"With respect, you don't understand and you are ignorant of the facts."
It would help if you ranted a little less and wrote a little more clearly.:)
"The FDA kills tens of thousands of people by not approving things that work (and are available elsewhere) by being over-cautious. It happens all the time and is the stark reality."
And how many are killed by drugs they have approved? People die all the time from approved prescription drugs and that is also a stark reality. I have seen claims for hundreds of thousands. There is at least one documented case where being cautious saved lives (or at least prevented massive birth defects). It is a balancing act. And considering some of the recent drug "recalls" the FDA might not be cautious enough. But certainly open to debate.
"There are many drugs, clinically successful, which don't make it to market because of regulatory cost."
Well, then I am confused. I think our definitions must be different. I consider "clinically successful" to mean they have made it through clinical trials. Successful trials (phase 3?) indicate they will be approved and put on the market (the regulatory cost already factored in/sunk cost).
The approval process is expensive. But how much of it is due to "bureaucracy" vs actual trials? Less trials are a VERY BAD THING. Because once a drug is approved for use it can be prescribed for anything. And certainly pushed by the companies. This leads to very negative outcomes.
Now I KNOW certain drugs aren't put through trials because the regulatory cost is high and the market small (aka orphan drugs). You certainly have a point there. But realize my previous point above-drugs are often over prescribed....
"...which I can tell you with the certainty that the sun rises tomorrow is 8.3 million dollars more than is needed to prove that this device works."
So, you can predict the future? I will take your word that the device works. That is only part of the point. How many problems does the device create, how well does the device work?
"As a result of the 3 year process which I could do in 180 days, somewhere on the order of 50,000 patients/yr will be deprived of a life-saving treatment for diseases from which they will die."
So what is this mystery device? More to the point, if it would save the lives of 125k people by shortening the process 2.5 years why don't I hear about this on the news. This would make great "news" as it currently exists. Or is it as I believe, not nearly that useful....
I don't think your supporting statements mean what you think they mean. They support the fact that no Democrats received money from Jack Abramoff.
Unless of course you are saying that "Indian Tribe Clients And Lobbying Associates Of Jack Abramoff" are Jack Abramoff in disguise. If that is true then I am really impressed with his abilities.:)
"We are approaching 1.2 billion dollars to get a drug thru the process and it is absurd."
So what? Ever consider that your drug isn't very useful? More to the point, I find it hard to believe that the FDA is preventing a highly useful new drug from coming to market. If it is so great, release it in Europe/Asia first.
I'm not saying it isn't a massive organization that moves slowly. But an awful lot of drugs don't make it through trials. That is a good thing.
"Look at any programmers who are now 50+, most of them have been forced to move on. And while I'd say it is very apparent in the programming field I feel like it happens to everyone across the board."
And I wonder how losing years of experience hurts the quality of software. How many problems with software design come from reinventing the wheel or making the same mistakes over because of the lack of experience?
In my field (geology) the best geologists are generally the old ones. Experience matters. I have no idea how this effects IT/coding, etc. It would be interesting to know or at least study.....
"My other minor observation is that this seems a prime example of a theory I've been building for quite a while: to do well in the market, doing brilliant things matters a lot less than avoiding doing much that's really stpuid."
I suspect you are not the only one with that theory:) Of course, if you are going to make mistakes, it helps to be large and/or brilliant. Prolongs the end. Like Kodak.
"Other things being equal, a 10 megapixel picture is simply superior to a 3 megapixel picture."
But they rarely are. A good photographer will produce better pictures than an average one. Digital is about convenience. Using you logic why would anyone use a 35mm camera? There are much better film formats out there.... Oh, yeah, for convenience. The best tool for the job. After all, if the photo is going into a print media (paper, magazine, etc) virtually any camera will suffice. On the other hand, some of the best photography for large prints I have seen was NOT produced by 35mm.....
In the end, it's the same old tired argument about analog vs digital. Most cameras are overkill for most people anyway.
"That said, I'm not sure this is a good idea. What they're saying is that there is absolutely, positively no good use for DRM, and there never will be, in free software."
