If someone wanted to surreptitiously record others, there are better devices to do it with. Built-to-purpose "spy cams" exist, have existed for decades, and are much better at the job -- easier to conceal and not requiring the wearer to stare at their subject to get a steady recording.
Right, and I've already mentioned them in other comments on this story. And they too are unwelcome in most situations. That a spy camera can be concealed does nothing to make Google Glass more acceptable.
There *is* call for such functionality for cell phones. For example in movie theatres. And it's been discussed at length in other Slashdot discussions.
And should such a system ever been created for movie theatres, it's reasonable to expect that some restaurants will also want to use it.
You could also pick-pocket from me. Does that mean mugging shouldn't be illegal?
Filming out in the public street is not a problem, whether with covert or non-covert cameras.
Start using cameras in places where people expect more privacy, and you're starting to hit problems. Use covert cameras and should you be discovered you're heading for being treated as a social pariah, a criminal, a fireable employee, or just someone worthy of a beating, depending on who you film and where. Use a non-covert camera, and you are more likely to be stopped from filming before you commit these transgressions.
The logic escapes me.
Then until you work out what's acceptable behaviour in public, I suggest not using any kind of filming device. For your own safety.
It's not. And if you tried to spend a hour recording other diners with a cell phone, you would also be asked to leave a restaurant. If you weren't punched in the face first.
Blind people commonly carry white canes, or use guide dogs. In either case, they are drawn attention to as assistive devices - the cane painted white, and the harness and hi-vis jacket on the guide dog. And in either case, the law, the public and proprietors of businesses allow them some greater freedoms so that can use them. Most stores don't allow dogs, but guide dogs tend to be an exception. People would object to being hit on the leg with a stick, but wouldn't object if they saw it was a blind person with a cane.
If there is a use of Google Glass to aid the disabled, then it's reasonable to expect that it would be similarly highlighted to mark it out as a aid for the disabled. And for such legitimate use to be tolerated, where use by non-disabled people would be unacceptable.
In a nutshell, the use of dogs by a few disabled people does not mean that dogs in general are or should be allowed in stores. Equally, the potential use of Google Glass like devices by disabled people cannot and should does not imply that people should accept their use by non-disabled people.
Wearable computing is going to be normalized whether you like it or not
Wearable computing is. But that's not a synonym for head mounted video cameras. Google Glass is.
Again, the only reason why so many people whine about these today is because they're too expensive, and hence seen as rich men's toys.
I'm afraid people here have been very clear of their reasons for rejecting Google Glass and all who wear them. And that's not it.
As a side note, I hope you realize that you are sounding a lot like the people who complained about how telephone and cars have "ruined our society" etc.
He's actually sounding rather more like someone who complains about people using mobile phones in cinemas. i.e. A reasonable person who objects to other people being annoying with their technology.
What are you going to do when Google Glass and similar products are indistinguishable from normal eyeglasses?
Spy cameras built into glasses, pens and ties have been available for decades. And of course the users of them will normally get away with it. But if they are found out, there will often be significant consequences depending on who they are spying on, why and where. It's no different if Google Glass becomes covert.
Anyone found using such covert Google Glasses will be seen as a social pariah, a criminal, or someone worthy of a beating, depending on circumstances.
You're only considering the privacy implications of Google Glass. Which are not particularly significant, since few restaurants object to one taking the odd photo. Providing you're not making nuisance of yourself and annoying other diners or staff with your photo taking.
No, it's more likely to be just as the TFS title hints. Most restaurants require you to wear a shirt and shoes, and some require you to wear a tie, because they want a certain level of acceptability for the other patrons of the restaurant. Some asshole wearing Google Glass is quite likely to annoy other patrons, so they don't allow it.
Now it may be that you personally either want to wear Google Glass at any available opportunity, or at least don't object to others doing so. Which is fine, if you open a restaurant you don't have to have such a ban. And you don't have to require ties either. But it's fine for the proprietors of other restaurants to have and enforce these standards on their patrons.
Indeed. It reminds me of the reported fear of photographs shown by various primitive peoples, fearing that it was taking away their souls.
