Better, but I think that his arguments can be better refuted on a basis of reason than necessarily by appealing to emotion, which is the most that may be accomplished by his legs being out of commission (it might work, but it's far from ideal).
My hope is that gets in an accident and loses a leg.
That may be a little extreme, dontcha think?
The reason why robots patterned physically similarly to humans are a good idea is that such robots could easily be repurposed for many different types of tasks with nothing more than a change or upgrading of software, and using the same tools or working in the same environment as humans do (or did, but before times have necessarily changed enough to adapt around using robots instead of people) means that when such robots can finally be made, they can be immediately be utilized in existing infrastructure.
She had wheels, so using her (egad, I'm anthropomorphizing!) as an example may not have been ideal.
But that said, having a robot that can utilize the same tools and work in the same environments that we do can be extremely practical, and in my opinion still well worth the effort, because that means that the same robot could potentially be repurposed for many different tasks merely by upgrading or installing different software on it... The applications for such robots extend far beyond those of mere household maintenance... the only reason that keeps coming up, is because that's just the most obvious common consumer application, and it's entirely understandable why it's desirable.
Not everyone lives in a one-floor apartment, after all.
It doesn't matter what I think... what matters is what a judge thinks. If a person has doubts about the matter, they shouldn't do it.... Arguing otherwise only defends the sick people who do this shit.
Okay, technically not impossible. But unreasonably impractical to the point that people would simply stop taking public photography. If any public photograph could be taken to court on anybody's say-so, you have an impractical law that would be nearly impossible to enforce.
Again, this would only be applicable if the photograph revealed any parts of the body that a reasonable person would consider private. That would also mean that even somehow photographing a middle-eastern woman's face, when she ordinarily wears a sari, would be violation, unless the photographer has received explicit consent.
And for what it's worth, such a law has actually now been passed, so arguing that such a law is somehow going to be allegedly unenforceable is moot
Something can be covered and there can still be a picture of it... either by utilizing specifically crafted shooting angles, which would be evidenced by looking at the photograph itself, or utilizing sophisticated surveillance systems which *can* image directly through clothing. Intent to not be seen naked, as I said, would be implied by virtue of wearing clothes in the first place, and any other alleged intent would require consent.
Choosing to focus on the wording I was using and suggesting that I was somehow suggesting that law enforcement needed to read minds to accomplish it in practice completely misses the point of what I was talking about.
As it sits, a law has already been passed now which pretty well sums up what I said in the first place, so arguing about what it should be now is pointless.
What you are referring to, then, is called "implied consent", and is legally quite distinguishable from consent, which does require explicit permission, and it's extremely different from "informed consent", which goes at least one step further than than that by requiring that such consent is only applicable when the consequences of consent have been explicitly clarified beforehand. Informed consent, in this case, would be not only knowing about the photographer and the camera, and agreeing to have such pictures taken, but also being made aware of exactly what the photographer was going to do with such pictures (and if the photographer does something that exceeds the boundaries of what was explained, then that would negate informed consent).
As it turns out, however, the text of the law does contain exactly the exceptions that were not evident from either the summary or the article, which I did not know until somebody else who responded to me pointed out.
Ah.... thanks. I didn't see the full text of the bill anywhere and was only going off of the summary mentioned in the article (and duplicated in the summary, above)
Right.... but allowing for it for portal 2 means that any potential attack vector which might exist in the program may be used to compromise the operating system. Or are you suggesting that it's impossible that there are any bugs at all in portal 2?
Most photography would not be affected by what I suggested, only photography that reveals parts of the subject's body which were actually covered by the subjects clothing, in which case informed consent would be required..
Not impossible, just illegal. It would be up to a judge to determine if any particular photo did more public good than it harmed the people being photographed.
Of course people lie... which is why any serious photographer who is wanting to take nude pictures would get consent for such in writing first, so it cannot later be controverted. A photographer can, however just as easily lie that he or she was allegedly given permission when they were not as a subject can later deny that they ever gave permission even after they did. Because the recommended policy I suggested of assuming that there is no consent to photograph what is underneath a person's clothes being the default condition in the first place, the photographer gains absolutely nothing by not explicitly gaining such consent in writing when he or she does not know the subject *EXTREMELY* well. Obviously, of course, written consent would technically only be required if either the subject is unavailable to ask verbally if they had ever given consent, or else if the subject should happen to later deny that they ever gave consent, and I can see no reason that the onus should reasonably be on the photographer to cover his or her own ass in this regard. If there's any doubt whatsoever, either don't do it in the first place, or get permission in writing.
And it should be blatantly obvious that intent, insomuch as the law concerns itself with it, is determined by objectively measurable criteria... and in this case, as I had repeatedly stated, that criteria would be giving informed consent.
