According to the article, the motivation for breaking the patent is to save the government money (40% of $82 million) and not necessarily to save lives. The government was getting all the medication it needed, but wanted to pay a lower price.
In Brazil, the government provides free treatment for AIDS/HIV infected people.
I think that this sets a bad precedent and should not be applauded. I see it the same as the government seizing the property (Intellectual Property in this case) of a Corporation for what they claim is a public benefit.
They could seize the property of any company or individual and say that it would be in the public's interest because it saved them some money or because the individual or company did not do what the dgovernment wanted them to do.
This is the way that dictatorships starts and individuals and corporations lose their rights: with the government abusing their police power and the citizens supporting it because it helps their pocketbook.
I wish "science" publications would separate facts from speculation when they report new findings/discoveries instead of intermixing them. To me it makes them appear very biased and in my mind makes it more difficult to accept as credible their conclusions.
I am not a scientist but this is what I gathered from the article:
Fact: They found some fossil remains with layers of volcanic and other residue.
Speculation: It's age. The dating process cannot be verified since we do not know what conditions were like 50,000 or 1,000,000 years ago.
Speculation: It's classification. We know that deformities exist and can be caused by various factors (genetic, environment, etc). So saying it has characteristics of human and chimpanzee is just speculation.
Personally I do not "believe" in evolution and articles like these do not help. A lot ot people say there is a lot of evidence, but I find that they are often have a few facts and alot of speculation that they try to pass off as fact.
First, I am a Christian. Second I have a brain and I do try to use it.
How can anyone state with certainty that something is between 2.6 and 2.7 BILLION years old. I understand carbon dating in general, but you have to make assumptions that conditions that affect the carbon decay are the same as they are now and I do not see how you can just assume that and report these numbers like they are fact. We do not know what conditions were like 20,000 years ago yet alone 2.6 billion years ago.
I would not say that carbon dating is wrong, but would say that it cannot be proven to be correct about the past (beyond X number of years) because we do not have evidence to show that the conditions that would make it accurate about the past exists.
As far as dealing with "science" and faith, I make a distinction between the two that makes sense to me. Science deals with the pyhsical world and the natural laws that were set in motion by God. Faith deals with God who exists outside but interacts with our physical universe. Since God exists outside of Time and natural laws, then it is consistent to me that God could form a Universe that appears to be 4 billion years old in what would appear to us as one or six days and have done it in a way that would have scientists believe it was that old. For example, when God created Adam and other creatures, they were only seconds old but I am sure if a scientist or doctor examined them, they would have appeared to have been alive for decades.
Slashdot Mirror
Some hourly wages do not include benefits such as health insurance, 401K, bonus, etc. My current job is like that. Basically a W-2 contract employee.
Most salary jobs include benefits so the net value of the job to the employer is the same as a higher hourly wage.
According to the article, the motivation for breaking the patent is to save the government money (40% of $82 million) and not necessarily to save lives. The government was getting all the medication it needed, but wanted to pay a lower price.
In Brazil, the government provides free treatment for AIDS/HIV infected people.
I think that this sets a bad precedent and should not be applauded. I see it the same as the government seizing the property (Intellectual Property in this case) of a Corporation for what they claim is a public benefit.
They could seize the property of any company or individual and say that it would be in the public's interest because it saved them some money or because the individual or company did not do what the dgovernment wanted them to do.
This is the way that dictatorships starts and individuals and corporations lose their rights: with the government abusing their police power and the citizens supporting it because it helps their pocketbook.
I am not a scientist but this is what I gathered from the article:
Fact: They found some fossil remains with layers of volcanic and other residue.
Speculation: It's age. The dating process cannot be verified since we do not know what conditions were like 50,000 or 1,000,000 years ago.
Speculation: It's classification. We know that deformities exist and can be caused by various factors (genetic, environment, etc). So saying it has characteristics of human and chimpanzee is just speculation.
Personally I do not "believe" in evolution and articles like these do not help. A lot ot people say there is a lot of evidence, but I find that they are often have a few facts and alot of speculation that they try to pass off as fact.
How can anyone state with certainty that something is between 2.6 and 2.7 BILLION years old. I understand carbon dating in general, but you have to make assumptions that conditions that affect the carbon decay are the same as they are now and I do not see how you can just assume that and report these numbers like they are fact. We do not know what conditions were like 20,000 years ago yet alone 2.6 billion years ago.
I would not say that carbon dating is wrong, but would say that it cannot be proven to be correct about the past (beyond X number of years) because we do not have evidence to show that the conditions that would make it accurate about the past exists.
As far as dealing with "science" and faith, I make a distinction between the two that makes sense to me. Science deals with the pyhsical world and the natural laws that were set in motion by God. Faith deals with God who exists outside but interacts with our physical universe. Since God exists outside of Time and natural laws, then it is consistent to me that God could form a Universe that appears to be 4 billion years old in what would appear to us as one or six days and have done it in a way that would have scientists believe it was that old. For example, when God created Adam and other creatures, they were only seconds old but I am sure if a scientist or doctor examined them, they would have appeared to have been alive for decades.