You're falling into the trap of the Anthropic Principle. The existence of humans tells us absolutely nothing about how probable life/intelligence is or isn't.
Oh bull. I'm talking purely about statistics. It's accepted there are around 100 billion stars in our galaxy. If only 1% of those have solar systems (I suspect the number is actually higher), you're talking 1 billion potential places where life could evolve. And given how resilient life has proven to be on this planet, I think the odds of life developing elsewhere are slightly higher than 1 in a billion.
And that's just this galaxy.
You know, the one iron-clad argument the creationists have going for them is that humans are incredibly, amazingly, unbelievably complicated.
Bah, that isn't nearly as iron clad as it looks. Intelligence is simply the product of evolution. In that light, all you need is RNA. After that, it's probably just a matter of time.
Is it so hard to believe that intelligence may just be a totally unique occurance
Yes, it's incredibly hard to believe. Can you fathom how unbelievably, incredibly huge our universe is? I can't. I mean, it's absolutely *enormous*. The idea that we, in this ridiculously, mind-bogglingly vast universe are the *only* intelligent life is, frankly, completely laughable (not to mention incredibly conceited). The odds against that are astronomical, to say the least.
Probably because most of us dont use browsers to create content, only to view it.
Tell that to someone who authors stuff on a wiki (such as Wikipedia). Or posts content to discussion forums (like, say, Slashdot). Or uses a webmail client.
I don't understand, why on earth would you want a *low* cal breakfast? Doesn't that defeat the point of breakfast, which is to provide you with energy for the day?
Soft drinks like Coke are one of the worst things you can consume, they are mostly High Fructose Corn Syrup which should be labeled poison.
Yes, this is true in the US, where HFCS replaced cane sugar. Thankfully, in more civilized countries like Canada, where we don't subsidize the corn industry, cane sugar is still in the majority (and tastes *FAR* better, BTW... Coke in the US is, frankly, flat out disgusting).
Or that exploring the galaxy is essentially infeasible thanks to the fundamental laws of physics. Or that, since we're but a miniscule, tiny, microscopic entity in this enormous thing we call the galaxy, they simply haven't found us yet. Or they have, but care not to make contact.
The idea that we alone are the only living beings in the galaxy is so unbelievably improbable that, IMHO, such a belief that requires far more faith than to believe there are other intelligent beings out there, and we simply haven't found them yet.
Hit one US ship with one rocket and CNN and Fox News will trumpet it, track the American body count, and show weeping families.
Meh, that only works if the public doesn't believe in the war. If the population supports the war (like the US involvement in WWII), then such an attack would only reinforce the public's belief that the enemy must be defeated.
Remember, up until relatively recently, the US media did a fine job trying portraying the war in Iraq as right and just, and during that time, public support was pretty good. It wasn't until things slid into civil war, and it was clear that the US would be unable to "win" (whatever that means) that the media switched sides, and the people began to question US involvement in the region.
You, my friend, have just outlined my dream job. It's a shame that, in my company, there's currently no room for such a position... oh well, maybe some day...
It certainly is, when they then vote for it anyway while pretending they didn't want it to happen. They voted to authorize the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Ha ha, man, you republicans are hilarious. It went like this: proposal goes to the house to vote to "authorize the United States to use military force". The democrats have two options: 1) Vote no. Do this and they're painted as cowards, leftist peaceniks, weak on national security, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11! 2) Vote yes, with the caveat that force only be used if there is an "imminent threat" (as per Kerry's speech), and they're painted as "people... saying one thing while doing the opposite".
Yes, it's very very good, I must admit. And, hey, it worked in the end, didn't it? It's a shame the democrats aren't as good at the low-down dirty politicking... but, hey, at least after thousands of soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis died, the US public finally clued in.
Are you an idiot? This drug is already FDA approved. You don't need to perform safety studies.
Now let me repeat, so maybe you'll get it this time: *You don't need to perform safety studies*.
And it is in those studies that the bulk of the cost exists.
So all you need are efficacy studies, and those are cheap. Heck, a bunch of doctors could get together and perform them, if they wanted (though to get a large enough studies size would require a fair bit of labour... OTOH, finding test subjects should be easy enough). Of course, they'd just need a way to pay for the drugs and perform the follow-on data analysis, but the funds for that could be provided by government or charity.
Apparently you can't recognize when someone is trying to play both sides of the fence, so later, they can decide what side they were on at the time.
Wait wait... so saying "yes, Iraq may have WMDs, but no, I don't believe war is the right solution at this time" is "playing both sides"? I call that a "reasoned position", but hey, what do I know.
I _can_ recognize it, and do, in those quotes.
It seems to me that you simply can't read. The only quote that mentions voting on the use of force is the one below, and pretty clearly outlines the democrat position at the time:
"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.
Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.
...
In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack."