Fundamentally it's a fear of change. The new seems scary to some. People born to it will just see it as the way things ought to be. Till they in turn get scared by some new technology that arrives in their lifetime.
That's not what I see. I see a profession that actively wants to recruit female programmers, but are just not getting the applicants. Much as elementary schools want to recruit male teachers, and there aren't enough of those around either.
Men and women tend to have different tastes and desires in so many ways. Career is one of them.
Back in the days of Shakespeare, rival publishers used to print "scripts" of the plays based on what they could recall from having seen the plays. They were of course wildly inaccurate, with entirely different text.
It was a major reason for the First Folio. An official version to correct the record of what Shakespeare's texts actually were.
...we wouldn't want to respect the wishes of an author so widely admired. He put words on paper, so fuck him. They stopped belonging to him when they saw the light of day.
In any rational world, they stopped belonging to him the day he died.
In the corporate run world, of which you are a fan, they have lobbied to legislate for other people to financially benefit for 70 years after the death of an author. But rational individuals have good reason to ignore that.
Ah now er get to the nub of the matter. You're basically an idiot.
Small problem there. You are replying to 3 quotes made by 3 different people, and thinking they are a single person. Who's the idiot?
I'll answer only to the comment you made on the quote from me.
The lone wolf rides alone, eh? When was the last time you ran a solo coding project?
Today. I'm a mobile developer. But even back in the days when I was working for a big OS company, most of the time people were working on their own. Sat in front of a computer, ear-phones plugged in as a tactic to block out the distractions of other people.
Well that's just saying you'd rather believe what you want to believe rather than the best science. The approach of creationists, and the quack medicine brigade.
This isn't a case of the odd paper that finds a difference between men and women's brains. It's found over and over again. There is no doubt.
Even if there is one it is overshadowed by difference between individuals in practice.
That's absolutely true. We're talking about normal distributions that partially overlap. No one is saying that no women want to be programmers. Just that there's less of them that want to be than men.
I'm not sure if you are trolling or what. Did you not post this statements in response to my claim that CEO pay included bonuses?
No I did not. You said I didn't understand how CEO pay generally works, and brought up bonuses in the same paragraph. Nothing that I have posted in this thread has anything to do with bonuses AFAIK.
I'm not trolling, I simply don't know what you are arguing with, it's not with anything I've said, which is why I'm wondering if you have confused me with another. You have entered into a lot of separate debates in comments under this story.
To be clear, my position is that it only makes sense to include execs entire rewards package, including bonuses, in any legislation of this kind.
YES. That actually IS an ad-hominem argument. I made it explicitly for you to point out.
Yes, it's another ad-homeinem. But the reason I didn't point it out is that your posts are filled with them. I tackled that problem in your debating style many posts and quite a few days ago.
See? It's not that complicated.
Everything you post is quite simple. Simple, and wrong. When it has any content at all.
So you too are incapable of making an actual point. Because you don't have one.
For your information I'm a feminist. It's a long time since I've met another feminist that denies there are differences between men and women. There's little point in denying a scientific fact. It does nothing for your credibility.
Apple has always bragged about their high resolution retina displays, and now that they're lacking in that department, all of a sudden high resolution is a bad thing and Apple's retina are the "perfect resolution".
So Apple being entirely consistent in what they've said does nothing to prove your point. It shows it's wrong.
We're not talking about what I believe, or even about homeopathy.
Odd. Because you'r the one who brought up homeopathy.
I used the homeopathy example as I already knew that the "domain experts", as you call them, would disagree with what you were told by a second-rate magician.
Talking about your nonsensical "beliefs", here we have another one. You believe I was told something by a magician. Despite the lack of any evidence or even suggestion for that in anything I've said.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone wanted to surreptitiously record others, there are better devices to do it with. Built-to-purpose "spy cams" exist, have existed for decades, and are much better at the job -- easier to conceal and not requiring the wearer to stare at their subject to get a steady recording.
Right, and I've already mentioned them in other comments on this story. And they too are unwelcome in most situations. That a spy camera can be concealed does nothing to make Google Glass more acceptable.
There *is* call for such functionality for cell phones. For example in movie theatres. And it's been discussed at length in other Slashdot discussions.
