I didn't claim that they were the first to have glossy screens. I simply meant that they were among the first. I am fairly sure that they were the first to stop offering matte screens. That's pretty well in line with Apple's policies. Be in the early adopter/early majority phase for a new technology, often making them appear to be the first to the general public, and be the first (or very close) to completely drop an old technology, shocking the world with their daring.
I choose to be ignorant in the sense that searching through all of those irrelevant details to find the important one or two is not worth my time to me. I might have actually read the part you intended me to read, but didn't see it as changing anything. Multiple news sources, both mainstream and targeted, have suggested that there are ethical concerns with his liver transplant. What you posted seems to only touch on the hard rules of multiple listings, and doesn't discuss the economic realities.
I seem to recall Apple being on the forefront of pushing glossy screens. I don't think they were the only ones that offered it, but I'm pretty sure they were the first ones to go glossy only.
You are still ignoring the demographics issue. Even if there are more units that CAN play ALAC, there are almost certainly more units that DO play FLAC, and the people that have large libraries of lossless files tend to use FLAC.
You are forgetting things other than PMPs and smartphones (although I believe non-Apple smartphones are the majority)
Also, you've got to consider who will actually bother with lossless audio. That tends to be enthusiasts, who have generally gone with FLAC. It's sort of like while VHS beat out Betamax, Betacam was dominant among professional usage.
Care to be more specific? I'm sure if I read that entire page, I'd find something about how there isn't a hard rule about regional listings, perhaps the part about how you can be listed at multiple hospitals. However, practical logistics and procedure means that people of ordinary means are not going to get on the list in more than one state.
Legally, the works would still be in the public domain (excluding instances in which publishers were given legal monopolies), even if they don't get widely published . However, copyright doesn't require wide publishing. And of course, the patronage system did deliver quite a bit of works accessible to the general public. A lot depended on various factors. Painting and sculptures weren't capable of mass production during that era, but plays, music, and books were, and the former two had to be performed for full enjoyment. Thus, even peons could enjoy Shakespeare (who included a bit of raunchy stuff for their enjoyment)
You are correct in that trade secrets are generally ineffective in the long run. However, that only serves to further my point. What the inventor gives up by disclosure is the trade secret, but patents are sought only in cases where the trade secret is practically useless, and thus far less useful than a patent. Calling it an exchange is a bit of joke.
How is 'it eventually becoming public domain' an exchange? Without copyright and patents, all writings and inventions are automatically public domain. That means the author/inventor is giving nothing, and receiving something. You can argue that the disclosure element of patents provides public knowledge that we wouldn't otherwise have, but only an idiot would apply for a patent on something they could keep secret for 20+ years. They are almost certainly getting more protection than they would otherwise get.
For the claim that the ultimate recipient of welfare is society, you act as if that isn't supposed to be the plan at least the majority of the time, at least when the system is nominally called welfare. Giving the unemployed money to live on between jobs hopefully means that they will have a job and contribute to society again instead of becoming disease ridden bums.
In regards to the founding fathers. I don't really put them at fault. This is an incredibly complex matter, needing a good understanding of economics, psychology, and game theory, and the Constitution was written during Adam Smith's lifetime, and long before Freud was even born. Even with his limited knowledge on the subject, Thomas Jefferson was insightful enough to have healthy skepticism of the system. Those medieval tools of copyright and patents were all they had at their disposal, and despite implementing a backwards system, they at least had good intentions. They were no worse than doctors of the era using bloodletting as a treatment.
It is a government handout. It's in the form of a legal monopoly instead of cash, but it's still a handout. I'm not sure I'd inherently consider a competitive government contract welfare, but I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that Apple has been the recipient of many a non-competitive government contract, which is welfare. I recall Macs being widely used in schools despite being all but dead, so I doubt they were a truly competitive solution in that situation.
However, regardless of what you call it, Apple and Jobs made their money by government interference with the market, which makes free market arguments not all that applicable.
