They're adding a feature to prevent a "Trusted Man-in-the-Middle" being setup by an application, or by your company.
I wish they would think about this a little more carefully.... This is likely to lead to Firefox being put back on many companies' "Banned Browser List"
Wait.... he tries to sue Apple in a local county's district court?
The Apple EULA specifies governing law and jurisdiction, and this local court is not that jurisdiction. Apple's response is bound to be remove to federal court, or remove to Santa Clara, California, and then afterwards, will get quickly dismissed.
Unless his client got physical upon finding out or something, I'm not sure how that's supposed to work
It sounds like the loss claimed will be fanciful and theoretical, not actual and certain.
At most he loses Facetime as a tool for recording these types of depositions in the future, but Apple never marketed Facetime as software secure for sensitive business use, and besides which, there are numerous warranty disclaimers you agree to in the Apple click-through EULA you agree to before using the software, so if you find the software doesn't do what you need, you are not so much as entitled to a refund: Which an attorney using the software for professional purposes has a higher burden than the general public to read and understand --- That is, someone who is an Attorney or legal firm cannot get out of a contract or EULA by claiming the contract was confusing, or they were ignorant, etc.
like to now argue that the federal government can't sign treaties because Section 10 says states can't?
No... I'm sorry you didn't read through to Article I Section 9 that also mentions the federal government is bound in the same way as the states against making Ex Post Facto laws, and Art I Section 8 yet and, but my intention was never to give you the exact play by play on every single phrase in the constitution that put a particular restriction into place --- Technically, the operation of contracts are regulated by state laws, so congress doesn't have dominion of this area in the first place (it is not within their enumerated powers). There's also the 14th amendment that cause required incorporation of the Bill of Rights onto the states as well.
The constitution has other articles that provide the federal government access to certain specific powers.
By the way, Congress cannot make treaties, either. Only the president can (with the advise and consent of the senate).
I would recommend Arduino microcontrollers for more of a complete job
Consider the Pi something that can be used together with some Arduinos provide higher level control or management layers or more advanced/flexible business logic, network-enablement, or reporting.
Microcontrollers are great for interfacing or driving outputs/displays/etc from systematic logic rules or simple Output switching operations, but the logic has to be done in a low-level language that requires a compile and reprogramming process to change the configuration --- with a python script in a Pi; reconfiguration to change operation can happen usually by editing a file or even a database entry, or clicking a GUI button. So for things that are more advanced... a bit of software on a generic CPU controlling some Microcontrollers can be a very powerful solution.
Again, see Calder v Bull or pretty much every Supreme Court ruling in the history of the country.
Try 1810 Fletcher v. Peck - the Georgia legislature granted 35 million acres of land to private speculators at a very low price. When it was discovered that most of the legislators voting for the grant had been bribed, the legislature voided the grant the following year.
Several years later, John Peck purchased some of the land in question, and subsequently sold it to Robert Fletcher. Fletcher subsequently sued Peck for breach of contract, alleging that the voiding of the initial grant had invalidated Peck's title to the land.
The Supreme Court ruled that Georgia’s voiding of the 1795 grant was invalid because it violated Art. 1 Sec. 10. of the U.S. Constitution forbidding states to pass laws interfering with contracts. The decision in Fletcher v. Peck expanded the parameters of judicial review, as it marked the first time the Supreme Court struck down a state law as unconstitutional.
and it turned out that US industry cannot even handle large volume screw production.
The problem is not large volume screw production... its large volume custom screw production with very short notice given. Don't expect to go to a factory with a custom product design and expect to have a huge volume of them manufactured for reasonable cost without any lead time.
It takes setup time and money to build out a certain amount of production capacity.
It is my memory that the government did indeed free the slaves, prior terms of service notwithstanding.
