Fanatic is OK from an external perspective, but I think to be maximally successful the word really needs to be something that can be uttered as an accusation within the group. Something along the lines of hyperopia, perhaps.
I guess that would work within the realm of the free culture movement, but I was thinking even more generally. Any cause you can name—environmentalism, multiculturalism, gender equality, whatever—has overeager radicals who don't want (or know how) to balance their vision with public acceptance. They may not even be wrong about what they're talking about (I think a lot more people would agree with RMS in theory than in practice, for example), and yet they can do a horrendous amount of damage to their own public image. It's daunting to imagine how far back society's been set by the misanthropy of overenthusiasm.
Which is why the Students for Free Culture wants to make it more daunting for artists to migrate to free licences by making it an 'all or nothing' deal. Brilliant way to shoot everyone in the foot, guys.
Activist movements need some shorthand for shaming idealists who rush the group's goals without consideration for gradual pragmatic change—like a dunce cap, only larger, and with flashing lights.
I think the effect this case will have on the broadness of design patents is more important than the actual money. (Also, I thought Nokia's market was primarily the not-quite-smart market?)
Woah, woah, woah. Hold up. I patented asking for compensation jocularly for the idea of humorously asking for compensation of trivial or joke patents in a Slashdot thread. You're way in the wrong here. (Seriously, that joke's been used so much the opportunity was just dying to be exploited. Already made a killing.)
Hi! We're conducting a survey today regarding paranoia and alienation! Would you like to take part? The information you provide may be used by various government agencies to shape policies regarding privacy and security.
Keyword: 'should'. I acknowledge that they have been driven by market economics, and that a country with a strong economy is necessary to support the infrastructure involved, but we were talking about hypotheticals.
You do realise this is already the case for critical medical equipment, right?
Listen: capitalism is an impediment to successful treatment in medicine. Market economics should not determine whether a patient gets sub-standard treatment. Power structures should not exist in medical techniques; either the tool works and is appropriate, or it doesn't. The entire idea of privatized healthcare is abominable. Yes, it's possible for patients to be adversely affected in large numbers by the delays imposed by the regulatory process, but (a) as I've said elsewhere here already, there are no smartphone applications yet that do not have a specialized-device counterpart which we can fall back on, so there's no risk to human health, (b) as long as we are operating in a free market economy, companies will have an incentive to cut corners, which the government has an obligation to prevent, and (c) no choice will ever correctly accommodate all possible situations, so arguing about 'the net outcomes of every situation' applies just as well to no regulation at all. Given these factors, I strongly believe that some level of mandatory external review is better than none.
And, for what it's worth, I believe that anyone who is found to be guilty of tampering with the regulatory process should be responsible for the impact on patient welfare that results.
I'm pretty confident you're going to be disappointed with English regardless of whether or not "apoptochip" (which is at least a completely new concept and hence a rather sparing allocation of a new word) enters general usage.
Okay, bad example—the only exposure to the FDA certification process I got in undergrad pertained to computer-guided surgery, so I assumed that such regulation was more widespread than it is. For what it's worth, the article shines light on another option: peer review.
I'm not saying it isn't bad, but it's (a) much less frequent for an individual physician to have to do that, and (b) generally done with knowledge that there will be a positive outcome (or intentions thereof), so it's subsidized by hope for a recovery.
Education
Fuel wouldn't be a problem, though, if North Korea didn't squander all of its money on its military. It doesn't need one; no one's threatening them. The US, China, and South Korea all loathe the thought of having to take care of all of the North Korean citizens.
Food
The people mourning are always from the few rich areas like Pyongyang. Out in the country, it's a completely different story. There are images of emaciated children in this video around 6:30. At 20:20 you can also see rice donated by relief agencies being sold for profit.
Indoctrination
In Canada, Alberta and Quebec aren't directly opposed to each other, but they do have very different value systems and priorities. Alberta is a wealthy rural province with most of its economy built privately through oil money, and Quebec is perhaps less wealthy, but has a long and intimate history of government support. It's a little like putting Texas and France in the same country—the cultural differences are much, much deeper than just language. This 2007 survey suggests that about 16% of Americans were atheist. At least an additional 18% (mainline Protestant) and 4.7% (non-Christians) can probably be assumed to be level-headed thinkers, even if they're heavily exposed to religion. The real problem is the 26.3% evangelical Christians, who are the group that reject evolution and believe their nation is chosen by God.
Pluralism
Mass media in the US is divided according to political party. Republicans watch Fox, Democrats watch CNN and NBC. The political divide in the US is so extreme (almost every election is about 50/50) that swinging a vote can only happen at a municipal scale.
