In the US, pharmaceutical research is primarily market driven (although some government funding is available for less-lucrative areas, such as vaccines). As a result, pharmaceutical companies want returns on their substantial investment in research and drug development which are extremely expensive activities (and often result in nothing), and therefore charge the maximum amount possible to recover these costs.
There are pros and cons of this approach.
Pros: -Increases the total amount of money invested in drug research. -If you own stock in a company that hits the next big drug, you can become extremely wealthy. -The risk is borne by private companies.
Cons: -Companies focus on high-return areas, such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Rare diseases, vaccines, and other less-profitable areas (such as diseases primarily experienced by the poor or uninsured) are ignored. -If you own stock in a company that does not hit it big, you can lose your shirt. -Since companies want a massive return on their investment, the cost of newly-developed drugs is tremendously high.
Trying to keep the pros while decreasing the cons is not easy and depends on who is elected to govern.
One quibble. The infant mortality rate in the United States in 2017 (deaths per 1,000 live births), was 5.8. Which, by historical standards, is pretty good.
Yet by modern standards, this rate puts the U.S. 56th in the world in infant mortality, tied with Serbia, and just behind Bosnia and Herzegovina, Latvia, and Slovakia. Still plenty of opportunity for the U.S. to improve in this area.
In terms of individual states, California and New York have some of the best infant mortality rates in the U.S. (4.2 and 4.6, respectively), while Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Oklahoma have some of the worst rates in the U.S. (all greater than 7), which on an international comparison puts them in a range similar to Kuwait, Lebanon, Ukraine, and Macedonia.
The complaints at Riot games had nothing to do with sharing a beer, BBQ, talking trucks, or the hotness of other employees, or nail salons, or reality TV.
The complaints allege men and women got very different responses when pitching the same idea; that women struggled to advance in the company because of their gender; and managers talking openly about sex with their female employees.
Many issues of social justice are about empowering the powerless to regain control over their lives. This is the explicit goal of these efforts, rightfully so. Take, for example, #metoo. It's about giving victims of sexual assault the power to regain control over their lives and (finally) achieve some level of justice against the perpetrators.
How about black lives matter? It's about decreasing police violence against blacks by empowering people to challenge excessive police violence and take action in their communities.
Another example? How about anti-bullying campaigns to empower LGBTQ individuals to lead lives free of harassment, bullying, and violence, and empowering them to fully access health care and other services that all humans need.
For sure, all of these campaigns can go too far - innocent men can see their lives destroyed if they are "found guilty" in the court of public opinion, police officers can have their lives threatened and careers crushed by just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and anti-bullying campaigns can be viewed as limiting the free expression of certain viewpoints. Proponents of social justice issues must take care to avoid the negative consequences from over-zealous action; however, it is quite clear that the intent of these efforts is worthwhile (empowering sexual assault victims, victims of police violence, and bullying victims, for example).
Try living in a region where essentially no fruit is grown, the only major local vegetable is the potato, and the only local nut (aside from the politicians) is the sunflower seed. You'll soon be thankful for the ability to ship an orange a few thousand miles cheaply.
It is the peak of irony to me that the same people who insist on local, seasonal food have no qualms purchasing their underwear from India, their televisions and phones from China, and their vehicles from Japan and Mexico.
The argument that, historically, people only ate what was available locally to them so we should try to replicate that model for all time holds no weight with me because: 1. Historically people didn't have access to cheap shipping of food, so they were forced to eat locally (not by choice or for health reasons), and 2. Maybe people shouldn't live outside the tropical zone where fresh fruit and vegetables grow all year long if that is truly the best diet.
It is not clear what punishment will be assigned, but an investigation is probably warranted because there are questions to be answered, such as:
1. What if the authors only decided after the frauds were caught that they were going to frame this as a "stunt" to reveal "flaws in the publication system"? That is to say, is there evidence that they actually planned these activities prior to the submission of the papers and weren't just claiming it was an effort to reveal flaws as a way to cover-up poor work after they were caught?
2. Were the authors awarded raises or other benefits in part as a reward for these fake papers? If so, should those raises / benefits be revoked? Should there be discipline taken on those who provided those raises / awards without doing due diligence?
3. Did the university take credit by counting these fraudulent publications as part of its annual performance review? Was the university's ranking artificially inflated by counting these fraudulent papers?
4. Are the researchers engaged in other fraudulent work? Are they sufficiently trustworthy to allow them to proceed with future research?
