Actually, I believe it is, depending on where you live, at least if you intend to sell that car. The reason? By selling a car with a higher mileage than is shown on the odometer, you are committing fraud. The mileage on a car is crucial to having a true estimate of that car's value.
And, if it's not illegal, at least it's somewhat monitored. I remember last time I went to buy a car, and I looked up the CarFax report, it had a section where a 'red flag' would be tossed up if, at any time, there were any evidence that someone had tampered with the odometer and sold it at a higher price than it was worth.
My father knows some folks who work in medical research, especially with regards to researching viruses and fighting diseases. Thing is, they're not motivated personally by a search for profit. They're motivated by a strange fascination with these horrible, horrible little things that can do so much damage to human life. (Kind of like my fascination with politicians....)
However, research is expensive. So, researchers need investors. And investors don't have an unlimited amount of capital. They have to pick and choose which projects to invest in. To do this, they have to take several factors into consideration. Likelihood of actually getting something out of the research is a starting point. Usefulness of the product is another. And, of course, the likelihood of recouping their investment in a timely enough manner to invest in other projects. In other words, profit margin.
And it's probably no coincidence that, in general, the most successful medical research generally comes out of the countries with the most freedom in the markets.
Indeed, wandering off-topic, but I've got karma to spare.:)
Of course, you have to make up your own mind on who's right, but it's always a good idea to get several conflicting and contrasting stories before you do. And here, I offer some contrast. First, a couple of hospital stories.
And, to top it off, a column by an Arab-American, quoting from Arabic newspapers. Think it was the Jews that forced the Palestinians into refugee camps? Read this. And another column on history by the same guy.
Don't take my word for it, though. And don't take the word of anyone else you read off of the 'net. Don't accept anything you learn as absolutely true unless you have researched it throughly, from every different angle and point of view there is, and you can integrate it, without contradiction, into the total sum of your existing knowledge.
The drug has to be patented very early in the process, because all of the research that proves it's effective has to be peer-reviewed. That means that a huge fraction of the R and D cycle is actually eating up patent years. It also means that you end up patenting a lot of things the FDA will never let you sell.
Thanks for the clarification. I don't actually work in the industry, I just have a friend who has a family member that does. I knew all of these steps had to be taken, but not their order off the top of my head. It sounds like yet another chokehold on the industry.
I've had to think long and hard about this issue for just that reason. Most of my favorite artists are 'locals', folks who don't get played on the radio, who don't get the mega-contracts, who often take a day job to support their 'real' job. I've often worked at a semi-monthly Coffee House that gives these artists both a venue to perform and a place to sell their recordings. I buy their recordings.
I don't swap in MP3s any more, but even when I did, I wouldn't ever share these recordings. On the one hand, it wouldn't be fair to the artist, whom I sometimes even know personally. I had an experience listening to the artist in person that can't be shared, that can only be remembered.
Sometimes, I'll lend a CD to a friend, and say, 'Hey, you've got to listen to this'. And, I might make MP3s as backups. Why? Well, I just remember being seriously bummed when my car's tape player ate the only copy I had of one guy's album, and it was a long, long time before he performed at the Coffee House again. (I bought a CD the second time around, because I was tired of fighting with tape players.) Is this unfair?
I'd say, in this world, messed up as it is, it's always up to you to protect your own rights. That means your rights as a citizen, as a producer, as a consumer, as an individual. You can't count on the government to do it for you, whether you're an artist or a consumer. You can't count on the Big Guys to look out for the Little Guys, the Little Guys have to look out for themselves. Whenever there's a transaction, both the seller and the buyer must have some level of expectation that the other will 'play fair'. And, if you don't trust your customers to be fair, then you have the right to not sell the products of your talent to those who do not give it proper respect.
I tend to agree. There isn't a new arguement here, and none of them hold water.
A good bit of what I read was a poke at the prices of new drugs, and a drop in investment. Well, new drugs are expensive to produce and test thoroughly. There's the expensive research to find a new treatment. Then, there's the expensive and extensive government-mandated testing to make sure the drugs won't do more harm than healing. After that, before the drug can be marketed, it has to be patented... which means telling everyone else how to make it.