Slaves were not freed nor contracts invalidated throughout the US by an act of congress, as congress did not have the authority to do so with a resolution for it would be an ex post facto law, mentioned in the earlier post, in addition to the bill of rights that prohibits denying a person of property. There was instead a constitutional amendment that actually stated no slavery at all can exist anywhere in the US - And the action of a duly ratified constitutional amendment is not restricted by other text in the constitution --- it is the constitutional amendment that legally invalidated and authorized congress to pass laws to enforce the invalidation of any agreements for the transfer or delivery of slaves: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
The prohibition was also a constitutional amendment, and not a mere act of congress.
The examples all suffer a problem. Acts of congress that BENEFIT a specific person (individual or company) are not bills of attainder.
What they cannot do is pass a law that penalizes a person (individual company) or deprives a person (individual or company) or group of people of a right that other persons have.
For example: "Effective starting January 2020, and for the next 10 years thereafter, the person named "Mr. John Doe shall pay an extra tax of the greater of $1000 and 1% of gross assets per month on top of his or her regular income tax amounts to be assessed by the department of the treasury"
That would be a bill of attainder because it Punishes joe --- an Act of congress cannot do anything to Joe in that manner that deprives him of normal rights under the law, property, etc. Its also unconstitutional due to a separate issue besides being bill of attainder: Article I, Section 2. The Federal government doesn't have the authority to levy direct taxes on individuals (persons or corporation) ---- all direct taxes are required to be apportioned to the states based on population, other than excise taxes which are laid on specific goods being traded (not people): the only exception is the Income taxing authority - congress has the power to tax income you earn, but they don't have the power to tax property that someone owns: only the individual states (and sometimes localities under their authority) have the power to charge property taxes.
These are all legitimate things that congress can occasionally perform: Issue merited awards to particular individuals; Acts that authorize, refuse to authorize, continue, or cancel the authorization of specific government projects, which ultimately happen to benefit some specific people....
Anyway you asked for some citations for laws that apply to a single person or company. Here are a few which actually NAME the person.
An act of congress can OF COURSE name a specific person (individual or company) for the purpose of authorizing an award to or some action by the person or company, and that is what all your examples are. These are for the benefit of the person (individual or company), which is the only thing stopping those acts from being bills of attainder --- the recipient of an award or special protection offered by congress is simply Not going to file a lawsuit objecting to being named in a bill that benefits them.
What the constitution actually prohibits is congress from doing is doing either of these things: (1) Post ex-facto laws: Writing any bill making a person's (individual's or company's) actions retroactively unlawful --- for example, if you make a contract that is lawful at the time made, or you begin engaging in an activity, then congress cannot, and it would be unconstitutional for them to in any way attempt to invalidate your lawful contract or restrain your continued performance of your contract or activity after the fact: That would include things such as the Facebook terms of service ----- for example, if Legal when the user signed up, congress cannot through any act invalidate the terms or restrain Facebook's rights or performance provided by the terms, because that would be an Ex Post Facto act.
(2) Bill of Attainder: Is declaring that a punishment shall be made against a specific person (individual or company), or that a specific person is guilty of something or shall be deprived of their normal rights under the law OR treated unequally under in the law in an adverse way from others not named in some way. ---- Writing a law that says something like "Facebook shall be broken up" would be a violation of (2) Bills of Attainder.
Absolutely.... what Youtube should do is look at active users who've been active a year or more commenting and rating videos, and if the person hasn't done Thumbs Up on any Flat earth or similar conspiracy videos or had comments marked down as spam/crap... grant these people a user tag and a feature to suggest tag/moderate videos as "Satire", "NSFW", "Conspiracy Theory", "Fake News", etc --- such tags should appear prominently and obviously in the title and before the video can be played, and anywhere videos are recommended.
Negative tags such as Conspiracy/Fake should prevent the video showing up on any of other users' 'Recommended Videos' or 'Top Videos' pages to avoid driving traffic to those videos.
funded entirely by user fees and gets no tax dollars, but it requires an appropriation from Congress to spend the money it collects.
