If Bush would be convicted as a war criminal by hague, he would avoid traveling to foreign countries after his presidency would be over and it would probably affect the future elections in America.
The real question would be that which effect would be bigger, democrats saying fuck you to hague, or republicans turning away from the war criminals and their party.
Re:Pills that treat every major disease costs $0.2
on
The Cost of the iPod
·
· Score: 1
The price for rare diseases is high. I know it certain, I personally know people who's insurance covers millions of dollars worth of medicine [europe], in some years. And thats because they have a rare disease. Its all about the economics, the amount of testing and paper work for getting a new drug accepted is overwhelming costs for some drugs, and then the manufacturing and research, adn then there is distributors share of the price.
ALL the COSTS for THE medicin ---------divided by------------------ =profit*per_day_costs number_of_people * lenth_of_treatment.
Now for the 15000$/month treatment of your father. You can assume quite easily that atleast 5000$ doesn't go to pharmaceutical company for any drug they sold, its left in the distribution chain. So they have 10 000$ and atleast 4000$ goes for making others realize that the drug exists and that it works. Then you have overhead costs for atleast 1000$ Then they probably want the 1000$ profit its less than what most companies make, but they don't want to look making huge profits on cures and its subsidized by other lines. So there is 4000$ left and probably 2000$ goes getting it accepted by goverments. So in the end, if we only consider the manufacturing and research thats probably under 2000$ of the price for the drug your father got, rest of the money goes to other costs. And still company makes relatively small percentage of profit out of the sales. This was just a speculation based on how costs are spread in many other industries, but its typical, the costs of manufacturing and research are only small portion of the costs for most products. Its sales and marketing that costs, in this petucilar industry there is extra costs for clinical trials. And potential lawsuit insurances.
Re:Pills that treat every major disease costs $0.2
on
The Cost of the iPod
·
· Score: 1
Here's interesting results... I searched for pharmaceutical company financials on moneycentral.msn.com . Lots of random samples+ the big companies that google whose websites google give.
The truth is that companies less than billion dollar on sales seems to loose money, and rarely even break even, not a single company nearly 7% profit on sales. Few billion dollar companies make upto 7% proft. Tens of billions dollars seem to give profit margins about 18-22% on sales.
Intel makes that. Microsoft makes 32% profit on sales.
Basaicly, pharmaceutical companies have business as usual. They spend the money to stay in business for long, they make the percentage of profit per sales that is normal for business with high research, atleast big companies. Their profits are not astronomical, since MSFT beats them and its right where intel is currently.
I agree that large portion of money goes for replacement research. But the truth is that the new pill should be atleast as effective or someway better than previous one or large fraction of people go for the old one. [Atleast in country where seeing doctor doesn't go directly to patients pocket more than the pills.] The most profitable product lines are treating symptoms, the cures are less profitable, but those things need to be researched also if not for any other reason its for keeping goverment off the back of big pharmaceuticals. Cure for common disease is profitable, but cure for rare on isn't. Its simple, what was profitable for pharmaceuticals 15 years ago is profitable for them now. And there are new profitable research goals but majority of that was profitable long time ago.
Here's interesting point, they don't really know all the effects of the molecyles they are researching until they have tested it throughout. And when they research, a molecyle that should affect one thing, it can han other effects that are beneficial as a drug application. Some are even sold for the other purpose than the original research target, and some are prescribed by doctors for other purpose than the drugs are sold for etc...
As for replacement drugs... After reading the side effects of certain common drugs, and seen the side effects and felt the side effects, I'm quite happy that the drug companies are competing for new pills that could have less side effects. I know a person whose doctor refuses to give her effective pills since those have side effects. Actually they replaced the effective pills with ineffective ones. And the problem is common enough to be in the list of those that are considered as replacement drugs. So we really need better replacements on many common drugs.
I personally want to see better delivery for antibiotics. Now I don't say more effective antibiotics but home antibiotics delivery that doesn't mess up my digestive track. There is lots of pills that I *DONT* use even if there would be need for it because of their side effects. And for antibiotics I'm never ever going to take any antibiotic pills if I have ANY choice on that.
The best arguments against seems to revolve around that tiny place where few families lived isn't mentioned by historian in a book where there is some military action in vicinity.
