Theater Chain Bans Google Glass 376
mpicpp sends this report from Ars: A cinema chain announced Tuesday that it is now barring patrons from wearing Google Glass at its movie houses across the U.S. in a bid to clamp down on piracy. Alamo Drafthouse, which runs theaters in Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Texas, Virginia, and soon in California, is among the first U.S. chains to ban Google's computerized eyewear. 'Google Glass is officially banned from @drafthouse auditoriums once lights dim for trailers,' the chain's chief executive, Tim League, tweeted. The decision comes as Google has made the eyewear readily available to the general public, and it follows a slew of incidents in which wearers of Google Glass have had brushes with the law.
Ultimately useless? (Score:2)
Interesting, but even if we assume that the standard problems with google glasses are ignored/remediated like the GG's battery life when recording*, head movements and such, I could simply wear a button-up shirt with a camera in the pocket. A lot easier to sit still that way and get a good recording. Or better yet set the camera up away from me under an arm rest or something.
Besides, wasn't it found that most camcorder recordings of movies was coming from projector operators?
*Couldn't you run a cable to a
Re:Ultimately useless? (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides, wasn't it found that most camcorder recordings of movies was coming from projector operators?
You mean the "projectionists"? They don't have those anymore, I know because I used to be one. These days you get some usher who knows how to load the film into the projector (for those places still using film) and mash the button to start. If you are lucky they focus the film and adjust the volume when the feature starts, but usually they don't come back until it's time to thread the projector again. They don't have time to set up the camera and tape anything.
The only time you will see somebody who can splice film or knows how to clean the projector is on Thursday when the guy who knows how to get the new prints loaded onto the platters during the day and break down the prints you are sending back after the last show. I used to do this and for an eight screen theater it took from about 4PM to well into Friday morning (about 2 AM or later) to do this. It was pretty hard work because I always cleaned the projector when I threaded it, always focused and set sound levels for the start of the trailers, then came back and did it again when the feature started. It was LOTS of running. The rest of the week, some usher did the threading and button mashing and they never cleaned anything by the looks of what I found on Thursday. This was 20 years ago, so I'm betting things have only gotten worse, and based on the dirty prints and out of focus films I've suffered though as a paying customer, I think I'm right.
But the "screeners" you are talking about are usually done after the place closes on Thursday. For big films, we used to sometimes let the staff see it on Thursday night before it opened. Mainly for films that we where expecting would be sold out for days. This was a nice fringe benefit for the staff who where going to have to work pretty hard over the next few days, not to mention it let the projectionist to actually SEE the film from a theater seat an not the office chair in the booth. I'm sure there are some managers who don't mind making screeners, as they are not the brightest bunch of people and don't get paid much for the long hours they work.
Re:Ultimately useless? (Score:4, Informative)
"telesyncs" are shot from the projectionist booth, with a telephoto lens and generally use the equipment's audio out synced with the video.
"screeners" are are discs sent out, usually before awards season (but before the home video market), for people to screen.
The more you know....
Ban them everywhere! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I think Ars is conflating two stories there. AMC is ejecting people for piracy-related reasons, which makes little sense and I'd be upset if it affected people, but fortunately it only affects glassholes so there's no downside to AMCs irrationality.
Separately, Alamo Drafthouse is banning them, and I doubt they care at all about the piracy thing - they ban talking and any sort of device use or distracting behavior flat out. People go there to watch the movie, if you want to play with your electronics inste
Re: (Score:2)
Alamo Drafthouse is banning them, and I doubt they care at all about the piracy thing - they ban talking and any sort of device use or distracting behavior flat out. People go there to watch the movie, if you want to play with your electronics instead, there are plenty of other places to go.
And from what I've read, if they catch you using your electronics, they'll help you get started finding those other places by escorting you to the parking lot. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect most decent cams come from theater employees.
does not compute
Re: (Score:2)
Fun little story: back when I worked at a theatre, films came on several reels and the projectionist was in charge of assembling them into a complete movie (and splicing porn into that assembly, if you're Tyler Durden) Not sure how things work in today's digital age.