Well, if you have a good use for DRM, speak up now.:) DRM might be good for content providers. I can't see any good from a user perspective. Unless you count not being able to get the information/software/entertainment any other way....
"I don't always know if that is true. One of the markets near me that runs one of these still has sales. Sometimes there are additional savings for people with a card, but most of the time on these sales the card adds (or subtracts I guess) nothing."
Sure, some sales might not need the card. But that is an aberration. Generally, if a store has a card, all those in store reductions now require a card where they didn't before. Hence any "savings" with the card are not new savings. You just have to jump through another hoop to get them.
Luckily there are stores that don't require cards and have similiar if not better prices.
"If Intel is holding on to dominance in any market segment it's more likely to be the result of their business relationship with a company like Dell, which has been propping Intel up for the last two years while AMD ate away the rest of their market."
I suggest you find a window and look outside. What you see is reality. And AMD hasn't remotely impacted Intel's market. Hell, an awesome market share for AMD is 20%. Which they have trouble keeping (they MIGHT be near or slightly above that mark now).
Intel keeps its market share for multiple reasons. The most important is production capability. The rest include advertising, competive pricing and products, and the willingness to share roadmaps to partners (and generally follow them). I'm sure there are others.
"There are other episodes where they test "Rare Event" and, as one would expect from a rare event, it fails to happen on command. The cell phone gasoline-vapor ignition is one that comes to mind."
Well, is there a situation where this occured that has been documented? I mean if this happened in real life there would be extensive newspaper articles and TV news coverage. I suspect any documented ignitions would come from static electricity while someone just happened to be using a phone. And if you can't reproduce it under ideal conditions.....
Finally, they test the MYTH. Not whether something can happen. A lot of complaints occur because people don't pay attention to what they are testing. Like the difference between being able to set ships on fire vs a whole fleet. One is the myth, the other isn't. Some of yours fall into this category.
That's not to say there aren't problems. But fewer than you think. And the bulk of experiments done by scientists aren't any better....
"I'm not sure *anything* has intrinsic value other than the threat of imminent death. Alternatively, everything has intrinsic value, and gold's value is roughly equal to about fifty times its weight in pieces of paper with pictures of a certain US ex-president on it (currently.)"
Glad someone understands reality. Things have value because they are in demand and supply is limited in some manner.
"Just as I don't believe we're anywhere near to running out of oil in the next 1000 years,
That's a pretty unconventional view -- actually, a unique view -- in the minerals world."
Actually, he is correct. We aren't going to run out of oil. There will be oil in the ground that isn't economical or technologically feasible to extract.
We are going to run out of plentiful and cheap oil (and $70 barrel is cheap). Which for all practical purposes means we are going to run out of oil.
"A well armed citizenry is the best defence against despotism."
No it isn't. Despotism generally comes from within and is often welcomed relatively peacefully. A citizenry committed to "democratic" ideals is the best defense. Once it gets to the armed citizenry there is often little difference between despot and citizen.
"Apparently the insurgents in Iraq don't know this."
But they don't really have a chance against the only professional army in Iraq. If we are willing to take the casualties and spend the money we could stay there indefinitely.
Against the Iraq military they probably have a real chance. But I wouldn't call that army professional.
"An interesting question is why Bush didn't address this conflict in the laws/authorities 4 years ago when this program was started."
Maybe on a psychological level. But he didn't address this "conflict" because he didn't see any. He thinks he is right. Therefore there is no significant debate on the issue.
The problem that bothers me about the current Bush is his unwillingness to entertain differences of opinion on many issues. Every President has certain issues on which they are unwilling to compromise. But it seems Bush has many. Couple this with the fact that he believes changing opinions is a sign of weakness....
No, this issue isn't as large as it should be because many people are ignorant about the law. Not to mention willing to sacrific rights for the appearance of safety. The president can conduct warrantless searches on foreigners as much as he wants. There are much different standards for citizens. Many groups want to confuse the two.
Let's face it-if this happened in the Clinton era republicans would be investigating impeachment options seriously and rightly so. What is protecting Bush is the republican congress and his "reality distortion field".
