There are still a couple of ANSI and ASCII art groups with quite an active membership. Perhaps the most notable is Blocktronics:
http://blocktronics.org
The photography of an individual can constitute harassment even in a public place - there is no implied consent involved. Even if it were, as you implied, perfectly legal in all cases then this in no way makes the act ethical. This is especially true when concerning a new technology which makes it trivially easy to perform. I'd expect if Glass, or some descendant of it, becomes more ubiquitous, then social guideline and laws would eventually prohibit it's use in certain situations. Would you, for example, be happy with someone recording you in a public restroom?
You're also repeatedly missing the argument I've already made twice in this thread with your second paragraph,
Either you're wilfully ignoring the point I'm making, or you've missed it completely.
I get that I might never know if or when I'm being monitored by some device, but that in no way justifies explicitly recording someone without their permission.
Anyone recording me with a camera in their hat or on their lapel or a microphone embedded in their clothes would be treated in roughly the same manner as someone recording me using Glass.
Just because the act of wearing the recording device is in plain-sight doesn't make it anymore acceptable to people who find it objectionable.
I appreciate the sentiment, and no disrespect for the guy either, but it makes this site a little less like 'Hacker News' and more like the front page of Wikipedia.
It's worth mentioning that Woody Allen has a fairly unique relationship in Hollywood; the studios grant him an unprecedented amount of creative control and allow him to continue making films within the system for very little returns, and Actors also voluntarily take a cut in their usual fee to appear in his films.
I'm not sure what lessons can be drawn, if any, from this stray point away from the normal distribution curve.
I've got to admit this was my first thought too, but I think the scope of the business is to provide the plumbing for apps, rather the just a Twitter replacement.
These skeumorphism-is-bad posts are pretty familiar with people who follow Apple blogs, it's been the darling of amateur design critics for years now.
The counter argument is pretty simple, even though it looks hideous and adds nothing to the app's functionality, it is supposed to encourage feelings of familiarity with people who wouldn't necessarily use an computer application. Whether it does or doesn't is up for debate, and I've never seen any stats to support either position.
The rules on displaying a tweet on a website seem so batshit insane I can only assume that my interpretation of it is wrong, and it should only apply to applications that provide the functionality of a Twitter client.
I don't want to see this fail by any means, but to me it seems like a slightly immature response to a [very public disagreement][1] The Oatmeal had with a Forbes journalist, which involved a [very unusual retort][2].