Where we have a government service run by user fees: the affairs should be structured so that user fees collected are automatically appropriated to providing the service without the need for further intervention by congress; that way congress can spend their budgeting time focusing on allocating the Tax revenues correctly.
Which of TheOnion political headlines sounds more believable to you?
Defiant Pelosi Begins Swimming To Afghanistan After Trump Denies Use Of Government Plane Lincoln Memorial Empty After Former President’s Statue Furloughed New Hampshire Legislature Passes Bill Naming Fentanyl State Opiate Presumptuous Congressional Freshman Thinks She Can Just Come In And Represent Constituents Poll Finds 100% Of Americans Blame Shutdown Entirely On Colorado Representative Scott Tipton John Bolton Insists Iran Likely Harboring Dangerous Terrorist Osama Bin Laden Trump Covered In Own Shit After Furloughed White House Staff Fail To Bathe President Giuliani: ‘Let’s Just Start Everything Over’ Kamala Harris Assembles Campaign Staff Of Unpaid California Prison Laborers Chuck Grassley Voted Against MLK Day Due To Foreseeing How Everyone Would Dishonor King’s Memory
Also, thanks to technology.... a majority of the representative functions could likely be automated.
For example: instead of having a human representative cast the vote ----- there could be a machine which acts as a digital or "virtual" representative to cast whichever vote a majority of the constituents have decided.
When it comes to drafting laws and dealing with investigations, hearings, or other issues: instead of constituents having to permanently appoint 1 person to serve as an office for years - the people could elect a "candidate pool" on a number of issues, and the pool work together to come up with proposed legislative actions ---- whichever ones get the most "Likes" from constituents become part of the agenda, then when the item comes up to agenda, the constituents electronically vote to decide which person will be their representative for debating and drafting the bill covering a specific issue, then the students will accept or reject their work using Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down options.
They aren't real news, and they aren't fake news.... they're satirical news for purposes of humor, with such absurd topics that any literate person should immediately recognize the article content as satire past the first paragraph or so, even if they were living under a rock and didn't know what TheOnion was. Are they going to get the dreaded "Fake News Warning" anyways?
If it was not for a deeper motive, then why wouldn't they simply reprogram them to start diverting some mining power to benefit the attacker and try to avoid detection?
The mining hardware would be much more valuable mining something for the attacker than sitting locked up waiting for a ransom --- for the ransom to be worthwhile, it would have to be large enough that would also make it worthwhile for the mining operator to actually erase and reprogram the device's firmware instead of paying that ransom.
Good luck proving that neither parent will subsequently lose a job.
At that point the issue has nothing to do with the research, and its the person's responsibility who represented that they were choosing to become pregnant and have a child anyways, however due to the hereditary disease risks they'd like to volunteer to participate in the research -- ANY couple who decided to get pregnant for any reason would be in the same predicament regarding supporting the child, And the cost of the life-sustaining essentials to support a child are much the same whether the child turns out with a disability or normal full capacity -- if the parent claims to be productively employable,then they should be able to get and retain a replacement job, assuming the applicant is not lying.
Or are you anticipating a provision that disqualifies parents of children resulting from experimental genetic engineering from receiving these entitlements
No... Those parent would be disqualified from participating in an experiment that involves them having a child. The researcher should require proof that the parents can financially support the child and maintain the requisite protective insurance policies before being allowed to participate in research that involves a parent becoming pregnant (whether or not the embryo was modified).
Until age 18, supporting their child up to adulthood is the parent's responsibility, so the monetary value of the initial loss is $0.
After adulthood: assuming the disability renders the person completely unemployable for the adult life, the loss over the years amounts to an annuity policy worth approximately $2 Million upfront.
The average annual wages of a gainfully employed adult human to be distributed every year after adulthood up to the number years of a human's life expectancy at ~$4166/month growing by 2% per annum.
My first guess is the parts of the government that pay for disability and medical entitlements.