On a more practical level this surveillance is dangerous because it prevents the FBI from doing its job effectively by burying it in worthless intel. This is confirmed by members of the FBI.
"I value this site and the needs of the readers above all else, because I believe it makes long term sense to put those needs first."
"Where we simply disagree is on style. I think Slashdot is informal, and therefore typos don't matter that much. Obviously a good number of readers disagree."
Do you see the contradiction?
If the needs of the readers are important and a significant number of readers think typos (aka basic spelling and grammar) are important then fixing them should be a priority. The fact that you blow off "a good number of readers" tends to send a very strong message.
Regarding style issues. Style and spelling are two different things. Editors often disagree on style, never on the importance of spelling.
Well, FAQ's and manuals are very similar. Many (most?) people don't read them. But they are ignored by many people because they rarely answer the useful questions. Which may be part of the reason many people ignore them. For instance, the FAQ's on this site often have little useful information-I have looked at them and found them lacking. Unfortunately, you aren't unusual because most FAQ's are crap.
"I think I will continue to stick with the MIT license. It has plain, easy to comprehend terms. It's concise."
Concise is pretty easy when the license is essentially anything goes with attribution. I suspect the new GPL isn't really any different in philosophy than the previous ones. It just takes more words to explain in legal terms.
Slashdot Mirror
"With respect, you don't understand and you are ignorant of the facts."
:)
It would help if you ranted a little less and wrote a little more clearly.
"The FDA kills tens of thousands of people by not approving things that work (and are available elsewhere) by being over-cautious. It happens all the time and is the stark reality."
And how many are killed by drugs they have approved? People die all the time from approved prescription drugs and that is also a stark reality. I have seen claims for hundreds of thousands. There is at least one documented case where being cautious saved lives (or at least prevented massive birth defects). It is a balancing act. And considering some of the recent drug "recalls" the FDA might not be cautious enough. But certainly open to debate.
"There are many drugs, clinically successful, which don't make it to market because of regulatory cost."
Well, then I am confused. I think our definitions must be different. I consider "clinically successful" to mean they have made it through clinical trials. Successful trials (phase 3?) indicate they will be approved and put on the market (the regulatory cost already factored in/sunk cost).
The approval process is expensive. But how much of it is due to "bureaucracy" vs actual trials? Less trials are a VERY BAD THING. Because once a drug is approved for use it can be prescribed for anything. And certainly pushed by the companies. This leads to very negative outcomes.
Now I KNOW certain drugs aren't put through trials because the regulatory cost is high and the market small (aka orphan drugs). You certainly have a point there. But realize my previous point above-drugs are often over prescribed....
"...which I can tell you with the certainty that the sun rises tomorrow is 8.3 million dollars more than is needed to prove that this device works."
So, you can predict the future? I will take your word that the device works. That is only part of the point. How many problems does the device create, how well does the device work?
"As a result of the 3 year process which I could do in 180 days, somewhere on the order of 50,000 patients/yr will be deprived of a life-saving treatment for diseases from which they will die."
So what is this mystery device? More to the point, if it would save the lives of 125k people by shortening the process 2.5 years why don't I hear about this on the news. This would make great "news" as it currently exists. Or is it as I believe, not nearly that useful....
I don't think your supporting statements mean what you think they mean. They support the fact that no Democrats received money from Jack Abramoff.
:)
Unless of course you are saying that "Indian Tribe Clients And Lobbying Associates Of Jack Abramoff" are Jack Abramoff in disguise. If that is true then I am really impressed with his abilities.
"We are approaching 1.2 billion dollars to get a drug thru the process and it is absurd."
So what? Ever consider that your drug isn't very useful? More to the point, I find it hard to believe that the FDA is preventing a highly useful new drug from coming to market. If it is so great, release it in Europe/Asia first.
I'm not saying it isn't a massive organization that moves slowly. But an awful lot of drugs don't make it through trials. That is a good thing.
"Look at any programmers who are now 50+, most of them have been forced to move on. And while I'd say it is very apparent in the programming field I feel like it happens to everyone across the board."