Once everything was assembled, you had to watch the movie through once, just to make sure none of the reels were damaged, assembled upside-down or anything. This usually took place around 2 or 3 in the morning, to have enough time to fix any p
Slashdot technophobes (Score:5, Insightful)
Like...? Glass technophobes always remind me of the reaction to Kodak cameras in the 1880's [pbs.org]. A few choice quotes:
I really don't get the vitriol. In 120 years people will laugh at the primitives from the early 2000's who reacted with shock and horror to Google glass. My biggest objection is that it's rude to glance at a notification when you're speaking to someone. But that's true of a phone, too.
Re: (Score:2)
But of course people in the 1880s had valid concerns, and in the last 120 years a lot of laws and social pressures have developed regulating the use of cameras. Without which, people would still find the use of cameras objectionable. Many of the issues haven't been entirely worked out - a couple week ago there was a story about how Germans needed to get rid of naughty photos of their exes if asked, and many people didn't seem to like the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's true of a phone, too.
Difference being that a polite users of a phone CAN pretty trivially avoid responding to the notification until a suitable pause in the conversation or until the conversation is over.
Wearing glass -- it literally flashes in front of your eyes. "Not looking at it" is a lot more effort.
Shocking (Score:3)
I'm amazed that a head-mounted video camera has been banned from a venue that previously had a ban on video cameras. Same story with casinos.
Right... (Score:2, Insightful)
Battery life (Score:2)
Its like society at large has no fucking clue that google glass only has 45 minutes of battery life...
Re: (Score:3)
Society at large sees a futuristic and experimental Star Trek head visor. You can't buy them in the shops, nor online, and their rarity means the majority of people have not personally used one or even had a personal friend demonstrate how it works.
I have not personally seen any tech specs on the device, as a technologists my previous assumption was that it would be of comparable spec to a high end mobile phone, with some additional constraints imposed by miniaturization.
A non-techie sees a futuristic devic
haha (Score:2)
yeah, a shaky loud recording from inside a theater hurts tickets...not.
Recorded Movies? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think that for many people it is about availability. Movies are released at different dates in different parts of the world, or in some places not at all. A movie may be released in cinemas six months later somewhere, but by then the hype about it on the Internet is already long over.
And so, it begins... (Score:3)
First, the the Alamo, then there will be others.
After all, we can't have people wearing active recording devices into an area where they charge money to play copyright protected media to a limited audience, can we?
Besides, if you were sitting here in a typical theater with a smart phone in a little tripod-thingy recording the movie, you could reasonably expect to get in trouble, if spotted by any staff members, right?
So, how long before we see anal-retentive stars at ComiCon who charge an arm and a leg for a pic, setting their body-guards on Google Glass-wearing attendees for "stealing" pics/video of them at the Con? Next we'll see Google Glass Banned from such conventions...
Where does it end?
This tech is going to happen (Score:3)
Google Glass (and similiar tech) is here. It's in the world, and it's not going away. Lots of people complain about it, and mostly they feel like it's an invasion of privacy.
I find that odd. Our privacy is invaded all the time. The US government records every text message and call you make and no one can seem to be outraged. Meanwhile, some guy has a camera on his face (and he's not even necessarily recording) and everyone is bent out of shape. No one bats an eye when someone takes out a phone to take a pic though.
There is ONE drawback to this tech. You might get recorded.
There are several HUGE benefits. For one, it turns the surveilance around. It's been shown that cop/citizen violence goes WAY down(I seem to remember a 50% reduction reported) when everyone is recorded. That's a good thing. For two, putting these things everywhere will turn everyone a lot more polite. I know it's a popular meme that an armed society is a polite society. Well, a recorded society might ACTUALLY be more polite. For three, carrying around an alibi might put an end to the practice of rounding up "the usual suspects". No more "He's black, it was probably him." We can all SHOW we weren't there. For four, I'd love to see it mandated that all public servants wear them. It's significantly harder to make backroom shady deals when everything you're doing is being recorded, but that's really just my pipe dream.
