A guide dog that spies on people who ignore its owner(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
A guide dog that spies on people who ignore its owner
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/disability-38027203
81 comments
> But the subway employees that looked right at him and then chose not to help?
I was always taught not to offer help to someone disabled unless they ask, because it's demeaning otherwise to assume they can't be independent.
In the video when he calls for help they come right over.
I was always taught not to offer help to someone disabled unless they ask, because it's demeaning otherwise to assume they can't be independent.
In the video when he calls for help they come right over.
I learned the same thing - the hard way. Getting yelled at for holding the door for a girl with spasticity. I was 9 and she was freaking angry.
I hold doors for all kinds of people as common courtesy. If I get yelled at for it, I'll just assume the source of the audible insanity is having a bad day. Or is an asshole.
I'll keep holding doors for all kinds of people.
I'll keep holding doors for all kinds of people.
Southerner that visited Boston as a teenager, held a door open for a 30-something woman as courtesy and got an earful about how I was sexist. I'm no longer sexist and hold doors for everyone of all genders.
I'm a Bostoner that moved away for this very reason. You had a classic "Mass-hole" encounter, not uncommon.
You weren't sexist, you were being courteous according to a harmless tradition. She would give you an ear-full even if you held the door for every gender; she doesn't know you.
"Mass-holes" live in dark little worlds of cold, anger, and self-important. We Boston gentlemen learn to be grateful when Massholes ignore us, let alone say "thank you" or God forbid look us in the eyes and smile.
Meanwhile #chivalryisnotdead. Good luck and carry on, gentlemen.
Only kind of kidding. //end story :)
You weren't sexist, you were being courteous according to a harmless tradition. She would give you an ear-full even if you held the door for every gender; she doesn't know you.
"Mass-holes" live in dark little worlds of cold, anger, and self-important. We Boston gentlemen learn to be grateful when Massholes ignore us, let alone say "thank you" or God forbid look us in the eyes and smile.
Meanwhile #chivalryisnotdead. Good luck and carry on, gentlemen.
Only kind of kidding. //end story :)
I was flipped off and honked at in traffic within minutes of crossing into the Boston city limits because I slowed down too much at the EzPass toll lane. I wasn't sure how slow you had to go for the machine to work and I knew I'd get a photo-ticket if the machine didn't read so I slowed down. I wish I had a thicker skin, but I"m still kind of mad about that.
It's possible the taxi drivers refused the pickup because of the dog, not because of the disability.
There's apparently a view that dogs are unclean by some Muslim sects. So, those drivers may be passing by because of the dog. There is certainly some history: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/11/muslim-taxi-drivers-...
There's apparently a view that dogs are unclean by some Muslim sects. So, those drivers may be passing by because of the dog. There is certainly some history: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/11/muslim-taxi-drivers-...
No need to blame it on a religion -- many drivers of all faiths think dogs are too dirty to let into their car.
You would have to have a strong enough objection to risk losing your job over it. Religion is certainly a strong motivation to take that risk...more so than a opinion.
Yet it happens:
http://www.fox25boston.com/news/blind-woman-says-some-uber-d...
"I don't pick up dogs because I have leather seats"
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/uber-refuses-to-take-blind-p...
"Uber has suspended that driver’s privileges as it investigates Kristin’s complaint against him. The company does acknowledge that refusing to transport a service dog is both a clear violation of the law and of Uber policy"*
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/uber-driver-refuses-ride-blind-m...
"An Uber driver in Florida was arrested after deputies say he refused to transport a group of blind people and their service dogs...Stigile says that when Nau, 60, showed up, he said, "I don't take dogs." Stigile explained the dogs were service animals and Nau allegedly replied "I don't care."
http://www.fox25boston.com/news/blind-woman-says-some-uber-d...
"I don't pick up dogs because I have leather seats"
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/uber-refuses-to-take-blind-p...
