Yeeeah. And you end up with great decisions to make, like moving to Lion and getting sane Xsan licensing, but losing your ability to run as a NT domain controller.

Holding a phone in texting position and videoing position is a very different thing.

And going about your business while wearing Glass vs staring at someone to get a steady shot are also different things.

Also, see again re: it being visible from the other side of the display whether the camera app is up and running video.

Sounds like you are quite a punchable person.

Hasn't happened yet. Then again, I'm also a big guy (with a friendly public demeanor) wearing loose clothing in a concealed-carry state.

I honestly don't know how much that last bit contributes; ought to find out on moving next year.

It's more of a provocation than a defence.

There's a longer discussion there, but one better suited to happen over a beer than in a public forum.

None of which makes either spy-camera's or Google Glass' recording facility any more acceptable.

...but it does make the likely uses of that recording facility more acceptable, since it makes it a relatively unsuitable tool for people whose goal is surreptitious recording.

Okay -- enough of the theoretical; down to the personal. I'm a commuter cyclist. A very, very law-abiding commuter cyclist (last group ride I went on, the only person quite as meticulous was a LAB instructor). I damn well have cameras, one in obvious view (making the recording I do not surreptitious), others less so (with a circular buffer being recorded over until/unless an impact is detected or manual trigger pressed), and if someone objects? Fuck you. My safety (and ability to demonstrate fault or chain-of-events in court) trumps the reasonable expectation you don't have of being unrecorded in public.

And if you want to throw a punch over being recorded? Better be sure you really did get every device.

I doubt that. Someone who's (say) texting rather than eating might be ejected, but certainly not punched.

And one can tell what's on a Glass user's screen, and whether it's video. Not from a distance, necessarily, but certainly from punching range.

It's not. And if you tried to spend a hour recording other diners with a cell phone, you would also be asked to leave a restaurant. If you weren't punched in the face first.

And yet --

In one case, you regulate people based on their actual behavior. In another, you have something against a device, without regard to its actual usage in practice.

I really, really do not grok the difference.

Using your mobile them to grab a few quick videos of your friends, or even take pointless Instagrammed pictures of your food is one thing- filming everything you happen to glance at and upload it an advertising company with an interest in facial recognition is quite another.

Do you have reason to believe Glass users are actually using their devices in this way, or is this just a bogeyman?

Cell-network bandwidth costs money. The devices aren't always-on recorders unless someone chooses to use them in such a way... and, well, if I wanted an always-on hidden video recording device, there are cheaper and better ways to do it.

Right, and I've already mentioned them in other comments on this story. And they too are unwelcome in most situations. That a spy camera can be concealed does nothing to make Google Glass more acceptable.

The existence of cheaper alternatives for someone whose goal was surreptitious recording raises the possibility that, perhaps, someone wearing Glass is doing so with an intent other than surreptitious recording... as, if that were their attempt, they would, if competent, be using a tool better suited for the job.

You might wish or expect that Google Glass has such an indicator light. But it doesn't.

You're quite right; I stand corrected.

Even if it did, who's to say the glasses haven't been rooted, or such a light physically disabled.

If someone wanted to surreptitiously record others, there are better devices to do it with. Built-to-purpose "spy cams" exist, have existed for decades, and are much better at the job -- easier to conceal and not requiring the wearer to stare at their subject to get a steady recording.

So, well, "who's to say" that you aren't already being privately recorded? If someone is motivated enough to void the warranty on a $2000 device to root it, surely they're willing to buy something much, much cheaper.

First, I'm not sure how objections regarding surveillance have any reasonable connection to the dictionary definition of the word "obtrusive" -- but ignoring that, and taking the statement per its intent, some points:

• These devices are not always-on recorders, and have a light indicating when the camera is running.
• Overuse of that recording process can be handled in the same manner as overuse of the (more obtrusive per dictionary definition) practice of holding up a cell phone camera to record.
• ...so what's the problem here?

And if you have to pull out "if you have to ask", you don't understand your own argument well enough to state it clearly.

Now blowing up to a simple request not to wear obtrusive recording devices in restaurants however...

How exactly is Glass more obtrusive than folks pulling out cell phones to record? Going by the simple definition of the word, a device that needs to be pulled out of one's pocket and held up by hand is by definition more obtrusive than a device which is always mounted on the wearer's head.

Which? The product discussed here is hardware.

No matter how badly we need it to be otherwise, not matter how much we wish it were otherwise, this is the short term reality. EV's powered via renewable sources will only work on a small scale.

Quite the strawman you've got there.

In short: So what? Large-scale fossil fuel plants are still vastly more efficient (and cleaner-burning, and easier to monitor, repair, replace and upgrade) than tiny-scale (inside-each-vehicle) fossil fuel plants.

You only don't care about sanitizing standard-undefined behavior if you don't care about bugs.

That one's a Really, Really Big Deal.