CommanderFrank
Cat Can't Scratch It
- Joined
- May 9, 2000
- Messages
- 75,399
A slight ripple in the force was felt on the Internet this week when it was erroneously reported that Google once again had opened up sales of Google Glass to the public.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Update: Google Glass is Definitely Not Available to the Public
- Thread starter CommanderFrank
- Start date
celeron300
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2009
- Messages
- 514
Good I hope it goes the way of the cabbage patch doll!
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
It's so sad to see it happen when someone gets hurt or robbed, but in the case of Google Glass, I really think that it's one of the rare times when I'd be like, "Whatever, you wore Google's spycam on your face so you were kinda asking for what you got."
willrock114
n00b
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2013
- Messages
- 5
Slightly off-topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN4sMISyYgk
Sifelwivel
n00b
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2009
- Messages
- 37
Yes, if someone gets hurt or robbed while wearing Google Glass, then they were definitely asking for it. Just like a woman who is raped while wearing a short dress. Totally asking for it. Why can't everyone just understand that upon subscribing to social norms, all risk of personal injury suddenly vanish. </sarcasm>
Seriously, stop the victim blaming. They might be a Glasshole, but that in no way gives someone permission to assault them, nor does it indicate that they were asking for any violence.
Women in short skirts haven't done anything to anyone. The Glasshole is drilling into someone's personal space ready to put things out of context up on the internet.Yes, if someone gets hurt or robbed while wearing Google Glass, then they were definitely asking for it. Just like a woman who is raped while wearing a short dress. Totally asking for it. Why can't everyone just understand that upon subscribing to social norms, all risk of personal injury suddenly vanish. </sarcasm>
Seriously, stop the victim blaming. They might be a Glasshole, but that in no way gives someone permission to assault them, nor does it indicate that they were asking for any violence.
Seriously the way some people try to hang onto the idea its ok makes me think they are regular real life trolls who get put in their place one way or another and plan to use glass to intimidate people from standing up to them.
.
CreepyUncleGoogle
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 6,871
Yes, if someone gets hurt or robbed while wearing Google Glass, then they were definitely asking for it. Just like a woman who is raped while wearing a short dress. Totally asking for it. Why can't everyone just understand that upon subscribing to social norms, all risk of personal injury suddenly vanish. </sarcasm>
Seriously, stop the victim blaming. They might be a Glasshole, but that in no way gives someone permission to assault them, nor does it indicate that they were asking for any violence.
Comparing the normal, everyday beating up and mugging of a person wearing Google Glass to rape for wearing a nice skirt is silly because those are two different situations where one makes society better by reducing Google's ability to spy on a person and the rest of the world while rape is just incomprehensible and awful. I can't believe you'd even try to compare them.
And yes, there's been enough news out there about how bad Google is as a company, how horrible their products are, and how Glass is a good way to get in trouble that the victim is totally at fault for buying and wearing it in public and then having getting negative attention.
Spazturtle
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 1,526
Good to see the users of oftForum sticking up for their reputation as technophobes.
There's a new chemical castration drug out, Zoladex. Show us you're not a technophobe and have some.
I was waiting for something funny to happen, thought it was a parody or whatever they're called. I actually laughed when it first happened, then, realized it was serious and it made me feel like shit for laughing.
There's a new kind of bullet coming out, let someone try it on your face.
Makes as much sense as yours did.
Spazturtle
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 1,526
I don't know if you remember but this is exactly how people reacted when camera phones started coming out. People hate new technology in general.
Its the "I don't have a use for this, so nobody should use it" mentality.
Sifelwivel
n00b
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2009
- Messages
- 37
I am not making a comparison between assault and rape. I am illustrating that you are making a logical fallacy by victim blaming. Person A is in situation B, therefore they deserve to have action C happen to them. The statement I made about rape is no more illogical than your statement about assault on Glassholes. There are still many people do indeed victim blame rape victims. I am glad to know that you are not one of them, and I hope that you apply the same logic to all people in all situations.
Krenum
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2005
- Messages
- 19,193
No, wrong on both accounts.
When you have a conversation with someone you look each other in the eye. This is a show of confidence and respect toward one another. Google Glass is a distraction to that concept, that is why people including myself do not like it. Same with text messaging.
S
shade91
Guest
Google Glass is DOA. Put it out of its misery already.
