I find that hard to believe. So you mean GPS devices mounted to windshields, someone in the passenger seat using their phone, and the radios that show you stuff like what song is playing are all illegal?
Do you mean "ability" instead of "right?" Because Apple does have the right to build a lockout system.
And if they lack the ability, is the patent valid? Are you saying I can patent something I don't actually know how to do and then if someone figures it out I can prevent them from doing it?
Sure, you can *speculate* that Apple might have implemented this tech on Facetime if they hadn't have been blocking others from implementing it
That is an interesting speculation. But if Apple hadn't patented it so that Skype could implement it, then likely Skype would have patented it, so I don't think it would ever get back to Facetime getting the feature. I had been thinking more along the line that if Skype had implemented this feature, the user would have been using Skype instead of Facetime because the feature has significant value to them.
it provides no description of how this would work
Jeeze. Really? Call me a traditionalist, but at one point didn't patents have to say how things would work? I can't go file a patent for "Cheap, fast and easy method for human travel to Mars and back", give no description of how that happens, and then when someone else does it I say "Hey that's patented."
Well it came from the comment AC was responding to. Namely, this defense of Apple: "Basically having an idea and implementing it in a way that prevents the invention from turning a phone into a brick when going over 5 miles per hour is not the same."
In fact the patent describes “a lock-out mechanism to prevent operation of one or more functions of handheld computing devices by drivers when operating vehicles” so according to that Apple does have a clever way of implementing it without turning a phone into a brick. For instance apparently it can distinguish between the driver and others. It also knows when you're operating a vehicle rather than, say, jogging.
Of course, the answer isn't necessarily that the patent is invalid, but rather that the proffered defense is incorrect. But that's where I think it came from.
I'm not sure I follow.. I'm not talking about suing the hospital. It would be more like a life insurance plan, except you don't pay premiums because the payout is funded by your organ sales. You'd have an advocate in getting the highest prices possible since the hospital would screw you completely if it were all in their power.
Are you dodging the question, or are you genuinely curious? I assumed you supported the opt-out organ donation system, because in this thread you are pooh-poohing criticism of it along the lines of "don't worry about unethical organ collection, who cares, it does more good than harm unless it rises above a certain arbitrary threshold." That means you probably don't have an issue with presumed consent, and you're probably okay with other utilitarian stuff.
It's pretty definitive from what I've read. In surveys, about 90% of people will pull a lever to sacrifice one person already tied up to save other people who are already tied up. But 90% of people will NOT kill someone who was not in harm's way already in order to save a greater number of people.
In any event, you're rather missing the point of what I'm arguing: I didn't raise the trolley car to *defend* the doctor actively taking someone's life early in order to harvest organs to save another
But that's the entire point of the trolley car problem. It's a fundamental argument about utilitarianism, which is exactly what you're talking. You're literally saying "sure there will be problems but the good outweighs the harm." That's utilitarianism in a nutshell.
And of course naive utilitarianism leads to nightmare scenarios where the state tramples over everything. So the classic rebuttal is that "good" and "bad" are subjective so you can just add in emotional consequences, like "if the state could come kill anybody and take their organs and give them to others to save more lives, it would not outweigh the harm in everybody being scared all the time that they're about to be killed and harvested."
I'm curious what your resolution is since you are actually rejecting that approach. Is it just "Don't worry about it, it won't happen?"
"If you place more value on a sack of meat that's just going to rot in the ground than saving another person's life, your opinion should not be respected."
"I'm willing to respect a person choosing what happens to their own body after they're dead"
It's already bad. The first year cost for a kidney transplant is $262k (http://www.cpmc.org/advanced/kidney/patients/topics/financing_kidney_transplant.html)
Why not round that up to $300k? It would raise kidney transplant costs by 15% but it would make a substantial difference for the families of many organ donors.
It doesn't work like that though. They can't just add clauses to say whatever they want, just like they can't say "your final bill came out to $120,000, so we added a clause that lets us confiscate your house and car even though your out of pocket is supposed to be limited to $5,000."
I think it's pretty reasonable to expect your estate to receive your body and any proceeds that come from it, just like all your other stuff.