Anyway, people are bitching about glassholes. This is just... eh. Shrug. It's loosed upon the world. It's coming, and nothing you can do is going to stop it. I happen to think the benefits are well worth it. The only real drawback is that someone might record you being an asshole. :D
Re:Makes perfect sense. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's inflammatory to say they are "banned" rather than "not allowed to be used". Banned implies that you cannot enter the theater with them... but "once the lights dim" implies you are allowed in, just not allowed to use them.
Makes perfect sense. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No worries, the theater industry will be long dead by then.
Re: (Score:2)
Then TURN OFF the Google Glass if it won't detach from the prescription glasses. Or if you're unable to turn it off then go to a different theater. Yes, it is someone's right to be annoying but the theater also has the right to disallow annoying people.
Camera quality doesn't matter, even low res pictures of movies are generally banned everywhere and can get you kicked out without a refund if caught taking them.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a right to wear corrective lens. I have a right to have a red light blinking on them if I want to and you can't say anything.
And the movie theater has a right to not take your money.
The difference with the bakery was that they were being asked to do something that they were completely willing to do most of the time except for the identity of the person asking. If Alamo kicked you out for needing glasses at all, or for being white, or straight, or short, that'd be the same level of discrimination.
tl;dr: they can kick you out for your actions, but not for your identity
Re: (Score:3)
Wheelchair ramps are a reasonable accommodation.
Providing special audio devices for the hard of hearing is a reasonable accommodation.
"You have to let me wear this recording device because I didn't bring a spare set of prescription lenses" is not a 'reasonable accommodation,' it's narcissistic bullshit.
Get over yourself, and respect the rights of property owners, or don't set foot on their property.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope; actually, what I'm doing is pointing out that if a person with prescription Google Glasses doesn't think to bring a non-Glass pair for places/times where Glass would be inappropriate, that's their own fault for not planning ahead, not the fault of the venue who doesn't allow Glass.
That you would choose to not frequent businesses that disallow Glass, rather than carry a spare set, is a perfectly valid and reasonable response; but if you read through the comments on this thread, many supporters of the p
Re: (Score:2)
Does google glass distract other people from viewing? Or is this just more paranoia about movie pirates masquerading as trendy tech-hate?
Re: (Score:2)
It does if they want my continued business.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the device has flashing LEDs, bright backlights, etc., OK I see the point. If it simply bothers people that someone in there is a geek, then I'll just wait for someone to ban the gays, the blacks and my favorite annoyance, hipsters.
I don't own the device and it'll be a long time before I'm convinced it wouldn't make me sick, but "We don't want none of your kind here" isn't an emotion I sympathize with from any establishment for any reason.
Re: (Score:2)
If the device has flashing LEDs, bright backlights, etc., OK I see the point. If it simply bothers people that someone in there is a geek, then I'll just wait for someone to ban the gays, the blacks and my favorite annoyance, hipsters.
I don't own the device and it'll be a long time before I'm convinced it wouldn't make me sick, but "We don't want none of your kind here" isn't an emotion I sympathize with from any establishment for any reason.
I don't think you understand the problem. They are not banning them for piracy. They are banning their use for privacy of other patrons. They have to look out for the interests of the majority of their customers.
Re: (Score:2)
They are banning their use for privacy of other patrons.
Their other patrons expect privacy in a public place? I bet the cinema has plenty of surveillance cameras already aiming at those patrons.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to remember the Alamo is full of self righteous douche bag hipsters.
So they will hate Google glass becasue it's cool to be anti tech among those douche bags.
Re: (Score:2)
They expect privacy in the sense that there would be nobody (other patrons) taking photos or video of them within the theatre.
In the dark? Not something I can imagine being too worried about.
