The reason they have to include the type of tech in the law is because that tech made it possible for unskilled bad actors to get on it
Yeah, and that's the part I don't like. If you can't define why it's bad without taking into account the skill level of the criminal then I'm not convinced it's bad.
As you point out defamation is already illegal and deliberately spreading false information about someone with the intent to harm their reputation is obviously wrong and way easier to define.
And is that not why you consider a painting less 'bad'? Because it couldn't be misconstrued as evidence? Note that the act explicitly says a digital forgery should be considered a forgery even when it's made abundantly clear that it's not authentic.
The worrying aspect of these laws are always that they focus too much on the method. This law claims to be about preventing a particular new technology, but then goes on to apply to all software.
And frankly if you need a clause about how someone is making fake pornography of someone then something is off. Something shouldn't be illegal simply because it is easy.
Deepfakes shouldn't be any more or less illegal than photos made of a doppelgänger or an extremely photorealistic painting (and does photorealism even matter? To the victims, I mean.). A good law should explain why those actions are illegal and when and not just restrict itself to applying solely to 'technology' and say oh if it only restricts technology then we should be all right.
I'm not too sure being non-religious from the start would lead to better education. Seems to me that religion was quite a big driver behind early education. You'll also have some trouble separating history religion and science at that point, people told each other stories about things that happened or how they thought things worked. Some of those stories are rather more fantastical than they needed to be, but how would you tell if there's nothing to kickstart intellectual discourse in the first place?
And the whole religion stops crime through fear idea seems overly simplistic. It's the same reasoning that bigger sentences would lower crime, and so far that hasn't worked terribly well.
Possibly, but as long as they are not completely server-side (which they can't be, they want to target people) then they are fighting on hostile ground.
Of course there are attempts to lock down PCs so that ad companies can tell it what to do (probably with some DRM argument), but we're not there yet.
You can stick your tongue in it. Wouldn't recommend actually trying to get anything in your mouth.
You're protected by the thin layer of nitrogen that immediately sublimates, this lasts until the nitrogen heats up so the liquid can touch you directly, which you want to avoid.
For mostly the same reason you can stick a finger into molten lead (without losing said finger), provided you do it fast enough and your finger is wet enough.
Also a reminder that accepting an alternative tracking method is likely to just end up with 2 different ways to track you rather than one slightly less invasive one.
Wouldn't surprise me if that's what sealed the deal for him.
I mean the deadlines are closing and having to fight to even stay in the race while president of the U.S. and recovering from an illness is not something anyone looks forward to.
Frankly I hope he can catch a break for a bit, and enjoy a pension after all this is over.
Don't suppose we could get everyone to switch to using Watt-hours? We could start listing exercise intensity in watts and you could easily calculate how much calories are burned during exercise.
I mean Fibonacci did more or less the same thing to his work a few centuries later, so fair play I guess.