5. What research ethics violations occurred and should there be discipline assigned as a result of those violations?
You can say the same thing about marathon runners, "healthy" food zealots, sports-car nuts, angry sports fans, dance competitors, dog moms / dads, etc. etc. etc...
The bad behaviors don't come from the activity itself - it comes from assholes who happen to be engaged in these activities. Every activity / hobby has them, unfortunately.
1) Bicycling can be safe - just don't ride on the streets. I wouldn't bike to work if I had to ride on streets, as the safety issue is real and competing with traffic is very dangerous.
2) There's no bad weather. Just bad gear. Just keep a small bad-weather gear in your knapsack.
3) Just carry a change of clothes and don't bicycle so vigorously where you generate tremendous amounts of sweat (at least on the way to work).
4) Bicycling can take longer, but now you also have your workout for the day done, so it is probably overall a time-saver.
5) Buy a better bike. Do routine maintenance (just like you would do on a car). I have over 2,000 miles on the bike this year and I've had 1 flat tire. (I have had 1 flat tire in the same amount of time on my car, although the car went about 10,000 miles.)
how much we gnash our teeth or complain - streaming will likely be the dominant music distribution method for the foreseeable future.
Personally, I hate monthly subscription fees. $5 a month here, $10 a month there, and suddenly you are spending $1,000s a year on services - services that you once considered a splurge (like buying a new CD) are now required for you to maintain access to your entertainment.
Between jobs, need to cut back on spending? Sorry. You'll have no entertainment this month because you have nothing to show for your years and years of monthly subscription fees to a streaming service. And there is something about having a physical copy of music to hold in my hand. It feels more real, more tangible, than gazing at an image on a screen.
On the other hand, having recently moved boxes and boxes of CDs, many of which I haven't used in years, I can see the appeal of having access to nearly every song ever made through my phone for just $6!
You don't have to put your 401k dollars into equities. You can choose bonds, money markets, real estate, or other investment options that have varying degrees of risk. But staying out of equities, especially when you are young, is betting against the US economy, which, historically would have been a very bad bet.
If the stock market tanks, that's great for me, because then I'm buying low and when I need the money, in a few decades, I will sell high.
But, in my scenario, you don't have $10,000 (which is why you are borrowing it as part of the mortgage, which most lower- and middle-income people would do). And, you have to remember solar panels would likely increase the value of the home by some amount as well (this will vary depending on the age of the panels) - it is also an investment that could produce earnings (depending on the local housing market) when the home is sold to someone else. What's the average return on real estate, 3-5% or more depending on market?
According to the article, it increases the initial cost by $10,000 ($50 per month on 30-year loan) but decreases overall costs by $19,000 over 30-years of ownership ($52.78 per month over 30 years). So even if you finance the whole additional amount, you end up in the positive by about $33 per year, not to mention the health benefits of less pollution. (In addition, poor people tend to face more negative health affects from pollution because they tend to live in more polluted areas, so they will likely experience more of the benefits as well.)
Not to mention that you are looking at the image on a monitor (or phone screen) with its own limitations in resolution and coloring. It's like when they show 4k TV advertisements on TV - we are supposed to be amazed at the clarity of the picture they are showing until we realize we are already viewing it on my non-4k TV.
But, nevertheless, showing a picture that wasn't taken by the device they are advertising is deceptive and misleading and they should be called out for it if not sued.
States are still more powerful than the federal government and states are still the big players in many services that most directly affect the lives of residents. Let's compare:
Federal government:
-Defense
-Treaties
-Health care policy
-Some entitlements (primarily social security, Medicare and Medicaid are run in collaboration with states)
-Interstate trade
-Collecting and distributing income taxes
States:
-Education
-Health care
-Entitlements (some in collaboration with federal government)
-Roads
-In-state trade
-Public health activities
-Anything else not explicitly given as a federal power in the constitution
States are still tremendously powerful yet they often get ignored in political activity because political parties see federal elections as a high-profile way to raise money. People who think the federal government has all the power (or even most of the power) misunderstand all of the things their state governments do.
A dirty little secret: for the vast majority of students, admissions is a total guessing game. It is pretty clear who is the top of the top (and who is the bottom of the bottom), but for 95% of students, we really don't have any good pre-college measures that indicate whether someone will be successful in college or not.
High school GPA is the best measure we have, and it only accounts for 10-20% of the variance in college performance. If we really want to limit college enrollment, we'd be better just setting a minimum bar (e.g., high school GPA of 2.50), and then randomly selecting from everyone who meets that minimum bar.