I'd rather see everyone focus their privacy concerns in places that matter, such as the NSA, TSA, and all the other TLAs. Are people fine with being groped at the airport but too afraid to go the the movies because someone might snap a picture? It seems a bit silly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it simply bothers people that someone in there is a geek, then I'll just wait for someone to ban the gays, the blacks
They are banning Glass, not geeks. You do realize you can be a geek and not wear Glass 24/7 don't you? And no it is not even remotely similar to gays and blacks so don't be an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Dude - it's their property. Respect their rules or GTFO.
Re: (Score:3)
If the device has flashing LEDs, bright backlights, etc., OK I see the point. If it simply bothers people that someone in there is a geek, then I'll just wait for someone to ban the gays, the blacks and my favorite annoyance, hipsters.
Don't be a drama queen. Geeks aren't banned. Google Glass is, whilst the movie is showing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are several Austin locations, but they share that in common.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes perfect sense is to ban them wherever tobacco is banned, basically in any public building, certain parks, and my house. Not that the issues are the same...HMMM...or are they?
Re: (Score:2)
Because they cause cancer and stink up the place?
Re: (Score:2)
Google Glass shoots only low-resolution video. And put that together with the fact that peoples' heads move around a lot, a Google Glass copy of a film would be one that enjoyed practically zero popularity.
About the worst they would do is supply free advertising for the actual theater movie. Banning them was an ignorant thing to do.
Re:Alama being sensationalist again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of us certainly do mind when inconsiderate jerks think they're being clever and "discrtely checking there phone for a few seconds with the light dimmed". That's the thing: the franchise caters to people who actually want to watch the movie without kids/cellphoes/etc. From Wikipedia:
"When we adopted our strict no talking policy back in 1997 we knew we were going to alienate some of our patrons," [founder] Tim League posted on the cinema's website. "That was the plan. If you can't change your behavior and be quiet (or unilluminated) during a movie, then we don't want you at our venue."
Moral of the story - regulate your behavior or go somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
If they have banned noisy eaters as well, I would consider relocating and offer my patronage for each movie they show that I wish to see.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly seems that they are a reaction to people's perceptions that there are unacceptable oiks in the world.
They come across as the country club of cinemas. Deeply intolerant and with a sure sense of their own superiority.
I'm with the GP. No problem if someone has their phone open, briefly. Perhaps they are being texted with information about who is picking them up?
If the films were any good anymore, they wouldn't be so easy to distract us from.
Re: (Score:3)
From what I understand, this chain is fairly mild as far as "intolerant and with a sure sense of their own superiority." The similar place by me - there are many such places that serve beer and have no-kids policies around the US - only shows boring films of the sort people think they're supposed to like, instead of the kind of films people actually like.
No problem if someone has their phone open, briefly. Perhaps they are being texted with information about who is picking them up?
Then leave the damn darkened cinema area to check it, or check it after the show! Have some impulse control if you consider yourself an adult.
Re: (Score:3)
I swear I am not making this up, but I was at the first day opening of a highly popular movie (one of the Star Wars I think) and the guy in front of me has his phone ring, and then he actually answered it! And he talked to the other person, not whisper, so that just about everyone in the theater could hear him. And the place was packed. From the side we could hear it was not some home emergency. After people starting shusshing him he said, loudly enough for us to hear, "I have to go, I'm in the middle o
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
because social media and a slew of reality tv shows has convinced many, many people that they are special snow-flakes who need to be in constant contact with the outside world, and that everything they do, see, think, feel is somehow relevant to anyone.
Though part of this is just due to declining decorum and manners in general. Maybe I'm getting old, but people just seem far, far more self absorbed and inconsiderate than when I was a kid.
see also:
-selfies
-photos of meals at restaurants
If your need for conn
Re: (Score:2)
"... other than discreet piracy."
or they need glasses to, you know, see.
or they want to record their one year anniversary date for latter?
or..well a thousand thing that have nothing to do with piracy.
