As another Canadian, I can assure you that our universities are far from affordable. Our tuition is in the range of $5000 to $10000+ for Canadians, with a few schools asking a bit less than that and a handful pushing as high as $20000+, and add $10000 to any of these numbers if you're not a Canadian. It's nowhere close to affordable or sane.
I can very easily envision them making vaccines like this for other drugs.
The next generation of the drug war: don't stop the supply of drugs, just "vaccinate" the population (at an early age, what parent would say no?) from the pleasurable effects of non-state-approved psychoactives. This could be the endgame for the DEA and this scares the bejeezus out of me.
Let me be the first (!) to say that I would not be entirely opposed to this idea.
I am not a rich man and my data is private, just not... *that* private.
While I disagree with the sale of personal data on principle, in practice I am really not concerned at all with anything I can envision them doing with that information. In a word, meh.
How is it that these organizations and lobbyists can claim they genuinely feel their profits are being "stolen" when they need to use fabricated data to support their claims?
This isn't incompetence, it's sickening greed. The self-interested scumbags who perpetrate this shit and the governments that not only allow but support this should both be fucking shamed.
China does nothing to stop the sale of pirated movies, music and software on physical media. But as soon as it's not on a cheap DVD-R, it requires a crackdown?
Get your priorities straight.
Newtonian Mechanics are valid, just not as accurate as Relativity. Relativity is, in essence, a more accurate version of Newtonian Mechanics. It refines it, but the basic conclusions are very similar, save for extreme circumstances. Though relativity is more accurate, it's much more complicated, so most people will calculate things with N.M. It works fine at human-experienced scales, speeds and distances. Creationism is entirely different from evolution. It in no way refines the idea for more accuracy, it just throws the whole damn concept out the window and says "We know, and we're right because we said so." And it should be noted that Einstein, unlike the evolution-deniers, backed up his claims with math, logic and science, rather than just anecdotal evidence. Fact checking when you are an informed person or scientist is one thing, saying something is wrong because you don't get it and some old book told you it's wrong is entirely another, invalid, way of thinking.
The argument from incredulity is often applied to science by the layperson. You don't need an opponent or a debate to use a logical fallacy. The fact that the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case had to happen proves that people question science regardless of it's validity.
It appears people still don't understand that Facebook is a company and a BUSINESS. Not a government institute, not a public service. Making money is their sole purpose. Anything else they do is just a means to make that money. People seem to think they can have some expectation of privacy from Facebook when their primary business model is advertising revenues. The way to make the advertising most effective is to base it on your information. Why should they care who you want to see it or what you want done with it? I'd say you're lucky they aren't selling your personal information en masse to advertisers, and they very well may be. If you put your information on Facebook, you should be aware that you are forfeiting all rights to it and you have no right to demand it be private. The people who complain about Facebook not having enough privacy are the same people who complain about Google knowing your search history. It's time to grow up now, this is how the world works.
You're so right! Spammers would never do something amoral or illegal, that's for sure. Of course, even if we wanted to sue them, who would we sue? If we (government) knew a corporation / person was spamming, wouldn't we shut them down regardless of 'patent infringement'?
Even if the baby jesus came down from heaven today and told them the four hundred thousand patents they infringe, they would be lost again tomorrow, when 10,000 more patents were filed.
This is entirely the problem. The fact that the patent system in the United States (and many other countries) allows a ridiculous number of patents for things with plenty of prior art, plain obvious ideas and troll patents (i.e. the Russian who trademarked the ";-)" or Tsera's ridiculous patent on the concept of a touchpad). The system is entirely broken and needs to be re-done from the ground up or we will continue to have patent trolls trolling trolls and nobody being able to do a damn thing anymore without stepping on some obscure company's patent that they're likely not even using for any product. I imagine that many companies won't release their software or drivers open-source because they're afraid that someone has patented something they've used. It's not just the patent system, either, trademark law and copyright are no better, allowing ridiculously obvious patents to be held for ridiculous amounts of time. As there are more companies, more inventors and as time goes on, there will be fewer and fewer possible inventive ideas. Yes, it will be an absolute nightmare of red tape to fix the system and I'd be shocked if it actually happened, but just because something is unlikely doesn't mean the concept is invalid. At the very least, we need some reform, because this system is failing us and is becoming a detriment to society where all information, ideas and works can be kept under lock essentially indefinitely. As the cliche goes, information wants to be free and this applies to patents just as much as any other works. Short patent lives allows for collaboration and the combination of winning ideas to make greater inventions that benefit the company, the inventors and society as a whole. We need to put an end to this shortsighted selfishness of the current patent system's "I thought of it first, so it's mine and you can't ever use it." philosophy so we can all move forward.
But hey, what do I know? I don't even work for the patent office.
Slashdot Mirror
back in the year 201.
