"TFS" is the well known Slashdot acronym for "The Fucking Summary," as in that block of text near the top of the story page. In case you didn't make the connection to the drug we've been talking about.
Again your reasoning mostly consists of cherry-picking and false dilemmas. First the false dilemma that runaway gratuitous price increases are necessary for pharma R&D. Again, drugs that suffer this problem are the exception rather than the rule. Most medications have been produced by companies that never jacked medication costs sky-high just because they could.
Next, there is no reason a state-owned pharmaceutical company couldn't research and create new drugs, all without a marketing budget or a horrendously overpaid CEO. The research scientists can work the same regardless of where their dollars came from. Without the need to pay for marketing or luxuries for the C-suite, the costs of developing new drugs can be greatly decreased. This breaks your circular reasoning that the cost of developing new drugs is seemingly infinite and therefore requires infinite dollars. They're finite and can be easily halved or better.
I don't want price control, I want at the very least an end to horrendous waste and exploitation, and ideally nationalization of health care in the long term. Health care should not be at the whims of the free market because the demand for it is as close to perfectly inelastic as will ever exist. People will pay any cost to avoid dying, and these fuckers know it, leading to this horrendous exploitation.
People are suffering and dying while being fleeced of all their money for no good reason other than to make some already rich people even richer, while there are viable ways to greatly reduce or eliminate the problem. To me, that's morally indefensible.
The video is meant to show bias, and it does - but it also shows at that point at least some expressed that there should be a willingness to listen to opposing views, a feel that now seems to be utterly gone from the left and also for Google internally where it is safe to identify you gender as Dragon, but not safe to identify as a conservative.
People can have their own political views without letting it affect their work.
Also you need to consider how "conservative" has changed in the last few years - in 2013 the average conservative wasn't openly anti-democratic, openly sympathetic to if not supportive of white nationalism, openly hostile to the idea of an objective reality, and willing to give their party leaders every free pass and blank cheque in the book while they generally act like trashy 3rd-world gangster-politicians on the path to dictatorship. Today's mainstream American conservatives are basically fascists and would've been called that 4+ years ago without any controversy in mainstream politics. So it's rather disingenuous to whine about how "conservatives" are treated these days when the only thing that's changed is that the definition of "conservative" is now a whole lot more goose-steppey.
Conservatives are working hastily and efficiently to fix that...and also to thwart and ultimately dismantle democracy so that it doesn't come back to bite them in the ass.
An oversimplification. Higher CO2 concentration alone has no benefit to crop yields beyond a certain point, which happens to be a point we've passed in the last few years:
It doesn't have to be actual dollars. Free batteries/medication/etc would be acceptable. Being able to produce some invention that was made with public dollars patent-free would even be acceptable but is rarely the case. Having the technology locked behind IP laws and/or subscription journals for the profit of a few is not acceptable. And to the average person (or small university), those subscription fees are far from small.
There aren't any. Things either exist, or they don't. For new drugs to appear, years of effort — by highly-educated — is required.
This doesn't require supplication to infinite greed. Many drugs have been developed and sold profitably and somewhat affordably without massive gratuitous price increases - and that's with most of the money going into marketing rather than paying pharma research scientists!
At that point, I'll have a choice of either paying the "greedmonster", or doing without
At which point you would be maimed or killed by what ails you. What kind of choice is that? I'd prefer that you stop wishing harm on yourself and others so that you could be healed in this hypothetical scenario, but if you don't, this would be acceptable. Also I'm not nearly as angry at someone else making too much money as I am about sick people being extorted to greater illness or death for no reason other than to further enrich a few already very rich people.
You cited precisely zero such.
This shouldn't be necessary when the examples are so plentiful and easy to find, you're being obtuse, but I'll cite some anyway.
Drug that doesn't have its price gratuitously jacked sky high: The drug in TFS, yesterday and before.
Examples of loose IP laws allowing pharmaceuticals being manfuactured cheaply:
I can agree with that, but I think that the amount of CO2 that will get us to that sweet spot will be much closer to pre-industrial than current levels.
Horseshit again. You refuse to consider any options between infinitely evil runaway greed and medications not existing, when there are examples around the world of these other possibilities.
