Interesting. The only time I had heard 'evergreen" before was in reference to characters/worlds/other fictional material, and referred to ensuring continued cultural relevance (e.g. Mickey Mouse).
But it explicitly talked about the pragmatic issues... I suppose they already assumed perpetual ownership of the IP.
did anyone consider the possibility of the government backstopping insurance companies for high-expense patients, by (for example) putting a cap on the amount of money an insurance company must pay out in the lifetime of an individual (call it $1 million)--then when you hit that cap, the money beyond that cap comes from the government,
The problem with this is similar to the problem with saying "The emergency room is a special case!". Different payers at different levels give rise to different, conflicting incetnives that raise the cost for the system as a whole.
Imagine Patient A is ensured by Company B. Any costs beyond X are picked up by the government. Now, A gets sick, and has two treatments available. The first (costs X/2) has a 50% chance of working off the bat, and a 50% chance of costing 10X if complications occur. The second costs X (or any number higher than X) and pretty much is assured of working. Maximizing societies total pool of resources devoted to insurance says the second option. Maximing Company B's profits says take the first.
It doesn't affect the patent. It affects the prescribability.
First, there is a break, when X cannot be prescribed (not made by the company, patent prevents generics), So the only option is X+1, which then becomes the entrenched standard.
Also, some jurisdictions don't allow generics for X to be prescribed. X is prescribed, and the generic can be substituted. So, by stopping the sale, they prevent the generic.
The latter can be fixed by changing the law... the former is a far more pernicious issue.
Libertarian philosophy as I understand it is about coercion.
No, libertarian philosophy talks a lot about coercion. The problem is that the word requires so much interpertation that it is meaningless..
Heck, let's use your example. First, your example presupposed that there is an objective, knowable standard for what a doctor should proscribe. And that somehow we can determine if something is "recklessly prescribing" or "prescribing... after weighing the risks and benefits."
But secondly, a doctor prescribing something is seen as coercion, if and only if it was the wrong choice. If it was the right choice, no coercion. And it's only coercion if a judge tries to stop him from making a bad choice, not a good choice.
While I think "the decision most likely to be correct should be applied, regardless of source" is reasonable, I don't think it's what you intended.
I do agree with GP. These points are tired, and dragged out constantly. So I worry I'm wasting time shouting into the wind. But, I'll take that chance.
If your decision only affected you, run wild. That's your choice and your right.
It never affects only you. In fact, it doesn't affect you. It affects your kids.
Children are not chattel. They are not capable of making informed decisions, but they have to be protected from abuse. And, fucking a, antivaxers are child abusers.
Now that Usmanov has set the precedent, he can expect a lot of other Nobel Prize winners coming forth to cash in. And when Feynman's heirs put forth his, Usmanov can buy it and keep it.
I highly suggest you entirely disable cookies entirely (yes, I realize this is not worth it at all)
Why on earth would it not be worth it? Especially with whitelisting. Unless I have an account with a company there is no reason to have them save data on my machine.
If I was in charge of a huge budget, and the ability to foist my language on the public, I would invent my own language. heck, every programmer wishes they could design the language everyone uses.
Sure it is. Every problem someone else has to solve that doesn't involve a measurable result (e.g. the bridge collapsed) is very easy, technically. If only they had my intelligence unburdened by their silly rules.
there's that whole pink/blue thing that is a modern invention. Hard to explain that.
Well, universal color coding makes sense to enable people to make gender references about newborns they don't personally know. Just like the blue/red divide in politics, it was originally arbitrary, and then somehow got imbued with meaning.
Ever consider girls don't like girly things cause there marketed towards them, but rather, that girly things are marketed to girls cause thats there tried and true demographic?
Well, the question is not about marketing, but societal conditioning. And the reason people believe that it is conditional-able instead of innate is different societies (or the same societies at different times) have conditioned men's/women's attitudes differently then they are now.
In comparison and somewhat ironically, Windows is completely free for devices under 8"
It's not ironic. Windows has always been very good at giving away copies of Windows in markets it did not think people would pay for them. It just used to be accomplished by simply not caring about, say a billion units of piracy in China.
Heck, startups still get free copies of most Microsoft software.
So, the post got made without double-checking that there was no counter-example to the depressingly likely "Eh, it's not like we were competing anyway?" That's complaining about the wrong part. It's like being upset that the governor misspelled your middle name on the execution notice.
although this treaty has not yet been accepted by a number of countries including the USA. Matter of fact, the US is one of the largest producers of land mines.
The US produces so many landmines for the DMZ between the Koreas. In fact, it has offered to sign the Ottawa Treaty if they add an exemption for that one area.
For what? To have every idiotic thing he said taken as important ever since then.
Look, he definitely did an important thing. Since then, he's said and done stupid things for half-a-century. Why do I still have to care about him as a person.
