Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass • Hacker News Board

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#221

Post by ktizo » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 4:42 AM UTC

lsc wrote: post #209

Seems to me like he needs to implement a Stephenson style panic button - In Snow Crash, at one point YT used a special button on her phone to summon help from other couriers. It'd be easy enough to implement technically; when I hit the panic button it notifies all listeners of my location; listeners configure how far away they want reports. (perhaps taking reports from further away from people with higher reputation…

It would be fantastic to be able to summon the MIT wearables division in an emergency. Surely one of them has built a Gundam by now. http://www.wearcam.org/computing.html/borgs_outside_medialab...

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#222

Post by springishere » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 4:42 AM UTC

What about simple sale of illicit goods ? That would warrant a response like this. With so many people in and out it would be easy to slip something in with the orders. It isn't the first time it's happened, either.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city...

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#223

Post by vertr » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 4:55 AM UTC

writetoalok wrote: post #207

gcb wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you say that until some terrorist screw a bomb to his head and kill YOUR CHILDREN!!!!1!!

calm down, more people have been killed on roads than due to terrorism.

That comment was clearly sarcasm.

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#224

Post by obilgic » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 4:57 AM UTC

"The computerized eyeglass processes imagery using Augmediated Reality, in order to help the wearer see better, and when the computer is damaged, e.g. by falling and hitting the ground (or by a physical assault), buffered pictures for processing remain in its memory, and are not overwritten with new ones by the then non-functioning computer vision system.

As a result of Perpetrator 1's actions, therefore images that would not have otherwise been captured were captured. Therefore by damaging the Eye Glass, Perpetrator 1 photographed himself and others within McDonalds. "

Dude, this makes no sense...

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#225

Post by scotty79 » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:05 AM UTC

ilamont wrote: post #176

rdl wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that fails Ockham's razor. I worked for Steve Mann about 15 years ago. Calling him the father of wearable computing is an understatement -- he was the father before it was even possible to create, and yet managed to make it happen essentially on his own a decade or more before it should have existed -- the JFK Apollo of wearables out of his own pocket. However, he is probably not the least suspicious person w…

The incident at Logan airport was big news in Boston in 2007. It involved an MIT undergraduate wearing a piece of art on the front of her shirt that consisted of a circuit board and LED attached to a battery. It freaked out some airport staff, and the Massachusetts State Police came very close to shooting her: http://tech.mit.edu/V127/N40/simpson.html

That's funny how wires + blinking led => detonator, something you knead in your hand => C4, cute youg girl with bleached hair => suicide bomber

Osama achieved million times more than what he would have dreamed of.

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#226

Post by nakkiel » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:10 AM UTC

spitx wrote: post #194

patio11 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if we swap around a few of the particulars -- say, make the guy with the camera black, relocate the scene to the deep South, and then make the three perpetrators good old boys -- a fairly plausible hypothesis would rush to mind, even if it is outside the experience of the typical white American at the typical McDonalds. Mafia fronts certainly exist in the world, but they are probably greatly outnumbered by petty p…

Just so we are all on the same page, the males look of distinct North-African extraction - Algerian, Moroccan, Egyptian or Libyan.

I don't see how it's relevant.

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#227

Post by scotty79 » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:10 AM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #160

ben0x539 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Christ, that's some quick victim-blaming. There's no justification for trying to take away someone's property, even if it's a camera in your business. Physically assaulting someone over a camera is even worse. All attempts to excuse this sort of behavior immediately fall flat given that "possible witness 1" was given documentation of the device and apparently accepted it, and the perpetrator was also given the docume…

I am not prejudiced at all. It's common sense. Also, why would I automatically have empathy for him when I don't know the whole story. What if he was a complete jerk? You don't know this and I certainly don't either so let's not take sides unless and until the facts are known. If he was, in fact, assaulted without any provocation whatsoever it was a criminal act that the law should deal with in the strongest possible…

> What if he was a complete jerk?

Even if he was most jerkiest jerk telling sh*t about their mothers nothing justifies physical attack and destruction of property.

If you can't restrain yoursef from physically attacking people and tearing their papers when they open they mouths you shouldn't be working where people are present.

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#228

Post by pyre » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:14 AM UTC

andrewfelix wrote: post #203

spitx wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just so we are all on the same page, the males look of distinct North-African extraction - Algerian, Moroccan, Egyptian or Libyan.

It's France. They're French.

There are a lot of Moroccans in Paris, from what I understand. Wasn't that what those riots a few years back were about? The Moroccans immigrating but not integrating?

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#229

Post by ams6110 » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:14 AM UTC

richardv wrote: post #35

pg wrote: post #26

No one at an ordinary McDonald's would even notice such a device. Ergo this was not an ordinary McDonald's, but one with security people looking for cameras. Why would a McDonald's have security people looking for cameras? Possibly because it was a mafia front. If you wanted to launder money, a fast food restaurant in a popular location would be a good place to do it. The way the employees behaved is consistent with…

Are you enacting Poe's law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poes_law I seriously cannot tell, and you didn't wink at the end? Since McDonald's are easily franchise-able, I suppose they could legitimately be used as a Mafia Front... But really, Poe's Law? wink ;)

McDonald's are not really "easily" franchisable. You can't just write a check and buy a McDonald's franchise. You have to be an owner-operator, not an owner-investor. You have to go through crew training, learn all the positions, work as a shift manager, and go to Hamburger University among other things (in addition to having the money), before you are granted a franchise.

Re: Physical assault by McDonald's for wearing Digital Eye Glass

#230

Post by pbhjpbhj » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:16 AM UTC

obilgic wrote: post #224

"The computerized eyeglass processes imagery using Augmediated Reality, in order to help the wearer see better, and when the computer is damaged, e.g. by falling and hitting the ground (or by a physical assault), buffered pictures for processing remain in its memory, and are not overwritten with new ones by the then non-functioning computer vision system. As a result of Perpetrator 1's actions, therefore images that…

This is the bit, as it appears, where the guy treats the readers as idiots and tries to make out that he wasn't really recording the whole visit just in case that mitigates against his claim of unfair treatment.

Those are not "buffered pictures" they are captured and purposefully stored images of the entire visit - which must be more than 10 mins. A transient store that simply enabled immediate viewing would likely be of the order of [far] less than a second; comparable with the buffering in an LCD screen.

What we'll probably find is that McD asked him not to take pictures in their outlet and he claimed he wasn't taking pictures at all that it was solely a medical device.

It looks about as bogus as it comes to me - is it some sort of PR stunt.