Not that a movie filmed on google glass would stop anyone from seeing the movie.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I mind.
Re: (Score:2)
I think EVERYONE minds.
Re: (Score:2)
their.
their.
their.
You managed to spell "their" each of the ways it's possible to spell it (they're, there, their), getting it right the statistical one chance in three. So, were you just guessing each time, or did you really think you were supposed to be using a different word each time?
Re: (Score:2)
As a person who makes this mistake frequently, I can say that it's not that I don't know the proper usage of these words, it's just that I seem to think in terms of sound (i.e. I *hear* my own internal monologue), and when I am writing quickly, I am just blindly transcribing this internal monologue. When I am writing in a more formal setting, I actually proof read whatever I have written after the fact. For slashdot comments, a lot of homophones slip through the cracks because I don't really spend a lot o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do they ban children and the demographic that talks to the screen?
Re: (Score:2)
Do they ban children
Yes, under 6 years old is not permitted and under 18 requires a parent or guardian to go with them.
and the demographic that talks to the screen?
Yes they have a no talking policy as well.
Re: (Score:2)
if you are going to have rules about phone / device usage, they have to be black and white. you can't tell someone that they can use their phone, but not too long and how bright is too bright? everyone has an answer to that, and they are all different.
sort of like deciding not to set a speed limit and asking people not to go too fast.
Re:Alama being sensationalist again... (Score:5, Informative)
"no one minds someone discrtely checking there phone"
I do. I mind very much. Guess what? A bright light in a dark theater is NEVER not distracting. And a phone at any dimmed level that is readable is bright in a theater.
A cinema is where we go to quietly enjoy immersion into a film.
You are being a distraction, you need to grow up.
The fact that you are telling people who want other people to be polite to 'grow up' must require a huge ego to muster that much cognitive dissonance
" and enjoy the movie."
That's the problem, douche bags like you make it so we can't enjoy the movie.
Watch it at home if your damn phone is so important.
Re: (Score:2)
Granted, there are other distractions at the Drafthouse, since they serve food there. However I think the policy at least reduces the possibility of violence against the Glass wearer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is it common sense to ban an emerging technology before it's even in the marketplace? Someone wearing GG does not impact your movie viewing in any way, unless you're just an intolerant douche. And what about when the technology comes around to let deaf people see subtitles in their HUD while watching the movie? There are all sorts of positive, enabling possibilities for this tech, but because of people like you with their self-absorbed mentalities, some may never see the light of day. Don't be such a re
Re: (Score:3)
I would guess the primary driver of this is not to ban annoying behavior but to prevent somebody from filming the screen to make and distribute cheap copies.
But I like your idea of subtitles via the glasses. Something that I have not thought off.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they need to look at the employees. We did it up in the projection booth back in the VHS days. Only a morons would want a bootleg shot with what is basically a cameraphone on someone's head.
Re: (Score:2)
Only a morons would want a bootleg shot with what is basically a cameraphone on someone's head.
True. And I am always surprised by the number of morons and the amount of money they have. I would be surprised if one could get anything usable today. However, give it 5 years and I am sure the quality of GG, look a likes, or hacked glasses will be sufficent to the (camcorder level) task.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I don't work for them and neither do I have any desire to do so (and I doubt they would be interested in me, since I am not currently permitted to work in the USA) In fact, there was nothing stupid about my message.. The previous commenter said "The two big issues
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares if they distribute the movies? Can you imagine how bad they would be? it's a camera, on someones head. It's going to move and shake. Look there is the screen.. and now there the popcorn bucket..and back to the screen, the a side glance to his dates cleavage, back to screen.
You could take one and put it on every compute in the world and it would not hurt sales at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically you're not allowed to take still photography either during a movie presentation. But more likely this is to prevent people from using the device in its other uses, such as texting people. Also I haven't seen one of these in the dark, but I suspect that there is enough light to be annoying to other patrons of the theater, maybe not as bad as pulling out a smart phone but if you're sitting behind someone who has some LEDs blinking then diminishes the movie.