"Uber has suspended that driver’s privileges as it investigates Kristin’s complaint against him. The company does acknowledge that refusing to transport a service dog is both a clear violation of the law and of Uber policy"*
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/uber-driver-refuses-ride-blind-m...
"An Uber driver in Florida was arrested after deputies say he refused to transport a group of blind people and their service dogs...Stigile says that when Nau, 60, showed up, he said, "I don't take dogs." Stigile explained the dogs were service animals and Nau allegedly replied "I don't care."
I like dogs but I would avoid taking an unknown dog into my car. It may pee or poop somewhere. You never know. To me, it's like taking a drunk person.
>Can you really fix these people? Does reminding them to do their jobs and be nice actually correct their behavior? I have serious doubts.
Everyone has a bad day occasionally. But those that are routinely bad at being nice should be encouraged to change, and failing that should be exchanged for people who will be nice and helpful. Helping customers is a skillset like any other: some are more qualified than others, and if you're bad at it there are plenty jobs for you that don't require that skillset.
Everyone has a bad day occasionally. But those that are routinely bad at being nice should be encouraged to change, and failing that should be exchanged for people who will be nice and helpful. Helping customers is a skillset like any other: some are more qualified than others, and if you're bad at it there are plenty jobs for you that don't require that skillset.
> And I'm sure he's particularly sensitive to these problems right now.
Why do you believe that?
Why do you believe that?
> The camera has given Amit the confidence to go out alone with Kika and his baby son
Oh man, this is a terrifying idea to me. If I lost my sight, I have no idea what I would do with my daughter. I felt bad enough when she threw up in her crib, and I didn't see the vomit on camera - for the next few days, my brain just kept running all the worst-case-scenarios through my mind and it was hard to sleep.
Oh man, this is a terrifying idea to me. If I lost my sight, I have no idea what I would do with my daughter. I felt bad enough when she threw up in her crib, and I didn't see the vomit on camera - for the next few days, my brain just kept running all the worst-case-scenarios through my mind and it was hard to sleep.
This story is both incredibly sad and incredibly awesome, especially the last line.
" And nothing ruins our sweet moment like me stomping on babies."
Guy's got a sense of humor... :)
Guy's got a sense of humor... :)
Your comment reminded me of an amazing piece of journalism, about people who accidentally leave their babies to die in hot cars:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/fatal-dist...
Warning, if you're a parent this story is heartbreaking and may give you nightmares. It has haunted me ever since I read it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/fatal-dist...
Warning, if you're a parent this story is heartbreaking and may give you nightmares. It has haunted me ever since I read it.
All parents have some time when they keep thinking about worst case scenarios.
All these problems will be a thing of the past when we have self-driving dogs.
When someone suggested in a recent thread that Amit Patel of http://redblobgames.com was an early Google employee, they were challenged to find a source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13300539
At the time I thought: "How likely could that be? Unless Amit Patel is the equivalent of `John Smith`, they are probably the same person." Now it seems to me that the name is actually pretty common ...
At the time I thought: "How likely could that be? Unless Amit Patel is the equivalent of `John Smith`, they are probably the same person." Now it seems to me that the name is actually pretty common ...
The name "Patel" is incredibly common (especially in Gujarat) and Amit is a very common Indian first name.
This website seems to be broken, because it says Amit isn't that popular in the UK. http://names.darkgreener.com/#amit
Yeah there are probably more Patel's on the earth than Smiths.
[deleted]
David Brin (author) would love this, as an example supporting his arguments for a transparent society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society
(I'm not yet convinced one way or another, but his arguments are thought-provoking.)
(I'm not yet convinced one way or another, but his arguments are thought-provoking.)
In all fairness, he doesn't look blind. There are many people with sight that have a service dog.
Service dogs that are not "seeing eye" / "guidedogs for the blind" are not particularly common in UK.
His dog has a distinctive handle that's only ever seen on guidedogs for the blind - that handle isn't used for other service dogs.