A person having â" and even expressing â" inflammatory opinions should not be raising the requirement. To continue with my Mel Gibson analogy, he'll remain great in "Braveheart" and I'd love to have him autograph the DVD for me, even he not only "hates Jews", but turns out to be torturing kittens for fun...
And I still will continue to believe in DNA, and even use it all the time in my personal life. But, to answer your Mel Gibson analogy less allegorically: Braveheart was fine, if overlong. I didn't see his later work. There was nothing that screamed "you have to watch me" that overcame my desire to not give him any more money. Because, when it comes down to it, there are a lot of non-asshole actors I can support that are at least as talented as him. And I disapprove of anti-semites.
To re-analoge the point, there are enough brilliant scientists in the world, that I don't feel the need to suck Watson's dick. Especially as he seemed to think he was so brilliant he could speak with autority outside his field of expertise.
He undoubtedly had one brilliant idea. Even with the blank check a Nobel winner gets for future research, he didn't really do anything else. One hit wonders exist.
Heck, his racism and sexism would probably continue to be overlooked if he continued making fundamental discoveries, or if his cancer research had borne fruit.
As a technophile who does not affect you in any way, shape or form
There's no such thing. If via no other mechanism, contributing to the use of something that the GP objects to strengthens its entrenchment via network effects, and may prevent a more agreeable (to him) solution from coming into existence.
Now, you may not care about that, but you cannot deny it exists.
Why would I want to replace a fairly robust piece of plastic with a finky piece of hardware/software. And why would I want my rates to go up to afford the 5-figure (for a good one) piece of hardware?
Among conservatives who where not going to vote for a Democrat anyway. They hate her so much, they consider it a win if she gets nominated, because surely everyone else hates her as much as they do. Therefore, if she is nominated, it will be an easy victory. See also, liberals and GWB's 2nd term.
Besides, what is it with businesspeople thinking their experience automatically makes them fit to govern?.. it's the job of government to serve all of its consituents' best interests, not to make a profit come hell or high water.
Well, to the degree to which the recognize the different roles and act accordingly, they seem to be okay.
I'd rather someone who has a record of success before they became president. Note: not 100% success. You're correct that having, and learning from, failures is a valuable skill. But I think before you become president you should have some success under your belt
What has she done that shows she learned from her failure, as opposed to deluded herself into "not my fault. To wit, what company did she successfully lead?
Also, I think business experience is not as important as management experience. I look at, for instance, generals who've become excellent presidents. Or governors. And I can certainly imagine a large non-profit giving the requisite experience.
I'd probably consider him the best President we have had in the past 40 years,
It's definitely him and Clinton at the top of that list. Although part of their benefit is being in the right place at the right time, they also were both bright and able to get their agendas through. Far better than "brainy but ineffective" or "brainless but browbeaty". And better than "idealistic to the point of ignoring reality" (which covers two in the past forty years)
Hmmm... that's interesting. I wonder how much better life would be if we simply accepted, on face, people on the internet who said "yeah, ignore that post, I regret having written it". I'm not even sure, if upheld, that would solve your issue.
Do you know whether you're having a manic or depressive episode? Maybe you could have three accounts?
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. The only time I had heard 'evergreen" before was in reference to characters/worlds/other fictional material, and referred to ensuring continued cultural relevance (e.g. Mickey Mouse).
But it explicitly talked about the pragmatic issues... I suppose they already assumed perpetual ownership of the IP.
The problem with this is similar to the problem with saying "The emergency room is a special case!". Different payers at different levels give rise to different, conflicting incetnives that raise the cost for the system as a whole.
Imagine Patient A is ensured by Company B. Any costs beyond X are picked up by the government. Now, A gets sick, and has two treatments available. The first (costs X/2) has a 50% chance of working off the bat, and a 50% chance of costing 10X if complications occur. The second costs X (or any number higher than X) and pretty much is assured of working. Maximizing societies total pool of resources devoted to insurance says the second option. Maximing Company B's profits says take the first.
Why don't the instead deny the patent for the new drug? That way, there's no incentive fort hem to act like this.
It doesn't affect the patent. It affects the prescribability.
First, there is a break, when X cannot be prescribed (not made by the company, patent prevents generics), So the only option is X+1, which then becomes the entrenched standard.
Also, some jurisdictions don't allow generics for X to be prescribed. X is prescribed, and the generic can be substituted. So, by stopping the sale, they prevent the generic.
The latter can be fixed by changing the law... the former is a far more pernicious issue.
No, libertarian philosophy talks a lot about coercion. The problem is that the word requires so much interpertation that it is meaningless..
Heck, let's use your example. First, your example presupposed that there is an objective, knowable standard for what a doctor should proscribe. And that somehow we can determine if something is "recklessly prescribing" or "prescribing ... after weighing the risks and benefits."
But secondly, a doctor prescribing something is seen as coercion, if and only if it was the wrong choice. If it was the right choice, no coercion. And it's only coercion if a judge tries to stop him from making a bad choice, not a good choice.
