> just a bunch of nothing with an metric assload of ads.
sorry, that would be a metric "arseload" of ads. "assload" is an imperial measurement, only used by americans and others who have difficulty with metric (not surprising, it's very difficult with everything being multiples of 10 rather than some semi-random multiple).
> While I have no love for the regimes of oil-producing countries in the Middle East > and South America, the notion that importing less oil will seriously affect the funding > of global terrorism is nonsense.
i don't think he was talking about those terrorists. he was talking about the terrorist cabal from Texas - you know, the ones that staged a coup in the U.S. a few years back and have been terrorising the rest of the world ever since.
"intellectual property" is a disingenous meme
on
The Demise of IP?
·
· Score: 1
> It reflects the currently fashionable idea that confiscatory government > policy must be used to even the score (whatever that means), thrusting > highly demanded, privately risked IP out of the hands of legitimate > property owners and into the hands of other, favored actors to further > "develop" it.
the author has fallen into the memetic trap intended by those who coined the misleading phrase "intellectual property". there is no such thing as "intellectual property", there are only a set of limited monopoly rights - limited in both term and in scope. to lump patent rights and copyrights and trademarks under the false label "intellectual property" is deliberately deceptive. they are not property, in the sense that real-estate or a bicycle or a car is property. they are just a set of short-term monopoly rights associated with a particular invention, an original artistic expression, or a brand name in commerce.
these three things aren't even remotely *similar*, let alone close enough to be grouped under the same misleading name of "IP". it does, however, suit the patent & copyright industries if they can convince people to think of their limited-term monopoly rights in terms of "property" rather than government granted rights....that leads to all sorts of beneficial intuitions and assumptions about the nature of what is being debated.
so, please stop using the false term "intellectual property" - every time you do so, you're buying in to their bogus argument and shooting yourself in the foot.
> Whilst if the company is found to be guilty they should be punished > I really hope this guy doesn't get a big payout personally, there is > something sickening about society when you can sue your way to > multi-million $ retirement through class-action suits because something > stupid happened to you in life.
while what you're saying makes a lot of sense in some ways, it ignores the fact that big - even absurd - payouts are unfortunately necessary in order to discourage companies from just trying to get away with illegal, unethical, and dishonest behaviour.
if the "cost" of getting caught out is just a slap on the wrist or a small fine, then it'll just be treated as a negligible cost of doing business - far less significant than taxes or phone bills or postage charges. this is why many companies don't care about conforming to pollution control laws, because the enforcement agencies are toothless and the fines are miniscule. it doesn't matter if they get caught.
if, however, the cost of getting caught is huge, especially if it is much bigger than the potential profit, then they will think twice about it.
it works in two ways: the large payout increases the penalty of being caught, and having the payout go to the victim increases the chance of getting caught - it provides incentive to take action rather than just accept the fact you've been ripped off and ignore it.
think about it this way - if you could steal $1M with only a tiny risk of getting caught and suffering only a 1 week jail sentence or a $50 fine, then (ignoring ethics and honesty) the cost/benefit/risk analysis would say "go for it!". you'd be foolish NOT to do it.
> Illinois. A local town made national news because they arrested > a home owner for shooting a burglar who robbed him twice.
so they should have. for several reasons:
1. violent self-defence is for defending yourself against violence or the imminent threat of being killed, not a response to theft or burglary
2. murder, or attempted murder, is a disproportionate response to burglary
and, most importantly:
3. even if it was a clear case of real self-defence, it SHOULD be investigated and, if appropriate, tried in a court. claiming self-defense should never be a get-out-of-jail free card.
> I had my unregistered handgun stolen twice by the police.
that's outrageous! why did they even give it back to you the first time if it was unregistered? it should have been taken from you and destroyed, and you should have been barred from ever possessing guns again.
> Government monopolies on prescription drugs keep unsafe, sham products > from flooding the marketplace. Take a look at your email inbox if want > to see lots of examples of these: names like "Vi4gra" and "p3n15 3nl4rgemint".
the fact that everyone knows what you mean when you mention those sham products is proof that government monopolies DO NOT keep unsafe, sham products from flooding the marketplace.
patents aren't even intended to do that.
even laws and regulations intended to do that (i.e. regulations about testing and licensing/approval of new drugs) don't actually keep them from the market directly, they just make it possible to prosecute AFTER the fact....which does provide some disincentive but obviously doesn't actually prevent it from happening.
> Temporary monopolies granted by patents allow drug companies > to invest huge sums of money (to the tune of 315 million dollars > per drug) to research, develop and test (for safety)
most new drugs (as in almost all) are initially developed by publicly funded research institutions. pharmaceutical companies typically only get involved when they have a sure bet - then they buy the public research for a pittance. they do spend a lot on testing and market development, but at a very low risk - most of the risk is in the early days of R&D, before they know whether they have a useful drug or not.
the major R&D investment made by big pharmaceutical companies is not in NEW drugs, but in trivial (but patentable) variations of OLD drugs - they're a surer bet than taking a risk on something new...especially when they can get NEW drugs developed on the public purse for a fraction of the cost of development.
in short, they're the parasites of the system - making billions off the hard work and innovation of others.
if we can have publicly funded actual R&D - that works exceptionally well - then why not eliminate the parasitic middle-man and have publicly funded testing and market development of the results of that research, with all profits going back to more research? makes sense from a "maximum benefit to humanity" perspective, but it will never happen because it doesn't cater for the desire of the obsceneely rich to become even richer.