Saying "fuck you" to each other is going nowhere, so instead I'll say this: May you one day be dependent on a medication that some greedmonster CEO jacks the price sky-high on, so that you may get exactly what you've asked for.
Horse-fucking-shit! First of all, he could be a lot less (but still significantly) evil and continue to be incredibly overpaid by leaving the medication at its already overinflated price. But he's SO much more evil than that.
Next, another less evil possibility is that someone else could be the CEO of this company who would take less pay and allow the drug to be cheaper to help millions of people.
Another is that IP laws could be revised to allow many companies to make generic versions of the drug for pennies on the dollar.
Another is that pharmaceutical research and production could be nationalized to allow drugs to be cheaper than could ever be possible from private companies with fatcat CEOs and massive marketing costs.
This guy is incredibly evil, fuck him and anyone who supports his decision.
When this fucker goes to hell with a FastPass, he'll be an ordinary working-class American with a UTI at this time. After he dies penniless from gangrene after his dick falls off, he's sent into a fever dream where he's forced to give the laughing, CEO version of himself a blowjob. This copy also has a UTI-riddled rotten zombie dick that jizzes out spiders. Next, GOTO 10.
Once published the researchers sometimes spin-off a company with their discovery which may or may not get bought by someone else. You don't get any less for your money as a result.
But also no more: The public pays for research, receives $0 as a result, private company makes millions, which the people who paid for the research again get $0 from.
What you DO get is someone actively promoting a product rather than a throwaway research paper that will gather dust in the annals of scientific history.
Again it's not the worst possible outcome - that would probably be if some researcher became a supervillain and used the technology he discovered to enslave the world and assign each person 2 wolves to chew on their armpits - but it's certainly not a good one IMO.
I'm not arguing for private R&D, I'm arguing that there is no value paid back when the fruits of public research are privatized, even if some hypothetical scenario involving private research could be worse.
If you think it's published for all to read, check out how much subscriptions to journals from Elsevier & friends cost.
Carbon output has already delayed the onset of such cooling, keeping the next possible occurrence of a "practical" ice age well over ten thousand years away, possibly over a hundred thousand. If such a thing were about to happen, the best course of action would be to simply release stored/fossil CO2 to counteract it:
It's more hilarious to me to think that we wouldn't, in a world experiencing a boom in renewable energy and huge advances in energy efficiency, which could soon include trading the energy used for refining gasoline for the energy used to power electric cars. Houses could even be heated by vacuum-evacuated tube solar water heaters. And I'm still assuming that humanity's irrational fear of nuclear energy continues, imagine if it didn't?
You also seem to think that AC systems run forever on pixie dust.
CO2 will only drop if our total CO2 output is less than the rate of natural sequestration, which is negligible compared to anthropogenic fossil CO2 release, and natural CO2 absorption in itself has downsides such as ocean acidification.
Nature absorbs CO2 at a rate of about 13ppm/my, so even if all fossil CO2 release were halted tomorrow, relying on natural sequestration alone would doom humanity to millions of years of awful late 20th/early 21st century-style climate.
Venezuela had a "crop shortage" back when they were swimming in oil wealth - they stupidly phased out agriculture within their borders. Then when the price of oil plummeted, suddenly they had a money problem AND no agriculture. The rest of the world would be happy to send them all the food they could ever want right now, if they could afford it.
It has to happen or our civilization is doomed to a world of terrible weather, coastal flooding, and famines, triggering nonstop refugee crises which will lead to a proliferation of nazis which will lead to gratuitous crimes against humanity. So I really hope it happens.
Slashdot Mirror
"TFS" is the well known Slashdot acronym for "The Fucking Summary," as in that block of text near the top of the story page. In case you didn't make the connection to the drug we've been talking about.
Again your reasoning mostly consists of cherry-picking and false dilemmas. First the false dilemma that runaway gratuitous price increases are necessary for pharma R&D. Again, drugs that suffer this problem are the exception rather than the rule. Most medications have been produced by companies that never jacked medication costs sky-high just because they could.