Really, Alamo Drafthouse should really
Re:Battery Life (Score:5, Interesting)
This kind of technology is obviously going to evolve, and have better battery life, not to mention, increased miniaturization.
It's going to get interesting once people (other than CIA operatives) start wearing camera+audio recorder technology that masquerades as stylish jewelry, or a baseball cap http://www.amazon.com/Baseball... [amazon.com].
I suspect that we're going to have to give up on being able to reliably ban such stuff.
That doesn't mean that certain uses of it won't still legitimately be considered douchebaggery.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that we're going to have to give up on being able to reliably ban such stuff.
You could never "Reliably" ban such stuff. I've NEVER seen theater staff inside a theater... ever... Whenever I go, I take a backpack filled with soda and food. You could take in a professional HD camera on a tripod in and if you sat in the back I doubt they'd even notice. Even if they did notice, all of those workers are making minimum wage. $20 and they'd suddenly forget all about you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
And this business has the gall to say that checking a phone will be unacceptably distracting to others!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing new about recording devices that are disguised as something ordinary, like a pen, or a watch, or whatever. They've been around for decades, and are a hell of a lot cheaper than Glass.
The disincentive to using such devices is, and has always been, that they are often illegal, even criminal, as Glassholes are finding out.
Re: (Score:3)
Also consider: Google Glass isn't banned. You just can't use it once the lights dim, just like their cellphone policy. I'm willing to bet some patrons think they're being 'slick' by using glass...
Re:Battery Life (Score:4, Interesting)
for pretty good reason. unlike a cell phone there isn't a brightly backlit screen but I can still get texts/updates/emails that may signal I should quietly excuse myself from the theater to take care of some personal business. It's even less invasive than a pager.
There are huge ways this can (and probably will at some point) be used to make technology less invasive to those around you and your life. I'd love to not interrupt a conversation to check if my wife just went into labor or needs me home ASAP while out having a beer with a friend. Or my friends who are doctors can get a low profile pop up that they are needed at the hospital rather than having to have their phone out.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it just means we're going to have to build reliable detectors for such stuff.
Or we can just make deception detectors that monitor people's brainwaves to determine if it seems like they are trying to do something they are not supposed to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They could just put RF shields in the walls. But then someone would complain bitterly that there might be an emergency and that if they can't be contacted immediately then it is unacceptable. Which just makes me wonder how civilization survived before the advent of mobile phones (the baby sitters back then were apparently smart enough to be able to call the theaters and restaurants directly).
Re: (Score:3)
It isn't just a bit of regulation that will be required. The freedom of the press means that anyone who wants to, or even claims to eventually want to publish has a right to take pictures and video in any public place so long as their rebroadcast of copyrighted material falls into the fair use category. The right of free press doesn't give people the right to infringe on copyright or the right to privacy, but the right to privacy doesn't extend to public places. Even preventing perverts from taking upskirt
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No we are shocked at the amazing lack of education people have when they act that way.
I personally have never had anything but a positive reaction and curiosity from people, I have NEVER had someone go all crazy and start screaming "STOP FILMING ME!" because it is insanely obvious when it is recording.
Re: (Score:2)
How sensitive is Glass to IR light? I'm beginning to think there's a market for jewelry or clothing that is studded with high intensity IR LEDs that are invisible to the human eye. Certainly, movie theaters should be putting them all over the place.
Re: (Score:2)
ah i bet your mom and dad told you how special you were all the time didn't they?
if someone wants to record me, i'd be quite flattered. the reality is that no one wants to record me (or you) because we are nobodies. thinking otherwise is narcissism at it's best.
Re: (Score:3)
It is just like if someone walked around holding their phone/camcorder/camera in front of him all of the time and was pointing it everywhere he looked. No one wants that.
I honestly don't care. And I don't feel like this is the same thing as someone pointing a camera at me.