> While drug companies change their formula slightlty and re-patent, > the original formula is available for generics.
no, that's not true.
the way "evergreening" works is that they patent a "new" use for exactly the same drug - the idea is to keep the drug out of the hands of generic manufacturers for as long as possible.
quite often, the "new" usage is actually a usage that everyone has known about from day 1, they just delayed mentioning it in the patent the first time around.
but it doesn't matter whether it's really new or only allegedly new. patenting a *use* for a drug rather than either the drug itself or the process of making the drug is complete bullshit - it's not an invention, it's a discovery of a natural process. patenting that is as valid as patenting the "discovery" that water runs downhill.
this is why BigPharma wants to destroy the pharmaceutical patent system as practiced in civilised countries like India - there, they only patent the PROCESS of creating the drug (i.e. the actual invention, rather than the discovery of what happens in nature), which is why there is a huge generics industry in India.
unfortunately, India will probably be forced to bow to US pressure in the next few years, and "harmonise" their laws with US requirements.
> A dog turd in the sun is almost universally considered to be something that "stinks"
yes, that's because it contains indole alkaloids - which are what makes shit smell like shit.
cigarette smoke does not contain these.
> He can't taste anything either
yet more bullshit from the anti-smoking whiners - i smoked for many years, and now i don't. i've noticed no difference at all in my sense of smell or taste. i've had excellent senses of smell and taste all along.
smoking didnt "stunt my growth", either. i started smoking at 11. i grew to 6'5" tall. in fact, even though i smoked for over 20 years, i can't think of one single health problem i've ever had that was related to smoking except maybe slightly elevated blood pressure. OTOH, i know for a fact that smoking helped me in my work because it helped me to concentrate on programming and systems administration problems, and it helped my memory. on balance, the drug nicotine helped me to make a lot of money over the years and definitely contributed to a better lifestyle for me.
i stopped not because it had already caused me harm, but because i decided i was getting too old to continue smoking, that the personal risk to me had increased (due to my age - late 30s) to unacceptable levels and that it probably would cause me harm in future....that it would be sensible to stop now before any damage had been done than in 10 or 15 years time when it might be too late.
> Do you smoke?
no, i don't. i did smoke for many years, but i don't any longer. unlike most ex-smokers, though, i see no reason to become a self-righteous arsehole about it. i used to choose to smoke, now i choose not to. nobody's business but my own, and i don't need to bolster my will-power by demonising either smoking or smokers with ridiculous claims about outdoor second-hand smoke.
if i don't like the smell of cigarette smoke, or (more likely) if it tempts me to have another cigarette, then that is MY problem to deal with, not the problem of the smokers who are already marginalised and routinely attacked by vicious small-minded wowsers like you.
> If so then you smell bad.
no, unlike the smell of shit, that really is subjective. some people LIKE the smell of cigarette smoke or, at least, the smell of *good* tobacco from a rollup or a cigar. contrary to what self-righteous jerks like you try to claim, the smoke does not smell like an ashtray, it smells like burning dried plant material which can and does smell quite pleasant to many people.
some brands of cigarettes or tobacco i find offensive (Marlboros for example have a vile smell AFAIAC). some i find very pleasant ("Bank" rolling tobacco for example). obviously that's subjective because lots of people enjoy the smell and taste of Marlboros and can't stand rollies.
> Interestingly enough, your 'reasonably convincing evidence' for 'risk free' > second-hand-smoke is ludicrous at best.
try reading what i actually said. i said that there was reasonably convincing evidence that large amounts of second-hand smoke inside a building is harmful - i.e pretty much the opposite of what you claimed i said.
> If you say diesel smoke inhalation is bad, (remember this is outdoors), > how can you say that second-hand-smoke is fine outdoors?
1. diesel smoke contains much worse chemicals than cigarette smoke, including one of the most carcinogenic chemicals known
your question is like asking "how come a water pistol wont kill me but a real gun will?"
2. quantity - a diesel engine puts out hundreds, or thousands of times the volume of toxic chemicals as a smoker, or even a huddle of smokers outside a building's entrance.
> [...] and I pay taxes for Medicare treat the effects of both
no, the taxes on cigarettes more than pay for all medical costs associated with smoking - you aren't subsidising the medical costs of smokers...it's the other way around, the smokers are subsiding self-righteous non-smoking jerks like you.
> for the record... if it is second-hand smoke, it is my business and > that is why my 'ugly nose' is in it.
no, you live in a society with other people, and you just have to accept that some of them do things that annoy you. you don't have the right to control everything to your satisfaction.
if you're really worried about your health rather than just moral outrage at someone else's choices then focus on something that will actually make a difference - better pollution controls for cars, and the banning of diesel fuel vehicles.
