Anyone in the presence of Google Glass expresses anger and paranoia, which are just two sets of facial expressions that people with autism have difficulty identifying
Children with autism were able to improve their social skills by using Google Glass to help them understand outrage in the presence of Google Glass, according to a pilot study by researchers at Lebal Drocer Laboratories in Silicon Valley
Google Glass accurately guesses facial expressions, and even offers clues as to what people might be thinking about you.
The therapy, described in Dr. Alpha M. Troubadour’s 18-month study published in the Lebal Drocer Medical Review, uses an Internet Chronicle-designed app that provides real-time cues about other people’s facial expressions to a child wearing Google Glass.
As the child interacts with others, the app identifies and names their emotions through the Google Glass speaker (embarrassing) or onscreen. After one to three months of regular use, parents reported their children made more eye contact and recognized indignation, anger, and outrage faster than before.
Prior to participating in the study, Thomas avoided eye contact. Now he stares motherfuckers down like he’s targeting them.
“People used to feel bad for my autistic son, who could not recognize their efforts to engage him. Now, not only can he recognize uneasiness in people’s faces, he has learned how to tell when he is unwelcome in a room. And when he looks in the mirror, even he can see what a colossal douchebag he is.”
Murderers of Aaron Swartz tried to disguise his death as a suicide.
NEW YORK — After reports of Aaron Swartz’s apparent suicide circulated around the Internet this weekend, investigators found evidence of foul play. A former architect of Reddit, the online forum scandalized earlier this year by child pornography and “creepshots,” Aaron Swartz was widely known for his contributions to anti-copyright activism after stealing millions of files from MIT.
Hackers from Anonymous released a statement on Sunday, “Heavy-handed prosecutors raped the beautiful mind of Aaron Swartz. He later ‘killed himself.’ Are the draconian copyright laws selectively applied to those who threaten the inertia of entrenched power? Certainly. Will they use their sockpuppets and judicial torture system to make YOU kill yourself too? Of course. Will they kill you if you go too far?”
Chronicle Reporters also questioned Julian Assange, sick from months of exile in the Ecuadorean embassy, about the death of Aaron Swartz. “I am not convinced that Aaron Swartz was such a coward he committed suicide due to fear of prison,” said Mr. Assange. “Read his words, and decide for yourself, but I believe Swartz was murdered by a team of copyright assassins who made it all look like a simple suicide. Watch what you say, or you may end up like Aaron Swartz.”
Swartz gave a talk in 2008, mentioning his intention to ” download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks.”
Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. The world’s entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You’ll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.
There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future. Everything up until now will have been lost.
That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them? Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to children in the Global South? It’s outrageous and unacceptable.
“I agree,” many say, “but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it’s perfectly legal — there’s nothing we can do to stop them.” But there is something we can, something that’s already being done: we can fight back.
Those with access to these resources — students, librarians, scientists — you have been given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world is locked out. But you need not — indeed, morally, you cannot — keep this privilege for yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords with colleagues, filling download requests for friends.
Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by the publishers and sharing them with your friends.
But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It’s called stealing or piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn’t immoral — it’s a moral imperative. Only those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy.
Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate require it — their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who can make copies.
There is no justice in following unjust laws. It’s time to come into the light and, in the grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public culture.
We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We need to take stuff that’s out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access.
With enough of us, around the world, we’ll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge — we’ll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?
Using sharpie and posterboard, Mitt Romney discovered a new way to shit on Obama supporters.
“Google is the largest purveyor in existence of sacrosanct images depicting Prophet Muhammad,” Romney said. “And nobody bombs them. But maybe they should.”
And it was the most well spoken thing Romney ever said.