From a purely economic point of view it's more sensible to keep a trained individual alive than to try to produce a new individual and train it.
Looking at the totality of a person's economic output, a young person on average will produce more economic output than an old person. That's true whether you look at the remainder of their lives which is quite obvious, or the entirely of both their lives (productivity per person has been increasing for a long time).
There's quite a difference between dying because of "fate" versus dying because someone made a choice in advance to kill you under certain circumstances. I'm sure you know the fat man version of the trolley car problem, and how differently the results turn out.
If an increase in supply leads to a decrease in price, unethical behavior could potentially be encouraged because people will need to cut corners or increase volume to stay competitive. I'm not saying that's a definite, but neither is "there are potentially more donors so less incentive to behave unethically."
If we remove the restrictions on organ sales then it would be pretty clear: your body is a valuable asset and that should belong to your estate, and any organs not immediately needed by an heir would be sold at fair market value.
My problem is not being paid for it. I'm all for organ transplants, but if someone wants to take whatever parts of me are still functional after I die, they're going to have to compensate my estate. That's all I'm waiting for.
Nice try. There's much more money in treatment than in letting someone die. However, if they're an organ donor then there's even more money to be made taking their organs.
Under true socialism, the government is supposed to own the means of production (in reality maybe not all of them, but in key industries). In a robot society that means the government owns the robots, either all of them or enough to do produce what the government wants to produce. Even without taxes the government would make plenty of money by selling the fruits of the robotic labor.
I don't think a parallel currency would be needed because money issued by the government would still have value. It would essentially be robot-backed currency. There's no problem with writing endless IOU's when they essentially expire due to inflation.
You've got a deeply flawed understanding of what's going on. So flawed that it must be intentional.
The White House does issue news. Ever heard of the White House press secretary? Ever heard of the White House press corps? The White House issues news releases. The press either copies them or writes articles using them as sources.
When the press uses a White House press release, they aren't reporting the press release, they're reporting what's in the press release. I'm guessing you don't speak English natively since you're so confused about that.
One day there may actually be a news article about an issue with the White House's press releases... "White House press secretary makes up news release, fools press!" would be an interesting read. But that's not what is going on here. You know that. I don't know why you're playing dumb.
Yeah, but basically that's long form that it's fake news because you don't like it.
No it's long form for why "hacking the election" is fake news. If it was too long for you, let me simplify. The election was not hacked. No votes were changed by hackers. No voting machines were compromised by hackers. Obama has said this. So any headline saying "Russia hacked the election" is fake news.
Thing is, the white house is super important. That means their announcements/claims/whatever are important whether or not they're true
Yes, I feel like you're getting closer. What the White House says is super important and has consequences, so as a corollary the White House should be careful that it is being truthful and accurate in what it says. Right? This was a common criticism against Trump during the campaign, that once he got in power he'd be saying all kinds of crazy stuff that has consequences because it's coming from the White House. Remember that?
So... it's important that the White House is not issuing fake news. Such as saying "Russia hacked the election" which is fake. No hacking of the election was done. Saying so is fake news. The White House should not be saying that. Any article ABOUT the White House saying "Russia hacked the election" should note that no actual hacking of the election is alleged to have taken place, by the White House's own admission... without that caveat, the article is propagating fake news which is also fake news in and of itself.
It's not because "I don't like it" or whatever. I have/had the intellectual honesty to criticize people I know who spread fake news in the past about stuff like Obama being a Muslim. Someone I know very well was posting on Facebook that Obama had let the New Black Panther party take over security for the White House, stuff like that. I called that out just like I call this out.
I have to say, this fake news about Russia hacking the election is much more damaging than most of the fake news about Obama... because coming from the White House it is more influential than random guy posting on Facebook.
Whether correct or not, if the whitehouse believes the Russians hacked the elections
Nope. They don't believe Russia hacked the elections, that's why this is fake news. They believe Russia hacked the DNC email servers and/or Podesta's gmail account.
The conflation of that with "hacking the elections" is what makes this fake news.
