Willful ignorance? Arguing from ignorance is hardly the way to win a debate. I'm not really interested in that (willful ignorance prevades Slashdot, just look at any thread about climate science).
Well that's what you're doing. You obviously didn't read what I said. He was attempting to paste a huge bibliography of information and if I didn't read each and every single source he'd say "but you didn't read them all1!!! I presented the evidence and you were wrong!!!"
I read through four of them and they weren't even relevent to his point. None of the things in the journals were studies, they were all op-ed pieces. Why should I read through every single source he pastes if he has shown a history of pasting totally irrelevent crap? It's a waste of my time.
I specifically asked for a *single* good source. One. Just one. What he's doing is the very disingenuous "but you didn't read them all tactic"--just list so many references that your opponent won't have the time nor energy to read them all, so you can claim victory even though none of the sources actually support your point.
What I'm most curious about is the first question that you ignored: "njyoder - do you have any background in biology or chemistry?"
I didn't notice that the first time, but I'm not indulging that further because it amounts to an ad hominem attack.
Sam is a grad student. Do you even have a bachelor's degree in a relevant science?
Oooh, more ad hominem. I don't care if he's a grad student. You're making an appeal to authority. He's not an expert in funding for scientific research. At best, he's a research in chemistry or whatever his major is, but not an expert in how funds are appropriated and spent.
Instead you just go on to mis-attribute the argument with a strawman about giving royalties to long dead scientists
It's not a strawman. He was proposing crediting all past research, even if it's *totally basic and part of the standard curriculum today*. I was just extending his argument to its absurd conclusion.
The farad is named in honor of Faraday, not because he discovered capacitance. Or maybe you are saying that just his descriptions of electric fields/inductance make him the inventor of capacitors, despite capacitors predating his work?
I never said he invented them, I'm not sure where you got that strawman from. Faraday is well known for analyzing/discovering the properties of capacitors with which our basic knowledge is built upon today. Maxwell's work came after Faraday's (Faraday was already well known when Maxwell as still a student), it was based on his in part. Gauss and Faraday also did a lot of their work indepently, as they did their research around the same time on different, but related things. So your history is off, nice try at being a smart ass though.
The irony if this statement is obviously lost on you. You were attempting to discredit my argument based on a personal attack (whether or not I had a background in biology/chemistry). Then when I imply the person I'm responding to DOESN'T have it, which is what they were ALREADY doing with me, suddenly it becomes ad hominem.
Yeah, way to be a hypocrite there. I'm not going to indulge this logical fallacy any further. Why don't you focus on my argument instead of my credentials (read:personally attacking me)?
What's your secret info? How do you know they don't?
I'm not the one who made the original assertion, nor the one who started this argument. He made some very bold statements, so it should be u p to him to at least provide some evidence.
You say the burden of proof is on me and then you dismiss the three peer reviewed journal articles I provided because you don't like the journals they are published in?
1. They're not well-established and credible journals. 2. They weren't studies, they were op-ed and promotional pieces in the journals.
And you didn't read what I said, did you? I read one of the articles, it was just a vague summary of a book he wrote. That's all. THere's nothing to debunk because it doesn't even support your point. If I had access to the other two articles, I'd be willing to bet they'd also be irrelevent.
Cost to public, drug patents, per year - approx $150 mil R&D expenditures of pharmaceutical industry, per year - approx $41 mil
That's nice, that's just how much the public is spending on prescriptions due to patents, it says nothing about how much money went public sector research for those drugs.
As for blood pressure, yes, it was elucidated in public universities. You can easily get a list of thousands of references from medline - tell you what, if you actually care, tell me which journals you have access to (and regard as acceptable) and I can find the relevant publications for you.
Way to completely miss my point. I'm talking about more modern mechanisms of control directly related to the newer drugs and new research, not older knowledge that's been well established for decades or centuries. After all, then we have to give credit to 19th century doctors who dissected cadavers. Basic understanding of the mechanisms of blood pressure has happened eons ago, we're talking about a modern, more sophisticated understanding.