-- John Kerry (during a speech on the senate floor)
Honestly, did you read *any* of the actual quotes, or did you just notice that, yeah, those quotes are real, so democrats suxx0rs!!
Frankly, I think you just recognize what you want to recognize. But that's nothing new, especially for republicans blinded by partly loyalty.
Yes, but military intervention and regional destabilization can only be justified if Saddam posed an imminent threat. And if you look at those quotes, no democrat made that claim. It was only the republicans, with Bush at the lead, who was beating the war drums.
The gist of the democratic line was that "We think Saddam has WMDs. However, this isn't news (we've believed it for years), and does not justify an invasion. Only an imminent threat to the security of it's neighbours or the US could justify the unilateral invasion of the country, and so until such time, we should continue to build multilateral support and deal with the problem using weapons inspections and other political processes."
If that's not simple enough for you, I'll summarize: dems == suspected WMDs, rejected war. reps == suspected WMDs, insisted upon war, manufactured danger of imminent threat to it's neighbours and the united states in order to justify said war. Make sense now?
Re:Replacing the electoral college
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 1
The point of the electoral college is similar to the point of the senate. They are both there to ensure the STATES have a voice in government.
Yes, but the power of the senate is balanced by the power of the congress, a purely representational entity.
OTOH, the electoral college alone means one thing and one thing only: some people's votes are worth more than others. If you think that's a right and moral way to select a government, so be it. I happen to disagree.
If somebody wants to sell this to treat cancer, the FDA is going to require 800 million dollars worth of Phase I, II, and III clinical trials before it allows the claim.
Not AFAIK. My understanding is that the FDA will fasttrack an already approved drug (such as this one) for alternative uses. Since safety is already proven, the only thing necessary is efficacy trials (so far as I know).
Fortunately, this makes it far more likely that a non-profit (or the government, who is obviously interested in lowering healthcare costs) could pick up the table to fund the research.
So, how does eliminating private drug development make trials of this any easier?
No one said it did. The encouragement of private drug development to the exclusion of publically funded work (which is certainly the trend in the US... heck, universities can license their developments to private companies, even though they've been developed with public monies!) simply makes it (far) less likely that inexpensive or non-patented drugs will be developed and marketed, which means such treatments are unavailable to all but the affluent. And I don't know about you, but I find the idea of withholding medical treatment based on purchasing power to be morally offensive.
Further, the more cynical might suggest that privately own drug companies are more likely to research treatments over cures, since long-term drug dependence is more profitable... a view I subscribe to part-time.:)
Actually, according to this more thorough article, the drug has also proven effective is mouse models.
Granted, this still isn't the same as a human trial, but it's a far cry from simply killing cancer in a petri dish.
As for the notion that the unwillingness to develop a drug in the absence of patent protection somehow is an argument against patents
Actually, it's more of an argument against privately funded drug development, as it's pretty clear that an unpatentable drug, no matter how effective, isn't useful to a company who's sole purpose is to make money.
Even if the companies do turn it down they will get a further crack at it. Courtesy of the Byah-Dole act most publicly funded research (especially drug research) in the U.S. can later be "bought" by private companies who may then claim "intellectual property" on the fruits of the public's labors.
Except that the pioneering work was done in Canada.
Moreover, there is no IP here... the drug is simply not patentable (AFAIK). The only options are patenting delivering mechanisms ('course, it can apparently be administered orally, so there doesn't appear to be any options along those lines) or derivative drugs (admittedly there may be options, here).
The more interesting thing is that the mitochondria appear to be a viable target for cancer therapy drugs. If anything, this discovery may spur work into developing other drugs/therapies.
And in order to avoid the crushing G-forces involve
Alternatively, you could use a linear accelerator for launching cargo that isn't g-force sensitive (raw materials, parts, etc). You can then use the expensive, traditional launches for moving personelle.
Re:May not be intended to be a solution
on
IsoHunt Shut Down?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I don't think Laches applies, as that implies prejudicial delay. Sure, if you wait around and then try to sue someone for billions of dollars in damages, the court may tell you to piss off. But it's not clear if that applies to cases like these.
And it appears estoppel only applies if an infringer was given the expectation that their acts are condoned. Clearly, that's not the case (ie, massive advertising campaigns, etc), so I don't see how that would apply.
'course, this is all speculation from a lightly informed spectator, so perhaps you have a more educated take on the situation.
Slashdot Mirror
You're falling into the trap of the Anthropic Principle. The existence of humans tells us absolutely nothing about how probable life/intelligence is or isn't.
Oh bull. I'm talking purely about statistics. It's accepted there are around 100 billion stars in our galaxy. If only 1% of those have solar systems (I suspect the number is actually higher), you're talking 1 billion potential places where life could evolve. And given how resilient life has proven to be on this planet, I think the odds of life developing elsewhere are slightly higher than 1 in a billion.
