Not completely true. In the case in question street photography is billed as an editorial type of photography (and therefore a grey area).
That does not mean as a Pro you never have to get a model release. No stock photography site will actually accept your submissions without one.
In addition, other photography laws still apply even if you are not a pro. If for instance, you decide to take naked pictures of your 18 year old girlfriend, anti-child pornography laws require you to have proof that she's over 18 on file, and if you are caught you can be prosecuted. Even if your girlfriend is 30 but looks very young you might still be prosecuted.
The key is for these sorts of situations (like the model release and the porno laws) you would actually need to get caught. Even if the authorities found your vacation photos on Flickr, it's a low probability they're actually interested in pursuing such a case and that's why we have the illusion that these sorts of things are not illegal
Well it's a grey area. Technically if you take someone's photo you need a model release stating they know what the image is going to be used for. If you take a snapshot of me, and I find it on your Flickr account, I can have it taken down.
However, we get into an area where it's not likely to be enforced. I'm probably in a million different tourist photo albums across the world, and I've never once spotted my image online.
Actually, as any professional photographer can tell you, in most countries you're not allowed to use someone's image without a modeling release. In addition, if you take pictures of property that is distinctive (like the London "Ghurkin") you need a property release as well.
The only exception to this rule is if the images are "editorial" usage -- e.g. as in a news story, and in some cases artistic photos may also be exempt.
Snapshots you take as a tourist are sort of a grey area. Technically you need a model release to take someone's picture but from a practical standpoint people won't go through the trouble of suing you.
But it's not the kid who makes the decision not to get vaccinated -- it's the parent. What you're basically advocating is holding the children responsible for the actions of their parents which is certainly not fair.
Yeah but how do you check that? While effective, your solution would require having someone look at your vaccine record before getting on a bus, which is not going to be taken well by the general populace.
No, Google designed a system that would be a compromise between security and usability since some people would obviously go bat shit if they had to enter their password every time.
That a parent gave this to their child and did not properly supervise them is the parents fault.
Although it would indeed be nice if the parents could indeed have a better monitoring service for kids phones.
Man agreed. Season 5 killed the show. Up until then I seriously couldn't get enough and watched the different seasons many times. Season 5 just had so much nonsense (remember when they built a bloody holodeck?) they ruined the illusion of "it's possible" and it just got to be so much nonsense.
If you go to any screenwriting class or read any books on screenwriting, they'll talk to you about the use of "compression"
In a movie you have 120 minutes (or 120 pages of script) to tell your story. Were you to actually record what really would go on in a real life conversation / situation, you'd have:
a) a bored audience b) more time needed for your "facial recognition sequence" then allotted for the movie.
It's a key element of fiction, and you'll never see exact reality. Movies DO like to be realistic when possible, but you'll still see a conversation that in real life would be a 10 minute back and forth redirected into a few succinct lines.
You might as well advocate that planes start giving everyone a parachute, without realizing it makes flight so unaffordable as to push people to less safe modes of transportation.
Comments like these promote a worse understanding of the issues.
Giving everyone a parachute doesn't help. People need significant training to use a parachute and most accidents don't happen with the ability to give everyone a "OK guys put on your parachutes and JUMP"
Eh it's a little more complicated than that. The autobiography of John Rizzo (General Counsel, CIA) after he retired basically states that the CIA made a tactical decision after Iran Contra to stop getting involved in stuff. Then Sep-11 happened.
As the CIA had literally no other intel than a couple of hard nosed al queda birds, it decided that it needed to torture people to save lives.
Funny thing is it probably did save lives. But the ends do not always justify the means. And really it shows just how the CIA dropped the ball....
I'm wondering how well prepared border control / custom agents are for taking down fast moving drones that sweep in pretty low.,
You're basically describing skeet shooting right there.
And it's not physically possible to set up a human skeet shooter every hundred meters on the entire bloody border. Expect this to lead to some sort of arms race whereby we start allowing automated skeet shooting, anti-drone drones, or something else entirely that is just as scary.
Or we could just stop the whole waste of money that is the war on drugs. But that would be dumb.
