I don't have the book anymore, but I recall sections describing how the brain can selectively 'amplify' pain under certain conditions (to do with chronic pain), and ways to train the brain to modulate the pain back down to 'normal'.
> Engage brain and think for a second. Who is more likely to steal food: someone who is starving and has > no sensible alternative route to getting fed, or someone who has eaten enough and doesn't want more food?
First, sex != food -- you're not going to waste away and die after 28 days without it. Second, alternative routes (other than porn) exist: wife, girlfriend, whore.
> To finish, I'll pose this question: "Given what we know about the conditions in which modern technology > is often made, should a person watching porn on a flatscreen TV have more moral issues about how the > porn is made, or about how the tv is made?"
Its the use-case that matters. All these assistants are 'speak' close to your ears. Your ears also receive predominantly 'bassy' background noise, as you mentioned. A higher pitched sound is different enough to be more easily isolated from the background buzz.
Sure - they are collectively claimed to be services (plural) by Oculus. In the singular, their claim makes the headset hardware either a 'service', or a 'service component'. That means the conditions in the EULA apply to it also. Especially these ones:
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS OF SERVICE, DO NOT ACCESS OR USE OUR SERVICES. We reserve the right, in our sole discretion and where technically feasible, to disable your access to or ability to use Services that we believe present a health and safety risk or violate our community standards, agreements, laws, regulations or policies.
I personally think a change in the EULA will be shortly forthcoming. If not, consider the EULA below and consider how things have changed for the worse:
OWNERSHIP. As between you and Oculus, Oculus shall own all right, title, and interest in and to the Firmware and any and all modifications or copies thereof or improvements thereto. You will have only the limited license to use the Firmware in accordance with these Terms & Conditions. As between you and Oculus, you shall own all right, title, and interest in any content that you create using the Product.
(Emphasis Palmer Luckey's)
And no - Apple does not sell you an 'iPhone service'. It sells you a tangible product (the iPhone), and licenses you software to use with it. Some aspects of phone functionality use online services (Apple iCloud, App Marketplace). But you don't lose the right to call mom if Apple 'in its sole discretion, and where technically feasible, disabled your access to or ability to use the iPhone service'.
Oculus VR, LLC (“Oculus," "we," "us" or "our”) is pleased to provide you access to, and use of physical goods, platform services, software, websites, applications, and content (collectively, the "Services”). These Terms of Service ("Terms") apply to your purchase, access to, and use of, any Services. [...] Oculus reserves the right to change or modify these Terms [...] we will provide notice of such changes as appropriate, such as by [..] updating the "Last Updated" date at the top of these Terms.
Our Services may include interactive features and areas where you may submit, post, upload, publish, email , send or otherwise transmit content...
So,
(a) Oculus (re)defined "physical goods" (i.e. the headset) as "Services".
(b) Its up to them to alter the deal
(c) Content you email the wife through their service can be 'performed' and 'sub-licensed'.
"Demand is off the charts! Charges have increased to get more movies on the Intertubes
OR
"Demand for your requested movie has fallen. As rights-holders don't release content for less than $10,000 a day, your account has been automatically charged $115.99 to cover costs of this content. Please speak to customer service for 30 minutes if you no longer wish to view this movie.
Its an imperfect data point, but a data point nonetheless.
"Organic potatoes...sprayed with heavy metals Organic... seeds... mutated with... radiation"
Well, I'd like this information:) That fact its not disclosed is a failure of the certifying authority.
"Does the GMO label tell you what gene was inserted? [...] where ? [...] how ? "
Well, I'd like this information too - so I can make my own risk assessment. I'd like to know, for instance, if octopus genes were inserted into passionfruit (would never eat that). Or was Granny Smith genome inserted into Red Delicious apples to make them tangier (I'd eat 'em).
"A GMO label tells you absolutely nothing of any value at all and it just promotes fear." It tell me more than nothing (which is what you're advocating). Right now, at the very least, it tells me no foreign genetic sequences were inserted (versus silenced) in my foods.
No, we can't - its a balance. Giving consumers the ability to choose what they eat outweighs the 'freedom' the manufacturer has to display what they want.
Whether ingredients in food are GMO (or not) is a data point. Its strange a scientist would want to want people to have access to _less_ data rather than more.
Appealing is their privilege. But if you think Apple not exercising PR muscle, you've been imbibing too much of their cider. Interpreting existing laws to new circumstances is called thinking. Apple's tech doesn't make their phones any more special than a locked switchboard did in ye olde telephone exchange.
I don't really understand this area of law. The government could simply seize assets (eg, existing Apple code and design artifacts) and employ its own programmers. Is this a reasonable compromise.
Also, doesn't the government today lawfully compel people to say what they don't want to anyway... ?