And I wonder how losing years of experience hurts the quality of software. How many problems with software design come from reinventing the wheel or making the same mistakes over because of the lack of experience?
In my field (geology) the best geologists are generally the old ones. Experience matters. I have no idea how this effects IT/coding, etc. It would be interesting to know or at least study.....
"My other minor observation is that this seems a prime example of a theory I've been building for quite a while: to do well in the market, doing brilliant things matters a lot less than avoiding doing much that's really stpuid."
:) Of course, if you are going to make mistakes, it helps to be large and/or brilliant. Prolongs the end. Like Kodak.
I suspect you are not the only one with that theory
"Other things being equal, a 10 megapixel picture is simply superior to a 3 megapixel picture."
But they rarely are. A good photographer will produce better pictures than an average one. Digital is about convenience. Using you logic why would anyone use a 35mm camera? There are much better film formats out there.... Oh, yeah, for convenience. The best tool for the job. After all, if the photo is going into a print media (paper, magazine, etc) virtually any camera will suffice. On the other hand, some of the best photography for large prints I have seen was NOT produced by 35mm.....
In the end, it's the same old tired argument about analog vs digital. Most cameras are overkill for most people anyway.
"That said, I'm not sure this is a good idea. What they're saying is that there is absolutely, positively no good use for DRM, and there never will be, in free software."
:) DRM might be good for content providers. I can't see any good from a user perspective. Unless you count not being able to get the information/software/entertainment any other way....
Well, if you have a good use for DRM, speak up now.
"As a writer, I'd like to be paid for my work. I'd rather not make it easy for people to redistribute my work without compensating me.
:)
As a consumer, I'd like open access to the things I purchase."
That's simple. Use restrictive licenses for stuff you create and look for unrestrictive licenses when you purchase.
"I don't always know if that is true. One of the markets near me that runs one of these still has sales. Sometimes there are additional savings for people with a card, but most of the time on these sales the card adds (or subtracts I guess) nothing."
Sure, some sales might not need the card. But that is an aberration. Generally, if a store has a card, all those in store reductions now require a card where they didn't before. Hence any "savings" with the card are not new savings. You just have to jump through another hoop to get them.
Luckily there are stores that don't require cards and have similiar if not better prices.
"If Intel is holding on to dominance in any market segment it's more likely to be the result of their business relationship with a company like Dell, which has been propping Intel up for the last two years while AMD ate away the rest of their market."
I suggest you find a window and look outside. What you see is reality. And AMD hasn't remotely impacted Intel's market. Hell, an awesome market share for AMD is 20%. Which they have trouble keeping (they MIGHT be near or slightly above that mark now).
Intel keeps its market share for multiple reasons. The most important is production capability. The rest include advertising, competive pricing and products, and the willingness to share roadmaps to partners (and generally follow them). I'm sure there are others.
"There are other episodes where they test "Rare Event" and, as one would expect from a rare event, it fails to happen on command. The cell phone gasoline-vapor ignition is one that comes to mind."
Well, is there a situation where this occured that has been documented? I mean if this happened in real life there would be extensive newspaper articles and TV news coverage. I suspect any documented ignitions would come from static electricity while someone just happened to be using a phone. And if you can't reproduce it under ideal conditions.....
Finally, they test the MYTH. Not whether something can happen. A lot of complaints occur because people don't pay attention to what they are testing. Like the difference between being able to set ships on fire vs a whole fleet. One is the myth, the other isn't. Some of yours fall into this category.
That's not to say there aren't problems. But fewer than you think. And the bulk of experiments done by scientists aren't any better....
And don't forget the large amounts of water needed.
:)
Alberta sands and fusion power are in similar boats. Energy of the future and always will be.
"It is abundant after all."
Well, copper isn't rare. About 50ppm in the crust. Now actually extracting that....
Same issue with aluminum. It is very common. But very hard to extract from most rocks.
We could run out of aluminum and copper in a practical sense (not cost effective to extract). But we won't run out.