The question *you* didn't answer is - do you know anything about chemistry or biology?
Yes, and obviously you don't.
There's no point in my arguing specifics (e.g. how much of a role did public sector neuroscience research play in the successful development of neurotonin) if you don't know anything about the topic, is there?
I can read abstracts of actual *studies* (you haven't cited any studies so far) and read their conclusions. Please, go find me the public research that led to it. Go ahead.
Also, I'll note you didn't refute my claim about Valium. You basically attributed basic knowledge of organic chemistry to universities as a defense. Of course, that's hardly what any HONEST person means when they're referring to public sector RESEARCH helping private sector drug research. Organic chemistry is common knowledge, anyone going to a university can learn it, all the basic building blocks of it are long since past the research stage.
Fuck. You might as well credit the cavemen who discovered bronze smelting or something now. Without that, we wouldn't have the methods to build better materials used to build better technologies.
That's absurd logic, see my response here. The knowledge you talk about is basic knowledge that can be acquired at any university, it's no longer any kind of remotely recent research. You could argue that practically everything is a result of university research, because at some point in time, some genius like Isaac Newton made a breakthrough, but it's misleading to attribute MODERN research to things that happened long ago, which are part of a standard curriculum.
Where's your source for that? I keep asking for one and you keep refusing to provide it! I did exactly what you said, I hit 'I'm feeling lucky' in google and used the statistics there. Don't blame me because your instructions are bad.
Challenging people to supply citations and making assertions that the data is hard to find when you haven't even done the most basic research on your own makes you look really clueless.
I have done it and it disagrees with your lies. You're engaging in silly sophistry. Because if I'm right and the data is hard to find, then I can't actually prove it short of showing you a list of 100 google search results and writing a detailed description about how each individual one of them doesn't have the statistics you mention.
Howver, if you're right and it's easy to find, then all you have to do is a 10 second search and paste a link. 30 seconds of work at most. The burden of proof is on you, and you've failed to meet that burden.
I've already debunked this absurd line of reasoning used by another poster. Those are basic techniques which anyone who went to a university could learn, at that point it becomes "common knowledge" and ceases to be "research."
Really, if you want to follow that logic, then you have to give credit to all the 19th century doctors who were dissecting cadavers to understand basic anatomy too. After all, we wouldn't understand anatomy without them! Of course, you have to draw the line somewhere. When something becomes part of the *standard curriculum* at univerisities, it's no longer "recent" nor "research," it's a well established practice.
Or going even further, we would have to thank all the past genises of physics and mathematics for practically all modern technology: Newton, Euclid, etc.... Let's just keep going back further and further, because their foundations *were* necessary.
Nevermind that using your logic all drugs would *automatically* become a result of university research no matter how independent they were and no matter how much they relied on private funding. Hell, they could even start with 50 year old medical knowledge, develop a new drug and with your logic they'd still be using unviersity research, because they were relying on principles of organic chemistry established long ago.
Yes, if it's deemed detrimental to national security, but there's no reason to believe that this happens "all the time", which was the original claim made.
common knowledge in the defense and aerospace industry.
If it's common knowledge, then it should be easy to find evidence for shouldn't it? Besides, you said you COULD provide evidence. Don't make claims you can't support. IT's not my fault if you're going to make a claim, but then later back out of it.
Besides, you're talking about contracts where the person agreed from the beginning not to disclose anything. These are contracts made specifically for classified research in the first place, which you signed up for. That's a far cry from an independent company doing its own research (no government contract or agreement to secrecy) and suddenly having the government come in and snatch away their patent.
I'd simply ask you why you think this DOESN'T happen? You are quite naive if you think it doesn't, and doesn't happen quite often.
What makes you think it happens often? You have a sample size of 2.
Rest assured that non-trivial amounts of the IP created in those efforts never sees the light of day in the commercial market until long after the technology is no longer state of the art in the defense space.
Government contracted research doesn't count, obviously. If someone contracts you to do certain work, they get to dictate what is done with the work.
