Use two cameras mounted at opposite sides of the device, then compare the two images looking for parallax. Finally, compute what the shift should be based on the distance from the camera to the person (computed by looking at the focus distance for the two cameras). If the shift isn't within a narrow margin of what it should be, reject the face.
It might be possible to trick such a setup with a 3D display, but it would not be easy. First, you would have to have an image taken using cameras that are approximately the same distance apart. Second, you would have to know how far away the person was when the photo was taken. Third, such an attack could be readily foiled by the use of polarizing filters with the same orientation on both of the two cameras.
But here in the states with the limits on copyright duration, I don't know why the Supreme Court hasn't ruled DMCA and digital locks unconstitutional as it extends copyright to infinity. There are no provisions for placing all encryption keys into an escrow account to be released to the public on xyz date.
No need. It becomes legal to break the encryption the moment copyright expires. By definition, the DMCA only covers systems that effectively protect a copyrighted work. (Title 17, section 1201: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.") Once the work is no longer under copyright (Title 17), the DMCA no longer prevents you from breaking the encryption.
Now there's still the question of the legality of tools to do so, but in about eighty years, when the first of the DVD copyrights expire, if anyone still cares about any of those movies, someone will challenge the legality of that part of the law. Of course, by then, nobody will care about those movies because DVDs will no longer be playable by any modern hardware, the movie studios will have failed repeatedly to release the content in a new format where people can actually enjoy it, and nearly all the people who actually remember those movies will have long since died.
No, it's more like a power-hungry politician's wife putting up with her husband's affairs. There are very real and tangible benefits to paying them money—you get to watch their stuff—and the level of abuse is relatively small compared to the benefit. The people who legitimately need to make copies of the content ignore the law, knowing full well that there is unlikely to be any attempt to prosecute them for doing so, and that it would be an ideal opportunity for the defense lawyer to mention jury nullification during his/her closing statement even if it ever made it to trial. The people who just want free stuff either buy legitimate copies or ignore the law and take their risks.
The big problem with your proposed solution is that you're speaking from the perspective of the one half of one percent who actually care about putting movies on a media server. Even if every single person with those needs stopped buying media today, it would not cause enough of a change in big media's profits for them to notice.
No, there is exactly one solution to the problem of DRM, and it is this: compete. Don't like DRM? Create your own movie studio and then don't do that. Tell people that you don't do it, and tell them why. Convince the general public that your DRM-free offering is better than the abusive alternatives. When the existing media houses notice that you're starting to cut into their bottom line significantly, then they'll be forced to adjust their behavior to match it, and content will become more user-friendly. Until there is a legal alternative, however, it doesn't matter whether you're right about DRM being harmful; most of the general public won't be willing to pirate content just to make a point.
Remember: voting with your dollars might make a small difference; voting with other people's dollars will make a big difference.
At first glance, their prototype's battery life numbers are around half what the iPhone 4S gets (slightly better for Wi-Fi, slightly worse for 3G), and that's pitting a 32nm Intel chip against a 45nm ARM chip. The current 32nm ARM chips used in the new iPad reportedly increase its battery life by an additional 25% over 45nm versions. So at first glance, it would appear that 32nm dual-core ARM chips can still provide somewhere around 2.5x the battery life when doing light CPU activity.
Of course, it's hard to say how much of the difference is caused by the CPU, how much of it is caused by the OS they're running, how much of it is caused by differences in the cellular radio (and or aggressiveness when powering that radio off), compiler optimization, etc. I'll be interested to see if those numbers improve significantly once a few more cell phone companies begin fine tuning the OS and drivers.
It will also be interesting to see how it performs under heavier load (e.g. games). It might be worth the loss in web browsing hours to get a gain in gaming hours for some people. Either way, I'm impressed by how quickly Intel has narrowed the gap, but at least at first glance, it looks like they have a little ways to go yet.
I'd be more amused if it flies back and tries to contact the whales. Or perhaps if its speed slows more and more, only to eventually fall back towards the sun again.
For most of the nasty stuff like Ebola, or Marburg or Lassa fever, most humans haven't been exposed at all.
Ultimately, it depends on whether the pandemic is caused by A. a new virus (in which case ease of movement makes it worse), B. an existing deadly virus that becomes more transmissible (in which case ease of movement makes it worse), or C. an existing non-deadly virus that becomes more virulent (in which case ease of movement can reduce the average virulence).
