NationStates

Socio Polor wrote:Yes we're getting pretty close to it.

...Why are they worrying about making the thing in the same shape as a natural eyeball? We already have cameras, and if you just want the thing to look like a real eye for aesthetics' sake, you can hide a small camera inside a fake eyeball.

The challenging part is linking the thing to your nervous system so your brain can actually see through it.

Trotterdam wrote:

Socio Polor wrote:Yes we're getting pretty close to it.

...Why are they worrying about making the thing in the same shape as a natural eyeball? We already have cameras, and if you just want the thing to look like a real eye for aesthetics' sake, you can hide a small camera inside a fake eyeball.

The challenging part is linking the thing to your nervous system so your brain can actually see through it.

I believe the reason as to why they want it the same shape as a natural eyeball is so that it can fit and adapt into a persons socket much better without any complications. I also heard that there have been methods in which a camera is placed within a fake eye which worked pretty well from what I've heard. They're called electronic eyes and they work very similar to the whole visual prosthesis concept from my understanding. Though what these researchers are going for is trying to create a synthetic eye that not only behaves and functions much like the organic eyes we're born with but also something that gives blind people vision that far surpasses any human

The Sherpa Empire wrote:I think this has a lot of potential.

Awh, really?

I'll go ahead and stick those ideas over in my ideas list then.
Found out from FuF that 475.2 would also give such a flag should one exist, so we've got at least three options for it.

Trotterdam wrote:Don't take primitiveness too seriously - mostly it means "industrially-underdeveloped nation that needs to import its cell phones rather than manufacture them locally" or "nation where people hitch their cars to horses because fuel is too expensive for everyday use", not "nation where people have never even heard of electricity". People in a primitive nation often use primitive tools because more advanced ones are hard to come by, but they have heard of them and can get their hands on a few when it's really important. (Unless certain technologies are outright banned, which does happen in some issues, but even then you'd still be aware of their existence and actively shunning them.)

Also keep in mind that you are still the leader of a nation - any tribal conflict is either between two tribes that are both still subordinate to your national government (maybe just nominally so, if you're also a lawless anarchy), or they represent invasion by another nation (which would imply another similarly-primitive nation near you, although that makes sense - first-world and third-world nations tend to cluster geographically in real life). You can't write it from a purely "our tribe versus their tribe" context without regard for international politics - you don't get to ignore that this game is called NationStates just because you're primitive.

Hi again.
I take your point about a tribe not representing a nation, but that can be tweaked to work. On the WA census for primitiveness, it says "Nations were ranked by World Census officials based on the number of natural phenomena attributed to the unknowable will of animal-based spirit gods." This seems rather primitive, and more inline with what I thought it meant, than the example you provide. I'm sure there will be nations like that somewhere, and I'm not sure why I can't write an issue with a very primitive requirement.

Sorry to be a pain, and thanks.

Is there an issue in the database that says that @@NAME@@'s Supreme Court Justices serve a lifetime appointment? Would it be safe to assume that the Justices do serve lifetime appointments or is that too much?

Sacara wrote:Is there an issue in the database that says that @@NAME@@'s Supreme Court Justices serve a lifetime appointment? Would it be safe to assume that the Justices do serve lifetime appointments or is that too much?

I think it would be unassumptive to say that they serve for a long time, but assumptive to state a particular mechanism for this (that is, for life, for example).

I'd note also that there's already an issue about selecting a new supreme court judge.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:I think it would be unassumptive to say that they serve for a long time, but assumptive to state a particular mechanism for this (that is, for life, for example).

I'd note also that there's already an issue about selecting a new supreme court judge.

Okay. I was thinking something along the lines of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, about a Justice refusing to step down even if they are in bad health.

So, has there been an issue about a clinically brain dead woman being pregnant?

Based on German news from 1992, which seems like long ago, but it is actually closer to the founding date of NS than today is.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13679986.html

Her other bodily functions were kept alive for a while, because of pregnancy.

Does anyone have an idea about how I could make this an issue:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-46944912

The concept is priceless but I need a way to turn it into an issue

The blAAtschApen wrote:So, has there been an issue about a clinically brain dead woman being pregnant?

