Well, speaking as the one who can read and knows what a reductio ad absurdum is (as well as what makes a good analogy and what makes a weak and shoddy one) I'll leave you to wallow in your own stupid here. If your view is that a pair of glasses that could also record if it were turned on is entirely analogous to a recording device that has recording as its sole purpose then you're too far gone to help. The mobile phone analogy is a better one - it's a device that can record (and can do from a position of concealment), but has a perfectly reasonable alternative use. It's not one that's required in a cinema, obviously, but it's one that's clearly enough that people aren't stripped of their phones on entering the building and the FBI aren't called if anyone's seen using their phone or with their phone potentially recording from a concealed position in their clothes. With Google Glass in this case the device has a primary use that is required in a cinema - being able to see the screen properly. Your comparison to a video camera that has no need to be in a cinema in the first place and that has no other purpose in being pointed at a screen than to record it is either caused by a complete lack of wits or a complete lack of intellectual integrity. Though I suppose we need to give you credit and assume it might well be both.

My original point was this: vast numbers of people carry high-definition video recording devices into movie theatres every day. The vast majority of these people have those high-definition video recording devices concealed in such a way that they could potentially be recording the screen, or at least have the potential for concealing them in such a way. If we're going to make the assumption that anyone who could potentially be recording the screen is recording it - which is exactly the wrong assumption that was made here by both the theatre owners and the FBI, neither of whom attempted at any point to verify that assumption before things had been escalated to a ridiculous level - then we're going to have to start turning away a lot of people who turn up to watch a movie with a mobile phone and clothes.

There were ways to deal with this situation sensibly. Both parties could have avoided the issue - the customer by wearing standard prescription glasses, the theatre owner and the FBI by not being complete arses and making an assumption of guilt and escalating things way beyond where they needed to be.

There's certainly an aroma of stupid around here.

I understand perfectly what property rights are. The theatre owner has the right to refuse the guy entry. What they did very clearly overstepped their rights, as the story is told here. They made very specific false allegations without evidence. I know that's hard for you to understand, but it's the issue being discussed here, so you really ought to concentrate on catching up rather than being snarky about property rights that aren't in question.

Um. Thanks. I kind of thought it was a pretty good example of a reductio ad absurdum too. One of us certainly doesn't understand the term, though, because it's a perfectly valid form of argument. If you're trying to accuse me of a logical fallacy, you might want to pick something that... well, something that actually is a logical fallacy.

You might want to try 'straw man' or 'slippery slope', though it's not really either.

And 'within reason, of course' doesn't extend to making false accusations of criminal action with no evidence.

Doesn't matter. If a turned-off Google Glass with no recently recorded video files on it can record a movie, your phone secreted in your clothing can certainly record it through cunningly concealed gaps in your clothing.

And just why do you wear clothes to the movies when everyone knows they're the number one way of concealing illicit recording devices? What exactly have you got to hide, Mr Coward? Who are you working for? Why are you recording this movie? How much are you being paid?

Read the article; it was prescription Google Glass, and he didn't have a standard pair of glasses with him.

I assume you leave your mobile phone at home when you go to the movies, then?

So what you're saying is that Americans are just very bad at spying?

...violate people's privacy rights in a way that respects people's privacy rights?

No it isn't.

Assuming Linux provided those things at least as well as Windows, of course.

So you want patents to become increasingly the preserve of large companies who have the money to invest in the legal processes required to get a patent, and to discriminate against small businesses and individuals who want to protect their inventions? Because it's bad enough as it is - raising the bar for entry still further and worse, providing punishment for missing something would absolutely cut the process off for those without the resources to do the work upfront and weather the hit of potentially still being wrong.

...can I be the only one who immediately thought of this and got very confused?

The thing about phone records is that they distinguish between calls to 911 and calls to Susan.

Interesting map, which raises a question; are you being willfully ignorant or just intellectually dishonest?

That choice of colouring ranges lumps the US (3.6 deaths per 100k) in with Italy (0.36 deaths per 100k) - that's an order of magnitude difference. And with the UK (0.04 deaths per 100k) - that's two orders of magnitude difference.

Do the same the other way, and you'd be lumping the US in with the likes of Swaziland and Guatemala.

Look at this list, for example. Count the first world countries on that list with worse gun homicide rates than the US. Look at how strictly controlled guns tend to leave countries towards the low end of the list, and lax or no controls tend to put them higher up the list.

Switzerland has some of the tightest controls on guns out there, of course. And I think we can all recognise how laughable it is to claim Mexico is a fine example of firmly applied gun control laws.