Well, if the whitehouse is doing something it has no business doing then that IS news.
You're right. There should be articles saying "Wait, what? Hacked the elections? What exactly do they mean by that? Does that fit in with the normal usage of the word 'hacking' and how a layperson reading this article would apply it to the election?" That would be real news.
But that's not what this article was about, so that's kind of irrelevant.
The whitehouse accusing a foreign power of something is news whether you happen to think they're correct or not. It's also news whether or not you think it's OK that people believe the whitehouse.
No, the White House is deliberately using misleading language. That's the fake news aspect of this. I personally know people who have reacted to all this "election hacking" news, in conjunction with the recent recount efforts, and saying "Oh man, so Russia actually hacked the voting computers?"
This news is designed to create a false impression of what actually happened. It's designed to influence people to support stuff like electors changing their votes because the popular vote counts can't be trusted. It's fake news.
if the White House were saying "Russia influenced the election by hacking the DNC emails" or something, that would be legitimate even though the evidence hasn't been presented yet. I can trust them enough to believe they have evidence without actually seeing it. But when you dig deeper and learn there is absolutely no claim that Russia hacked the election itself, that's a problem.
Yes, it all depends how the information is presented. It's like you're slowly stumbling onto the idea of what fake news is. If an article says "some dipshit crackpot said Obama is a Kenyan Muslim" then do you think that is attempting to persuade the reader that Obama is indeed a Kenyan Muslim? Perhaps you'd say "no" because clearly it's treating the source as suspect.
Now suddenly it's not being presented skeptically but as fact. And what is their source? Obama himself! Why look here, they have Obama on video saying the words "my Muslim faith"! Proof! If I overlook the lack of context, and the possibility of some jump cut editing, which I might more than happily do if I believe it anyway... then it's clear that Obama himself admitted he's a Muslim! I better share this story on Facebook!
I don't know why this is hard to grasp for some people. It is incontrovertible fact (it's on video) that Obama said the words "my Muslim faith" in some interview. That is fact. Truth. News. Real News. Not fake at all.
What makes it "fake news" is the implication that him saying that means he's a Muslim.
So back to this article... did Russia "hack the election?" Almost certainly not. Did they hack something? Possibly. Somebody hacked the DNC, somebody hacked Podesta's gmail account. Maybe it was Russia. Maybe the CIA has real evidence of it that they don't want to share, but that Obama has seen. Maybe Obama would be 100% justified saying "Russia hacked the DNC." That still does not let him say "Russia hacked the election." That is complete bullshit until very strong proof is presented that actual votes were changed from Clinton to someone else in order to facilitate Trump's victory.
So "Russia hacked the election" is fake news, even though there may be a kernel of truth just like most fake news.
I do see the difference, but again I disagree on the more fundamental point of what the actual news is. The news is not that the White House said something. The purported news is that the Russians "hacked the election" and the evidence for it is that the White House said so. There is a difference between "the news" and "the source." It's rare that the source is the news, but does happen of course. When the "grab them by the pussy" tape about Trump came out, you will recall, people were actually talking about the fact that he said it and what the implications were.
Look here's the definition of news: newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent or important events
So what is the important event... that the White House issued a statement? Or that Russia hacked the election? Clearly the latter.
If someone calls this fake news, what they are saying is that they don't think Russia hacked the election and that it's actually a misleading statement. I agree with that, because the wording is so incredibly misleading... "hack the election" to the common person means "Russia hacked computers and changed votes so that Trump would win." That is not the accusation though. The accusation is that Russia hacked the DNC and released damaging emails which then *influenced* people to vote for Trump. So the White House has no business saying "Russia hacked the election" -- that is fake news. There is a kernel of truth... Russia may indeed have hacked something (DNC, Podesta's gmail, whatever). Most fake news is based on the truth, it just becomes distorted in order to mislead people.
If you're arguing against it being fake news, you can't just say "It's real news because the White House really did say that." That is completely missing the point.
Slashdot Mirror
I find that hard to believe. So you mean GPS devices mounted to windshields, someone in the passenger seat using their phone, and the radios that show you stuff like what song is playing are all illegal?