His dog has a distinctive handle that's only ever seen on guidedogs for the blind - that handle isn't used for other service dogs.
Really does seem it's just because he doesn't quite look blind. Simple as that. Nothing to do with intentional discrimination.
Much of it is likely intentional, particularly the taxi bit. See, for example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/14/dc-taxis-discrimina...
ouch.
ouch.
When you are not careful to avoid making assumptions about people's disabilities, don't you think that's equivalently bad, intentional?
It isn't about people making assumptions about his disability, though, it's about people not making the assumption that he does have one.
Doesn't surprise me at all to see that today's super individualistic people didn't think twice about minding their own business when they see what appears to be just a guy with his dog. For all they know it's just a therapy animal, because he doesn't -look- blind.
Doesn't surprise me at all to see that today's super individualistic people didn't think twice about minding their own business when they see what appears to be just a guy with his dog. For all they know it's just a therapy animal, because he doesn't -look- blind.
You can't avoid making assumptions in this context, you can only try to make better ones.
Okay, fine. "harmful assumptions".
Unless the service dog has an "In Training" jacket, the person holding the service dog's harness is legally blind.
It used to be that easy, but assholes have been scamming the system's goodwill by calling anything with four legs a service animal. If it's considered a service animal there is no pet fee, so it's becoming more popular on airplanes and hotels.
The Washington Post actually just wrote this up:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tripping/wp/2016/12/27/w...
> To further complicate matters, it can be difficult for staff members to identify a true service dog. Although pet owners can easily buy unofficial documents or apparel, these papers and emblems have no bearing on ADA compliance: The law does not allow public accommodations to require certificates, licenses or other physical proof that a dog qualifies as a service animal. Yet the ADA does not permit questioning a person about the nature of his or her disability.
The general issue is that it's a much less big deal to let a scammer through than to accidently hassle someone with a legitimate service animal (big fine!).
The Washington Post actually just wrote this up:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tripping/wp/2016/12/27/w...
> To further complicate matters, it can be difficult for staff members to identify a true service dog. Although pet owners can easily buy unofficial documents or apparel, these papers and emblems have no bearing on ADA compliance: The law does not allow public accommodations to require certificates, licenses or other physical proof that a dog qualifies as a service animal. Yet the ADA does not permit questioning a person about the nature of his or her disability.
The general issue is that it's a much less big deal to let a scammer through than to accidently hassle someone with a legitimate service animal (big fine!).
Is that true? It seems I can just fill out a form and pay these people $63 and my dog would then be a "service dog".
https://www.servicedogcertifications.org/service-dog-id/
https://www.servicedogcertifications.org/service-dog-id/
From their "information" page: Service Dog Certifications does not certify or authorize anyone to use a Service Animal — nor is certification required by law. The privilege to use a Service or Assistance Animal is granted, under the law, by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and local governments.
They give you a piece of paper that says "service dog", that doesn't make it a service dog in the legal sense.
They give you a piece of paper that says "service dog", that doesn't make it a service dog in the legal sense.
Why does anyone buy this product then? It seems to be effective enough to get your dog on a plane according to the testimonials.
Probably because it's made to look like it does something. Sometimes that's all you need to get people to buy.
And yet, they (probably) make no false claims so they are not breaking the law.
And yet, they (probably) make no false claims so they are not breaking the law.
There are many other kinds of service dogs (and animals).
Who are you trying to be fair to right now?
For a deafblind person's take on consumer technology and some of the same problems described in that article, I recommend http://www.molly-watt-trust.org.
I would be curious to hear his experience in other cities. It would be a great way to figure if this is a cultural issue specific to a region or if people really are generally terrible.
I would wager it's a large-city thing in general; I've noticed people walking by an obviously blind woman in the subway in New York, and offered to help her get to her train.
