You haven't been reading the posts carefully then. There IS a law explicitly forbidding "entertainment" and non-informational displays (information for driving, not other crap) being displayed in front of the rear of the driver's seat. The law also explicitly lists exceptions, to include GPS and video (such as rear view cameras) that enhance the driver's ability to operate safely. Google glass may fall into that category but it very clearly also falls outside of that category.
I can't read the linked article but I'm going to assume that the driver in question wasn't stopped because she was wearing stupid looking glasses. She was probably stopped because she was driving badly and then the police realized (or she told them) she was wearing google glass and cited her appropriately. Really, nothing to see here. Unless she can somehow prove that she was using the glass display as a legitimate HUD for operating the vehicle, she was breaking the intent (if not the letter-which is arguable as well) of the law. Plain and simple.
And that, my friends, is complete and utter bullshit legal-speak. Sure, it follows the letter of the law, but not the spirit of it. Way to go...
That kind of attitude is why our legal system wastes millions of dollars every year.
Exactly. People who use video to talk regularly (like me) simply don't care. Like I said, a gimmick.
See my reply to the previous comment. If fishing just for food and nothing more, it would be very very difficult for anything but a massive population to overfish... a population that wouldn't be able to survive on the amount of water available, for example. Could you over fish a small pond? Sure. Maybe even a small lake if you had thousands of people fishing it every day, but there is no evidence anywhere I'm aware that any population of people has ever devastated a fish population just by fishing for their own food. I'll be happy to accept actual research that proves me wrong...
Please show me any documentation that a population of people hunting/fishing for their own food and nothing more has destroyed an animal population. Theoretically it is possible for species that have a long gestation period and low offspring count but evidence that it happens just isn't available. In instances I know of there were several other factors involved, such as disease or introduction of other species (not just humans) that drove animals away or to extinction.
It is a device whose sole purpose is entertainment. It was not a training tool for his job, it was not a mode of transportation, it was not something he did for a living. It was entertainment. AKA, a toy!
All of the guns I own are toys because I don't use them to hunt for food or for protection. Does that make them less dangerous or less expensive? My snowboards cost me over $1500 (combined) but they're still toys. My bicycles, arguably a form of transportation, are used as toys.
The price of the toy is irrelevant, it's still a toy.
Holy crap! If I had mod points... you owe me a new monitor and keyboard.
I call bullshit on this AC post. If you're flying UAVs for a living and don't understand the concept of total system expense, you're speaking outside of your pay grade. You've either just started flying UAVs or you are deliberately ignoring a lot of factors that must be considered when discussing cost. Safety to the pilots and ground crew is an obvious factor that you're either overlooking or don't understand. If it's the second, you shouldn't be flying UAVs (which I suspect you're not).
I'll give you the complexity argument but that's the only part of it that you've gotten right. Human cost, be it training, re-training (a new pilot after one dies) ground support and many other issues make manned assets significantly more expensive to operate in a war zone or hostile environments (think storm chasing or fire fighting) than UAVs.
People fishing for their OWN food would never make this happen. Overfishing/over hunting is due to sport and due to commercial enterprise. If you only kill what you eat there's no possible way for you to decimate a population as you suggest.
So not everybody but the majority of humans within the bell curve are social creatures. What isn't clear is whether or not "needing friends" means actually needing to be in the same meat-space as they are. Lots of people have "friends" they've never met but whom they communicate with over the internet every day. I don't think this is likely to become a "problem" such that it replaces "normal" human interaction.
Altering the image doesn't provide eye contact. Eye contact is a palpable connection between two people, not just me staring into the eyes of an image. Unless it communicates the "connection" (for lack of a better word) created when you actually look someone in the eye, it's just a gimmick.
I think you miss the part where it's unethical to have Slaves, no matter what race/species they are. Or maybe you didn't and you just think it doesn't matter.
Parents do this with medical care of their children every day, all over the world. If a person "creates" a body-less brain, why wouldn't they have the same rights/responsibilities to treat it as a parent does a child? I make life and death decisions for my children in all medical circumstances. If I chose to have my (hypothetically) ill child to undergo experimental treatment, the child has no choice until they turn 18 years old (in most places). Now, obviously I can't just say "kill the child" after a certain point but I can effectively do the same thing by denying treatment or seeking treatment not proscribed or ineffective treatment.
How and why would a petri-dish brain be any different?
GP said "aspects", not all consciousness. We aren't born fully aware of everything. It takes a couple years before babies recognize mirror images and pictures as something different than the actual thing they represent. If a baby hears itself in a baby monitor, for example, it will stop and try to find the other child that clearly isn't there. That's consciousness, of a kind. Self awareness also isn't evident from birth in all children, though I suspect they do all have it.