Colonialism and the Free World
No, it wasn't how I was using it, but that's apparently what it means! For better or worse, the US invented the idea of the free world and owns it.
Depending on who you ask, the freest country is probably either Hong Kong or Denmark.
Okay, simple test. Which is more horrifying: this or this? (Note: both are obviously extremely NSFW.) We're not talking about people getting kicked in the ribs once, but generally the whole injury, and generally repeatedly for eight hours a night, through many different crimes, for 9-11 months. Most people recoil involuntarily every time the guy in the video gets hit, and that's just one video (and a fake one, at that!) A surgeon doesn't have to deal with any of the stress or trauma of actually witnessing what happens.
Well... they're only seeing the aftermath—the videos are generally the actual injuries and abuses. You don't experience the dreadful anticipation leading up to the act itself, even in surgery. Dehumanizing patients' bodies and only thinking about the flesh involved as (for example) some machine that needs servicing is an important part of how surgeons cope with their work (and it makes, e.g., hands or heads harder to stomach.)
a) People who die while things are being certified are a tragic statistic, but nothing more. The process rules all and may never be questioned! (My buddy Stalin said so, so it must be true.)
b) More seriously, in the case of smartphone apps, we're talking about improved convenience. Other than the camera-based technique for measuring heart rate, I don't know of any medical technologies that depend on a smartphone in a way that isn't already available in a specialized device (and measuring heart rate hardly requires that technique.) No one's lives are at stake (yet.)
Yes, that example already very clearly fell under such a law (since it already got shot down!). I pulled it out because it was high-visibility and has already happened. Consider this program. It measures your heart rate through minute differences in brightness. What if you, as a home user and not a medical service provider, have a heart attack because there was a bug in the code? Most of the FDA's work regarding complex devices involves code verification to ensure this doesn't happen. Some kind of certification is necessary to ensure quality and accuracy.
But we're talking about safety here—in addition to scammers, regulation of medical devices also involves things like verifying code. What happens when a bug in your unregulated-software-that-isn't-a-scam kills someone, just because you didn't want regulation?
Slashdot Mirror
To destroy civilization by protecting it.
Fanatic is OK from an external perspective, but I think to be maximally successful the word really needs to be something that can be uttered as an accusation within the group. Something along the lines of hyperopia, perhaps.
I guess that would work within the realm of the free culture movement, but I was thinking even more generally. Any cause you can name—environmentalism, multiculturalism, gender equality, whatever—has overeager radicals who don't want (or know how) to balance their vision with public acceptance. They may not even be wrong about what they're talking about (I think a lot more people would agree with RMS in theory than in practice, for example), and yet they can do a horrendous amount of damage to their own public image. It's daunting to imagine how far back society's been set by the misanthropy of overenthusiasm.
Which is why the Students for Free Culture wants to make it more daunting for artists to migrate to free licences by making it an 'all or nothing' deal. Brilliant way to shoot everyone in the foot, guys.
Activist movements need some shorthand for shaming idealists who rush the group's goals without consideration for gradual pragmatic change—like a dunce cap, only larger, and with flashing lights.
Yyyyyyeah... the moment I finished the summary, I wondered, "wait, don't we already have Agile development?"
Yes, it's called "Reason," and it was written by Gordon Way. We've read that one.
I think the effect this case will have on the broadness of design patents is more important than the actual money. (Also, I thought Nokia's market was primarily the not-quite-smart market?)
Woah, woah, woah. Hold up. I patented asking for compensation jocularly for the idea of humorously asking for compensation of trivial or joke patents in a Slashdot thread. You're way in the wrong here. (Seriously, that joke's been used so much the opportunity was just dying to be exploited. Already made a killing.)
That is really not that funny.
Hi! We're conducting a survey today regarding paranoia and alienation! Would you like to take part? The information you provide may be used by various government agencies to shape policies regarding privacy and security.
Keyword: 'should'. I acknowledge that they have been driven by market economics, and that a country with a strong economy is necessary to support the infrastructure involved, but we were talking about hypotheticals.
You do realise this is already the case for critical medical equipment, right?
Listen: capitalism is an impediment to successful treatment in medicine. Market economics should not determine whether a patient gets sub-standard treatment. Power structures should not exist in medical techniques; either the tool works and is appropriate, or it doesn't. The entire idea of privatized healthcare is abominable. Yes, it's possible for patients to be adversely affected in large numbers by the delays imposed by the regulatory process, but (a) as I've said elsewhere here already, there are no smartphone applications yet that do not have a specialized-device counterpart which we can fall back on, so there's no risk to human health, (b) as long as we are operating in a free market economy, companies will have an incentive to cut corners, which the government has an obligation to prevent, and (c) no choice will ever correctly accommodate all possible situations, so arguing about 'the net outcomes of every situation' applies just as well to no regulation at all. Given these factors, I strongly believe that some level of mandatory external review is better than none.