While I think "the decision most likely to be correct should be applied, regardless of source" is reasonable, I don't think it's what you intended.
I do agree with GP. These points are tired, and dragged out constantly. So I worry I'm wasting time shouting into the wind. But, I'll take that chance.
It never affects only you. In fact, it doesn't affect you. It affects your kids.
Children are not chattel. They are not capable of making informed decisions, but they have to be protected from abuse. And, fucking a, antivaxers are child abusers.
Now that Usmanov has set the precedent, he can expect a lot of other Nobel Prize winners coming forth to cash in. And when Feynman's heirs put forth his, Usmanov can buy it and keep it.
Why on earth would it not be worth it? Especially with whitelisting. Unless I have an account with a company there is no reason to have them save data on my machine.
If I was in charge of a huge budget, and the ability to foist my language on the public, I would invent my own language. heck, every programmer wishes they could design the language everyone uses.
Sure it is. Every problem someone else has to solve that doesn't involve a measurable result (e.g. the bridge collapsed) is very easy, technically. If only they had my intelligence unburdened by their silly rules.
Well, universal color coding makes sense to enable people to make gender references about newborns they don't personally know. Just like the blue/red divide in politics, it was originally arbitrary, and then somehow got imbued with meaning.
Well, the question is not about marketing, but societal conditioning. And the reason people believe that it is conditional-able instead of innate is different societies (or the same societies at different times) have conditioned men's/women's attitudes differently then they are now.
It's not ironic. Windows has always been very good at giving away copies of Windows in markets it did not think people would pay for them. It just used to be accomplished by simply not caring about, say a billion units of piracy in China.
Heck, startups still get free copies of most Microsoft software.
So, the post got made without double-checking that there was no counter-example to the depressingly likely "Eh, it's not like we were competing anyway?" That's complaining about the wrong part. It's like being upset that the governor misspelled your middle name on the execution notice.
The US produces so many landmines for the DMZ between the Koreas. In fact, it has offered to sign the Ottawa Treaty if they add an exemption for that one area.
For what? To have every idiotic thing he said taken as important ever since then.
Look, he definitely did an important thing. Since then, he's said and done stupid things for half-a-century. Why do I still have to care about him as a person.
And I still will continue to believe in DNA, and even use it all the time in my personal life. But, to answer your Mel Gibson analogy less allegorically: Braveheart was fine, if overlong. I didn't see his later work. There was nothing that screamed "you have to watch me" that overcame my desire to not give him any more money. Because, when it comes down to it, there are a lot of non-asshole actors I can support that are at least as talented as him. And I disapprove of anti-semites.
To re-analoge the point, there are enough brilliant scientists in the world, that I don't feel the need to suck Watson's dick. Especially as he seemed to think he was so brilliant he could speak with autority outside his field of expertise.
He undoubtedly had one brilliant idea. Even with the blank check a Nobel winner gets for future research, he didn't really do anything else. One hit wonders exist.
Heck, his racism and sexism would probably continue to be overlooked if he continued making fundamental discoveries, or if his cancer research had borne fruit.
There's no such thing. If via no other mechanism, contributing to the use of something that the GP objects to strengthens its entrenchment via network effects, and may prevent a more agreeable (to him) solution from coming into existence.
Now, you may not care about that, but you cannot deny it exists.
Why would I want to replace a fairly robust piece of plastic with a finky piece of hardware/software. And why would I want my rates to go up to afford the 5-figure (for a good one) piece of hardware?
Are you talking about only Christianity, or are you also talking about the GOP religions of:
Among conservatives who where not going to vote for a Democrat anyway. They hate her so much, they consider it a win if she gets nominated, because surely everyone else hates her as much as they do. Therefore, if she is nominated, it will be an easy victory. See also, liberals and GWB's 2nd term.
Well, to the degree to which the recognize the different roles and act accordingly, they seem to be okay.
I'd rather someone who has a record of success before they became president. Note: not 100% success. You're correct that having, and learning from, failures is a valuable skill. But I think before you become president you should have some success under your belt
What has she done that shows she learned from her failure, as opposed to deluded herself into "not my fault. To wit, what company did she successfully lead?
Also, I think business experience is not as important as management experience. I look at, for instance, generals who've become excellent presidents. Or governors. And I can certainly imagine a large non-profit giving the requisite experience.
It's definitely him and Clinton at the top of that list. Although part of their benefit is being in the right place at the right time, they also were both bright and able to get their agendas through. Far better than "brainy but ineffective" or "brainless but browbeaty". And better than "idealistic to the point of ignoring reality" (which covers two in the past forty years)
Hmmm... that's interesting. I wonder how much better life would be if we simply accepted, on face, people on the internet who said "yeah, ignore that post, I regret having written it". I'm not even sure, if upheld, that would solve your issue.
Do you know whether you're having a manic or depressive episode? Maybe you could have three accounts?