Participants got very upset in early virtual worlds (e.g. LambdaMOO) when their avatars were manipulated by others to do objectionable things, resulting in "virtual rape". Quite a lot of philosophical, emotional, and legal discussion on that. And those avatars were merely online identities that were mere text: made up character names ("handles") that had no link to their users, who were fairly speaking, anonymous. And the "rape" consisted of spoofing text (these were pure text systems, no graphics).
now that people will be able to do similar things to actual real people's own images, in a manner indistinguishable from watching real life video, the implications have far more impact and will be universally understood to be very serious.
There will "soon" be laws that make it both criminal and tortuous to create, distribute, and possess these kinds of false images, with additional laws regarding intent to harm. These will be modern adjuncts to the existing laws about defamation, invasion of privacy, identity theft, and so on. Evidentiary standards will have to be adjusted.
It will only be legal to do it when a special consent form is properly executed. The free speech protections of "famous people", "parody", and perhaps even the idea of "for private viewing only" will not be applicable in this regime.
That won't stop a lot of people from doing it anyway. And since any child will also be able to do it, and they are incapable of understanding what they are doing, giving or understanding consent,
or any consequences, it's going to get very messy.
This has all been on the horizon for a while now, and the main idea must go back to when photographs and movies were first invented. The one thing that is certain is that human psychology will not change, and people will feel violated when this happens. People and society are not going to change and wake up one day saying, "Oh, well, those are just pictures, and we all know pictures lie, so no biggie!" Because our fundamental biology demands that what we see is NOT a lie, even when we accept that a little bit of it must be. But images of people generally, and most especially ourselves? Those never lie, except in a very specific psychological context called "fantasty". And people own their likeness, and don't want their soul stolen by someone else. It's human nature.
Where i live, you need to put your key's in the ignition for it to be considered DUI
In most jurisdictions, just having the means to start the vehicle is all they need. So, keys anywhere in or near the car. They will assert that you drove the car there while drunk and parked to sleep it off.
University of Glasgow invents tractor beams for manufacturing processes, surpassing the discovery of transparent aluminum a few years ago at the University of Edinburgh (commercialized by the San Francisco based Plexicorp): https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Thank God for Slashdot where this can be discussed, because the aviation boneheads who came up with the runway naming conventions obviously never thought any of this stuff through! Moreover, none of the reasoning has ever been documented by those (Government, naturally) selfsame boneheads.
If you leak Snap Inc. information, you will lose your job and we will pursue any and all legal remedies against you. And that’s just the start. You can face personal financial liability even if you yourself did not benefit from the leaked information. The government, our investors, and other third parties can also seek their own remedies against you for what you disclosed. The government can even put you in jail.
People here keep saying that theft of trade secrets is only a tort, but that's not correct. Short answer: U.S.C. 1831, 15 years in prison.
Theft (or "misappropriation") of trade secrets is indeed a tort. We have The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which only allows for civil actions, and only for actual damages that can be proved. (Loss of revenue or unfair competition are not recoverable.) California also has a law after the model Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which also makes misappropriation of secrets a tort (no computer needed). Finally, there is federal level Economic Espionage Act of 1996, and that one DOES come with a potential prison term of up to 15 years.
Maybe it is because average people, no matter where they live in the world, don't have enmity towards each other.
It is only the _leaders_ and the _militaries_ of the world that create threats, start wars and in general start the problems that lead to conflict.
Yeah, normal humans don't have conflicts, just their (inherently evil) military leaders. And yet for some unfathomable reason there are locks on almost all doors.
This is why I keep my passwords in my "password suitcase", where it is encrypted until unlocked for use. (This way I only have to remember a single master password. It's the same numeric 5-digit code as on my other luggage...)
So, a garbage can blows into the road and the car just stops behind it...forever?
No, the passenger pushes the "PROCEED - harmless obstacle" button and the "Are You Sure?" button. What was that about the humans not needing car insurance, again?
So, since we're now truly passengers, GM can pay the insurance? Because I'm not paying for insurance for a self driving car
I know that self-driving cars seem like science fiction sometimes, but in what Amazing Universe are the costs not passed on to the consumer? Of course you'll be paying for the insurance. It will probably even be a line-item on your monthly bill for the lease. And if an accident happens, the actions of the humans involved WILL be a factor they consider. So you'll need two insurance policies in the future, not zero.
