3 ms·

I agree that you can't go videotaping people in semi-public areas without someone getting annoyed, and that you can't take up pitchforks after hearing only one

by sesqu 14y ago

I agree that you can't go videotaping people in semi-public areas without someone getting annoyed, and that you can't take up pitchforks after hearing only one side of a story. But beyond that, I think you're being a jerk. You criticize his 13-year-old contraption for not being as good looking as Google's last iteration of a product not yet launched. That sounds incredibly discriminatory. You claim you'd treat his rig differently if he looked blind himself. Provided the device actually works well, how exactly do you determine that it's a necessary physical aid without intruding on his privacy? You say you can't judge the employee for assaulting him without knowing if he, a long-time public user of this technology and a university professor, were just acting like an asshole. Yet you have no trouble speculating he were intrusively "scanning" everyone, which by the account is not something one would do with this device, especially in the given scenario. You fault him for not contacting the police, which he explicitly said he had done. All in all, it seems like you're projecting something onto him that is in no way deserved. This is not some video artist or smelly person we're talking about here, it's a father on vacation while wearing a prosthetic, getting into an altercation with staff that left his prosthetic damaged.

robomartin 14y ago
A few points: Do you have to resort to personal attacks? Really? Look/feel: If you are going to use intrusive tech in public you need to make the tech non-threatening. That's basic UI design. The Google device is easy to ignore. His rig is, well, look at the pictures. I also imagine it having a bunch of wires hanging off of it going to a backpack or something. If he was blind he'd probably have a cane (well recognized internationally) or it would be obvious through interaction. The people he interacted with, per his own account, had conversations with him, which certainly clarified that he was not impaired. It doesn't matter if he is a university professor or the pope. Both can behave as complete jerks and produce negative reactions on other people. Pedigree does not imply common sense. He should have GONE to the police immediately, not "contacted them" --whatever that means. The fact that the embassy, police and consulate seem to have ignored him is a very interesting bit of data. I don't know what it means. It's a father on vacation with his daughter being so inconsiderate as to not leave his crap at home in order to enjoy a vacation with his family. That alone paints a profile for me. Sorry. I could be completely wrong, but I would not do that to my kids. It takes a certain mentality to place your geeky needs above those of your kids for self-serving reasons. If my oldest son was going around Paris shoving cameras in people's faces in public or private spaces and got slapped around I'd tell him to not be an idiot next time. There is such a thing as behaving properly while in public and private. Some might disagree, but I've taught my kids to not be loud at restaurants, while I see others that don't care about the rest of the people dining and let their kids be loud and not allow the table next to them have a pleasant conversation. Being considerate is part of living in a pleasant society.
- yew 14y ago
  > Do you have to resort to personal attacks? Really? You are hardly in a position to talk. Anyway, the only 'personal attack' that I see is calling you a jerk - which seems to be rather an entirely accurate characterization. > If you are going to use intrusive tech in public you need to make the tech non-threatening. That's basic UI design. 'Basic UI design' would be making sure that a device intended for permanent attachment to a human body was sufficiently supported and padded to prevent physical damage. Appearance would be a strictly secondary concern, especially given that we supposedly live in a 'pleasant society,' as you put it, where physical assault should be looked down upon as a response to 'looking weird.' Though I have a sneaking suspicion that you might disagree with that idea . . .
  - robomartin 14y ago
    > You are hardly in a position to talk. Anyway, the only 'personal attack' that I see is calling you a jerk - which seems to be rather an entirely accurate characterization. I did not attack you personally in any way. You have chosen to resort to name calling without justification. I'll let the reader decided where the ad-hominem originated, which is really obvious. I never once suggested that a physical attack was justified. You are choosing to read and extrapolate that out of my words. It's wrong, but you are free to use your imagination in any way you care to. Live long and prosper.
- sesqu 14y ago
  Yes, in this case I really did feel it necessary to call you out for being an exclusionary apologetic. Being considerate to others includes not punching ugly people. Being considerate to others includes accepting other people in "your" public space. Being considerate to others even includes not affixing assumed motives and behaviors to them. I certainly hope you taught your oldest son these things. I would not wish to live in a society where everyone is required to wear labels, and I hope you would not, either. It's certainly good manners not to offend others, but to demand not to be offended is just silly. No amount of ugliness justifies violence. Can we at least agree on this much?
- tripzilch 14y ago

by sesqu 14y ago

robomartin 14y ago

A few points: Do you have to resort to personal attacks? Really? Look/feel: If you are going to use intrusive tech in public you need to make the tech non-threatening. That's basic UI design. The Google device is easy to ignore. His rig is, well, look at the pictures. I also imagine it having a bunch of wires hanging off of it going to a backpack or something. If he was blind he'd probably have a cane (well recognized internationally) or it would be obvious through interaction. The people he interacted with, per his own account, had conversations with him, which certainly clarified that he was not impaired. It doesn't matter if he is a university professor or the pope. Both can behave as complete jerks and produce negative reactions on other people. Pedigree does not imply common sense. He should have GONE to the police immediately, not "contacted them" --whatever that means. The fact that the embassy, police and consulate seem to have ignored him is a very interesting bit of data. I don't know what it means. It's a father on vacation with his daughter being so inconsiderate as to not leave his crap at home in order to enjoy a vacation with his family. That alone paints a profile for me. Sorry. I could be completely wrong, but I would not do that to my kids. It takes a certain mentality to place your geeky needs above those of your kids for self-serving reasons. If my oldest son was going around Paris shoving cameras in people's faces in public or private spaces and got slapped around I'd tell him to not be an idiot next time. There is such a thing as behaving properly while in public and private. Some might disagree, but I've taught my kids to not be loud at restaurants, while I see others that don't care about the rest of the people dining and let their kids be loud and not allow the table next to them have a pleasant conversation. Being considerate is part of living in a pleasant society.

yew 14y ago
> Do you have to resort to personal attacks? Really? You are hardly in a position to talk. Anyway, the only 'personal attack' that I see is calling you a jerk - which seems to be rather an entirely accurate characterization. > If you are going to use intrusive tech in public you need to make the tech non-threatening. That's basic UI design. 'Basic UI design' would be making sure that a device intended for permanent attachment to a human body was sufficiently supported and padded to prevent physical damage. Appearance would be a strictly secondary concern, especially given that we supposedly live in a 'pleasant society,' as you put it, where physical assault should be looked down upon as a response to 'looking weird.' Though I have a sneaking suspicion that you might disagree with that idea . . .
- robomartin 14y ago
  > You are hardly in a position to talk. Anyway, the only 'personal attack' that I see is calling you a jerk - which seems to be rather an entirely accurate characterization. I did not attack you personally in any way. You have chosen to resort to name calling without justification. I'll let the reader decided where the ad-hominem originated, which is really obvious. I never once suggested that a physical attack was justified. You are choosing to read and extrapolate that out of my words. It's wrong, but you are free to use your imagination in any way you care to. Live long and prosper.
sesqu 14y ago
Yes, in this case I really did feel it necessary to call you out for being an exclusionary apologetic. Being considerate to others includes not punching ugly people. Being considerate to others includes accepting other people in "your" public space. Being considerate to others even includes not affixing assumed motives and behaviors to them. I certainly hope you taught your oldest son these things. I would not wish to live in a society where everyone is required to wear labels, and I hope you would not, either. It's certainly good manners not to offend others, but to demand not to be offended is just silly. No amount of ugliness justifies violence. Can we at least agree on this much?
tripzilch 14y ago