There are security camera's everywhere. I don't freak out whenever a camera happens to be pointed at me (which is nearly all the time in public). If someone continuously focuses their camera on me (i.e. targeting me specifically) then I'd have a problem with it, because I don't know what their intent is.
I don't care if people glance at me as part of just the normal looking around and being aware of thei
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Well, weigh that against the new age of self selected abstinence that Glass will usher in for it's wearers. And for that -- Google should be commended.
Re: (Score:2)
How's the sand tasting down there?
Re: (Score:2)
The anti-piracy thing is usually BS, but coming from this type of business I am less inclined to call them out on it.
Re: (Score:3)
Gee, I can't wait to see blockbusters on the big screen at 640 x 360. The pixels are going to about an inch in diameter.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
No, this is about Alamo Drafthouse pleasing their customers. They get a big boost in attendance when they publicly crack down on stuff that people complain about. Such as when they kick out people for using phones during the movie. They know that banning Google Glass will make a lot of people happy, and will gain them some new customers, whether or not that ban actually improves the quality of the movie going experience.
This is probably not anything new anyway, they already ban using mobile devices after the movie starts. So this is just a reiteration of the policy, with emphasis that it does indeed apply to new technology and no special dispensation is given to Glass.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
One of those listed in the article was OFF and also the wearers PRESCRIPTION GLASSES HE NEEDED TO SEE WITH!!!
Yeah, your torch wield mobs of conformity police are really doing of good job of proving yourself worse than that douche that talks on his phone everywhere.
It's amazing how pissed so many people are getting over somebody else having a new and expensive accessory. What's even more amazing is the massive and undeserved overreactions that people are having that far out weigh anything that I've seen reported for actual "glassholes" doing. So far, most of the reports boil down to "somebody dared to actually wear googleglass, so people immediately started doing awful assholish things to them, all of which were unfair and several were illegal, isn't it awsome". I'm embarrassed that you technophobic luddites even found out how to get to the internet.
Yeah, I know, now you're going to go screaming about how I'm an evil monster and threaten to burn me at the stake. You should really look at yourselves first, you've turned into a mindless mob screaming for blood and attacking the innocent. Metaphorically that is. Nobody has been killed yet, though there are reports of theft and assault, so I doubt it'll be much longer before your kind kills someone over a tech accessory. Maybe next you'll go after kids with tablet computers.
I expect that in a few years, you will be able to get something equivalent to the googleglasses, but with much better battery life and a price more in the range of $150-$250. I'll want to get that, and load up a variety of apps to help deal with some issues of mine.
My meds screw with my memory, so an intelligent scheduler and notes app is on the list. Popping up reminders in my vision works much better than me trying to remember to check my phone all the time, or the 10 million alarms that often aren't even heard over the noise.
Another app will help with my face blindness. Yes, that's right, the dreaded facial recognition software. I want pics of the people I meet stored with their names and reminder notes so when someone starts talking to me, I can figure out who they are in a few seconds instead of agonizing over it for hours. Even if people know you have that issue, they tend to get upset when you can't remember who they are.
Besides, it won't be that much of a change for me to wear them, as I need glasses to see pretty much anything in the first place. You know that big E at the top of the eye chart. Let's put it this way, the last time I saw that without glasses was in grade school. I've been banned from having glass lenses since I was in high school. Fortunately they have these fantastic optical polymers that are so much lighter and thinner than glass for lenses. Even so, a little bit of extra weight could be tolerated for the benefit.
So again, you want to ignore something what it can be used for and instead be an even bigger pain than someone you suspect might act like an entitled douche?
Well go get some rabies shots fido, because you're foaming at the mouth again.
Re: (Score:2)
Arghh.. "I hope she does not have the bad taste to use it when I am hosting a party at my house."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe it's a t-shirt for a band you don't like because they play the 'wrong' music.
Sounds more like the people that weren't wearing a headsup display accessory for their phone are ones being "glassholes".