If they fail to deliver, or if the food does not meet my reasonable expectations (and, no, I am not especially fussy), then they've not met their end of the bargain, and I'm not paying. No act of ordering obliges me to pay for something I never receive.
If I have to leave in a hurry, or I change my mind, such that they do not have a reasonable opportunity to fulfil their end of the contract, of course that's my fault and not theirs, and naturally I would offer to pay. But that's not what I was talking about, just as I was not talking about numerous other things that I did not mention above.
My right to use Google Glass (if I had such,) or a mobile phone, or a GoPro camera, or whatever may come is not an infringement of your right to be free of recording (for you have none outside your home,)...
Fine. Next time your wife wears a short skirt for your walk in the park and she happens to be a bit uphill from me, I'll be sure to start the live feed. On and visible from a public space, right to photograph, no right not to be photographed, yep yep yep. Looks like I'm covered.
(Of course, if *I* caught somebody trying to upskirt-video *my* wife, I'd feed him his camera--sideways--any law to the contrary be damned. But, then, I'm obviously not the paragon of tolerance that you are, I'm guessing...)
Nick was entitled to an respond in anger when he was confronted after being allowed in the restaurant, without a clue that he'd be embarrassed and rejected for something that few could reasonably anticipate.
Because no reasonable person objects to being filmed (without any prior warning, even) by strangers while dining with family or friends in a private establishment--of course!
Respect for the customer begins at the front door.
I was taught that respect for other members of the public begins when you walk out your own front door.
Feel free to promote transparency in public space; I'm all for it.
But the restaurant I plan to open (to have something to do if and when I ever retire) will be a private space that does not permit recording of patrons without their express permission. Patrons of my establishment will remove Google Glass and similar always-deployed/always-on devices upon entry, or they will patronise someone else's establishment. End of story.
It's mostly typical male adolescent "Look at us, we're all different--in exactly the same way!" tribalism.
BTW, I still have my Rolling Stones T-shirt from the '78 'Some Girls' tour--there's a hole in Keith Richards' head where an overlooked seed fell out of the joint and landed on it--so, yes, I remember very well indeed what it was like being a male adolescent.:)
I had to learn to make sure my phone was angled downwards when reading on the subway, lest people start looking at me oddly (and in not a very friendly way, either).
The likely interpretation would be that the added item would be taken as belonging to the *second* clause. Let's expand it and see if you still feel the same way:
"If you've no shirt or shoes, you'll get no service--and no Google Glass, either".
I think most people would interpret that last bit as "you won't get any Google Glass, either".
Another example of a crappy writer trying to "force"a common phrase--wrongly!--for imagined effect.
Slashdot Mirror
The only reason Mandela sought the support of the Soviet Union was because the West had already turned him down.
You'd think after fucking up royally with Ho Chi Minh, we'd have learnt something...
You must be really bored, Roman.
Slow down, cowboy! Is your sarcasm meter engaged?
Trofim Denisovitch Lysenko, thou art avenged!
It's not assault if I'm protecting her from harassment.
Lol, loving all the comments below taking this seriously..
So you read from bottom to top, eh? Most people do it the other way round. Thus:
'above' = previous/before;
and
'below' = upcoming/next.
(Det var så lite, så!)
I really wish I had not Googled that.
One of the biggest industries on the planet would cease to exist. It would create economic chaos. Next thing you know, nihilism... and anarchy!
You mean there'd be no more hookers, and people would just start fucking in the streets whenever the mood came over them?
I've also found that *being* an immigrant tends to alter your perspective on such matters considerably.
(For extra credit, try doing it twice.)
Um, no.
If they fail to deliver, or if the food does not meet my reasonable expectations (and, no, I am not especially fussy), then they've not met their end of the bargain, and I'm not paying. No act of ordering obliges me to pay for something I never receive.
If I have to leave in a hurry, or I change my mind, such that they do not have a reasonable opportunity to fulfil their end of the contract, of course that's my fault and not theirs, and naturally I would offer to pay. But that's not what I was talking about, just as I was not talking about numerous other things that I did not mention above.
Please don't try to engage me with a defence of ambiguity as if it were some sort of badge of honour. That shit gets really old.
If people using such prosthetics are thereby identified as disabled (and thus in need of them), I'd have no objections.
Most places that don't allow animals on the premises do permit seeing-eye dogs, for example.
So you prefer to dine at Chuck E. Cheese?
Adding a couple of layers of chicken wire inside the walls, floor, and ceiling is already legal, AFAIK.
My right to use Google Glass (if I had such,) or a mobile phone, or a GoPro camera, or whatever may come is not an infringement of your right to be free of recording (for you have none outside your home,)...
Fine. Next time your wife wears a short skirt for your walk in the park and she happens to be a bit uphill from me, I'll be sure to start the live feed. On and visible from a public space, right to photograph, no right not to be photographed, yep yep yep. Looks like I'm covered.
(Of course, if *I* caught somebody trying to upskirt-video *my* wife, I'd feed him his camera--sideways--any law to the contrary be damned. But, then, I'm obviously not the paragon of tolerance that you are, I'm guessing...)
Nick was entitled to an respond in anger when he was confronted after being allowed in the restaurant, without a clue that he'd be embarrassed and rejected for something that few could reasonably anticipate.
Because no reasonable person objects to being filmed (without any prior warning, even) by strangers while dining with family or friends in a private establishment--of course!
Respect for the customer begins at the front door.
I was taught that respect for other members of the public begins when you walk out your own front door.
Funny, because I can think of several good uses for tech like Glass. If you can't, you need to think outside the box.
Maybe we could use it to make a better Donkey Kong clone, eh?
Feel free to promote transparency in public space; I'm all for it.
But the restaurant I plan to open (to have something to do if and when I ever retire) will be a private space that does not permit recording of patrons without their express permission. Patrons of my establishment will remove Google Glass and similar always-deployed/always-on devices upon entry, or they will patronise someone else's establishment. End of story.
It's mostly typical male adolescent "Look at us, we're all different--in exactly the same way!" tribalism.
BTW, I still have my Rolling Stones T-shirt from the '78 'Some Girls' tour--there's a hole in Keith Richards' head where an overlooked seed fell out of the joint and landed on it--so, yes, I remember very well indeed what it was like being a male adolescent. :)
I want to wear mine. But then I'm blind as a bat without them, so I actually have a practical reason for wanting to.
...Not to mention numerous other posters to this discussion.
Some people don't see a difference between
A. device could just maybe be recording video right now, even though he's pointing it slightly below vertical
and
B. quite likely to be taking video at any time and it's certainly positioned to do so *all* the damned time
Others do.
Those of us who can see further than our own arses tend to be in category B.
It would be trivial to extend such laws to the case of being filmed without consent as well.
It might be better to know, understand, and apply existing laws, first.
Note how this AC, like many a 14-year-old, seems to have no thoughts whatsoever regarding the effects of his actions on others.
I had to learn to make sure my phone was angled downwards when reading on the subway, lest people start looking at me oddly (and in not a very friendly way, either).
Damn straight, mate.
This is what self-absorbed types like N Starr don't get: It's not just about you, Glasshole!
The likely interpretation would be that the added item would be taken as belonging to the *second* clause. Let's expand it and see if you still feel the same way:
"If you've no shirt or shoes, you'll get no service--and no Google Glass, either".
I think most people would interpret that last bit as "you won't get any Google Glass, either".
Another example of a crappy writer trying to "force"a common phrase--wrongly!--for imagined effect.