Bar bans Google Glass, boots 'rude' user
-
He records me with his freaking glasses, I'll take my HD cam and go record him in his bathroom.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
If that is what floats your boat. (Sorry for the mental image).
Simon Lee Shugar (Software Developer) www.simonshugar.co.uk "If something goes by a false name, would it mean that thing is fake? False by nature?" By Gilbert Durandil
-
Man walks into a bar.... with Google glass on his head. The management of that bar / restaurant ask the gentlemen to remove the device, which is their prorogitive however was not their policy. The owner of the restaurant had banned the glass products in another establishment he owned but had not yet made it policy in the current restaurant. The Glass wearer decided to debate this policy before leaving. Now being a biased fan of Glass I would usually rule in the man's favour if he hadn't been a complete and utter Glasshole (yes I went there) about it. The man demanded, unreasonable, in a facebook post that the staff member be fired or her pay docked for following management wishes. Now my view on the situation is that Glass has an unfair prejudice just because of people's fear of being recorded by the devices. As the man was having a meal with his partner, he shouldn't of been distracted anyway, however this is just a symptom of information overload and shows what craving consumers we are. Now I sat down for a meal with my girlfriend last night and forced myself to put my phone to the side and ignore the ever tempting notifications I think it's a good thing to fully concentrate on a loved friend or family member. Don't get me wrong, when I get my version of Glass I will bask in the glory of on demand information whenever I want it. Anyway that's my thoughts in a nutshell, check out the links below. NBC News[^] Facebook post from Glasshole[^]
Simon Lee Shugar (Software Developer) www.simonshugar.co.uk "If something goes by a false name, would it mean that thing is fake? False by nature?" By Gilbert Durandil
Simon Lee Shugar wrote:
people's fear of being recorded by the devices
I know nothing about Glass apart from what I've seen which isn't much. Can it record what the wearer sees? If it can, that sits very uncomfortably with me. Why consumers would want to covertly record what they see is the stuff that Perv Monthly would publish - I have no idea if such a journal exists! :-D
If there is one thing more dangerous than getting between a bear and her cubs it's getting between my wife and her chocolate.
-
Man walks into a bar.... with Google glass on his head. The management of that bar / restaurant ask the gentlemen to remove the device, which is their prorogitive however was not their policy. The owner of the restaurant had banned the glass products in another establishment he owned but had not yet made it policy in the current restaurant. The Glass wearer decided to debate this policy before leaving. Now being a biased fan of Glass I would usually rule in the man's favour if he hadn't been a complete and utter Glasshole (yes I went there) about it. The man demanded, unreasonable, in a facebook post that the staff member be fired or her pay docked for following management wishes. Now my view on the situation is that Glass has an unfair prejudice just because of people's fear of being recorded by the devices. As the man was having a meal with his partner, he shouldn't of been distracted anyway, however this is just a symptom of information overload and shows what craving consumers we are. Now I sat down for a meal with my girlfriend last night and forced myself to put my phone to the side and ignore the ever tempting notifications I think it's a good thing to fully concentrate on a loved friend or family member. Don't get me wrong, when I get my version of Glass I will bask in the glory of on demand information whenever I want it. Anyway that's my thoughts in a nutshell, check out the links below. NBC News[^] Facebook post from Glasshole[^]
Simon Lee Shugar (Software Developer) www.simonshugar.co.uk "If something goes by a false name, would it mean that thing is fake? False by nature?" By Gilbert Durandil
Since he wrote that facebook post after the fact, it can in no way affect what happened in the restaurant. So anyway, he was faced with some choices: 1) leave 2) put it away without folding it 3) debate The first choice is essentially a forfeit. You lose intentionally. Bad option. The second choice .. well I guess he just didn't like that choice. It can't result in a clear win anyway, because you wouldn't be wearing your google glass anymore. The third choice is perfectly reasonable, and he might have won the debate, but didn't. It's a bit of a gamble, but has the potential to result in a pure and unquestionable victory. [edit: because you guys are apparently incapable of reading, I'll just point out here in bold that you can also lose and still be thrown out, at which point you would be no worse off than if you'd picked the first option] So good job Nick Starr, for making a rational choice. Also, note that that facebook post does not demand the staff member to be fired or her pay docked, it says:
I would love an explanation, apology, clarification, and if the staff member was in the wrong and lost the owner money last night and also future income as well, that this income be deducted from her pay or her termination.