"Call your dealer and ask to meet "NO WAY! "Its 20-to-life then for you
Yes, any 'self-respecting' person would say "no" - as long as he respects only himself. If he respected other people, respected the law,... his answer would be "yes".
Yes, I am daft, but I have company - your random analogies really took the cake. So lets stick to a real analogy -- "Its like someone murdered 14 people, and the police requested someone else to go get information from the murderer's device. With a warrant!".
This case is the 'responsibilities' side of the law -- not the 'rights' side. Where corporations tell the govt: "Thanks very much for looking after our corporate interests with the USPTO, DMCA, TPP and the like. Now take a walk."
Given how life thrives here, it must elsewhere. This conclusion does not hold. Life may or may not thrive elsewhere... but it first has to get there. We have neither seen it arise here nor move anywhere else
New Slashdot Owner: This service is so super-specialised and expensive, most Slashdotters will have no interest in it. Its unusual that it made the front page.
Since you're quite vocal here, so can you post some sort of assurance posts like these aren't 'sponsored' in some way. If sponsored posts exist, can we have a yellow 'sponsored' box around them? Like Google does? Please?
No. Its about getting Apple to assemble existing bits and bolts which force the lock to stay open while the government tries a millions keys, one after the other.
Its a reasonable request. Apple's upset because it shows customers that encryption is a charade on a device you don't fully control.
Apple can choose to trust, or it can choose to actively exercise full top-to-tail custody its rootkit to prevent it being stolen if it so chooses. Rather it chooses to play the PR game.
"... a potential theft... such dire consequences... potential harm to Apple... analysis... analysis... analysis"
Slashdot Mirror
You always have someone. Please start a fundraiser site describing these circumstances - https://www.youcaring.com/ or https://www.fundanytime.com/ - and publish the link back in this thread.
I plan to contribute $90.
As I recall, this concept (and several others) are described well are in this book:
The Brain's Way of Healing : Stories of Remarkable Recoveries and Discoveries
http://www.bookdepository.com/...
I don't have the book anymore, but I recall sections describing how the brain can selectively 'amplify' pain under certain conditions (to do with chronic pain), and ways to train the brain to modulate the pain back down to 'normal'.
> Engage brain and think for a second. Who is more likely to steal food: someone who is starving and has
> no sensible alternative route to getting fed, or someone who has eaten enough and doesn't want more food?
First, sex != food -- you're not going to waste away and die after 28 days without it.
Second, alternative routes (other than porn) exist: wife, girlfriend, whore.
> To finish, I'll pose this question: "Given what we know about the conditions in which modern technology
> is often made, should a person watching porn on a flatscreen TV have more moral issues about how the
> porn is made, or about how the tv is made?"
Both.
My ipad 1. Sure, its 'unintentional', for some value of unintentional.
Its the use-case that matters. All these assistants are 'speak' close to your ears. Your ears also receive predominantly 'bassy' background noise, as you mentioned. A higher pitched sound is different enough to be more easily isolated from the background buzz.
Sure - they are collectively claimed to be services (plural) by Oculus. In the singular, their claim makes the headset hardware either a 'service', or a 'service component'. That means the conditions in the EULA apply to it also. Especially these ones:
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS OF SERVICE, DO NOT ACCESS OR USE OUR SERVICES.
We reserve the right, in our sole discretion and where technically feasible, to disable your access to or ability to use Services that we believe present a health and safety risk or violate our community standards, agreements, laws, regulations or policies.
I personally think a change in the EULA will be shortly forthcoming. If not, consider the EULA below and consider how things have changed for the worse:
[DK2 EULA]
https://www.reddit.com/r/oculu...
OWNERSHIP. As between you and Oculus, Oculus shall own all right, title, and interest in and to the Firmware and any and all modifications or copies thereof or improvements thereto. You will have only the limited license to use the Firmware in accordance with these Terms & Conditions. As between you and Oculus, you shall own all right, title, and interest in any content that you create using the Product.
(Emphasis Palmer Luckey's)
And no - Apple does not sell you an 'iPhone service'. It sells you a tangible product (the iPhone), and licenses you software to use with it. Some aspects of phone functionality use online services (Apple iCloud, App Marketplace). But you don't lose the right to call mom if Apple 'in its sole discretion, and where technically feasible, disabled your access to or ability to use the iPhone service'.
Quoting a few sentences before ...
Oculus VR, LLC (“Oculus," "we," "us" or "our”) is pleased to provide you access to, and use of physical goods, platform services, software, websites, applications, and content (collectively, the "Services”). These Terms of Service ("Terms") apply to your purchase, access to, and use of, any Services.
[...]
Oculus reserves the right to change or modify these Terms [...] we will provide notice of such changes as appropriate, such as by [..] updating the "Last Updated" date at the top of these Terms.
Our Services may include interactive features and areas where you may submit, post, upload, publish, email , send or otherwise transmit content ...
