There would also need to be able to copy a signature well enough to fool a bank official; especially if they were withdrawing a lot of cash. And regarding photos, remember these are more than simple JPGs stored on the RFID chip. In order for a fake to be passable as a 'real' passport, it would also have to have the so-called 'ghost photo' on a different page; this photo is only readable under UV light.

What exactly does my passport data reveal about me? Here's what (with US passports anyway):

- My name (for common names, no big deal)
- My birthday (kinda private, but I give i
- My gender
- My birthplace
- Where I got my passport (issuing authority)
- Date validity (when I got it and when it expires)

That's it.

My name is not exactly a secret (I give it to total strangers all the time). Plus, it's a common one in the US, so (obviously) a lot of people have it.
My birthday is kind of personal, but there very little someone could do with it without having more data.
My gender is easily guessable once you know my first name.
My birthplace lists only the country, and not the city. Useless.
My issuing authority is even less specific: 'US Department of State'.
Date validity is also useless.

It's not as if my passport lists my SSN, home address, credit history, or anything else that can be used to steal my money or identity. Perhaps they have a lot more personal info in other countries' passports, but not in mine.

That makes no sense. It's like citing a NASCAR race as evidence. They move at very high speed for hundreds of miles at at time, but accidents are minimal compared to miles driven. That would seem to be a great example. But one would fail to take into account the skill level of all the drivers, the nature of the roads traveled, and the very low numbers of cars on the road. Which all come into play in Germany.

I agree that my river analogy was kind of hokey. If one had a flowchart with infinite choices ranging from 'do nothing' to 'do everything' (i.e. infinite quantum potentiality), then I suppose that would work. But the current understanding of abstract thought (neurologically speaking) is the absence of mental computation. Abstract thought engages entirely different parts of the brain than computation, either deliberate (like doing math) or subconscious (like catching a ball). Abstract thinking, by definition, has no defined structure. Whereas any kind of 'chart' must have, by definition, structure.

I think we have that already (except for the button). It's called the human eye.

I guess you and I use a different Interwebz. The number of sites I visit that "don't work right/fully without JavaScript" hover around 3-5%. And many of those are just poorly designed (i.e. failing to use the <noscript> tag effectivly). Blithely allowing any site to run any client-side script it wants (e.g. javascript, vbscript, Flash) is foolhardy and naive. Malicious scripts being delivered to thousands (if not tens of thousands) of unsuspecting users is still a regular occurrence.

And it's ironic that you mention IE since it actually has the functionality of YesScript built-in. Go to a site, see a script you don't like, click on the little 'globe' in the status bar, add it to 'restricted sites', done. Takes about 7 seconds.

I am trading the quantifiable dangers of running scripts for the tiny percentage of sites that require them to work properly.

I think the idea that human thought could be "technically...expressed in a flow chart" is not quite right. That would preclude the possibility of abstract thought (i.e. something not on the flowchart). There is some basic 'programming', so to speak, that we all have. All healthy babies react similarly to certain stimuli at birth (e.g. loud noises, falling, reflex irritability). This could be thought of as a flowchart. But once a person is able for ideas and thoughts apart from their experience or understanding, the concept of a flowchart is no longer a appropriate simile.

I prefer to think of the human mind as a flowing river. It has a measure of constancy and predictability, but can completely change its course at any time for no discernible reason. It gives the appearance of serenity, yet it is always in motion.

Computers work in a universe of facts, and do not understand the nature of truth (regardless of the definition).
The differnce between deceptions and non-literal communication is intent. To deceive requires the conscious will to do so. Robots are programmed and have no 'will'. Whereas, non-literal communication can be easily programmed (i.e. a flashing light to represent a malfunction).

Perhaps. I suppose the word 'autonomous' can mean whatever the engineers what it to mean. By their broad definition, the auto-adjusting fan in my PC would be an 'autonomous robot' (it's a machine that adjusts it behavior based on conditions, without human interaction). But I cannot find any codified definition of the word (outside the robotics industry) that points to anything other than independence, freedom, or free will. These seem to exclude any machine with fundamentally programmatic behavior.

TFA says: "We have developed algorithms that allow...". That more like 'programming' than 'teaching'.

These robots are only deceiving other robots. The 'deceived' robots are, of course, programmed to be so (i.e. accept input without a validity check).

TFA speaks of "autonomous robots". Are those terms not universally exclusive?

Also, TFA says "...researchers focused on the actions, beliefs and communications of a robot...". What the what?!

According to the US Law definition, what I do is not theft and is not fraud. All I do it lie to marketing companies and get (completely unsolicited) giveaways from them; sometimes expensive ones. The ToD laws always specifically indicate something like this: "The term 'deception' does not include falsity...or statements unlikely to deceive ordinary persons in the group addressed". Those are the kind of statements I make. I never portray the info as if it were legit; only an automated and brainless process would see my info as anything but a joke.

For example, once I filled in a marketing form and put my name as "Dr. Octopus", my occupation as "Super Villain", my income as 'over $100K yearly', and my mailing address as "Snake Mountain (followed by my actual street address)". I used one of my 'spam-only' Hotmail accounts as the email address. In a few weeks I started getting a bunch of stuff addressed to 'Dr. Octopus' in the mail. I got free movie tickets from some company selling malpractice insurance. I got a $50 AMEX gift card encouraging me to sign up for a AMEX card. And, I started getting email with real coupons codes for discounts at several different retail sites.

All this and, apparently, not a single human ever even read what I had put down on the form (except for some data-entry person, who probably didn't care).

The blacklist model requires a fully front-loaded configuration to be of any use. What's more, if one wanted to prevent a site from running scripts without permission (like Google is), they would have to somehow know about it beforehand and add it to their blacklist. The YesScript plugin is cute and all, but I want something that prevents annoyances before I have to experience them. Not to mention the security issues. But at least YesScript makes no secret of that:

Unlike NoScript, YesScript does absolutely nothing to improve your security. I believe that Firefox is secure enough by default and that blocking all scripts by default is paranoia. YesScript strives to remove hassles from your browsing experience, rather than add them.

The mentality of reasonable security being seen as 'paranoia' and requiring minimal effort by the user as creating 'hassles' has been behind some of the worst information security breaches in history.

If you can't fight it, exploit it. I have actually gotten some pretty cool (free) stuff by misrepresenting myself to various sites online (up to the legal limit, of course).Everything from free Amazon gift cards, to free electronics. I even got a free mobile phone (with service paid for 6 months) once because I claimed I had a business with over 100 employees and that I made over $100K yearly (that was back in 1998 when phones were pricier and I only made about 1/3 of that). Free magazine subscriptions, free enterprise web hosting, free lawnmowers, it's all there for the taking for those willing to game the game.

I have not yet received my opinion assignment document from those we don't speak of, so I am not really sure what I am supposed to think about this. On one tentacle, anything helping to make photovoltaic material affordable is very good. But the other tentacle, harvesting (and likely destroying) scores of jellyfish to do so seems, well, creepy. I think I will need to wait until cable news tells me what to think.

That type of thing is exactly what the Firefox+NoScript combo is for. There is nothing (at least nothing I find useful) on Google that really requires scripts of any kind; especially this 'Instant' thing.