Slog
Nov 26, 2013 11:38 AM
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Publication Info
Check it out
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Comments
PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD stop feeding into this child's psychosis.
Honestly, private property is just that. If the proprietor wants you to leave for a non-discriminatory reason, you go. Wear that glass in public places as much as you want.
Sorry, "Google Glass" is creepy, since you never know when it's recording. Kudos to Lost Lake, sensible policy.
I'll pick option #1 for the biggest asshole in the city.
Also, not knowing that the 5 Point and Lost Lake are owned and operated by the same people...
@9, I'm sorry, dear, but you're a damn fool.
http://www.geekwire.com/2013/google-glas…
This guy is a troll, is all. Last March, Meinert famously banned Glass from his other restaurant, the Five Point. http://www.geekwire.com/2013/google-glas…
So this guy went fishing for attention where he knew he'd get it, and got it.
But give it UP. Fighting Google Glass or anything similar that will be coming out (watches, wearables, kits, etc) is like trying to bail out the ocean with a bucket.
Stop thinking short term. Take our tech path and go forward a decade. Then two decades. Three.
@1 - funny how all aspects are consistent, no?
Protip, folks: if you're in a restaurant or a retail establishment, you're on camera. Flipping your shit at the nerd with the stupid toy on his face is not going to change that.
PS - anyone who wears those glasses looks like an idiot.
I went in for dinner not a fight.
"Segway For Your Face"
Please make a note of it, etc etc etc.
The word being "Google Specs users are douchetrolleys".
Remember, if you're under 60 years old, you weren't promised a jetpack, you were promised an oppressive cyberpunk dystopia with the occasional cool toy. Ta da!
So why didn't you take it off? And why are you such a douchebag that you demanded that the hostess be docked pay or fired?
Congratulations on your new title: The Worst Person in Seattle. I'm sure Lisa Dank is relieved.
1. It's his bar.
2. See #1
3. It is kind of creepy have a stranger film you. Things change when a camera is pointed at you.
4. It is only a matter of time before some lawyer decides to request Google Glass data to make their case.
5. I do believe it is still illegal in our state to record a conversation without consent.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/n…
So far, we have:
Google glasses
Google specs
Googley eyes
Segway for your face
FWIW, I'm not sure it's possible to have a name like 'Nick Starr' and not be a douche.
News at 11.
Google Ass
Is his claim to fame just being unstable? I'm all for banning vloggers from Cap Hill restaurants regardless.
@63: I'm sympathetic to persons having a breakdown, but much less so when they need negative attention swarming around them as this douchenozzle does. I hope he gets help when he needs it, and stops playing persecuted when he gets bounced from a bar.
Instead of having a titty fit, you could simply take off your novelty fashion accessory like a grown-up.
If you want to know what I'm talking about, just google "camera glasses".
The techno ignorance of stranger writers and slog commenters is stunning.
I'm not sure all the objection is in 'toys for rich boys' - it is the sense of constant surveillance. Somehow CCTV cameras - ubiquitous yes - are somewhat invisible to us, and predate the narcissistic age of social media; we have a sense of the fixed positioning and accountability of CCTV owner/operators.
Perhaps if something like google ass becomes cheap and ubiquitous the way cell phone cameras have, we'll come to accept it as the new lack of privacy - being filmed when you don't even know it. Honestly, this is probably true in any urban setting already with cell phones.
Oh, and google's glasses are now. 20 years from now there will be something much more annoying. Nick, you should have jumped. Chinaski out.
Note: I'm not discussing griefers who use their anonymity to rile people up. I'm talking about people who use their real name or a long established handle to make these statements, which is what would be applicable for the Twitter suicide threats.
Besides, those guys only eat at Olive Garden. They show up at other places just to be a dick.
Are we going to tell people they can't wear corrective glasses in certain venues because they may have cameras in them?
Just tossing that out there. This genie is completely out of the bottle.
See what you did right there? How you took a simple medical need -- corrective lenses -- and turned it into an entitlement for a camera? Right after you admitted the only reason for the camera was that "it will just be cool". But you think there's going to be these awesome lawsuits entitling dudes like you to have video games on your face?
Privileged white men really don't understand the difference between a whites only lunch counter and asking them to take the stupid camera off their face. Just like guys who have zero chance of ever being hungry or homeless in their lives think it's a game to demand somebody be fired from their job.
That right there is what this thing is.
Though I do find a certain satisfaction when they go through ugly divorces with themselves.
I saw my first pair of Google glasses in the wild a few weeks ago on the train. Two men together—the nerdier of the two wearing the Glasses while looking at his phone (?!@!!). The other more put together one, was not only holding on to the bars across the aisle with each hand, but clumsily hit on a woman before returning to his friend. The not-fucking-getting-it-ness between these two was off the charts.
Which is funny, because one of the ways to turn Face Testicles into something that the public will accept is not to be a huge dick about them. But the people who wear them, seemingly 100% of them, are ginormous prongs waving their not-fucking-getting-it-ness (thank you Dougsf) around like a bozo with a ladder in an old silent film comedy.
Which is going to hurt acceptance, I think. I hope.
The solution, as a nearly from birth glasses wearer is not to embed recording devices in my prescription lenses.
I don't understand how entitled some persons get, I really don't.
The world doesn't stop for you.
Commonality breeds acceptance of nearly anything, is all I'm saying, and that sooner or later someone--it won't be me--will embed some sort of computing or recording device into something medically required like prescription eyeglass frames.
I've got no entitlement issues here. I'm just guessing around the notion that by maybe 2020-2025 when we're old and cranky about the days pre-"Glass", the then 25 year olds who are being born today will be arguing online about whether there is an issue of entitlement because people are starting to pilot project on embedded cameras in their skin or contact lenses or whatever the hell else.
And people also still bitch about people who use their cell phones just to look at because I'M RIGHT HERE TALKING TO YOU ASSHOLE. I don't think these behaviors are as widely accepted as you think they are.
Maybe in McDonald's or someplace. You see a lot of that kind of thing in places like that. Maybe the trick is to associate Google Face Testicles with frequent users of McDonald's. Make them seem declassé, like TruckNutz.
Now, if it's super-sekret and no one can tell, fine. You'll "get away with it". Unless someone passes a law mandating a red dot or something. Which sounds like a good idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRTkCHE1s…
"It's my bar of chocolate, give it to me now!"
You've lost all rights to attempt arguments for at least ten days. You can come back then, after you've thought long and hard about what you've done.
The main scare people are bringing up is that Google Glasses could be used to secretly record a video of someone. However, if you think out how that would play out, recording a video with GG would require you to stare directly at someone for the duration of the recording, which is the opposite of secret.
"Well sure, but what if he took a picture instead of a video?"
That is a possibility, but if someone wanted to take a picture surreptitiously, all they have to do is pull out a smart phone and pretend to be texting but actually have the camera on. And again for comparisons sake, GG would require someone to stare directly at the person they wanted to take a picture of which is fairly obvious.
IMHO, the night manager had no valid reason to insist that Nick Starr take off his GG and Nick is entitled to be pissed over it (though demanding the person lose their job is excessive).
@96: They don't want the crowd who feels obliged to wear such fashion statements and annoy their clientele, your analogy is incredibly stupid. We deserve privacy and relaxation, so leave the shit at the door. If you can't have fun without your covert surveillance devices, spend your money on businesses where you're actually wanted.