Do you know that there were other people that matched that liver that would have benefited from it?
Yes, that's almost a certainty. The number of patients needing organs pretty much always outweighs the number of organs available.
Normally the sicker patients are moved up the list and Jobs was sick
The urgency for the organ and the viability of the patient are two factors that go into the list. He did have a pretty urgent need, but he also had low viability, so the organ was wasted on him. They also tend to look down on behavior that results in the need for an organ, like for example alcoholics. Jobs' need for a liver transplant can be largely attributed to his choice to use 'alternative' treatments instead of surgery. it's probably not looked down on as much as drinking or drug abuse, but I doubt it's favored.
Did he game the system? Maybe but there are no specific rules against multiple listing.
Yes, "no specific rules against" and "gaming the system" tend to go together. Practically speaking, the multiple listings isn't an issue outside of millionaires since it's impractical for anyone else to get multiple listings. His specific gaming of the system resulting in him getting a liver at the expense of someone else.
I'm pretty sure he was on the public organ network. He got a liver from a Tennessee donor, which he shouldn't have been eligible for as a California resident. However, he had the resources to get on multiple donor lists, and gamed the system.
He did steal a liver, which kind of offsets the dying thing IMO, and it appears that he did this before he got cancer.
Also, Apple is built on handouts from the state, including copyright, patents, and a lot of government contracts. It's illogical to apply free market logic to a welfare queen like Jobs.
Seems to me this pretty much boils down to not caring about profit IN THIS QUARTER, but rather, a few years down the line. Also, the issue of cannibalization seems to have been largely sidestepped. The iPod wasn't a threat to Mac sales. The iPhone was not a threat to Mac sales, but was a bit of a threat to iPod sales, but the iPhone could effectively serve as a replacement (and without telephony, it was deemed the iPod touch). The serious threat of cannibalization came from the iPad, but I'm fairly sure by that point, the iPhone was the breadwinner, so it would be far less of a concern than going straight from Mac to iPad.
I don't think you are understanding it correctly. 57 billion isn't the private industry's R&D budget. It's the total budget for all pharmaceutical research. I'm saying NIH expenditures were half of the total budget, not half of the budget for pharmaceutical companies. Who the NIH money goes directly to doesn't matter all that much when a pharmaceutical company contributes a minority portion and gets the lion's share of the benefit.
In 2006, pharmaceutical research was 57 billion. NIH funding was 28.5 billion. That's half of the money there, and doesn't eveen count tax breaks for R&D, public funds that go to universities, or other government sources.
And, from Against Intellectual Property:
"The National Institutes of Health Care Management reveals that over the period 1989-2000, 54% of FDA- approved drug applications involved drugs that contained active ingredients already in the market. "
"There is much evidence of redundant research on pharmaceuticals. The National Institutes of Health Care Management reveals that over the period 1989-2000, 54% of FDA- approved drug applications involved drugs that contained active ingredients already in the market. Hence, the novelty was in dosage form, route of administration, or combination with other ingredients. Of the new drug approvals, 35% were products with new active ingredients, but only a portion of these drugs were judged to have sufficient clinical improvements over existing treatments to be granted priority status. In fact, only 238 out of 1035 drugs approved by the FDA contained new active ingredients and were given priority ratings on the base of their clinical performances. In other words, about 77% percent of what the FDA approves is “redundant” from the strictly medical point of view.
"
More than half of the money comes from government funding, and more than half the money is wasted. The primary reason for wasting it on low priority drugs is that they are potentially highly profitable. A remotely sane government acting by itself isn't going to go all the way with Clarinex, and probably wouldn't even get started with it in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
It's okay, since worse is better
Yes, trademarks must be defended, but this is not an instance of that because Apple's trademark doesn't cover bistros.
chain the console down somewhere a cantenna couldn't reach
The US anti-trust sanctions had time limits, so I thought the EU sanctions might have as well.