Information on how public institutions spend their money is already widely available.
However, the revenue side is much more complicated. For many public institutions, tuition only produces about 30% of the revenue of the institution. So from that perspective, the student is already getting a tremendous bargain even if they don't participate in athletics, attend health clinics, or benefit directly from outreach activities.
"If she's not a federal employee why is she doing government work?"
Good point. It usually works the other way around (government employees not doing any work). If we only had more government workers like her, our budget problems would be solved!
I agree that cyclists seem to run stop signs more frequently. But, just to be fair, there's a big difference in blowing through a stop sign at 35 MPH in your 5,000 pound Tahoe, and blowing through a stop sign at 15 MPH with 150 pound human on a 30 pound bicycle.
The cyclist is risking his / her life and limb, but the Tahoe driver is everyone else's life and limb (pedestrians, cyclists, other drivers).
I won't ride on on-street 'bike lanes' unless they are protected. Many places in The Netherlands, for instance, have protected bike lanes that consist of vehicle traffic, a curb, then a designated bike lane, then another curb, then a sidewalk. Other places have put bike lanes between car parking and the sidewalk, which is also better than on-street 'bike lanes.' I agree that adding non-protected on-street 'bike lanes' are a waste, particularly if it requires reducing the number of lanes for traffic.
The gun question has nothing to do with the government. Nothing. And, further, all patient / physician interactions are private and protected interactions.
The gun question is there to keep you (and especially your children) safe. If you answer 'yes,' they can provide information about gun safes, trigger locks, safely storing a gun. If you answer 'yes,' they may also check your mental health status or ask about any thoughts you might be having about suicide. In this context, asking about guns are for your well-being and protection, which is what concerns the physician rather than politics.
the Atari 7800 out of the attic. It still mostly works and not once did it steal my private data, body-shame me, demand I purchase an in-game widget, or send me to a dubious website that would install all sorts of horrible malware on my TV. And, Pitfall 2!
Slashdot Mirror
The greatest lie the advertisers ever achieved is convincing people that they are immune to advertising.
Advertising works and it is often subtle or in ways you don't recognize in yourself.
In the US, pharmaceutical research is primarily market driven (although some government funding is available for less-lucrative areas, such as vaccines). As a result, pharmaceutical companies want returns on their substantial investment in research and drug development which are extremely expensive activities (and often result in nothing), and therefore charge the maximum amount possible to recover these costs.
There are pros and cons of this approach.
Pros:
-Increases the total amount of money invested in drug research.
-If you own stock in a company that hits the next big drug, you can become extremely wealthy.
-The risk is borne by private companies.
Cons:
-Companies focus on high-return areas, such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Rare diseases, vaccines, and other less-profitable areas (such as diseases primarily experienced by the poor or uninsured) are ignored.
-If you own stock in a company that does not hit it big, you can lose your shirt.
-Since companies want a massive return on their investment, the cost of newly-developed drugs is tremendously high.
Trying to keep the pros while decreasing the cons is not easy and depends on who is elected to govern.
One quibble. The infant mortality rate in the United States in 2017 (deaths per 1,000 live births), was 5.8. Which, by historical standards, is pretty good.
Yet by modern standards, this rate puts the U.S. 56th in the world in infant mortality, tied with Serbia, and just behind Bosnia and Herzegovina, Latvia, and Slovakia. Still plenty of opportunity for the U.S. to improve in this area.
In terms of individual states, California and New York have some of the best infant mortality rates in the U.S. (4.2 and 4.6, respectively), while Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Oklahoma have some of the worst rates in the U.S. (all greater than 7), which on an international comparison puts them in a range similar to Kuwait, Lebanon, Ukraine, and Macedonia.
The complaints at Riot games had nothing to do with sharing a beer, BBQ, talking trucks, or the hotness of other employees, or nail salons, or reality TV.
The complaints allege men and women got very different responses when pitching the same idea; that women struggled to advance in the company because of their gender; and managers talking openly about sex with their female employees.
Your straw man argument doesn't work here.
I really hope you don't live at "123 Fake Street." If so, I apologize.
Many issues of social justice are about empowering the powerless to regain control over their lives. This is the explicit goal of these efforts, rightfully so. Take, for example, #metoo. It's about giving victims of sexual assault the power to regain control over their lives and (finally) achieve some level of justice against the perpetrators.
How about black lives matter? It's about decreasing police violence against blacks by empowering people to challenge excessive police violence and take action in their communities.