(It was a little awkward, because I don't know any blind people, and wasn't sure how to help her - I started out offering my arm, then realized she couldn't see it, then sort of slid it under hers, and she jerked away. I felt like an asshole; clearly I should have asked her what she would prefer, or at least announced what I was going to do. So if anyone else is ever in the same situation, think about it a little more than I did.)
(It was a little awkward, because I don't know any blind people, and wasn't sure how to help her - I started out offering my arm, then realized she couldn't see it, then sort of slid it under hers, and she jerked away. I felt like an asshole; clearly I should have asked her what she would prefer, or at least announced what I was going to do. So if anyone else is ever in the same situation, think about it a little more than I did.)
Nice one for offering her help. I was taught to ask if the person would like "a sighted guide", and if they respond positively to follow up with "would you like me on your left or right side?"
I did ask her if she wanted help, since she seemed a little lost, and she said yes, and seemed glad someone offered. I definitely should have asked for a little more instruction on how to help.
I've seen her now and then in the same subway station, so she may have been starting a new work commute.
I've seen her now and then in the same subway station, so she may have been starting a new work commute.
London? Rude? Never! :P
I worked at the Library of Congress for many years, in the area that provides various services to the blind (e.g. sending audiobooks and braille books to blind patrons across the country, helping with research, reading textbooks, etc.). I worked with blind patrons on a daily basis, learned to type and read braille, learned the etiquettes of leading blind people, etc. I offer this information to quell any reader concerns that I "don't understand" for my following remarks.
This was an interesting article, I think, because it touches on the feelings and fears of not knowing where you are, not being able to discern your surroundings directly, and not receiving help. It also touches on the feelings and fears that a lot of people have, when confronted with a condition that they aren't familiar with. I think the people who ignored Dr. Patel were probably thinking, "What do I do?" rather than, "That guy can't see me, so if I'm really quiet, maybe he'll go away." People tend to fear that they're going to offend or insult, so they don't offer help. Either that, or they're not sure how to help, so they sit there panicking themselves into a paralysis. I've seen both things happen, and talking about it is a good way to overcome these types of situations.
There was one aspect of the article that I feel was a bad attitude to take on Dr. Patel's part. In the article, Patel says, "Eventually when the staff member actually came to me the first thing he said was 'sorry I didn't see you' and that really bugged me. He wouldn't say that to someone who wasn't visually impaired."
Actually, he would. That is a common phrase that people say to other people all the time. We also say, "I'm sorry, I didn't hear you," but only because we didn't. It isn't some micro-aggression against deaf people. When I worked at the Library of Congress, we dealt with this with new volunteers all the time. People wouldn't know how to respond, so they would be afraid to stick out their elbow, and let a blind person hold on for guidance. They didn't know what to do, and their uncertainty paralyzed them. These new volunteers didn't come to insult and mock the blind people they had come to help. They just found themselves in a new and uncertain situation, and acted awkwardly, like people tend to do. Once they were told what the best course of action was, they never had this problem again.
I think people are conditioned to take WAY more offense nowadays than is intended, and I think it would be in our own best interest to stop this sort of self-righteous indignation. Whether someone doesn't see you, ignores you, or blatantly gets in your face. It is ultimately your choice to be hurt and offended by it. Just choose not to be. I think that will do wonders for mutual understanding and opening dialogues.
I used to work with a blind man who would say to people, "I know you're there. I can hear you. I just need you to tell me which direction to go. I promise not to bite." Then he'd laugh, and set everyone around him at ease. He understood people's reactions, and helped them overcome their uncertainty by offering guidance. This always seemed to be a better solution for all involved, rather than getting angry and irritated. Especially when people's behaviors are being driven by uncertainty, rather than insult.
I apologize for letting my response get a bit long.
