Woops, I meant warn, I MEANT WARN!

Yes, this seems to be a difficulty they may face, and something I would like to see addressed. While I have seen things I would rather have not (and not necessarily related to this topic), I'm not entirely sure I would deem it illegal. Maybe I'm just biased by finding it as something that just comes with the Internet as part of the package. That and as long as it's not shoved in my face I don't really mind it existing*

*of course, child porn/abuse is illegal, so my personal view on it is kind of irrelevant and thus not part of that statement.

The summary is a bit incomplete. I suppose that if the algorithm finds something, it will warm law enforcement.

FTFA: "This will enable companies, law enforcement and charities to better collaborate on detecting and removing these images, and to take action against the criminals." "We can do a lot to ensure it’s not available online—and that when people try to share this disgusting content they are caught and prosecuted. "

I would like to believe it is possible to create a online voting system as safe as the physical one. I'm not saying hack-proof, because humans are in the equation and we know how they are prone to always screw things up... But as safe as the physical it should be possible. I would add, then, to you question: is it possible to make such safe system easy/simple to use in a sensible time-span?

I do, however, agree on your feeling that perhaps even if we could, it would be better if we did not. Just as I don't think allowing anybody to control the power grid online (accessing some read-only information may be okay).

Ultimately, though, online voting could bring more voting because: a) it's "easier" (no need to move to designated voting place); b) faster to count (since, you know, it's already being dealt with in a computer, so it should be trivial to just decision#++;). You could have even more people voting on even more decisions, which should translate into better decisions/decisions that represent what the community wants. Sure, it could be done with non-online methods, but it would not be as practical.

Can anybody explain to me what do they mean with "pre-compute" or not updating every frame? And how they would achieve that? Or rather, a case where they could use it?

The fog example is kind of okay, because you *don't* need to update the fog every frame (frame of what? Logic Frame? Render Frame? Network Frame?). But the pre-computing a scene makes no sense at all because by then you might aswell just pre-compute once and slap it on every media. Unless I'm missing something and that's not what they meant at all for pre-compute?

TL;DR: can anybody explain it to me as if I was 5 years old?

I would like to argue that people being rational can murder. You could argue that if somebody with the capability to kill knew that somebody had plans to/was causing harm (though not illegal) and also knew that the effort needed to stop them was rather significant and/or require too much time, committing murder would be a rational choice to stop harm. But this is going to extremes isn't it?

Otherwise, you do make a pretty good point. Gun control isn't about stopping those with enough commitment/desire to do evil, it's about stopping the impulsive. The other question we can ask is how far do we want to go towards stopping them vs inconveniencing law-abiding citizens vs what else can we do to solve the issue. It could be argued that what seems to be little effort has been made towards solving the issue with impulsive people without inconveniencing impulsive people through mental healthcare services, while there seems to be a rather big backing towards inconveniencing law-abiding citizens for the sake of what seems to be a few impulsive people. Not to mention that improving mental healthcare would also help on a wide range of issues such as depression, anxiety, stress, various disorders.

Sadly, I do not possess facts about how much is the budget for mental health care, and the whole issue of stopping impulsive people vs inconveniencing law-abiding citizens is entirely subjective and completely pointless to argue (although most can be reasonable and accept background and medical checks to avoid certain cases of violence with guns).

Just curious, but when did Google said they would be uploading the photos to their servers. Or rather, when did they say it was going to be that way because YES? Surely you'd be able to store it in local memory and at the end of the day check them/delete them/upload them to where you want, no? Just like any other camera?

Not to say there won't be those that will take and upload, but I'm asking about the possibility of using it, you know, as a non-connected camera?

That, and how different is it from somebody pulling their camera, taking the photo, and uploading it without asking you? That you saw them? That you know they did?

As far as I know, the problem with it is the lack of metal. Thus, introducing metal into the weapon so that it becomes detectable should make the weapon legal. IANAL.

Manufacturing your own guns is not illegal in the US, as long as you don't sell it nor produce certain forbidden pieces/materials.

To be honest, we already are at surveillance society. It just is in the form of twitter/facebook updates. In the form of a blog update talking about this or that. Apparently people have the sensibility of not disclosing identities, and while it is easier to just post a picture or a recording... I'm sure that (if you have hope in humanity) people will frown upon doing that. Just like we frown upon bringing a camera inside the bathroom (unless you want to take a photo there, and everyone present agrees) outside of an opaque case.

That is not to dismiss your concerns. I wouldn't want to live in a society where I'd have to hide -- regardless of cameras. I'd like to live in a society where even if there is somebody walking around with a Google glass and I'm recorded coming out of X, and even if he did upload it somewhere, nobody would care I did. That not everyone follows the same moral code and that what they think is questionable may not be for others and it's up to the individual to decide their actions and up to others to judge him.

Who knows. Maybe it would have. I honestly don't know where the newsworthiness comes in this case: the fact that it's a Boston TV API programming contest, or that a girl won. I'd bet the former, but in today's context the latter may have helped a bit.

Ah! So then it's all about whether or not the buyer can live with the knowledge that they helped a cause they disagree with, and completely unrelated to what they're paying for. As long as they are making a conscious decision.

Thanks for answering!

So in theory they could write: We're going to sell it/share it with [company], and be on the clear? Or am I thinking too little and the other company would also have to state what they do with such personal information?

Wait. Enlighten me. You mean I can't write the next: I'll store all personal information you send me. I may sell it, analyze it, share it, simply store it, change it, format-shift it, clean my *** with it, laugh at it, preserve it as my most dear possession, etc? You mean I can't do that?

Because it seems to me that is quite clear on the intent of the company: I may use it for anything. Or you mean companies would have to add to their TOS that they may use it for: [insert long list of things], and update it every single time they come up with a new idea? And IIRC if costumers don't like the new TOS then the company would be forced to delete anything they have on the costumer?

If I'm right... I think that's very bad for the companies. And not a real win for costumers, since most don't bother to read TOS unless there is a headline...

So those who want to own the books are torn between supporting his cause (and not his work, because the money goes to him and he does whatever he wants with it which does not necessarily include supporting his art) or not owning them? At least this is what I gather from your point of view... (Gifts do not count since those had to be bought by somebody, and thus would amount to buying them. Printing them on your own doesn't either, because it's a) not the book; b) considered ethically questionable/illegal).

Did I understand your position correctly?

I am, for one, planning on buying the books (I bought Ender's Game while knowing he was the way he was) because I want to read them and own them. The author can hold his views that I'll hold mine. His works? I've liked what I've experienced so far.