“Apple said Wednesday that the apparent inability of Siri, the virtual assistant in the iPhone 4S, to retrieve information about abortion clinics and women’s health services in some areas was not intentional or deliberate,” Jenna Wortham blogs for The New York Times.
“The company attributed the problem to kinks in the product that were still being ironed out,” Wortham reports. “Siri is officially still a beta or test product.”
Wortham reports, “‘Our customers want to use Siri to find out all types of information, and while it can find a lot, it doesn’t always find what you want,’ said Natalie Kerris, a spokeswoman for Apple, in a phone interview late Wednesday. ‘These are not intentional omissions meant to offend anyone. It simply means that as we bring Siri from beta to a final product, we find places where we can do better, and we will in the coming weeks.'”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]
Related article:
Apple’s Siri stumbles over an abortion question – November 30, 2011
These are not intentional omissions meant to offend anyone.
Naturally, someone got offended. In our litigious society, people are too thin-skinned. Conspiracies abound, and everyone is a victim. As a friend quipped, “He who gets offended first, wins.”
Exactly!!!
So many people just want find new ways to sue and threaten everyone.
Oh wait, I’m the first to be offended that apple has said it was a glitch!!
I’m sure none took “offense.” You have some conspiracy theories on the left as to why “abortion clinics” finds family planning agencies in business to convince you not to have an abortion. You can search on “planned parenthood” which will find clinics that can provide abortions. So, Siri is not filtering all places that provide abortion services, but does have an issue with the word “abortion.”
A glitch?
Well cut it out!
*groan* that was pretty bad.
When this is fixed, will it help me find places to kill other human beings or only the young?
Probably both…kinda like the phonebook does. Oh wait, nobody seems pissed at Bell.
Fetuses are not human beings. They have the potential to become human beings, if a number of things go exactly right.
The biggest “abortionist” of all is Nature. Miscarriages vastly outnumber abortions.
The idea that human life begins at conception is a religious belief, which is NOT supported by the evidence.
Fetuses have an individual human genic code, different from the mother and father, which did not exist before conception. The sperm and the egg produce the unique genetic code. A different sperm same egg different code. That’s a definition of individuality I can wrap my head around. If it isn’t a person, declare it with this knowledge. 🙂
Abortions are not limited to early stage abortions. Late term abortions can include so-called “viable” fetuses, meaning they could survive outside the womb and grow into normal adults. However, to define a living organism as one that is viable in this sense is an arbitrary and philosophical stance, and one that applied to other forms of life would logically lead to the conclusion that many living things are never “viable” their whole lives long, because they always exist in highly dependent conditions. In short, no one can yet define when life begins, because we cannot agree on what life is, nor on the point at which a living organism becomes significant. A purely scientific look at when life begins is inconclusive, because it still comes down to personal judgment: When we have a unique DNA, is that life? When the cells start to multiply, is that life? When it starts to pump its own blood, is that life? The answers to all these questions, apart from divine revelation, is nothing more than opinion. It just so happens that religious types tend to take the more cautious, i.e., more protective, pro-life stance.
A very thoughtful reply. No reteric.
Plus 1.
Although a pure science definition is not there, the scientific knowledge is something to be considered to form a position.
Life begins when the umbilical cord is cut. Until then the fetus is just another organ in the mother’s body.
Reply to Sucker
“Life begins when the umbilical cord is cut. Until then the fetus is just another organ in the mother’s body.”
While I respect anyones right to their opinion, this opinion seems to be something a person WANTS to believe rather than one chosen after careful thought. If you look at the science that shows that the fetus is genetically different, that is not its fathers or mothers genetic code, but it’s own. The color of hair and eyes; the tendency to be bald at 30, human, etc.
The same egg fertilized by a different sperm would produce a different code. This is not proof. It is enough, however, to convince me it is not just another organ in the mothers body, and that it is individually unique. This is enough to persuade me to err on the side of life. I realize not everyone will agree even after considering this. It has become plain to me that the real question is far different than we see in the media and organizations. The right to choose, the right to life. The fundamental question is the value of life.
A choice always happens. The question is “Who makes the choice?” A conservative-controlled government or the individuals involved and their medical advisors? I’m not in favor of this being a government decision. Maybe, if government took responsibility for the child after it was born, but it doesn’t.
The only one not allowed to make a choice is the baby.
Not a very plausible position, considering that the “organ” has its own circulatory system, its own nervous system, a functionally independent brain (the baby responds to light, sound, pain, etc., before birth), its own organs, etc. If you are hooked up to another person’s body, say, to transfer blood, do you just become an organ of theirs in the meantime?