To some extent, I'm more worried about malaria or yellow fever spreading a lot after a general societal breakdown for some other cause.
If things break down badly enough for the first world to have no sewage treatment system and no ability to build leach fields for septic tanks, Malaria is likely to be the least of our worries.:-)
Three watts isn't even close to usable for a mobile phone. At that level of power consumption, you would either have to charge your phone every half hour (by the time you add in the chipset consumption) or build a phone that looks like one of those old portable phones from the 1980s with the small suitcase attached....
Intel's latest Atom offerings, however, claim to draw about two orders of magnitude less power than that at idle, and are thus in the ballpark for being usable for phones and similar devices. It remains to be seen who will adopt it.
BTW, last I read, a 2GHz Cortex A9 CPU based on a 40 nm process drew about 250 mW max, not 2W, though those numbers could easily be wrong.
On the other hand, one could also argue that the ease of moving from place to place dramatically increases the probability that any given person anywhere on Earth has been exposed to a strain that is similar to any given strain that might reasonably mutate in a way that caused increased deaths. Thus, depending on how the pandemic starts (by mutation or by cross-species transmission), it might make things better or worse.
I think you're confusing designers with architects. A designer determines how it looks. An architect determines how it is built under the hood. There are some aspects of design that do have a bit of light science behind them, e.g. determining how to cluster menu items to make it easiest to get to the most-commonly-used choices, determining which colors are easiest to discern by the colorblind, etc., but most aspects of app design are art, not science.
You don't need a science degree to be a good designer. If anything, I would say the reverse is true. Most people with technical backgrounds suck at design. One of the main reasons so many apps exist with awful UI is that they use engineers to design it instead of people with a background in design/user experience.
They could design them, but most of them couldn't code them. People who use the web can often be good web designers, but not many of them can actually write the html, and even fewer can write the server-side that generates the HTML.
I realize that in the game design industry, the term "designer" is usually abused to include the coding aspects, but that really isn't design. Even creating the 3D models may or may not qualify as design, depending on how strict you're being about the term.
Fair enough. Still, I think we can all agree that the four-chord song needs to die already.:-)
What might be most interesting would be searching for patterns that don't fit the mould, e.g. songs that resolve a iii to a tonic, followed by a ii. Then burn every copy of any song that doesn't have at least a certain percentage of outliers.:-D
In any major key the most commonly used chord progression is as follows: I, ii, iii, IV, V, vi, vii Just insert that formula into the circle of fifths and you're done.
Those are the most commonly used chords, but that's not a common progression at all. Among other patterns, the most common progressions tend to have:
V leading to I. This resolves the 7th scale step to the tonic.
IV leading to either a V chord (everything slides up a whole step), a II/II7 chord (the top interval goes away and is replaced by the same interval at the bottom), or a VI chord (the bottom interval goes away and is replaced by the same interval at the top). These in turn tend to be followed by either a I or a V and then a I.
A VI chord tends to lead to a II if you're working in a minor key (where the VI is really your key) or sometimes to IV in a major key.
The interesting questions from a statistical perspective, in my mind, are:
What about chords without natural leading?
Which of these natural leadings are most common when there are choices?
Are there patterns to the choices? For example, does choosing to go from IV to VI tend to make it more likely to later go from III to V?
BTW, just to clarify, for the purposes of simplicity, I'm playing fast and loose with my numbering. I find the lowercase notation to be difficult to read when mixed with English text, so I am using the convention of naming chords diatonically rather than distinguishing between major and minor forms of the chord, and in cases of minor keys, describing them diatonically based off their relative major.
It's less precise, but it tends to make the concepts a little clearer, too. For example, I said that VI can go to II or IV depending on whether the VI is really the root in a relative minor passage. This is clearer and easier to understand than saying that VI can go to IV in a major, or i can go to iv in a minor (which isn't really interesting because i or I can go to pretty much anything).
BTW, the reason for the popularity of many chords (or lack thereof) is likely because so much pop music is guitar-centric. An A major chord would only be common if you're playing in D major, E major, A major, or sometimes in D minor (with a raised 7th).
Playing in D major isn't great for solo guitar work because with standard tuning, you've lost the fundamental. Now if your guitarist is willing to keep an axe in drop-D, sure, but....
