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

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

#411

Post by sophacles » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 4:42 PM UTC

colanderman wrote: post #55

heyrhett wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, he is well within reason to get a lawyer and sue the pants off of McDonald's in civil court if his case is accurate as he describes it. He's not asking for that though. What he basically wants is a public apology and for McDonald's to FIX his glasses. This is laughable. Notice how all aspects of this story point to how awesome his glasses are: "they help with a medical condition", "having them fixed is more…

reso wrote: > have the company pay for any damages to my property. You wrote: > I agree You also wrote: > he basically wants [...] McDonald's to FIX his glasses. This is laughable. You have contradicted yourself, unless you can explain how "paying for damages" to the glasses does not entail "fixing the glasses".

The useless pedant in me is thinking that the difference is:

1) pay for damages: provide monetary compensation for materials, labor, etc to have the experimental device replaced or restored to working order

2) fix his glasses: McDonalds takes the glasses, performs all operations in house at a corporate location, and return the device in working order.

The rest of me rejects the pedant, saying the effects of both are the same, therefore they are effectively the same statement, which I am pretty sure is reasonable and the intended meaning of those "discrepancies". :)

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

#412

Post by tluyben2 » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:20 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #313

tluyben2 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never met any of these people; not at events, not at parties, not on vacation (to numerous countries). Where are these 'lots of people' besides at McDonalds France apparently? Most people I know would 'strike a pose' when someone takes a picture, even if they don't know the someone. Note; I don't take pictures, but to get upset about it; isn't that a bit over the top? You could kindly ask to refrain but actual…

If you're at a party or event, having people take pictures is often expected (but not always) and so people will not generally have a problem with it. If someone happens to catch you while taking a general street scene or on the beach, its expected you might end up in their photo. But if someone pulls a camera and specifically aim it at you, on the other hand? I'd be pissed off too, as it is something that I'd see as…

I see what you mean, but still, it wouldn't upset me unless he/she is a stalker and I find him/her taking pics of me on regular basis singling me out. For just a one time snap in the street specially focused at me by a complete stranger I wouldn't even think twice about it. It happened to me in southern/middle america countries as i'm really big and bearded so in the middle of Guatemala city I would attract attention.

But why would you be pissed off exactly? I mean I understand you don't 'like it', but why the strong emotion. EU people are pretty open minded (I'm from the EU) and I am just surprised about the emotion level here. Whether I 'agree' or not; it seems so overkill.

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

#413

Post by yew » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:28 PM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #396

sesqu wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ri…

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 recognize…

> 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 . . .

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

#414

Post by tluyben2 » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:32 PM UTC

Knotwilg wrote: post #361

dante_dev wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, basically if you use your smartphone to take a photo of a dish, they'll complain about it.

That's an exaggeration. I'm Belgian and recently went to France and took pictures of us enjoying our dishes. I didn't notice the personnel having an issue with that. So it is not a general rule. But the spirit of bambax' and others' messages is true: in Europe, customer is not king and should behave in a way that pleases the shopkeepers or restaurant owners. This is more true the closer you are to the capital or the…

Depends, as always, on where you go; we avoid Paris like the plague (for assorted reasons, rudeness of owners is one of them), but in villages and small cities (south of france, belgium, netherlands, germany) I feel very much like a king. Especially if you speak the language.

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

#415

Post by jack-r-abbit » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:34 PM UTC

digitalengineer wrote: post #263

I've been to Paris many a time and have friends there. The French cab drivers and people working in restaurants are known for their extremely rude behavior . Even the French hate them! I've been called a faggot by one waiter for ordering tea instead of coffee. (I was dining with two girls). Another waiter in the freaking LOUVRE MUSEUM tried to buy drugs from me. You know, just because I'm from Holland I must be carri…

Worst two weeks of my life was two weeks spent in France. And only about 8 hours of that was in Paris. And that was actually somewhat pleasant. Aside from the people at the host company I was doing work for, nearly every human interaction I had in France fit the "Rude French" stereotype to the letter. But I doubt they care (or even know) they were all rude asses.

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

#416

Post by jack-r-abbit » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:47 PM UTC

johnsea wrote: post #355

nakkiel wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's only one thing I'm sure of. Visitors coming to France certainly don't visit to meet your likes.

Certainly they prefer to be friendly accommodated guests in a Parisian McDonalds... (not that I find it a good idea to eat in McDonalds at all, especially when having the option of French cuisine..;)

Spent 2 weeks in France. The first week was spent partaking in the various options of French cuisine. With that first week being torturous, the second week was spent eating at McDonalds. At least the McD's there sells beer. :)

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

#417

Post by robomartin » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:50 PM UTC

yew wrote: post #413

robomartin wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 recognize…

> 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 a…

> 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.

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

#418

Post by thenomad » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:55 PM UTC

Prophasi wrote: post #409

thenomad wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does the size of one's vocabulary have to do with whether you use expletives? Sorry, I know this is off-topic, but I've never really understood the "only uneducated people use swearwords" argument.

I'd take it to mean the size of one's vocabulary in practice, not just the words s/he knows. There's obviously still no necessary implication that a swearer's vocab usage is worse than that of a non-swearer. Strict logic aside, though, I've anecdotally observed that folks who swear publicly among people they don't know tend to swear easily and often, and given the inherent flexibility of most swear words, I think it'…

Interesting ideas, but I'm not convinced by your last point.

Amongst the people I know who swear with reasonable frequency, I don't see any correlation with lack of eloquence. Indeed, I can think without trying very hard think of published authors, professional screenwriters and famous Shakespearean actors who would fit into the "uses profanity reasonably casually" description.

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

#419

Post by punee » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:56 PM UTC

lloeki wrote: post #362

bambax wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this the real PG throwing around conspiracy theories? Wow. I'm French and have been living in Paris my whole life. In France you're not allowed to take pictures or movies of people without their consent. If you try to take pictures of strangers in the subway you will be heckled and possibly assaulted, and the police will do nothing to stop it. I'm not defending my country here -- I'm a photographer and resent this…

> In France you're not allowed to take pictures or movies of people without their consent. "Droit à l'image" covers use, duplication and distribution of pictures of people, and only if said people can be identified on the picture. I don't know about any french law that forbids actually taking pictures of people in a public place. In a private area, there's Code Pénal, Art. 226-1, and even then, the law says that unle…

That sounds more like what I'm used to seeing. I guess the parent was being a little hyperbolic, or simply hastily generalizing what may be true for professional photographers (i.e. conspicuously pointing large gear in the face of people without asking for their permission). Even so, you'll find millions of your typical subway candid shots taken in Paris on the internet. I don't suppose all of these shots resulted in the photographer being assaulted in front of a consenting crowd.

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

#420

Post by sesqu » Tue, Jul 17, 2012, 5:57 PM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #396

sesqu wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ri…

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 recognize…

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?