You seem to be jumping without reason (how unusual for someone on the internet) to the conclusion that I think anyone is at fault.

Then TURN OFF the Google Glass if it won't detach from the prescription glasses.

Obviously I'd turn it off. The last thing I want is notifications popping up while I watch a film. However it's irrelevant because the theatre chain is banning it entirely, not asking (or checking that) people to turn it off. It's not rocket science, it is explained in the summary after all.

I don't think it's a rights issue. I think theatres are entirely entitled to ban glass if they want to. However I would happily select a different theatre if some banned it and some didn't.

Or maybe, just maybe, the huge number of people pointing out that you couldn't define a scam if one involved punching you in the face, and the absence of anyone else defending your incorrect assertion that a "scam" is whatever you think it is, could be a sign that your wrong? But what's the chance of that, you're clearly never wrong so it must be the rest of the world ;)

Wow, look at you and your example of the dangers of Uber! I bet no taxi drivers have ever done tha.... http://www.express.co.uk/news/... "It included boots worn by a victim of taxi driver Christopher Halliwell, who killed Sian OÃ(TM)Callaghan, 22, after picking her up in his cab outside a Swindon nightclub in 2011. "

Accusing someone of being a shill while blindly parroting the taxi driver party line has to be some form of irony. Uber has been challenged in court in the UK and the judge ruled in their favour. Perhaps in Taxi fanboy land that still counts as illegal, but it sure as hell doesn't to most people.

A scam is a scam when it's a scam. One of the wonders of the internet is that there are a veritable legion of sources you could use to find out that scam clearly doesn't cover this situation.

As someone has already said a system with various requirements, even just those 4 isn't de-regulated. Taxi's shouldn't be de-regulated imo however the requirement to post prices and have a functioning meter are clearly outdated and stop a useful service model. An Uber user can easily see the rates and uses shared GPS tracking for metering, so those regulations stop wannabe Uber users from getting a service while doing nothing to benefit anyone else. if the rules were amended to say that drivers must be aware of pricing before entering the vehicle (allowing web booking) then it makes everyone happy.

That silly American seems smart enough to know the difference between striking, and blocking a public highway; the fact you don't doesn't bode well for assessments of your intelligence...

It's nonsense to think that taxi services need a state mandated 'correct number' to operate. They don't across the vast majority of the earth's surface and yet taxi services still exist pretty much everywhere. If there are too many taxi drivers and costs go down then less drivers will enter the market and more will leave, when prices go up it will draw in more supply. Of all occupations this is likely one of the best examples of one where the free market can quickly come to an equilibrium. It's extremely naive to assume that regulation is automatically proof that the market can't self regulate. Just look at the price of taxi medallions in New York which is a system created in the 1930s to see how badly wrong regulation can go if allowed to continue because "regulation must be needed if regulation already exists". Taxi drivers aren't demonstrating in the UK because Uber avoids regulations. They're demonstrating because their market is being taken from them.

Uber is playing by the rules (at least in the UK). In London you need a license to drive a cab and that license comes with various rules but also various benefits. Cabs are allowed to stop for passengers who flag them in the street, which Uber drivers and other services aren't. In the past this was fine with cabbies because it wasn't easy to get a non-cab quickly. Now with services like Uber it is often cheaper to do so. In London cab licenses are for 12 months. If Cab drivers think that they would be better off driving for Uber then they are free to stop paying for a license and to do so.

The biggest single issue with 'banning' glass is that if/when it ever becomes remotely mainstream there will be a proportion of users (likely significant) who wear prescription glasses and who have no intention of carrying a spare 'non-glass' pair everywhere. As someone who wears glasses I know that if glass was near universally banned then I wouldn't buy it, but I would happily chose a different movie theatre or bar if some bars ban it and others don't. There's no risk of people recording films on it (it neither has the battery or camera quality) and anyone using it and distracting others can be dealt with the same as cellphone users. I know I, and expect the vast majority of users, would want it turned off to avoid having it interrupt our enjoyment of the film anyway.

I love it when people respond only to back up my point. You're too poorly informed to even see that you are.

The main issue is that the public has had hundreds of years to learn that Champagne is a particular type of bubbly alcohol, and now that specific public awareness gets thrown under a train in order to co-opt a couple centuries of goodwill into money into the pockets of local special interests. This is exactly the opposite of what trademarks are meant to be: this explicitly deludes the public as to the nature of the goods that they are buying so that they are tricked into not purchasing the item that they actually wanted which may have been bubbly from California but they can't have this anymore because they're searching for Champagne which no longer means what they thought it meant.

Ask anyone in Europe what Champagne is and they'll know it's a type of fizzy wine from champagne in France. They might not realise that there is a particular process that must be used for it to be called champagne as well, or that Cava uses the same method. There is nothing deluding anyone about this. I know that a wine produced using the champenoise method in California will, assuming similar quality, be like Champagne.

What's misleading is that grapes from god knows where, mixed with god knows what, turned into wine by any process can be labelled as "champagne" in America. This is a trick. Requiring that products actually contain what they claim to isn't.

Americans don't have secret courts. Secret evidence sometimes, secret charges rarely, but never anything like this. UK is the vanguard of the Orwellian State.

It does annoy me when I hear my fellow Brits talk about some of the things America has done in recent history as though they are somehow worse than what we ourselves are doing (Gitmo aside). We ultimately have the same problem that the US has: Politically there's very few votes to gain by being reasonable to "terrorists", and plenty to lose by being see to be tolerant of anyone Islamic. The rules that set this up were put in place 2 prime ministers ago, under Labour and are now being applied by the Conservatives/Liberals. Things are only getting worse, because the new force in British politics is an anti-immigration, party which is even less tolerant of Islam and wants to vastly increase our military spending. Thus the moderate voices get drowned out in the voting process.

Champagne is a retroactive trademark. I don't blame anyone for saying "fuck you" to a trademark that suddenly exists after 200 years of generic use.

I wouldn't mourn them going but they aren't generic trademarks. Where is the harm in saying that Kölsch has to be made in the designated area around Köln. Nothing stops anyone else from making the same beer and calling it anything else that they want, even "Kölsch Style" I believe. That way when I buy Kölsch I know I'm getting it from that locality and produced to the specifications agreed upon.

I rarely buy parmesan because other italian hard cheeses do the job just as well and tend to cost less; I'm not being denied choice, nor is anyone being stopped from producing goods, because the EU means that the cheese has to be from the parma region to be called parmesan. The fact that in America a cheese can be named after a place, and neither be from that place or be anything like cheese from that place so consumers can't trust a word manufacturers say isn't a selling point ;)

It's not what's wrong with agile, it's what's wrong with many implementations. Lots of none agile IT teams spend forever in a never ending development loop, vastly miss deadlines and produce unusable crap; that doesn't mean that traditional methodologies are inherently flawed.

Scrum actually forced us to improve documentation (from woeful to meh admittedly) because we've stuck to the principle that any member of a team should be able to pick up a PBI and do it. I don't want to suggest scrum is the perfect model, I'm borderline on whether scrum is the right model for a development team in our organisation, but the actual scrum principles aren't the cause of most failed implementations.