How were the mechanisms of blood pressure regulation discovered (picking a drug from that list at random)?
You tell me, you're the one asserting that these are all the result of public research. The burden of proof is on you, but you have presented zero evidence, not even for a single drug. Plus, you're also using an absurd line of reasoning. As if we have to attribute every single research that came before us for our current work. Yes, let's attribute modern research to the doctors dissecting cadavers in the 19th century to help us disocover basic anatomy. Give me a break. We're talking about a DIRECT relationship, not an indirect historical relationship with things that happened eons ago.
The research in fundamental biology has been absolutely *essential* to the development of modern pharmaceuticals - every bit as vital as DARPAnet was to the creation of the internet.
But that's an absurd line of comparison. We are talking about MODERN research, not 100% of past medical research dating back hundreds of years. While you're at it, why not thank the inventor of the semiconductor too, because we couldn't even have the internet without that? Let's thank Michael Farady, too, who discovered the properties of the capacitor. Let's also go back further and thank Newton for discovering many properties of physics that helped us understand these things. Lets also thank Newton's mother, for raising him right.
You are talking about basic knowledge which you learn in medical school, stuff that is a basic part of the curriculum, which is no longer considered "research" (because the research on it ended eons ago), it's just accepted as basic knowledge. Do you still consider basic knowledge of how logic gates work "research"? What about concepts of resistors and capacitors, are those base concepts still considered "research"?
No, and for obvious reasons.
(journal articles)
I was only able to get the text of one of these and that one is just a vague summary of a book this guy wrote. This guy is very self-promoting and it doesn't appear that he's written anything for any credible journals, nor written anything for journals other than op-ed pieces.
"Bird Flu Fears: Is There a Better Way to Develop Drugs?"
This is basically just another opinion piece, without much of anything in terms of statistics. He doesn't even address how much research is done in the public sector for drug companies in it.
"Bigger Than the Social Security Crisis: Wasteful Spending on Prescription Drugs", Washington, D.C.: Center for Economic and Policy Research, April 2005 "The Benefits to State Governments from the Free Market Drug Act," Washington, D.C.: Center for Economic and Policy Research, November 2004
Both of these are just proposals for reform in govenrment spending on drug research, but don't actually give stats on how much university research went into drugs.
Look, I'm not going to wade through a bibliography of information, especially considering you've already demonstrated that you can't cite relevent sources. Just give me a *single* good source. Stop wasting my time.
Oh? Have you read the history of Valium development? It was developed entirely in house, the guy who created it experimented with many different, completely new compounds. He was already funded by the drug companies from the start, working for them as a researcher. Please find me the university research that led to that.
What about neurontin? That was a very unique drug, first of it's kind in treating neuropathic pain, where was all the university research on that?
And really, I am compelled by your lack of evidence presented.
2. The guy who responded to me was the one who made the initial claim that I challenged, so of course he'll respond quickly. So far only one person on all of Slashdot has ever made this claim.
3. I don't see how that link proves your point. All it does is establish that classified patents exist, it says nothing about them being snatched out of the hands of corporations. LANL is a government organization working on lots of classified research, so it makes sense that a lot of their patents end up getting classified. The issue here is a company doing its own research and getting its patent snatched, not a government organization designed for the purpose of classified research having its patents classified.
Thanks for pointing that out, I did that search and found statistics which completely contradict the figures you gave. In other words, you lied.
The google search took me to an official government website. There were only 1,710 authorized wiretaps in 2004, which is much less than the figure that you made up (3500). There are also no statistics on that official website on how many requests were denied.
So I have to ask you: why are you so insecure with yourself that you a) can't cite your source, b) have to make up numbers and c) have to insult people to humiliate you?
1. You still haven't provided evidence, you've just stated that it has happened. "Take my word for it, this happened to me" is not valid evidence.
2. Even if what you said is true, your sample size of (2) couldn't possibly lead you to logically conclude that this happens "all the time." It's a logical fallacy to use personal anecdotes like that.
