confidential PIN codes to secure them from unauthorized use- and all us consumers are paying for that. At least I have noticed gas pumps and some other devices asking me for my zip code.... better than nothing I suppose.
And what if you don't and/or can't run Outlook?
>"It constantly amazes me - the two parties have focused the electorate against each other, while they collude in common cause - building and maintaining power."
And spending more money and making the government bigger. Year after year. Decade after decade. They also seem to agree in removing personal liberty in the process.
I call them, collectively, "republicrats" because they are really a lot more the same than different. Nothing will EVER really change until we change the system to allow other parties to actually win seats (like with instant runoff voting and potentially dismantling of the electoral college).
Perhaps you should read any of my several replies in the thread that tells you EXACTLY why it is different. And this has nothing to do with it being Google. It could be ANY company- pick one.
Your accusations are insulting.
Such a tired an non-original argument. There are no cameras pointed at my face at my table in a restaurant or in my meeting at work or in the public bathroom, or at the family reunion at my Uncle's, or on the bus... but there could be with something like Glass.
This is nothing like security video, which is far away, fixed position, non-audio, usually not full motion, not following you around, and not uploaded to Google and the Internet at large en mass. Security video is usually looped and discarded quickly (days to weeks) and automatically when there are no incidents.
Oh, and even though security video is different topic, there *is* public outcry. Perhaps you should first visit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance Then there is the ACLU and the EFF. And the whole drones thing all over the media. And the never ending articles about Britain's video surveillance "big brother" state.
>"Everyone is walking around with their cell phone cameras pointed up at everyone else all the time. Is it just because I live in a college town?"
Must be, because I have never been anywhere where people hold phones up like that unless they are taking a picture or recording video. Otherwise they are held in a totally different way- cradling in one hand, at an angle, ready for the other hand to control.
Well, we will have to wait for that day. One problem at a time...
And surveillance cameras are typically far away from the subjects and also not recording audio. They also don't follow you around or go into bathrooms either.
>"I think this is the exact kind of reaction people from 20 years ago would have if you told them about today's social media."
And you know what? A lot of people still do find much of "social media" to be rude, invasive, privacy-eroding, and detrimental. Even some people that actively use it.
The issues were valid then. And they are still valid now. Do people get used to their privacy and freedom being eroded? Yes, that is certainly true.
>"They just need it to have a "recording" light, like a webcam. Problem solved."
Is it? What prevents the user from disabling it through settings, software hacks, firmware changes? What keeps someone from just covering the light with a sticker or paint?
It might help, but it certain doesn't solve the underlying issues.
>"We have. It's called Facebook and YouTube. Since those pictures and videos keep coming out, the people making same have yet to be torn to shreds by an angry mob, and there's no sign of either Facebook or YouTube stopping any time soon, I can quite confidently say the kind of reaction we ARE getting right now is one of apathy at worst."
Wrong.
Pulling out a phone and recording something is usually something people around you are aware of, if for no other reason that it usually requires an eye-level position, pointed at a target, and with your looking at the back to see what is being recorded so it can be framed properly. And the movements to keep it pointed at a target are usually quite obvious.
It is something completely different when the device is positioned like Glass on glasses, where it is pointed at people all the time, everywhere, and with with people around it not knowing if it is being used to record audio/video or not. Huge shift in use. There is no current paradigm for this yet.
>"And before you start up with it, no, nobody really cares how much you SAY you'd beat the shit out of anyone who tried"
I would never resort to violence for such a thing, and implying it is just silly. However, I consider the use of such a thing around me to be EXTREMELY rude. If I were in any position to leave, I would not stay around such an individual in most any setting. And if I were in a position of control over the private space/environment, I would ban the use of such devices there (for example, in a bar or restaurant or store I owned, as an employer, etc).
>"This. 20 years ago I was fantasizing about having a low-profile wearable computer with internet access always attached to me in a low-profile package, so it wouldn't be too socially conspicuous."
Didn't we all.
But did your dream include a company tracking, saving, sharing, and identifying your every move down to the square foot? Did it include handing over access to your passwords, your list of apps, your texts, your Email, your contacts, your calls, your photos, your files, and pretty much everything else to some company (and government possibly without even a warrant)?
And yet, can we imagine life without this little package? Ability to contact anyone anywhere anytime, call for help if needed, answer all our questions, guide us to where we need to go, entertain us when we have some time to kill...
There is usually a flip side to every technological advancement. The idea of strapping an internet-connected camera and mic to your head, pointed AT OTHER PEOPLE, all the time, is certainly another issue society will have to deal with. Hopefully it is more about privacy, manners, freedom, and etiquette than just fashion.
>"Man people with eyes and ears are rude creepy an invasive. How dare they look at people and remember what they see"
Do you seriously think there is any similarity between someone seeing/hearing something with their eyes/ears vs. someone going around possibly recording everything and then possibly "sharing" any or all of it with the entire Internet and in a way that can be indexed, aggregated, identified, and with no limit to how long it is stored or controlled?