The problem here is WHY it would be worth mentioning in the book? Here's its real description, based on escavation "By comparison, Nazareth was tiny, with two or three clans living in 35 homes spread over 2.5 hectares, Pfann said. The homes later were razed by invaders: What remains are several basement caves, cisterns and silos excavated in the late 1950s during reconstruction of the Church of the Annunciation."
And about the cliff near Nazareth, its withing the distance that I walked to the school when I was a kid. And I don't think the people of that era where any worse than me as children in walking. The distance MAY sound too far away for people spoiled by cars, but its not for anyone who walks around.
And the pointers about single family farm... They have found singla farm BESIDES the 1950's findings in 1990's. And the ORIGINAL PAPER TALKS ABOUT THAT. Now, it isn't hard to question if one talks about its own new findings around Nazareth area that you don't include much of the research in the 1950's in the paper and THAT is what is being quoted with ignoring 1950's findings. They DID find a single farm, and DID write a paper about it. Christians find SINGLE farm in nazareth as a proof for nazareths historical existence in Jesus Time frame. Damn. Good presentation, of a fact while technicly correct it implicitely makes you think that there wasn't any EARLIER excavations, in the neighbourhood for other remains.
Before we got married, my wife and I decided to not have kids. Over the years since and to this day, when people ask us why we don't have any kids, we simply say "We're not done being kids, ourselves."
Evolution at work, reducing immaturity in future generations.
Well here's another view for not making predictions, in God theory. There are plenty of concrete predictions made in bible, unfortunately people didn't believe them until they happened so they didn't promote them. Now that they have happened they are nothing new. First thing is that Jews will be scattered, and in the final days they will be gathered around the earth back to israel and all nations between ethiopia and persia will go together a war against Israel... Thats one prediction that has happened. Unfortunately for us all God didn't put dates in which the predictions would come true. There is another point, while the God theory isn't good alone. Lets consider a bible theory, I have one question. If right now, someone would make complete bull shit stories about soviet union, inside todays russia. Would they A) be laughted off as totally false. B) believed by people. Its just that the new testament was written off a public figure in a time when people who lived through its happenings. The it would of been bullshitting the movement that was called christianity after wards wouldn't of survived its first few decades. These are few points made by an ex-atheist historian who tried to falsify bible based on historical context, he failed and became christian.
But thats only because you don't see all those dimensions of the joke. In one dimension of the Joke is persieved to be completely funny while in other dimension its persieved as totally unfunny. If the Joke exists in 12 different dimensions, and its persieved funny in 6 of them and unfunny in 6 of them then the joke can be considered as half funny.
There is heavy correlation between the temperature and CO2... And we are well below what our levels of CO2 would cause, and it takes time to get those levels.
2ndly yes. 100 000 year warming trend isn't alarming, its simply because its slow. The current trend is to get similar change in 100 years. Its like saying that if I push your face with my fist at 0.1m/s speed and there is not a big harm done, I could do exacly same thing with 100m/s speed and no harm is done either.
Now compare that to Eocene era that you mentioned. This was an episode of rapid and intense warming (up to 7C at high latitudes) that lasted less than 100,000 years [1]. The Thermal Maximum provoked a sharp extinction event that distinguishes Eocene fauna from the ecosystems of the Paleocene.
The cause for eocene heating was CO2 and methane. The temperature difference between eocene and today is 22 degrees celcius. Here's interesting point. BTW: the biggest problem isn't the heat it inself, but the increased sealevel due to melting ICE. It wouldn't kill all the life on the planet, but majority of worlds population would have to move since their homes would be below water. Lots of species would go extinct since they wouldn't have a new habitat to move after their natural habitat becomes sea. If the change would happen in 1000's of years the regions could adapt, but the speed of change is what makes it extinction event. Oh. And 50% of manking having to move may cause other problems also, like wars, famine...
I predict the next UI genius will come out with voice recognition, and I would love to see what my computer does when I tell it to "Fuck off!"
I predict that the voice recognition UI will be configurable. Another prediction is that at your work the administrators will tend to configure the said term to mean "play video clip of black gay masturbating."
I think there is a REAL ASSHOLE in slashdot, his name is Anonymous Coward. He generates huge amounts of bad or uninformative posts, and trolls quite a lot.