Playing in E major results in having to play a B major chord as your V, which is kind of a clumsy chord to play (compared with many other non-complex chords, anyway).
The key of A major is awkward for tenors. Although the middle A is comfortable, the high A is powerfully high, and the low A is below the bottom of their usable range, so you can't safely write music that spans an octave from tonic to tonic. And even for guys with lower voices, the low A just sounds too boomy.
You'll notice that D, major, A major, and E major are the 5th, 6th, and 7th most popular keys. And although D minor is the 4th most popular key, not all A chords in D minor are going to be major chords.
I would also expect the probability of moving from any given chord to another would be strongly correlated with the standard chord leading rules, assuming you analyze them with numbered chord notation rather than by the actual note names. Certain chords naturally follow other chords, and although you don't have to always use such pairs in that order, good composers will tend to do so the majority of the time.
I never said they should trace the evidence. I said they should try to infect their computers. (Well, I did say they should try to trace the evidence, but that was in the much broader context of porn that they find online, not in the context of an FBI-run honeypot.)
As for requesting fresh evidence versus not, you're assuming active solicitation. That's not the way anything like this would ever be run, FBI or otherwise. You don't just go up to somebody you think is a mobster and ask for a hit on somebody. Making connections for illegal acts requires a slow, careful process of hinting around the issue until you are certain that you're both talking about the same thing. I would expect an FBI child porn honeypot to attract members through a similar vetting process.
During their online conversations (in a chat room or whatever), the FBI agents could determine with a reasonable degree of certainty that the people were probably harming kids already. Then and only then would they ask for photographic evidence as a requirement for admission into the "club", whereupon they would impersonate the club only as long as necessary to gain the trust of the people in question sufficiently to convince them to install the piece of spyware that reveals their location and identity.
Why not? From a legal perspective, the police solicit prostitutes, and that's on the right side of the law when it comes to entrapment; there's really no difference. And from an ethical perspective, the people who do these things are going to do them anyway. At least if the FBI is doing the solicitation, it puts the child abusers one step closer to getting caught.
Most countries struggle very hard to get an 80% attendance rate in national elections, you think you can get that for any random piece of traffic?
That's kind of the point. It should have to be an extraordinary situation for such an escape hatch to be used. If you can't get 80% of those people who don't care about anything to agree, then your prosecution probably isn't important enough to use the feature in the first place.
Besides in a P2P system who's going to guarantee the backdoor information has been properly added and could be decrypted? You obviously can't trust the peer itself, and you won't know until you actually try...
Require that each host compute that back-door version of the request at each step along the way (rather than including a back-door version within every layer of the onion). When you receive data from a peer, decrypt your copy of the data, and encrypt it with the back-door public key. If it does not match what you got in the request, then this means that the sending peer tried to lie to you. Shun it.
And cracking open distributors is a very good way to find those that created the images... they had to be uploaded from somewhere. If the authorities are busting a drug dealer, they use that information to go after the bigger fish upstream.
The problem is that, unlike drugs, (electronic) porn is something that is not destroyed when it gets consumed. A person who uploaded something is orders of magnitude more likely to have previously downloaded it than created it, and determining that (while ruining that person's life) usually gets you no closer to the original source.
For example, assume that person A downloads it from site A, uploads to site B. Person B later downloads from site B and uploads to site C. Person C later downloads from site C and uploads to site A again because it has been purged from that site. Or whatever. As soon as you have a loop in the graph, you are no longer making progress towards the source because discovering the original source requires resources that no longer exist (e.g. server logs from a decade ago).
By contrast, a drug dealer knows from whom he or she purchased the drugs, and that person is always closer to the original source. Arresting the purchaser, however, is not particularly useful (except perhaps as a means of compelling him or her to testify against the dealer), and as a rule, actually sentencing that person to jail time is a complete waste of resources.
In addition, many articles about this topic have pointed out that admission to the most complete networks often requires the uploading of unique images. I'll leave it as a chilling exercise for the reader as to where those images might come from.
That's the way I would expect any FBI honeypot to be run. It would eliminate almost anybody who didn't hurt an actual child. From there, you wait, gather information, and eventually begin providing files that require a custom tool to extract them—a tool that surreptitiously phones home. You've now caught thousands of actual sexual predators.