Which is also why you need to be aware of your surroundings. Someone starts getting too close to you, cross to the other side of the rode, turn around, and just in general keep people away from you. Make sure your bag is close to you so a moto driver can't zip past and steal it. Common sense like that will reduce thievery.
However, I will say the two attempted pickpocketings i had were in Europe. In Amsterdam I was looking at postcards, and looked down to find a guys hand around my waist (sort of the same way you might hold your girlfriend). He was making the (ill advised) tactic of trying to reach around and into my front pocket. He just said "pardon" and ran away. I should have probably clocked him, but I had the sad realization that if I did hit him, probably I would have gotten in trouble with the law.
The other time was in Hamburg and is much funnier. I was on a date with a girl and we ended up going to the Reeperbahn to party. It's packed with people going out to party, and people are bumping into you all the time.
Well some bumped into me, HARD with his shoulder. OW, he apologized, said sorry he was in a rush and ran off. Later I realized the pack of gum I had (in this trendy, flat, wallet shaped package) which was in my front blazer pocket was missing. The outline was clearly visible through my blazer so the guy picked my pocket thinking he was going to get my wallet.
I was actually more impressed than anything else. It was so cool and I didn't lose any money.
OTOH bilateral agreements forcing countries to come to each others aid in the event they decided they wanted a war was what started WWI.
It's a very delicate situation. If America DOES go in either we open up yet another front in our war, and this time against someone a little more sophisticated then the Taliban. It'll mean a lot of loss of life if Putin doesn't back down.
On top of that we may pull our allies, e.g. NATO, into the whole bloody mess.
Yet failing to act is not necessarily an option either. Just look how appeasement worked out in the second world war.
The key is people need to stand up for themselves. I once worked in a (soul sucking) job where everyone worked 60 hours a week. And I'd just get up and leave at 5 o'clock. "Sorry boss, my 8 hours is over." Now if something was going on and the building would burn down if I'd leave, I'd stay. But even then, when it got really late, I'd say "It's 8:00pm. I need to go home"
While I did have a few angry chats from my boss about wtf I wasn't working at 19:00, it never showed up on my performance review, and I never got sent to HR because he knew, legally, he was in the wrong.
If everyone did this bosses would HAVE to pay overtime, or employ 100% staff.
Now the problem with the american worker today is most people don't have the cajones to stand up and say "No." Unfortunately this means even though you are legally protected to get overtime and not get overworked, you are at a distinct disadvantage. If everyone followed the rules, you should be able to tell your boss "well if I'm working 60 hours a week as a salary my salary should be 1.5x base" But you can't because there's always another joe out there willing to work for less.
Bad logic. Robots and servants are not comparable.
A roomba costs $300. A cleaning lady will cost you at least $20 / time she comes.
While the cleaning lady will also clean the toilet, after a year of having her come you will have more than paid off the cost of the Roomba, and over the life of the roomba the cost per floor cleaning is probably quite small.
Very likely if such a trackless system were to come into existence a) it would be MUCH cheaper than a servant b) it would also not be as versatile than a servant, but it would be understood to the buyer what he was getting.
Additionally, if you did hire a butler he probably wouldn't be an automechanic as well. I could see in some cases a robot being MUCH more flexible than a human because you could simply pay the $100 to download the "garage" software if you wanted to use it there.
Lastly, I find it interesting that the crux of your argument is to try to find the places where a robot are not useful, and use that as proof that they're not useful anywheres. If a robot becomes commercially viable then for, a reasonable cost to the target market, it will provide some sort of help the target market wants. It'll probably have limitations (you won't have a track to your neighbors house to share the cost, either) but if it becomes viable people will still buy it because the trade offs aren't a show stopper.
I moved to Europe from America and was shocked when *GASP* people didn't work 60 hour weeks, took 25 vacation days a year (yes 5 weeks!), in many cases worked on an 80% schedule, and *SHOCKING* enjoy a beer at lunch from time to time.
Even more shocking, as far as I could tell, my colleagues in my new European office were as productive (or more so) than my American counterparts (doing the same job).
Then I went to Asia and was AMAZED at the hours people work especially when I realized the amount of work actually getting done.
The truth is, people can't work straight like robots. The more they work, the more small breaks they take during the day (my favorite time waster in america was the i'm-lonely-let's-have-a-meeting meeting). And if you are actually rested, you are much more productive.