Okay lets assume that cell has 30% yields on 300mm IBM wafers. While I feel this is pretty much unlikely due to redundancy. Most of die area is redundancy protected and it makes from yield point of view the cell should have well over 70% yield and the blue ray controllers yield should be much higher, the damn controller is just another ASIC that shouldn't be anywhere near that huge. But lets assume 30% yields on 300mm IBM wafers. Its 4000$*221/(150*150*PI*0.3) for silicon costs. Its about 40 bucks. Damn thats expensive, compared to rest of the costs... But the yields probably are above 70%. So costs is way under 20$ Yeah. The MFG costs of the chips is insignificant part of the overall costs equation.
If blue ray controllers are from some asian fabs the price of wafer is smaller and the die size should definitely be much smaller than the cell costs. The as for the blue ray lasers I don't know.
The typical method of getting the costs, is disecting the product to smaller units and then take off the self price for each of the components. Now here's interesting point, manufacturing costs should be about 10-30% of what the self price of those components are except in very high end where it could be closer to 1% . The rest depends on what kind of deals Sony has made with its supliers. If Sony owns the IP while the other just does simple contract manufacturing, the price of the components is pretty much insignificant, even with bad yields that are under 50%
Games could be nice side business though. It could be something more like ARGH I don't want to spend 60 hours/week just doing these stupid custom business apps, I'll split the hours 30 hours for business and 40 hours for game developement. Uh. Those figures don't add up but if you get exited, of something there is potential for you spending more time on that hobby than just the dull business app side, if you choose to do it instead of management pushes you up in bigger company. 2ndly its rare that first installation hits that well in independent software, its more or less long term plan for becoming full time ISV. The more or less the routine looks like. First 5 months of sales could bring in way under 1000$/month. But after 5 years of refining the application, sales and marketing etc... you could bring in exess of 12 000$/month . Its you do something, you learn something you do something more, you learn more. After few years you have become quite good in your specialty, and have learned enough in the 80% of being in software business that doesn't deal with programming but how to get people buy your programs, and supporting them and everything else.
Slashdot Mirror
If Bush would be convicted as a war criminal by hague, he would avoid traveling to foreign countries after his presidency would be over and it would probably affect the future elections in America.
The real question would be that which effect would be bigger, democrats saying fuck you to hague, or republicans turning away from the war criminals and their party.
The price for rare diseases is high. I know it certain, I personally know people who's insurance covers millions of dollars worth of medicine [europe], in some years. And thats because they have a rare disease.
Its all about the economics, the amount of testing and paper work for getting a new drug accepted is overwhelming costs for some drugs, and then the manufacturing and research, adn then there is distributors share of the price.
ALL the COSTS for THE medicin
---------divided by------------------ =profit*per_day_costs
number_of_people * lenth_of_treatment.
Now for the 15000$/month treatment of your father.
You can assume quite easily that atleast 5000$ doesn't go to pharmaceutical company for any drug they sold, its left in the distribution chain. So they have 10 000$ and atleast 4000$ goes for making others realize that the drug exists and that it works. Then you have overhead costs for atleast 1000$ Then they probably want the 1000$ profit its less than what most companies make, but they don't want to look making huge profits on cures and its subsidized by other lines. So there is 4000$ left and probably 2000$ goes getting it accepted by goverments. So in the end, if we only consider the manufacturing and research thats probably under 2000$ of the price for the drug your father got, rest of the money goes to other costs. And still company makes relatively small percentage of profit out of the sales. This was just a speculation based on how costs are spread in many other industries, but its typical, the costs of manufacturing and research are only small portion of the costs for most products. Its sales and marketing that costs, in this petucilar industry there is extra costs for clinical trials. And potential lawsuit insurances.
Here's interesting results...
I searched for pharmaceutical company financials on moneycentral.msn.com . Lots of random samples+ the big companies that google whose websites google give.
The truth is that companies less than billion dollar on sales seems to loose money, and rarely even break even, not a single company nearly 7% profit on sales.
Few billion dollar companies make upto 7% proft.
Tens of billions dollars seem to give profit margins about 18-22% on sales.
Intel makes that.
Microsoft makes 32% profit on sales.
