Um, no.

If they fail to deliver, or if the food does not meet my reasonable expectations (and, no, I am not especially fussy), then they've not met their end of the bargain, and I'm not paying. No act of ordering obliges me to pay for something I never receive.

If I have to leave in a hurry, or I change my mind, such that they do not have a reasonable opportunity to fulfil their end of the contract, of course that's my fault and not theirs, and naturally I would offer to pay. But that's not what I was talking about, just as I was not talking about numerous other things that I did not mention above.

Please don't try to engage me with a defence of ambiguity as if it were some sort of badge of honour. That shit gets really old.

If people using such prosthetics are thereby identified as disabled (and thus in need of them), I'd have no objections.

Most places that don't allow animals on the premises do permit seeing-eye dogs, for example.

So you prefer to dine at Chuck E. Cheese?

Adding a couple of layers of chicken wire inside the walls, floor, and ceiling is already legal, AFAIK.

Fine. Next time your wife wears a short skirt for your walk in the park and she happens to be a bit uphill from me, I'll be sure to start the live feed. On and visible from a public space, right to photograph, no right not to be photographed, yep yep yep. Looks like I'm covered.

(Of course, if *I* caught somebody trying to upskirt-video *my* wife, I'd feed him his camera--sideways--any law to the contrary be damned. But, then, I'm obviously not the paragon of tolerance that you are, I'm guessing...)

Because no reasonable person objects to being filmed (without any prior warning, even) by strangers while dining with family or friends in a private establishment--of course!

I was taught that respect for other members of the public begins when you walk out your own front door.

Maybe we could use it to make a better Donkey Kong clone, eh?

Feel free to promote transparency in public space; I'm all for it.

But the restaurant I plan to open (to have something to do if and when I ever retire) will be a private space that does not permit recording of patrons without their express permission. Patrons of my establishment will remove Google Glass and similar always-deployed/always-on devices upon entry, or they will patronise someone else's establishment. End of story.

It's mostly typical male adolescent "Look at us, we're all different--in exactly the same way!" tribalism.

BTW, I still have my Rolling Stones T-shirt from the '78 'Some Girls' tour--there's a hole in Keith Richards' head where an overlooked seed fell out of the joint and landed on it--so, yes, I remember very well indeed what it was like being a male adolescent. :)

I want to wear mine. But then I'm blind as a bat without them, so I actually have a practical reason for wanting to.

...Not to mention numerous other posters to this discussion.

Some people don't see a difference between

A. device could just maybe be recording video right now, even though he's pointing it slightly below vertical

and

B. quite likely to be taking video at any time and it's certainly positioned to do so *all* the damned time

Others do.

Those of us who can see further than our own arses tend to be in category B.

It might be better to know, understand, and apply existing laws, first.

Note how this AC, like many a 14-year-old, seems to have no thoughts whatsoever regarding the effects of his actions on others.

I had to learn to make sure my phone was angled downwards when reading on the subway, lest people start looking at me oddly (and in not a very friendly way, either).

Damn straight, mate.

This is what self-absorbed types like N Starr don't get: It's not just about you, Glasshole!