And to think I was wondering why people were skirting the real issues...
>" 'Google Glass fails to acknowledge that walking around with a camera mounted on the side of your face at all times makes you look dorky."
It isn't just dorky, it is rude, creepy, and invasive too. The author and Google (especially the CEO) seems to just completely skirt the entire issue of privacy- not only for the user, but all the hundreds of "victims" around the user, every day. Take out your phone and hold it up in the air, pointed at everyone you pass, meet, talk to, sit next to, and see what kind of reaction you get.
So stop pretending it is just about fashion, it is really insulting.
We are all "society" and I, for one, will not tolerate people wearing that Glass crap around me, if I have any say in it whatsoever. I can't think of anything more rude, egotistical, and invasive than continuously pointing an audio/video camera at someone else without asking or permission and proceeding to possibly record anything seen or said and possibly share that with other people and companies and government.
Legal status is one thing, but common courtesy is far more important. Many people will talk about how great Glass is, but that is coming from the perspective of a person choosing to wear it, and not really caring about their own privacy. I suspect once such a person is around groups of other people being subjected to the Glass-toting's choice, the result might be quite different.
Do we really want to have to carefully analyze and control everything we do and say every second of every day when we are not alone? How will that information be twisted or possibly misused? What is "private" in this new coming world? Is it acceptable for someone to wear that thing in a pubic bathroom? At a table having dinner with family? In the car with your friend? In the waiting room in a hospital or doctor's office? At school as a teacher or perhaps a classmate?
And to those who dismiss these concerns without even considering them, I propose an experiment. Take out your cell phone and carry it around all day, holding/pointing it like you are recording audio/video at everyone around you on the street, at work, at home, eating out, in the store. See what kind of reactions you get. Then realize it is far worse when it is not quite that obvious/overt and some company much be just as much in control as you are.
Just about the only time I use torrents is when downloading Linux distributions- Mageia, Fedora, CentOS, etc. Occasionally iso's for grub magic, ultimate boot CD, and such. All of that legal. And I usually leave it up at least long enough that my share ratio is 100% (1.0).
I have no idea what parts of my post you think are "OCD", but there is no "building" your own ultrabook. They are mostly unconfigurable. However I do build (which is really more like "put together") my own desktops, servers, and thin clients, and have for many years. Except for servers, it is always more expensive, but they are also much higher quality and usually perform better too.... and, of course, they all run Linux.
Well, my new Lenovo Twist Thinkpad Ultrabook running Fedora 18 also "just works" (including the touch screen) and didn't require any special "project" to accomplish.
We have heard this line from Dell before. I trust them about as far as I could throw them. Most potential Linux customers don't need a preinstalled Linux laptop from these companies or even a special support division. ESPECIALLY if they plan to charge *MORE* than for their MS-Windows model. For one, many customers won't want Dell's choice of Linux nor the way it was installed.
What we need is commitment from the vendor that the hardware is not Linux hostile and they won't try to avoid their warranty obligation using Linux as an excuse. Even better, how about a nice support page describing the hardware in detail and the names of the Linux drivers and in what kernel for each component and some install tips. None of that is expensive or complex.
>"Apple will likely be able to offer something along those lines through iTunes on Windows, but for the most part it'll be a strictly iOS/Mac affair."
That is no surprise. Just what we need- another platform-locked streaming radio. So far, Spotify has better options than Pandora, but it doesn't run on Linux, severely limiting it's usefulness to me.
iWhatever be certainly be less useful, since at least Spotify AND Pandora are available on the #1 phone platform (Android) and the #1 or #2 (depending on your sources) tablet platform (Android). If they ignore Linux, Android, and even MS-Windows, I can't believe they would make that much of an effective competitor.
>"I bet every real estate agent in the world would like one of these hooked up to a database of houses for sale, so they could instantly scan all the relevant information."
And why can't that just be done with your phone? Point it at a house and up comes the info. Far less expensive. Far less geeky. Far less intrusive. Far less privacy issues.
Duh?
Nothing like an article stating the obvious. MS just won't give in- they continue to ignore users, businesses, reviewers, just about everyone. Treating your customers like enemies is not good for your business, MS. You are not quite the monopoly you once were.....
I use gscan2pdf http://gscan2pdf.sourceforge.net/ with my multifunction "printer" and then save the bills and documents in properly named and organized directories as pdf files. Simple as pie. (Why is pie simple?)
Oh, if we want to count machines running desktops, laptops, tablets, smartphones,and servers then Linux wins over both Apple and Microsoft.
First take 70% of all smartphones on the world market, which are running Android Linux. Then add the 50% of all tablets which run Android Linux. Then add the many millions of Linux desktops, and millions of servers running Linux.