That's really interesting. There's just something very discomforting about being watched by strangers with recording devices. People can watch us just with their eyes, and we might not give it much thought, but if they're recording it we get antsy, even if we aren't doing anything we would be embarrassed about or really need kept private. We all feel it. What's up with that?
What makes you so sure? I think that in the current climate people are just comfortable with who is pointing cameras at them. Once these cameras are really ubiquitous and in the hands of people who they do not trust, the laws on filming in public will at the very least be brought to the public's attention. We're not talking about constitutional rights here, so anything is subject to change. Except of course for our right against unlawful search (4th amendment)
Interesting. I agree, of course, that you should ask as a matter of courtesy, but it will be interesting to see how the legal aspects of these activities evolve as more and more obvious recording is happening around us on a daily basis. It seems to me that people are perfectly fine with being recorded as long as the recording is being done by a trusted authority. We see cameras all the time in banks, parking lots, street corners, airports, retail stores, etc., and nobody gives a damn. But as soon as the camera is in the hands of an individual who might post on youtube, the gloves come off. The guy in this video was recording video mostly in a really aggressive way. I'd be more interested in seeing how people react when faced with cameras in the hands (or on the faces) of people with whom they're already interacting with naturally, i.e. during a retail transaction, personal conversation, etc. I'm not sure how anyone would go about experimenting with that, but it would be interesting to see something like this without the obvious deliberate intent to aggravate.
Hmm. So why isn't this youtube link embedding properly?
And what batteries will be powering these always filming google glass headsets? I would love to get them in my laptop! No I don't think Glass will change the scene much. Of course battery life will limit the filming capacity of the headsets and so will the need to speak or tap the headset to begin recording.
Thanks mk.
Good, but I liked this article a little better. http://www.newstatesman.com/laurie-penny/2012/12/note-nice-g...
I always thought it was "Ma Bell" as in "Mother Bell". "Maw" makes it sounds like a cavernous toothy mouth intent on devouring everything in its path, which on reflection actually seems curiously appropriate.
Am I the only one who found it odd that he goes on and on about the values of silence and rest on the Quiet Car from all the background noise and distractions, then proceeds to listen to music on his headphones on the Quiet Car? P.S. I liked the article, actually came in here intending to post it. Thanks.
I see. So when you explained that you weren't going to "go through and list, line-by-line, the religious status of all 200 charities for purposes of brevity", you were being sincere, not snide. I find it hard to believe that you seriously thought that I expected that of you, and thus needed to explain that you wouldn't. I think you were being snide. But that's okay, I won't let it bother me. And the whole purpose of 501c3 organizations is to cut taxes on organizations that serve a public benefit. All 501c3 organizations serve a demonstrable public benefit but one. Guess which. And you can't fall back on the charity thing again, because even if churches to support a great deal of charity that is not at all their primary purpose, and much of their tax-free dollars are spent on building luxury churches and mega-salaries for their pastors. Thank you also for condescending to tell me what I do and don't understand. I have stated up front that I am, as you say "ignorant" of 200 years of this republic's legislative history. I have about as much knowledge of legislative action as the average layperson. I understand very clearly how you believe that taxation should be interpreted as prohibiting the free exercise of religion. What I am saying is that I, as a layperson, am not certain that taxation necessarily must be interpreted as prohibiting the free exercise of religion. And what I am saying is that if the courts of this country have seen fit to weigh the issue at all, then it must not be quite so clearly, so explicitly, so definitely written as you say it is. The language sounds a bit loose to me, and I can see a couple ways of looking at it. But again, I am not a lawyer or a politician, and I am unversed in the subtleties of law and the language used to express it. At the very least, it seems to me that the amendment says nothing about forcing other citizens to pay for the benefits that religious organizations enjoy from the government, such as, again, fire departments, etc. (a point I made earlier). We could go on, but honestly, I'm starting to lose interest. As you say, nothing I can do about it anyway. Too deeply ingrained in our culture and, as you pointed out, legislative history. I will continue to pay money I worked hard to earn to support some stranger's Sunday pastime, and he will continue to regard that as my personal obligation.
So I think that when we learn that IQ is rising on average, as a couple of these writers mentioned, it is a valid indicator that our societies are definitely making some kind of cognitive progress. Precisely how and why they have been improved is less easily understood.
"It is likely that this river is responsible for the low level of salinity in the waters around the mouth of the Amazon," said a statement released by the National Observatory. I wonder... Is that what tipped them off in the first place? The article never explicitly mentions what led to the discovery.