Also, if my HR department decides to gamify performance reviews I'm going to lose it.

Mine already throws darts at a board and hopes your happy with the results.

Everyone is trying to portray her as "someone randomly .. taking pictures" of the bar patrons. It's clear that she wasn't taking anyone's pictures

The patrons don't know this. What's why, in the original post of mine that you responded to, I said : "Try pulling out your phone in a bar and hold it up like you're recording, you'll notice that people will shy away from you or maybe even worse."

It's not about the absolute reality, it's about the perception.

and only moved to activate the camera when personally threatened, specifically to have evidence of her own assault (not out of spite).

Motivation in this case counts for nothing at all. It was already an escalated situation. I'm not saying she wasn't right for trying to do what she did but she did, more or less, throw gas on a fire by announcing it.

Of course, I wouldn't expect the aggressor(s) to respond kindly to this, as most people who are engaged in the commission of a crime are generally not keen on others possessing evidence of their criminal activity.

Ok.

However, that doesn't somehow shift the blame to the victim here.

I would agree that the legal fault is still with the aggressors. I never said anything different and if you want to try to make it seem like I was justifying their actions I'd really appreciate that you quote me where I do this. Sorry, but you seem to be trying to bend my words without providing any sourcing. Maybe you're not but it certainly seems that way.

Are you suggesting that criminals should have the right to destroy evidence (or otherwise prevent the collection of evidence) of their crimes?

Never said that either. Again, quote me or stop making gross assumptions. I can put words in your mouth too but that's counterproductive and, frankly, a sign of bad form in the matters of discourse.

because she felt threatened, the aggressor(s) backed down, because they understood that it was just for liability reasons

She wasn't doing it for liability reasons to begin with. You know this and you're trying to push an issue that wasn't an issue. And threatening people mid-aggression always leads to the most logical outcome. Right? ... Right?

Go tell a cop that every perp backs down right after they've pulled their gun/taser/nightstick and see if they laugh at your assumption.

I'm fairly sure if you go back and read my thoughts on this matter you'll see I never said that there were absolutes. You made them up in your own mind to back up your presumption. That alone should show you the flaw in your black and white logic.

There's a reason cooler heads often prevail.

"Ignorance is bliss," as the saying goes. A CCTV operator could be following your every move as you walk around Macy's or chat up that attractive number at the local watering hole. Probably not happening, but we have no way of knowing either way.

It is not "ignorance is bliss." It's that there is a legimate and real reason for security cameras while someone you don't know randomly filming you at a bar isn't legimate and given the YouTube culture it is highly suspect.

Even if I were being followed by a security camera I'm fairly sure it's not going to turn up anywhere. Again, the guard that may be watching me has a legitimate purpose. Random drunk filming other random drunk? Not so much.

I'm not saying that there is no chance that my security footage may not end up someplace it's just highly unlikely compared to someone going out of their way to film me with no just cause.

Not really. An automated CCTV system is accepted because we know why it's there. It's for liability reasons. It's to protect the businesses/properties in question. Most of us know that these images will never even be seen by a real person let alone posted to YouTube or worse.

Normal people start wondering what's going on when someone randomly starts taking pictures of them. It raises alarm in a lot of people. The alcohol that was likely involved in this incident probably didn't help matters either.

Would you be 100% comfortable with someone recording you for no obvious reason in public? If so, you're probably the exception. And I'm not saying this as justification for what happened but as a reason why GG and things of that nature are going to get a lot of resistance. Try pulling out your phone in a bar and hold it up like you're recording, you'll notice that people will shy away from you or maybe even worse.

I use to play the Dark Mods back around the time Thief 2 was out. I'll have to give it a go again. Do you have to jump through a bunch of hoops with limited options like you have to do with Thief 1 on WinXP/Win7? That's what kills going back to most of the 90s games for me.

This is valid to a point but I've had a touchscreen in my car for over half a decade now. It's not an outright ban but there are things that I need to have my parking break engaged for in order to use. I can pull up my radio/iPod controls with no issues. My GPS I can only have a few select options, normally about 3 'clicks'. I can't type in addresses. I can't see more complex options. So it's not a blanket ban at all.

There are laws on the books, in areas, that prohibit displays in front of the drivers seat with exceptions made for GPS/Radio controls. I have a DVD player in my head unit but I can't watch a DVD on the primary monitor without the parking break engaged. As for a HUD, I'm sure the same laws would apply. Driving information such as GPS directions, speed and such would likely get a pass (as they already do) but something like Google Glasses have no such restrictions on them. If I were wearing some HUD headgear in my car the cops have no way of knowing if I'm looking at a map or if I'm watching YouTube. I find there erring on the side of caution in this case a pretty good idea.

And this doesn't even take into account that the Glass 'HUD' would be in the center of the drives field of vision even when they look at the road. I can't get my car to pass a saftey inspection with a chip in the windshield at eye level let alone a display of any kind.

I would also like to point out that pilots have to retrain as their instrument cluster changes. I didn't have to do a single thing when I got my CD Radio head changed out for my touchscreen display.

If using HUDs or other kinds of electronic instruments were inherently dangerous, they wouldn't routinely be used by aircraft pilots.

When you have thousands of hours of driving theory classes, simulator time and coached road driving in a vehicle where the coach can take over the vehicle in a moments notice then you can start to talk about how your driving a car compares to a pilot in a jet.

Most pilots have more time in simulators than most drivers get in their first few years of driving. Comparing the two is a joke and you know it.

let's think about the big picture here

Some already have.

So tech companies don't want to be in high crime locations in the middle of neighborhoods that most of their workers wouldn't want to live or send their kids to school? Who woulda thunk it?

I'm already in the suburbs today and if I have to look for a new jobs I'm going to start to look even further from the city I live around. There is zero appeal to working in a city much less living in one.

Waiting for Shadowmist to demonstrate why he believes that libertarians would automatically go for BitCoin.

I hate to say it and I hope no one takes it the wrong way but what you're saying has been the long standing problem with open source for open source's sake.

People generally need a reason to switch platforms. So far almost everything from open source that hasn't been on the server side has been about how the product is "just as good" as the closed source equivalent. Do the open source advocates really think I'm going to switch platforms over something that is "just as good" with no clear advantages? I think that's where a lot of resistance comes from and frankly I don't blame people who see it this way. I really can't imagine someone switching from Windows to Linux or OSX without someone to hold their hand through the process. There is a remarkable effect on the user by having someone to ask a question to. Search engines just don't cut it if you don't know what you're talking about in the first place. At least not like an experience user would.

Android had a virtue of being ready to make a go of it in a fertile emerging market. No one using a dumbphone had anything to lose by going with the Android handset. The same won't be true of Ubuntu phone. Google has done a fine job of value added services like Google Play in the same way Apple did with iCloud and iTunes Match. If MS would have had the same advantages about two years before getting back into the phone market they would have had a great marketshare now too. MS is only making real headway in (tada!) emerging markets.

I can't speak for what global market saturation really looks like but unless Shuttleworth can get his foot in the door there his phone is going to remain a niche player that likely will never see numbers better than Windows phone let alone iPhone.

First off, don't "quote" me on something I never said. That's a massive fail right there.

And you really think that someone's position on the presidents birth certificate can really be compared to someone questioning scientific fact? Really? Ok. I'm done here. You're trying to talk in a circle that has no valid endpoint. You won't bother to stay on topic and you're trying to make it look like I said something I never did.

Care to cite?