As for the sub prime mess, nothing was wrong with sub prime lending. It goes on every day and is a valid part of the financial sector. No amount of qualifications to a banker would change that.
Actually, IAIF (I Am In Finance) and one of the changes to come out of the mess was actually to start requiring qualifications like the CFA, CRM, etc. for your important staff. One of the reasons the mess got so big is you had people in important positions (like Risk) who actually didn't really understand the derivative instruments. Regulators (and management) are now tending to push for people to actually be qualified (and not just like the MCSE, real degrees).
Remember that the thing that made the sub prime mess so huge was derivatives. Banks had the illusion of security but because these things weren't centrally cleared there was a contagion effect. Literally one bank could take down the financial sector, which is why there was a bail out.
You know even in multi story houses the floor tends to be flat. And if you really did need to bring your robot upstairs you could probably just pick it up (just like a roomba).
You know a TV from the 60s was pretty damned ugly. I also wouldn't call a dishwasher or a microwave beautiful (although a stove can be pretty damned sexy if you like to cook). But it's usefulness for most people overcomes the aesthetic implications.
If a robot with a track was useful enough, you'd install a robot track on your ceiling. And maybe as the robot evolved through the generations, designers might start getting clever about hiding it or making the track look sexy.
So what? If the kids are really young then they should have adult supervision after school is over. Or, if they're older and can actually be trusted, then you just need rules in place. Which will of course be broken (remember the scene in dead poets society where they build a crystal radio and listen to (illegal) rock and roll? a million similar avenues exist for students who want to break outside the firewall, not the least of which is buying a USB 3G stick which can be quite cheap these days).
Slashdot Mirror
If you are talking about one person walking into your shot, I can understand.
However, in a very busy area, it is unreasonable to expect everyone to stop what they're doing just so you can take a photo.
Not completely true. In the case in question street photography is billed as an editorial type of photography (and therefore a grey area).
That does not mean as a Pro you never have to get a model release. No stock photography site will actually accept your submissions without one.
In addition, other photography laws still apply even if you are not a pro. If for instance, you decide to take naked pictures of your 18 year old girlfriend, anti-child pornography laws require you to have proof that she's over 18 on file, and if you are caught you can be prosecuted. Even if your girlfriend is 30 but looks very young you might still be prosecuted.
The key is for these sorts of situations (like the model release and the porno laws) you would actually need to get caught. Even if the authorities found your vacation photos on Flickr, it's a low probability they're actually interested in pursuing such a case and that's why we have the illusion that these sorts of things are not illegal
Well it's a grey area. Technically if you take someone's photo you need a model release stating they know what the image is going to be used for. If you take a snapshot of me, and I find it on your Flickr account, I can have it taken down.
However, we get into an area where it's not likely to be enforced. I'm probably in a million different tourist photo albums across the world, and I've never once spotted my image online.
Actually, as any professional photographer can tell you, in most countries you're not allowed to use someone's image without a modeling release. In addition, if you take pictures of property that is distinctive (like the London "Ghurkin") you need a property release as well.
The only exception to this rule is if the images are "editorial" usage -- e.g. as in a news story, and in some cases artistic photos may also be exempt.
Snapshots you take as a tourist are sort of a grey area. Technically you need a model release to take someone's picture but from a practical standpoint people won't go through the trouble of suing you.
Which is why citizens should start taking their own videos. You film me, i'll film you, and when we go to court well make sure the tapes agree
But it's not the kid who makes the decision not to get vaccinated -- it's the parent. What you're basically advocating is holding the children responsible for the actions of their parents which is certainly not fair.
Yeah but how do you check that? While effective, your solution would require having someone look at your vaccine record before getting on a bus, which is not going to be taken well by the general populace.
Dude, in movies you're asked to suspend your belief in reality.
Die Hard is not reality. Criminal masterminds are not taking over the tower of a japanese bank on christmas eve at their oh so luxurious party.
Every movie makes these kinds of leaps. Some are more than others.
That's really a big leap.
Such a conspiracy would require really high level thinking on Google's point.
More likely, it's just something not thought through.