And there's only a short time period for the research company to recoup its expenses before the 'generic' drug companies are allowed enter the market... to produce the same drug, without all the R&D costs. If it's an extremely useful drug, you'll hear of people lobbying the government to let the generics start early, cutting in on that short time period the patent-holder has to recoup losses and make enough money to satisfy the investors. And now, you've got more folks wanting the government to step in again and engage in more price-fixing for drugs used by retirees.
Whenever the government limits the odds of receiving return on one's investment, investment will drop. And that applies to the investments of time and effort by drug researchers as well as the financial investments from Wall Street.
I do rather suspect they could have stretched the law, as judges are apt to do
The fact that they are apt to stretch the law is part of the reason for our legal system being so messed up.
Whenever law is 'made', there's some political motivation behind it. And it's always 'made' by someone. Either an elected legislator, or an elected/appointed judge. Usually elected at the local levels, and appointed at the higher levels.
If it's an Elected person making the law, and it's a Bad Law that tramples on the rights of the little people, or even just a Highly Unpopular Law, then the Little People do have a recourse to get that law changed. They can vote that person out. Granted, it doesn't always happen, but I'm talking ideally, here.
If, on the other hand, an appointed-until-retirement judge 'makes' law, rather than just interpreting it as written, well, that law is made, and only a higher court (again, populated by appointed-until-retirement judges) overrules. And there's no way to hold a judge accountable for his or her political motivations.
Also, ever wonder why litigation has gotten to be so bad in society today? One of the reasons is that even the most ridiculous cases may have merit in a court where the judge is not bound by written law.
So, I must agree with the judge here. Bad law, and it needs to be changed, but the courtroom is not the place to do it.
The primary purpose of the constitution is to protect our constitutional rights.
Actually, the primary purpose of the Constitution was, in its own words, to form a more perfect Union. In other words, to create a stronger government than the Articles of Confederation provided for.
Back then, though, there was a strong understanding that, when a group sets up a government, they're giving up certain natural rights that they have simply by virtue of being living, breathing human beings. (Whenever you hear a politician talking about 'granting' or 'creating' or 'giving' you rights, be suspicious. Governments can't give rights, they can only take them away.) So, before they signed the contract to join this Union, they wanted certain provisions set out for rights that the new government -wouldn't- take. Hence the first Ten Amendments.
Ditto that all the way. Another thief done in by the technological investment of a rightful owner. I love these stories about criminals who would normally 'slip through the cracks' getting their just desserts.
I can't help but remember another Dumb Criminal story I once read. A guy's car was stolen, brand new, very expensive. A few days passed, and he gets a phone call at home. It's the thief, using the guy's number which he found in the glove box. Mr. Thief would like to know how to work the stereo. And apparently he lives very close by. The car's owner arranged a meeting, to give the thief a lesson. He then arranged for some 'guest teachers' from the local Police Department.
a lot of my friends jokingly say we should leave the union all the time.
I look forward to this conversation with my roommate: "Hey, did you hear? The Californians are revolting!" "That's not news, I've thought that about them for a long time." *rimshot*
May you have better luck than the Confederates did.
A very interesting thing I read recently, in general, the representatives involved in the writing of the Constitution took the right of secession for granted, at least, according to their own writings. Most of the original States, in ratifying the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation, used legal wording reserving for themselves the right to 'drop out' if it didn't work.
Then came that long war about taxes, which no few public-school history books have mislabeled as a war to free slaves.
Of course doing anything on a worldwide basis is tough, as is telling someone to quit making money on penicillin-family antibiotics for a decade.
Or as tough as telling someone who is allergic to penicillin to a life-threatening degree that other means of fighting an equally life-threatening disease are 'off-limits' until the next rotation period.
Many bills cross the floors of Congress with deliberately misleading names. For example, ask someone if they'll favor a Medical Privacy Act, and they'll say yes in a heartbeat. Unless you elabroate that this Act will require all doctors to surrender medical records of their patients to the Federal Government upon request, while making it a crime for your doctor to tell you that your information has been reported.
Or, take the Florida Wetlands Protection Bills, so heavily favored by the Eco-Crowd... which propose to seize privately-owned lands and flood these areas beyond their natural levels, threatening the natural ecological balances.