Right, and nature selectively kills children and adults too, so does that grant humanity the right to end their lives based on our conveniences?
Second that! I think people have abortions because they have mostly financial problems… Now not judging anyone, I’m against abortion but if a couple has problems why not have the child and give it for adoption? Moreover, why are they not getting sex protection and come to the point of an unwanted pregnancy? To me abortion is as irresponsible as not taking precautions to avoid it. Not I’m not the religious type but what is right is right. You just can’t go around humping and then go out and kill an unborn human being and yes for those self-called “educated” it IS a human being assholes! You can twist the matter and rape it all you want abortion equals murder in my eyes and NO I don’t hate mothers who do it I just think that they should be more responsible and give the child for adoption if an unwanted pregnancy do happen. Do you know how many couples can’t have children and want to adopt? Why not stop a human beings killing and make 2 other people very happy at the same time? Just my view on the matter though you can take it or leave it…
Legalized abortion is the most devious plan yet destroy blacks in the U.S.
It had to switch to another demographic…its initial deployment on kids with bad grammar was a dismal failure.
Buster- I shall now stand and applaud your retort! Brilliant 🙂
The only problem with abortions is that mostly educated and intelligent people get them. There should be unlimited funding for free abortions for morons, low-life and trailer trash regardless of religion or race.
But then, who would be left to join the military to go kill their equals around the globe?
Oh well… 😉
Well said and very true!
My son is a soldier in the National Guard serving overseas. Soldiers such as he have protected our country and preserved the freedom you enjoy. So you are free to spew idiotic rhetoric at your leisure.
Siri will eventually require parental controls.
I’m not weighing in on the abortion issue but would like to just comment on groups always jumping on Apple (usually to get publicity). Heritage groups drove all the way from Florida to protest Steve Jobs demolition of his house as if there are no Heritage sites to protect in Florida. No way they would have bothered to go to California if the house (which wasn’t even Heritage listed) was owned by a normal ‘joe’, Greenpeace always mentions Apple whether bashing or praising, if they said “HTC product xyz is not green” no one would give a rat’s azz.
Same with this abortion thing :individual and groups all over making statements about Siri why touting their affiliations or Group’s Name.
Cook is trying to be open but reading some of of websites saying “Cook apologizes for censoring abortion searches” etc,– and tomorrow ANOTHER dumb issue will be brought up by publicity and page hit hounds — I think after a while he’s going to understand why Jobs ‘turtles up’ and just concentrates on the products.
Siri won’t find a church either. So does this mean Apple is anti-abortion and anti-Christ? I don’t think so. Maybe the Siri users who think that Apple is making a political or moral statement by giving no abortion info should ask their Siri “am I a moron?”
Some people need to get a life before they popoff.
Some people need to get a life before they popoff.
But then the MDN boards would be nearly empty! (At least of political tripe emanating from the south end of a northbound donkey-like mammal. I vote, “Yes!”)
Siri couldn’t tell me where my pecker was …does this mean she is a lesbian?
Siri did for me.
The whole thing is stupid, it’s a search engine… I assume apple is using external search sites (wolfram alpha, phone listings etc)
Yes, let’s judge Siri (and Apple) on what Siri does NOT do, instead of what it DOES.
Why the heck would anyone be offended if siri is still unable to bring up info about locations of abortion clinics?
When apple announced the iPhone 4S and Siri, they made it clear that it was still in development or beta. I ne’er stand that some people did not see the presentation. But even so, does it really mean that apple is trying to offend you if siri is unable to find certain information? There are many posibilities as to why that happened. Dont just go jumping into conclusions. Your first assumption is not always right as like to say.
And this is something I commonly encounter. Some people see something and they suddenly think they know the whole story. I for one am kind of against that habit but it’s how things work now. So, what can I do about it.
Some people hold the view that an abortion is not ‘killing’ a baby but rather a developing mass of differentiating tissue that cannot survive on its own. I would agree that a fetus is genetically distinct from its mother and father. By saying that it cannot survive on its own it is implied that a fetus must be alive to begin with in order to keep on living. One life is dependent on another. So a fetus is both genetically unique and living. It is most definitely human. So a fetus is simply a person at an early stage of development. Ending this life is killing because a fetus is alive and a genetically unique person. If a fetus is genetically unique, it can be considered to have its own body and it is not THE body of its mother even though it is connected to the body of the mother through an interface. I am not a biologist by trade so I cannot comment on the interface between a baby and its mother. The baby – mother interface does not matter in this argument at all. I would agree to the common argument that women should have the right to do with their bodies as they please, but a fetus is clearly not the body of the mother. It has its own distinct genetic makeup. A fetus is a separate distinct individual who, in the course of normal human development, relies on the body of the mother. The fact that fertilized eggs and fetuses can survive outside of a mother at certain stages of development proves that a fetus is not simply a part of the mother but rather is an independent individual. So a fetus = a person. The state of physical development should not be a factor in determining personhood. Many people are born with genetic variations that would be considered unusual and people continue to change and develop from the moment of conception to the moment of death. The vast majority of growth and development does occur prior to birth and in childhood, but the level of growth or rate of growth should not be used to determine personhood.
