Slashdot Mirror

It's expensive on purpose to make sure only Big Pharma can afford the R&D to begin with.

Big Pharma has the FDA set up expensive hurdles only they can afford to jump.

Nope.
Those rules went into place to make sure as possible that we didn't have another Thalidomide fiasco.

Here's an interesting story about Frances Oldham Kelsey who had the kind of heroic stubbornness that so seldom happens now a days. She and the people she worked with, probably saved the lives of tens of thousands of people from Thalidomide.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

And here's some about the big pharma stooges and similar assholes.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/...

Who told you this bullshit?
Social Security is not going to be out of money by 2033. http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00628

There is a simple solution that Republicans will never allow, simply raise the ceiling on SS tax. That would solve it right there.

His solution for Medicare is to make the insurance companies richer. Let's solve this once and for all as well, single payer.

And yet you can blithely say that, posting logged in to your account, with full knowledge that your IP address and user agent string are being logged, and yet still have no fear that the US government will ever come hunting you down for your disparaging remarks.

Spoken like someone who's never tried confronting an American politician or candidate with an opinion they don't care for, in person.

Near future?
Social Security is NOT GOING BANKRUPT YOU IGNORANT TWAT!

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00628

Remove the cap that excludes the rich from paying their fair share, and it would even be fully funded for more than 75 years.

Ryan was chosen because he is disposable, this is the republicans wasting a Mormon and a Catholic at an election they have to show up too, but know they will not win. This way in another four years they can say "look how diverse we are, we let even non-christians(american protestants often claim both mormons and catholics are not christian.) run as our candidate". How the church their sects split from can not christian but the resulting church end up christian is left as an exercise to the reader.

Here is a start for you. Add in decades of government granted monopoly status. Good for you getting FIOS, most of the country can't get it. We were all supposed to have it several years ago and we gave the telcos a big wad of cash to make it happen.

Yes, commercial connections cost way more than home connections. That's because home connections offer no committed rate, no real uptime guarantee, and response times measured in days while a commercial circuit gets 5 9's uptime at a committed rate and guaranteed 4 hour response time to any failure (including just not being at full speed). It's only natural that the commercial connection would cost more.

Google can be your friend!

Because it's not funny.

I think the author is using a lot of irony in his post.

How do you know?

Just a 1 minute search in Google of "Missile Defense Systems effectiveness" gave me: Effectiveness of Proposed National Missile Defense Against ICBMs from North Korea

Unfortunately, the proposed NMD system would have essentially zero capability against the most likely emerging threat-- an ICBM from North Korea. And it would have strictly zero capability against the much more realistic and important threat from North Korea, Iran, or Iraq[...] Because the NMD interceptors are all "hit-to-kill" so that they must collide with the warhead in order to destroy it, the attacker need not conceal the existence of the warhead but only its exact location. This is readily done by the use of an enclosing balloon made of aluminum-foil coated mylar that can be put together by anyone who buys this article of commerce and spends $20 on a hand-held tool for heat sealing the plastic to make a large balloon.

Missile defense costs $10 billion a year. What do we get for that?

In 1999, former Secretary of Defense William Perry made what must have been an exhausting series of diplomatic trips to convince North Korea to stop developing and testing long-range missiles. He was remarkably successful. In fact, as news of his success reached the Pentagon, people there used to joke, "There goes the threat!" The joke showed that perhaps the easiest route in dealing with North Korea can be through creative diplomacy, not military technology. Dollar for dollar, Dr. Perry was the most cost-effective missile defense system the United States ever had, and he showed that effective diplomacy is hard to beat.

Sure, just like armor, or radar, or satellite imaging, or barricades, or moats. Yes, clearly all military technology is offensive in nature.

Yes it is. All military technology puts the other side at a disadvantage and provoke a countermeasure and is as such offensive. The USA is not a bunch of pacifists, in fact the USA is the most aggressive western country and is known for invading country after country. If the USA gets a Missile Defence System, it makes more likely that the USA will attack more countries, because they don't have to fear retaliations.

