|
Mornacale posted:In this world, the one where being a glasshole is an intrusive and dangerous act and anyone who behaves in such an anti-social manner deserves to have their toy broken. Though depending on the situation it might be reasonable to simply shame them into taking them off. internet_tough_guys.txt Thank you for admitting you would like to be a terrible human being.
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 09:34
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ¿ Jun 3, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
Mornacale posted:You are calling someone anti-social in the same post in which you fantasize about murdering a person for destroying a piece of property that threatens them. Re-examine your priorities. Unless you think "be petty and break rich people toys" is an important message to bring about social change, you're just making an rear end of yourself. What happened to asking people nicely (and just waiting till the glasshole starts ranting about cyborg oppression and gets kicked out anyway  )?I also agree with the previous poster who said that getting worked up about Google Glass in the age of smartphones and omnipresent CCTV is dumb, you're missing the forest for the trees.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:The caps are beside the issue. The anti-glass people are just taking their fear of a surveillance state out on the easy target; they have no interest in actual reality. See the guy who thinks that men staring at attractive women is a modern phenomenon. You forgot: Nessus posted:Right, if this was over prosthetic eyes for veterans or the blind or whatever, I would be much more civilly inclined, because that serves a great and profound good even if it has many of the same implications. Indeed, if someone used Google Glass as some kind of tool for creating prosthetics for hearing or sight for the disabled, that would be wonderful.  paranoid randroid posted:Yes my concern is that a bunch of Tech Industry people are indulging in conspicuous consumption and then demanding we treat their frivolity as a civil rights issue. Consequently I feel they should be driven to ground, like animals, for the crime of being loving ludicrous.  loving  . I am shocked and appalled by this idle self indulgence!  Seriously, so loving what? Go complain about valid issues like techies being a pain in the rear end for the San Francisco housing market and the glut of dumb libertarians coming out of the Right now a good number of gently caress glassholes posters are lowering themselves to the level of petulant children crying because they don't want anyone else on the playground to have shinier toys.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:They can have all the shiny toys they want. I really don't care. It's the red-faced baby temper tantrums and cries of ableism that result from asking them to put their toys away that merit immediate transfer to re-educational camps in the middle of the desert.  non-cyborg privilege should go back to writing tumblr effortposts so everyone else can get on with their lives. quote:e. okay thats a lie, i do care inasmuch as i would prefer if grown rear end men and women did not walk around looking like bargain bin geordi laforges muttering "pew pew pew" to themselves and calling themselves cyborgs.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
This discussion is getting dumber by the minute.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I.e. not at all only because the person filming them was smart enough to pay a fraction of the cost for a thing that doesn't get all up in your face. Really it boils down to "people are using a new and unusual thing which I don't like, here's a bunch of reasons to hate itwhich also apply to a dozen other things I can't be bothered to get worked up about suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 14:07 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 14:05
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:No, that's not it at all. It's about dislike for people who feel entitled to invade the privacy of others because, like, don't be a racist technophohe!  As has been mentioned multiple times in this thread, there are many more effective ways of being a creep and invading other people's privacy, often with products made to do exactly that. The google glass being dumb and many current glass owners being assholes are valid points, but those are points about how glassholes are obnoxious pieces of poo poo and have bad taste. They don't make for a good discussion of privacy issues because while all those other creep friendly gizmos and excessive surveillance in general are a thing, people produce hilarious Grrr Glass rants and then come up with ~reasons~ why it is bad after the fact. e: Oh, and that point about how people go Grrr Glass because they see it is an intrusion of the online world into real life was interesting and good. You know, unlike the people going Grrr Glass for vague and ill-defined reasons who can't (or don't want to) articulate the previous point. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 15:05 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:It isn't socially acceptable to record someone that way. But why are you then not complaining whenever there is a smartphone on a restaurant table within earshot? Could it be because smartphones are common and largely socially acceptable, but glass is suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 15:10 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So what if a private club wants to ban filming or recording people. Can they do that by simply asking you to put your camera away or stop pointing your phone at people who complain? The club is free to tell glass owners to take the thing off or to bring a model with no camera (if one eventually exists). Why is it so hard to not be a confrontational rear end in a top hat or to avoid being an obnoxious rules lawyer
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:A lot of you seem to mistake mockery for hatred. I hate things like nazis. I mock socially-retarded, entitled wannabe cyborgs.  glassholes are literally Albert Speer.Now I can in good conscience vote this thread 1 
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:OK then if you agree with the restaurant's actions then what the gently caress is the problem? People going Grr New Thing for dumb reasons.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:This doesn't really work on a sliding scale, you either have a reasonable expectation of privacy or not. If you would be OK with the owner shooting some stock footage for an ad of the restaurant, or put a surveillance camera there, or have someone snap a selfie there, then there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. The only places in a restaurant where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy are a private dining room or the bathroom. The problem is not that there is footage of you, it's that it was taken by a technophile dork
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
Bremen posted:If a restaurant wants to ask you to take the glass off, and it serves no other reasonable purpose, that's fine, and the woman mentioned in the OP really should have been more reasonable about it. That said, the overblown reaction against Google Glass never ceases to amuse me. Ladies and Gentlemen, behold the first intelligent post in this entire thread  TheImmigrant posted:No one has made that claim. TheImmigrant posted:Intrusive is not necessarily an affront. I work two blocks from the White House, and assume that I'm often surveilled much more intensively and effectively by cameras and Secret Service than Glass could do in a restaurant. There's a compelling need for it, which means it's not an affront. Airport security is intrusive, but not an affront. (Well ... Bad example.) TheImmigrant posted:Creepers with cell phones don't justify creepers with Glass. TheImmigrant posted:Ostracism is preferable to a ban. Protip: it is perfectly valid to hold the position of "using glass makes many people uncomfortable, therefore it is a bad idea for glassholes to pretend it doesn't and cry bloody murder when someone tells them they're uncomfortable with glass" without devolving into a farcical privacy rights discussion.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Bremen posted:I never said people are paranoid if they fear someone is recording them, I said that people worried about someone recording them with google glass are overlooking the much more common and affordable options to record them. I'm willing to bet you're at least a thousand times less likely to get unknowingly photographed by Google Glass than by something that isn't Google Glass. Which is why I find the common paranoia about Glass so funny. Since this thread is turning to material anyway, allow me to appeal to human nature early and often.Being looked at by an eye or an eye-like camera lens creeps people out because  (it is actually well established experimentally that even pictures of eyes on things change behaviour). That, in addition to "Grr New Things  ", may be part of why google glass provokes a stronger response than the possibility of creeper watches or bowties with barely visible camera holes.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Well, of course if someone doesn't know they're being creeped, they won't react as strongly as if they suspect they are being creeped. That's irrelevant to the discussion though. Obviously. However, the mere fact that the thing looks like something that can watch you makes you uncomfortable, even if it actually is not recording. In that, it is reasonable to say "google glass is creepy, so don't use it in my restaurant", but it is not reasonable to pretend it actually is a meaningful privacy rights issue (because anyone who actually wants to creep has many better ways to do it just one amazon order away, which furthermore are not perceived by their target as literally staring you in the face).