I didn't claim that they were the first to have glossy screens. I simply meant that they were among the first. I am fairly sure that they were the first to stop offering matte screens. That's pretty well in line with Apple's policies. Be in the early adopter/early majority phase for a new technology, often making them appear to be the first to the general public, and be the first (or very close) to completely drop an old technology, shocking the world with their daring.
Are they still under those requirements in the EU? I know their US requirements have gone away.
I choose to be ignorant in the sense that searching through all of those irrelevant details to find the important one or two is not worth my time to me. I might have actually read the part you intended me to read, but didn't see it as changing anything. Multiple news sources, both mainstream and targeted, have suggested that there are ethical concerns with his liver transplant. What you posted seems to only touch on the hard rules of multiple listings, and doesn't discuss the economic realities.
I seem to recall Apple being on the forefront of pushing glossy screens. I don't think they were the only ones that offered it, but I'm pretty sure they were the first ones to go glossy only.
not on what.cd, she won't.
You are still ignoring the demographics issue. Even if there are more units that CAN play ALAC, there are almost certainly more units that DO play FLAC, and the people that have large libraries of lossless files tend to use FLAC.
You are forgetting things other than PMPs and smartphones (although I believe non-Apple smartphones are the majority) Also, you've got to consider who will actually bother with lossless audio. That tends to be enthusiasts, who have generally gone with FLAC. It's sort of like while VHS beat out Betamax, Betacam was dominant among professional usage.
I think they've lost significant ground in the pure PMP market, and FLAC is the clear victor among people that actually use lossless audio.
FLAC is more widely supported on just about everything that isn't an iPod.
Care to be more specific? I'm sure if I read that entire page, I'd find something about how there isn't a hard rule about regional listings, perhaps the part about how you can be listed at multiple hospitals. However, practical logistics and procedure means that people of ordinary means are not going to get on the list in more than one state.
Legally, the works would still be in the public domain (excluding instances in which publishers were given legal monopolies), even if they don't get widely published . However, copyright doesn't require wide publishing. And of course, the patronage system did deliver quite a bit of works accessible to the general public. A lot depended on various factors. Painting and sculptures weren't capable of mass production during that era, but plays, music, and books were, and the former two had to be performed for full enjoyment. Thus, even peons could enjoy Shakespeare (who included a bit of raunchy stuff for their enjoyment)
You are correct in that trade secrets are generally ineffective in the long run. However, that only serves to further my point. What the inventor gives up by disclosure is the trade secret, but patents are sought only in cases where the trade secret is practically useless, and thus far less useful than a patent. Calling it an exchange is a bit of joke.
How is 'it eventually becoming public domain' an exchange? Without copyright and patents, all writings and inventions are automatically public domain. That means the author/inventor is giving nothing, and receiving something. You can argue that the disclosure element of patents provides public knowledge that we wouldn't otherwise have, but only an idiot would apply for a patent on something they could keep secret for 20+ years. They are almost certainly getting more protection than they would otherwise get.
For the claim that the ultimate recipient of welfare is society, you act as if that isn't supposed to be the plan at least the majority of the time, at least when the system is nominally called welfare. Giving the unemployed money to live on between jobs hopefully means that they will have a job and contribute to society again instead of becoming disease ridden bums.
In regards to the founding fathers. I don't really put them at fault. This is an incredibly complex matter, needing a good understanding of economics, psychology, and game theory, and the Constitution was written during Adam Smith's lifetime, and long before Freud was even born. Even with his limited knowledge on the subject, Thomas Jefferson was insightful enough to have healthy skepticism of the system. Those medieval tools of copyright and patents were all they had at their disposal, and despite implementing a backwards system, they at least had good intentions. They were no worse than doctors of the era using bloodletting as a treatment.