It's not proof that we shouldn't accept what science is telling us so far, but I think that it *IS* proof that we should probably be prepared at any time to accept the possibility that we are wrong about what we believe we know, given how often it has happened in the past. That doesn't mean we are wrong, but I think it means we are more likely to be wrong in some way about what we believe we know than we are ot be exactly right. Just as newtonian physics was shown to be wrong, however, that does not mean it cannot be useful... even long after being disproven... or at least shown to be incomplete. So there is no compelling reason, even if it were wrong, to disregard it.
If you have to change the angle of viewing in order to see past any layers of clothing *AT ALL* from what is generally visible by most other people around, then it would be most reasonable, without any direct indication of informed consent otherwise, to conclude that the subject did not want those parts of their body to be photographed. If the intent was actually something other than this, the only way to establish proof of that would be by establishing that there was informed consent.
In fairness, appearing to deliberately flash you, for example, may reasonably be inferred as giving informed consent. The argument that the target was deliberately flashing you, however, would require either an explicit statement after the fact that they admit to doing as much, or lacking any such statement because the subject is unknown, it would require that under the circumstances, it would have been expected and reasonable for the subject to have known about your presence and your intent to photograph them (ie, both yourself and your camera must have been plainly visible, and not concealed from their view in any way).
Wow... where's thought crime coming from? As I said... you measure intent of the person being photographed by whether or not the person ever gave any informed consent to photograph anything that was being covered up by clothing, as I said. No informed consent means no intent....end of story. What constitutes informed consent would, at the barest of minimums, require explicit verbal permission, and from the photographer's point of view it would be safer to obtain written permission, if they feel the person being photographed may want to deny giving verbal permission later.
Of course, all of this is subject to other issues which can affect the legal validity of any so-called informed consent, such as whether or not the person was under any sort of duress when they made such consent.
You determine what the person chose to reveal with regards to what is actually plainly visible to anyone who was *not* attempting to see beneath any layers of clothing without the person's informed consent. Such consent would require, at an absolute barest of minimums, at least explicit verbal permission.
Addressing upskirt photography, It would probably make more sense to make it illegal to photograph anyone in such a way that reveals any more of their body than what they have chosen to reveal to those around them, unless the person being photographed has given informed consent to do so. The intent behind what you suggest is good, but has logistics problems with anyone taking photos in public places where there simply happen to be other people, even if they are not the intended subjects of the picture.
No more reason than to hound any of the people on this list, all of whom have provably multiple orders of magnitude more wealth than this guy is even *alleged* to have.
Slashdot Mirror
Better, but I think that his arguments can be better refuted on a basis of reason than necessarily by appealing to emotion, which is the most that may be accomplished by his legs being out of commission (it might work, but it's far from ideal).
Who says it was cheap?
Look at how many hundreds of millions of years it took.
Now equate that time to capital investment....
Still think nature did it cheaply?
That may be a little extreme, dontcha think?
The reason why robots patterned physically similarly to humans are a good idea is that such robots could easily be repurposed for many different types of tasks with nothing more than a change or upgrading of software, and using the same tools or working in the same environment as humans do (or did, but before times have necessarily changed enough to adapt around using robots instead of people) means that when such robots can finally be made, they can be immediately be utilized in existing infrastructure.
She had wheels, so using her (egad, I'm anthropomorphizing!) as an example may not have been ideal.
But that said, having a robot that can utilize the same tools and work in the same environments that we do can be extremely practical, and in my opinion still well worth the effort, because that means that the same robot could potentially be repurposed for many different tasks merely by upgrading or installing different software on it... The applications for such robots extend far beyond those of mere household maintenance... the only reason that keeps coming up, is because that's just the most obvious common consumer application, and it's entirely understandable why it's desirable.
Not everyone lives in a one-floor apartment, after all.
It doesn't matter what I think... what matters is what a judge thinks. If a person has doubts about the matter, they shouldn't do it.... Arguing otherwise only defends the sick people who do this shit.
Again, this would only be applicable if the photograph revealed any parts of the body that a reasonable person would consider private. That would also mean that even somehow photographing a middle-eastern woman's face, when she ordinarily wears a sari, would be violation, unless the photographer has received explicit consent.
And for what it's worth, such a law has actually now been passed, so arguing that such a law is somehow going to be allegedly unenforceable is moot
Something can be covered and there can still be a picture of it... either by utilizing specifically crafted shooting angles, which would be evidenced by looking at the photograph itself, or utilizing sophisticated surveillance systems which *can* image directly through clothing. Intent to not be seen naked, as I said, would be implied by virtue of wearing clothes in the first place, and any other alleged intent would require consent.
Choosing to focus on the wording I was using and suggesting that I was somehow suggesting that law enforcement needed to read minds to accomplish it in practice completely misses the point of what I was talking about.