And, for what it's worth, I believe that anyone who is found to be guilty of tampering with the regulatory process should be responsible for the impact on patient welfare that results.
I'm pretty confident you're going to be disappointed with English regardless of whether or not "apoptochip" (which is at least a completely new concept and hence a rather sparing allocation of a new word) enters general usage.
Okay, bad example—the only exposure to the FDA certification process I got in undergrad pertained to computer-guided surgery, so I assumed that such regulation was more widespread than it is. For what it's worth, the article shines light on another option: peer review.
Yes! Regulate all the things! (And then post a question that's already been extensively hashed over!)
That makes one of us!
I'm not saying it isn't bad, but it's (a) much less frequent for an individual physician to have to do that, and (b) generally done with knowledge that there will be a positive outcome (or intentions thereof), so it's subsidized by hope for a recovery.
Education
Fuel wouldn't be a problem, though, if North Korea didn't squander all of its money on its military. It doesn't need one; no one's threatening them. The US, China, and South Korea all loathe the thought of having to take care of all of the North Korean citizens.
Food
The people mourning are always from the few rich areas like Pyongyang. Out in the country, it's a completely different story. There are images of emaciated children in this video around 6:30. At 20:20 you can also see rice donated by relief agencies being sold for profit.
Indoctrination
In Canada, Alberta and Quebec aren't directly opposed to each other, but they do have very different value systems and priorities. Alberta is a wealthy rural province with most of its economy built privately through oil money, and Quebec is perhaps less wealthy, but has a long and intimate history of government support. It's a little like putting Texas and France in the same country—the cultural differences are much, much deeper than just language.
This 2007 survey suggests that about 16% of Americans were atheist. At least an additional 18% (mainline Protestant) and 4.7% (non-Christians) can probably be assumed to be level-headed thinkers, even if they're heavily exposed to religion. The real problem is the 26.3% evangelical Christians, who are the group that reject evolution and believe their nation is chosen by God.
Pluralism
Mass media in the US is divided according to political party. Republicans watch Fox, Democrats watch CNN and NBC. The political divide in the US is so extreme (almost every election is about 50/50) that swinging a vote can only happen at a municipal scale.
Colonialism and the Free World
No, it wasn't how I was using it, but that's apparently what it means! For better or worse, the US invented the idea of the free world and owns it.
Depending on who you ask, the freest country is probably either Hong Kong or Denmark.
Okay, simple test. Which is more horrifying: this or this? (Note: both are obviously extremely NSFW.) We're not talking about people getting kicked in the ribs once, but generally the whole injury, and generally repeatedly for eight hours a night, through many different crimes, for 9-11 months. Most people recoil involuntarily every time the guy in the video gets hit, and that's just one video (and a fake one, at that!) A surgeon doesn't have to deal with any of the stress or trauma of actually witnessing what happens.
Potentially? Injury or death caused by bad advice or a buggy measurement conversion.
Well... they're only seeing the aftermath—the videos are generally the actual injuries and abuses. You don't experience the dreadful anticipation leading up to the act itself, even in surgery. Dehumanizing patients' bodies and only thinking about the flesh involved as (for example) some machine that needs servicing is an important part of how surgeons cope with their work (and it makes, e.g., hands or heads harder to stomach.)
Two possible responses:
a) People who die while things are being certified are a tragic statistic, but nothing more. The process rules all and may never be questioned! (My buddy Stalin said so, so it must be true.)
b) More seriously, in the case of smartphone apps, we're talking about improved convenience. Other than the camera-based technique for measuring heart rate, I don't know of any medical technologies that depend on a smartphone in a way that isn't already available in a specialized device (and measuring heart rate hardly requires that technique.) No one's lives are at stake (yet.)
Regulation would prevent the app from coming to market in the first place, thereby ensuring that there is no profit whatsoever.
Yes, that example already very clearly fell under such a law (since it already got shot down!). I pulled it out because it was high-visibility and has already happened. Consider this program. It measures your heart rate through minute differences in brightness. What if you, as a home user and not a medical service provider, have a heart attack because there was a bug in the code? Most of the FDA's work regarding complex devices involves code verification to ensure this doesn't happen. Some kind of certification is necessary to ensure quality and accuracy.
But we're talking about safety here—in addition to scammers, regulation of medical devices also involves things like verifying code. What happens when a bug in your unregulated-software-that-isn't-a-scam kills someone, just because you didn't want regulation?