I'll believe they're serious when they start living the lifestyles they claim we'll need to curve the trend. Tons of posts about Trump but none about the supposed environmentalists who are still living the same lifestyles of the average Trump supporter. Where is the low-hanging fruit? Why aren't these people changing their ways? Why ask those who oppose your agenda when your own "believers" can't be bothered?

If these people were serious we'd see EV adaption in the double digits and be able to walk into any restaurant and get a vegetarian meal without having to double guess what may or may not be used to create it. We're not seeing that. We're not going to see that because environmentalism is only an issue when it comes down to politics and not lifestyle in the minds of these people. They want to weaponize environmentalisms as a political tool, not as a practical guide for end-user consumption.

But, you know, fOlLoW tHe ScIeNcE!!!

But I thought we were fighting fascism. Why don't you come out from behind the anonymous coward identity if you are so convinced that the oligarchy is better?

Too bad so many have hurt feelings about doing the right thing. Typical Slashdot.

The reason I pulled away from Amazon is because I'm not going to sit around pissing myself about the rich while funding their wealth at the same time. Too bad too many assholes don't feel the same about the situation. I still like physical books, for the most part, so now I buy used from Half Priced Books who has a local storefront.

You sure the FTP site was hijacked? That sounds like business as usual coming from the government.

Also, if my HR department decides to gamify performance reviews I'm going to lose it.

Mine already throws darts at a board and hopes your happy with the results.

Everyone is trying to portray her as "someone randomly .. taking pictures" of the bar patrons. It's clear that she wasn't taking anyone's pictures

The patrons don't know this. What's why, in the original post of mine that you responded to, I said : "Try pulling out your phone in a bar and hold it up like you're recording, you'll notice that people will shy away from you or maybe even worse."

It's not about the absolute reality, it's about the perception.

and only moved to activate the camera when personally threatened, specifically to have evidence of her own assault (not out of spite).

Motivation in this case counts for nothing at all. It was already an escalated situation. I'm not saying she wasn't right for trying to do what she did but she did, more or less, throw gas on a fire by announcing it.

Of course, I wouldn't expect the aggressor(s) to respond kindly to this, as most people who are engaged in the commission of a crime are generally not keen on others possessing evidence of their criminal activity.

Ok.

However, that doesn't somehow shift the blame to the victim here.

I would agree that the legal fault is still with the aggressors. I never said anything different and if you want to try to make it seem like I was justifying their actions I'd really appreciate that you quote me where I do this. Sorry, but you seem to be trying to bend my words without providing any sourcing. Maybe you're not but it certainly seems that way.

Are you suggesting that criminals should have the right to destroy evidence (or otherwise prevent the collection of evidence) of their crimes?

Never said that either. Again, quote me or stop making gross assumptions. I can put words in your mouth too but that's counterproductive and, frankly, a sign of bad form in the matters of discourse.

because she felt threatened, the aggressor(s) backed down, because they understood that it was just for liability reasons

She wasn't doing it for liability reasons to begin with. You know this and you're trying to push an issue that wasn't an issue. And threatening people mid-aggression always leads to the most logical outcome. Right? ... Right?

Go tell a cop that every perp backs down right after they've pulled their gun/taser/nightstick and see if they laugh at your assumption.

I'm fairly sure if you go back and read my thoughts on this matter you'll see I never said that there were absolutes. You made them up in your own mind to back up your presumption. That alone should show you the flaw in your black and white logic.

There's a reason cooler heads often prevail.

"Ignorance is bliss," as the saying goes. A CCTV operator could be following your every move as you walk around Macy's or chat up that attractive number at the local watering hole. Probably not happening, but we have no way of knowing either way.

It is not "ignorance is bliss." It's that there is a legimate and real reason for security cameras while someone you don't know randomly filming you at a bar isn't legimate and given the YouTube culture it is highly suspect.

Even if I were being followed by a security camera I'm fairly sure it's not going to turn up anywhere. Again, the guard that may be watching me has a legitimate purpose. Random drunk filming other random drunk? Not so much.

I'm not saying that there is no chance that my security footage may not end up someplace it's just highly unlikely compared to someone going out of their way to film me with no just cause.

Not really. An automated CCTV system is accepted because we know why it's there. It's for liability reasons. It's to protect the businesses/properties in question. Most of us know that these images will never even be seen by a real person let alone posted to YouTube or worse.

Normal people start wondering what's going on when someone randomly starts taking pictures of them. It raises alarm in a lot of people. The alcohol that was likely involved in this incident probably didn't help matters either.

Would you be 100% comfortable with someone recording you for no obvious reason in public? If so, you're probably the exception. And I'm not saying this as justification for what happened but as a reason why GG and things of that nature are going to get a lot of resistance. Try pulling out your phone in a bar and hold it up like you're recording, you'll notice that people will shy away from you or maybe even worse.

I use to play the Dark Mods back around the time Thief 2 was out. I'll have to give it a go again. Do you have to jump through a bunch of hoops with limited options like you have to do with Thief 1 on WinXP/Win7? That's what kills going back to most of the 90s games for me.

This is valid to a point but I've had a touchscreen in my car for over half a decade now. It's not an outright ban but there are things that I need to have my parking break engaged for in order to use. I can pull up my radio/iPod controls with no issues. My GPS I can only have a few select options, normally about 3 'clicks'. I can't type in addresses. I can't see more complex options. So it's not a blanket ban at all.

There are laws on the books, in areas, that prohibit displays in front of the drivers seat with exceptions made for GPS/Radio controls. I have a DVD player in my head unit but I can't watch a DVD on the primary monitor without the parking break engaged. As for a HUD, I'm sure the same laws would apply. Driving information such as GPS directions, speed and such would likely get a pass (as they already do) but something like Google Glasses have no such restrictions on them. If I were wearing some HUD headgear in my car the cops have no way of knowing if I'm looking at a map or if I'm watching YouTube. I find there erring on the side of caution in this case a pretty good idea.

And this doesn't even take into account that the Glass 'HUD' would be in the center of the drives field of vision even when they look at the road. I can't get my car to pass a saftey inspection with a chip in the windshield at eye level let alone a display of any kind.

I would also like to point out that pilots have to retrain as their instrument cluster changes. I didn't have to do a single thing when I got my CD Radio head changed out for my touchscreen display.

If using HUDs or other kinds of electronic instruments were inherently dangerous, they wouldn't routinely be used by aircraft pilots.

When you have thousands of hours of driving theory classes, simulator time and coached road driving in a vehicle where the coach can take over the vehicle in a moments notice then you can start to talk about how your driving a car compares to a pilot in a jet.

Most pilots have more time in simulators than most drivers get in their first few years of driving. Comparing the two is a joke and you know it.

let's think about the big picture here

Some already have.

So tech companies don't want to be in high crime locations in the middle of neighborhoods that most of their workers wouldn't want to live or send their kids to school? Who woulda thunk it?

I'm already in the suburbs today and if I have to look for a new jobs I'm going to start to look even further from the city I live around. There is zero appeal to working in a city much less living in one.

Waiting for Shadowmist to demonstrate why he believes that libertarians would automatically go for BitCoin.