Do you confront anyone who sits across from you on the subway and has the back of his phone pointed in your general direction while he surfs the web or plays Angry Birds? How about the people who are engrossed in texting as they walk down the street and wind up point their phones at you briefly? The people at the gym using their iPhone to listen to watch a movie while they work out and wind up with the camera waving about as they walk from machine to machine? Do you think that every iPhone suction-cupped on someone's car window to is actually recording you and not just there for GPS?

No? Congratulations. You understand that an iPhone is not a recording device; it's a general-purpose device that happens to have the ability to record. Now, why is it so hard to understand the same about Google Glass?

As others have mentioned... eliminating the camera eliminates any possible augmented-reality applications. That is very far from ideal.

What I think Google needs to do, is quit being coy with the invites and the "why I want to be allowed to buy Glass" nonsense; and get the technology into as many regular prescription frames as they can as quickly as possible. Then what are the anti-Glass types going to do, have a contact-lens only policy? Forbid anyone from entering who's wearing any kind of glasses? It simply won't be tenable. And if they try, eventually they'll do it to someone whose eyesight is bad enough that their antics will bring the ADA into play. That will result in a massive and well-deserved lawsuit that the businesses *will* lose.

And no, I don't want to follow strangers around and surreptitiously record and upload them. I barely think to pull out my iPhone and record the interesting bits of my own life; and I've no interest in yours. I want the augmented-reality aspects. And the sooner the luddite brigade is slapped down, the sooner I can get my frikkin-terminator-vision.

When institutions no less esteemed than the BBC and the New York Times have done "reviews" of Tesla that were somewhere between contrived and falsified (Depending on how polite you care to be.) to make the cars look as bad as possible, I think one can forgive Musk for getting a bit defensive and even coming out swinging when under attack.

Yes, they *are* out to get him (Or at least TSLA.).

> Given this is the first arrest, you have to wonder how
> the courts might view a law making it a felony to alter
> a person's own property for reasons that have
> nothing to do with actual public safety.

Some fairly massive parts of the vehicle and traffic codes have nothing at all to do with public safety; and are often even counterproductive to public safety and even the environment (Window tint laws, for example.). They're just there to give the cops a way to raise revenue by writing tickets or as an excuse to pull you over if they decide they don't like the looks of you.

You're missing the fact that the tech industry does not have the political clout in Washington that outfits like Wall Street and the UAW do. It shoulders its own risk and doesn't get bailouts like the more bribery-aware industries do. If it did, we'd still be ordering our pet food online from a sock puppet.

> with a camera sitting there pointing at everyone,
> drawing suspicion about what is being recorded

I still find it insane that people think that surreptitious picture taking is the primary selling point of Google Glass. When I heard about the thing, my thought was not: "Ah ha, I can use this to secretly record people without their permission.". It was more like: "Cool... Frikkn' Terminator vision!!!"

Granted, the camera is a necessary part in generating the sort of informational overlays that I'm imagining. But the ability to record is completely tangental to how I'd want to use the thing.

> With heavy encryption, plugins for blocking all data
> harvesters and no NSA eaves dropping. Since it is a
> non-US based company, it should be possible.

RIM has already caved on that score and built in backdoors to let India eavesdrop on Blackberry users' communications. If they'll do it for India, do you really think they wouldn't do so for any first-world nation that asks? Do you really think the NSA hasn't already asked? I wouldn't trust any of those assumptions to be true any farther than I could spit a rat.

Yeah... During the last administration, dubya's critics and political opponents (Up to and including Ted Kennedy, for example.) just happened to mysteriously and "accidentally" find themselves accused of being terrorists and placed on the no-fly list.

Yup. No abuse of power or civil liberties there. Nosirrre bob.

> That's one thing that has them upset with the attempts by several states to legalize
> marijuana. Since it can be grown and consumed locally, the Interstate Clause doesn't
> necessarily apply.

Oh, they'll find a way to make interstate commerce apply to just about anything.
    See Wickard v. Filburn for an example.