And should such a system ever been created for movie theatres, it's reasonable to expect that some restaurants will also want to use it.
More logically, you should be concerned about all three.
You could also pick-pocket from me. Does that mean mugging shouldn't be illegal?
Filming out in the public street is not a problem, whether with covert or non-covert cameras.
Start using cameras in places where people expect more privacy, and you're starting to hit problems. Use covert cameras and should you be discovered you're heading for being treated as a social pariah, a criminal, a fireable employee, or just someone worthy of a beating, depending on who you film and where. Use a non-covert camera, and you are more likely to be stopped from filming before you commit these transgressions.
The logic escapes me.
Then until you work out what's acceptable behaviour in public, I suggest not using any kind of filming device. For your own safety.
These devices are not always-on recorders, and have a light indicating when the camera is running.
You might wish or expect that Google Glass has such an indicator light. But it doesn't.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57582255-93/hey-google-glass-are-you-recording-me/
Even if it did, who's to say the glasses haven't been rooted, or such a light physically disabled.
3 and 4 digit UIDs have never been any indication of maturity.
It's not. And if you tried to spend a hour recording other diners with a cell phone, you would also be asked to leave a restaurant. If you weren't punched in the face first.
Blind people commonly carry white canes, or use guide dogs. In either case, they are drawn attention to as assistive devices - the cane painted white, and the harness and hi-vis jacket on the guide dog. And in either case, the law, the public and proprietors of businesses allow them some greater freedoms so that can use them. Most stores don't allow dogs, but guide dogs tend to be an exception. People would object to being hit on the leg with a stick, but wouldn't object if they saw it was a blind person with a cane.
If there is a use of Google Glass to aid the disabled, then it's reasonable to expect that it would be similarly highlighted to mark it out as a aid for the disabled. And for such legitimate use to be tolerated, where use by non-disabled people would be unacceptable.
In a nutshell, the use of dogs by a few disabled people does not mean that dogs in general are or should be allowed in stores. Equally, the potential use of Google Glass like devices by disabled people cannot and should does not imply that people should accept their use by non-disabled people.
Wearable computing is going to be normalized whether you like it or not
Wearable computing is. But that's not a synonym for head mounted video cameras. Google Glass is.
Again, the only reason why so many people whine about these today is because they're too expensive, and hence seen as rich men's toys.
I'm afraid people here have been very clear of their reasons for rejecting Google Glass and all who wear them. And that's not it.
As a side note, I hope you realize that you are sounding a lot like the people who complained about how telephone and cars have "ruined our society" etc.
He's actually sounding rather more like someone who complains about people using mobile phones in cinemas. i.e. A reasonable person who objects to other people being annoying with their technology.
What are you going to do when Google Glass and similar products are indistinguishable from normal eyeglasses?
Spy cameras built into glasses, pens and ties have been available for decades. And of course the users of them will normally get away with it. But if they are found out, there will often be significant consequences depending on who they are spying on, why and where. It's no different if Google Glass becomes covert.
Anyone found using such covert Google Glasses will be seen as a social pariah, a criminal, or someone worthy of a beating, depending on circumstances.
You're only considering the privacy implications of Google Glass. Which are not particularly significant, since few restaurants object to one taking the odd photo. Providing you're not making nuisance of yourself and annoying other diners or staff with your photo taking.
No, it's more likely to be just as the TFS title hints. Most restaurants require you to wear a shirt and shoes, and some require you to wear a tie, because they want a certain level of acceptability for the other patrons of the restaurant. Some asshole wearing Google Glass is quite likely to annoy other patrons, so they don't allow it.
Now it may be that you personally either want to wear Google Glass at any available opportunity, or at least don't object to others doing so. Which is fine, if you open a restaurant you don't have to have such a ban. And you don't have to require ties either. But it's fine for the proprietors of other restaurants to have and enforce these standards on their patrons.
Indeed. It reminds me of the reported fear of photographs shown by various primitive peoples, fearing that it was taking away their souls.
Fundamentally it's a fear of change. The new seems scary to some. People born to it will just see it as the way things ought to be. Till they in turn get scared by some new technology that arrives in their lifetime.
