Slashdot Mirror

Viruses are bad. Nobody can argue that. And I'm against writing them. But viruses have done something good: people started to think about security of their systems and their data. What would happend if there are not so many viruses? Most people wouldn't even know that their computers are vulnerable, and that would mean a lot of secret data goes to black hats. This way even my father knows that he must be protected. http://www.aids.org/

More information about Brazil producing AIDS drugs is here. Brazil claims it is not explicitly violating patents; they claim that a loophole in WTO allows it to produce generics in an emergency. It's not clear from TFA if Taiwan is claiming the same exemption, but it looks awfully similar.

I wonder how many folks that refuse to give money to Microsoft based on moral reasons evenly apply their morality to other purchases. Do they make sure they buy fair-trade coffee? Refuse Nike shoes? Purchase food that wasn't grown by a factory-farming corporation? Buy 'dolphin-safe' tuna?

Microsoft is fiercely competitive, but I'd hesitate to call it _evil_. Microsoft doesn't have an army of children it's exploiting, and doesn't destroy the environment to make it's millions.

Pick and choose your battles I guess. Personally, Microsoft can have my $100 or whatever for Windows, because the convenience and price is better than the competition. They're gonna use that money to make a better version of Windows and hawk it--big deal. My peronal beef is with big media companies such as Disney and Clear Channel. I could rant a long time about the injustices of big media, but it's off topic.

My point is that maybe you'd (not you, the general 'you') want to investigate if your antiestablishment energy would be more productive elsewhere. Fretting about Microsoft can be good, but maybe it's better to help out here, here, or here?

*sigh*
you don't usually troll, or did you forget to check the AC box...
AIDS transmission does not depend on the sexuality of the persons involved. See this site for details.
Of particular note: "Vaginal or rectal intercourse without protection is very unsafe. Sexual fluids enter the body, and wherever a man's penis is inserted, it can cause small tears that make HIV infection more likely."

Or you could strike the balance perfectly.

That was totally outrageous.

The reason the government doesn't like phrases like "sex workers", "anal sex" and "men who sleep with men" is because they indicate that AIDS discriminates, which is not what the government would like you to believe.

No, the government thinks those phrases look bad on a list of official government-funded projects. That's the obvious explanation, but I guess it doesn't play into your political view of the issue.

If people stopped doing the things that spread AIDS (it's not exactly airborne), it would eventually go away.

Yes, but what are the things that spread AIDS? Other posters have pointed out that blood transfusions and childbirth spread AIDS. It's also spread by sex. That includes non-anal heterosexual sex with a non-prostitute. If you're married and have 2.5 kids, you've done something that spreads AIDS. There are wives who have gotten AIDS from their husband and children who have gotten it from their mother. I'm sure they'd love to hear a little sermon from you about personal responsibility.

Of course, some activities are riskier than others, but we could never starve the disease of victims without killing off the human race.

Consequently, politicians and activist groups would lose a manipulation tool to siphon tax dollars away from issues that are a lot less preventable and affect more people.

You've just accused a whole lot of people of hiding the facts on a fatal disease in exchange for money. Why don't you type "AIDS" into Google and see what these people are actually saying?

Since you're a fan of common sense, consider this: If the government wanted to hide the fact that certain groups are at higher risk, they would reject requests to study those groups, regardless of the wording.

I'm sorry, but there is a science which studies this kind of thing, and it is called economics. You are contradicting centuries of accummulated scientific knowledge of economics. You are treading lightly where giants have exercised utmost care.

The consumer loses because competition based on cost requires the elimination of additional value in the supply chain. Quality, customer service, guarantees, product returns, post-sales service, what-have-you: it all is eliminated when the lowest price guarantee becomes the requirement for survival.

If the consumer can't correctly judge the value of different choices in the market, and goes for the "cheapest" (but seriously devalued) product, then he wholly deserves it when he gets fucked. Market economies don't just make demands of producers and laborers; they also make demands of consumers.