As another Canadian, I can assure you that our universities are far from affordable. Our tuition is in the range of $5000 to $10000+ for Canadians, with a few schools asking a bit less than that and a handful pushing as high as $20000+, and add $10000 to any of these numbers if you're not a Canadian. It's nowhere close to affordable or sane.
I would have thought that they barricaded the doors and windows with wicker baskets and throw pillows. Wait...
I can very easily envision them making vaccines like this for other drugs. The next generation of the drug war: don't stop the supply of drugs, just "vaccinate" the population (at an early age, what parent would say no?) from the pleasurable effects of non-state-approved psychoactives. This could be the endgame for the DEA and this scares the bejeezus out of me.
Let me be the first (!) to say that I would not be entirely opposed to this idea. I am not a rich man and my data is private, just not... *that* private. While I disagree with the sale of personal data on principle, in practice I am really not concerned at all with anything I can envision them doing with that information. In a word, meh.
How is it that these organizations and lobbyists can claim they genuinely feel their profits are being "stolen" when they need to use fabricated data to support their claims? This isn't incompetence, it's sickening greed. The self-interested scumbags who perpetrate this shit and the governments that not only allow but support this should both be fucking shamed.
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1996-09-15/
China does nothing to stop the sale of pirated movies, music and software on physical media. But as soon as it's not on a cheap DVD-R, it requires a crackdown? Get your priorities straight.
When this is eventually better developed and more accurate, this could be a boon for parents/caregivers of the autistic.
Newtonian Mechanics are valid, just not as accurate as Relativity. Relativity is, in essence, a more accurate version of Newtonian Mechanics. It refines it, but the basic conclusions are very similar, save for extreme circumstances. Though relativity is more accurate, it's much more complicated, so most people will calculate things with N.M. It works fine at human-experienced scales, speeds and distances. Creationism is entirely different from evolution. It in no way refines the idea for more accuracy, it just throws the whole damn concept out the window and says "We know, and we're right because we said so." And it should be noted that Einstein, unlike the evolution-deniers, backed up his claims with math, logic and science, rather than just anecdotal evidence. Fact checking when you are an informed person or scientist is one thing, saying something is wrong because you don't get it and some old book told you it's wrong is entirely another, invalid, way of thinking.
The argument from incredulity is often applied to science by the layperson. You don't need an opponent or a debate to use a logical fallacy. The fact that the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case had to happen proves that people question science regardless of it's validity.
It appears people still don't understand that Facebook is a company and a BUSINESS. Not a government institute, not a public service. Making money is their sole purpose. Anything else they do is just a means to make that money. People seem to think they can have some expectation of privacy from Facebook when their primary business model is advertising revenues. The way to make the advertising most effective is to base it on your information. Why should they care who you want to see it or what you want done with it? I'd say you're lucky they aren't selling your personal information en masse to advertisers, and they very well may be. If you put your information on Facebook, you should be aware that you are forfeiting all rights to it and you have no right to demand it be private. The people who complain about Facebook not having enough privacy are the same people who complain about Google knowing your search history. It's time to grow up now, this is how the world works.
You're so right! Spammers would never do something amoral or illegal, that's for sure. Of course, even if we wanted to sue them, who would we sue? If we (government) knew a corporation / person was spamming, wouldn't we shut them down regardless of 'patent infringement'?
Taiwanese man inspires Christians around the world with his story of how he committed his life to abstinence.
Even if the baby jesus came down from heaven today and told them the four hundred thousand patents they infringe, they would be lost again tomorrow, when 10,000 more patents were filed.
This is entirely the problem. The fact that the patent system in the United States (and many other countries) allows a ridiculous number of patents for things with plenty of prior art, plain obvious ideas and troll patents (i.e. the Russian who trademarked the ";-)" or Tsera's ridiculous patent on the concept of a touchpad). The system is entirely broken and needs to be re-done from the ground up or we will continue to have patent trolls trolling trolls and nobody being able to do a damn thing anymore without stepping on some obscure company's patent that they're likely not even using for any product. I imagine that many companies won't release their software or drivers open-source because they're afraid that someone has patented something they've used. It's not just the patent system, either, trademark law and copyright are no better, allowing ridiculously obvious patents to be held for ridiculous amounts of time. As there are more companies, more inventors and as time goes on, there will be fewer and fewer possible inventive ideas. Yes, it will be an absolute nightmare of red tape to fix the system and I'd be shocked if it actually happened, but just because something is unlikely doesn't mean the concept is invalid. At the very least, we need some reform, because this system is failing us and is becoming a detriment to society where all information, ideas and works can be kept under lock essentially indefinitely. As the cliche goes, information wants to be free and this applies to patents just as much as any other works. Short patent lives allows for collaboration and the combination of winning ideas to make greater inventions that benefit the company, the inventors and society as a whole. We need to put an end to this shortsighted selfishness of the current patent system's "I thought of it first, so it's mine and you can't ever use it." philosophy so we can all move forward. But hey, what do I know? I don't even work for the patent office.