> Or I guess I could always breathe it all in, besides... it is 'risk free'...right?
in small quantities, yes - entirely risk free.
actually, not quite. there is a huge risk of being ear-bashed by pathetic whiners who work themselves into a frenzy over the smell of smoke.
> My argument is always much simpler. > > That is of course the fact that smokers stink.
1. so do people who eat cabbage. or garlic. or any one of hundreds of odiferous herbs, vegetables, or spices. and people who eat junk food regularly just reek.
2. ditto for alcohol-based perfumes.
3. it's not a crime to stink
4. "stink" is an inherently subjective term - a smell that one person finds offensive, another will find delightful. personally, i find the stench of self-righteous arseholes to be about the most offensive smell imaginable, while you obviously enjoy the smell.
why do you ask? is it because you don't have a real argument so have to resort to ad-hominem bullshit as your opening line?
> Smoking is a "real" health risk, don't you see?
of course i see. smoking is a real health risk for smokers. and there's reasonably convincing evidence that it's a risk for people in a room full of stale smoky air. smoking out in the open is not a risk for anyone but the smoker themselves, and evil-minded fascists like you should keep their fucking ugly noses out of other people's business.
> Saying one fume is less bad than another is the red herring.
no, it's the truth. some chemicals are more harmful than others. that's undeniable fact. breathing diesel exhaust, for example, is many times more harmful to a person than either active or passive smoking.
> I'll take banning smoking in public for $500 Alex.
you can have your ban on smoking in public as long as i can have my ban on fascist fuckwits....a heavy price to pay, but worth it for the benefit to society.
> And we'll work on restricting gas powered lawn mowers > and ATVs in Final Jeopardy when we've worked our way to there.
unfortunately, that's the biggest trouble with fascist wowsers like you - enough is never enough. whatever you've managed to prohibit today is just a starting point for tomorrow.
> I don't like the idea of my tax payments going to the NHS to subsidise > people who like killing themselves slowly and painfully as an 'expression > of personal freedom'.
yes, ban all medical care for people who take needless risks with their health and safety - rock climbing, bush-walking, skydiving, driving, crossing a busy road, pogo sticks and more (much more).
people who do stupid things like that don't deserve the benefit of medical care.
it wasn't really sarcastic. it was highlighting the fact that the "smoking in public places" issue is just a red herring to distract people from the REAL health risk, carcinogens like benzene in petrol fumes, and (worst of all), diesel exhaust.
Re:tobacco still sucks
on
Safe Cigarettes?
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
> Nicotine is amazingly good at the addictive-formation onslaught to the human brain
yes, it is. but it's also pretty easy to break the actual addiction. about 3-5 days for most people. the hardest part is breaking the habit and the association of certain activities with smoking (like drinking coffee, reading email in the morning, after sex, after dinner, waiting for a tram/train/bus, geeking and other activities that require intense concentration, etc).
the other thing that's hard is feeling dopey and stupid for a few weeks after giving up as your brain gets used to working properly without nicotine. that's one thing that the anti-smoking lobby don't like to tell you, that you'll feel stupid for a few weeks. it's this, more than anything else, that caused the failure of several of my attempts to give up smoking over the years. i don't like feeling stupid, i don't like feeling "stoned", and that's how i feel for the first few weeks after quitting. not pleasant at all.
eventually your brain gets used to the lack of nicotine and gets back to working "normally", but it's hard going and unpleasant until that happens.
> A few months ago, I found myself smoking 2-3 cigarettes every evening after dinner.
the risk of smoking-related illness from 10 cigarettes or less per day is statistically the same as that of not smoking at all.
in other words, not a health risk.
petrol and diesel fumes and other airborne pollutants are far more danger to you, especially if you live near a busy road (and especially since they replaced heavy lead additives which only travel a few feet from the road, with light and extremely carcinogenic benzenes which travel dozens of metres from the road).
the main risk with smoking only a few cigarettes per day is that it's hard to stop there. most people who try this will gradually smoke more and more until they're back to smoking a full pack or more per day.
if i could smoke only a few per day, i would - and gladly (i enjoy the focus and clarity of thought that the drug nicotine gives me). but i've never been able to do that for more than a few months before i find myself smoking 10, then 15, then 20 per day again - so i don't smoke any more. it's far easier to smoke none than just a few.
btw, you don't have to become a holier-than-thou ex-smoker fascist to give up smoking. all you have to do is decide to stop and stick to it. there's no need to demonise the drug or the users.
(one of the things stopping me from giving smoking for years was annoyance and resentment at anti-smoking nazis and their obsessive, over-the-top propaganda. they're just convincing themselves how evil smoking is to bolster up their own will-power, and in the process alienating and pissing-off those who still smoke).
> Nicotine sucks.........
actually, nicotine is a damn nice drug. it's a CNS stimulant, and aids in concentration, focus, and memory.
nicotine is not the problem at all (at worst, it has a vaso-constrictive effect, which is easily countered by taking a vaso-dilator like ginkgo). the problem with smoking is the rest of the toxic shit in the smoke, much of it introduced by fertilizers and pesticides (many of which are permitted for tobacco but would be banned for food production) and the chemicals used in the drying process.