Really, really bad idea. The people likely to volunteer for human testing are those that already have a major condition that causes disability and limits lifespan. The vested interest of those parts of the government, would be that these people die as soon as possible, so they would probably block research into possible cures that could extend lives.
Morals should NOT be defined by money. As for support costs.... No patentability rights or profit rights should exist for a cure, except to the party who was liable for the risks in case it harmed people during the human testing, other trials, and usage prior to approval.
Those volunteering to be experimented upon should be required to carry adequate long term and short term disability and health insurance, so if they become disabled, they make the claim under their disability policy for full support, and those doing the experiments ought to be required to sign statements assuming liability and carry adequate extra insurance.
Well... it would make sense if both Plaintiff and Defendant had to fork sufficient $$ over to fund the court before a case begins, and whichever side loses pays, effectively.
The court is getting paid the same no matter which side wins, and even in state cases the DA/prosecutor is a different department, and they'll be required to pay, so no conflict.
Holy crap, do you have any idea what's involved in submitting a drug for approval? If printed, the documentation would easily fill several 53' long tractor-trailers - ten days?
I think what you say demonstrates the necessity of a time limit for dutiful review of drug approvals, etc, even more.... 53' long tractor-trailers worth of paperwork for approval of a newly discovered drug is insanely unreasonable: by having a time limit, the agency will be forced to either tone down the requirements to what can be reasonably reviewed in a reasonable amount of time, OR massively increase their staffing. For one thing, if I happen to discover an effective drug on my own, develop it into a product, and prove that it works and doesn't kill people, say in my own lab not working for some big pharma company, there's no way on earth to afford a 53' long tractor-trailer's worth of paperwork to support the application to bring my product to market. That's what you call government imposing an unreasonable burden on inventors and entrepreneurs.
Slashdot Mirror
They're adding a feature to prevent a "Trusted Man-in-the-Middle" being setup by an application, or by your company.
I wish they would think about this a little more carefully.... This is likely to lead to Firefox being put back on many companies' "Banned Browser List"
Wait.... he tries to sue Apple in a local county's district court?
The Apple EULA specifies governing law and jurisdiction, and this local court is not that jurisdiction.
Apple's response is bound to be remove to federal court, or remove to Santa Clara, California,
and then afterwards, will get quickly dismissed.
Unless his client got physical upon finding out or something, I'm not sure how that's supposed to work
It sounds like the loss claimed will be fanciful and theoretical, not actual and certain.
At most he loses Facetime as a tool for recording these types of depositions in the future, but Apple never marketed Facetime as software secure for sensitive business use, and besides which, there are numerous warranty disclaimers you agree to in the Apple click-through EULA you agree to before using the software, so if you find the software doesn't do what you need, you are not so much as entitled to a refund: Which an attorney using the software for professional purposes has a higher burden than the general public to read and understand --- That is, someone who is an Attorney or legal firm cannot get out of a contract or EULA by claiming the contract was confusing, or they were ignorant, etc.
like to now argue that the federal government can't sign treaties because Section 10 says states can't?
No... I'm sorry you didn't read through to Article I Section 9 that also mentions the federal government is bound in the same way as the states against making Ex Post Facto laws, and Art I Section 8 yet and, but my intention was never to give you the exact play by play on every
single phrase in the constitution that put a particular restriction into place --- Technically, the operation of contracts are regulated by state laws, so congress doesn't have dominion of this area in the first place (it is not within their enumerated powers). There's also the 14th amendment that cause required incorporation
of the Bill of Rights onto the states as well.
The constitution has other articles that provide the
federal government access to certain specific powers.
By the way, Congress cannot make treaties, either. Only the president can (with the advise and consent of the senate).
I would recommend Arduino microcontrollers for more of a complete job
Consider the Pi something that can be used together with some Arduinos provide higher level control or management layers or more advanced/flexible business logic, network-enablement, or reporting.