One person should not have the right to kill another person, simply because the second person depends on the first for nourishment and shelter, or because the second person is an inconvenience to the first, or because the first person can’t afford to provide for the second person, or because the first person did not want to be a mother to the second person. There is only one acceptable reason for killing anyone – to prevent a person from killing others. A baby in the womb does not qualify for that reason. Dependence on another person for nourishment and shelter should not make a baby less of a person. Being inside of a womb should not make a fetus less of a baby than a baby who lives outside of a womb. Legally speaking killing another person is called murder. Murder is not a necessary evil.
Some people say that abortion is not killing a baby. At what point of human development is a human being considered to be a human being? At what point does personhood begin? What are the requirements to be considered living? Is a fertilized egg living? Is it a single living cell with all of the genetic information required to construct a fully developed human being, given enough time and materials in a conducive environment? How much time and materials are necessary in order to be considered a person? Is a fetus genetically distinct from both of its parents? What are your criteria for determining what constitutes a human life? At what point do you consider a fetus to be a living human? At what point is not ok to kill a baby in its mother? At what point is it ok to kill a baby in its mother? Under what circumstances is it ok to kill a baby living in its mother’s womb? What justification can you make for killing a baby? Has a baby done anything to deserve death? Is it ok to kill someone if they are the product of rape? Is it ok to kill someone in order to save their mothers life? Why do babies have the legal right to life if they exist outside of a womb but they don’t have the right to live if they are still inside the mother? Do babies magically become living human beings upon their first breath of air? Is breathing air independently are pre-requisite for being considered a person? Are babies hooked up to breathing machines somewhat less human, less alive than those with fully developed lungs capable of independent breathing? Should all people be considered equal? Should we all have equal rights? Should some people be considered MORE EQUAL than others? Should people be allowed to legally CHOOSE whether or not to kill someone else and not have to face any consequences? Should people be allowed to seek help in killing someone else? Would this be considered conspiracy to commit murder? Would it be considered pre-meditation? Should people be allowed to offer their “services” to help someone kill someone else so that the murder can be committed in such a way as to not harm the person requesting the murder? What would you call such a person? An assassin? A person who has taken a solemn oath to do no harm? What about the people that funded such an “operation.” Would they be considered complicit? Would you give money to an organization that helped fund murder? Would you buy products and services from organizations who provided support or donated money to other organizations who provided murder services?
Here is what I believe on a scientific and rational basis:
Abortion is not just murder. It is pre-meditated assassination by a “doctor” at the request of a mother and paid for in some instances to some degree with taxpayer money.
Have I made any partisan statements in my argument? Have I made any sectarian or religious statements in my argument? Have I attempted to make my argument based on scientific fact? Have I used clear concise logic? Have I based my argument on basic ethics and human rights? Have I stayed on topic and not brought up other issues regardless of how other issues might relate to this one issue?
I will make this one political statement which I firmly believe is valid based on everything I have presented here. Everyone should have equal human rights. Everyone should have the right to live. Abortion should be illegal.
Here in Minnesota, if one is involved in a traffic accident causing a mother to lose her unborn child, the individual may be charged with vehicular manslaughter. The unborn child has rights under the law in this case.
Is it inconsistent that an individual can be sent to jail for being the cause of death of a fetus in an accident, yet a mother can abort her child legally?
Exactly right, HuskerMac. The legal system is broken because it allows unborn human beings to have rights in some instances but not all. An inconstistent system is a broken system. Also, the legal system can not say that a mothers rights outweigh the childs rights. Everyone should have equal rights. To say otherwise is to promote slavery and abuse. We need to fix this simply by legally defining personhood to include unborn babies. It is such a tragedy that this is being ignored by people who just don’t want to see the cold hard truth because the truth is inconvenient. Too many people agree that abortion is wrong, but don’t have the guts to take a moral stand and demand action.
Hiya! I know this is kinda off topic nevertheless I’d figured I’d ask. Would you be interested in exchanging links or maybe guest writing a blog post or vice-versa? My site covers a lot of the same subjects as yours and I think we could greatly benefit from each other. If you’re interested feel free to send me an e-mail. I look forward to hearing from you! Terrific blog by the way!