It's not? There are people here who seem to think they have a right to privacy in "truly public" places like parks, malls etc.

You mean you don't want people public actions in a public place to be recorded? Forget about "being on the cards". We already have that power.

So...if congress feels like it they have the legal power to call a person because they like the color of his tie? No appeal? No justification? No legal redress? I find that difficult to believe.

Is Google even legally obligated to respond? Why? The product hasn't even been released yet. And as far as I know they're not breaking any laws. So why can't they tell Congress to go fuck themselves? Reply by July 14th...or what?

Lol wut? Are you high?

As a content producer, it's my right to block your client if you refuse to see the ads I put up. If you want my content, watching ads is my price. Otherwise don't consume what I put out.

Simple no? I don't know what you're getting so worked up over.

Jeremiah Cornelius posited:

No, no, no.

There's nothing past tense about it.

I'm an Indian. It seems that we like to be treated like children. There's no concept of "personal responsibility". If someone riots it's because they were "provoked". Not because they made the choice to go and riot!

It's all about ownership. Even though the Indian Constitution practically forces it on them, Indians are terrified of true freedom. They want to behave irresponsibly and at the same time blame someone else for "provoking" them.

The Internet has just brought this attitude to the fore. I sincerely hope Indians will grow up and behave like adults.

Two things:

1. Instant video streaming to my private youtube channel will preserve everything. So destroying my glasses will just make things worse for them.

2. It's far easier for other people to activate recording via google glass without drawing attention to themselves. The police can pick out people who are recording with cell phone cameras. Not with this.

As I live in a country where corruption is rampant and where police officials openly ask for bribes and misbehave with people, I can't wait for thousands of people to be wearing these babies all the time.

It's about time we started watching our government publicly. This will revolutionize things, make no mistake.

CrimsonAvenger admitted:

Wait ... you've run into SEVERAL people who knew someone named CrimsonAvenger?

eric conspiracy pointed out:

You are, of course, correct. I was thinking of James Madison. My error.

Piss-poor authority, especially given the page's unreadability without Javascript.

Try this one, instead:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html

Dcnjoe60 argued:

I don't disagree. However, in the case of Windows 95, people upgraded to new computers specifically so that they COULD run 95 - because it was so obviously and incontrovertibly superior to Win 3.x in so many ways. You may not recall, but 95 had the largest open beta test of any software product EVER to that time. Microsoft very wisely encouraged everyone who wanted to try it ahead of its release to download and install it - and people did, in droves.

When 95 was finally released, it set records for copies sold, not only pre-installed, but new orders and upgrades from 3.x. It was wildly popular, and it deserved to be wildly popular, because Microsoft did an excellent job of making it both fully-featured and highly-debugged upon release.

That, of course, was back when billg was running the company. After he left, and that MBA schmuck Ballmer took over, we got Vista and Windows 8, two pieces of OS shit so loose and stinky that they barely qualify as diarrhea.

MouseTheLuckyDog blathered:

You'e conflating the term "militant" with "military". The Boston Massacre (which turns out to have been no such thing - in actuality, the British soldiers were fired on from the crowd, which means they returned fire in self-defense - but the winners get to write the histories), known to the British as the Incident on King Street, occurred on March 5, 1770, when a detachment of eight British soldiers was sent to defend a sentry, Private Hugh White, who was surrounded by a mob of several hundred Bostonians, and was being subjected to insults and threats from its members. The soldiers formed a protective shield around White, and, on orders from their commander, Captain Thomas Preston, loaded their muskets. The mob's actions escalated to throwing objects, and daring the soldiers to fire. Richard Palmes, a local innkeeper, physically threatened Captain Preston with a club. One thrown object hit Private Hugh Montgomery hard enough to knock him off his feet. When Montgomery got back to his feet, he fired his musket into the crowd. No one was hit. However, Palmes further aggravated the situation by clubbing both Montgomery and Preston with his cudgel. Without orders or authorization, the other soldiers then fired into the mob, which promptly retreated.

After an overnight investigation, Preston and his detachment were all arrested - by the British military governor - the following morning. On the 17th, Preston, the eight men under his command, and four members of the mob who were alleged to have fired on the troops were all indicted for murder. Preston, defended by John Adams, with the assistance of Paul Revere (who drew a defense map of the scene, showing the position of the five fatalities in relation to that of the troops, a la CSI), was tried in late October, 1770 and acquitted on grounds that he had not ordered his men to fire. The eight soldiers under his command were tried separately in late November. Two of them were found guilty of manslaughter, because Adams convinced the jury that they had had good reason to feel their lives were in danger. The other six were found not guilty.

The four civilians were tried in December. One of the witnesses for the defense - a defendant's manservant - was found guilty of perjury. The four main defendants were acquitted.

The events of March 5, 1770 were skillfully exploited by Samuel Adams and his fellow separatists to help turn the tide of public opinion against British rule. Eventually, more than seven years after the so-called Boston Massacre (a phrase coined by Sam Adams), the colonies declared their independance, and the United States eventually won their independence from Britain.

John Adams, who successfully defended all the British soldiers involved in the incident against charges of murder, went on to write the U.S. Constitution, and become the second President of the United States.

dcnjoe60 averred:

Windows 3.0 was not a failure. In terms of both enthusiastic adoption by consumers, and financially for Microsoft, it was a major success. Yes, it was buggy. That didn't matter to the marketplace.

Likewise, Windows 95 was a major success for Microsoft, by the same metrics. It was, to borrow a term from a certain self-aggrandizing billionaire, HUGE, both in the corporate and consumer marketplaces.

But you're dead right about ME and Vista. People reacted to both as if they were dead rats - and rightly so. Dell even forced Microsoft to offer its corporate customers a downgrade path - buy a PC with Vista, get a license to replace the OS with XP for free.