Basaicly, pharmaceutical companies have business as usual. They spend the money to stay in business for long, they make the percentage of profit per sales that is normal for business with high research, atleast big companies.
Their profits are not astronomical, since MSFT beats them and its right where intel is currently.
I agree that large portion of money goes for replacement research. But the truth is that the new pill should be atleast as effective or someway better than previous one or large fraction of people go for the old one. [Atleast in country where seeing doctor doesn't go directly to patients pocket more than the pills.]
The most profitable product lines are treating symptoms, the cures are less profitable, but those things need to be researched also if not for any other reason its for keeping goverment off the back of big pharmaceuticals.
Cure for common disease is profitable, but cure for rare on isn't. Its simple, what was profitable for pharmaceuticals 15 years ago is profitable for them now. And there are new profitable research goals but majority of that was profitable long time ago.
Here's interesting point, they don't really know all the effects of the molecyles they are researching until they have tested it throughout. And when they research, a molecyle that should affect one thing, it can han other effects that are beneficial as a drug application. Some are even sold for the other purpose than the original research target, and some are prescribed by doctors for other purpose than the drugs are sold for etc...
As for replacement drugs...
After reading the side effects of certain common drugs, and seen the side effects and felt the side effects, I'm quite happy that the drug companies are competing for new pills that could have less side effects.
I know a person whose doctor refuses to give her effective pills since those have side effects. Actually they replaced the effective pills with ineffective ones. And the problem is common enough to be in the list of those that are considered as replacement drugs. So we really need better replacements on many common drugs.
I personally want to see better delivery for antibiotics. Now I don't say more effective antibiotics but home antibiotics delivery that doesn't mess up my digestive track. There is lots of pills that I *DONT* use even if there would be need for it because of their side effects. And for antibiotics I'm never ever going to take any antibiotic pills if I have ANY choice on that.
What?? Making jokes about GWB:s intellect isn't considered politically correct anymore on slashdot???
The best arguments against seems to revolve around that tiny place where few families lived isn't mentioned by historian in a book where there is some military action in vicinity.
The problem here is WHY it would be worth mentioning in the book?
Here's its real description, based on escavation
"By comparison, Nazareth was tiny, with two or three clans living in 35 homes spread over 2.5 hectares, Pfann said. The homes later were razed by invaders: What remains are several basement caves, cisterns and silos excavated in the late 1950s during reconstruction of the Church of the Annunciation."
And about the cliff near Nazareth, its withing the distance that I walked to the school when I was a kid. And I don't think the people of that era where any worse than me as children in walking. The distance MAY sound too far away for people spoiled by cars, but its not for anyone who walks around.
And the pointers about single family farm... They have found singla farm BESIDES the 1950's findings in 1990's. And the ORIGINAL PAPER TALKS ABOUT THAT. Now, it isn't hard to question if one talks about its own new findings around Nazareth area that you don't include much of the research in the 1950's in the paper and THAT is what is being quoted with ignoring 1950's findings.
They DID find a single farm, and DID write a paper about it.
Christians find SINGLE farm in nazareth as a proof for nazareths historical existence in Jesus Time frame. Damn. Good presentation, of a fact while technicly correct it implicitely makes you think that there wasn't any EARLIER excavations, in the neighbourhood for other remains.
...that this was something that George W. would disapprove or write a constitutional amendment about.
But now that I see it's about taking advantage of nature's resources by utilizing the intelligence of others, I'm pretty sure he'd be behind it.
I think it goes far beyond that. I think he practices it personally a lot.
Before we got married, my wife and I decided to not have kids. Over the years since and to this day, when people ask us why we don't have any kids, we simply say "We're not done being kids, ourselves."
Evolution at work, reducing immaturity in future generations.
Well here's another view for not making predictions, in God theory. ...
There are plenty of concrete predictions made in bible, unfortunately people didn't believe them until they happened so they didn't promote them. Now that they have happened they are nothing new.
First thing is that Jews will be scattered, and in the final days they will be gathered around the earth back to israel and all nations between ethiopia and persia will go together a war against Israel
Thats one prediction that has happened. Unfortunately for us all God didn't put dates in which the predictions would come true.
There is another point, while the God theory isn't good alone.
Lets consider a bible theory, I have one question. If right now, someone would make complete bull shit stories about soviet union, inside todays russia. Would they A) be laughted off as totally false. B) believed by people.