That's also the sort of site that any smart criminals would be wise to avoid for precisely that reason. Merely being a member of such a club is very nearly proof of guilt, which is several levels of risk higher than a typical site containing illegal content.
Put another way, you wouldn't join a movie piracy club that required you to rip a new movie and upload it. Why would any remotely sane person do so for a type of illegal content where the punishments are even worse?
I guess I should have been slightly more precise. The process of choosing which crimes to enforce is zero-sum, not the enforcement itself. It is clearly impossible to prosecute every crime. Therefore, any one person's loss (going to prison) must necessarily be another person's gain (not going to prison).
But without that word, it misses the key point of the sentence, which is that it is not limited to actual abuse (i.e. that it can also be caused by the mere perception of abuse where none exists). It's an awkward concept to get across in one sentence. Perhaps I should have worded it as:
...isn't limited to actual instances of sexual abuse (or even actual instances of abuse in general).
Slashdot Mirror
Use two cameras mounted at opposite sides of the device, then compare the two images looking for parallax. Finally, compute what the shift should be based on the distance from the camera to the person (computed by looking at the focus distance for the two cameras). If the shift isn't within a narrow margin of what it should be, reject the face.
It might be possible to trick such a setup with a 3D display, but it would not be easy. First, you would have to have an image taken using cameras that are approximately the same distance apart. Second, you would have to know how far away the person was when the photo was taken. Third, such an attack could be readily foiled by the use of polarizing filters with the same orientation on both of the two cameras.
No need. It becomes legal to break the encryption the moment copyright expires. By definition, the DMCA only covers systems that effectively protect a copyrighted work. (Title 17, section 1201: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.") Once the work is no longer under copyright (Title 17), the DMCA no longer prevents you from breaking the encryption.
Now there's still the question of the legality of tools to do so, but in about eighty years, when the first of the DVD copyrights expire, if anyone still cares about any of those movies, someone will challenge the legality of that part of the law. Of course, by then, nobody will care about those movies because DVDs will no longer be playable by any modern hardware, the movie studios will have failed repeatedly to release the content in a new format where people can actually enjoy it, and nearly all the people who actually remember those movies will have long since died.
No, it's more like a power-hungry politician's wife putting up with her husband's affairs. There are very real and tangible benefits to paying them money—you get to watch their stuff—and the level of abuse is relatively small compared to the benefit. The people who legitimately need to make copies of the content ignore the law, knowing full well that there is unlikely to be any attempt to prosecute them for doing so, and that it would be an ideal opportunity for the defense lawyer to mention jury nullification during his/her closing statement even if it ever made it to trial. The people who just want free stuff either buy legitimate copies or ignore the law and take their risks.
The big problem with your proposed solution is that you're speaking from the perspective of the one half of one percent who actually care about putting movies on a media server. Even if every single person with those needs stopped buying media today, it would not cause enough of a change in big media's profits for them to notice.
No, there is exactly one solution to the problem of DRM, and it is this: compete. Don't like DRM? Create your own movie studio and then don't do that. Tell people that you don't do it, and tell them why. Convince the general public that your DRM-free offering is better than the abusive alternatives. When the existing media houses notice that you're starting to cut into their bottom line significantly, then they'll be forced to adjust their behavior to match it, and content will become more user-friendly. Until there is a legal alternative, however, it doesn't matter whether you're right about DRM being harmful; most of the general public won't be willing to pirate content just to make a point.
Remember: voting with your dollars might make a small difference; voting with other people's dollars will make a big difference.
At first glance, their prototype's battery life numbers are around half what the iPhone 4S gets (slightly better for Wi-Fi, slightly worse for 3G), and that's pitting a 32nm Intel chip against a 45nm ARM chip. The current 32nm ARM chips used in the new iPad reportedly increase its battery life by an additional 25% over 45nm versions. So at first glance, it would appear that 32nm dual-core ARM chips can still provide somewhere around 2.5x the battery life when doing light CPU activity.
Of course, it's hard to say how much of the difference is caused by the CPU, how much of it is caused by the OS they're running, how much of it is caused by differences in the cellular radio (and or aggressiveness when powering that radio off), compiler optimization, etc. I'll be interested to see if those numbers improve significantly once a few more cell phone companies begin fine tuning the OS and drivers.