This was an interesting article, I think, because it touches on the feelings and fears of not knowing where you are, not being able to discern your surroundings directly, and not receiving help. It also touches on the feelings and fears that a lot of people have, when confronted with a condition that they aren't familiar with. I think the people who ignored Dr. Patel were probably thinking, "What do I do?" rather than, "That guy can't see me, so if I'm really quiet, maybe he'll go away." People tend to fear that they're going to offend or insult, so they don't offer help. Either that, or they're not sure how to help, so they sit there panicking themselves into a paralysis. I've seen both things happen, and talking about it is a good way to overcome these types of situations.
There was one aspect of the article that I feel was a bad attitude to take on Dr. Patel's part. In the article, Patel says, "Eventually when the staff member actually came to me the first thing he said was 'sorry I didn't see you' and that really bugged me. He wouldn't say that to someone who wasn't visually impaired."
Actually, he would. That is a common phrase that people say to other people all the time. We also say, "I'm sorry, I didn't hear you," but only because we didn't. It isn't some micro-aggression against deaf people. When I worked at the Library of Congress, we dealt with this with new volunteers all the time. People wouldn't know how to respond, so they would be afraid to stick out their elbow, and let a blind person hold on for guidance. They didn't know what to do, and their uncertainty paralyzed them. These new volunteers didn't come to insult and mock the blind people they had come to help. They just found themselves in a new and uncertain situation, and acted awkwardly, like people tend to do. Once they were told what the best course of action was, they never had this problem again.
I think people are conditioned to take WAY more offense nowadays than is intended, and I think it would be in our own best interest to stop this sort of self-righteous indignation. Whether someone doesn't see you, ignores you, or blatantly gets in your face. It is ultimately your choice to be hurt and offended by it. Just choose not to be. I think that will do wonders for mutual understanding and opening dialogues.
I used to work with a blind man who would say to people, "I know you're there. I can hear you. I just need you to tell me which direction to go. I promise not to bite." Then he'd laugh, and set everyone around him at ease. He understood people's reactions, and helped them overcome their uncertainty by offering guidance. This always seemed to be a better solution for all involved, rather than getting angry and irritated. Especially when people's behaviors are being driven by uncertainty, rather than insult.
I apologize for letting my response get a bit long.
I agree, it seemed like an innocuous statement to me as well. I wonder if he's extra sensitive about it because of the sudden onset of the blindness, and how recently it had occurred for him - only about five years ago.
I'm not convinced that most people were too afraid they were going to insult him to help; I think they were probably hoping (and assuming) that someone else was going to take care of it, so they can go on with their commute. Maybe he just needs to know which set of stairs is for the northbound track, or maybe he'll explain that he actually needs to be taken somewhere that'll take you an hour out of your way, and then you'd have to either do that or explain that you won't, etc., etc.
I'm not convinced that most people were too afraid they were going to insult him to help; I think they were probably hoping (and assuming) that someone else was going to take care of it, so they can go on with their commute. Maybe he just needs to know which set of stairs is for the northbound track, or maybe he'll explain that he actually needs to be taken somewhere that'll take you an hour out of your way, and then you'd have to either do that or explain that you won't, etc., etc.
Edit: Apologies, I was wrong here due to the personal use exemption to the DPA. Uploading images to public forums could be an issue, though.
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...
"Data means information which –
(a) is being processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose,
(b) is recorded with the intention that it should be processed by means of such equipment,
(c) is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or with the intention that it should form part of a relevant filing system,
(d) does not fall within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) but forms part of an accessible record as defined by section 68, or
(e) is recorded information held by a public authority and does not fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (d). "
IANAL, but my non-professional understanding is that constantly recording like this, if you're only going to be manually looking through the way his partner does, isn't covered as "data" under this law.
(Section 68 is not relevant either in this case, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/68)
edit: in reply to your edited in link, there's a big difference between filming to distribute (e.g. movies) vs. filming for personal record (e.g. tourists taking photos).