> Why does some old fart always have to complain about compatibility? > If you're using a browser that doesn't do javascript, you're probably > used to disappointment. And I can understand how that can make you bitter. > But still.
it's not just about old browsers that don't do javascript. it's also about security and being unwilling to let just any random web site run code on your computer.
as far as i can tell, the primary use for javascript on web sites is:
1. destroying navigation 2. destroying the ability to middle-click on a link so it comes up in a new tab or window. 3. hiding a link's destination in the status bar 4. advertising 5. spying on people
since i don't regard any of these as essential - or even useful - features i browse with javascript disabled.
actually, i used to have it disabled but since i discovered the NoScript extension to firefox, i have javascript disabled by default and enabled for the few sites that i want to use that really need it. noscript's very flexible - it can allow javascript from, say, www.example.com and still block and SCRIPT SRC= javascript URLs from, say, doubleclick and other scumbags. even better, i can allow javascript for a site either temporarily (i.e. for the current session) or permanently.
this works even better than using my squid redirector to block javascript from scumbag sites.
the more that these scumbags try to run invasive code on our machines, the more we need tools like noscript.
> My point is that they're doing absolutely nothing to contribute to the NH public; > they pay no property, wage, or sales tax...pretty much the only way the government > gets any money from you.
it's truly amazing how loudmouth bigots and rednecks can forget their moral loathing for taxation when there's an opportunity for racist slagging-off of foreigners, isn't it?
> They're not even spending the money here, they wire it home to Mexico or whereever.
it's their money, why shouldn't they be able to do whatever they want with it? or is that a priviledge reserved for those of white anglo/european descent?
> to pack in every last bit of functionality you could ever > want on a camera phone.
does it have a digital answering machine built in?
no?
then it doesn't even come close to having every last bit of functionality i could ever want in a phone.
a camera in a phone is only marginally useful - it's kind of handy to have a camera with you all the time, but it would be much more useful to have an answering machine built in to the phone.
but you'll never see one because the phone manufacturers don't care what the users want/need, they make the phones that the telcos want....and the telcos certainly don't want any feature that will cut into their profit margins - and they make money every time someone retrieves voicemail from their network.
IMO, telco-network voicemail should be only for when the phone is switched off or out-of-range - at all other times, the phone itself should record the message.
and another electoral reform you really need is preferential voting - so you can vote for an independant or minor-party candidate WITHOUT just throwing your vote away. if your first preference doesn't win, your vote goes to your second pref, and then to your third, and so on until someone wins.
> I suppose you could do it by allocating the > Senators based on the wealth of the states > the way the House is allocated based on > population. However, I feel like it's more > honest to just make it a direct reflection of > the money. If Microsoft has 5% of the wealth, > then let's just give them 5% of the Senators.
what a seriously fucked-up idea. it's so stupid that if you weren't an american i'd just assume that you were being ironic - but since you are, irony is unlikely.
this is about the third or fourth time in this thread that i've read an argument which basically just accepts the fact that corporations control the senate, without any hint of opposition.
don't you americans have any idea of what a Senate's proper function is? for a people that go on and on about "checks and balances" you seem remarkably eager to concede - even ignore - one of the most powerful check & balance there is.
a Senate - or Upper House, or whatever you want to call it - has as its main function the role of reviewing any legislation passed by Parliament (or, in your case, Congress), and voting to either pass it, reject it, OR send it back to the Lower House with recommended amendments.
they are also representatives of the people and thus should be directly elected by them, not appointed by corporations, state legislators, royalty or anyone else.
speaking of royalty, you also need to seriously limit the power of your president - everywhere else that still has a constitutional monarchy has passed laws over the centuries that reduce the monarch's official powers to little more than that of a figurehead - and that is the way it should be...a president or king/queen with real power is just too much power concentrated in one person. unlike the rest of the world which has steadily removed powers from their Head of State, you americans have steadily and radically increased the powers available to your elected King. is it any surprise that the world is now suffering the reign of Emperor George I?
what you americans need is serious electoral reform that creates a reasonable balance and separation between powers.
and one thing you really need is compulsory voting (or at least compulsory attendance at a voting booth on election day, which is how it actually works in practice) - that way the bastards can't rely on the apathy and ignorance of the population to get their way, they have to take a far more middle-of-the-road stance in order to appeal to all the disinterested voters who would be offended by extremism....and reminded of past offense due to their resentment of having to blow a perfectly good saturday afternoon in a voting booth.
pharmaceutical companies have avoided the need to purchase^Wlobby for extensions of patent law terms by use a technique called 'evergreening' - they just apply for a slightly different patent for the same chemical or gene, shortly before the current patent is due to expire.
a patent can be kept "valid" for decades in this way.
try a google search for "+patent +evergreen" for more info.
Slashdot Mirror
try "septics". or "seppos" if you insist on 6 characters.
in case it's not obvious, it's rhyming slang: "septic tank" == "yank" == americans.
> just a bunch of nothing with an metric assload of ads.
sorry, that would be a metric "arseload" of ads. "assload" is an imperial measurement, only used by americans and others who have difficulty with metric (not surprising, it's very difficult with everything being multiples of 10 rather than some semi-random multiple).
