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.

That's just proof that there are people that use it in ways the rest of society deem unacceptable, not that "an overly large proportion of them are creeps" like Tablizer originally claimed. I know people who own the glasses (I personally don't) and don't try to create content by using them in the same manner as the few sleazeballs out there.

I think my point has been made: for some reason, a lot of people want to claim the glasses are somehow inherently "bad" because they can point out a few people using them in ways that seem sleazy. That makes about as much sense as calling a majority of vegetarians power-hungry madmen just because Hitler was also a vegetarian.

It's a hands-free camera, which should be enough to make it a legitimate use. Unless you think there's no legitimate uses for hands-free cameras, like GoPros or police body cams?

Really? Can you show me the data that what you claim is an actual fact?

So many people are overreacting to things that are quite innocuous but could - COULD! - be used in a negative light. What about binoculars? Or the camera on every cell phone on the planet? Spy cams have been around for decades, yet nobody seems to be worked up about those, either. It's another example of people seeing some sort of technology they dislike, making a thinly-veiled case for why it's "bad", and other people blindly following suit because they can't think critically enough to understand this is almost no different from previously-existing technologies.

There are bad actors all over the world. Whether they're pervert creeps or serial killers or child molesters, they're out there. But they're also (thankfully) a small minority of the entire population. It amazes me that every time some new technology is invented so many people automatically think of how it could be used in the worst way instead of how it benefits mankind as a whole.

Oddly enough, Democrats are traditionally the party that asks for the government to have larger roles for social and economic issues, so wouldn't they be the ones who want this more than the Republicans?

I'm only asking because California is a VERY blue state, so this seems like something the residents there would be happy to have.

From the https://twitter.now/ current front page:

How long before whatever political ideology becomes mainstream on the site will it be before the "undesirables" are accused of "harassment" or "other harmful conduct" because a user does something as simple as taking offense to another person's post?

Most of social media is just people arguing about whose opinion is better. It's all crap, because it's online, anonymous shit-talking. When we speak to other people face-to-face, a large majority don't revert to name-calling and acting like an ass. They realize there's repercussions from real-life actions. Expecting there to be any real discourse where anonymous identities protect everyone is just delusional. This will fail as much as basically all social media has failed.

I can't say if they have license plates, because I never bothered looking for one on an X-Wing. However, I've seen plenty with bumper stickers that have silly jokes like "MY OTHER SPACESHIP IS A CORELLIAN CRUISER".

If you consider that the drone deliveries will all be within a specific radius of the local Amazon warehouses, then it's only going to be a 7.5 mile radius to cover 175 square miles. That might cover, say, two suburbs in every direction surrounding Chicago. Let's say that covers 10 suburbs in total; what about deliveries to the other 275 suburbs?

Well, if that's not a load of horseshit, then I've never seen a horse OR shit.

My own anecdotal evidence aside (as I work in a VA hospital), studies have been done to show that "[t]he VA often (but not always) performs better than or similarly to other systems of care with regard to the safety and effectiveness of care". Or how about the fact that a "nationwide Medicare survey...found that veterans rated Veterans Affairs hospitals higher than private health care facilities in all 10 categories of patient satisfaction".

Doctors are not working for the VA "because they can't cut it in private practice". Many of the health professionals I know at the VA work there because they are either former military themselves, or they feel a civic pride in giving back to those who served. The idea that the VA gives substandard healthcare is not only extremely false, but a lie that needs to be corrected.