It will also be interesting to see how it performs under heavier load (e.g. games). It might be worth the loss in web browsing hours to get a gain in gaming hours for some people. Either way, I'm impressed by how quickly Intel has narrowed the gap, but at least at first glance, it looks like they have a little ways to go yet.
I'd be more amused if it flies back and tries to contact the whales. Or perhaps if its speed slows more and more, only to eventually fall back towards the sun again.
Ultimately, it depends on whether the pandemic is caused by A. a new virus (in which case ease of movement makes it worse), B. an existing deadly virus that becomes more transmissible (in which case ease of movement makes it worse), or C. an existing non-deadly virus that becomes more virulent (in which case ease of movement can reduce the average virulence).
If things break down badly enough for the first world to have no sewage treatment system and no ability to build leach fields for septic tanks, Malaria is likely to be the least of our worries. :-)
Three watts isn't even close to usable for a mobile phone. At that level of power consumption, you would either have to charge your phone every half hour (by the time you add in the chipset consumption) or build a phone that looks like one of those old portable phones from the 1980s with the small suitcase attached....
Intel's latest Atom offerings, however, claim to draw about two orders of magnitude less power than that at idle, and are thus in the ballpark for being usable for phones and similar devices. It remains to be seen who will adopt it.
BTW, last I read, a 2GHz Cortex A9 CPU based on a 40 nm process drew about 250 mW max, not 2W, though those numbers could easily be wrong.
On the other hand, one could also argue that the ease of moving from place to place dramatically increases the probability that any given person anywhere on Earth has been exposed to a strain that is similar to any given strain that might reasonably mutate in a way that caused increased deaths. Thus, depending on how the pandemic starts (by mutation or by cross-species transmission), it might make things better or worse.
I think you're confusing designers with architects. A designer determines how it looks. An architect determines how it is built under the hood. There are some aspects of design that do have a bit of light science behind them, e.g. determining how to cluster menu items to make it easiest to get to the most-commonly-used choices, determining which colors are easiest to discern by the colorblind, etc., but most aspects of app design are art, not science.
You don't need a science degree to be a good designer. If anything, I would say the reverse is true. Most people with technical backgrounds suck at design. One of the main reasons so many apps exist with awful UI is that they use engineers to design it instead of people with a background in design/user experience.
I can see it now. Google Street View Racer. Watch out for the blurry pedestrian!
They could design them, but most of them couldn't code them. People who use the web can often be good web designers, but not many of them can actually write the html, and even fewer can write the server-side that generates the HTML.
I realize that in the game design industry, the term "designer" is usually abused to include the coding aspects, but that really isn't design. Even creating the 3D models may or may not qualify as design, depending on how strict you're being about the term.
Fair enough. Still, I think we can all agree that the four-chord song needs to die already. :-)
What might be most interesting would be searching for patterns that don't fit the mould, e.g. songs that resolve a iii to a tonic, followed by a ii. Then burn every copy of any song that doesn't have at least a certain percentage of outliers. :-D
Or three girls.
Disturbingly, yes, you can. Well, more than four, guys, but....
Yeah, I was talking to my parents, and they pointed out that it was pretty much that way back to the 1950s.
(I) Big (VI) girls (II) (V), they don't (I) cry-yai-(VI)-yai, (II)they don't (V)cry.
I'm just hoping that Justin Bieber's "Baby" finally puts the four-chord song form out of its misery.
Those are the most commonly used chords, but that's not a common progression at all. Among other patterns, the most common progressions tend to have:
The interesting questions from a statistical perspective, in my mind, are:
BTW, just to clarify, for the purposes of simplicity, I'm playing fast and loose with my numbering. I find the lowercase notation to be difficult to read when mixed with English text, so I am using the convention of naming chords diatonically rather than distinguishing between major and minor forms of the chord, and in cases of minor keys, describing them diatonically based off their relative major.
It's less precise, but it tends to make the concepts a little clearer, too. For example, I said that VI can go to II or IV depending on whether the VI is really the root in a relative minor passage. This is clearer and easier to understand than saying that VI can go to IV in a major, or i can go to iv in a minor (which isn't really interesting because i or I can go to pretty much anything).
Hope that avoids any confusion. :-)
BTW, the reason for the popularity of many chords (or lack thereof) is likely because so much pop music is guitar-centric. An A major chord would only be common if you're playing in D major, E major, A major, or sometimes in D minor (with a raised 7th).