"Data means information which –
(a) is being processed by means of equipment operating automatically in response to instructions given for that purpose,
(b) is recorded with the intention that it should be processed by means of such equipment,
(c) is recorded as part of a relevant filing system or with the intention that it should form part of a relevant filing system,
(d) does not fall within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) but forms part of an accessible record as defined by section 68, or
(e) is recorded information held by a public authority and does not fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (d). "
IANAL, but my non-professional understanding is that constantly recording like this, if you're only going to be manually looking through the way his partner does, isn't covered as "data" under this law.
(Section 68 is not relevant either in this case, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/68)
edit: in reply to your edited in link, there's a big difference between filming to distribute (e.g. movies) vs. filming for personal record (e.g. tourists taking photos).
> Same as anyone using a Go-Pro.
Can you go into some more details? Does this mean that tourists technically can't wander around with a go-pro strapped to their chest without registering, or does this apply only to UK citizens - and does it mean that they can't do that when visiting London?
How far does that stretch? Does taking a video on a phone count?
Can you go into some more details? Does this mean that tourists technically can't wander around with a go-pro strapped to their chest without registering, or does this apply only to UK citizens - and does it mean that they can't do that when visiting London?
How far does that stretch? Does taking a video on a phone count?
[deleted]
As far as I can see, that applies to organizations, not individuals. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protectio...
[deleted]
Pretty sure he's not. There are "personal use" exemptions that seem like they would apply. Not sure though, but if in the past ~20 years, if there is not a case of someone breaking the law by using a gopro or other camera for personal use, seems like it's a non-issue.
[deleted]
interesting article but the title is misleading
To be fair I try to ignore everyone, not just the homeless and blind.
Even when they clearly need help and are calling out for someone?
Even when you see someone who clearly needs to sit walking towards a seat that you also want to sit in and are closer to?
I get your joke, but it's not really "being fair".
Even when you see someone who clearly needs to sit walking towards a seat that you also want to sit in and are closer to?
I get your joke, but it's not really "being fair".
It's not a joke, and yes, it's fair. Walk down a street in San Francisco, you'll walk past literally dozens of people literally screaming for help. Feel free to try, report back after the inevitable complete and utter disaster.
Nobody is under any obligation to interact with people around them, and nobody deserves to be shamed for wanting to live their own lives and let other people live theirs.
Nobody is under any obligation to interact with people around them, and nobody deserves to be shamed for wanting to live their own lives and let other people live theirs.
> Nobody is under any obligation to interact with people around them, and nobody deserves to be shamed for wanting to live their own lives and let other people live theirs.
This illustrates a pretty big cultural difference to me, as an Australian. The US is very big on individualism in what mostly seems to be an "every man for himself" kind of way. It's strong enough that I've seen people reject things that would be in their own interest solely because it removes a little of their autonomy (I talked to someone who rejected universal healthcare solely because they would no longer have the choice to have no healthcare at all).
At home in Australia, we're not all perfect, we don't all love each other but we seem to be more happy to accept things that benefit us as a country (like healthcare, support for the disabled, unemployment support, consumer rights, employment regulation). We live our lives and we let others live theirs but I think we tend to help each other out a little more, knowing that we'll need help ourselves sometime.
This illustrates a pretty big cultural difference to me, as an Australian. The US is very big on individualism in what mostly seems to be an "every man for himself" kind of way. It's strong enough that I've seen people reject things that would be in their own interest solely because it removes a little of their autonomy (I talked to someone who rejected universal healthcare solely because they would no longer have the choice to have no healthcare at all).
At home in Australia, we're not all perfect, we don't all love each other but we seem to be more happy to accept things that benefit us as a country (like healthcare, support for the disabled, unemployment support, consumer rights, employment regulation). We live our lives and we let others live theirs but I think we tend to help each other out a little more, knowing that we'll need help ourselves sometime.
In fact, people ostensibly asking for help in public are almost always fraudsters.
That's not great for the people that do need help, but it's how it is.
That's not great for the people that do need help, but it's how it is.