... In the event that the Service operates at less than 75% of the Maximum Speed,the Customer shall be entitled to have its contract migrated to the next most appropriate Service speed (the "Lower Speed Service") and be invoiced the corresponding Charges for this Service. Where the Installation Charges and/or Annual Rental Charges for the Lower Speed Service are lower than the Charges already paid for by the Customer in relation to the previous speed of Service the Customer shall be issued a credit note in respect of the difference. This shall be the sole remedy of the Customer in respect of any failure by Easynet Connect to provide the Service at the Maximum Speed.

At least in the UK you have the potential to have your contract migrated and/or price lowered based on service provided. I wish we had that here in the USA, however the telco-cable-cellular oligopoly would rather spend $1.5M per week lobbying our politicians not to provide Fiber To The Home (FTTH is the ONLY viable long term solution to the bandwidth scarcity myth and the BS price increases that come with it) not to mention net neutrality and all the lies they tell. Consider also that they have received in excess of $200 Billion since 1990 to provide US Customers with one thing FIBER. I have heard numbers as high as $900 Billion since 1990, but could not find the source, so lets assume they have only received $200 Billion of our tax dollars, its still very damning to the industry. Hint: it did not cost EPB in Chattanooga, TN $200 Billion to provide 2500 businesses and 20,000 residential customers FTTH 7 years ahead of schedule. The network has now been built past 140,000 of the 170,000 homes EPB serves in greater Chattanooga. They finished it with an extra $112 Million.

How many communities if $200B? How many if $900B?

$200,000,000,000 / $112,000,000 = 1,785 Communities (20,000 Residential, 2,500 Businesses);
$900,000,000,000 / $112,000,000 = 3,085 Communities

Even if the $112M was in addition to 200M, that would only be 312M

$200,000,000,000 / $312,000,000 = 641 Communities. Way more than 30!

So if every FTTH build out cost between $112M and $312M (some might be more, some might be less American telcos should have provided Fiber To The Home to between 641 and 3,085 communities as of 2010.

Don't forget they are reported to spend $1.5M per week lobbying for laws against competition and not to provide Fiber at all. Heck yes every American should be ANGRY!

But don't be angry, make a STAND!

While we could debate exactly how many communities should have FTTH. for our $200 Billion in tax dollars (tax money + fees + add'l taxes on bills), not to mention the $1.5M per week they spend lobbying against it, one thing is sure, there should be more than 30 communities as of 2010! Its been 20 years, look what Chattanooga did in 3 years!.

WHERE'S THE FIBER?

Its such a racket. Should it be criminal? It's definitely fraud...up to, please, how about above 768Kbps up to something higher! Its amazing with their abuse of trust that anyone uses them...oh that's right, in most markets customers do NOT have viable alternatives.

I was watching a show on Hulu and reading email...which is what brought me here...I doubt anyone here would consider that heavy bandwidth use. But if you do not know, its NOT heavy usage at all, not even close. The video stopped streaming, I checked my DD-WRT 24x7 bandwidth monitoring log (most residential routers do not allow you to see this) and my crappy cable provider that I am paying $60.99 for "up to" 16Mb/2Mb was only allowing me between 30K-60Kb upstream. wi

Well, there are political obstacles to means-testing an entitlement program with its own dedicated tax. I suppose one advantage would be that it's an opportunity to replace the payroll tax with something that isn't so horribly regressive. One problem with means tests is that if not carefully designed, they can lead to poverty traps, where the implicit marginal tax rate exceeds 100%.

I still don't see how eliminating Social Security would necessarily greatly reduce costs of employing US labor. Without Social Security, workers would demand some replacement retirement program.

Government social programs don't necessarily result in greater costs to businesses. Businesses executives in Canada have praised the country's socialized health insurance, with the Canadian divisions of the big 3 auto companies even signing a joint letter (PDF) supporting the system:

The public health care system significantly reduces total labour costs for automobile manufacturing firms, compared to the cost of equivalent private insurance services purchased by U.S.-based automakers; these health insurance savings can amount to several dollars per hour of labour worked. Publicly funded health care thus accounts for a significant portion of Canada’s overall labour cost advantage in auto assembly, versus the U.S., which in turn has been a significant factor in maintaining and attracting new auto investment to Canada.