Yes, please do give actual citations instead of spreading your propaganda on Slashdot. All these new drugs coming on the market are the result of billions of dollars of research of DRUG COMPANY money. Just take a look at the list of the most commmon drugs and tell me how many of those were developed even partially as a result of university research.
Are you insane? If you connected them directly to your outlet they'd burn out instantly. I've burned out LEDs by accident with much less current, so I don't thinkt hat's a valid argument.
Are you sure? Look at the article on Linux. Tell me that doesn't read like a Linux advocacy article. Take special notice of the first section of 'history', what's wrong with this picture?
I know. I submitted this too and I actually included links, even one to the official website of the company contracted to do with work which specified some technical details. Why did they choose this briefer version which leaves out key details? They also forgot to mention that it doesn't use GPS capatabilities in cell phones, it uses signal analysis of the cell phones as they pass from tower to tower and overlays the data over maps to get an idea of traffic flow. In other words, they can't pinpoint exact positions of anyone, just rough positions of large groups of people/on roads/.
Actually, if you notice, that study specifically says their own methodology is flawed for comparing imperative and functional languages. They also say their sample is too small. They state the only objective method of comparison they have that makes sense is one comparing number of tokens, which really is only a slight improvement over 'number of lines.'
Honestly, it's a waste of time to try to quantify something as complex as this. There are too many factors that you can't control for in a psychological study of this kind, even if you could get a massive sample size of many large, equivalent projects with programmers who are of equal skill (as measured through some not-yet-existing objective "skill metric"). It's simply not realistic. I wouldn't even bother with studies like that, they only serve to feed zealotry.
It doesn't matter what the patents are?! Are you insane?! What the patents are is important. If the patent only covers a specific means of processing the document, rather than ALL means, then OSS software is free to implement any one of a million other ways completely unencombered.
d) What rights you get under the Patent License
Of course this matters. Because MS is granting an automatic royalty free license to everyone to use it. There is no need for the developers to transfer the license since they can just get it directly from MS free of charge.
But if another developer wants to work on your product, he can't without individually agreeing to the Microsoft Office XML Patent License
Ok, lets make the retarded assumption that this patent is all encompassing and that MS is actually capable of making it illegal for someont to write software to parse an XML document without their permission.
Now. Agreeing to that license *gasp* only means that you have to agree to comply with the document specifications and not use some non-standard variant, as well as reproduce a brief notice. Wow. Hard.
every potential developer still needs to visit the Microsoft website, view and agree the patent license.
They don't actually need to view the website at all, there is no requirement for that. Did you actually read the webpage? You don't even need to sign anything. You just need to include the notice. You never even need to get anywhere near microsoft.com.
Of course, we have to remember, that you're still operating under the assumption that their patent is an all encompassing one covering all possible implementations, rather than a very specficic one. Did you even read the patent text to see what it covers? I think not.
shut the fuck up and stop bothering me with your petty fucking argument over wether my quote was "In context"
It was out of context. As stated above, it didn't take into account that anyone can EASILY obtain the license just by including a notice in their software, that's all that's required. So hard. Cry me a river of tears. That makes the whole non-transferability thing moot, since this situation is effectively the same, since all you have to do is copy and paste that notice and BAM you've effectively transferred it.
and wether or not you think you know what the fuck you're talking about, when you clearly have no fucking idea because you're too fucking stupid to understand a simple fucking single line sentence from a simple fucking license agreement.
Wow. This coming from a guy who didn't even read the patent text and thinks that what the patent covers is entirely irrelevent. I'm sorry troll, but you're insane if you think that what the patent covers doesn't matter.
Slashdot Mirror
So of the ~180,000+ patents granted a year, only about 120 or so are made secret? Yeah, that's "all the time."
Source: U.S. Patent Statistics Chart
Willful ignorance? Arguing from ignorance is hardly the way to win a debate. I'm not really interested in that (willful ignorance prevades Slashdot, just look at any thread about climate science).