I agree that with you and others in this thread that there are a lot of fraudsters who ask for help - but an obviously homeless person shaking a cup of change is clearly different from a person with a guide dog spinning around.
Clearly, a heuristic is needed. I've been asked for help (and offered help to) people who are obviously out to scam me, or get something for nothing, and for people who genuinely need help or are lost.
You're right, under most circumstances nobody is under any obligation to do anything, but it's still a nice and decent thing to do.
Clearly, a heuristic is needed. I've been asked for help (and offered help to) people who are obviously out to scam me, or get something for nothing, and for people who genuinely need help or are lost.
You're right, under most circumstances nobody is under any obligation to do anything, but it's still a nice and decent thing to do.
An inconsiderate asshole is completely fair if he treats everyone equally.
That's a real problem that many attempts to quantify discrimination overlook.
That's a real problem that many attempts to quantify discrimination overlook.
At a young kid (in India), I was taught to never interact to strangers (does not matter who they are - disabled or not, what they say - ask for direction, help or literally anything or how they look like - homeless or rich). At times I still follow that advice but generally judge the situation and act accordingly.
As an anecdote, one day (when I was 5/6 YO) a extended family member tried to give me a ride home from my playground and I ignored him. Finally when he tried to walk towards me (he thought I didn't hear him), I ran away to a friend that I knew lived nearby.
As an anecdote, one day (when I was 5/6 YO) a extended family member tried to give me a ride home from my playground and I ignored him. Finally when he tried to walk towards me (he thought I didn't hear him), I ran away to a friend that I knew lived nearby.
Me too, I sometimes come off rude when I happen by a coworker or somebody I know in the street, because I just don't look at people, instead looking straight ahead.
I pity his sweet little dog. Bless her.
Why pity the dog? She's a working dog with a purpose and gets to spend 100% of her day with her owner.
The article says: "[the dog] was getting hit by peoples' bags and she was getting a lot of abuse."
After seeing how hard my dog plays - she will literally ran at the other dog and get knocked down and roll around on the ground, I think she'd be happy to get knocked by a few bags every day if it meant she could hang out with me all day long. Even more so if she had more purpose than just chasing a ball for me or carrying the mail into the house. (tip - put the junk mail on the outside to absorb slobber)
Watching, all the time watching... goggle-eye geeks...
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=861
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=861
<blockquote>
Garygoyles represent the embarrasing side of the Central Intelligence Corporation. Instead of using laptops, they wear their computers on their bodies, broken up into seperate modules that hang on the waist, on the back, on the headset. They serve as human surveillance devices, recording everything that happens around them. <... snip ...>
The CIC brass can't stand these guys because they upload staggering quantities of useless information to the database, on the off chance that some of it will eventually be useful. It's like writing down the license number of every car you see on your way to work each morning, just in case one of them will be involved in a hit-and-run accident. Even the CIC database can only hold so much garbage. So, usually, these habitual gargoyles get kicked out of the CIC before too long. </blockquote>
-- Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash (1992)
Almost as quaint has "three megabytes of hot RAM".
The CIC brass can't stand these guys because they upload staggering quantities of useless information to the database, on the off chance that some of it will eventually be useful. It's like writing down the license number of every car you see on your way to work each morning, just in case one of them will be involved in a hit-and-run accident. Even the CIC database can only hold so much garbage. So, usually, these habitual gargoyles get kicked out of the CIC before too long. </blockquote>
-- Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash (1992)
Almost as quaint has "three megabytes of hot RAM".
[deleted]
[deleted]
But the subway employees that looked right at him and then chose not to help? Ugh. Especially when they were hired especially because it's a busy time and people need extra help? Unreal.
Of course, we don't know what percentage of the time this happens, either. It's practically inevitable that you'll meet assholes in big cities, no matter what your problems are or aren't. And I'm sure he's particularly sensitive to these problems right now.
Can you really fix these people? Does reminding them to do their jobs and be nice actually correct their behavior? I have serious doubts.