That's not what I see. I see a profession that actively wants to recruit female programmers, but are just not getting the applicants. Much as elementary schools want to recruit male teachers, and there aren't enough of those around either.
Men and women tend to have different tastes and desires in so many ways. Career is one of them.
I acknowledge your admission if defeat, whilst noting it's continued lack of class.
Back in the days of Shakespeare, rival publishers used to print "scripts" of the plays based on what they could recall from having seen the plays. They were of course wildly inaccurate, with entirely different text.
It was a major reason for the First Folio. An official version to correct the record of what Shakespeare's texts actually were.
...we wouldn't want to respect the wishes of an author so widely admired. He put words on paper, so fuck him. They stopped belonging to him when they saw the light of day.
In any rational world, they stopped belonging to him the day he died.
In the corporate run world, of which you are a fan, they have lobbied to legislate for other people to financially benefit for 70 years after the death of an author. But rational individuals have good reason to ignore that.
Ah now er get to the nub of the matter. You're basically an idiot.
Small problem there. You are replying to 3 quotes made by 3 different people, and thinking they are a single person. Who's the idiot?
I'll answer only to the comment you made on the quote from me.
The lone wolf rides alone, eh? When was the last time you ran a solo coding project?
Today. I'm a mobile developer. But even back in the days when I was working for a big OS company, most of the time people were working on their own. Sat in front of a computer, ear-phones plugged in as a tactic to block out the distractions of other people.
Well that's just saying you'd rather believe what you want to believe rather than the best science. The approach of creationists, and the quack medicine brigade.
This isn't a case of the odd paper that finds a difference between men and women's brains. It's found over and over again. There is no doubt.
Even if there is one it is overshadowed by difference between individuals in practice.
That's absolutely true. We're talking about normal distributions that partially overlap. No one is saying that no women want to be programmers. Just that there's less of them that want to be than men.
I'm not sure if you are trolling or what. Did you not post this statements in response to my claim that CEO pay included bonuses?
No I did not. You said I didn't understand how CEO pay generally works, and brought up bonuses in the same paragraph. Nothing that I have posted in this thread has anything to do with bonuses AFAIK.
I'm not trolling, I simply don't know what you are arguing with, it's not with anything I've said, which is why I'm wondering if you have confused me with another. You have entered into a lot of separate debates in comments under this story.
To be clear, my position is that it only makes sense to include execs entire rewards package, including bonuses, in any legislation of this kind.
YES. That actually IS an ad-hominem argument. I made it explicitly for you to point out.
Yes, it's another ad-homeinem. But the reason I didn't point it out is that your posts are filled with them. I tackled that problem in your debating style many posts and quite a few days ago.
See? It's not that complicated.
Everything you post is quite simple. Simple, and wrong. When it has any content at all.
Oh, yes there is. Your posts are positively loaded with jref nonsense!
And yet you could't point to a single thing. It's just yet another thing you are wrong about.
Your mind is filled with blind belief. No wonder you have no time for domain-experts. They are the ones telling you you are wrong, and why.
So you too are incapable of making an actual point. Because you don't have one.
For your information I'm a feminist. It's a long time since I've met another feminist that denies there are differences between men and women. There's little point in denying a scientific fact. It does nothing for your credibility.
Not even slightly. You claimed:
Apple has always bragged about their high resolution retina displays, and now that they're lacking in that department, all of a sudden high resolution is a bad thing and Apple's retina are the "perfect resolution".
So Apple being entirely consistent in what they've said does nothing to prove your point. It shows it's wrong.
We're not talking about what I believe, or even about homeopathy.
Odd. Because you'r the one who brought up homeopathy.
I used the homeopathy example as I already knew that the "domain experts", as you call them, would disagree with what you were told by a second-rate magician.
Talking about your nonsensical "beliefs", here we have another one. You believe I was told something by a magician. Despite the lack of any evidence or even suggestion for that in anything I've said.
Your thinking is irrational.
I had hoped the thread was old enough that it would go unnoticed by every one else.
Yeah, I bet. The only time another person gets involved and it's to clip you for your pathetic ad-hominem arguments. Ha.
Glad it's not just me that sees you for what you are.