Another example? How about anti-bullying campaigns to empower LGBTQ individuals to lead lives free of harassment, bullying, and violence, and empowering them to fully access health care and other services that all humans need.
For sure, all of these campaigns can go too far - innocent men can see their lives destroyed if they are "found guilty" in the court of public opinion, police officers can have their lives threatened and careers crushed by just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and anti-bullying campaigns can be viewed as limiting the free expression of certain viewpoints. Proponents of social justice issues must take care to avoid the negative consequences from over-zealous action; however, it is quite clear that the intent of these efforts is worthwhile (empowering sexual assault victims, victims of police violence, and bullying victims, for example).
Trump had two years of Republican control of government. Why no action on border security during those two years when they had complete control?
Try living in a region where essentially no fruit is grown, the only major local vegetable is the potato, and the only local nut (aside from the politicians) is the sunflower seed. You'll soon be thankful for the ability to ship an orange a few thousand miles cheaply.
It is the peak of irony to me that the same people who insist on local, seasonal food have no qualms purchasing their underwear from India, their televisions and phones from China, and their vehicles from Japan and Mexico.
The argument that, historically, people only ate what was available locally to them so we should try to replicate that model for all time holds no weight with me because:
1. Historically people didn't have access to cheap shipping of food, so they were forced to eat locally (not by choice or for health reasons), and
2. Maybe people shouldn't live outside the tropical zone where fresh fruit and vegetables grow all year long if that is truly the best diet.
It is not clear what punishment will be assigned, but an investigation is probably warranted because there are questions to be answered, such as:
1. What if the authors only decided after the frauds were caught that they were going to frame this as a "stunt" to reveal "flaws in the publication system"? That is to say, is there evidence that they actually planned these activities prior to the submission of the papers and weren't just claiming it was an effort to reveal flaws as a way to cover-up poor work after they were caught?
2. Were the authors awarded raises or other benefits in part as a reward for these fake papers? If so, should those raises / benefits be revoked? Should there be discipline taken on those who provided those raises / awards without doing due diligence?
3. Did the university take credit by counting these fraudulent publications as part of its annual performance review? Was the university's ranking artificially inflated by counting these fraudulent papers?
4. Are the researchers engaged in other fraudulent work? Are they sufficiently trustworthy to allow them to proceed with future research?
5. What research ethics violations occurred and should there be discipline assigned as a result of those violations?
You can say the same thing about marathon runners, "healthy" food zealots, sports-car nuts, angry sports fans, dance competitors, dog moms / dads, etc. etc. etc...
The bad behaviors don't come from the activity itself - it comes from assholes who happen to be engaged in these activities. Every activity / hobby has them, unfortunately.
1) Bicycling can be safe - just don't ride on the streets. I wouldn't bike to work if I had to ride on streets, as the safety issue is real and competing with traffic is very dangerous.
2) There's no bad weather. Just bad gear. Just keep a small bad-weather gear in your knapsack.
3) Just carry a change of clothes and don't bicycle so vigorously where you generate tremendous amounts of sweat (at least on the way to work).
4) Bicycling can take longer, but now you also have your workout for the day done, so it is probably overall a time-saver.
5) Buy a better bike. Do routine maintenance (just like you would do on a car). I have over 2,000 miles on the bike this year and I've had 1 flat tire. (I have had 1 flat tire in the same amount of time on my car, although the car went about 10,000 miles.)
how much we gnash our teeth or complain - streaming will likely be the dominant music distribution method for the foreseeable future.
Personally, I hate monthly subscription fees. $5 a month here, $10 a month there, and suddenly you are spending $1,000s a year on services - services that you once considered a splurge (like buying a new CD) are now required for you to maintain access to your entertainment.
Between jobs, need to cut back on spending? Sorry. You'll have no entertainment this month because you have nothing to show for your years and years of monthly subscription fees to a streaming service. And there is something about having a physical copy of music to hold in my hand. It feels more real, more tangible, than gazing at an image on a screen.
On the other hand, having recently moved boxes and boxes of CDs, many of which I haven't used in years, I can see the appeal of having access to nearly every song ever made through my phone for just $6!
You don't have to put your 401k dollars into equities. You can choose bonds, money markets, real estate, or other investment options that have varying degrees of risk. But staying out of equities, especially when you are young, is betting against the US economy, which, historically would have been a very bad bet.
If the stock market tanks, that's great for me, because then I'm buying low and when I need the money, in a few decades, I will sell high.
