The multi-trillion-dollar company can't make a few more billion dollars every year?

Anyway...

One of my sisters gifted everyone in the family an Amazon Alexa unit for Xmas one year. Half were politely declined on the basis that we didn't want to have spy boxes in our homes.

The rich: "Am I out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong."

Except the person you responded to didn't say "nuclear for life". It's a solid strawman, though.

To be fair, I do have to restart my PC once every five or six months...

I believer the term you were looking for was "Wankerchief". The wanker in charge, so to speak.

While interesting, it's a single situation. Likewise, I have a similar story: I filled in as a bouncer at a nightclub once, and when the manager stated he was looking for more bartenders, I told him I was interested and had experience. His reply? "No, you don't have tits." He only wanted female bartenders.

While these situations are singly unique, they do nothing to show patterns in biases. They're one-off examples of horrible people being everywhere in the work force.

Since Xbox cloud gaming switched to hourly limits per month, I'm wondering how much Microsoft is paying for this "exclusive right". Having to pay for extra hours beyond the meager 5, 10, or 15 MONTHLY hours the plans currently give means Microsoft might be able to make more money than Rockstar when the game is finally released.

What? No, you see, you're doing it all wrong! Coofercat has claimed all along that they're ONLY useful as "perv glasses", so that means you're perving every time you put them on your face! Don't you see?

In all seriousness, though, thanks for giving a shining example of a legitimate use for the glasses.

"Oh no, my feels!"

Yes, it's a shame laws aren't written to coddle your specific feelings and thoughts regarding things you don't like.

Oh, look, it thinks the cameras with the light showing it recording is somehow "disguised" and still can't admit it's the bad actors that are the problem.

It's not disguised, it even has a light to show it's there. The issue is people are disabling the light to make the recording secret. Again, it's an issue with the ACTORS, not the TOOL.

As you claim, pretending doesn't change reality.

You're arguing points I never made; I stated that "an overly large proportion of them are creeps" is not a factual statement, and the fact that the glasses can have legitimate uses doesn't make them the bad actor, it's the minority of users that do it.

Okay, show me the evidence for this claim, then. Perhaps you can use some sort of comparison, such as how the ability to copy or distribute copyrighted materials has made malicious computer users more common.

I'm not here to discuss Flock or ALPRs, I'm here to discuss the glasses people seem to think are the problem, when the real problems are the minority of users that become bad actors while using the glasses. The fact is you continue to fail in convincing anyone based on loose claims and outrageous predictions. It'd be like saying, "If guns become more common, then 'murders' will become much more common." Yet, here we are in the US, with 400 million guns (more than ever in our history), and the homicide rate is looking to be the lowest in decades. Just because you feel like something would happen doesn't mean there's any real reason to believe it will.

Don't be so hyperbolic. Hands-free cameras have multiple legitimate uses, or do you think police body cams are unnecessary as well? What about a GoPro?

A-fucking-men.

I wish we could moderate the comments of stories where we also comment, because I'd be happy to give you a point for pointing out the idiotic idea of getting angry at a tool compared to getting angry at the person using the tool for the wrong reasons.