Socially unacceptable behaviour is met with hostility, usually in proportion to the nature of the behaviour. Something extreme (like a guy beating his date) is likely to attract violence, something relatively minor like my cellphone example would likely result in being told to "cut that out and go away" (which is more or less the response I'm advocating).

See: http://slashdot.org/comments.p... for standard counter argument.

The counter-argument of "no expectation of privacy" is also oft repeated, and imo wrong (see http://slashdot.org/comments.p... for my also tired response).

Agreed, but see:

Citation needed, but at least perceptually I don't feel like everyone is sneakily recording my private conversations at a restaurant.

* there .. :(

Horrible as it is, this is a battle of social acceptance. Google wants wearing a camera on your face to become socially acceptable. Those of us who don't want to see this become the norm want to make sure it doesn't become socially acceptable.

Unfortunately the best way to achieve this is by being hostile towards people wearing the damn thing. Just as walking up to some random couple at a bar, pulling out your cellphone, and pointing the camera at them would likely attract hostility as a non-socially acceptable behaviour, so must wearing google glass.

This doesn't have to be violence, but it does have to be enough to make:

- the individual unhappy (negative re-enforcement against the socially unacceptable behaviour)
- observers nervous about engaging in the behaviour themselves (hmm, everyones telling this guy to shove his google glass up his ass, and one guy is even offering to help, maybe I shouldn't buy one just yet!)
- businesses nervous about incidents, hopefully enough to ban the devices

There are subtle but important differences.

Yes surveillance is ubiquitous, but it's usually managed by business owners or government agencies, which means it's very unlikely to end up on youtube. A bar wouldn't survive very long if they made a habit of posting embarrassing moments from their surveillance tapes on the web.

People with cellphone cameras is also ubiquitous, but using one to record something is usually fairly obvious.

Covert surveillance is also now mostly trivial, but it's not socially acceptable and very few people actually do it, so the chances of being covertly recorded in a bar are pretty slim unless someone has reason to.

Google glass is in an all new category. To many, walking up to a table while wearing google glass is roughly equivalent to walking up to that table with your cellphone camera pointed at the people sitting their, and thus has gotten much the reaction you would expect.

It's a fairly commonly used term, and I wouldn't really call it a grudge so much as an acknowledgement of the disconnect in reality with those who assume an out of proportion interest in anything involving space.

Lots of people find space interesting and are generally supportive of ongoing research and efforts, but generally maintain a healthy balance of other interests.

Space nuttery is in my opinion defined by an unhealthy and unrealistic obsession with space. These are people who would (or at least have said they would) sell all their worldly possessions for the opportunity to spend some time in space, who would volunteer for a one way trip to mars. Basically a space nutter is someone who spends a fair bit of time flailing their arms and shouting "SPAAACCEEE" excitedly.

Gotta agree.

Business in general has become very risk adverse with a few exceptions (spacex and google being the big ones). Many of us feel constrained in this environment where everything we do has to mostly work or we won't get a second change or an opportunity to improve it. Everything has become about risk management and ROI and soul crushing metrics. It's very refreshing to see this kind of apparent "lets just do something we know probably won't work the first time, and keep doing it until it does" attitude.

Indeed. I'm not a space nutter, but this impresses the hell out of me. With a problem this hard, the fact that they are down to minor mistakes like this and not major fundamental issues is awesome.

I would assume for the same reason they are using an open system rather than a closed system: to save weight and complexity.

Also, I'm not a space nutter, but this stuff impresses the hell out of me. That looked damn close.

One keeps backups to protect themselves against such horrible, very rookie mistakes. They happen. Yes we can rage about how it shouldn't have happened, and yes someone at steam should get slapped, and yes "everyone should have backups" doesn't lessen the reality of what happened here, but having backups is still a good idea and is the difference between an inconvenience and sobbing in the corner when something like this happens.

At this point I'm far more inclined to jump ship to BSD (which to be honest feels very much like Linux did back before all this nonsense) and contribute my efforts to making it what I want. Neither is really what I want, but I feel at this point BSD is actually closer, and at least philosophically more aligned with what I'm looking for.

I'm not looking to exaggerate, but i do feel the BSD developer base is noticeably increasing for the same reason, having met many recent converts who all tell much the same story.

Or just run Ubuntu.. or maybe Windows?

This is a terrible argument and totally against everything that drove me to Linux in the first place. If I don't like the way something works, I can and am encouraged to roll my own. Systemd is the culmination of this new mindset of "lets all just standardize so it's more presentable to the masses and business". Projects are becoming their own little ecosystems rather than a set of useful utilities that can be used somewhat independently. Gnome is kind of the extreme version of this, but everything seems to be heading in this direction, and now the core system functionality is becoming similar.

We are heading towards a Linux where doing your own thing is becoming less supported and discouraged, and this I find depressing. Sure we may actually have a year of the Linux desktop, but that desktop may as well be Windows.

The problem in my opinion is a noticeable shift in this mentality over the last several years.

At some point, mass adoption became the big goal, and the spirit of flexibility and building a better mousetrap started to lose ground to standardization and making things more user friendly. Linux is basically morphing into an open source Windows clone bit by bit. This is probably good for humanity and all, but for many it's the opposite of what drew us to Linux in the first place.

In particular, systemd is the ultimate culmination of this new mindset. Systemd is a big, all encompassing beast where you can't easily swap out components and where many packages are gaining direct or indirect dependencies on it, making it hard to run a systemd free system. It may work better and be more user friendly, but it's the antithesis of the original Linux spirit.

As to using a distro that doesn't have systemd as a default, as a former Gentoo user I can tell you it's not that simple. Systemd is undoubtedly the most disruptive thing to hit gentoo in awhile. Simply specifying -systemd use flag isn't enough, I had to straight up blacklist packages and then uninstall/replace a bunch of packages with non-systemd requiring alternatives and fix the respective breakage. I don't use gnome, however a few gnome libraries got pulled in as dependencies of various things, and it was a huge headache to clean that shit out. Meanwhile slackware has straight up dropped gnome3 because it's too much of a pain to make it work without systemd. On Debian, gimp, a graphical editing tool, has an indirect systemd dependency!