This is emotional and illogical. 'Glass' does not 'threaten that', being observed 'threatens that'.

Nope, your premise is false, so your conclusion is invalid. There's a difference between being observed (hearsay) and having your actions recorded in perpetuity, possibly publicly.

It's a little more than that, though... remember the story with the Glasshole in the bar from last month who got attacked?

I seem to remember that the problem was some patron was aggressively annoyed that the glass-user might be filming them so the glass-users response was to start filming them. The problem was bery much idiots in that case.

That bar - along with most bars - have security cameras. Cameras that are casually pointed at people the whole time.

No, they are qualatatively different. The cameras go on a loop, old data is discarded and no one looks at it unless something happens. Most of it is forgotten, not uploaded to a company which rather creepily claimed to want go right up to the border of being creepy (Schmidt's words, not mine), or be plasteres on the persons blog in perpetuity. Not only that, but venues which make a point of having repeat customers decidedly do not post embarrassing security camera footage all over the internet.

Taking a photo (with the flash off) can look exactly like the person is texting.

If you're taking a picture of the floor, or a selfie from a very strange angle, then sure. To take a photograph of anything interesting, you need to hold the phone up and that's obvious.

So your suggesting that Glass be made more covert?

No, I'm saying why people don't like it. I'm not suggesting anything in particular as to what one should do with glass.

Because that's the only difference - the ability to play it back. Everything witnessed by the Glass device is being witnessed by the wearer as well. It isn't the OBSERVATION that's the problem, but the playback.

And the recording. Yes, I dare say it will be a problem if (not when---it's not clear that the brain records all things for all time). People do generally like things to be forgotten, because people are incapable of acting their best at all times. We all have off days and things we like to do that we don't necessarily want to broadcast to the world (even if they're not illegal).

Basically people like privacy and glass threatens that. Privacy is a reasonable thing to want. There is a quite reasonable expectation of limited privacy in a public place: people don't want actions to be logged and catalogued for all time when in a public place. That's also not unreasonable.

This has an obvious flaw... It's easy to spot cameras that are *in plain sight* however there are

However nothing. Most people aren't worried about hidden cameras because recent history shows they're not a problem: you have to go out of your way to use them and most people aren't interested enough to do that and most people aren't interesting enough to do it to. Basically the risk is small.

The covertness isn't the problem. The casualness is, and also the fact that once the photo is taken, it's going to be uploaded to google who are interested in tracking everything about everyone for the purpose of pushing ads.

That's the difference.

The thing that glass advocates don't seem to realise is that people don't like the surveillance potential.

The thing is people don't worry about hidden cameras. We know they exist and anyone can buy them, but frankly most people don't. Mostly people know they aren't interesting enough to be targeted by some private investigator, and most people aren't interested in covertly filming everyone they encounter. We know there's a small risk and so are not worried about covert surveillance. Covert stuff has been available for ages and isn't a problem, in practice.

The thing is glass isn't covert, so clearly the covertness isn't the problem. The problem is that people get irritated when people are casually pointing cameras at them the whole time. They're not interesting enough to be targeted so that's not the problem, the problem is the casualness of the thing. Not the problem with cell phones since its an effort to take photos and obvious when it's happening. It's the causalness where people wind up being photographed and catalogued by one of the world's largest companies where previously there wasa uninteresting enough to be anonymous that bothers people.

This doesn't mean glass is inherently bad, and the HUD has useful applications. But waving a camera in someones face does have a tendency to piss people off.

PS

The other sort of advocates claiming we're "post privacy" can pull their heads out of their asses. Lack of privacy is literally worse than torture for some people: it was reported as being the single hardest thing to cope with long term in concentration camps by some of the surviors.

No "historical preservation" crap,

Then you'll end up with nothing but a grim sea of concrete. Once you have that, why bother living in SF at all?

Seriously though if you just hammer out buildings with no thought to urban planning you are opening yourself for a whole world of pain. The UK did this in the 60s and stuck up vast numbers of housing estates. It solved the problems for a short time, until they turned into ghettos of poverty, crime and depravation.

Let's face it, the Endangered Species Act was passed because people cared about charismatic megafauna, not snail darters or burrowing owls. As things currently stand it's primarily a tool of NIMBYs.

