SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[A] report noted that the chip is expected to remain viable for at least 16 years once implanted.
While the "target" population is poor, third-world women, such technology is, of course, ripe for abuse. After all, think about it: If that demographic is the primary target, why would the chips need to be encrypted? How many third-world populations have within their midst the technological capability or the power to resist?
When he began Microsoft, Bill Gates likely never thought he'd become rich enough to hold the power of life in his hands. Talk about your "evil corporations."
The sourced article says that the encryption is meant to prevent hackers or cybercriminals from accessing the device. Robert Langer says the chips could hit the market in 2018.
Additionally: This amazing remote-controlled contraceptive microchip you implant under your skin is the future of medicine [Washington Post] (July 17, 2014)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Friday July 24 2015, @06:34PM
Look, I'm as anti-Microsoft as they come, but can we please not get our reproductive health news from conspiracy theory quacks with something against birth control?
I mean, it's not like the Gates Foundation is going to have any more luck forcibly implanting poor women with these devices than they would regular IUDs, and I fail to see how the ZOMG ENCRYPTION angle makes them any functionally different from any other form of long-term implanted birth control. Unless the nutjobs think EM "radiation" from free cell phones is going to secretly turn the devices on and off and thus determine when the recipients are and aren't going to get pregnant?
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday July 24 2015, @06:40PM
This is the site we're linking here [rationalwiki.org]
Somehow being Alex Jonesesque hard right conspiracy theories while also being Hard Left pseudoenvironmentalists.
This largely puts them into the "never met a conspiracy theory they didn't like" territory.
You only need to get 8 words in before you know the article is going to be bullshit.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday July 24 2015, @06:42PM
read this article instead [thewindowsclub.com] then
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday July 24 2015, @06:44PM
Yeah, okay, I know.
The underlying news is nice. It's a good thing. Good for our entire species, unless we somehow magically get to a point where we're underpopulated.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 24 2015, @06:46PM
Luckily, one of the (at least two) states of the device is "off", and there are many smartphones in the developing world.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Friday July 24 2015, @06:49PM
Right, and people have a right to reproduce if they want to. But recent history has shown giving people power over when they reproduce tends to be good for society, and limits birth rates naturally.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 24 2015, @07:02PM
"limits birth rates naturally."
Yep - that image looks pretty natural to me!
(Score: 5, Funny) by ikanreed on Friday July 24 2015, @07:11PM
Two pedants walk into a bar.
Okay fine. To be more precise: two pedants get beaten to death with a bar.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday July 24 2015, @07:28PM
The problem in the world is not created by a super-abundance of of the impoverished.
It is the superfluity of the mega-rich.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Friday July 24 2015, @07:35PM
There world can have more than one problem.
Population strain has had its negative effects and will continue to do so. It's not that I see there as being a surplus of people, just that there are some problems that are exacerbated by rapid population growth.
If the 20th century was characterized by enormous explosive technological improvement in economic efficiency, the 21st needs to be the gradual shift to sustainable versions of those economies. Like, we want to be able to move people from abject poverty to comfortable, stable living. And we don't want that to demand the whole world using the amount of fossil fuels per capita that the US does. That'd be a disaster.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday July 24 2015, @07:55PM
And we need to stop motherfuckers who lack the resources to take care of their kids, from having kids.
This is the one time I agree with Ol' Billy. Go Billy!
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Friday July 24 2015, @07:58PM
The problem is that you can have kids much more easily than you can have a sustainable healthy, productive lifestyle.
Hell, complete dipshits like you can get by, and you're barely capable of forming an opinion.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Friday July 24 2015, @11:41PM
It simple: give them enough resources to take care of their kids and they'll stop having kids. Happens with all societies passing the under-developed stage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Saturday August 01 2015, @05:25PM
We have THOUSANDS of years of culture developed, where the abundance of children was of economic security.
That changes when - as you say - alternative security is allowed for and supported.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Sunday August 02 2015, @01:54AM
Those thousands of years of culture based on "economic security" still doesn't make "passing the under-developed stage" as a society.
Look closer what happens withing the last 50 years or so - every time there's economic and social security, the population stops booming within 1-2 generations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Sunday August 02 2015, @02:31AM
Exactly. Children cease to be a survival necessity.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday July 24 2015, @08:29PM
That's the best, wish you could get a +50 on that.
(Score: 2) by mr_mischief on Friday July 24 2015, @08:15PM
There's more than one context and more than one connotation for "natural".
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 24 2015, @06:42PM
Compare to the original submission, which was just the text pasted from natural news. I have balanced it significantly by adding the facts.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TrumpetPower! on Friday July 24 2015, @06:50PM
But why leave any of the bullshit in at all? Couldn't you just link directly to either the Gates Foundation or non-nutjob coverage? Maybe even a peer-reviewed article or FDA approval documentation or the like?
I'd think this technology would be of huge, perhaps even bigger, interest in the West, too. Imagine girls getting these things just before menarche, a replacement at about college age, and being able to temporarily switch it off with a simple trip to the doctor any time they decide they really do want to get pregnant. The developing world is struggling with STDs as much as they are population; free condoms on every street corner would be the better answer there, at least until they get transmission rates under control.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 24 2015, @07:04PM
"either the Gates Foundation or non-nutjob coverage"
I'm glad that you distinguished between Gates and non-nutjobs.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday July 24 2015, @06:51PM
Yeah, thanks for that. That's the kind of editorial work that makes sites better. I'm pretty sure that other site would've just dumped it as is.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday July 24 2015, @06:49PM
I agree that the first link is very polarised but I believe that takyon has balanced it by providing a second link. Quoting a source that we don't necessarily agree with is not that uncommon. It is the discussion here that should be the driver. Please argue the case against it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Friday July 24 2015, @06:55PM
It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. It's about giving air to batshit fucking insane lunatic conspiracy theorists.
