Well, speaking as the one who can read and knows what a reductio ad absurdum is (as well as what makes a good analogy and what makes a weak and shoddy one) I'll leave you to wallow in your own stupid here. If your view is that a pair of glasses that could also record if it were turned on is entirely analogous to a recording device that has recording as its sole purpose then you're too far gone to help. The mobile phone analogy is a better one - it's a device that can record (and can do from a position of concealment), but has a perfectly reasonable alternative use. It's not one that's required in a cinema, obviously, but it's one that's clearly enough that people aren't stripped of their phones on entering the building and the FBI aren't called if anyone's seen using their phone or with their phone potentially recording from a concealed position in their clothes. With Google Glass in this case the device has a primary use that is required in a cinema - being able to see the screen properly. Your comparison to a video camera that has no need to be in a cinema in the first place and that has no other purpose in being pointed at a screen than to record it is either caused by a complete lack of wits or a complete lack of intellectual integrity. Though I suppose we need to give you credit and assume it might well be both.

My original point was this: vast numbers of people carry high-definition video recording devices into movie theatres every day. The vast majority of these people have those high-definition video recording devices concealed in such a way that they could potentially be recording the screen, or at least have the potential for concealing them in such a way. If we're going to make the assumption that anyone who could potentially be recording the screen is recording it - which is exactly the wrong assumption that was made here by both the theatre owners and the FBI, neither of whom attempted at any point to verify that assumption before things had been escalated to a ridiculous level - then we're going to have to start turning away a lot of people who turn up to watch a movie with a mobile phone and clothes.

There were ways to deal with this situation sensibly. Both parties could have avoided the issue - the customer by wearing standard prescription glasses, the theatre owner and the FBI by not being complete arses and making an assumption of guilt and escalating things way beyond where they needed to be.

There's certainly an aroma of stupid around here.

I understand perfectly what property rights are. The theatre owner has the right to refuse the guy entry. What they did very clearly overstepped their rights, as the story is told here. They made very specific false allegations without evidence. I know that's hard for you to understand, but it's the issue being discussed here, so you really ought to concentrate on catching up rather than being snarky about property rights that aren't in question.

Um. Thanks. I kind of thought it was a pretty good example of a reductio ad absurdum too. One of us certainly doesn't understand the term, though, because it's a perfectly valid form of argument. If you're trying to accuse me of a logical fallacy, you might want to pick something that... well, something that actually is a logical fallacy.

You might want to try 'straw man' or 'slippery slope', though it's not really either.

And 'within reason, of course' doesn't extend to making false accusations of criminal action with no evidence.

Doesn't matter. If a turned-off Google Glass with no recently recorded video files on it can record a movie, your phone secreted in your clothing can certainly record it through cunningly concealed gaps in your clothing.

And just why do you wear clothes to the movies when everyone knows they're the number one way of concealing illicit recording devices? What exactly have you got to hide, Mr Coward? Who are you working for? Why are you recording this movie? How much are you being paid?

Read the article; it was prescription Google Glass, and he didn't have a standard pair of glasses with him.

I assume you leave your mobile phone at home when you go to the movies, then?

So what you're saying is that Americans are just very bad at spying?

...violate people's privacy rights in a way that respects people's privacy rights?

But my phone service is internet based.... how would that work? You're making my brain hurt.

At least it's some choice... the same ones I have. If I could half of comcast's speed from someone else, I'd be there - I already canned their asses for the lousy TV service I got, but if I want to work at home occasionally then I need better than what I can get from AT&T. Aside from them, there's satellite (really expensive and high latency), and nothing else.

As I mentioned in another post - I am Comcast's customer, not Netflix or Hulu or anybody else. I am the customer and if I am choosing to use the bandwidth that I paid for by using Netflix, then that's my prerogative. If Comcast has a problem with it, the problem is with me, not the content provider I chose.

That's not true (nor is the AC response to your post). My initial knee jerk reaction was certainly that it's anti-business and over regulation (read that again - over regulation is a problem; regulation might be needed, but over-regulation is bad). But after giving it some thought, I am completely on board with the idea of net neutrality. I am my ISP's customer, not the content provider. If Netflix is using my ISP's bandwidth, it's because I, as the customer, requested it - and I'm paying for it. If my ISP doesn't like how I'm using the service that I am paying for, their beef is with me.

The obvious reason they want to go after the content provider is because then their internal competitor to the service (in this case, video streaming) gets an unfair advantage... even if they're "paying," it's only "funny money" if they are owned by the same parent company. If, however, they went after me, then both services are equally penalized. That's a second strike in favor of net neutrality.... what the ISPs want is obviously anti-competitive... that is NOT something a free market person supports. I MIGHT support "anti" net neutrality if the ISP was barred from competing against services that they would otherwise be charging access fees for... but even then my former complaint is still valid.

Ubuntu numbering is a decent way to do it, but names only work in conjunction with number, like saying "Ubuntu 13.10" followed by "Saucy Salamander." When people say things like "Oh, that's not supported in Gutsy Gibbon, the feature was added in Natty Narwhal." I want to whack them with a whacking stick.

I realize there's a lot of "name" supporters here, and it's fine when used in conjunction with version numbers, but there's too many products with oh-so-zany naming that it's just not funny or cool anymore, it's just confusing.

Then people should use BOTH when they are referring to a version, like software 8.3, sugar coated jelly kumquat, because I'm an old man - I can't remember if sugar coated jelly kumquat came before or after waffles with maple syrup, and when someone tells me they have ice cream sandwich I have NO idea what version of android they are talking about (although at least I know it's android)... all I know is I have android 4.1 on my phone. And it makes no sense to me to say "you need at least version donuts with sprinkles."

Historical perspective.

I agree... I did switch to "classic shell," but then I don't use Windows much at all anyway; when I last bought a laptop I had the option of 7 or 8... and decided to see what the fuss was about. Turns out it was mostly much ado about nothing.