Really, is it?

sound engineering reason not to.

I am an engineer. As an engineer you can not simply ignore externalities. Sure a uilding has to have it's central column in tact and the beams and girders have to be right and the foudations stable enough. But that's not sufficient. You're also creating a building for people to live or work in. If you ignore the externalities, you may end up creating a sink hole, and the building will be torn down in 30 or 40 years, covered in graffiti and with all its windows smashed.

The European governing elites are far more removed from what average Europeans want than American politicians are from average Americans.

Nope.

and you're advocating restricting your own political power and participation.

So? Some people actually have morals.

That was me, and its not Dubious.

Yeah it is. You claimed that if you went to RedHat with huge wads of cash they still wouldn't do it. Unless you've tried, I doubt the veraity of that claim. I don't require proof: I'd take your word for it.

You can find a consultant to support it, Im sure, if thats any consolation.

That was my point. Being OSS, you're not beholden to the original vendor so it's less important that RedHat support it. If you really need, you can still get someone to support it.

Arguing that Microsoft is "bad" because theyre not FOSS (which is really what you are driving at)

False premise: I made no argument about microsoft.

  The OP claimed that you couldn't get support on very old OSS software from the vendor (though this in itself is a dubious claim). I pointed out that because it's OSS, you can in fact offer anyone great wads of cash to get support because you're not dependent on the vendor.

Note how I make no claims positive or negative about microsoft. There's not even an implied claim, since apparently if you pay enough, MS will continue to offer support well past even the last final honestly we really mean it now deadline.

Ideological spiels about how Windows

You know what's worse than ideological spiels? Hallucinating the existence of idealogical spiels in the words of some hapless slashdot poster, where no such thing exists.

they are choosing the greater of two evils.

No.

Eventually supporting too many screwy and ancient systems starts to cause just so many problems that it is really, really hard to write solid, well tested, clear code. The heartbleed bug was exactly a result of this. Because of supporting so many screwy platforms, they couldn't even rely on having malloc() work well. That means they had their own malloc implementation working from internal memory pools. Had they not, they would have benefited from the modern mmap() based implementations and you'd have got a segfault rather than a dump of the process memory.

Supporting especially really old systems means having reimplementations of things which ought to be outside the scope of OpenSSL. Then you have to decide whether to always use the reimplementation or switch on demand between the custom one and the system one and whether or not to have some sort of quirk/bug correction.

This sort of stuff starts to add up and lead to a maintainance nightmare.

What OpenBSD are doing: throwing out all the accumulated crud and keeping the good parts is a fine way to proceed. It will almost certainly be portable to the other BSDs, OSX and Linux since they provide similar low level facilities. I doubt a port back to Windows would be hard because modern windows provides enough sane facilities that it's generally not too bad for heavily algorithmic code like this.

Basically there's no way for them to get started except to first rationalise the code base and then audit it.

According to the UN, Taiwan is part of China.

Yes, but there is no meaningful definition by which Taiwan is part of China. It is politically and economically separate in every regard, and the people living in it regard it as not China. They have different laws (PRC laws have no bearing in Taiwan), a different government and an independent military. It's also got a bunch of pretend-not-embassies from quite a large number of countries including the US.

The only reason the UN don't recognise it is because China has sufficient influence to make the member states maintain a rather silly fiction.

The thing is, you can still call MS and get them to support XP if you beg with enough money. Good luck calling RedHat and getting them to support RedHat Linux 7 (not the enterprise one, the 2002 one).

Actually I'd bet if you offered enough money you could get them to support it. But you know what? It doesn't matter if they refuse because you have the source and can pay your own person to support it if you are really desperate.

That's the nice thing about open source. You aren't dependent on the original vendor. Hell you could get someone to support any OSS if you begged with enough money whether or not the original vendor is still in business.

Even the ones that weren't illegal at all and that were doing a lot of good. Either you are being deliberately ignorant or...well I can't really see it any other way.

Well, how about you enlighten us with a [citation]. So far we know the NSA were spying on their own citizens, illegally spying on their allies and were being helped by GCHQ in yet more illegal spying. The only piece of vaguely positive news I heard from the whole thing was that at least GCHQ were charging the NSA for their nefarious activities, rather than doing it for free.

