End goal: change the constitution. We need a start. It's easy to see how hard this will be and to give up early, but some of us feel the imperative to fight for it. We can change things. The vast will of the masses (corporation political donations are not equivalent to the free speech we enjoy as individuals) needs to be strategically gathered. Critical mass could take decades, as with things like gay marriage.
Spammers or hackers could get your IP turned off. But I'd do it anyway to be helpful.
Thanks. I understand and appreciate where you are coming from.
As a founder of the EFF, I do stand up for the small consumers vs. the wealthy and powerful. There is no perfect solution.
They've been dumbing down the gameplay on real games for years to make things easier the konsole kiddies. Look at Deus Ex: HR or the Xcom: EU vs. their namesakes for fine examples. It doesn't surprise me a bit that they'd cripple the graphics too. Can't let the children get jealous that someone else has something better, after all.
When you make the rules, you are right when you're wrong.
Or it could be old-fashioned racism. There are plenty of places in the US still where, if you're driving a Japanese car, the locals will see you as some kind of commie mutant traitor.
"Cool... Terminator vision!"
"the ability to record is completely tangental to how I'd want to use the thing"
Under the ADA, it doesn't mater how large or small the business is. "Reasonable accommodations" have to be made at places open to the public. And so long as someone is not actively using Glass to record video, it's perfectly reasonable for someone whose prescription lenses include Glass functionality to be left alone in peace as he watches his movie. And yes, it is possible for someone's vision to be bad enough to bring the ADA into play; but still be adequately correctable with glasses.
Personally, I look forward with glee to the day when Glass IS build into prescription glasses, some business discriminates against them, and said business is crushed under the ADA. Unfortunately, it does increasingly look like that may be what it takes to finally slap this particular platoon in the luddite brigade down.
And all that is completely aside from the point that it's ridiculous and narcissistic for people to assume that the only reason anyone might be wearing Glass to to secretly spy in them. It has "substantial non-infringing uses", and all that.
Do they even bother to do that at all anymore? I was under the impression that pretty much anything that hit the net before the official DVD/BR release came from Oscar screeners these days.
The part that baffles the crap out of me is the overbearing self-importance of the anti-Glass segment of the luddite brigade.
Their entire argument seems to revolve around the assumption that the only reason someone might want to own or wear Google Glass is to surreptitiously take pictures or video of them. There's a much smaller contingent that looks at its current form-factor and screams: "NERRRRRD!!!". But by far and large, the anti-Glass hate comes from the: "You're wearing that thing to take pictures of me, Me, ME!!!". That level of arrogance and narcissism both astounds and confounds me.
When *I* first heard about Google Glass, my thought was: "Cool... Terminator vision!". And shortly after, I thought: "Even cooler... Predator vision!!!". Yeah, 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. And yes, I do know that Glass doesn't yet come close to those capabilities. But one day it certainly will.
You'll probably want to drop Sweden from the list; considering they're acting as the bagman for DC's efforts to get their hands on Julian Assange.
From the US side of the pond, it looks a bit more like Brazil than 1984.
But still, considering that China's not shy about rolling tanks in on their dissidents and Russia's fondness for the effects of ricin and polonium; we're still a few steps above the opposition.
Iâ(TM)ve lived in San Francisco since around a decade before Uber was even founded. And taxis were just as much crap then as they are now. The only difference is that Uber and Lyft are offering competitive options that provide a service that doesnâ(TM)t suck.
Thatâ(TM)s the particularly appalling thing about the taxisâ(TM) crusade against Uber and the like. They made their own bed by: pretty much never coming when and where you summon them; screaming bloody murder (and sometimes refusing entirely) if you ever want to goto, or be picked up in, the avenues; running various BS âoethe credit card reader is brokenâ scams; and often having their vehicles, or themselves, stink of smoke, vomit, or pee (There was even a bedbug infestation not long ago!). Now they need to just STFU and lie in that bed. If theyâ(TM)d offered a good service in the first place, Uber would never have had a niche to enter into the market.
A written guarantee that my uniform would be either gold or blue, and that I'd not have to accompany the captain on landing parties until my own rank is at least Lieutenant Commander; and I'm in.
Unfortunately, that wouldn't work; at least not for reasonable people. Remember, Burning Man takes place in an otherwise uninhabitable desert. You're required to bring everything, including water, you need to live in that desert in with you; and cart it out, along with your trash, at the end of the week. That's not too difficult if you have a car. With a bus? Your 60-person bus just became a 12-person bus when you add in peoples' supplies and gear. It's not much of an improvement.
Of course, there's the option of NOT going prepared and being a parasite on those who happened to bring extra. And, yes, there are already bus services that cater to those people. But I, for one, would never, ever, join their ranks.