Next, there is no reason a state-owned pharmaceutical company couldn't research and create new drugs, all without a marketing budget or a horrendously overpaid CEO. The research scientists can work the same regardless of where their dollars came from. Without the need to pay for marketing or luxuries for the C-suite, the costs of developing new drugs can be greatly decreased. This breaks your circular reasoning that the cost of developing new drugs is seemingly infinite and therefore requires infinite dollars. They're finite and can be easily halved or better.
I don't want price control, I want at the very least an end to horrendous waste and exploitation, and ideally nationalization of health care in the long term. Health care should not be at the whims of the free market because the demand for it is as close to perfectly inelastic as will ever exist. People will pay any cost to avoid dying, and these fuckers know it, leading to this horrendous exploitation.
People are suffering and dying while being fleeced of all their money for no good reason other than to make some already rich people even richer, while there are viable ways to greatly reduce or eliminate the problem. To me, that's morally indefensible.
fabricated evidence and wishful thinking.
Oh, you're a post-truth nutjob. Have a nice day. If Trump ends up in jail, just tell yourself it's fake news.
Nearly half of the voting public is around a third of Americans, where do we disagree?
The video is meant to show bias, and it does - but it also shows at that point at least some expressed that there should be a willingness to listen to opposing views, a feel that now seems to be utterly gone from the left and also for Google internally where it is safe to identify you gender as Dragon, but not safe to identify as a conservative.
People can have their own political views without letting it affect their work.
Also you need to consider how "conservative" has changed in the last few years - in 2013 the average conservative wasn't openly anti-democratic, openly sympathetic to if not supportive of white nationalism, openly hostile to the idea of an objective reality, and willing to give their party leaders every free pass and blank cheque in the book while they generally act like trashy 3rd-world gangster-politicians on the path to dictatorship. Today's mainstream American conservatives are basically fascists and would've been called that 4+ years ago without any controversy in mainstream politics. So it's rather disingenuous to whine about how "conservatives" are treated these days when the only thing that's changed is that the definition of "conservative" is now a whole lot more goose-steppey.
The Carolinas are full of white people who can vote, and vote for Trump. They're as safe as possible from the Puerto Rico treatment.
Conservatives are working hastily and efficiently to fix that...and also to thwart and ultimately dismantle democracy so that it doesn't come back to bite them in the ass.
Came here to say this. Only the worst third of America didn't have a negative reaction to Trump being elected. This isn't news.
An oversimplification. Higher CO2 concentration alone has no benefit to crop yields beyond a certain point, which happens to be a point we've passed in the last few years:
https://www.theguardian.com/en...
And the higher temperature that comes with that excess CO2 is bad for crop yields.
It doesn't have to be actual dollars. Free batteries/medication/etc would be acceptable. Being able to produce some invention that was made with public dollars patent-free would even be acceptable but is rarely the case. Having the technology locked behind IP laws and/or subscription journals for the profit of a few is not acceptable. And to the average person (or small university), those subscription fees are far from small.
There aren't any. Things either exist, or they don't. For new drugs to appear, years of effort — by highly-educated — is required.
This doesn't require supplication to infinite greed. Many drugs have been developed and sold profitably and somewhat affordably without massive gratuitous price increases - and that's with most of the money going into marketing rather than paying pharma research scientists!
At that point, I'll have a choice of either paying the "greedmonster", or doing without
At which point you would be maimed or killed by what ails you. What kind of choice is that? I'd prefer that you stop wishing harm on yourself and others so that you could be healed in this hypothetical scenario, but if you don't, this would be acceptable. Also I'm not nearly as angry at someone else making too much money as I am about sick people being extorted to greater illness or death for no reason other than to further enrich a few already very rich people.
You cited precisely zero such.
This shouldn't be necessary when the examples are so plentiful and easy to find, you're being obtuse, but I'll cite some anyway.
Drug that doesn't have its price gratuitously jacked sky high: The drug in TFS, yesterday and before.
Examples of loose IP laws allowing pharmaceuticals being manfuactured cheaply:
https://theconversation.com/wo...
Example of state-owned pharmaceutical companies working:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I can agree with that, but I think that the amount of CO2 that will get us to that sweet spot will be much closer to pre-industrial than current levels.
