Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Hires Creator of Virtual Reality Cyber Paint App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think you'd be more likely to be allowed to use AR as a passenger in a driverless car, than as a driver in a car you were in control of. Where I live, you can't interact in any way shape or form with electronic devices, can't even glance at a smartwatch, unless your vehicle is parked with the handbrake on. As new technologies have appeared, they've inspired a tightening of rules for driver distraction, not a relaxation, or accomodation.
You can drive them, but you can't use autopilot, or operate any of the touchscreen controls as the driver.
I'd be interested to know from a Tesla owner, just how realistic it would be to drive around in the car, in all weathers etc, without any use of the single touch screen control method for everything.
there's a few of them here. I suspect police just don't prioritise it. You're not supposed to operate an analog switch based audio system while driving here, either. You get caught looking at an Apple watch, or using the iPhone's GPS, or audio controls (unless it's mounted in an off-the-shelf holder) while stopped at the lights however, they'll hit you for a significant fine, and a quarter of your licence's demerit points.
You said it like graffiti people are some sort of vandals. But I do not blame you)) It just made me think that VR and AR can introduce new form of art! It would a whole new artistic era! Just imagine how cool it would be to see ordinary objects in real life and discover them in augmented reality! Something like this https://jasoren.com/construction/
Most are. What to you call spray painting something that belongs to someone else? Some may be artistic, but I’m sure you’d feel differently if your whole car or house got tagged.
I'd suggest the counter argument is that if one builds something that has a visual impact on the common public space, that it's pretty self-centered to think that one can impose in that way, and yet demand the public not be able to impose back.
Arbitrary property rights aren't the sole purpose of a society.
A house or car getting tagged is a symptom.
But your argument makes it sound like it's OK for me to tag you or your clothing while you are in public imposing yourself on me...
People and objects aren't the same, and there's no reasonable grounds to ascribe the same rights to to property, as are afforded to people.
Unless of course they're a street performer being The Human Statue, in which case, graffiti, stencil & pasteup away
But clothing is an object.People and objects aren't the same, and there's no reasonable grounds to ascribe the same rights to to property, as are afforded to people.
Unless of course they're a street performer being The Human Statue, in which case, graffiti, stencil & pasteup away
Where is the line between tagging my shirt while I'm in it and tagging my house while I'm in it?
A building's appearance imposes on the commons, in a constant, and non-moving manner, that's why councils have planning rules that cover appearance of architecture, with phrases like "in keeping with the local vernacular".
They don't have rules to cover people's fashion choices, while walking in the same commons. Clothing on you, is not the same as a building in which you reside.
In the US, we definitely have city, county, and state ordinance that regulate clothing - what, how, and where you wear it.
short of obscenity rules on the display of erogenous zones in public places, or safety clothing in the workplace, that's just bizarre. does someone issue you a ticket for wearing white shoes after labour day?
It is alleged that in some parts of the country certain styles or manner of dress are regulated in an effort to target minorities.
So in your world it’s justified to mar anything whose appearance displeases you. Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating.
what I was articulating, is an argument forwarded by art theorists when considering the question of grafitti, that something merely being within one's own property boundary, doesn't mean one can impose whatever one likes onto the common visual environment, and then cry to momma when the commons imposes back.
Now when a wall is literally flush against a boundary, and one does not have to cross enclosed private property to reach it, the notion that a property owner has any right whatsoever to dictate to the common community how that wall should look, becomes even more laughable. That goes both ways - it's very common for homeowners who commission large graffiti murals, to find themselves being forced to remove them by councils.
because only a child believes the world is so simplistic, that property rights are, or should be, absolute from the boundaries on title deeds.