It is a technical issue. You cannot have the car rely on a central database. It HAS to be able to drive by what it gets from its sensors alone, and of those, the cameras need to win if there is a disagreement. Forget about Lidar in heavy rain for example.
Otherwise the idea is a non-starter for any weather but a sunny summer day in locations with good mobile network reception.
Oh, and a central database will be a juicy target for hackers. Want to cause absolute gridlock? Mark certain roads as 'unusable/blocked'. If the self driving car believes the database over what it sees, there will be empty roads on one side and gridlock on the other. No human driver would fall for this.
People already sabotage the real-time traffic databases (e.g. on Waze, which is crowdsourced) in order to re-route traffic away from their neighborhoods. (People "fall for it" because you generally are not in visual range of the traffic problems on other roads.)
I'm willing to bet that if the entire GPS system (US GPS, EU Galileo, Russian GLONASS, and what ever the Chinese and Indian systems are) all go out we have bigger problems than just missing GPS.
In some areas of the country (such as here in Washington, D.C.) the GPS goes out periodically, on purpose, for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it is announced beforehand (if you know where to look --- the general public does not) and sometimes it is most definitely not announced. It's done by jamming.
Slashdot Mirror
Participants got very upset in early virtual worlds (e.g. LambdaMOO) when their avatars
were manipulated by others to do objectionable things, resulting in "virtual rape".
Quite a lot of philosophical, emotional, and legal discussion on that.
And those avatars were merely online identities that were mere text: made up character
names ("handles") that had no link to their users, who were fairly speaking, anonymous.
And the "rape" consisted of spoofing text (these were pure text systems, no graphics).
now that people will be able to do similar things to actual real people's own images,
in a manner indistinguishable from watching real life video, the implications have
far more impact and will be universally understood to be very serious.
There will "soon" be laws that make it both criminal and tortuous to create,
distribute, and possess these kinds of false images, with additional laws
regarding intent to harm. These will be modern adjuncts to the existing
laws about defamation, invasion of privacy, identity theft, and so on.
Evidentiary standards will have to be adjusted.
It will only be legal to do it when a special consent form is properly executed.
The free speech protections of "famous people", "parody", and perhaps
even the idea of "for private viewing only" will not be applicable in this regime.
That won't stop a lot of people from doing it anyway.
And since any child will also be able to do it, and they are incapable
of understanding what they are doing, giving or understanding consent,
or any consequences, it's going to get very messy.
This has all been on the horizon for a while now, and the main idea
must go back to when photographs and movies were first invented.
The one thing that is certain is that human psychology will not change,
and people will feel violated when this happens. People and society
are not going to change and wake up one day saying, "Oh, well,
those are just pictures, and we all know pictures lie, so no biggie!"
Because our fundamental biology demands that what we see
is NOT a lie, even when we accept that a little bit of it must be.
But images of people generally, and most especially ourselves?
Those never lie, except in a very specific psychological context
called "fantasty". And people own their likeness, and don't want
their soul stolen by someone else. It's human nature.
The glasses, dey do nothing...
So RFR is the new saccharin? Blast mice 10,000 times as much as cell phones and in some cases it can't be ruled out that they might get cancer maybe?
Spore Drive
Who invented this stupid "innovation" ranking, anyway?
History, linguistics, and economics are social sciences. Are they junk?
Rule of thumb: If a field has the word "science" in it, it isn't.
It seems like a study is done every 7 years saying the same thing since the 80s?
Before that it was cartoons...
Where i live, you need to put your key's in the ignition for it to be considered DUI
In most jurisdictions, just having the means to start the vehicle is all they need. So, keys anywhere in or near the car. They will assert that you drove the car there while drunk and parked to sleep it off.
Lyft is saying they'll have driverless cars by 2020, IIRC.
What happens then if I'm passed out drunk in a driverless Lyft?
Depends on whether it's a "Pool" ride or not, mainly.
University of Glasgow invents tractor beams for manufacturing processes, surpassing the discovery of transparent aluminum a few years ago at the University of Edinburgh (commercialized by the San Francisco based Plexicorp):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You are making a bad joke at the expanse of those folk living there... But the reality is that *inflation adjusted* rent and house price are insane.