You'll notice that D, major, A major, and E major are the 5th, 6th, and 7th most popular keys. And although D minor is the 4th most popular key, not all A chords in D minor are going to be major chords.
I would also expect the probability of moving from any given chord to another would be strongly correlated with the standard chord leading rules, assuming you analyze them with numbered chord notation rather than by the actual note names. Certain chords naturally follow other chords, and although you don't have to always use such pairs in that order, good composers will tend to do so the majority of the time.
...they were all either:
Right? Or maybe that's just pop songs from the past twenty years....
I never said they should trace the evidence. I said they should try to infect their computers. (Well, I did say they should try to trace the evidence, but that was in the much broader context of porn that they find online, not in the context of an FBI-run honeypot.)
As for requesting fresh evidence versus not, you're assuming active solicitation. That's not the way anything like this would ever be run, FBI or otherwise. You don't just go up to somebody you think is a mobster and ask for a hit on somebody. Making connections for illegal acts requires a slow, careful process of hinting around the issue until you are certain that you're both talking about the same thing. I would expect an FBI child porn honeypot to attract members through a similar vetting process.
During their online conversations (in a chat room or whatever), the FBI agents could determine with a reasonable degree of certainty that the people were probably harming kids already. Then and only then would they ask for photographic evidence as a requirement for admission into the "club", whereupon they would impersonate the club only as long as necessary to gain the trust of the people in question sufficiently to convince them to install the piece of spyware that reveals their location and identity.
Why not? From a legal perspective, the police solicit prostitutes, and that's on the right side of the law when it comes to entrapment; there's really no difference. And from an ethical perspective, the people who do these things are going to do them anyway. At least if the FBI is doing the solicitation, it puts the child abusers one step closer to getting caught.
Why should they get to charge you money for what should be a basic feature of any conformant network?
That's kind of the point. It should have to be an extraordinary situation for such an escape hatch to be used. If you can't get 80% of those people who don't care about anything to agree, then your prosecution probably isn't important enough to use the feature in the first place.
Require that each host compute that back-door version of the request at each step along the way (rather than including a back-door version within every layer of the onion). When you receive data from a peer, decrypt your copy of the data, and encrypt it with the back-door public key. If it does not match what you got in the request, then this means that the sending peer tried to lie to you. Shun it.
The problem is that, unlike drugs, (electronic) porn is something that is not destroyed when it gets consumed. A person who uploaded something is orders of magnitude more likely to have previously downloaded it than created it, and determining that (while ruining that person's life) usually gets you no closer to the original source.
For example, assume that person A downloads it from site A, uploads to site B. Person B later downloads from site B and uploads to site C. Person C later downloads from site C and uploads to site A again because it has been purged from that site. Or whatever. As soon as you have a loop in the graph, you are no longer making progress towards the source because discovering the original source requires resources that no longer exist (e.g. server logs from a decade ago).
By contrast, a drug dealer knows from whom he or she purchased the drugs, and that person is always closer to the original source. Arresting the purchaser, however, is not particularly useful (except perhaps as a means of compelling him or her to testify against the dealer), and as a rule, actually sentencing that person to jail time is a complete waste of resources.
That's the way I would expect any FBI honeypot to be run. It would eliminate almost anybody who didn't hurt an actual child. From there, you wait, gather information, and eventually begin providing files that require a custom tool to extract them—a tool that surreptitiously phones home. You've now caught thousands of actual sexual predators.
That's also the sort of site that any smart criminals would be wise to avoid for precisely that reason. Merely being a member of such a club is very nearly proof of guilt, which is several levels of risk higher than a typical site containing illegal content.
Put another way, you wouldn't join a movie piracy club that required you to rip a new movie and upload it. Why would any remotely sane person do so for a type of illegal content where the punishments are even worse?
I guess I should have been slightly more precise. The process of choosing which crimes to enforce is zero-sum, not the enforcement itself. It is clearly impossible to prosecute every crime. Therefore, any one person's loss (going to prison) must necessarily be another person's gain (not going to prison).
But without that word, it misses the key point of the sentence, which is that it is not limited to actual abuse (i.e. that it can also be caused by the mere perception of abuse where none exists). It's an awkward concept to get across in one sentence. Perhaps I should have worded it as:
...isn't limited to actual instances of sexual abuse (or even actual instances of abuse in general).
*shrugs*