I do wish we had a rule requiring appropriate naming of legislation. I also wish we had a rule that all sponsors of any legislation at the State or Federal level would have to sign a certain document. This document would state their belief that the legislation is more important than any other use the taxpayers may have for the money it would require, including food, bills, transportation, home repair, personal investment towards retirement, personal investment in education, etc.
But then, I can't see any bill with either of those proposals getting very far.
Let's see, making aliens black would be discriminating against black aliens, making them white would imply some sort of intergalactic superiority complex... What about those dual-color aliens from that one episode of Star Trek?
Blue aliens would be confused by smurfs.Zhaan, or Smurfette... I think I can tell the difference!
Now, how's about getting those scientists to work on Out Of Work/School/Chores On Demand Experiences? Preferably without those annoying Out Of Money Experience side effects.;-)
This reminds me of an analysis I read of those '1000 Hours Free' deals that AOL hands out like hotcakes. The ones with fine-print detailing that these hours have to be used within 45 days.
Simple math leads to the discovery that one would have to be on AOL for 22 hours, 13 minutes a day to take full advantage of the offer.
Quit work, have a month's food stocked at the computer (or arrange for delivery), use the remaining 1 hour 47 minutes per day for dealing with disconnects, sleep, and other necessities....
It's not temporally impossible to fully use this offer, but it would be quite a challenge.
When I first glanced at the title of this story, I thought of memories being shifted four times.
The first look at this Slashdot item prompted the mental image of thoughts regarding past events taking on four interpretations.
When I first read the text above, I imagined remembering something, then remembering it again, and again, and one more time, each time different.
The interpretation which before all others was formed in my mind after I read the information about which this post comments regarded bits of stored information being repetitively read and interpreted in different arrangements, more than three times, but less than five.
Sheesh, lighten up. I don't need to put a tag in there, do I? At least the moderator got it...
Neither is a doctorate in Space Physics the same as a doctorate in Polical Science, or a doctorate in chiropractic medicine.
All the same, having a doctorate in any field implies a strong degree mastery within that field. And, people may have different reasons for using their titles either in formal writing or in dealings with others.
In formal writing, formal speaking, and in "expert's" work (including anything from engineering to medicine), it's a way to preemptively answer the question of, 'who are you that your claims count for anything'. Answer: I am an acknowledged master of my field of knowledge, and I have worked hard to attain this level of knowledge, I have the papers from an accredited institution to prove it.
In the military, and in certain halls of academia, it's a way of establishing pecking order. 'Who are you that I should do what you say?' Answer: I'm your professor, or your commander, Mister, so mind your manners.
And, some folks just prefer to be called 'Dr.' the way some folks prefer a nickname or their middle name over their full name. Or the way some women prefer 'Ms.' over 'Mrs.' or 'Miss'. I know of at least one Dr. who has a feminist aversion to gender-specific titles, and I respect that. My father just prefers Dr. to his former military title.
In other words, however he wants to sign his name, it's his biz.
The only time I ever used RPN routinely was on my old HP calculator, using the 'stack'... and I remember it being darned useful for doing multi-step calculations where I wanted to double-check the 'result' at each step. For example, just pulling numbers out of nowhere:
Well, logically, that money will go somewhere. There are four options:
1) The consumer. Lower costs. Good. 2) The company owners. Namely, stockholders. Either in the form of dividends, or in the form of increased stock value. Since your Average Joe with a 401k or a Roth IRA can get into the stock market these days, that's a good thing for those Average Joes investing towards retirement. Also, it adds a slight upward push to the economy through the stock market. Good. 3) Increased company assets, a shift in the company's debt-to-equity ratio away from debt and towards more equity. Again, good for stock values, yadda yadda, see above. 4) Increased employment in the company, or increased pay. Sounds good to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I believe it is, depending on where you live, at least if you intend to sell that car. The reason? By selling a car with a higher mileage than is shown on the odometer, you are committing fraud. The mileage on a car is crucial to having a true estimate of that car's value.
And, if it's not illegal, at least it's somewhat monitored. I remember last time I went to buy a car, and I looked up the CarFax report, it had a section where a 'red flag' would be tossed up if, at any time, there were any evidence that someone had tampered with the odometer and sold it at a higher price than it was worth.