What I'm really interested in, however, is what makes you fear that the US might descend into Third World status.

binghampton, to be exact

it used to be a major employer in hudson valley towns like kingston, poughkeepsie, fishkill, westchester, and new york city, and all the rust belt cities along the thruway corridor to buffalo

but this started shrinking as it went international, and accelerated as the political center of gravity within the company has shifted to bangalore. hey, it makes sense economically, and its good for india. but ibm has shafted its birthplace, and as someone from the area, so i say fuck them for the betrayal

as a historical major and influential employer, it has developed relationships with new york state and the feds for decades. therefore, the story of ibm is a shining burning example of how corporate money destroys my country

if you want to start your own ibm hate machine, and you should, start here:

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00434

dear frothing at the mouth tea party morons:

stop listening to your demagogues who redirect your rightful anger at your government. the people robbing you blind are corporations, not your fellow poor citizens who just need healthcare. money influence in our government and our congress is destroying our nation. stop focusing your hate at your poor brothers and sisters. focus your righteous anger at the corrupting influence of corporate dollars that pay for the propaganda that fools you, all the while stabbing you in the back with a smile

stop hating your fellow man who just needs healthcare, your anger's direction is paid for by healthcare companies and their demagogues for hire

don't focus your anger on your government. focus your anger on the assholes in your government who are supposed to represent you but instead sell you out to the highest bidder. you need to reform government, not destroy it

and finally, focus your anger on the corporations themselves, who take away your job, defy your rights, and destroy your country with their special interests, all the while paying demagogue assholes to tell you that it is your poor neighbor who is to blame, because he needs healthcare and unemployment benefits, that they deny him

if this is too michael moore for you, recall that what motivated him to initially make films like roger and me was hatred for gm for destroying flint michigan. dear tea party right winger: you get poorer, and you get angrier, and they get richer, and they take your lifeblood out of this country. you want to talk patriotism? go ahead and hate michael moore for his left leaning beliefs if you want, but don't hate him because he fights for YOU: the future third world residents of the formerly great country known as the usa

know the real villain: corporations, not the government. the government is only the villain insofar as corporations have paid them to be

You are indeed lucky to be in a country where you can get a text and/or phone plan for only "£15 a month". Here in America, only recently did another cellular company start offering plans (voice, not text) for $50 per month unlimited. Metro PCS has had real unlimited plans for between $40 to $50 per month for years. That is definitely the direction I would go, if I had to purchase cellular today as other cellular company plans that state they are unlimited have small contract in the contract that state otherwise.

With every other cellular company, in America, you are guaranteed, check RipOffReports.com (by consumers, for consumers; Don't let them get away with it...let the truth be known!) if you do not believe me, that you are guaranteed to eventually get hit with random over-charges. Which demonstrates to anyone who looks, by their very actions, that they (cellular providers in America) believe, honestly believe, with all their little tiny hearts, that Americans HAVE NO CHOICE! Thus they can get away with it. Can they? Really, Really, REALLY. (more directed at Americans than you)

Most people these days are used to "always on" connections, and I think this is how things should and will eventually be - the ability to use on line services anytime, anyplace.

I agree with you that this is how things should be and eventually will be, even here in America. Just not today, not yet. The American corporations have no incentive to provide it. In fact they do just the opposite, when a town or city attempts to put in city wide WiFi for the benefit of their customers, the telcos fight it, and they fight it hard. Usually they successfully prevent city-wide WiFi, but not always. It like people forget that the city infrastructure, water, sewer, eclectic belong to them and them alone!

The mentality of fighting innovation and service for customers is, well, pathetic. They have been fighting against fiber over the last mile in America for years, literally decades now. In Utah and Wilson, North Carolina they have fiber to their home. Will your community be next? Its up to you!

• User owned Fiber initiatives, where a community and a family in that community, can literally own the Fiber cable from the telco switching location of the town to their home. Smart families will spend the $3,000.00 (what one community charges) to own that critical fiber link for, especially if they plan to keep the home and property in the family and have children as it will bear fruit for generations. Of course the next bottleneck is having a non American Telco control fiber across the continent + undersea fiber optic cables to other continents. Utopia serves a good portion of Utah to date; Bringham City, Tremonton, Perry City, Layton, Centerville, Murray, Midvale, West Valley City, Riverton, Cedar Hills, Lindon, Orem, Payson, Cedar City
• Greenlight, North Carolina: the city council started running their own Fiber when Time Warner refused, that's when Time Warner got busy lobbying the legislature! They are still lobbying the state legislature, even though a Bill to limit broadband was defeated!