> While I have no love for the regimes of oil-producing countries in the Middle East
> and South America, the notion that importing less oil will seriously affect the funding
> of global terrorism is nonsense.
i don't think he was talking about those terrorists. he was talking about the terrorist cabal from Texas - you know, the ones that staged a coup in the U.S. a few years back and have been terrorising the rest of the world ever since.
> It reflects the currently fashionable idea that confiscatory government
> policy must be used to even the score (whatever that means), thrusting
> highly demanded, privately risked IP out of the hands of legitimate
> property owners and into the hands of other, favored actors to further
> "develop" it.
the author has fallen into the memetic trap intended by those who coined the misleading phrase "intellectual property". there is no such thing as "intellectual property", there are only a set of limited monopoly rights - limited in both term and in scope. to lump patent rights and copyrights and trademarks under the false label "intellectual property" is deliberately deceptive. they are not property, in the sense that real-estate or a bicycle or a car is property. they are just a set of short-term monopoly rights associated with a particular invention, an original artistic expression, or a brand name in commerce.
these three things aren't even remotely *similar*, let alone close enough to be grouped under the same misleading name of "IP". it does, however, suit the patent & copyright industries if they can convince people to think of their limited-term monopoly rights in terms of "property" rather than government granted rights....that leads to all sorts of beneficial intuitions and assumptions about the nature of what is being debated.
so, please stop using the false term "intellectual property" - every time you do so, you're buying in to their bogus argument and shooting yourself in the foot.
> Whilst if the company is found to be guilty they should be punished
> I really hope this guy doesn't get a big payout personally, there is
> something sickening about society when you can sue your way to
> multi-million $ retirement through class-action suits because something
> stupid happened to you in life.
while what you're saying makes a lot of sense in some ways, it ignores the fact that big - even absurd - payouts are unfortunately necessary in order to discourage companies from just trying to get away with illegal, unethical, and dishonest behaviour.
if the "cost" of getting caught out is just a slap on the wrist or a small fine, then it'll just be treated as a negligible cost of doing business - far less significant than taxes or phone bills or postage charges. this is why many companies don't care about conforming to pollution control laws, because the enforcement agencies are toothless and the fines are miniscule. it doesn't matter if they get caught.
if, however, the cost of getting caught is huge, especially if it is much bigger than the potential profit, then they will think twice about it.
it works in two ways: the large payout increases the penalty of being caught, and having the payout go to the victim increases the chance of getting caught - it provides incentive to take action rather than just accept the fact you've been ripped off and ignore it.
think about it this way - if you could steal $1M with only a tiny risk of getting caught and suffering only a 1 week jail sentence or a $50 fine, then (ignoring ethics and honesty) the cost/benefit/risk analysis would say "go for it!". you'd be foolish NOT to do it.
> Illinois. A local town made national news because they arrested
> a home owner for shooting a burglar who robbed him twice.
so they should have. for several reasons:
1. violent self-defence is for defending yourself against violence or the imminent threat of being killed, not a response to theft or burglary
2. murder, or attempted murder, is a disproportionate response to burglary
and, most importantly:
3. even if it was a clear case of real self-defence, it SHOULD be investigated and, if appropriate, tried in a court. claiming self-defense should never be a get-out-of-jail free card.
> I had my unregistered handgun stolen twice by the police.
that's outrageous! why did they even give it back to you the first time if it was unregistered? it should have been taken from you and destroyed, and you should have been barred from ever possessing guns again.
> Government monopolies on prescription drugs keep unsafe, sham products
> from flooding the marketplace. Take a look at your email inbox if want
> to see lots of examples of these: names like "Vi4gra" and "p3n15 3nl4rgemint".
the fact that everyone knows what you mean when you mention those sham products is proof that government monopolies DO NOT keep unsafe, sham products from flooding the marketplace.
patents aren't even intended to do that.
even laws and regulations intended to do that (i.e. regulations about testing and licensing/approval of new drugs) don't actually keep them from the market directly, they just make it possible to prosecute AFTER the fact....which does provide some disincentive but obviously doesn't actually prevent it from happening.
> Temporary monopolies granted by patents allow drug companies
> to invest huge sums of money (to the tune of 315 million dollars
> per drug) to research, develop and test (for safety)
most new drugs (as in almost all) are initially developed by publicly funded research institutions. pharmaceutical companies typically only get involved when they have a sure bet - then they buy the public research for a pittance. they do spend a lot on testing and market development, but at a very low risk - most of the risk is in the early days of R&D, before they know whether they have a useful drug or not.
the major R&D investment made by big pharmaceutical companies is not in NEW drugs, but in trivial (but patentable) variations of OLD drugs - they're a surer bet than taking a risk on something new...especially when they can get NEW drugs developed on the public purse for a fraction of the cost of development.
in short, they're the parasites of the system - making billions off the hard work and innovation of others.
if we can have publicly funded actual R&D - that works exceptionally well - then why not eliminate the parasitic middle-man and have publicly funded testing and market development of the results of that research, with all profits going back to more research? makes sense from a "maximum benefit to humanity" perspective, but it will never happen because it doesn't cater for the desire of the obsceneely rich to become even richer.