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:killing someone with glasses sounds hard. I'd use a gun or maybe a knife. Have you ever seen a man eating chicken?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Privacy issues can't exist when privacy no longer exists. Convenience and not giving a poo poo always trumps privacy issues for the average consumer (see: facebook, google) unless the new thing is a useless piece of poo poo anyway (see: kinect  ).Nessus posted:It sounds really useful for those purposes, but I don't see how come you'd need to defend the (social) right to wear it into a restaurant, then. For most of the people who seem to be using it, it is a toy, a lifestyle accessory. Hodgepodge posted:I'm not sure how something being potentially socially acceptable in the future makes it acceptable now. Or how that makes its acceptance desirable. The default question should not be "why allow it", but "why ban it". Even if it is just a new toy for the current users, what grounds is there to be against private citizens using it? The things to worry about are "ban people from using that collected data in certain ways" and "creepy behaviour is not acceptable", which are not in any way specific to glass. Seriously, this thread reads like old farts going on about how they are offended by those weird Life changes, deal with it. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 09:15 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Well, do we want the norm to be that everyone wears a recording device everywhere they go? That seems to be the relevant question to ask. Considering the vast data gathering already going on, I consider the privacy implications and the discussion about the appropriateness of using google glass to be an utterly irrelevant side show. It's much more important to discuss the implications of the large scale systematic data gathering going on, and which limits to place on the use of that data. Should we mandate tighter controls on commercial use and allow snooping and data mining only on concrete evidence? Yes. Can we realistically keep businesses like google honest in their data use practices? Probably not. Should we come down like a ton of bricks on them if peoeple are adversely affected by said practices? Definitely. Discussing the social acceptability of glass is about personal taste, which is fine, but a different issue (Where I, personally, come down on the side of "it's a more awkward cell phone, who cares")
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Also please vote this thread one, it deserves the CRAP tag 
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Yes, shut down conversations that don't go your way (but don't restrict Glass anywhere). Alternatively, leave. It would probably be better for your blood pressure. You seem tense.  This thread had a well deserved crap tag while we had our fascinating discussion (it is just stupid). Did that shut down debate?e: VitalSigns posted:Oh okay, so refusing to take off Glass or avoid pointing it at people when asked is being an rear end in a top hat. Well okay then, great I agree. Stop being obtuse. You're treating a thing as something completely new and totally worse when it is actually an existing thing that nobody cares about in a slightly different package. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 15:01 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 14:55
|
|
That seems like exactly the basic standard expectation we should have of everyone. In fact, I should expect an establishment to kick out someone whose assholishness is bothering other customers.
|
TheImmigrant posted:No one has advocated a legal ban of Glass. I advocate ostracism and social exclusion for people who use it inappropriately, not any new legal sanctions. Anosmoman posted:The privacy issue is done - it's over. In my view Glass doesn't change anything and that's my beef with this discussion because people seem to think that ostracising glass users will somehow preserve privacy. It won't. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 16:27 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Of course here you're not allowed to record people without their permission, but that's hardly enforced. I don't know if this is also the case in other countries? It's kinda weird in Germany. You're allowed to record stuff which happens to have people in it, but not the people explicitly in most situations. Also a recording light would end up getting taped over for everything I use an actual camera for, since I don't need to have a LED going on when I'm photographing animals and poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
ClearAirTurbulence posted:What's kind of messed up to me is that cameras and phones that have cameras are required to make a sound whenever a still picture is taken so you can't take sneaky pictures in a locker room or bathroom or whatever, but there's no requirement that a camera recording video provide some kind of audio warning that pictures are being taken. I think it would be good to have phones that record video say "RECORDING" in a moderately loud voice every few seconds. Yes, most have a light that comes on when they are recording, but what about people who aren't looking at the person pointing the camera at them? Or the blind, you could go to town recording the antics of the blind without them ever knowing. Which defeats the whole point of recording sound on those devices.