Well that's what you're doing. You obviously didn't read what I said. He was attempting to paste a huge bibliography of information and if I didn't read each and every single source he'd say "but you didn't read them all1!!! I presented the evidence and you were wrong!!!"
I read through four of them and they weren't even relevent to his point. None of the things in the journals were studies, they were all op-ed pieces. Why should I read through every single source he pastes if he has shown a history of pasting totally irrelevent crap? It's a waste of my time.
I specifically asked for a *single* good source. One. Just one. What he's doing is the very disingenuous "but you didn't read them all tactic"--just list so many references that your opponent won't have the time nor energy to read them all, so you can claim victory even though none of the sources actually support your point.
What I'm most curious about is the first question that you ignored: "njyoder - do you have any background in biology or chemistry?"
I didn't notice that the first time, but I'm not indulging that further because it amounts to an ad hominem attack.
Sam is a grad student. Do you even have a bachelor's degree in a relevant science?
Oooh, more ad hominem. I don't care if he's a grad student. You're making an appeal to authority. He's not an expert in funding for scientific research. At best, he's a research in chemistry or whatever his major is, but not an expert in how funds are appropriated and spent.
Instead you just go on to mis-attribute the argument with a strawman about giving royalties to long dead scientists
It's not a strawman. He was proposing crediting all past research, even if it's *totally basic and part of the standard curriculum today*. I was just extending his argument to its absurd conclusion.
The farad is named in honor of Faraday, not because he discovered capacitance. Or maybe you are saying that just his descriptions of electric fields/inductance make him the inventor of capacitors, despite capacitors predating his work?
I never said he invented them, I'm not sure where you got that strawman from. Faraday is well known for analyzing/discovering the properties of capacitors with which our basic knowledge is built upon today. Maxwell's work came after Faraday's (Faraday was already well known when Maxwell as still a student), it was based on his in part. Gauss and Faraday also did a lot of their work indepently, as they did their research around the same time on different, but related things. So your history is off, nice try at being a smart ass though.
Nice dodge plus ad hominem.
The irony if this statement is obviously lost on you. You were attempting to discredit my argument based on a personal attack (whether or not I had a background in biology/chemistry). Then when I imply the person I'm responding to DOESN'T have it, which is what they were ALREADY doing with me, suddenly it becomes ad hominem.
Yeah, way to be a hypocrite there. I'm not going to indulge this logical fallacy any further. Why don't you focus on my argument instead of my credentials (read:personally attacking me)?
What's your secret info? How do you know they don't?
I'm not the one who made the original assertion, nor the one who started this argument. He made some very bold statements, so it should be u p to him to at least provide some evidence.
Argument from popularity? That's cute. The journal articles he pasted are op-ed and promotional pieces, not studies. Nice try though.
You say the burden of proof is on me and then you dismiss the three peer reviewed journal articles I provided because you don't like the journals they are published in?
1. They're not well-established and credible journals.
2. They weren't studies, they were op-ed and promotional pieces in the journals.
And you didn't read what I said, did you? I read one of the articles, it was just a vague summary of a book he wrote. That's all. THere's nothing to debunk because it doesn't even support your point. If I had access to the other two articles, I'd be willing to bet they'd also be irrelevent.
Cost to public, drug patents, per year - approx $150 mil
R&D expenditures of pharmaceutical industry, per year - approx $41 mil
That's nice, that's just how much the public is spending on prescriptions due to patents, it says nothing about how much money went public sector research for those drugs.
As for blood pressure, yes, it was elucidated in public universities. You can easily get a list of thousands of references from medline - tell you what, if you actually care, tell me which journals you have access to (and regard as acceptable) and I can find the relevant publications for you.
Way to completely miss my point. I'm talking about more modern mechanisms of control directly related to the newer drugs and new research, not older knowledge that's been well established for decades or centuries. After all, then we have to give credit to 19th century doctors who dissected cadavers. Basic understanding of the mechanisms of blood pressure has happened eons ago, we're talking about a modern, more sophisticated understanding.