But, in my scenario, you don't have $10,000 (which is why you are borrowing it as part of the mortgage, which most lower- and middle-income people would do). And, you have to remember solar panels would likely increase the value of the home by some amount as well (this will vary depending on the age of the panels) - it is also an investment that could produce earnings (depending on the local housing market) when the home is sold to someone else. What's the average return on real estate, 3-5% or more depending on market?
According to the article, it increases the initial cost by $10,000 ($50 per month on 30-year loan) but decreases overall costs by $19,000 over 30-years of ownership ($52.78 per month over 30 years). So even if you finance the whole additional amount, you end up in the positive by about $33 per year, not to mention the health benefits of less pollution.
(In addition, poor people tend to face more negative health affects from pollution because they tend to live in more polluted areas, so they will likely experience more of the benefits as well.)
Not to mention that you are looking at the image on a monitor (or phone screen) with its own limitations in resolution and coloring. It's like when they show 4k TV advertisements on TV - we are supposed to be amazed at the clarity of the picture they are showing until we realize we are already viewing it on my non-4k TV.
But, nevertheless, showing a picture that wasn't taken by the device they are advertising is deceptive and misleading and they should be called out for it if not sued.
States are still more powerful than the federal government and states are still the big players in many services that most directly affect the lives of residents. Let's compare:
Federal government:
-Defense
-Treaties
-Health care policy
-Some entitlements (primarily social security, Medicare and Medicaid are run in collaboration with states)
-Interstate trade
-Collecting and distributing income taxes
States:
-Education
-Health care
-Entitlements (some in collaboration with federal government)
-Roads
-In-state trade
-Public health activities
-Anything else not explicitly given as a federal power in the constitution
States are still tremendously powerful yet they often get ignored in political activity because political parties see federal elections as a high-profile way to raise money. People who think the federal government has all the power (or even most of the power) misunderstand all of the things their state governments do.
I totally agree. Without autopilot, this driver's family would likely be planning a funeral.
A dirty little secret: for the vast majority of students, admissions is a total guessing game. It is pretty clear who is the top of the top (and who is the bottom of the bottom), but for 95% of students, we really don't have any good pre-college measures that indicate whether someone will be successful in college or not.
High school GPA is the best measure we have, and it only accounts for 10-20% of the variance in college performance. If we really want to limit college enrollment, we'd be better just setting a minimum bar (e.g., high school GPA of 2.50), and then randomly selecting from everyone who meets that minimum bar.
Information on how public institutions spend their money is already widely available.
However, the revenue side is much more complicated. For many public institutions, tuition only produces about 30% of the revenue of the institution. So from that perspective, the student is already getting a tremendous bargain even if they don't participate in athletics, attend health clinics, or benefit directly from outreach activities.
"If she's not a federal employee why is she doing government work?"
Good point. It usually works the other way around (government employees not doing any work). If we only had more government workers like her, our budget problems would be solved!
I agree that cyclists seem to run stop signs more frequently. But, just to be fair, there's a big difference in blowing through a stop sign at 35 MPH in your 5,000 pound Tahoe, and blowing through a stop sign at 15 MPH with 150 pound human on a 30 pound bicycle.
The cyclist is risking his / her life and limb, but the Tahoe driver is everyone else's life and limb (pedestrians, cyclists, other drivers).
There is no bad weather - only bad gear.
I won't ride on on-street 'bike lanes' unless they are protected. Many places in The Netherlands, for instance, have protected bike lanes that consist of vehicle traffic, a curb, then a designated bike lane, then another curb, then a sidewalk. Other places have put bike lanes between car parking and the sidewalk, which is also better than on-street 'bike lanes.' I agree that adding non-protected on-street 'bike lanes' are a waste, particularly if it requires reducing the number of lanes for traffic.
The gun question has nothing to do with the government. Nothing. And, further, all patient / physician interactions are private and protected interactions.
The gun question is there to keep you (and especially your children) safe. If you answer 'yes,' they can provide information about gun safes, trigger locks, safely storing a gun. If you answer 'yes,' they may also check your mental health status or ask about any thoughts you might be having about suicide. In this context, asking about guns are for your well-being and protection, which is what concerns the physician rather than politics.
the Atari 7800 out of the attic. It still mostly works and not once did it steal my private data, body-shame me, demand I purchase an in-game widget, or send me to a dubious website that would install all sorts of horrible malware on my TV. And, Pitfall 2!