Which is not a demand, barely even a request, and leaves any action against the staff member in the hands of the owner.
-
Man walks into a bar.... with Google glass on his head. The management of that bar / restaurant ask the gentlemen to remove the device, which is their prorogitive however was not their policy. The owner of the restaurant had banned the glass products in another establishment he owned but had not yet made it policy in the current restaurant. The Glass wearer decided to debate this policy before leaving. Now being a biased fan of Glass I would usually rule in the man's favour if he hadn't been a complete and utter Glasshole (yes I went there) about it. The man demanded, unreasonable, in a facebook post that the staff member be fired or her pay docked for following management wishes. Now my view on the situation is that Glass has an unfair prejudice just because of people's fear of being recorded by the devices. As the man was having a meal with his partner, he shouldn't of been distracted anyway, however this is just a symptom of information overload and shows what craving consumers we are. Now I sat down for a meal with my girlfriend last night and forced myself to put my phone to the side and ignore the ever tempting notifications I think it's a good thing to fully concentrate on a loved friend or family member. Don't get me wrong, when I get my version of Glass I will bask in the glory of on demand information whenever I want it. Anyway that's my thoughts in a nutshell, check out the links below. NBC News[^] Facebook post from Glasshole[^]
Simon Lee Shugar (Software Developer) www.simonshugar.co.uk "If something goes by a false name, would it mean that thing is fake? False by nature?" By Gilbert Durandil
-
Man walks into a bar.... with Google glass on his head. The management of that bar / restaurant ask the gentlemen to remove the device, which is their prorogitive however was not their policy. The owner of the restaurant had banned the glass products in another establishment he owned but had not yet made it policy in the current restaurant. The Glass wearer decided to debate this policy before leaving. Now being a biased fan of Glass I would usually rule in the man's favour if he hadn't been a complete and utter Glasshole (yes I went there) about it. The man demanded, unreasonable, in a facebook post that the staff member be fired or her pay docked for following management wishes. Now my view on the situation is that Glass has an unfair prejudice just because of people's fear of being recorded by the devices. As the man was having a meal with his partner, he shouldn't of been distracted anyway, however this is just a symptom of information overload and shows what craving consumers we are. Now I sat down for a meal with my girlfriend last night and forced myself to put my phone to the side and ignore the ever tempting notifications I think it's a good thing to fully concentrate on a loved friend or family member. Don't get me wrong, when I get my version of Glass I will bask in the glory of on demand information whenever I want it. Anyway that's my thoughts in a nutshell, check out the links below. NBC News[^] Facebook post from Glasshole[^]
Simon Lee Shugar (Software Developer) www.simonshugar.co.uk "If something goes by a false name, would it mean that thing is fake? False by nature?" By Gilbert Durandil
Certainly in the UK, a bar (and it's staff) have the right to refuse service to anyone for any (or no) reason. If a bar decides "no Glass" or even "no phones" then that is it's decision - and you go along with it or go elsewhere. I'm willing to bet that if you went into Vegas casino with Glass on, you would be politely but firmly asked to remove them or leave...
-
Certainly in the UK, a bar (and it's staff) have the right to refuse service to anyone for any (or no) reason. If a bar decides "no Glass" or even "no phones" then that is it's decision - and you go along with it or go elsewhere. I'm willing to bet that if you went into Vegas casino with Glass on, you would be politely but firmly asked to remove them or leave...