D
Deleted whining member 223597
Guest
More like not everyone wants to be filmed/recorded in public unknowingly. With a phone you can generally tell if someone is recording you, with this not so much. Personally I don't care as much, but I know a lot of people are bothered by it. But, it seems nowadays being as obnoxious/annoying as possible to others is cool.
Camera phones do cause problems which is why many companies have banned their employees from having phones with cameras at work. As someone else mentioned google glass is much worse because with a phone it's at least somewhat obvious when someone is taking a picture or recording video.
It's not a matter of being a technophobe as much as it's a matter of seeing that there is serious potential issues regarding privacy. Saying that those against it are just afraid of change is just as dumb as those saying that people that don't like the metro interface are just afraid of change, changes can make things better or worse. That's not to say that there aren't people who hate change even if it makes something better because there are, just like there are people that love change even if it's for the worse.
Pretty obvious. Just because something is a new technology and you don't think it should be used wherever and whenever does not make you a technophobe.
Actually when phones first came out a lot of people obnoxiously spoke at full volume so everyone knew they had a cell in inappropriate places and times. It wasn't until cell users learned some cell phone educate, mostly by copy people who knew not to abuse it, did that stop
being afraid of new technology is actually the literal definition of technophobe :|
also, there is no privacy when you're out in public
and where do you guys come up with the idea that it's more obvious when a phone is taking pictures or recording vs. a sci-fi looking pair of "glasses" on someone's face that blinks when they stare straight at you when it's in record mode?
thank goodness it's only an issue for about a handful of people on this forum
also, there is no privacy when you're out in public
and where do you guys come up with the idea that it's more obvious when a phone is taking pictures or recording vs. a sci-fi looking pair of "glasses" on someone's face that blinks when they stare straight at you when it's in record mode?
thank goodness it's only an issue for about a handful of people on this forum
NSA makes all kinds of new technologies everyday.
ignoring the non-sequitor, why don't you explain to us what exactly you think you're saying with that non-sensical statement?
Basically the NSA is always coming up with clever ways of collecting information on all of us and people who object must be technophobes according to your smear people who disagree with me logic. It can't possibly be the way the technology is used that they object to.
So, since you can't make the obvious connections. That means just because we don't like how mini cameras with internet connections may be used, doesn't mean we don't think they're neat in the right circumstances.
Technically you tried smear people in general who objected to Glass. But way to prove me wrong.
I can't prove you wrong. You're babbling non-sensical things by comparing the government spying on people in their own homes and during their private phone conversations to someone walking around with a huge pair of blinking glasses taking snapshots of people in public, where no privacy exists.
The fact that you see those as comparable and, in your words, "obvious connections" is a signal to rational people to simply move past you as quickly as possible and safely disregarding whatever else you might try to argue about.
Yes, someone taking a politically incorrect comment I made 3 hours into happy hour could cause to lose my job and do me more harm than anything the NSA could find out and care to act on.
There's a far cry from someone witnessing something and someone recording it and putting up on the internet. The 'no expectation of privacy in public' is a cliche not a constitutional article.
To approve of Google Glass without any ethical or etiquette questions should concern anyone on this forum.
Pretty obvious, but just because you personally don't like a new technology and are afraid if it, doesn't mean it's not a great product overall, and possibly a huge part of our future.
It's a reality, where we live, welcome home.
To completely deny Google Glass without any ethical or moral questions should concern anyone 'in this world, that's alive!'.
I mean, even cops seem to act more professional while on camera, maybe everyone might act 'different' in public, on camera. PUBLIC!
Youn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2007
- Messages
- 5,973
I punch everyone who looks at me, because they record my face into their memory... babies and other small animals get punted over a fence...
no, it's been the law in the US for half a century now. it *was* a constitutional issue but the supreme court settled the question in 1967.
The limiting of the "expectation of privacy" under certain circumstance for police searches doesn't automatically define that everything else is fair game in all circumstances.
Plus that ruling using a subject to change test based on societies expectations. A little glass abuse and society's expectations will quick.
needmorecarnitine
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,609
that's one way to look at it. another way would be to say that you making a politically incorrect comment caused you to lose your job.
what do you do when there is no fence around?
Not going to have this argument again. If you can't understand the fact just because a technology exists doesn't mean you use it, hope you become the example that makes a new rule.
Thanks for proving my point. Some people want to troll this into creating a "Thought Police" State.
needmorecarnitine
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,609
stop thinking already!
needmorecarnitine
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2004
- Messages
- 4,609
we need to go back to the good old day when we can blame others for our mistakes!