Do you mean "ability" instead of "right?" Because Apple does have the right to build a lockout system.
And if they lack the ability, is the patent valid? Are you saying I can patent something I don't actually know how to do and then if someone figures it out I can prevent them from doing it?
Sure, you can *speculate* that Apple might have implemented this tech on Facetime if they hadn't have been blocking others from implementing it
That is an interesting speculation. But if Apple hadn't patented it so that Skype could implement it, then likely Skype would have patented it, so I don't think it would ever get back to Facetime getting the feature. I had been thinking more along the line that if Skype had implemented this feature, the user would have been using Skype instead of Facetime because the feature has significant value to them.
it provides no description of how this would work
Jeeze. Really? Call me a traditionalist, but at one point didn't patents have to say how things would work? I can't go file a patent for "Cheap, fast and easy method for human travel to Mars and back", give no description of how that happens, and then when someone else does it I say "Hey that's patented."
Well it came from the comment AC was responding to. Namely, this defense of Apple: "Basically having an idea and implementing it in a way that prevents the invention from turning a phone into a brick when going over 5 miles per hour is not the same."
In fact the patent describes “a lock-out mechanism to prevent operation of one or more functions of handheld computing devices by drivers when operating vehicles” so according to that Apple does have a clever way of implementing it without turning a phone into a brick. For instance apparently it can distinguish between the driver and others. It also knows when you're operating a vehicle rather than, say, jogging.
Of course, the answer isn't necessarily that the patent is invalid, but rather that the proffered defense is incorrect. But that's where I think it came from.
I'm not sure I follow.. I'm not talking about suing the hospital. It would be more like a life insurance plan, except you don't pay premiums because the payout is funded by your organ sales. You'd have an advocate in getting the highest prices possible since the hospital would screw you completely if it were all in their power.
Are you dodging the question, or are you genuinely curious? I assumed you supported the opt-out organ donation system, because in this thread you are pooh-poohing criticism of it along the lines of "don't worry about unethical organ collection, who cares, it does more good than harm unless it rises above a certain arbitrary threshold." That means you probably don't have an issue with presumed consent, and you're probably okay with other utilitarian stuff.
So... are you? Or not?
It's pretty definitive from what I've read. In surveys, about 90% of people will pull a lever to sacrifice one person already tied up to save other people who are already tied up. But 90% of people will NOT kill someone who was not in harm's way already in order to save a greater number of people.
In any event, you're rather missing the point of what I'm arguing: I didn't raise the trolley car to *defend* the doctor actively taking someone's life early in order to harvest organs to save another
But that's the entire point of the trolley car problem. It's a fundamental argument about utilitarianism, which is exactly what you're talking. You're literally saying "sure there will be problems but the good outweighs the harm." That's utilitarianism in a nutshell.
And of course naive utilitarianism leads to nightmare scenarios where the state tramples over everything. So the classic rebuttal is that "good" and "bad" are subjective so you can just add in emotional consequences, like "if the state could come kill anybody and take their organs and give them to others to save more lives, it would not outweigh the harm in everybody being scared all the time that they're about to be killed and harvested."
I'm curious what your resolution is since you are actually rejecting that approach. Is it just "Don't worry about it, it won't happen?"
So are you against inheritance in general? "When I am alive, my kids don't own my 401k, car, house, etc. Why should it be different once I am dead?"
"If you place more value on a sack of meat that's just going to rot in the ground than saving another person's life, your opinion should not be respected."
"I'm willing to respect a person choosing what happens to their own body after they're dead"
Pick one. You can't have both.
It's already bad. The first year cost for a kidney transplant is $262k (http://www.cpmc.org/advanced/kidney/patients/topics/financing_kidney_transplant.html)
Why not round that up to $300k? It would raise kidney transplant costs by 15% but it would make a substantial difference for the families of many organ donors.
It doesn't work like that though. They can't just add clauses to say whatever they want, just like they can't say "your final bill came out to $120,000, so we added a clause that lets us confiscate your house and car even though your out of pocket is supposed to be limited to $5,000."