My father knows some folks who work in medical research, especially with regards to researching viruses and fighting diseases. Thing is, they're not motivated personally by a search for profit. They're motivated by a strange fascination with these horrible, horrible little things that can do so much damage to human life. (Kind of like my fascination with politicians....)
However, research is expensive. So, researchers need investors. And investors don't have an unlimited amount of capital. They have to pick and choose which projects to invest in. To do this, they have to take several factors into consideration. Likelihood of actually getting something out of the research is a starting point. Usefulness of the product is another. And, of course, the likelihood of recouping their investment in a timely enough manner to invest in other projects. In other words, profit margin.
And it's probably no coincidence that, in general, the most successful medical research generally comes out of the countries with the most freedom in the markets.
Indeed, wandering off-topic, but I've got karma to spare. :)
Of course, you have to make up your own mind on who's right, but it's always a good idea to get several conflicting and contrasting stories before you do. And here, I offer some contrast. First, a couple of hospital stories.
And, to top it off, a column by an Arab-American, quoting from Arabic newspapers. Think it was the Jews that forced the Palestinians into refugee camps? Read this. And another column on history by the same guy.
Don't take my word for it, though. And don't take the word of anyone else you read off of the 'net. Don't accept anything you learn as absolutely true unless you have researched it throughly, from every different angle and point of view there is, and you can integrate it, without contradiction, into the total sum of your existing knowledge.
And the Scarecrow Labor Unions are sure to protest these 'high tech solutions' putting honest, hard-working American Scarecrows out of work! ;-)
The drug has to be patented very early in the process, because all of the research that proves it's effective has to be peer-reviewed. That means that a huge fraction of the R and D cycle is actually eating up patent years. It also means that you end up patenting a lot of things the FDA will never let you sell.
Thanks for the clarification. I don't actually work in the industry, I just have a friend who has a family member that does. I knew all of these steps had to be taken, but not their order off the top of my head. It sounds like yet another chokehold on the industry.
I've had to think long and hard about this issue for just that reason. Most of my favorite artists are 'locals', folks who don't get played on the radio, who don't get the mega-contracts, who often take a day job to support their 'real' job. I've often worked at a semi-monthly Coffee House that gives these artists both a venue to perform and a place to sell their recordings. I buy their recordings.
I don't swap in MP3s any more, but even when I did, I wouldn't ever share these recordings. On the one hand, it wouldn't be fair to the artist, whom I sometimes even know personally. I had an experience listening to the artist in person that can't be shared, that can only be remembered.
Sometimes, I'll lend a CD to a friend, and say, 'Hey, you've got to listen to this'. And, I might make MP3s as backups. Why? Well, I just remember being seriously bummed when my car's tape player ate the only copy I had of one guy's album, and it was a long, long time before he performed at the Coffee House again. (I bought a CD the second time around, because I was tired of fighting with tape players.) Is this unfair?
I'd say, in this world, messed up as it is, it's always up to you to protect your own rights. That means your rights as a citizen, as a producer, as a consumer, as an individual. You can't count on the government to do it for you, whether you're an artist or a consumer. You can't count on the Big Guys to look out for the Little Guys, the Little Guys have to look out for themselves. Whenever there's a transaction, both the seller and the buyer must have some level of expectation that the other will 'play fair'. And, if you don't trust your customers to be fair, then you have the right to not sell the products of your talent to those who do not give it proper respect.
I tend to agree. There isn't a new arguement here, and none of them hold water.
A good bit of what I read was a poke at the prices of new drugs, and a drop in investment. Well, new drugs are expensive to produce and test thoroughly. There's the expensive research to find a new treatment. Then, there's the expensive and extensive government-mandated testing to make sure the drugs won't do more harm than healing. After that, before the drug can be marketed, it has to be patented... which means telling everyone else how to make it.
And there's only a short time period for the research company to recoup its expenses before the 'generic' drug companies are allowed enter the market... to produce the same drug, without all the R&D costs. If it's an extremely useful drug, you'll hear of people lobbying the government to let the generics start early, cutting in on that short time period the patent-holder has to recoup losses and make enough money to satisfy the investors. And now, you've got more folks wanting the government to step in again and engage in more price-fixing for drugs used by retirees.
Whenever the government limits the odds of receiving return on one's investment, investment will drop. And that applies to the investments of time and effort by drug researchers as well as the financial investments from Wall Street.