Microcontrollers are great for interfacing or driving outputs/displays/etc from systematic logic rules or simple Output switching operations,
but the logic has to be done in a low-level language that requires a compile and reprogramming process to change the configuration --- with a python script in a Pi; reconfiguration to change operation can happen usually by editing a file or even a database entry, or clicking a GUI button.
So for things that are more advanced... a bit of software on a generic CPU controlling some Microcontrollers can be a very powerful solution.
Again, see Calder v Bull or pretty much every Supreme Court ruling in the history of the country.
Try 1810 Fletcher v. Peck -
the Georgia legislature granted 35 million acres of land to private speculators at a very low price. When it was discovered that most of the legislators voting for the grant had been bribed, the legislature voided the grant the following year.
Several years later, John Peck purchased some of the land in question, and subsequently sold it to Robert Fletcher. Fletcher subsequently sued Peck for breach of contract, alleging that the voiding of the initial grant had invalidated Peck's title to the land.
The Supreme Court ruled that Georgia’s voiding of the 1795 grant was invalid because it violated Art. 1 Sec. 10. of the U.S. Constitution forbidding states to pass laws interfering with contracts. The decision in Fletcher v. Peck expanded the parameters of judicial review, as it marked the first time the Supreme Court struck down a state law as unconstitutional.
Always finding ways to screw things up: or in this case uhm... failing to find enough screws locally to screw things up adequately?
and it turned out that US industry cannot even handle large volume screw production.
The problem is not large volume screw production... its large volume custom screw production with very short notice given.
Don't expect to go to a factory with a custom product design and expect to have a huge volume of them manufactured for reasonable cost without any lead time.
It takes setup time and money to build out a certain amount of production capacity.
It is my memory that the government did indeed free the slaves, prior terms of service notwithstanding.
Slaves were not freed nor contracts invalidated throughout the US by an act of congress, as congress did not have the authority to do so with a resolution for it would be an ex post facto law, mentioned in the earlier post, in addition to the bill of rights that prohibits denying a person of property. There was instead a constitutional amendment that actually stated no slavery at all can exist anywhere in the US - And the action of a duly ratified constitutional amendment is not restricted by other text in the constitution --- it is the constitutional amendment that legally
invalidated and authorized congress to pass laws to enforce the invalidation of any agreements for the transfer or delivery of slaves: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
The prohibition was also a constitutional amendment, and not a mere act of congress.
The examples all suffer a problem. Acts of congress that BENEFIT a specific person (individual or company) are not bills of attainder.
What they cannot do is pass a law that penalizes a person (individual company) or deprives a person (individual or company) or group of people of a right that other persons have.
For example: "Effective starting January 2020, and for the next 10 years thereafter, the person named "Mr. John Doe shall pay an extra tax of the greater of $1000 and 1% of gross assets per month on top of his or her regular income tax amounts to be assessed by the department of the treasury"
That would be a bill of attainder because it Punishes joe --- an Act of congress cannot do anything to Joe in that manner that deprives him of normal rights under the law, property, etc. Its also unconstitutional due to a separate issue besides being bill of attainder: Article I, Section 2.
The Federal government doesn't have the authority to levy direct taxes on individuals (persons or corporation) ---- all direct taxes are required to be apportioned to the states based on population, other than excise taxes which are laid on specific goods being traded (not people): the only exception is the Income taxing authority - congress has the power to tax income you earn, but they don't have the power to tax property that someone owns: only the individual states (and sometimes localities under their authority) have the power to charge property taxes.
These are all legitimate things that congress can occasionally perform: Issue merited awards to particular individuals; Acts that authorize, refuse to authorize, continue, or cancel the authorization of specific government projects, which ultimately happen to benefit some specific people....
Anyway you asked for some citations for laws that apply to a single person or company. Here are a few which actually NAME the person.