The question *you* didn't answer is - do you know anything about chemistry or biology?
Yes, and obviously you don't.
There's no point in my arguing specifics (e.g. how much of a role did public sector neuroscience research play in the successful development of neurotonin) if you don't know anything about the topic, is there?
I can read abstracts of actual *studies* (you haven't cited any studies so far) and read their conclusions. Please, go find me the public research that led to it. Go ahead.
Also, I'll note you didn't refute my claim about Valium. You basically attributed basic knowledge of organic chemistry to universities as a defense. Of course, that's hardly what any HONEST person means when they're referring to public sector RESEARCH helping private sector drug research. Organic chemistry is common knowledge, anyone going to a university can learn it, all the basic building blocks of it are long since past the research stage.
Fuck. You might as well credit the cavemen who discovered bronze smelting or something now. Without that, we wouldn't have the methods to build better materials used to build better technologies.
That's absurd logic, see my response here. The knowledge you talk about is basic knowledge that can be acquired at any university, it's no longer any kind of remotely recent research. You could argue that practically everything is a result of university research, because at some point in time, some genius like Isaac Newton made a breakthrough, but it's misleading to attribute MODERN research to things that happened long ago, which are part of a standard curriculum.
Where's your source for that? I keep asking for one and you keep refusing to provide it! I did exactly what you said, I hit 'I'm feeling lucky' in google and used the statistics there. Don't blame me because your instructions are bad.
Challenging people to supply citations and making assertions that the data is hard to find when you haven't even done the most basic research on your own makes you look really clueless.
I have done it and it disagrees with your lies. You're engaging in silly sophistry. Because if I'm right and the data is hard to find, then I can't actually prove it short of showing you a list of 100 google search results and writing a detailed description about how each individual one of them doesn't have the statistics you mention.
Howver, if you're right and it's easy to find, then all you have to do is a 10 second search and paste a link. 30 seconds of work at most. The burden of proof is on you, and you've failed to meet that burden.
I've already debunked this absurd line of reasoning used by another poster. Those are basic techniques which anyone who went to a university could learn, at that point it becomes "common knowledge" and ceases to be "research."
Really, if you want to follow that logic, then you have to give credit to all the 19th century doctors who were dissecting cadavers to understand basic anatomy too. After all, we wouldn't understand anatomy without them! Of course, you have to draw the line somewhere. When something becomes part of the *standard curriculum* at univerisities, it's no longer "recent" nor "research," it's a well established practice.
Or going even further, we would have to thank all the past genises of physics and mathematics for practically all modern technology: Newton, Euclid, etc.... Let's just keep going back further and further, because their foundations *were* necessary.
Nevermind that using your logic all drugs would *automatically* become a result of university research no matter how independent they were and no matter how much they relied on private funding. Hell, they could even start with 50 year old medical knowledge, develop a new drug and with your logic they'd still be using unviersity research, because they were relying on principles of organic chemistry established long ago.
Yes, if it's deemed detrimental to national security, but there's no reason to believe that this happens "all the time", which was the original claim made.
common knowledge in the defense and aerospace industry.
If it's common knowledge, then it should be easy to find evidence for shouldn't it? Besides, you said you COULD provide evidence. Don't make claims you can't support. IT's not my fault if you're going to make a claim, but then later back out of it.
Besides, you're talking about contracts where the person agreed from the beginning not to disclose anything. These are contracts made specifically for classified research in the first place, which you signed up for. That's a far cry from an independent company doing its own research (no government contract or agreement to secrecy) and suddenly having the government come in and snatch away their patent.
I'd simply ask you why you think this DOESN'T happen? You are quite naive if you think it doesn't, and doesn't happen quite often.
What makes you think it happens often? You have a sample size of 2.
Rest assured that non-trivial amounts of the IP created in those efforts never sees the light of day in the commercial market until long after the technology is no longer state of the art in the defense space.
Government contracted research doesn't count, obviously. If someone contracts you to do certain work, they get to dictate what is done with the work.
