Coincidentally, this is exactly how I reacted to the end of Blade Runner 2049, according to a Howard Johnson's Children's Menu.
"Do you like our eye?" "It's artificial?"
"Of course it is." "Expensive?" "Kinda."
So I saw a video of a Gakken WorldEye running it's bundled animations of planets rotating, and I thought, this might make a fun xscreensaver output device: it's probably just a matter of tweaking the gluPerspective parameters to de-fish-eye things in the right way. There aren't too many savers that would benefit from a 180° display -- actually maybe only glplanet, discoball, geodesicgears and sonar -- but it's worth investigating.
Then I saw a video of one with a giant eyeball on it, and I thought, "How did I not think of that! It's cool that someone put a pre-recorded MP4 of an eye on that thing, I should do something like that but really overengineer the living shit out of it."
But oh no, this was not necessary. @PaintYourDragon has done some fine work here. It is over-engineered well beyond what I had imagined. Customizable iris and sclera. Editable eyelid profile. Different eyelids for left, right and cyclops eyes. Pupil dilation controlled by a photoreceptor. Button inputs for blinking and winking. It's fantastic.
(I am actually slightly surprised that cat and goat-shaped pupils are not already supported. One must assume that that's coming in the next release.)
Anyway, the first WorldEye I ordered arrived non-functional. The firmware appears to be alive, but the little internal projector won't light up. I tore it apart and it lit up for a minute, but then stopped again, so there's probably some microscopic cracked trace somewhere. The second one worked fine, though.
There seems to be no way to make it default to HDMI input, so if it ever loses power it won't start looking at you without being fiddled with. But, it does provide enough juice on USB to run the Pi, so that's handy.
|@mjg59||If a smart weapon running Linux fails to explode is the target entitled to the GPLed source code?|| |
"What is your one purpose in life?"
|@Bootleg ||Yes, but if it's LGPL they can make the bomb itself proprietary. Ethical warmongers release weapons as CC0|
|@tveastman||A missile is technically a deployment, and not just a distribution, so I guess the rules will be interesting for the AGPL too.|
|@dmarti||The weapon must include a written offer to distribute the corresponding source. It doesn't matter if a recipient actually runs the software.|
|But what if the target is under trade embargo, and the sender can't actually fulfill the offer of source code? Do they still have a license?|
|@giladby||I worked as a consultant on the Iron Done missile defence system It shoots Linux running missiles designed to intercept incoming missiles.|
|We debated many questions. If you target another missile, who you are distributing TO? Would incl. src code on missile enough to satisfy GPL|
|@geofft||if they target civilians is it a "User Product" under GPLv3? "(2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling"|
|@fanf||I am reminded of the guidance computer that leaked memory about as fast as the rocket used fuel|
|@mk270||and those jokes about loops in Ada having "detonation" as a termination condition. Sends the Haskellers mental|
|@fanf||C++ calls this kind of loop undefined behaviour|
|@vathpela||Depends - would it be legal trade in the first place? (Pretty sure if the target is a State Sponsor of Terror, you can't have a contract...)|
|@the_ ||yes, but reasonable costs for the media may be be levied. So include the source on the warhead, then charge for the bomb.|
|@danhedron||Yes, but there is no guarantee they can install their own unsigned version.|
|@elgarak||Does this count as malware?|
|@schumaml||Generalized, it becomes "If any device is used on you, do you become a user of the device?"|
|@uriy||Yes, but to avoid breaking crypto/munitions export laws you should only use it against a friendly target.|
"Regular people, not just impersonal, commercially motivated merchants or advertising networks, can exploit the online advertising ecosystem to extract private information about other people, such as people that they know or that live nearby," reads the study, titled "Using Ad Targeting for Surveillance on a Budget."
The University of Washington researchers didn't exploit a bug or loophole in mobile advertising networks so much as reimagine the motivation and resources of an ad buyer to show how those networks' intentional tracking features allow relatively cheap, highly targeted spying. [...]
"If you want to make the point that advertising networks should be more concerned with privacy, the bogeyman you usually pull out is that big corporations know so much about you. But people don't really care about that," says University of Washington researcher Paul Vines. "But the potential person using this information isn't some large corporation motivated by profits and constrained by potential lawsuits. It can be a person with relatively small amounts of money and very different motives."
Don't miss the descriptions! But let me particularly draw your attention to:
Previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously, previously.