If you don't care to google, the short version is that some congressman had driven through the notion that there should be a minimum price for his constituents' grains. So congress imposed a quota on how much grain a farmer could grow. Filburn (another farmer) was growing grain (wheat, IIRC) in excess of his quota... for his family's personal and private consumption. In other words, this grain was never destined for commerce, interstate or otherwise.

He was fined and ordered to destroy his crops, fought it all the way to the SCOTUS, and lost. Their reasoning was that by growing his own grain he was not buying it on the open market, which could potentially include grain grown in other states. Therefore he was taking part in "interstate commerce" and could be regulated.

I don't know about Lyft; but Uber is actually more expensive than a taxi.

I use Uber instead of taxis because the service is vastly better. Uber cars actually show up when they're summoned and on they show up on the schedule promised in the app. They will actually come and pick you up when and where you want them, even if you're not at a hotel and going to SFO. They will take you out to the avenues without protest. The drivers are in general all-around more pleasant. And they don't stink of smoke, pee, or vomit (the cars OR the drivers).

Granted, all of the above is supposed to be true of medallioned taxis. But it's not... not by a long shot. That left a niche for Uber to come in as a premium service, for which they charge a premium. And it's a premium I'm happy to pay. The service really is just that much better.

1) There are enough it's-Apple-therefore-I-hate-it types out there that there will always be a market for an iTunes Radio alternative. Those people have existed ever since there WAS an Apple, they're not going away, and they listen to music too.

2) Spotify is fine for accessing music I already know about and like. But I have most of that in my iTunes library already. So I wound up canceling my premium account. Where Pandora really shines is in introducing me to new artists/songs/albums that I'll probably like based on my tastes. So Pandora is still one of my most-used.apps. I've no idea if iRadio will replace it. But it definitely fills a void that Spotify doesn't. So, no threat there.

I suspect that not being able to get a hotel room was more due to the "has no money" part. I think I was 16 the first time I ever booked a hotel room here in the US. This *was* long before 9/11 though. So I guess it is possible that there's some rule that's changed. But rules or no rules, "has no money" is going to be a major stumbling block.

Also, yes... United is just awful.

That "office in Cupertino" is a campus the size of a small college plus satellite offices throughout the rest of town. It employs well over ten thousand people. And those are the high-value, well-paying jobs that propel people into the upper-middle class and beyond.

Really, what's with the obsession with the location that a widget is put together, when the design, programming, and engineering (The good, high-value jobs that I'd actually like to have.) are all done here?

> I've noticed weird trend among the middle classes to
> feel entitled when it comes to eliciting the services
> of those who they perceive as lower down in the
> pecking order.

Bull. "Pecking orders" don't enter into it. And trying to make the Uber vs. cabbies issue into some sort of class warfare nonsense is just stupid.

I regularly do business with people *higher* than me on your so-called "pecking order". My doctor, dentist, lawyer, and probably financial planner all come to mind. I still expect all of them to provide the services I pay for.

We're talking about a business arrangement, pure and simple. Cab companies and Uber offer a service in exchange for money. If the company agrees to provide said service at a certain place and time to a customer who is making the arraignment in good faith, the business should be obligated to fulfill their half of the agreement. If a particular pitch-up makes the company less money than another, it should not agree to that pickup in the first place. If it does agree, than tough cookies. Get the car where it's supposed to be when it's supposed to be there. Period. Full stop.

People use and like Uber because taxis are just so bloody awful. Reserving or summoning a cab by calling the cab's dispatch number is a crapshoot at best, and more often an exercise in futility. And if/when a taxi will deign to pick you up, as often as not the cab will stink of vomit or cigarette smoke. One cab company here even has a bed bug infestation in its cabs recently.

I don't use Uber often. I try to plan things out so Muni will suffice. But when I do, the Uber car I summon shows up when and where it's scheduled to do so. They're clean and well-maintained, and generally better cars in the first place. The drivers are courteous, well-mannered, and well-dressed. And since all payment is handles through the app; they never try the "my credit card reader is out of order, cash only" scam.

Yes, it's more expensive. But Uber offers a vastly superior service that's well worth the extra monet.