Horseshit again. You refuse to consider any options between infinitely evil runaway greed and medications not existing, when there are examples around the world of these other possibilities.
Saying "fuck you" to each other is going nowhere, so instead I'll say this: May you one day be dependent on a medication that some greedmonster CEO jacks the price sky-high on, so that you may get exactly what you've asked for.
DRM strikes again, and everyone who lost movies deserves it!
Gladly, but all the world's trees and other plant life combined only sequester ~13ppm of CO2 over the course of million years, so it won't help.
Horse-fucking-shit! First of all, he could be a lot less (but still significantly) evil and continue to be incredibly overpaid by leaving the medication at its already overinflated price. But he's SO much more evil than that.
Next, another less evil possibility is that someone else could be the CEO of this company who would take less pay and allow the drug to be cheaper to help millions of people.
Another is that IP laws could be revised to allow many companies to make generic versions of the drug for pennies on the dollar.
Another is that pharmaceutical research and production could be nationalized to allow drugs to be cheaper than could ever be possible from private companies with fatcat CEOs and massive marketing costs.
This guy is incredibly evil, fuck him and anyone who supports his decision.
When this fucker goes to hell with a FastPass, he'll be an ordinary working-class American with a UTI at this time. After he dies penniless from gangrene after his dick falls off, he's sent into a fever dream where he's forced to give the laughing, CEO version of himself a blowjob. This copy also has a UTI-riddled rotten zombie dick that jizzes out spiders. Next, GOTO 10.
(shame there's no hell for this guy...)
These are now the most evil "morals" I've ever seen.
Once published the researchers sometimes spin-off a company with their discovery which may or may not get bought by someone else. You don't get any less for your money as a result.
But also no more: The public pays for research, receives $0 as a result, private company makes millions, which the people who paid for the research again get $0 from.
What you DO get is someone actively promoting a product rather than a throwaway research paper that will gather dust in the annals of scientific history.
Again it's not the worst possible outcome - that would probably be if some researcher became a supervillain and used the technology he discovered to enslave the world and assign each person 2 wolves to chew on their armpits - but it's certainly not a good one IMO.
I'm not arguing for private R&D, I'm arguing that there is no value paid back when the fruits of public research are privatized, even if some hypothetical scenario involving private research could be worse.
If you think it's published for all to read, check out how much subscriptions to journals from Elsevier & friends cost.
Carbon output has already delayed the onset of such cooling, keeping the next possible occurrence of a "practical" ice age well over ten thousand years away, possibly over a hundred thousand. If such a thing were about to happen, the best course of action would be to simply release stored/fossil CO2 to counteract it:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
But for the next few thousand years, pre-industrial-ish levels of CO2 look like the best setting.
It's more hilarious to me to think that we wouldn't, in a world experiencing a boom in renewable energy and huge advances in energy efficiency, which could soon include trading the energy used for refining gasoline for the energy used to power electric cars. Houses could even be heated by vacuum-evacuated tube solar water heaters. And I'm still assuming that humanity's irrational fear of nuclear energy continues, imagine if it didn't?
You also seem to think that AC systems run forever on pixie dust.
CO2 will only drop if our total CO2 output is less than the rate of natural sequestration, which is negligible compared to anthropogenic fossil CO2 release, and natural CO2 absorption in itself has downsides such as ocean acidification.
Nature absorbs CO2 at a rate of about 13ppm/my, so even if all fossil CO2 release were halted tomorrow, relying on natural sequestration alone would doom humanity to millions of years of awful late 20th/early 21st century-style climate.
He didn't get that iPad or its battery for free, he paid money for it. There is no hidden value in technology.
Venezuela had a "crop shortage" back when they were swimming in oil wealth - they stupidly phased out agriculture within their borders. Then when the price of oil plummeted, suddenly they had a money problem AND no agriculture. The rest of the world would be happy to send them all the food they could ever want right now, if they could afford it.
It has to happen or our civilization is doomed to a world of terrible weather, coastal flooding, and famines, triggering nonstop refugee crises which will lead to a proliferation of nazis which will lead to gratuitous crimes against humanity. So I really hope it happens.