That's why you bring your SmartWatch into any vegas casino ;)
Simon Lee Shugar (Software Developer) www.simonshugar.co.uk "If something goes by a false name, would it mean that thing is fake? False by nature?" By Gilbert Durandil
-
Since he wrote that facebook post after the fact, it can in no way affect what happened in the restaurant. So anyway, he was faced with some choices: 1) leave 2) put it away without folding it 3) debate The first choice is essentially a forfeit. You lose intentionally. Bad option. The second choice .. well I guess he just didn't like that choice. It can't result in a clear win anyway, because you wouldn't be wearing your google glass anymore. The third choice is perfectly reasonable, and he might have won the debate, but didn't. It's a bit of a gamble, but has the potential to result in a pure and unquestionable victory. [edit: because you guys are apparently incapable of reading, I'll just point out here in bold that you can also lose and still be thrown out, at which point you would be no worse off than if you'd picked the first option] So good job Nick Starr, for making a rational choice. Also, note that that facebook post does not demand the staff member to be fired or her pay docked, it says:
I would love an explanation, apology, clarification, and if the staff member was in the wrong and lost the owner money last night and also future income as well, that this income be deducted from her pay or her termination.
Which is not a demand, barely even a request, and leaves any action against the staff member in the hands of the owner.
I think you'll find that the whole thing is covered by a clause that is in the public contract of every retail outlet: "The management reserves the right to refuse service to smart-@rses and d1ckheads." There ain't no debating. If the staff say you're not allowed to take pictures down girls' blouses in their private establishment, you take the f&%$ing things off or get the Hell out and go somewhere that allows it. I'm sure that if the guy were waiting for an important e-mail, or whatever, he could have used his phone or gone outside to check, every now and then -- but that wasn't the case; he just wanted to be a d1ckhead.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I think you'll find that the whole thing is covered by a clause that is in the public contract of every retail outlet: "The management reserves the right to refuse service to smart-@rses and d1ckheads." There ain't no debating. If the staff say you're not allowed to take pictures down girls' blouses in their private establishment, you take the f&%$ing things off or get the Hell out and go somewhere that allows it. I'm sure that if the guy were waiting for an important e-mail, or whatever, he could have used his phone or gone outside to check, every now and then -- but that wasn't the case; he just wanted to be a d1ckhead.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Certainly in the UK, a bar (and it's staff) have the right to refuse service to anyone for any (or no) reason. If a bar decides "no Glass" or even "no phones" then that is it's decision - and you go along with it or go elsewhere. I'm willing to bet that if you went into Vegas casino with Glass on, you would be politely but firmly asked to remove them or leave...
-
Just out of curiosity, what if a bar decides to refuse service to all members of a specific race?
-
What, like the London Marathon?
-
Since he wrote that facebook post after the fact, it can in no way affect what happened in the restaurant. So anyway, he was faced with some choices: 1) leave 2) put it away without folding it 3) debate The first choice is essentially a forfeit. You lose intentionally. Bad option. The second choice .. well I guess he just didn't like that choice. It can't result in a clear win anyway, because you wouldn't be wearing your google glass anymore. The third choice is perfectly reasonable, and he might have won the debate, but didn't. It's a bit of a gamble, but has the potential to result in a pure and unquestionable victory. [edit: because you guys are apparently incapable of reading, I'll just point out here in bold that you can also lose and still be thrown out, at which point you would be no worse off than if you'd picked the first option] So good job Nick Starr, for making a rational choice. Also, note that that facebook post does not demand the staff member to be fired or her pay docked, it says:
I would love an explanation, apology, clarification, and if the staff member was in the wrong and lost the owner money last night and also future income as well, that this income be deducted from her pay or her termination.
Which is not a demand, barely even a request, and leaves any action against the staff member in the hands of the owner.
I agree with you, I would of debated the policy also as I think it's unfair however I think he shouldn't of mentioned income reductions or termination of the staff member, it put's himself in a negative light.