How were the mechanisms of blood pressure regulation discovered (picking a drug from that list at random)?
You tell me, you're the one asserting that these are all the result of public research. The burden of proof is on you, but you have presented zero evidence, not even for a single drug. Plus, you're also using an absurd line of reasoning. As if we have to attribute every single research that came before us for our current work. Yes, let's attribute modern research to the doctors dissecting cadavers in the 19th century to help us disocover basic anatomy. Give me a break. We're talking about a DIRECT relationship, not an indirect historical relationship with things that happened eons ago.
The research in fundamental biology has been absolutely *essential* to the development of modern pharmaceuticals - every bit as vital as DARPAnet was to the creation of the internet.
But that's an absurd line of comparison. We are talking about MODERN research, not 100% of past medical research dating back hundreds of years. While you're at it, why not thank the inventor of the semiconductor too, because we couldn't even have the internet without that? Let's thank Michael Farady, too, who discovered the properties of the capacitor. Let's also go back further and thank Newton for discovering many properties of physics that helped us understand these things. Lets also thank Newton's mother, for raising him right.
You are talking about basic knowledge which you learn in medical school, stuff that is a basic part of the curriculum, which is no longer considered "research" (because the research on it ended eons ago), it's just accepted as basic knowledge. Do you still consider basic knowledge of how logic gates work "research"? What about concepts of resistors and capacitors, are those base concepts still considered "research"?
No, and for obvious reasons.
(journal articles)
I was only able to get the text of one of these and that one is just a vague summary of a book this guy wrote. This guy is very self-promoting and it doesn't appear that he's written anything for any credible journals, nor written anything for journals other than op-ed pieces.
"Bird Flu Fears: Is There a Better Way to Develop Drugs?"
This is basically just another opinion piece, without much of anything in terms of statistics. He doesn't even address how much research is done in the public sector for drug companies in it.
"Bigger Than the Social Security Crisis: Wasteful Spending on Prescription Drugs", Washington, D.C.: Center for Economic and Policy Research, April 2005
"The Benefits to State Governments from the Free Market Drug Act," Washington, D.C.: Center for Economic and Policy Research, November 2004
Both of these are just proposals for reform in govenrment spending on drug research, but don't actually give stats on how much university research went into drugs.
Look, I'm not going to wade through a bibliography of information, especially considering you've already demonstrated that you can't cite relevent sources. Just give me a *single* good source. Stop wasting my time.
Oh? Have you read the history of Valium development? It was developed entirely in house, the guy who created it experimented with many different, completely new compounds. He was already funded by the drug companies from the start, working for them as a researcher. Please find me the university research that led to that.
What about neurontin? That was a very unique drug, first of it's kind in treating neuropathic pain, where was all the university research on that?
And really, I am compelled by your lack of evidence presented.
2. The guy who responded to me was the one who made the initial claim that I challenged, so of course he'll respond quickly. So far only one person on all of Slashdot has ever made this claim.
3. I don't see how that link proves your point. All it does is establish that classified patents exist, it says nothing about them being snatched out of the hands of corporations. LANL is a government organization working on lots of classified research, so it makes sense that a lot of their patents end up getting classified. The issue here is a company doing its own research and getting its patent snatched, not a government organization designed for the purpose of classified research having its patents classified.
Thanks for pointing that out, I did that search and found statistics which completely contradict the figures you gave. In other words, you lied.
The google search took me to an official government website. There were only 1,710 authorized wiretaps in 2004, which is much less than the figure that you made up (3500). There are also no statistics on that official website on how many requests were denied.
Source: 2004 WIRETAP REPORT
So I have to ask you: why are you so insecure with yourself that you a) can't cite your source, b) have to make up numbers and c) have to insult people to humiliate you?
1. You still haven't provided evidence, you've just stated that it has happened. "Take my word for it, this happened to me" is not valid evidence.
2. Even if what you said is true, your sample size of (2) couldn't possibly lead you to logically conclude that this happens "all the time." It's a logical fallacy to use personal anecdotes like that.