I think you misunderstand the role of a Window Manager in the X11 stack. It's a very specific part of the stack with a very limited role. It take no part in most of what goes on.

The problem you hare having is you have the wrong definition of GUI in your head where you are using it to mean using a window manager.

I disagree. I use GUI to mean the whole system. The WM is one very small part of that system.

A GUI has a bunch of features it needs to achieve: windowing system (window manager being an example),

No: a WM is not a windowing system. X11 is the windowing system. A window manager is simply a program runing on top of X11 which moves windows around.

menuing system, interprocess communications, widget libraries.... Running a

The menuing system is provided by the widget libraries (gkt, QT, etc). The IPC is provided by X11 for things GUI related.

window manager to manager terminals doesn't mean you are using a GUI you are just using window management.

Well, perhaps. In the erly days, that would suffice, maybe now it doesn't. Nonetheless I use more than terminals. I like terminals, but I use the GUI driver for gvim, run web browsers, sometimes Eagle Cad (most definitely a GUI), sometimes LibreOffice, the GIMP, Inkscape, etc. There's also other bits and bobs, like a notification area holding icons for messaging clients (pidgn, xchat, skype), a CPU, battery and temperature monitor, some bluetooth widget and so on.

When I said "you aren't even using a GUI". I wasn't being insulting or closed minded or anything else. I was simply saying the graphical setup you are using does not contain features required to classify it as a GUI.You are essentially in the pre GUI age where you have graphics on screen.

Fair enough, but I do believe you are mistaken however.

What do you think the GStreamer library does for Gnome? Or Kstreamer does for KDELIbs. No those components are not well separated, they are meshed together where applications are just wrappers around libraries.

They play videos? I'm not sure I understand the point. The WM itself takes no part in that role. Anything GStreamer, Kstreamer, FFMPEG etc based works just fine without even a window manager running.

You are right about Terminology. That is substantially more advanced something like 2005 in terms of OSX and clearly quite advanced for Linux datatypes. I'd have to know more but I'd agree that isn't 90s technology.

I don't think OSX has any equivalent, though I haven't been following the OSX thing. Terminology starts to seriously blur the line between the commandline and the terminal. I'm deeply impressed.

As far as 1994, in 1994 I was on 64 bit Suns switching over from SunOS to Solaris. I also used AIX sometimes. I hadn't been on 8 bit in a dozen years.

Fair enough. I had a sumer job in '94. I got to use an HP (running CDE) and occasionally an SGI. 8 bits were obsolete then, but that's mostly why I could afford one of my own.

I started using Linux in 1995 on cheap home computers and FVWM was the window manager that was most popular then.

I started a few years later with Redhat 5.2. The situation was similar.

Your setup is from that time. Look at Caldera Open Desktop or RedHat from the time periods. By 1999 KDE is mature enough as a GUI that people are building whole systems around it. More or less if you aren't using an integrated GUI you are pre-1999 i.e. 1990s type system.

I'm not sure I agree. Some of the components date to then. The styling certainly does, but a lot of the core, most of it I'd argue is more modern. I mean I could use GnomeShell and GnomeTerminal, but there wouldn't be any more integration than I currently have. As far as I can see, there's no integration missing that I'd get if I was running gnome.

The X11, freedesktop.org people have created and collated a very nice set of standards which allow X11 based programs to interoperate. This is why KDE programs work perfectly with a Gnome based WM running and why they both work fine under my system. The ICCCM, XDnD protocol, tray protocol, notification protocol etc describe these things.

Mixed paradigm languages would be things like Scala or Clojure.

Ah fair enough. I was under the impression that things like Ruby and Python allowed some degree of functional type programming.

Tizen is the full GUI/OS that includes Enlightenment. What would change is all your applications and your window manager would all be using EFL so functionality like messaging and notifications could pass between layers effectively. I was saying that Terminology is not a GUI, even Enlightenment is not a GUI but Tizen does have a GUI because it layers everything on top of EFL.

Sounds neat, though in X11 land those things (notifications etc) all work across libraries because they're defined as protocols rather than API calls.