"I'm not sure *anything* has intrinsic value other than the threat of imminent death. Alternatively, everything has intrinsic value, and gold's value is roughly equal to about fifty times its weight in pieces of paper with pictures of a certain US ex-president on it (currently.)"
Glad someone understands reality. Things have value because they are in demand and supply is limited in some manner.
"Just as I don't believe we're anywhere near to running out of oil in the next 1000 years,
That's a pretty unconventional view -- actually, a unique view -- in the minerals world."
Actually, he is correct. We aren't going to run out of oil. There will be oil in the ground that isn't economical or technologically feasible to extract.
We are going to run out of plentiful and cheap oil (and $70 barrel is cheap). Which for all practical purposes means we are going to run out of oil.
"A well armed citizenry is the best defence against despotism."
No it isn't. Despotism generally comes from within and is often welcomed relatively peacefully. A citizenry committed to "democratic" ideals is the best defense. Once it gets to the armed citizenry there is often little difference between despot and citizen.
"Apparently the insurgents in Iraq don't know this."
But they don't really have a chance against the only professional army in Iraq. If we are willing to take the casualties and spend the money we could stay there indefinitely.
Against the Iraq military they probably have a real chance. But I wouldn't call that army professional.
"An interesting question is why Bush didn't address this conflict in the laws/authorities 4 years ago when this program was started."
Maybe on a psychological level. But he didn't address this "conflict" because he didn't see any. He thinks he is right. Therefore there is no significant debate on the issue.
The problem that bothers me about the current Bush is his unwillingness to entertain differences of opinion on many issues. Every President has certain issues on which they are unwilling to compromise. But it seems Bush has many. Couple this with the fact that he believes changing opinions is a sign of weakness....
No, this issue isn't as large as it should be because many people are ignorant about the law. Not to mention willing to sacrific rights for the appearance of safety. The president can conduct warrantless searches on foreigners as much as he wants. There are much different standards for citizens. Many groups want to confuse the two.
Let's face it-if this happened in the Clinton era republicans would be investigating impeachment options seriously and rightly so. What is protecting Bush is the republican congress and his "reality distortion field".
On a more practical level this surveillance is dangerous because it prevents the FBI from doing its job effectively by burying it in worthless intel. This is confirmed by members of the FBI.
"I value this site and the needs of the readers above all else, because I believe it makes long term sense to put those needs first."
"Where we simply disagree is on style. I think Slashdot is informal, and therefore typos don't matter that much. Obviously a good number of readers disagree."
Do you see the contradiction?
If the needs of the readers are important and a significant number of readers think typos (aka basic spelling and grammar) are important then fixing them should be a priority. The fact that you blow off "a good number of readers" tends to send a very strong message.
Regarding style issues. Style and spelling are two different things. Editors often disagree on style, never on the importance of spelling.
Well, FAQ's and manuals are very similar. Many (most?) people don't read them. But they are ignored by many people because they rarely answer the useful questions. Which may be part of the reason many people ignore them. For instance, the FAQ's on this site often have little useful information-I have looked at them and found them lacking. Unfortunately, you aren't unusual because most FAQ's are crap.
"If so , I am going to invite the marketing department on a hunting trip ..A hunt for the ultimate Prey .. MAN"
:)
Interesting. I didn't realize humans worked in the marketing department.
What's next, lawyers have souls?!?
"As is thinking that six billion people would be unable to survive climate change. We're smart monkeys. We can fix things. I'm not worried."
:)
:)
Sure, we can fix things, eventually (something about an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of tools).
But many of those six billion monkeys may not be around to see it
"I like my licenses without built-in ideologies."
:)
Do you seriously think the OpenBSD license doesn't have a ideology? Of course it does. It is just one you accept.
For instance, what is with this annoying requirement to give attribution? This idea that anyone can use it? That sounds like socialism!
Every license has an ideology. There's a reason there are so many of them.....
"I think I will continue to stick with the MIT license. It has plain, easy to comprehend terms. It's concise."
Concise is pretty easy when the license is essentially anything goes with attribution. I suspect the new GPL isn't really any different in philosophy than the previous ones. It just takes more words to explain in legal terms.