An act of congress can OF COURSE name a specific person (individual or company) for the purpose of authorizing an award to or some action by the person or company, and that is what all your examples are. These are for the benefit of the person (individual or company), which is the only thing stopping those acts from being bills of attainder --- the recipient of an award or special protection offered by congress is simply Not going to file a lawsuit objecting to being named in a bill that benefits them.
What the constitution actually prohibits is congress from doing is doing either of these things: (1) Post ex-facto laws: Writing any bill making a person's (individual's or company's) actions retroactively unlawful --- for example, if you make a contract that is lawful at the time made, or you begin engaging in an activity, then congress cannot, and it would be unconstitutional for them to in any way attempt to invalidate your lawful contract or restrain your continued performance of your contract or activity after the fact: That would include things such as the Facebook terms of service ----- for example, if Legal when the user signed up, congress cannot through any act invalidate the terms or restrain Facebook's rights or performance provided by the terms, because that would be an Ex Post Facto act.
(2) Bill of Attainder: Is declaring that a punishment shall be made against a specific person (individual or company), or that a specific person is guilty of something or shall be deprived of their normal rights under the law OR treated unequally under in the law in an adverse way from others not named in some way. ---- Writing a law that says something like "Facebook shall be broken up" would be a violation of (2) Bills of Attainder.
we'll call the leaders of the democratic party "big ass".
Nope. "Big ass" would clearly be in reference to the $75 Billion global strip club industry.
Absolutely.... what Youtube should do is look at active users who've been active a year or more commenting and
rating videos, and if the person hasn't done Thumbs Up on any Flat earth or similar conspiracy videos or had comments marked
down as spam/crap... grant these people a user tag and a feature to suggest tag/moderate videos as "Satire", "NSFW", "Conspiracy Theory", "Fake News", etc --- such tags should appear prominently and obviously in the title and before the video can be played, and anywhere videos are recommended.
Negative tags such as Conspiracy/Fake should prevent the video showing up on any of other users' 'Recommended Videos' or 'Top Videos' pages to avoid driving traffic to those videos.
funded entirely by user fees and gets no tax dollars, but it requires an appropriation from Congress to spend the money it collects.
Where we have a government service run by user fees: the affairs should be structured so that user fees collected
are automatically appropriated to providing the service without the need for further intervention by congress;
that way congress can spend their budgeting time focusing on allocating the Tax revenues correctly.
Which of TheOnion political headlines sounds more believable to you?
Defiant Pelosi Begins Swimming To Afghanistan After Trump Denies Use Of Government Plane
Lincoln Memorial Empty After Former President’s Statue Furloughed
New Hampshire Legislature Passes Bill Naming Fentanyl State Opiate
Presumptuous Congressional Freshman Thinks She Can Just Come In And Represent Constituents
Poll Finds 100% Of Americans Blame Shutdown Entirely On Colorado Representative Scott Tipton
John Bolton Insists Iran Likely Harboring Dangerous Terrorist Osama Bin Laden
Trump Covered In Own Shit After Furloughed White House Staff Fail To Bathe President
Giuliani: ‘Let’s Just Start Everything Over’
Kamala Harris Assembles Campaign Staff Of Unpaid California Prison Laborers
Chuck Grassley Voted Against MLK Day Due To Foreseeing How Everyone Would Dishonor King’s Memory
Also, thanks to technology.... a majority of the representative functions could likely be automated.
For example: instead of having a human representative cast the vote ----- there could be a machine which acts
as a digital or "virtual" representative to cast whichever vote a majority of the constituents have decided.
When it comes to drafting laws and dealing with investigations, hearings, or other issues: instead of
constituents having to permanently appoint 1 person to serve as an office for years - the people could elect a
"candidate pool" on a number of issues, and the pool work together to come up with proposed legislative actions ----
whichever ones get the most "Likes" from constituents become part of the agenda, then when the item comes up to agenda,
the constituents electronically vote to decide which person will be their representative for debating and drafting the bill covering
a specific issue, then the students will accept or reject their work using Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down options.