Note: About needing a non American owned company; the facts are that the current American telcos, even after receiving over 200 Billions in American Tax dollars over decades, have refused to innovate and provide fiber over the last mile to Americans. They received American tax dollars + additional taxes + additional legislative approved fees to bring Fiber to American ho

prove it

Not a problem...to get you started...

- $200 Billion of tax payer money given to telcos for promises never kept.

Where's the fiber?

Why have U.S. customers paid an estimated $200 billion in higher services rates and tax breaks for fiber-optic networks they never received?

I would suggest that when a corporation purchases another corporation, it purchases it assets and liabilities. I would be shocked if you did not agree with that simple premise.

Since those companies made promises to Americans via elected officials; any company that purchases them shall be held responsible for those promises. When a company purchases another company, their due diligence should expose these obligations. They are responsible for them regardless.

There is not a single area of the county where promises of fiber for tax dollars have NOT taken place. I suggest to you, prove that the company has NOT promised fiber.

How much fiber could they have already installed for $200 billion?

How much fiber could they install for the $1.8 million per week they spend lobbying our elected officials against net neutrality, competition and free/open markets?

Even pre-Clinton, as far back as 1991, the Bell companies made very promising statements about their commitment to fiber-optic networks.

You can get a really rough estimate from here PDF of Financial and Operational Results, Page 11, look in the Other segment, and page 12 under Wholesale and GEM solutions.

I say rough estimate, because it isn't broken down completely. You only get the totals for the entire segment, but that is where any government funding would be added in.

You can probably dig up more in the stuff found here as well.

The better question to ask is: "How much of my landline bill is being used to illegally cross-subsidize U-Verse/FiOS/DSL/Wireless?" (Seriously, there are numerous state telecoms laws across the country that disallow POTS income/revenue from being used on expansion of DSL/FiOS, etc, but the companies do it anyhow with seeming impunity).

Also, see here: http://www.teletruth.org/ and here: Bruce Kushnick: Nieman Watchdog Group

Here's Some Reading Material:

http://www.teletruth.org/

Whereâ(TM)s that broadband fiber-optic access?
Scandals by state

What about latency and reliability? I'm happy with 3.6 Mbit/s, or even lower, if I get a reliable connection with low latency. Rock solid 512 kbit/s with 20 ms latency would be preferable to anything available in the mobile market right now.

I will be happy when I get 100 MB / 100 MB bi-directional access to the internet for around $50 per month. Heck the Japanese have had this level since 2003 and now in 2008 they are migrating up to 1GB / 1Gb for less than $55.00 per month. How far behind do we have to fall anyway?

As for

Who cares about bandwidth?

I do!

I still want the same speed upstream as I am getting downstream. Enough excuses already time to honor your promises to the United States government and U.S. consumers. (Note: While some of the telcos that promised no longer exist, I would suggest that the homes and area that they serviced does still exist. The business that acquired their area, should also acquire responsibility to build out that area per the promises that the telco that was bought made. I would suggest that they bought both the assets and the liabilities. I believe this liability, a public trust if you will, should be passed on as it is attached to our tax dollars, fees-still-being-charged every month and government funding and therefore should not be ignored because the business was purchased and/or acquired....my .02 cents)

As of 2008, no US customers have the 45 Mbps bidirectional service to our homes and you guys promised to have 86 million customers receiving 45 Mbps by 2006. And certainly not for the expected cost of .50 cents per 1 Mbps of bi-directional bandwidth.

And do NOT state that you are providing high speed access to consumers based on the FCC definition of high speed internet, 200Kbps - try to run videos at that speed, high speed my behind....