No, Google designed a system that would be a compromise between security and usability since some people would obviously go bat shit if they had to enter their password every time.
That a parent gave this to their child and did not properly supervise them is the parents fault.
Although it would indeed be nice if the parents could indeed have a better monitoring service for kids phones.
Man agreed. Season 5 killed the show. Up until then I seriously couldn't get enough and watched the different seasons many times. Season 5 just had so much nonsense (remember when they built a bloody holodeck?) they ruined the illusion of "it's possible" and it just got to be so much nonsense.
If you go to any screenwriting class or read any books on screenwriting, they'll talk to you about the use of "compression"
In a movie you have 120 minutes (or 120 pages of script) to tell your story. Were you to actually record what really would go on in a real life conversation / situation, you'd have:
a) a bored audience
b) more time needed for your "facial recognition sequence" then allotted for the movie.
It's a key element of fiction, and you'll never see exact reality. Movies DO like to be realistic when possible, but you'll still see a conversation that in real life would be a 10 minute back and forth redirected into a few succinct lines.
You might as well advocate that planes start giving everyone a parachute, without realizing it makes flight so unaffordable as to push people to less safe modes of transportation.
Comments like these promote a worse understanding of the issues.
Giving everyone a parachute doesn't help. People need significant training to use a parachute and most accidents don't happen with the ability to give everyone a "OK guys put on your parachutes and JUMP"
Steve did that because Billy G of good old microsoft ripped off the interface of the Mac for windows.
Eh it's a little more complicated than that. The autobiography of John Rizzo (General Counsel, CIA) after he retired basically states that the CIA made a tactical decision after Iran Contra to stop getting involved in stuff. Then Sep-11 happened.
As the CIA had literally no other intel than a couple of hard nosed al queda birds, it decided that it needed to torture people to save lives.
Funny thing is it probably did save lives. But the ends do not always justify the means. And really it shows just how the CIA dropped the ball....
I'm wondering how well prepared border control / custom agents are for taking down fast moving drones that sweep in pretty low.,
You're basically describing skeet shooting right there.
And it's not physically possible to set up a human skeet shooter every hundred meters on the entire bloody border. Expect this to lead to some sort of arms race whereby we start allowing automated skeet shooting, anti-drone drones, or something else entirely that is just as scary.
Or we could just stop the whole waste of money that is the war on drugs. But that would be dumb.
Which is also why you need to be aware of your surroundings. Someone starts getting too close to you, cross to the other side of the rode, turn around, and just in general keep people away from you. Make sure your bag is close to you so a moto driver can't zip past and steal it. Common sense like that will reduce thievery.
However, I will say the two attempted pickpocketings i had were in Europe. In Amsterdam I was looking at postcards, and looked down to find a guys hand around my waist (sort of the same way you might hold your girlfriend). He was making the (ill advised) tactic of trying to reach around and into my front pocket. He just said "pardon" and ran away. I should have probably clocked him, but I had the sad realization that if I did hit him, probably I would have gotten in trouble with the law.
The other time was in Hamburg and is much funnier. I was on a date with a girl and we ended up going to the Reeperbahn to party. It's packed with people going out to party, and people are bumping into you all the time.
Well some bumped into me, HARD with his shoulder. OW, he apologized, said sorry he was in a rush and ran off. Later I realized the pack of gum I had (in this trendy, flat, wallet shaped package) which was in my front blazer pocket was missing. The outline was clearly visible through my blazer so the guy picked my pocket thinking he was going to get my wallet.
I was actually more impressed than anything else. It was so cool and I didn't lose any money.
OTOH bilateral agreements forcing countries to come to each others aid in the event they decided they wanted a war was what started WWI.
It's a very delicate situation. If America DOES go in either we open up yet another front in our war, and this time against someone a little more sophisticated then the Taliban. It'll mean a lot of loss of life if Putin doesn't back down.
On top of that we may pull our allies, e.g. NATO, into the whole bloody mess.
Yet failing to act is not necessarily an option either. Just look how appeasement worked out in the second world war.