Simon Lee Shugar (Software Developer) www.simonshugar.co.uk "If something goes by a false name, would it mean that thing is fake? False by nature?" By Gilbert Durandil
-
I agree with you, I would of debated the policy also as I think it's unfair however I think he shouldn't of mentioned income reductions or termination of the staff member, it put's himself in a negative light.
Simon Lee Shugar (Software Developer) www.simonshugar.co.uk "If something goes by a false name, would it mean that thing is fake? False by nature?" By Gilbert Durandil
-
Just out of curiosity, what if a bar decides to refuse service to all members of a specific race?
The European Court of Human Rights goes on standby...
-
What, like the London Marathon?
Yeah, they are a dang nuisance that lot. "36,000 pints of lager and a packet of crisps, please"
-
I think you'll find that that's irrelevant. At no point did I say that the restaurant would not be able to throw him out.
Nope, you stated that he had three options:
harold aptroot wrote:
So anyway, he was faced with some choices: 1) leave 2) put it away without folding it 3) debate
That is simply not the case. Were he in his own home, his mother's house, a public building, or his place of employment, he might have had some or all of those options, but a restaurant is private property, and has a code of conduct/public-service contract which gives him only two options: 1) Stop behaving like a dick, causing annoyance to staff and customers. 2) Get thrown out.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Nope, you stated that he had three options:
harold aptroot wrote:
So anyway, he was faced with some choices: 1) leave 2) put it away without folding it 3) debate
That is simply not the case. Were he in his own home, his mother's house, a public building, or his place of employment, he might have had some or all of those options, but a restaurant is private property, and has a code of conduct/public-service contract which gives him only two options: 1) Stop behaving like a dick, causing annoyance to staff and customers. 2) Get thrown out.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
You can absolutely have an argument with a restaurant manager and convince him/her that you shouldn't be thrown out. And besides, you can debate and lose.
You can argue with anyone, any time, but that doesn't change your rights/options, and will certainly p1ss off the decent patrons of the establishment.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
You can argue with anyone, any time, but that doesn't change your rights/options, and will certainly p1ss off the decent patrons of the establishment.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Man walks into a bar.... with Google glass on his head. The management of that bar / restaurant ask the gentlemen to remove the device, which is their prorogitive however was not their policy. The owner of the restaurant had banned the glass products in another establishment he owned but had not yet made it policy in the current restaurant. The Glass wearer decided to debate this policy before leaving. Now being a biased fan of Glass I would usually rule in the man's favour if he hadn't been a complete and utter Glasshole (yes I went there) about it. The man demanded, unreasonable, in a facebook post that the staff member be fired or her pay docked for following management wishes. Now my view on the situation is that Glass has an unfair prejudice just because of people's fear of being recorded by the devices. As the man was having a meal with his partner, he shouldn't of been distracted anyway, however this is just a symptom of information overload and shows what craving consumers we are. Now I sat down for a meal with my girlfriend last night and forced myself to put my phone to the side and ignore the ever tempting notifications I think it's a good thing to fully concentrate on a loved friend or family member. Don't get me wrong, when I get my version of Glass I will bask in the glory of on demand information whenever I want it. Anyway that's my thoughts in a nutshell, check out the links below. NBC News[^] Facebook post from Glasshole[^]
Simon Lee Shugar (Software Developer) www.simonshugar.co.uk "If something goes by a false name, would it mean that thing is fake? False by nature?" By Gilbert Durandil
Simon Lee Shugar wrote:
...shouldn't of...
Simon Lee Shugar wrote:
...would of...
Simon Lee Shugar wrote:
...shouldn't of...
Are you doing that deliberately to annoy us "grammar-nazis"? :mad: It's "have", not "of". Also:
Simon Lee Shugar wrote:
...it put's himself in a negative light.
There's no apostrophe in "puts", and it should be "him", not "himself". This lesson brought to you by the Pedant arm of the Grumpy Old Gits association.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