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:ed: I think the absolute best way to point out this absolute complete failure of marketing is just by noting how big an opportunity they missed. People love screens and poo poo in their cars, people love explosions and laser rifles and bald eagles making GBS threads drone strike bombers. People love shiny things. And what is glass? Its a loving HUD, its an F-18 FOR YOUR FACE, its the god drat danger zone predator vision heat seeking cellphone wingman and they managed to let that image degrade into lumpy nerd goggles. A HUD that doesn't need to come with a vehicle attached is awesome because it lets you do things in a lazier and less attention-requiring fashion. Yes, I just said that reaching into your pocket for your phone is too much  . It's a thing of daily routine, where stupid menial things should just blend into the background. You know, the same reason why car keys have push buttons on them. No, I don't want to whip out and actively carry a smartphone or (god forbid) bring a dedicated e-reader for the underground ride when I could instead read papers on a head mounted display that I never need to consciously grab and look up where the nearest bakery is because I got up late and didn't have breakfast. Voice control is goofy as gently caress, but I expect I'd prefer it to push buttons on your head for exactly the same reason. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 09:17 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:But it's a HUD that frankly really really really sucks. Marketing it on being a cool HUD is just going to lead to people being disappointed. Plus that marketing probably wouldn't tie in well with selling a small production run at grossly inflated prices either. We learn: google is dumb.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:We infer: Google is incapable of making a mistake, in any area of business, at any time, in any place. [ASK] me about the government replacement algorithm 
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:The one thing that's surprised me about this thread is the absence of a certain techno-fetishistic forums poster, whose bizarre ideas concerning economics, social interactions, marbles, and pretty much everything else have been an endless if at times frustrating source of amusement. I think we ran him out of D&D for a couple of weeks with the debacle of his last technoevangelism thread.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:"We"? Do you enjoy ganging up on and running people out of fora for Incorrect Posting?  ProfessorCurly posted:Also thanks for that teejayh, it is interesting. I suppose you could flip this whole thing around with regard to the creeping/surveillance state idea. If everyone is recording at all times in public places, then there would be massive disincentives to creeping behavior. Stare at women, grope a person on the subway, stalking - much harder to do when everything you're doing is being constantly observed and recorded for your upcoming court case from dozens of different angles. That is why corporations and/or the government need to be restrained from using the results of data analysis to their heart's content. When (read: since, for the last several years) the amount of available data becomes sufficient to make the life of any individual you want to single out difficult, we're not going to retroactively remove the ability to analyse that data anymore. It's simply too late and not going to happen. What must be done is limiting the use that can be made of that data and, as I said before, there need to be meaningful penalties if that line is crossed. For instance, if we agree that everyone needs affordable health care like in most Along with that, peoples' attitudes regarding other peoples' behaviour and image should ideally also change. Since every single moment of everyone's public (and increasingly private) life is recorded and already often posted online, stuff like judging people on ~unprofessional~ behaviour you find on their facebook walls shouldn't happen, regardless of whether you're interviewing them for a job or considering whether they'll become your doctor or something. People get drunk, are embarrassing, can be horrible spergs, and occasionally do things which you may not agree with - deal with it, people aren't perfect. e: unlimited shrimp posted:Counterpoint: 99% of people don't know or care about Google Glass. The only people who care about "glassholes" are as techy/nerdy as the glassholes themselves. A very good point. Exhibit 1: this thread. ProfessorCurly posted:I like to claim credit for that, my 10 point list of exhaustive fundamental economic problems with his ideas seemed to throw him completely off rails.
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 20:28 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:We've already done that at least though. Yeah. To elaborate on the other example, though: This is where we need to integrate the offline world into the online world a bit. Minor infractions just aren't worth persecuting most of the time, and will always happen because people are not robots and make bad decisions all the time. This is where the inefficiency inherent in existing law enforcement is a good thing. However, when they're posted online for all to see, forever, you've got a problem. In principle, anyone who doesn't like your face could report you for that stupid bar brawl everyone agreed to forget about two years ago, or a police officer who wants to have things besides "successfully drove squad car while eating doughnuts from 9 to 5" on his CV could trawl through old security footage and bust you for drinking in public (on that note: why is public drunkenness/drinking even a specific misdemeanor in some places - "disturbing the peace" should be quite sufficient). In cases like that, we should just come out and say "evidence from fishing expeditions in online data (or wherever) is inadmissible unless an investigation was already underway". Of course, this will never happen because we must be TOUGH ON CRIME or something.
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 20:58 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:The one we're talking about is notoriously thin-skinned when it comes to questioning, and tends to bounce back and forth from manic enthusiasm to sneering dismissal. He gets in a huff easily when subjected to such ~*uncharitable treatment*~ as being told what he's talking about is complete nonsense merely because it is complete nonsense. For some reason TheImmigrant thinks I want to deport him (starting several pages ago).