I think it's pretty reasonable to expect your estate to receive your body and any proceeds that come from it, just like all your other stuff.
From a purely economic point of view it's more sensible to keep a trained individual alive than to try to produce a new individual and train it.
Looking at the totality of a person's economic output, a young person on average will produce more economic output than an old person. That's true whether you look at the remainder of their lives which is quite obvious, or the entirely of both their lives (productivity per person has been increasing for a long time).
So would you be okay with an opt-out DNR system?
There's quite a difference between dying because of "fate" versus dying because someone made a choice in advance to kill you under certain circumstances. I'm sure you know the fat man version of the trolley car problem, and how differently the results turn out.
If an increase in supply leads to a decrease in price, unethical behavior could potentially be encouraged because people will need to cut corners or increase volume to stay competitive. I'm not saying that's a definite, but neither is "there are potentially more donors so less incentive to behave unethically."
If we remove the restrictions on organ sales then it would be pretty clear: your body is a valuable asset and that should belong to your estate, and any organs not immediately needed by an heir would be sold at fair market value.
My problem is not being paid for it. I'm all for organ transplants, but if someone wants to take whatever parts of me are still functional after I die, they're going to have to compensate my estate. That's all I'm waiting for.
Nice try. There's much more money in treatment than in letting someone die. However, if they're an organ donor then there's even more money to be made taking their organs.
Under true socialism, the government is supposed to own the means of production (in reality maybe not all of them, but in key industries). In a robot society that means the government owns the robots, either all of them or enough to do produce what the government wants to produce. Even without taxes the government would make plenty of money by selling the fruits of the robotic labor.
I don't think a parallel currency would be needed because money issued by the government would still have value. It would essentially be robot-backed currency. There's no problem with writing endless IOU's when they essentially expire due to inflation.
Maybe they use private trackers or a vpn?
You've got a deeply flawed understanding of what's going on. So flawed that it must be intentional.
The White House does issue news. Ever heard of the White House press secretary? Ever heard of the White House press corps? The White House issues news releases. The press either copies them or writes articles using them as sources.
When the press uses a White House press release, they aren't reporting the press release, they're reporting what's in the press release. I'm guessing you don't speak English natively since you're so confused about that.
One day there may actually be a news article about an issue with the White House's press releases... "White House press secretary makes up news release, fools press!" would be an interesting read. But that's not what is going on here. You know that. I don't know why you're playing dumb.
Yeah, but basically that's long form that it's fake news because you don't like it.
No it's long form for why "hacking the election" is fake news. If it was too long for you, let me simplify. The election was not hacked. No votes were changed by hackers. No voting machines were compromised by hackers. Obama has said this. So any headline saying "Russia hacked the election" is fake news.
Thing is, the white house is super important. That means their announcements/claims/whatever are important whether or not they're true
Yes, I feel like you're getting closer. What the White House says is super important and has consequences, so as a corollary the White House should be careful that it is being truthful and accurate in what it says. Right? This was a common criticism against Trump during the campaign, that once he got in power he'd be saying all kinds of crazy stuff that has consequences because it's coming from the White House. Remember that?
So... it's important that the White House is not issuing fake news. Such as saying "Russia hacked the election" which is fake. No hacking of the election was done. Saying so is fake news. The White House should not be saying that. Any article ABOUT the White House saying "Russia hacked the election" should note that no actual hacking of the election is alleged to have taken place, by the White House's own admission... without that caveat, the article is propagating fake news which is also fake news in and of itself.
It's not because "I don't like it" or whatever. I have/had the intellectual honesty to criticize people I know who spread fake news in the past about stuff like Obama being a Muslim. Someone I know very well was posting on Facebook that Obama had let the New Black Panther party take over security for the White House, stuff like that. I called that out just like I call this out.
I have to say, this fake news about Russia hacking the election is much more damaging than most of the fake news about Obama... because coming from the White House it is more influential than random guy posting on Facebook.
Whether correct or not, if the whitehouse believes the Russians hacked the elections
Nope. They don't believe Russia hacked the elections, that's why this is fake news. They believe Russia hacked the DNC email servers and/or Podesta's gmail account.
