Will the human neck evolve?

[meridannight]

Well, she didn't sue because she fell into the fountain. She sued because the security video was released to the public and uploaded to YouTube. That usually doesn't happen.

i get that. but it is nearly impossible to identify a person from a security footage (not to mention it wasn't actual full resolution security footage either. it was just a phone capture of the screen of the security footage). nobody was gonna know it was her until she put her name to it and the details went out for the whole planet.

which means she's an idiot. it also means -- because she has other financial issues and court payments long overdue -- she probably sued in hopes of securing a settlement with the mall, in order to pay off her debts. that's what's driving this. not some concern over her privacy/image.

[Iceblink]

Nothing ever came of the lawsuit of fountain lady. She began the initial steps of it by obtaining a lawyer, but never went through with it. It would have had a lot of problems. One of the big problems of any lawsuit involving privacy is establishing an expectation of privacy. Even though the mall is private property, not public, can you really expect privacy in the mall that opens its doors to the public where thousands of people a day stroll in? Almost certainly the mall had signs at the entrance warning that they video tapped and even if they did not, could a reasonable person in today's world not have an expectation they would be on video tape when entering a place of business? Also, the mall having a policy to not release video tape to the public is an agreement between the mall and the employee, not her. They fired the employee after learning who did it. Her other claim was something outside of the issue of the video tape and was that mall employees did nothing to help her and did not ask if she was alright after falling into the fountain. This could have some relevance if she was actually injured, but she was not. Her humiliation was not caused by them and at that point there was nothing they could do to make that any better. It would have left her with the option of maybe suing the security guard which would have all the same hurdles already mentioned, but what what kind of money could you get from a mall security guard? Not the kind of money a lawyer would be looking for in a high profile case.
This is getting off topic in this thread but talking about privacy, this should be a warning about what you do and say in public. In your house or apartment, in a hotel room, in a fitting room, in a bathroom, you can expect privacy. Most places in this world you can't. When you are out in public, at a park, at a nightclub, at a mall, places where everybody and their brother has a camera, you can't expect privacy. You can expect some privacy in an email or IM or the personal details of your life you've put on some account that you need a password to see, but those Facebook comments or tweets that you have posted for the world to see, you can't expect any privacy. If it is something that worries you that it would embarrass or humiliate you if your family, friends, associates, or employer were to see, hear, or read, then don't do it or say it in public.

[Iceblink]

That mall should have sued that Augustus Gloop for a human contaminating the fountain.

[meridannight]

Technology will advance to the point where cell phones will be implanted in peoples' heads with screen overlays on their retinas.

Resistance is Futile...

i don't think so. mixing biology and technology is not as easy and simple as the science fiction films make it look like.

in order to get a ''screen overlay'' over the retina -- already nonsense. retina is composed of rods and cones that detect light intensity and color. and one cone cell is approximately 0.5 to 4.0 µm in diameter, you'd need to create pixels smaller than that. -- so, in order to get a ''screen overlay'' over the retina, you need to provide a power source and an input signal to it. which means you'll be fucking around with the actual physiology of the eye: reducing or increasing intraocular pressure, fluid drainage. not to mention metabolism might actually break down the materials used, destroying your ''screen overlay'' and affecting vision. or particles might break loose from it and, again, dark residue material will be floating around in your eye, affecting vision. this is undoable. the fact that we do have rather advanced technology, and that we'll go even further doesn't mean everything is doable.

not to mention, the vision is in the brain. the way a brain processes incoming signals from the eye. you don't wanna mess with that, for your own sake.

we already have the easiest way to see what's going on in the world -- it's called an eye. it's perfect for it.

screen overlays over the retina, cell phones in the head and what not, they will never be developed. these scenarios are only thought up by people who don't understand human physiology. some things can only not be done, but there's also no point in doing them, because there is an easier and safer way to go about it -- using your eyes, and building cell phones.

ergo, nonsense.

[LJay]

If our lives were but more simple...

East, the presently available device is a horn. My roomie has a bad habit of yelling at other drivers. they don't hear him. They would hear the horn, but he does know how to use it.

I have wished for a sort of ink jet printer setup that would spray messages on the other car.

[Bowyn Aerrow]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/blind-man-se...ionic-eye/

Blind man sees for first time with "bionic eye"



It seems like the stuff of science fiction. But for Larry Hester, this is an eye-opening change for the rest of his life. Hester, who is 66 years old, lost his sight more than 30 years ago as a result of a degenerative disease called retinitis pigmentosa. At the time when his vision began to deteriorate there were no known treatments or cures for the disease.
As a result, he's spent much of his adult life living in complete darkness -- but not anymore. On Oct. 1, Hester became the seventh person in the U.S. to receive an implantable Argus II Retinal Prosthesis Device, also known as the bionic eye. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the device in February 2013 for people with rare, degenerative eye diseases.
The device doesn't restore Hester's sight in the traditional sense, but in conjunction with specially-equipped glasses, allows him to see light, meaning he can make out contours and silhouettes of objects.

(truncated)

Anyway... the point is that already we have replacement eyes which may not be as good as a biological one yet, just remember the Wright Flyer flew less the distance of today's wingspans on commercial jets, and that was accomplished well before the end of the first century of flight.

Expect bionic parts to do like all other technologies have done, start out astonishingly simple and primative, and end up being highly advanced.

Changes are high you are looking at this on your telephone. The first cell phones were just telephones, and the size of a brick (and heavy as one) today your cellphone is tiny, able to connect to the web, take pictures, record sound and lots of other things besides just make phone calls.

[Butterfingers]

Perhaps Darwinian law will prevail and the herd will be culled.

[meridannight]

[
Anyway... the point is that already we have replacement eyes which may not be as good as a biological one yet, just remember the Wright Flyer flew less the distance of today's wingspans on commercial jets, and that was accomplished well before the end of the first century of flight.

The device doesn't restore Hester's sight in the traditional sense, but in conjunction with specially-equipped glasses, allows him to see light, meaning he can make out contours and silhouettes of objects.

far from ''may not be as good as a biological one yet''. it's completely laughable. it's worse than eyes that have extremely poor vision.

(also you're bringing a prosthetic eye as an example to a discussion about screens in the retina and cell phones in the brain. the two are completely different concepts technologically, and incomparable. so the talk about prosthetic eyes doesn't lead anywhere to further the credibility of screens inside the eye).

these replacement ''eyes'' are for people who've lost their vision. and nobody would choose them, unless they were completely blind. i get that technology can evolve, but some things are undoable. screens inside an eye are undoable. unless they find a way to evolve the eye genetically, so that a screen in the eye is the most optimal way for an eye to exist. and that is not possible. it's complete nonsense and bullshit.


this will never happen. it's pure science fiction.

[himself]

I don't look at my phone while walking - except to switch songs on the headphones. I'm only audibly clueless.

I'm the same, but sometimes, I can't decide on which song to settle on, so I could spend a long time staring at the screen, switching songs.

[Lexington]

Once I have the phone out, I can just keep hitting the "skip" button without looking - I'll decide whether or not to listen by the music, not the album artwork.

Lex