> While drug companies change their formula slightlty and re-patent,
> the original formula is available for generics.
no, that's not true.
the way "evergreening" works is that they patent a "new" use for exactly the same drug - the idea is to keep the drug out of the hands of generic manufacturers for as long as possible.
quite often, the "new" usage is actually a usage that everyone has known about from day 1, they just delayed mentioning it in the patent the first time around.
but it doesn't matter whether it's really new or only allegedly new. patenting a *use* for a drug rather than either the drug itself or the process of making the drug is complete bullshit - it's not an invention, it's a discovery of a natural process. patenting that is as valid as patenting the "discovery" that water runs downhill.
this is why BigPharma wants to destroy the pharmaceutical patent system as practiced in civilised countries like India - there, they only patent the PROCESS of creating the drug (i.e. the actual invention, rather than the discovery of what happens in nature), which is why there is a huge generics industry in India.
unfortunately, India will probably be forced to bow to US pressure in the next few years, and "harmonise" their laws with US requirements.
> A dog turd in the sun is almost universally considered to be something that "stinks"
yes, that's because it contains indole alkaloids - which are what makes shit smell like shit.
cigarette smoke does not contain these.
> He can't taste anything either
yet more bullshit from the anti-smoking whiners - i smoked for many years, and now i don't. i've noticed no difference at all in my sense of smell or taste. i've had excellent senses of smell and taste all along.
smoking didnt "stunt my growth", either. i started smoking at 11. i grew to 6'5" tall. in fact, even though i smoked for over 20 years, i can't think of one single health problem i've ever had that was related to smoking except maybe slightly elevated blood pressure. OTOH, i know for a fact that smoking helped me in my work because it helped me to concentrate on programming and systems administration problems, and it helped my memory. on balance, the drug nicotine helped me to make a lot of money over the years and definitely contributed to a better lifestyle for me.
i stopped not because it had already caused me harm, but because i decided i was getting too old to continue smoking, that the personal risk to me had increased (due to my age - late 30s) to unacceptable levels and that it probably would cause me harm in future....that it would be sensible to stop now before any damage had been done than in 10 or 15 years time when it might be too late.
> Do you smoke?
no, i don't. i did smoke for many years, but i don't any longer. unlike most ex-smokers, though, i see no reason to become a self-righteous arsehole about it. i used to choose to smoke, now i choose not to. nobody's business but my own, and i don't need to bolster my will-power by demonising either smoking or smokers with ridiculous claims about outdoor second-hand smoke.
if i don't like the smell of cigarette smoke, or (more likely) if it tempts me to have another cigarette, then that is MY problem to deal with, not the problem of the smokers who are already marginalised and routinely attacked by vicious small-minded wowsers like you.
> If so then you smell bad.
no, unlike the smell of shit, that really is subjective. some people LIKE the smell of cigarette smoke or, at least, the smell of *good* tobacco from a rollup or a cigar. contrary to what self-righteous jerks like you try to claim, the smoke does not smell like an ashtray, it smells like burning dried plant material which can and does smell quite pleasant to many people.
some brands of cigarettes or tobacco i find offensive (Marlboros for example have a vile smell AFAIAC). some i find very pleasant ("Bank" rolling tobacco for example). obviously that's subjective because lots of people enjoy the smell and taste of Marlboros and can't stand rollies.
> Interestingly enough, your 'reasonably convincing evidence' for 'risk free'
...right?
> second-hand-smoke is ludicrous at best.
try reading what i actually said. i said that there was reasonably convincing evidence that large amounts of second-hand smoke inside a building is harmful - i.e pretty much the opposite of what you claimed i said.
> If you say diesel smoke inhalation is bad, (remember this is outdoors),
> how can you say that second-hand-smoke is fine outdoors?
1. diesel smoke contains much worse chemicals than cigarette smoke, including one of the most carcinogenic chemicals known
your question is like asking "how come a water pistol wont kill me but a real gun will?"
2. quantity - a diesel engine puts out hundreds, or thousands of times the volume of toxic chemicals as a smoker, or even a huddle of smokers outside a building's entrance.
> [...] and I pay taxes for Medicare treat the effects of both
no, the taxes on cigarettes more than pay for all medical costs associated with smoking - you aren't subsidising the medical costs of smokers...it's the other way around, the smokers are subsiding self-righteous non-smoking jerks like you.
> for the record... if it is second-hand smoke, it is my business and
> that is why my 'ugly nose' is in it.
no, you live in a society with other people, and you just have to accept that some of them do things that annoy you. you don't have the right to control everything to your satisfaction.
if you're really worried about your health rather than just moral outrage at someone else's choices then focus on something that will actually make a difference - better pollution controls for cars, and the banning of diesel fuel vehicles.
> Or I guess I could always breathe it all in, besides... it is 'risk free'
in small quantities, yes - entirely risk free.
actually, not quite. there is a huge risk of being ear-bashed by pathetic whiners who work themselves into a frenzy over the smell of smoke.
> My argument is always much simpler.
>
> That is of course the fact that smokers stink.