And that's just this galaxy.
You know, the one iron-clad argument the creationists have going for them is that humans are incredibly, amazingly, unbelievably complicated.
Bah, that isn't nearly as iron clad as it looks. Intelligence is simply the product of evolution. In that light, all you need is RNA. After that, it's probably just a matter of time.
Is it so hard to believe that intelligence may just be a totally unique occurance
Yes, it's incredibly hard to believe. Can you fathom how unbelievably, incredibly huge our universe is? I can't. I mean, it's absolutely *enormous*. The idea that we, in this ridiculously, mind-bogglingly vast universe are the *only* intelligent life is, frankly, completely laughable (not to mention incredibly conceited). The odds against that are astronomical, to say the least.
Probably because most of us dont use browsers to create content, only to view it.
Tell that to someone who authors stuff on a wiki (such as Wikipedia). Or posts content to discussion forums (like, say, Slashdot). Or uses a webmail client.
A can of soda every day is still a lot of sugar.
Meh, so is a glass of juice, but you don't see people balking at that.
'course, the the fact that the US uses HFCS (*gag*) in everything is definitely a strike against for those who live there.
I don't understand, why on earth would you want a *low* cal breakfast? Doesn't that defeat the point of breakfast, which is to provide you with energy for the day?
last year we started the day with a 30 minute run on the beach
Fuck you (says the guy from Canada, just east of the Rockies).
Soft drinks like Coke are one of the worst things you can consume, they are mostly High Fructose Corn Syrup which should be labeled poison.
Yes, this is true in the US, where HFCS replaced cane sugar. Thankfully, in more civilized countries like Canada, where we don't subsidize the corn industry, cane sugar is still in the majority (and tastes *FAR* better, BTW... Coke in the US is, frankly, flat out disgusting).
Or that exploring the galaxy is essentially infeasible thanks to the fundamental laws of physics. Or that, since we're but a miniscule, tiny, microscopic entity in this enormous thing we call the galaxy, they simply haven't found us yet. Or they have, but care not to make contact.
The idea that we alone are the only living beings in the galaxy is so unbelievably improbable that, IMHO, such a belief that requires far more faith than to believe there are other intelligent beings out there, and we simply haven't found them yet.
They should invest the research funds towards making better baggage scanners.
If you're referring to the idiots hired to handle baggage security, I couldn't agree more.
Arxiv is not, AFAIK, peer reviewed. As such, you'll find an awful lot of crap in there.
Hit one US ship with one rocket and CNN and Fox News will trumpet it, track the American body count, and show weeping families.
Meh, that only works if the public doesn't believe in the war. If the population supports the war (like the US involvement in WWII), then such an attack would only reinforce the public's belief that the enemy must be defeated.
Remember, up until relatively recently, the US media did a fine job trying portraying the war in Iraq as right and just, and during that time, public support was pretty good. It wasn't until things slid into civil war, and it was clear that the US would be unable to "win" (whatever that means) that the media switched sides, and the people began to question US involvement in the region.
You, my friend, have just outlined my dream job. It's a shame that, in my company, there's currently no room for such a position... oh well, maybe some day...
It certainly is, when they then vote for it anyway while pretending they didn't want it to happen. They voted to authorize the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
... saying one thing while doing the opposite".
Ha ha, man, you republicans are hilarious. It went like this: proposal goes to the house to vote to "authorize the United States to use military force". The democrats have two options: 1) Vote no. Do this and they're painted as cowards, leftist peaceniks, weak on national security, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11! 2) Vote yes, with the caveat that force only be used if there is an "imminent threat" (as per Kerry's speech), and they're painted as "people
Yes, it's very very good, I must admit. And, hey, it worked in the end, didn't it? It's a shame the democrats aren't as good at the low-down dirty politicking... but, hey, at least after thousands of soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis died, the US public finally clued in.
Are you an idiot? This drug is already FDA approved. You don't need to perform safety studies.
Now let me repeat, so maybe you'll get it this time: *You don't need to perform safety studies*.
And it is in those studies that the bulk of the cost exists.
So all you need are efficacy studies, and those are cheap. Heck, a bunch of doctors could get together and perform them, if they wanted (though to get a large enough studies size would require a fair bit of labour... OTOH, finding test subjects should be easy enough). Of course, they'd just need a way to pay for the drugs and perform the follow-on data analysis, but the funds for that could be provided by government or charity.
Apparently you can't recognize when someone is trying to play both sides of the fence, so later, they can decide what side they were on at the time.
...
Wait wait... so saying "yes, Iraq may have WMDs, but no, I don't believe war is the right solution at this time" is "playing both sides"? I call that a "reasoned position", but hey, what do I know.
I _can_ recognize it, and do, in those quotes.
It seems to me that you simply can't read. The only quote that mentions voting on the use of force is the one below, and pretty clearly outlines the democrat position at the time:
"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.
Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.
In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack."
-- John Kerry (during a speech on the senate floor)
Honestly, did you read *any* of the actual quotes, or did you just notice that, yeah, those quotes are real, so democrats suxx0rs!!
Frankly, I think you just recognize what you want to recognize. But that's nothing new, especially for republicans blinded by partly loyalty.
Yes, but military intervention and regional destabilization can only be justified if Saddam posed an imminent threat. And if you look at those quotes, no democrat made that claim. It was only the republicans, with Bush at the lead, who was beating the war drums.
The gist of the democratic line was that "We think Saddam has WMDs. However, this isn't news (we've believed it for years), and does not justify an invasion. Only an imminent threat to the security of it's neighbours or the US could justify the unilateral invasion of the country, and so until such time, we should continue to build multilateral support and deal with the problem using weapons inspections and other political processes."
If that's not simple enough for you, I'll summarize: dems == suspected WMDs, rejected war. reps == suspected WMDs, insisted upon war, manufactured danger of imminent threat to it's neighbours and the united states in order to justify said war. Make sense now?
The point of the electoral college is similar to the point of the senate. They are both there to ensure the STATES have a voice in government.
Yes, but the power of the senate is balanced by the power of the congress, a purely representational entity.
OTOH, the electoral college alone means one thing and one thing only: some people's votes are worth more than others. If you think that's a right and moral way to select a government, so be it. I happen to disagree.
If somebody wants to sell this to treat cancer, the FDA is going to require 800 million dollars worth of Phase I, II, and III clinical trials before it allows the claim.
Not AFAIK. My understanding is that the FDA will fasttrack an already approved drug (such as this one) for alternative uses. Since safety is already proven, the only thing necessary is efficacy trials (so far as I know).
Fortunately, this makes it far more likely that a non-profit (or the government, who is obviously interested in lowering healthcare costs) could pick up the table to fund the research.
So, how does eliminating private drug development make trials of this any easier?
:)
No one said it did. The encouragement of private drug development to the exclusion of publically funded work (which is certainly the trend in the US... heck, universities can license their developments to private companies, even though they've been developed with public monies!) simply makes it (far) less likely that inexpensive or non-patented drugs will be developed and marketed, which means such treatments are unavailable to all but the affluent. And I don't know about you, but I find the idea of withholding medical treatment based on purchasing power to be morally offensive.
Further, the more cynical might suggest that privately own drug companies are more likely to research treatments over cures, since long-term drug dependence is more profitable... a view I subscribe to part-time.
The problem is the reliance on profit motive for development of new drugs. The need to patent drugs is simply a way to counteract this.
Fortunately, countries like Canada are willing to spend money to develop drugs that everyone can benefit from.
Quiet, you dirty pinko commie! Quit trying to steal my freedom!!!
For one, it would be illegal since the thing isn't FDA approved.
Umm... yes, it is. All that's required is efficacy studies.
Honestly, the least you could've done is RTFA.
this is something that kills tumors in-vitro,
Actually, according to this more thorough article, the drug has also proven effective is mouse models.
Granted, this still isn't the same as a human trial, but it's a far cry from simply killing cancer in a petri dish.
As for the notion that the unwillingness to develop a drug in the absence of patent protection somehow is an argument against patents
Actually, it's more of an argument against privately funded drug development, as it's pretty clear that an unpatentable drug, no matter how effective, isn't useful to a company who's sole purpose is to make money.
Even if the companies do turn it down they will get a further crack at it. Courtesy of the Byah-Dole act most publicly funded research (especially drug research) in the U.S. can later be "bought" by private companies who may then claim "intellectual property" on the fruits of the public's labors.
Except that the pioneering work was done in Canada.
Moreover, there is no IP here... the drug is simply not patentable (AFAIK). The only options are patenting delivering mechanisms ('course, it can apparently be administered orally, so there doesn't appear to be any options along those lines) or derivative drugs (admittedly there may be options, here).
The more interesting thing is that the mitochondria appear to be a viable target for cancer therapy drugs. If anything, this discovery may spur work into developing other drugs/therapies.
And in order to avoid the crushing G-forces involve
Alternatively, you could use a linear accelerator for launching cargo that isn't g-force sensitive (raw materials, parts, etc). You can then use the expensive, traditional launches for moving personelle.
I don't think Laches applies, as that implies prejudicial delay. Sure, if you wait around and then try to sue someone for billions of dollars in damages, the court may tell you to piss off. But it's not clear if that applies to cases like these.
And it appears estoppel only applies if an infringer was given the expectation that their acts are condoned. Clearly, that's not the case (ie, massive advertising campaigns, etc), so I don't see how that would apply.
'course, this is all speculation from a lightly informed spectator, so perhaps you have a more educated take on the situation.