Also about bandwidth, I want to be able to consume the total amount of bandwidth that I am (and have been) actually paying for. It's not my fault that the telcos and internet providers have taken money from consumers and the U.S. government (estimated at over $200 billion since early 1990s in the form of tax breaks; increases service fees and outright government funding) and used it for buying up companies rather than building out their infrastructures. ( Funny how similar the telcos reaction to receiving money was to the current financial companies and banks that received the buy in / bail out money by the government recently).

I am concerned that the wireless providers will play the same sleight of hand with or without the FCC for wireless internet that they have been playing with hard wired access. Surprised they are not asking for tax breaks, money or a bail out as well!

Now for a question to those of you who say reduce the latency and than work on speed, because I honestly do NOT know the answer. Here is the question:

If you had 100MB / 100MB (bi-directional) at how high a latency (how slow could it get) until you were as slow as what the average American high speed internet user gets today? (Assume an average bandwidth of 8.8 Mbps downstream (I do not get that either, but it is the average listed in the articl

What about latency and reliability? I'm happy with 3.6 Mbit/s, or even lower, if I get a reliable connection with low latency. Rock solid 512 kbit/s with 20 ms latency would be preferable to anything available in the mobile market right now.

I will be happy when I get 100 MB / 100 MB bi-directional access to the internet for around $50 per month. Heck the Japanese have had this level since 2003 and now in 2008 they are migrating up to 1GB / 1Gb for less than $55.00 per month. How far behind do we have to fall anyway?

As for

Who cares about bandwidth?

I do!

I still want the same speed upstream as I am getting downstream. Enough excuses already time to honor your promises to the United States government and U.S. consumers. (Note: While some of the telcos that promised no longer exist, I would suggest that the homes and area that they serviced does still exist. The business that acquired their area, should also acquire responsibility to build out that area per the promises that the telco that was bought made. I would suggest that they bought both the assets and the liabilities. I believe this liability, a public trust if you will, should be passed on as it is attached to our tax dollars, fees-still-being-charged every month and government funding and therefore should not be ignored because the business was purchased and/or acquired....my .02 cents)

As of 2008, no US customers have the 45 Mbps bidirectional service to our homes and you guys promised to have 86 million customers receiving 45 Mbps by 2006. And certainly not for the expected cost of .50 cents per 1 Mbps of bi-directional bandwidth.

And do NOT state that you are providing high speed access to consumers based on the FCC definition of high speed internet, 200Kbps - try to run videos at that speed, high speed my behind....

Also about bandwidth, I want to be able to consume the total amount of bandwidth that I am (and have been) actually paying for. It's not my fault that the telcos and internet providers have taken money from consumers and the U.S. government (estimated at over $200 billion since early 1990s in the form of tax breaks; increases service fees and outright government funding) and used it for buying up companies rather than building out their infrastructures. ( Funny how similar the telcos reaction to receiving money was to the current financial companies and banks that received the buy in / bail out money by the government recently).

I am concerned that the wireless providers will play the same sleight of hand with or without the FCC for wireless internet that they have been playing with hard wired access. Surprised they are not asking for tax breaks, money or a bail out as well!

Now for a question to those of you who say reduce the latency and than work on speed, because I honestly do NOT know the answer. Here is the question:

If you had 100MB / 100MB (bi-directional) at how high a latency (how slow could it get) until you were as slow as what the average American high speed internet user gets today? (Assume an average bandwidth of 8.8 Mbps downstream (I do not get that either, but it is the average listed in the articl

What about latency and reliability? I'm happy with 3.6 Mbit/s, or even lower, if I get a reliable connection with low latency. Rock solid 512 kbit/s with 20 ms latency would be preferable to anything available in the mobile market right now.

I will be happy when I get 100 MB / 100 MB bi-directional access to the internet for around $50 per month. Heck the Japanese have had this level since 2003 and now in 2008 they are migrating up to 1GB / 1Gb for less than $55.00 per month. How far behind do we have to fall anyway?

As for

Who cares about bandwidth?

I do!