1. so do people who eat cabbage. or garlic. or any one of hundreds of odiferous herbs, vegetables, or spices. and people who eat junk food regularly just reek.
2. ditto for alcohol-based perfumes.
3. it's not a crime to stink
4. "stink" is an inherently subjective term - a smell that one person finds offensive, another will find delightful. personally, i find the stench of self-righteous arseholes to be about the most offensive smell imaginable, while you obviously enjoy the smell.
> Junkie are you?
why do you ask? is it because you don't have a real argument so have to resort to ad-hominem bullshit as your opening line?
> Smoking is a "real" health risk, don't you see?
of course i see. smoking is a real health risk for smokers. and there's reasonably convincing evidence that it's a risk for people in a room full of stale smoky air. smoking out in the open is not a risk for anyone but the smoker themselves, and evil-minded fascists like you should keep their fucking ugly noses out of other people's business.
> Saying one fume is less bad than another is the red herring.
no, it's the truth. some chemicals are more harmful than others. that's undeniable fact. breathing diesel exhaust, for example, is many times more harmful to a person than either active or passive smoking.
> I'll take banning smoking in public for $500 Alex.
you can have your ban on smoking in public as long as i can have my ban on fascist fuckwits....a heavy price to pay, but worth it for the benefit to society.
> And we'll work on restricting gas powered lawn mowers
> and ATVs in Final Jeopardy when we've worked our way to there.
unfortunately, that's the biggest trouble with fascist wowsers like you - enough is never enough. whatever you've managed to prohibit today is just a starting point for tomorrow.
> But let me ask you this -- how come I have an allergic reaction
> to a nearby smoker and not a nearby car?
psychosomatic? you've convinced yourself that the smell of cigarette smoke affects your health, so it does.
> so why am I harmed by second hand smoke? Because you're
> lying to support your drug addiction.
alternatively, you might be lying to support your prejudice.
> I don't like the idea of my tax payments going to the NHS to subsidise
> people who like killing themselves slowly and painfully as an 'expression
> of personal freedom'.
yes, ban all medical care for people who take needless risks with their health and safety - rock climbing, bush-walking, skydiving, driving, crossing a busy road, pogo sticks and more (much more).
people who do stupid things like that don't deserve the benefit of medical care.
> So your sarcastic comment is actually true.
it wasn't really sarcastic. it was highlighting the fact that the "smoking in public places" issue is just a red herring to distract people from the REAL health risk, carcinogens like benzene in petrol fumes, and (worst of all), diesel exhaust.
> Nicotine is amazingly good at the addictive-formation onslaught to the human brain
yes, it is. but it's also pretty easy to break the actual addiction. about 3-5 days for most people. the hardest part is breaking the habit and the association of certain activities with smoking (like drinking coffee, reading email in the morning, after sex, after dinner, waiting for a tram/train/bus, geeking and other activities that require intense concentration, etc).
the other thing that's hard is feeling dopey and stupid for a few weeks after giving up as your brain gets used to working properly without nicotine. that's one thing that the anti-smoking lobby don't like to tell you, that you'll feel stupid for a few weeks. it's this, more than anything else, that caused the failure of several of my attempts to give up smoking over the years. i don't like feeling stupid, i don't like feeling "stoned", and that's how i feel for the first few weeks after quitting. not pleasant at all.
eventually your brain gets used to the lack of nicotine and gets back to working "normally", but it's hard going and unpleasant until that happens.
> A few months ago, I found myself smoking 2-3 cigarettes every evening after dinner.
the risk of smoking-related illness from 10 cigarettes or less per day is statistically the same as that of not smoking at all.
in other words, not a health risk.
petrol and diesel fumes and other airborne pollutants are far more danger to you, especially if you live near a busy road (and especially since they replaced heavy lead additives which only travel a few feet from the road, with light and extremely carcinogenic benzenes which travel dozens of metres from the road).
the main risk with smoking only a few cigarettes per day is that it's hard to stop there. most people who try this will gradually smoke more and more until they're back to smoking a full pack or more per day.
if i could smoke only a few per day, i would - and gladly (i enjoy the focus and clarity of thought that the drug nicotine gives me). but i've never been able to do that for more than a few months before i find myself smoking 10, then 15, then 20 per day again - so i don't smoke any more. it's far easier to smoke none than just a few.
btw, you don't have to become a holier-than-thou ex-smoker fascist to give up smoking. all you have to do is decide to stop and stick to it. there's no need to demonise the drug or the users.
(one of the things stopping me from giving smoking for years was annoyance and resentment at anti-smoking nazis and their obsessive, over-the-top propaganda. they're just convincing themselves how evil smoking is to bolster up their own will-power, and in the process alienating and pissing-off those who still smoke).
> Nicotine sucks.........
actually, nicotine is a damn nice drug. it's a CNS stimulant, and aids in concentration, focus, and memory.
nicotine is not the problem at all (at worst, it has a vaso-constrictive effect, which is easily countered by taking a vaso-dilator like ginkgo). the problem with smoking is the rest of the toxic shit in the smoke, much of it introduced by fertilizers and pesticides (many of which are permitted for tobacco but would be banned for food production) and the chemicals used in the drying process.