As it sits, a law has already been passed now which pretty well sums up what I said in the first place, so arguing about what it should be now is pointless.
What you are referring to, then, is called "implied consent", and is legally quite distinguishable from consent, which does require explicit permission, and it's extremely different from "informed consent", which goes at least one step further than than that by requiring that such consent is only applicable when the consequences of consent have been explicitly clarified beforehand. Informed consent, in this case, would be not only knowing about the photographer and the camera, and agreeing to have such pictures taken, but also being made aware of exactly what the photographer was going to do with such pictures (and if the photographer does something that exceeds the boundaries of what was explained, then that would negate informed consent).
As it turns out, however, the text of the law does contain exactly the exceptions that were not evident from either the summary or the article, which I did not know until somebody else who responded to me pointed out.
Ah.... thanks. I didn't see the full text of the bill anywhere and was only going off of the summary mentioned in the article (and duplicated in the summary, above)
What if I voted for a government different from the one that got in?
Right.... but allowing for it for portal 2 means that any potential attack vector which might exist in the program may be used to compromise the operating system. Or are you suggesting that it's impossible that there are any bugs at all in portal 2?
Interesting.
Most photography would not be affected by what I suggested, only photography that reveals parts of the subject's body which were actually covered by the subjects clothing, in which case informed consent would be required..
Not impossible, just illegal. It would be up to a judge to determine if any particular photo did more public good than it harmed the people being photographed.
Of course people lie... which is why any serious photographer who is wanting to take nude pictures would get consent for such in writing first, so it cannot later be controverted. A photographer can, however just as easily lie that he or she was allegedly given permission when they were not as a subject can later deny that they ever gave permission even after they did. Because the recommended policy I suggested of assuming that there is no consent to photograph what is underneath a person's clothes being the default condition in the first place, the photographer gains absolutely nothing by not explicitly gaining such consent in writing when he or she does not know the subject *EXTREMELY* well. Obviously, of course, written consent would technically only be required if either the subject is unavailable to ask verbally if they had ever given consent, or else if the subject should happen to later deny that they ever gave consent, and I can see no reason that the onus should reasonably be on the photographer to cover his or her own ass in this regard. If there's any doubt whatsoever, either don't do it in the first place, or get permission in writing.
And it should be blatantly obvious that intent, insomuch as the law concerns itself with it, is determined by objectively measurable criteria... and in this case, as I had repeatedly stated, that criteria would be giving informed consent.
It's not proof that we shouldn't accept what science is telling us so far, but I think that it *IS* proof that we should probably be prepared at any time to accept the possibility that we are wrong about what we believe we know, given how often it has happened in the past. That doesn't mean we are wrong, but I think it means we are more likely to be wrong in some way about what we believe we know than we are ot be exactly right. Just as newtonian physics was shown to be wrong, however, that does not mean it cannot be useful... even long after being disproven... or at least shown to be incomplete. So there is no compelling reason, even if it were wrong, to disregard it.
News to me.... I personally know people who've ended up being directly affected by this law.
In fairness, appearing to deliberately flash you, for example, may reasonably be inferred as giving informed consent. The argument that the target was deliberately flashing you, however, would require either an explicit statement after the fact that they admit to doing as much, or lacking any such statement because the subject is unknown, it would require that under the circumstances, it would have been expected and reasonable for the subject to have known about your presence and your intent to photograph them (ie, both yourself and your camera must have been plainly visible, and not concealed from their view in any way).
No more so than keeping your eyes open and subjecting them to photons every waking moment.
Wow... where's thought crime coming from? As I said... you measure intent of the person being photographed by whether or not the person ever gave any informed consent to photograph anything that was being covered up by clothing, as I said. No informed consent means no intent....end of story. What constitutes informed consent would, at the barest of minimums, require explicit verbal permission, and from the photographer's point of view it would be safer to obtain written permission, if they feel the person being photographed may want to deny giving verbal permission later.
Of course, all of this is subject to other issues which can affect the legal validity of any so-called informed consent, such as whether or not the person was under any sort of duress when they made such consent.
You determine what the person chose to reveal with regards to what is actually plainly visible to anyone who was *not* attempting to see beneath any layers of clothing without the person's informed consent. Such consent would require, at an absolute barest of minimums, at least explicit verbal permission.
Addressing upskirt photography, It would probably make more sense to make it illegal to photograph anyone in such a way that reveals any more of their body than what they have chosen to reveal to those around them, unless the person being photographed has given informed consent to do so. The intent behind what you suggest is good, but has logistics problems with anyone taking photos in public places where there simply happen to be other people, even if they are not the intended subjects of the picture.
If you intend to publish or in any way publicize that picture, actually, you technically *DO* need all of the other parents' permission.
No more reason than to hound any of the people on this list, all of whom have provably multiple orders of magnitude more wealth than this guy is even *alleged* to have.