What's next? Are you going to start including responses from the Discovery Institute on all biology stories, and rants from the Flat Earth society every time you mention NASA? Jenny McCarthy on immunology, and JR Reynolds on the health effects of smoking?
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 24 2015, @07:13PM
Not necessarily. Yeah, well, what if I were to tell you that an existent being wasn't responsible for the burning phone on your back of backs?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 24 2015, @08:24PM
Actually, we were thinking of giving a former NSA officer a little time to bash Snowden later, another submission from an Anonymous Coward. Got any thoughts on it [soylentnews.org]?
Anyway, the quoted material in the summary is less infactual and more inflammatory (it's "asking questions"). With the contrast it allows you to see what others (perhaps the batshit crazies) think about this. Maybe it would be better without the quote or even the NN link, but that's how it was submitted, and there are variety of options ranging from "reject submission" to "accept submission without changes". I thought the middle ground was best.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Friday July 24 2015, @09:09PM
As a sometimes [scienceblogs.com] (though increasingly rarely) wise man put it, "Squatting in between those on the side of reason and evidence and those worshipping superstition and myth is not a better place. It just means you’re halfway to crazy town."
If you really want to show what the crazies think...well, first, be aware that mentioning them at all is going to derail the whole conversation into insulting their craziness. But, if you're really after a five minutes hate, the proper form is to open with the straight-up reporting, and end with a parenthetical mention of the crazy. Something like this:
If you really must "teach the controversy," please at least have the decency to teach it like that.
And, yes. Natural News really is full-tilt nutjob central; the RationalWiki reference given above will tell you all you need to know -- and you can confirm for yourself just by reading the "About" page on Natural News itself.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday July 25 2015, @03:16AM
So you get to decide whose opinions get published and whose don't? The submitter chooses the content and we get to argue rationally and logically about the content. This site is trying very hard to let everyone say their piece and we make great efforts not to censor anyone. We published stories about Jenny McCarthy's anti-immunisation views and the community shot them down most effectively - not by refusing to have them on the front page, but by sensible discussion. I suspect that the Flat Earth society haven't show up because it is obvious from the mass of photographic evidence that we now have that their views are wrong - but if they submit a sensibly written story then we will consider putting it on the front page for us to have our say.
Seriously, thank you very much for your editorial advice, but you could considerably improve matters by submitting high quality stories for consideration or, better still, joining us on the editorial team. We are going to need many more editors in the coming weeks and months to replace those who have served us well but now need a rest and time for their real-world lives, particularly as nexuses gradually come on line.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday July 24 2015, @06:58PM
...ZOMG ENCRYPTION angle makes them any functionally different from any other form of long-term implanted birth control.
For once, it's a feature not a bug. Author begs the question of who holds the encryption keys. If it's the woman in question, then ENCRYPTION IS GOOD.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday July 24 2015, @07:03PM
My guess is handling the actual keys is too technical for the average user, and that there will be some account accessible by both medical professionals and the owner that can control them.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday July 24 2015, @07:35PM
It would kinda suck to lose the keys.
Surgically remove implant or brute force it.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by aristarchus on Friday July 24 2015, @07:29PM
Author begs the question of who holds the encryption keys.
Learn to use the phrase "begs the question" properly! http://begthequestion.info/ [begthequestion.info] Doing so will amaze your friends and confound your enemies, and help you to not appear semi-literate,
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Saturday July 25 2015, @01:19AM
Learn to use the phrase "begs the question" properly!
Thanks junior, but I used it properly.
From your guide: When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place.
FTS:
When he began Microsoft, Bill Gates likely never thought he'd become rich enough to hold the power of life in his hands. Talk about your "evil corporations."
No logic-less assumptions of truth in that statement, for sure...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday July 25 2015, @07:08AM
You do not seems to understand the difference between "raises the question" (which seems to be what you meant) and "begs the question", which would not really raise any questions at all, but only re-assert the original proposition. Are you logically or grammatically impaired? There are on-line groups that can help with that, or you could just take logic course at your local community college! For the win!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday July 25 2015, @02:42PM
When did you lose the ability to identify begging the question?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday July 25 2015, @09:24PM
This does raise the question of whether or not the whole grammatical intervention my be something of a damp squid for all intensive purposes. Or maybe you are lack toast and tolerant? (do a quick search for "eggcorns".)
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday July 25 2015, @04:42AM
Agreed. I would bet good money that these could be "deactivated" by means of a simple, straight-forward surgical removal that could be performed by any competent crone with a sharp stick, and at considerably less risk than the same crone could perform an abortion with a coathanger.
As for encryption - I would say it's *absolutely* necessary, otherwise talk about the life-changing trolling that could be done! Especially if, like some hormonal treatments, it completely suppresses many women's periods so they'd get minimal early warning. The real challenge will be in keeping the keys secure. Even if only major hospitals, or perhaps a handful of traveling clinics, have access to the keys I really don't see the problem. If you're planning to have a child then the cost of getting your implant deactivated should be trivial in comparison. Especially since it should amount to scarcely more effort than scanning an RFID tag.
I mean really, we already have implant-based birth control, the differences as I see them are that this implant:
- lasts ~16 years instead of ~3
- can be turned on and off without surgery
- can possibly be easily fine-tuned to individual's physiology (body mass, hormone resistance, etc) while using only a single mass-produced model of implant in order to minimize side effects
- can potentially be hacked to cause unwanted pregnancy or "spontaneous" abortion/birth defects.