The conflation of that with "hacking the elections" is what makes this fake news.
Well, if the whitehouse is doing something it has no business doing then that IS news.
You're right. There should be articles saying "Wait, what? Hacked the elections? What exactly do they mean by that? Does that fit in with the normal usage of the word 'hacking' and how a layperson reading this article would apply it to the election?" That would be real news.
But that's not what this article was about, so that's kind of irrelevant.
The whitehouse accusing a foreign power of something is news whether you happen to think they're correct or not. It's also news whether or not you think it's OK that people believe the whitehouse.
No, the White House is deliberately using misleading language. That's the fake news aspect of this. I personally know people who have reacted to all this "election hacking" news, in conjunction with the recent recount efforts, and saying "Oh man, so Russia actually hacked the voting computers?"
This news is designed to create a false impression of what actually happened. It's designed to influence people to support stuff like electors changing their votes because the popular vote counts can't be trusted. It's fake news.
if the White House were saying "Russia influenced the election by hacking the DNC emails" or something, that would be legitimate even though the evidence hasn't been presented yet. I can trust them enough to believe they have evidence without actually seeing it. But when you dig deeper and learn there is absolutely no claim that Russia hacked the election itself, that's a problem.
Yes, it all depends how the information is presented. It's like you're slowly stumbling onto the idea of what fake news is. If an article says "some dipshit crackpot said Obama is a Kenyan Muslim" then do you think that is attempting to persuade the reader that Obama is indeed a Kenyan Muslim? Perhaps you'd say "no" because clearly it's treating the source as suspect.
How about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (title: "Obama Admits He Is A Muslim")
Now suddenly it's not being presented skeptically but as fact. And what is their source? Obama himself! Why look here, they have Obama on video saying the words "my Muslim faith"! Proof! If I overlook the lack of context, and the possibility of some jump cut editing, which I might more than happily do if I believe it anyway... then it's clear that Obama himself admitted he's a Muslim! I better share this story on Facebook!
I don't know why this is hard to grasp for some people. It is incontrovertible fact (it's on video) that Obama said the words "my Muslim faith" in some interview. That is fact. Truth. News. Real News. Not fake at all.
What makes it "fake news" is the implication that him saying that means he's a Muslim.
So back to this article... did Russia "hack the election?" Almost certainly not. Did they hack something? Possibly. Somebody hacked the DNC, somebody hacked Podesta's gmail account. Maybe it was Russia. Maybe the CIA has real evidence of it that they don't want to share, but that Obama has seen. Maybe Obama would be 100% justified saying "Russia hacked the DNC." That still does not let him say "Russia hacked the election." That is complete bullshit until very strong proof is presented that actual votes were changed from Clinton to someone else in order to facilitate Trump's victory.
So "Russia hacked the election" is fake news, even though there may be a kernel of truth just like most fake news.
I do see the difference, but again I disagree on the more fundamental point of what the actual news is. The news is not that the White House said something. The purported news is that the Russians "hacked the election" and the evidence for it is that the White House said so. There is a difference between "the news" and "the source." It's rare that the source is the news, but does happen of course. When the "grab them by the pussy" tape about Trump came out, you will recall, people were actually talking about the fact that he said it and what the implications were.
Look here's the definition of news: newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent or important events
So what is the important event... that the White House issued a statement? Or that Russia hacked the election? Clearly the latter.
If someone calls this fake news, what they are saying is that they don't think Russia hacked the election and that it's actually a misleading statement. I agree with that, because the wording is so incredibly misleading... "hack the election" to the common person means "Russia hacked computers and changed votes so that Trump would win." That is not the accusation though. The accusation is that Russia hacked the DNC and released damaging emails which then *influenced* people to vote for Trump. So the White House has no business saying "Russia hacked the election" -- that is fake news. There is a kernel of truth... Russia may indeed have hacked something (DNC, Podesta's gmail, whatever). Most fake news is based on the truth, it just becomes distorted in order to mislead people.
If you're arguing against it being fake news, you can't just say "It's real news because the White House really did say that." That is completely missing the point.