So,
(a) Oculus (re)defined "physical goods" (i.e. the headset) as "Services".
(b) Its up to them to alter the deal
(c) Content you email the wife through their service can be 'performed' and 'sub-licensed'.
Yeah, sure. Like Netscape users had the option to 'legally' purchase the browser.
Unless they make it free, a latter day IE (this time, funded by Google) will show up to eat their lunch.
Wait till they implement FlexPricing TM...
"Demand is off the charts! Charges have increased to get more movies on the Intertubes
OR
"Demand for your requested movie has fallen. As rights-holders don't release content for less than $10,000 a day, your account has been automatically charged $115.99 to cover costs of this content. Please speak to customer service for 30 minutes if you no longer wish to view this movie.
Its an information label, not a warning label.
Its there so consumers can follow their _own_ hypothesis -- not some lab's.
Its an imperfect data point, but a data point nonetheless.
"Organic potatoes ...sprayed with heavy metals ... mutated with ... radiation"
Organic... seeds
Well, I'd like this information :) That fact its not disclosed is a failure of the certifying authority.
"Does the GMO label tell you what gene was inserted? [...] where ? [...] how ? "
Well, I'd like this information too - so I can make my own risk assessment. I'd like to know, for instance, if octopus genes were inserted into passionfruit (would never eat that). Or was Granny Smith genome inserted into Red Delicious apples to make them tangier (I'd eat 'em).
"A GMO label tells you absolutely nothing of any value at all and it just promotes fear."
It tell me more than nothing (which is what you're advocating). Right now, at the very least, it tells me no foreign genetic sequences were inserted (versus silenced) in my foods.
No, we can't - its a balance. Giving consumers the ability to choose what they eat outweighs the 'freedom' the manufacturer has to display what they want.
Whether ingredients in food are GMO (or not) is a data point.
Its strange a scientist would want to want people to have access to _less_ data rather than more.
Let people can form their own judgements here.
The first sensible post I've seen in this thread.
Appealing is their privilege. But if you think Apple not exercising PR muscle, you've been imbibing too much of their cider. Interpreting existing laws to new circumstances is called thinking. Apple's tech doesn't make their phones any more special than a locked switchboard did in ye olde telephone exchange.
The OS that watches you spill your guts on _every_ website.
The OS knows more about you than a browser window ever could.
I don't really understand this area of law. The government could simply seize assets (eg, existing Apple code and design artifacts) and employ its own programmers. Is this a reasonable compromise.
Also, doesn't the government today lawfully compel people to say what they don't want to anyway... ?
"Call your dealer and ask to meet
"NO WAY!
"Its 20-to-life then for you
Yes, any 'self-respecting' person would say "no" - as long as he respects only himself. If he respected other people, respected the law, ... his answer would be "yes".
Yes, I am daft, but I have company - your random analogies really took the cake. So lets stick to a real analogy -- "Its like someone murdered 14 people, and the police requested someone else to go get information from the murderer's device. With a warrant!".
This case is the 'responsibilities' side of the law -- not the 'rights' side. Where corporations tell the govt: "Thanks very much for looking after our corporate interests with the USPTO, DMCA, TPP and the like. Now take a walk."
Why, then lets continue...
[At your front door] "Police, open up - we have a warrant!
"Do you own me?
This is what has happened to Apple.
Given how life thrives here, it must elsewhere. This conclusion does not hold. Life may or may not thrive elsewhere... but it first has to get there. We have neither seen it arise here nor move anywhere else
New Slashdot Owner: This service is so super-specialised and expensive, most Slashdotters will have no interest in it. Its unusual that it made the front page.
Since you're quite vocal here, so can you post some sort of assurance posts like these aren't 'sponsored' in some way. If sponsored posts exist, can we have a yellow 'sponsored' box around them? Like Google does? Please?
No. Its about getting Apple to assemble existing bits and bolts which force the lock to stay open while the government tries a millions keys, one after the other.
Its a reasonable request. Apple's upset because it shows customers that encryption is a charade on a device you don't fully control.
Apple can choose to trust, or it can choose to actively exercise full top-to-tail custody its rootkit to prevent it being stolen if it so chooses. Rather it chooses to play the PR game.
"... a potential theft ... such dire consequences ... potential harm to Apple ... analysis ... analysis ... analysis"
Not at all relevant if deputisation is possible.
But if you can't tell someone "no" when they request your services, they own you.
--
Your ideas intrigued me, and I tried subscribing to your newsletter.
[At airport] "Step back in line sir.
"Do you own me?
[In airplane] "Sir, your boarding pass says seat 21D. Can you sit there instead?
"Do you own me?
[At home] "Darling, take out the garbage?
"Do you own me?
[Finally, my dog learnt this new trick]
Me:"Get off the sofa dog
"BowWowGrBoww Bo EeWwof Gruff Woff" ("Do you own me?)