Out of curiosity if I wanted to place microphones in random public places and record could I? Isn't it legal to take someones photo in public? So could I also place a camera where I'd like and record people?
While it's legal to take someone's photo in public, because they don't have an expectation of privacy, it's generally not legal to record audio without their knowledge.
It depends on states, but almost every state falls into the classification of one-party or all-party. In one-party states, at least one person being recorded must be aware of the recording. In all-party states, all parties being recorded must be informed.
These laws were originally written for telephone tapping, but my understanding is that they have been used in cases of bugging as well, even when no phone was involved.
almost every state falls into the classification of one-party or all-party.
Doesn't that apply to wiretap laws (e.g. phone recordings, like the Monica Lewinsky case) rather than open-air conversation? For example, I could see how a hack activating their phone microphones and listening that way would be illegal, but open-air conversation?
Yes, that applies to wiretap laws. Everyone (varies with state as mentioned) has to be informed and accept that they are being recorded for the call to be admissible as evidence in a court of law. Without that permission, it will be discarded.
I should add; if this were not the case, then manufactures of modern gadgets would be much less likely to have active monitoring of your microphone, for fear of how that action could be interpreted in court. Siri, what are your thoughts on this?
Could you, or anyone, cite the USC on this one - that video images only are allowed in public spaces and/or that audio recording is specifically not allowed?
Just curious what the workarounds are really. If the wiretap style "one party" rules were applied then it seems you could just make sure that you get your own audio on there too; or with audiovisual recording you could sit in the shot somewhere and record people so long as you also captured your own voice. It would seem intent primarily to record others (as opposed to it being incidental to the recording you made) would be close to impossible to prove under such circumstances.
The FBI's apparent courthouse or near-courthouse tapping took place in California. If you placed microphones in random public places in CA, the question would be whether there's an expectation of privacy in a conversation that took place in or near those places.
If someone does have an expectation of privacy in public (which does not necessarily seem clear to me), you would be engaging in unlawful surveillance. Whispered conversations in public may be protected. The language used by CA law is: "circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded." See: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&gr...
In CA, video recording laws are more liberal. That's why you see surveillance cameras all over the place in cities (and increasingly in residential suburban or rural neighborhoods as well).
The current plan  is for several teams to pool their money and launch together on a SpaceX rocket. Once they arrive together on the lunar surface, then they'll race to see who wins the prize. SpaceX will be paid their normal launch fee.
We don't know. The actual freezing can potentially go extremely well even with current technology, but the problem is the unfreezing process. So far there's no good way to unfreeze someone and get all their cells going again.
This is why the cryonics legal trusts are all designed to be financially self-sufficient in perpetuity: it's a long shot, but if you can get somebody frozen, you can potentially keep them as a meatsicle for Long Enough for somebody to invent medical nanites or machine-brain upload interfaces or whatever.
No, the procedure has never been demonstrated to work. There is no empirical evidence. These companies can not give a single instance of them resuscitating a human after undergoing these procedures. Not one. You are paying to have yourself frozen and stored, and that's it. The entire process is based on a combination of cynical opportunists, PR agents and deluded religious faithful who believe in "the procedure" without a shred of scientific proof, and gullible desperate rubes ignorant of empirical science.
If your bar for evidence is that a human revival process has been shown to work, I don't think you'll see that for quite some time. But to say there's no evidence it can work is pretty out there... 10 years ago they vitrified a rabbit kidney, then warmed it up, and successfully transplanted it.
A kidney's a lot less complicated than the brain, and that was 10 years ago. The research has been pretty underfunded. If you'd actually like the field to progress and uncover evidence for or against the prospect of those who have been suspended up until now ever even having the slimmest chance of revival greater than that of cremation, maybe you should encourage legislation that lets them test on volunteering criminals heading for lethal injection or other end-of-life volunteers who don't want to be preserved but are happy to contribute to Science or large animals. Don't get squeamish over experiments like this: http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/bringingdixieback.html
Fair enough. I will offer $10 million for a demonstration that this technology works and has a scientific basis, with the proof being the successful resuscitation and revivification into a whole functioning human from any human brain that is in cryogenic storage at this company. I'll even give you a generous whole year to demonstrate it, since you have stated the only problem is insufficient support and funding, well here it is, your big chance. And of course should the year pass and there is still no evidence, just like each of the last 40 years this has been claimed to be a viable technology without a shred of evidence, then you will pay $10 million, to be used for anti-cult deprogramming efforts. Looking forward to acceptance of this offer, followed by either your verifiable evidence or your payment.
Why? They actually said some time ago that they simply didn't have a full story for it and didn't want to push towards anything unless it was what they wanted. I'm not sure they would really care about pushing HL 3 with anything specifically.
They've also said they've been waiting for technology that is palpable to what they did with the havok engine and source graphics in hl2 days. This seems to line up pretty perfectly, and I highly doubt they will just abandon the series at this point.
> I highly doubt they will just abandon the series at this point.
Yeah I don't think they would abandon the series but the way valve works it seems to me they never really cared about pairing it up unless it's something they have to do (like source). Meaning it wouldn't be any type of forced pairing.
I think the military are already using coilguns but for mortars. With small munitions a very small fraction of the nergy deliverable by the batteries/capacitors is imprinted on the actual projectile -- a lot gets lost on the coils -- and there's not enough time to use a significant amount of energy. With mortars you can use bigger projectiles which have better magnetic properties and a lot more mass (more time to gain kinetic energy).