Its just that the new testament was written off a public figure in a time when people who lived through its happenings. The it would of been bullshitting the movement that was called christianity after wards wouldn't of survived its first few decades.
These are few points made by an ex-atheist historian who tried to falsify bible based on historical context, he failed and became christian.
But thats only because you don't see all those dimensions of the joke. In one dimension of the Joke is persieved to be completely funny while in other dimension its persieved as totally unfunny. If the Joke exists in 12 different dimensions, and its persieved funny in 6 of them and unfunny in 6 of them then the joke can be considered as half funny.
There is heavy correlation between the temperature and CO2... And we are well below what our levels of CO2 would cause, and it takes time to get those levels.
2ndly yes. 100 000 year warming trend isn't alarming, its simply because its slow. The current trend is to get similar change in 100 years.
Its like saying that if I push your face with my fist at 0.1m/s speed and there is not a big harm done, I could do exacly same thing with 100m/s speed and no harm is done either.
Now compare that to Eocene era that you mentioned.
This was an episode of rapid and intense warming (up to 7C at high latitudes) that lasted less than 100,000 years [1]. The Thermal Maximum provoked a sharp extinction event that distinguishes Eocene fauna from the ecosystems of the Paleocene.
The cause for eocene heating was CO2 and methane. The temperature difference between eocene and today is 22 degrees celcius.
Here's interesting point. BTW: the biggest problem isn't the heat it inself, but the increased sealevel due to melting ICE.
It wouldn't kill all the life on the planet, but majority of worlds population would have to move since their homes would be below water. Lots of species would go extinct since they wouldn't have a new habitat to move after their natural habitat becomes sea. If the change would happen in 1000's of years the regions could adapt, but the speed of change is what makes it extinction event.
Oh. And 50% of manking having to move may cause other problems also, like wars, famine...
I predict that the voice recognition UI will be configurable. Another prediction is that at your work the administrators will tend to configure the said term to mean "play video clip of black gay masturbating."
I think there is a REAL ASSHOLE in slashdot, his name is Anonymous Coward. He generates huge amounts of bad or uninformative posts, and trolls quite a lot.
Okay lets assume that cell has 30% yields on 300mm IBM wafers. While I feel this is pretty much unlikely due to redundancy. Most of die area is redundancy protected and it makes from yield point of view the cell should have well over 70% yield and the blue ray controllers yield should be much higher, the damn controller is just another ASIC that shouldn't be anywhere near that huge.
But lets assume 30% yields on 300mm IBM wafers. Its 4000$*221/(150*150*PI*0.3) for silicon costs. Its about 40 bucks. Damn thats expensive, compared to rest of the costs... But the yields probably are above 70%. So costs is way under 20$
Yeah. The MFG costs of the chips is insignificant part of the overall costs equation.
If blue ray controllers are from some asian fabs the price of wafer is smaller and the die size should definitely be much smaller than the cell costs. The as for the blue ray lasers I don't know.
The typical method of getting the costs, is disecting the product to smaller units and then take off the self price for each of the components. Now here's interesting point, manufacturing costs should be about 10-30% of what the self price of those components are except in very high end where it could be closer to 1% . The rest depends on what kind of deals Sony has made with its supliers. If Sony owns the IP while the other just does simple contract manufacturing, the price of the components is pretty much insignificant, even with bad yields that are under 50%
Games could be nice side business though. It could be something more like ARGH I don't want to spend 60 hours/week just doing these stupid custom business apps, I'll split the hours 30 hours for business and 40 hours for game developement. /month .
Uh. Those figures don't add up but if you get exited, of something there is potential for you spending more time on that hobby than just the dull business app side, if you choose to do it instead of management pushes you up in bigger company.
2ndly its rare that first installation hits that well in independent software, its more or less long term plan for becoming full time ISV. The more or less the routine looks like.
First 5 months of sales could bring in way under 1000$/month. But after 5 years of refining the application, sales and marketing etc... you could bring in exess of 12 000$
Its you do something, you learn something you do something more, you learn more. After few years you have become quite good in your specialty, and have learned enough in the 80% of being in software business that doesn't deal with programming but how to get people buy your programs, and supporting them and everything else.