Based on German news from 1992, which seems like long ago, but it is actually closer to the founding date of NS than today is.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13679986.html

Her other bodily functions were kept alive for a while, because of pregnancy.

the foetus/embry did not survive in the end

We don't have an issue like that (I also don't think it's too long ago -- I wrote an issue based around the first IVF baby reaching majority; IRL that would've been about 1996). It's worth being aware of "Still Life" (which asks about keeping a woman alive in a persistent vegetative state, but sans foetus).

There are several really interesting possible angles here, it seems. Co-opting a woman's body and maintaining artificial life -- for five months, in the original case -- for the sole purpose of giving birth to a foetus with only a 50-50 chance of survival, for example.

In one case mentiomned in the article, the father wanted the foetus' mother's body maintained, while her parents wanted life-support turning off. While this is very similar to Still Life, maybe there's an argument that the mother did not plan to keep the foetus and that co-opting her body would be against her known wishes?

Another angle could look at the nature of the experiment itself. Some critics, including one psychologist, was concerned that the foetus would have problems caused not by feeling his mother's movements, and accused the clinic of "ruthlessly experimenting" with the foetus' future, especially considering the early gestation period.

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:Does anyone have an idea about how I could make this an issue:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-46944912

The concept is priceless but I need a way to turn it into an issue

I'm not sure I personally find it priceless (different sense of humour, I think), but still... The concept's written in the article I think. The sale was pulled due to eBay's policy of not permitting anyone to sell things that seek to profit on human suffering or tragedy.

Surely that suggests an angle?

The Free Joy State wrote:

The blAAtschApen wrote:So, has there been an issue about a clinically brain dead woman being pregnant?

Based on German news from 1992, which seems like long ago, but it is actually closer to the founding date of NS than today is.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13679986.html

Her other bodily functions were kept alive for a while, because of pregnancy.

the foetus/embry did not survive in the end

We don't have an issue like that (I also don't think it's too long ago -- I wrote an issue based around the first IVF baby reaching majority; IRL that would've been about 1996). It's worth being aware of "Still Life" (which asks about keeping a woman alive in a persistent vegetative state, but sans foetus).

There are several really interesting possible angles here, it seems. Co-opting a woman's body and maintaining artificial life -- for five months, in the original case -- for the sole purpose of giving birth to a foetus with only a 50-50 chance of survival, for example.

In one case mentiomned in the article, the father wanted the foetus' mother's body maintained, while her parents wanted life-support turning off. While this is very similar to Still Life, maybe there's an argument that the mother did not plan to keep the foetus and that co-opting her body would be against her known wishes?

Another angle could look at the nature of the experiment itself. Some critics, including one psychologist, was concerned that the foetus would have problems caused not by feeling his mother's movements, and accused the clinic of "ruthlessly experimenting" with the foetus' future, especially considering the early gestation period.

I'll ponder about it for a bit. If anyone feels extremely motivated to make an issue out of it, they're welcome to do so

The Free Joy State wrote:Some critics, including one psychologist, was concerned that the foetus would have problems caused not by feeling his mother's movements, and accused the clinic of "ruthlessly experimenting" with the foetus' future, especially considering the early gestation period.

I find it interesting that the same people who think a fetus is sufficiently mentally active to be psychologically affected by its mother's movements, are also the people who think a fetus is okay to kill due to not really being a person.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:Does anyone have an idea about how I could make this an issue:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-46944912

The concept is priceless but I need a way to turn it into an issue

I'm not sure I personally find it priceless (different sense of humour, I think), but still... The concept's written in the article I think. The sale was pulled due to eBay's policy of not permitting anyone to sell things that seek to profit on human suffering or tragedy.

Surely that suggests an angle?

I could try it. It seems good to me, but I want your opinion on whether it might actually turn out well, or is worth the effort.

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:I'm not sure I personally find it priceless (different sense of humour, I think), but still... The concept's written in the article I think. The sale was pulled due to eBay's policy of not permitting anyone to sell things that seek to profit on human suffering or tragedy.