> The ones spewing poisonous disgusting toxins in public,
you're right - cars, trucks, and other hydrocarbon-fuel based engines and generators should be banned from public spaces.
> Why does some old fart always have to complain about compatibility?
> If you're using a browser that doesn't do javascript, you're probably
> used to disappointment. And I can understand how that can make you bitter.
> But still.
it's not just about old browsers that don't do javascript. it's also about security and being unwilling to let just any random web site run code on your computer.
as far as i can tell, the primary use for javascript on web sites is:
1. destroying navigation
2. destroying the ability to middle-click on a link so it comes up in a new tab or window.
3. hiding a link's destination in the status bar
4. advertising
5. spying on people
since i don't regard any of these as essential - or even useful - features i browse with javascript disabled.
actually, i used to have it disabled but since i discovered the NoScript extension to firefox, i have javascript disabled by default and enabled for the few sites that i want to use that really need it. noscript's very flexible - it can allow javascript from, say, www.example.com and still block and SCRIPT SRC= javascript URLs from, say, doubleclick and other scumbags. even better, i can allow javascript for a site either temporarily (i.e. for the current session) or permanently.
this works even better than using my squid redirector to block javascript from scumbag sites.
the more that these scumbags try to run invasive code on our machines, the more we need tools like noscript.
> How do you watch a sound?
in one word: "synaesthesia".
> My point is that they're doing absolutely nothing to contribute to the NH public;
> they pay no property, wage, or sales tax...pretty much the only way the government
> gets any money from you.
it's truly amazing how loudmouth bigots and rednecks can forget their moral loathing for taxation when there's an opportunity for racist slagging-off of foreigners, isn't it?
> They're not even spending the money here, they wire it home to Mexico or whereever.
it's their money, why shouldn't they be able to do whatever they want with it? or is that a priviledge reserved for those of white anglo/european descent?
> to pack in every last bit of functionality you could ever
> want on a camera phone.
does it have a digital answering machine built in?
no?
then it doesn't even come close to having every last bit of functionality i could ever want in a phone.
a camera in a phone is only marginally useful - it's kind of handy to have a camera with you all the time, but it would be much more useful to have an answering machine built in to the phone.
but you'll never see one because the phone manufacturers don't care what the users want/need, they make the phones that the telcos want....and the telcos certainly don't want any feature that will cut into their profit margins - and they make money every time someone retrieves voicemail from their network.
IMO, telco-network voicemail should be only for when the phone is switched off or out-of-range - at all other times, the phone itself should record the message.
and another electoral reform you really need is preferential voting - so you can vote for an independant or minor-party candidate WITHOUT just throwing your vote away. if your first preference doesn't win, your vote goes to your second pref, and then to your third, and so on until someone wins.
> Sense of humor you have not.
that's because it wasn't funny. not even slightly amusing.
btw - grammar lacking you yoda.
> I suppose you could do it by allocating the
> Senators based on the wealth of the states
> the way the House is allocated based on
> population. However, I feel like it's more
> honest to just make it a direct reflection of
> the money. If Microsoft has 5% of the wealth,
> then let's just give them 5% of the Senators.
what a seriously fucked-up idea. it's so stupid that if you weren't an american i'd just assume that you were being ironic - but since you are, irony is unlikely.
this is about the third or fourth time in this thread that i've read an argument which basically just accepts the fact that corporations control the senate, without any hint of opposition.
don't you americans have any idea of what a Senate's proper function is? for a people that go on and on about "checks and balances" you seem remarkably eager to concede - even ignore - one of the most powerful check & balance there is.
a Senate - or Upper House, or whatever you want to call it - has as its main function the role of reviewing any legislation passed by Parliament (or, in your case, Congress), and voting to either pass it, reject it, OR send it back to the Lower House with recommended amendments.
they are also representatives of the people and thus should be directly elected by them, not appointed by corporations, state legislators, royalty or anyone else.
speaking of royalty, you also need to seriously limit the power of your president - everywhere else that still has a constitutional monarchy has passed laws over the centuries that reduce the monarch's official powers to little more than that of a figurehead - and that is the way it should be...a president or king/queen with real power is just too much power concentrated in one person. unlike the rest of the world which has steadily removed powers from their Head of State, you americans have steadily and radically increased the powers available to your elected King. is it any surprise that the world is now suffering the reign of Emperor George I?
what you americans need is serious electoral reform that creates a reasonable balance and separation between powers.
and one thing you really need is compulsory voting (or at least compulsory attendance at a voting booth on election day, which is how it actually works in practice) - that way the bastards can't rely on the apathy and ignorance of the population to get their way, they have to take a far more middle-of-the-road stance in order to appeal to all the disinterested voters who would be offended by extremism....and reminded of past offense due to their resentment of having to blow a perfectly good saturday afternoon in a voting booth.
pharmaceutical companies have avoided the need to purchase^Wlobby for extensions of patent law terms by use a technique called 'evergreening' - they just apply for a slightly different patent for the same chemical or gene, shortly before the current patent is due to expire.
a patent can be kept "valid" for decades in this way.
try a google search for "+patent +evergreen" for more info.