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DDhxoWav1o quote:If you "need" to have the ability to film me and my friends eating food like a stalker fetishist I "need" to smash your stalker camera. Please explain in 200 words or less why being in the background of someone's picture and getting robbed by someone are a comparable violation of your rights. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 23:59 on May 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I also dont think that taking videos through peoples windows is ok, but the current trend is to say its fine. We will not agree on this. Please continue arguing against strawmen, it makes the debate easier for everyone else. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 11:08
|
|
|
Required viewing: The Daily Show does glassholes.avi  .It's literally every point in this thread playing out. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jun 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:The ironic point is that she has just demonstrated that glassholes will wander around filming people in nominally private places for their own masturbatory pleasure and if you want to have a quiet unfilmed drink with a friend you should definitely confront these assfaces. Well if random assholes start getting violent and I have a camera I sure as hell am going to turn it on so I can better drag them to court.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2014 10:34
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:I guess I don't really understand the hysteria most people have about this and it just seems to be a form of neo-luddism. I hate to break it to the megalomaniacs, but nobody truly gives a poo poo about you or what you do throughout the day. I'm sure most people with smartphones or Google glass have far more interesting stuff to do than record you deliberating over what to order from the wine menu. I'm sure even the waiters, who are paid to give a poo poo, don't really care either. The problem people have is with the perception of being observed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:At that point you might aswell go full on Howard Hughes and never leave your encapsulated living quarters because that's virtually the only way you're never going to be observed. The feeling of being watched itself is creepy. It makes you feel like prey .Anway, when people think of a phone, they don't think of an always-on camera, so it's not creepy (and CCTV blends into the background most of the time, and people have habituated to it). When everyone and their mother is using Google Glass 23.2 all day that does not involve a perma-recording camera people are more likely to shut up instead of whining about ~privacy~ because saying "well it feels creepy to me" doesn't sound as objective. Also look up the effect of printing eyes on billboards and signs, it's amazing how much human behaviour is changed by the perception of being watched, even when it is completely obvious you are not actually being watched. e: Solkanar512 posted:What the gently caress is this poo poo? You're threatening to blind people now? Anything else you're going to do, tough guy? Your honour, it was not my fault I broke his jaw, for biological imperative compelled me to tear to shreds the thin veneer of civilisation and punch that fucker in the face. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Jun 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:^^^ This, a thousand times this Glassholes are loving morons, but Glass hate is reaching ridiculous levels as well. We learn: assholes, as far as e: FRINGE posted:Research shows that indiscriminate monitoring fosters distrust, conformity and mediocrity This is the one good argument against wearable cameras in this thread, assuming that people are unable to adapt to glass in the same way that we've adapted to phones. However, given the increased convenience of accessing information with glass, I say we should make a good effort to habituate to it instead of going  ~my "privacy"~ right away.
suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 11:48 on Jun 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
rkajdi posted:Isn't a huge amount of the issue that Glasshats (a much better term IMO) are stereotypical yuppie tech utopians? I mean, the video posted awhile back had a lady saying that the person wearing them was "ruining the city", which I took to be standard gentrification and tech fetishism. Considering the very real effects of these people on SF (and to the labor market broadly with the whole "disruptive" bullshit) I think it's a pretty legitimate gripe. You shouldn't expect to be able to hang out with people while you're in the process of dispossessing them. No, you don't understand, but when the singularity comes you will.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2014 12:16
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's a weird argument that the cameras you can see and dont know if they are recording or not are somehow more problematic than the cameras you can't see but know are there AND recording. Glass can't record all the time and it's sutpid to presume anyone wearing it is recording you (unless of course you are in their face yelling at them.) That's how the feeling of being observed is quite different from intellectually knowing there is observation going on.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jun 3, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
Ddraig posted:he was a massive sperglord the worst crime a white middle class male can commit in the year of our lord 2014
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 00:53
|
|