Surely that suggests an angle?

I could try it. It seems good to me, but I want your opinion on whether it might actually turn out well, or is worth the effort.

An ecommerce company refusing to sell things that profit on human suffering/tragedy could be an interesting issue, depending on how it was framed.

I suggest you downplay the tragedy (similar scale to the crash, maybe smaller), because if it was a major tragedy/suffering, that might tip the balance against.

Two angles that suggest themselves: @@LEADER@@'s relative -- I suggest using a relative so it impacts @@LEADER@@ -- has been in an incident (similar to the crash) and discovers memorabilia being sold online. They want it removed, but there is no policy (that would be option one), or @@LEADER@@'s relative is trying to profit from a small-scale tragedy by selling memorabilia; the ecommerce site removes it due to a new policy and they want the policy removed (again, that's option one).

You may have another angle in mind.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:I could try it. It seems good to me, but I want your opinion on whether it might actually turn out well, or is worth the effort.

An ecommerce company refusing to sell things that profit on human suffering/tragedy could be an interesting issue, depending on how it was framed.

I suggest you downplay the tragedy (similar scale to the crash, maybe smaller), because if it was a major tragedy/suffering, that might tip the balance against.

Two angles that suggest themselves: @@LEADER@@'s relative -- I suggest using a relative so it impacts @@LEADER@@ -- has been in an incident (similar to the crash) and discovers memorabilia being sold online. They want it removed, but there is no policy (that would be option one), or @@LEADER@@'s relative is trying to profit from a small-scale tragedy by selling memorabilia; the ecommerce site removes it due to a new policy and they want the policy removed (again, that's option one).

You may have another angle in mind.

I like it! I think I will go with the first premise you suggested!

Am I go for the idea?

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:An ecommerce company refusing to sell things that profit on human suffering/tragedy could be an interesting issue, depending on how it was framed.

I suggest you downplay the tragedy (similar scale to the crash, maybe smaller), because if it was a major tragedy/suffering, that might tip the balance against.

Two angles that suggest themselves: @@LEADER@@'s relative -- I suggest using a relative so it impacts @@LEADER@@ -- has been in an incident (similar to the crash) and discovers memorabilia being sold online. They want it removed, but there is no policy (that would be option one), or @@LEADER@@'s relative is trying to profit from a small-scale tragedy by selling memorabilia; the ecommerce site removes it due to a new policy and they want the policy removed (again, that's option one).

You may have another angle in mind.

I like it! I think I will go with the first premise you suggested!

Am I go for the idea?

Of course. Feel free to start drafting it in GI anytime you like.

I can't think of any other issue about what products may be sold over the internet.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:I like it! I think I will go with the first premise you suggested!

Am I go for the idea?

Of course. Feel free to start drafting it in GI anytime you like.

I can't think of any other issue about what products may be sold over the internet.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=458520

The first draft is up!

Are there any issues about political apathy?

Australian rePublic wrote:Are there any issues about political apathy?

#220 Voter Apathy Rising But No One Cares
#182 Younger Voters a Cure for Apathy?

Trotterdam wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Are there any issues about political apathy?

#220 Voter Apathy Rising But No One Cares
#182 Younger Voters a Cure for Apathy?

Thanks. What about political ignorance?

Australian rePublic wrote:Thanks. What about political ignorance?

#144 being what you mean?

Trotterdam wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Thanks. What about political ignorance?

#144 being what you mean?

That's it. Thanks!

The blAAtschApen wrote:So, has there been an issue about a clinically brain dead woman being pregnant?

Based on German news from 1992, which seems like long ago, but it is actually closer to the founding date of NS than today is.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13679986.html

Her other bodily functions were kept alive for a while, because of pregnancy.

the foetus/embry did not survive in the end

I think something sort of similar to what you’re describing actually happened around a month ago, where the fetus ended up surviving (And is still alive, I think)

https://www.azfamily.com/news/investiga ... 69faf.html

Any issues about joke political parties/candidates?

Australian rePublic wrote:Any issues about joke political parties/candidates?

#872 Party On, @@LEADER@@!