Basically I forsee a wall coming to SF bay area, something will have to break.
Google will build a wall, and make SF pay for it!
Do they still use magnetic cpmpasses in commecial aviation?
At least as a backup, yes. Both the "whiskey" variety and the Hall effect variety.
Thank God for Slashdot where this can be discussed, because the aviation boneheads who came up with the runway naming conventions obviously never thought any of this stuff through! Moreover, none of the reasoning has ever been documented by those (Government, naturally) selfsame boneheads.
People here keep saying that theft of trade secrets is only a tort, but that's not correct. Short answer: U.S.C. 1831, 15 years in prison.
Theft (or "misappropriation") of trade secrets is indeed a tort. We have The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which only allows for civil actions, and only for actual damages that can be proved. (Loss of revenue or unfair competition are not recoverable.) California also has a law after the model Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which also makes misappropriation of secrets a tort (no computer needed). Finally, there is federal level Economic Espionage Act of 1996, and that one DOES come with a potential prison term of up to 15 years.
Something you don't have anymore, something you forgot, and something you ate.
Or something like that.
Maybe it is because average people, no matter where they live in the world, don't have enmity towards each other.
It is only the _leaders_ and the _militaries_ of the world that create threats, start wars and in general start the problems that lead to conflict.
Yeah, normal humans don't have conflicts, just their (inherently evil) military leaders.
And yet for some unfathomable reason there are locks on almost all doors.
This is why I keep my passwords in my "password suitcase", where it is encrypted until unlocked for use. (This way I only have to remember a single master password. It's the same numeric 5-digit code as on my other luggage...)
Domino's Pizza outgoing CEO Patrick Doyle, expert on AI and robotics, who has a lot of stock in Dominos and wants to hype it up, says .....
Last time work refreshed my laptop
I misread that as "retrashed" for some reason...
Sadly, this does not surprise me.
Most people don't read and have shockingly poor comprehension when they do.
This has gotten much worse (at least in the US) over the past 100 years.
LOL I didn't bother to read TFA so perhaps totally don't comprehend what it said...
try{
// Try something wrong here
}
catch(e){
var xcb="http://stackoverflow.com/search?q=[js]+"+e.message;
window.open(xcb, '_blank');
}
// https://github.com/gautamkrishnar/tcso/blob/master/javascript/tcso.js
So, a garbage can blows into the road and the car just stops behind it...forever?
No, the passenger pushes the "PROCEED - harmless obstacle" button and the "Are You Sure?" button. What was that about the humans not needing car insurance, again?
So, since we're now truly passengers, GM can pay the insurance? Because I'm not paying for insurance for a self driving car
I know that self-driving cars seem like science fiction sometimes, but in what Amazing Universe are the costs not passed on to the consumer? Of course you'll be paying for the insurance. It will probably even be a line-item on your monthly bill for the lease. And if an accident happens, the actions of the humans involved WILL be a factor they consider. So you'll need two insurance policies in the future, not zero.
It is a technical issue. You cannot have the car rely on a central database. It HAS to be able to drive by what it gets from its sensors alone, and of those, the cameras need to win if there is a disagreement. Forget about Lidar in heavy rain for example.
Otherwise the idea is a non-starter for any weather but a sunny summer day in locations with good mobile network reception.
Oh, and a central database will be a juicy target for hackers. Want to cause absolute gridlock? Mark certain roads as 'unusable/blocked'. If the self driving car believes the database over what it sees, there will be empty roads on one side and gridlock on the other. No human driver would fall for this.
People already sabotage the real-time traffic databases (e.g. on Waze, which is crowdsourced) in order to re-route traffic away from their neighborhoods. (People "fall for it" because you generally are not in visual range of the traffic problems on other roads.)
I'm willing to bet that if the entire GPS system (US GPS, EU Galileo, Russian GLONASS, and what ever the Chinese and Indian systems are) all go out we have bigger problems than just missing GPS.
In some areas of the country (such as here in Washington, D.C.) the GPS goes out periodically, on purpose, for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it is announced beforehand (if you know where to look --- the general public does not) and sometimes it is most definitely not announced. It's done by jamming.