I still want the same speed upstream as I am getting downstream. Enough excuses already time to honor your promises to the United States government and U.S. consumers. (Note: While some of the telcos that promised no longer exist, I would suggest that the homes and area that they serviced does still exist. The business that acquired their area, should also acquire responsibility to build out that area per the promises that the telco that was bought made. I would suggest that they bought both the assets and the liabilities. I believe this liability, a public trust if you will, should be passed on as it is attached to our tax dollars, fees-still-being-charged every month and government funding and therefore should not be ignored because the business was purchased and/or acquired....my .02 cents)

As of 2008, no US customers have the 45 Mbps bidirectional service to our homes and you guys promised to have 86 million customers receiving 45 Mbps by 2006. And certainly not for the expected cost of .50 cents per 1 Mbps of bi-directional bandwidth.

And do NOT state that you are providing high speed access to consumers based on the FCC definition of high speed internet, 200Kbps - try to run videos at that speed, high speed my behind....

Also about bandwidth, I want to be able to consume the total amount of bandwidth that I am (and have been) actually paying for. It's not my fault that the telcos and internet providers have taken money from consumers and the U.S. government (estimated at over $200 billion since early 1990s in the form of tax breaks; increases service fees and outright government funding) and used it for buying up companies rather than building out their infrastructures. ( Funny how similar the telcos reaction to receiving money was to the current financial companies and banks that received the buy in / bail out money by the government recently).

I am concerned that the wireless providers will play the same sleight of hand with or without the FCC for wireless internet that they have been playing with hard wired access. Surprised they are not asking for tax breaks, money or a bail out as well!

Now for a question to those of you who say reduce the latency and than work on speed, because I honestly do NOT know the answer. Here is the question:

If you had 100MB / 100MB (bi-directional) at how high a latency (how slow could it get) until you were as slow as what the average American high speed internet user gets today? (Assume an average bandwidth of 8.8 Mbps downstream (I do not get that either, but it is the average listed in the articl

The problem of government corruption is just too complex to confront head-on, and it's okay to admit that.

In 1978 two pivotal bills were passed by a heavily "purchased" US Congress. First, the bill allowing corporations, via lobbyists and other methods, to buy off Congress, whereas previously they hadn't been allowed to contribute to political campaigns due to legislation created and successfully lobbied for by President Teddy Roosevelt.

The second bill, thanks to a bought-off Black Congressional Caucus, gave tax breaks to corporations for laying off American workers and offshoring their jobs - they created and passed this in the name of "diversity" - evidently they considered "diversity" only to apply to foreign Asian workers and not Black American (and other American) workers.

These bills, especially when examined together, have brought us (along with soooo many other corrupt practices - please see sites below) to where the USA is today.

Of course, others have influence as well over US elections. Please read this excellent article blog as well as this outstanding blog.

Look real hard into the history of the mafia, then come to speak to me about centres of power. You do know what JFK's daddy did for a living, no? The army is damn-nigh inconsequential in such cases. Only the secret police and their goon squads matter somewhat - until/unless they are infiltrated, of course, at which point you get Northern Mexico or the Guatemalan highlands, with (ex)-goons basically running the insurgency. Such are the woes of empire.

Telecom companies were given $200 billion by US tax payers over 10 years ago to give us 45mbps both ways fiber optic wiring.

They took the money to invest in the profitable long distance market while still laying down old copper. They invented the barely faster than dialup technology we all know as DSL.

This was to trick the government into thinking people were getting the faster speeds they were supposed to without having to remove those old copper wires.

Educate yourselves, spread the news, and call your local representative.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction =Ask_this.view&askthisid=186
http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm

So, they are using changes to cable regulations to avoid telco obligations?

-quickly Googled link, there are more and possibly better. Certainly been considerable Slashdot comments in the past on this.

Very good. Now, look at a breakdown of education by county in those states, and in most of them you're going to find the counties with the highest rate of college education voted Republican.

Wrong. I went through this painful process in 2000 and the uneducated bible belters in the most rural counties were the most likely to vote Republican. If the most educated voters tend to vote Republican, one would expect that the Republicans would easily carry states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. Instead, they carry states like Alabama, West Virginia, and Arkansas.

Um, wrong again. Blue collar workers are more likely to be smokers than white-collar workers. How many Republican labor unions do you know of?

No, you are wrong, wrong, wrong. You mistake the educated union leaders, who recognize that the Democrats are their allies and that the GOP is their enemy, from the rank and file who believe that prayer in school is good, teaching creationism is better, and that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.