It is a government handout. It's in the form of a legal monopoly instead of cash, but it's still a handout. I'm not sure I'd inherently consider a competitive government contract welfare, but I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that Apple has been the recipient of many a non-competitive government contract, which is welfare. I recall Macs being widely used in schools despite being all but dead, so I doubt they were a truly competitive solution in that situation.
However, regardless of what you call it, Apple and Jobs made their money by government interference with the market, which makes free market arguments not all that applicable.
Yes, that's almost a certainty. The number of patients needing organs pretty much always outweighs the number of organs available.
The urgency for the organ and the viability of the patient are two factors that go into the list. He did have a pretty urgent need, but he also had low viability, so the organ was wasted on him. They also tend to look down on behavior that results in the need for an organ, like for example alcoholics. Jobs' need for a liver transplant can be largely attributed to his choice to use 'alternative' treatments instead of surgery. it's probably not looked down on as much as drinking or drug abuse, but I doubt it's favored.
Yes, "no specific rules against" and "gaming the system" tend to go together. Practically speaking, the multiple listings isn't an issue outside of millionaires since it's impractical for anyone else to get multiple listings. His specific gaming of the system resulting in him getting a liver at the expense of someone else.
I'm pretty sure he was on the public organ network. He got a liver from a Tennessee donor, which he shouldn't have been eligible for as a California resident. However, he had the resources to get on multiple donor lists, and gamed the system.
He did steal a liver, which kind of offsets the dying thing IMO, and it appears that he did this before he got cancer.
Also, Apple is built on handouts from the state, including copyright, patents, and a lot of government contracts. It's illogical to apply free market logic to a welfare queen like Jobs.
But they have the same shape. If you've been paying attention to lawsuits, you'd know that shape is pretty much the only real factor in phones.
Seems to me this pretty much boils down to not caring about profit IN THIS QUARTER, but rather, a few years down the line. Also, the issue of cannibalization seems to have been largely sidestepped. The iPod wasn't a threat to Mac sales. The iPhone was not a threat to Mac sales, but was a bit of a threat to iPod sales, but the iPhone could effectively serve as a replacement (and without telephony, it was deemed the iPod touch). The serious threat of cannibalization came from the iPad, but I'm fairly sure by that point, the iPhone was the breadwinner, so it would be far less of a concern than going straight from Mac to iPad.
I don't think you are understanding it correctly. 57 billion isn't the private industry's R&D budget. It's the total budget for all pharmaceutical research. I'm saying NIH expenditures were half of the total budget, not half of the budget for pharmaceutical companies. Who the NIH money goes directly to doesn't matter all that much when a pharmaceutical company contributes a minority portion and gets the lion's share of the benefit.
The federal government. Primarily the NIH.
In 2006, pharmaceutical research was 57 billion. NIH funding was 28.5 billion. That's half of the money there, and doesn't eveen count tax breaks for R&D, public funds that go to universities, or other government sources.
And, from Against Intellectual Property: "The National Institutes of Health Care Management reveals that over the period 1989-2000, 54% of FDA- approved drug applications involved drugs that contained active ingredients already in the market. "
"There is much evidence of redundant research on pharmaceuticals. The National Institutes of Health Care Management reveals that over the period 1989-2000, 54% of FDA- approved drug applications involved drugs that contained active ingredients already in the market. Hence, the novelty was in dosage form, route of administration, or combination with other ingredients. Of the new drug approvals, 35% were products with new active ingredients, but only a portion of these drugs were judged to have sufficient clinical improvements over existing treatments to be granted priority status. In fact, only 238 out of 1035 drugs approved by the FDA contained new active ingredients and were given priority ratings on the base of their clinical performances. In other words, about 77% percent of what the FDA approves is “redundant” from the strictly medical point of view. "
More than half of the money comes from government funding, and more than half the money is wasted. The primary reason for wasting it on low priority drugs is that they are potentially highly profitable. A remotely sane government acting by itself isn't going to go all the way with Clarinex, and probably wouldn't even get started with it in the first place.