...the death of *BSD? Or Mark Twain? Or Elvis, for that matter?
I do rather suspect they could have stretched the law, as judges are apt to do
The fact that they are apt to stretch the law is part of the reason for our legal system being so messed up.
Whenever law is 'made', there's some political motivation behind it. And it's always 'made' by someone. Either an elected legislator, or an elected/appointed judge. Usually elected at the local levels, and appointed at the higher levels.
If it's an Elected person making the law, and it's a Bad Law that tramples on the rights of the little people, or even just a Highly Unpopular Law, then the Little People do have a recourse to get that law changed. They can vote that person out. Granted, it doesn't always happen, but I'm talking ideally, here.
If, on the other hand, an appointed-until-retirement judge 'makes' law, rather than just interpreting it as written, well, that law is made, and only a higher court (again, populated by appointed-until-retirement judges) overrules. And there's no way to hold a judge accountable for his or her political motivations.
Also, ever wonder why litigation has gotten to be so bad in society today? One of the reasons is that even the most ridiculous cases may have merit in a court where the judge is not bound by written law.
So, I must agree with the judge here. Bad law, and it needs to be changed, but the courtroom is not the place to do it.
The primary purpose of the constitution is to protect our constitutional rights.
;-)
Actually, the primary purpose of the Constitution was, in its own words, to form a more perfect Union. In other words, to create a stronger government than the Articles of Confederation provided for.
Back then, though, there was a strong understanding that, when a group sets up a government, they're giving up certain natural rights that they have simply by virtue of being living, breathing human beings. (Whenever you hear a politician talking about 'granting' or 'creating' or 'giving' you rights, be suspicious. Governments can't give rights, they can only take them away.) So, before they signed the contract to join this Union, they wanted certain provisions set out for rights that the new government -wouldn't- take. Hence the first Ten Amendments.
</Constitutional History Nitpick>
Ditto that all the way. Another thief done in by the technological investment of a rightful owner. I love these stories about criminals who would normally 'slip through the cracks' getting their just desserts.
I can't help but remember another Dumb Criminal story I once read. A guy's car was stolen, brand new, very expensive. A few days passed, and he gets a phone call at home. It's the thief, using the guy's number which he found in the glove box. Mr. Thief would like to know how to work the stereo. And apparently he lives very close by. The car's owner arranged a meeting, to give the thief a lesson. He then arranged for some 'guest teachers' from the local Police Department.
Ain't justice sweet?
a lot of my friends jokingly say we should leave the union all the time.
I look forward to this conversation with my roommate:
"Hey, did you hear? The Californians are revolting!"
"That's not news, I've thought that about them for a long time." *rimshot*
May you have better luck than the Confederates did.
A very interesting thing I read recently, in general, the representatives involved in the writing of the Constitution took the right of secession for granted, at least, according to their own writings. Most of the original States, in ratifying the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation, used legal wording reserving for themselves the right to 'drop out' if it didn't work.
Then came that long war about taxes, which no few public-school history books have mislabeled as a war to free slaves.
Of course doing anything on a worldwide basis is tough, as is telling someone to quit making money on penicillin-family antibiotics for a decade.
Or as tough as telling someone who is allergic to penicillin to a life-threatening degree that other means of fighting an equally life-threatening disease are 'off-limits' until the next rotation period.
from the do-lawmakers-think-about-this-when-they-make-laws dept.
Of course not. You assume that lawmakers think.
Many bills cross the floors of Congress with deliberately misleading names. For example, ask someone if they'll favor a Medical Privacy Act, and they'll say yes in a heartbeat. Unless you elabroate that this Act will require all doctors to surrender medical records of their patients to the Federal Government upon request, while making it a crime for your doctor to tell you that your information has been reported.
Or, take the Florida Wetlands Protection Bills, so heavily favored by the Eco-Crowd... which propose to seize privately-owned lands and flood these areas beyond their natural levels, threatening the natural ecological balances.
I do wish we had a rule requiring appropriate naming of legislation. I also wish we had a rule that all sponsors of any legislation at the State or Federal level would have to sign a certain document. This document would state their belief that the legislation is more important than any other use the taxpayers may have for the money it would require, including food, bills, transportation, home repair, personal investment towards retirement, personal investment in education, etc.
