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 recognized internationally) or it would be obvious through interaction. The people he interacted with, per his own account, had conversations with him, which certainly clarified that he was not impaired.
It doesn't matter if he is a university professor or the pope. Both can behave as complete jerks and produce negative reactions on other people. Pedigree does not imply common sense.
He should have GONE to the police immediately, not "contacted them" --whatever that means. The fact that the embassy, police and consulate seem to have ignored him is a very interesting bit of data. I don't know what it means.
It's a father on vacation with his daughter being so inconsiderate as to not leave his crap at home in order to enjoy a vacation with his family. That alone paints a profile for me. Sorry. I could be completely wrong, but I would not do that to my kids. It takes a certain mentality to place your geeky needs above those of your kids for self-serving reasons.
If my oldest son was going around Paris shoving cameras in people's faces in public or private spaces and got slapped around I'd tell him to not be an idiot next time.
There is such a thing as behaving properly while in public and private. Some might disagree, but I've taught my kids to not be loud at restaurants, while I see others that don't care about the rest of the people dining and let their kids be loud and not allow the table next to them have a pleasant conversation. Being considerate is part of living in a pleasant society.
> The fact that the embassy, police and consulate seem to have ignored him is a very interesting bit of data. I don't know what it means.
Well for the embassy and the consulate it just means they were doing their jobs despite someone trying to waste their time. They have nothing to do with situations like this. He might as well have called his senator, NASA, the TSA or his personal hairstylist or whatever.
That he "did not have much luck" with the police is very telling, however. Because, if we are to believe the story in the article, the whole scene started when this guy assaulted him out of the blue trying to rip the glasses from his face. A lot of things happen afterwards (tearing up documents, another attempt at removing his glasses, and being pushed out of the door), but if that first thing is strictly true, there's no way he would have had "no luck" at the police.
That either means Paris police are actually not doing their job and ignored him as he tried to file a report for physical assault. OR much more likely: We're only hearing half the story, many other things took place before and after the first guy suddenly jumped him, the whole scene did not, in fact take place in complete silence, words were exchanged, maybe they asked some pointed questions and mr Mann lost his temper ... I don't know it's all speculation.
And even then, that's no reason for the police to ignore a report of physical assault. "An employee of the McDonalds on Champs-Élysées assaulted me and damaged my expensive glasses" is something that no police would ignore, regardless of which side "started it".
Really, the only explanation for that is that he didn't really try and that "without much luck" refers to the fact that the Paris police does not speak English over the phone.
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?
> 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 . . .
> 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.
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 recognized internationally) or it would be obvious through interaction. The people he interacted with, per his own account, had conversations with him, which certainly clarified that he was not impaired.
It doesn't matter if he is a university professor or the pope. Both can behave as complete jerks and produce negative reactions on other people. Pedigree does not imply common sense.
He should have GONE to the police immediately, not "contacted them" --whatever that means. The fact that the embassy, police and consulate seem to have ignored him is a very interesting bit of data. I don't know what it means.
It's a father on vacation with his daughter being so inconsiderate as to not leave his crap at home in order to enjoy a vacation with his family. That alone paints a profile for me. Sorry. I could be completely wrong, but I would not do that to my kids. It takes a certain mentality to place your geeky needs above those of your kids for self-serving reasons.
If my oldest son was going around Paris shoving cameras in people's faces in public or private spaces and got slapped around I'd tell him to not be an idiot next time.
There is such a thing as behaving properly while in public and private. Some might disagree, but I've taught my kids to not be loud at restaurants, while I see others that don't care about the rest of the people dining and let their kids be loud and not allow the table next to them have a pleasant conversation. Being considerate is part of living in a pleasant society.