The key is people need to stand up for themselves. I once worked in a (soul sucking) job where everyone worked 60 hours a week. And I'd just get up and leave at 5 o'clock. "Sorry boss, my 8 hours is over." Now if something was going on and the building would burn down if I'd leave, I'd stay. But even then, when it got really late, I'd say "It's 8:00pm. I need to go home"
While I did have a few angry chats from my boss about wtf I wasn't working at 19:00, it never showed up on my performance review, and I never got sent to HR because he knew, legally, he was in the wrong.
If everyone did this bosses would HAVE to pay overtime, or employ 100% staff.
Now the problem with the american worker today is most people don't have the cajones to stand up and say "No." Unfortunately this means even though you are legally protected to get overtime and not get overworked, you are at a distinct disadvantage. If everyone followed the rules, you should be able to tell your boss "well if I'm working 60 hours a week as a salary my salary should be 1.5x base" But you can't because there's always another joe out there willing to work for less.
Bad logic. Robots and servants are not comparable.
A roomba costs $300. A cleaning lady will cost you at least $20 / time she comes.
While the cleaning lady will also clean the toilet, after a year of having her come you will have more than paid off the cost of the Roomba, and over the life of the roomba the cost per floor cleaning is probably quite small.
Very likely if such a trackless system were to come into existence a) it would be MUCH cheaper than a servant b) it would also not be as versatile than a servant, but it would be understood to the buyer what he was getting.
Additionally, if you did hire a butler he probably wouldn't be an automechanic as well. I could see in some cases a robot being MUCH more flexible than a human because you could simply pay the $100 to download the "garage" software if you wanted to use it there.
Lastly, I find it interesting that the crux of your argument is to try to find the places where a robot are not useful, and use that as proof that they're not useful anywheres. If a robot becomes commercially viable then for, a reasonable cost to the target market, it will provide some sort of help the target market wants. It'll probably have limitations (you won't have a track to your neighbors house to share the cost, either) but if it becomes viable people will still buy it because the trade offs aren't a show stopper.
I moved to Europe from America and was shocked when *GASP* people didn't work 60 hour weeks, took 25 vacation days a year (yes 5 weeks!), in many cases worked on an 80% schedule, and *SHOCKING* enjoy a beer at lunch from time to time.
Even more shocking, as far as I could tell, my colleagues in my new European office were as productive (or more so) than my American counterparts (doing the same job).
Then I went to Asia and was AMAZED at the hours people work especially when I realized the amount of work actually getting done.
The truth is, people can't work straight like robots. The more they work, the more small breaks they take during the day (my favorite time waster in america was the i'm-lonely-let's-have-a-meeting meeting). And if you are actually rested, you are much more productive.
As for the sub prime mess, nothing was wrong with sub prime lending. It goes on every day and is a valid part of the financial sector. No amount of qualifications to a banker would change that.
Actually, IAIF (I Am In Finance) and one of the changes to come out of the mess was actually to start requiring qualifications like the CFA, CRM, etc. for your important staff. One of the reasons the mess got so big is you had people in important positions (like Risk) who actually didn't really understand the derivative instruments. Regulators (and management) are now tending to push for people to actually be qualified (and not just like the MCSE, real degrees).
Remember that the thing that made the sub prime mess so huge was derivatives. Banks had the illusion of security but because these things weren't centrally cleared there was a contagion effect. Literally one bank could take down the financial sector, which is why there was a bail out.
You know even in multi story houses the floor tends to be flat. And if you really did need to bring your robot upstairs you could probably just pick it up (just like a roomba).
Really this is all a non-issue....
You know a TV from the 60s was pretty damned ugly. I also wouldn't call a dishwasher or a microwave beautiful (although a stove can be pretty damned sexy if you like to cook). But it's usefulness for most people overcomes the aesthetic implications.
If a robot with a track was useful enough, you'd install a robot track on your ceiling. And maybe as the robot evolved through the generations, designers might start getting clever about hiding it or making the track look sexy.
So what? If the kids are really young then they should have adult supervision after school is over. Or, if they're older and can actually be trusted, then you just need rules in place. Which will of course be broken (remember the scene in dead poets society where they build a crystal radio and listen to (illegal) rock and roll? a million similar avenues exist for students who want to break outside the firewall, not the least of which is buying a USB 3G stick which can be quite cheap these days).