Yes, please do give actual citations instead of spreading your propaganda on Slashdot. All these new drugs coming on the market are the result of billions of dollars of research of DRUG COMPANY money. Just take a look at the list of the most commmon drugs and tell me how many of those were developed even partially as a result of university research.
They're easy to find...and yet you can't provide a single citation....
"All the time?" Do you have the slightest bit of evidence to back that up?
Are you insane? If you connected them directly to your outlet they'd burn out instantly. I've burned out LEDs by accident with much less current, so I don't thinkt hat's a valid argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_languag ea nguageg uage
r ies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheme_programming_l
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates compared to say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlook_Express
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_programming_lan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
Are you sure? Look at the article on Linux. Tell me that doesn't read like a Linux advocacy article. Take special notice of the first section of 'history', what's wrong with this picture?
I know. I submitted this too and I actually included links, even one to the official website of the company contracted to do with work which specified some technical details. Why did they choose this briefer version which leaves out key details? They also forgot to mention that it doesn't use GPS capatabilities in cell phones, it uses signal analysis of the cell phones as they pass from tower to tower and overlays the data over maps to get an idea of traffic flow. In other words, they can't pinpoint exact positions of anyone, just rough positions of large groups of people /on roads/.
Perhaps their history of never doing anything like that before, but I could be wrong.
Actually, if you notice, that study specifically says their own methodology is flawed for comparing imperative and functional languages. They also say their sample is too small. They state the only objective method of comparison they have that makes sense is one comparing number of tokens, which really is only a slight improvement over 'number of lines.'
Honestly, it's a waste of time to try to quantify something as complex as this. There are too many factors that you can't control for in a psychological study of this kind, even if you could get a massive sample size of many large, equivalent projects with programmers who are of equal skill (as measured through some not-yet-existing objective "skill metric"). It's simply not realistic. I wouldn't even bother with studies like that, they only serve to feed zealotry.
b) What the patents are
It doesn't matter what the patents are?! Are you insane?! What the patents are is important. If the patent only covers a specific means of processing the document, rather than ALL means, then OSS software is free to implement any one of a million other ways completely unencombered.
d) What rights you get under the Patent License
Of course this matters. Because MS is granting an automatic royalty free license to everyone to use it. There is no need for the developers to transfer the license since they can just get it directly from MS free of charge.
But if another developer wants to work on your product, he can't without individually agreeing to the Microsoft Office XML Patent License
Ok, lets make the retarded assumption that this patent is all encompassing and that MS is actually capable of making it illegal for someont to write software to parse an XML document without their permission.
Now. Agreeing to that license *gasp* only means that you have to agree to comply with the document specifications and not use some non-standard variant, as well as reproduce a brief notice. Wow. Hard.
every potential developer still needs to visit the Microsoft website, view and agree the patent license.
They don't actually need to view the website at all, there is no requirement for that. Did you actually read the webpage? You don't even need to sign anything. You just need to include the notice. You never even need to get anywhere near microsoft.com.
Of course, we have to remember, that you're still operating under the assumption that their patent is an all encompassing one covering all possible implementations, rather than a very specficic one. Did you even read the patent text to see what it covers? I think not.
shut the fuck up and stop bothering me with your petty fucking argument over wether my quote was "In context"
It was out of context. As stated above, it didn't take into account that anyone can EASILY obtain the license just by including a notice in their software, that's all that's required. So hard. Cry me a river of tears. That makes the whole non-transferability thing moot, since this situation is effectively the same, since all you have to do is copy and paste that notice and BAM you've effectively transferred it.
and wether or not you think you know what the fuck you're talking about, when you clearly have no fucking idea because you're too fucking stupid to understand a simple fucking single line sentence from a simple fucking license agreement.
Wow. This coming from a guy who didn't even read the patent text and thinks that what the patent covers is entirely irrelevent. I'm sorry troll, but you're insane if you think that what the patent covers doesn't matter.