But then, I can't see any bill with either of those proposals getting very far.
Particle Man!
Let's see, making aliens black would be discriminating against black aliens, making them white would imply some sort of intergalactic superiority complex... What about those dual-color aliens from that one episode of Star Trek?
Blue aliens would be confused by smurfs. Zhaan, or Smurfette... I think I can tell the difference!
Now, how's about getting those scientists to work on Out Of Work/School/Chores On Demand Experiences? Preferably without those annoying Out Of Money Experience side effects. ;-)
This reminds me of an analysis I read of those '1000 Hours Free' deals that AOL hands out like hotcakes. The ones with fine-print detailing that these hours have to be used within 45 days.
Simple math leads to the discovery that one would have to be on AOL for 22 hours, 13 minutes a day to take full advantage of the offer.
Quit work, have a month's food stocked at the computer (or arrange for delivery), use the remaining 1 hour 47 minutes per day for dealing with disconnects, sleep, and other necessities....
It's not temporally impossible to fully use this offer, but it would be quite a challenge.
When I first glanced at the title of this story, I thought of memories being shifted four times.
The first look at this Slashdot item prompted the mental image of thoughts regarding past events taking on four interpretations.
When I first read the text above, I imagined remembering something, then remembering it again, and again, and one more time, each time different.
The interpretation which before all others was formed in my mind after I read the information about which this post comments regarded bits of stored information being repetitively read and interpreted in different arrangements, more than three times, but less than five.
Why, no, my name isn't Mojo Jojo, why do you ask?
Sheesh, lighten up. I don't need to put a tag in there, do I? At least the moderator got it...
Neither is a doctorate in Space Physics the same as a doctorate in Polical Science, or a doctorate in chiropractic medicine.
All the same, having a doctorate in any field implies a strong degree mastery within that field. And, people may have different reasons for using their titles either in formal writing or in dealings with others.
In formal writing, formal speaking, and in "expert's" work (including anything from engineering to medicine), it's a way to preemptively answer the question of, 'who are you that your claims count for anything'. Answer: I am an acknowledged master of my field of knowledge, and I have worked hard to attain this level of knowledge, I have the papers from an accredited institution to prove it.
In the military, and in certain halls of academia, it's a way of establishing pecking order. 'Who are you that I should do what you say?' Answer: I'm your professor, or your commander, Mister, so mind your manners.
And, some folks just prefer to be called 'Dr.' the way some folks prefer a nickname or their middle name over their full name. Or the way some women prefer 'Ms.' over 'Mrs.' or 'Miss'. I know of at least one Dr. who has a feminist aversion to gender-specific titles, and I respect that. My father just prefers Dr. to his former military title.
In other words, however he wants to sign his name, it's his biz.
My father (who also has a doctorate) would quote the first Austin Powers movie on this:
"I didn't go through four years of evil medical school to be called Mr. Evil."
The only time I ever used RPN routinely was on my old HP calculator, using the 'stack'... and I remember it being darned useful for doing multi-step calculations where I wanted to double-check the 'result' at each step. For example, just pulling numbers out of nowhere:
log(((1223+423)*(3897-13))/2)
would be:
1223
423 + (display: 1646)
3897
13 - (display: 1646, 3884)
* (display: 6393064)
2 / (display: 3196532)
log (display: 6.504....)
But then, the screen got smashed in my bookbag. Darned cloth case. After that, I got a TI-92, just for the solid cover. And impressive 3d graphing.
Well, logically, that money will go somewhere. There are four options:
1) The consumer. Lower costs. Good.
2) The company owners. Namely, stockholders. Either in the form of dividends, or in the form of increased stock value. Since your Average Joe with a 401k or a Roth IRA can get into the stock market these days, that's a good thing for those Average Joes investing towards retirement. Also, it adds a slight upward push to the economy through the stock market. Good.
3) Increased company assets, a shift in the company's debt-to-equity ratio away from debt and towards more equity. Again, good for stock values, yadda yadda, see above.
4) Increased employment in the company, or increased pay. Sounds good to me.
So, what's so bad about corporate profit?
Are they.... ill-tempered?
((insert Dr. Evil pinky finger gesture))