They aren't real news, and they aren't fake news....
they're satirical news for purposes of humor, with such absurd topics that any literate person should immediately recognize the article content as satire past the first paragraph or so, even if they were living under a rock and didn't know what TheOnion was. Are they going to get the dreaded "Fake News Warning" anyways?
If it was not for a deeper motive, then why wouldn't they simply reprogram them to start diverting some mining power to benefit the attacker and
try to avoid detection?
The mining hardware would be much more valuable mining something for the attacker than sitting locked up waiting for a ransom --- for
the ransom to be worthwhile, it would have to be large enough that would also make it worthwhile for the mining operator to actually erase and reprogram the
device's firmware instead of paying that ransom.
Or the attack launched by some evildoer who is also a a Bitcoin Cash or other AltCoin proponent.
Good luck proving that neither parent will subsequently lose a job.
At that point the issue has nothing to do with the research, and its the person's responsibility
who represented that they were choosing to become pregnant and have a child anyways, however
due to the hereditary disease risks they'd like to volunteer to participate in the research --
ANY couple who decided to get pregnant for any reason would be in the same predicament
regarding supporting the child, And the cost of the life-sustaining essentials to support a child are
much the same whether the child turns out with a disability or normal full capacity -- if the parent
claims to be productively employable,then they should be able to get and retain a replacement job,
assuming the applicant is not lying.
Or are you anticipating a provision that disqualifies parents of children resulting from experimental genetic engineering from receiving these entitlements
No... Those parent would be disqualified from participating in an experiment that involves them having a child.
The researcher should require proof that the parents can financially support the child and maintain the requisite protective insurance
policies before being allowed to participate in research that involves a parent becoming pregnant (whether or not the embryo was modified).
How much would that even cost?
Until age 18, supporting their child up to adulthood is the parent's responsibility, so the monetary value of the initial loss is $0.
After adulthood: assuming the disability renders the person completely unemployable for the adult life, the loss over the years amounts to an annuity policy worth approximately $2 Million upfront.
The average annual wages of a gainfully employed adult human to be distributed every year after adulthood up to the number years of a human's life expectancy
at ~$4166/month growing by 2% per annum.
My first guess is the parts of the government that pay for disability and medical entitlements.
Really, really bad idea. The people likely to volunteer for human testing are those that already have a major condition that causes disability and limits lifespan. The vested interest of those parts of the government, would be that these people die as soon as possible, so they would probably block research into possible cures that could extend lives.
Morals should NOT be defined by money. As for support costs....
No patentability rights or profit rights should exist for a cure, except to the party who was liable for the risks in
case it harmed people during the human testing, other trials, and usage prior to approval.
Those volunteering to be experimented upon should be required to carry adequate long term and short term disability and health insurance, so if they become disabled, they make the claim under their disability policy for full support,
and those doing the experiments ought to be required to sign statements assuming liability and carry adequate extra insurance.
Well... it would make sense if both Plaintiff and Defendant had to fork sufficient $$ over
to fund the court before a case begins, and whichever side loses pays, effectively.
The court is getting paid the same no matter which side wins, and even in state cases the DA/prosecutor
is a different department, and they'll be required to pay, so no conflict.
Holy crap, do you have any idea what's involved in submitting a drug for approval? If printed, the documentation would easily fill several 53' long tractor-trailers - ten days?
I think what you say demonstrates the necessity of a time limit for dutiful review of drug approvals, etc, even more.... 53' long tractor-trailers worth of paperwork for approval of a newly discovered drug is insanely unreasonable: by having a time limit, the agency will be forced to either tone down the requirements to what can be reasonably reviewed in a reasonable amount of time, OR massively increase their staffing. For one thing, if I happen to discover an effective drug on my own, develop it into a product, and prove that it works and doesn't kill people, say in my own lab not working for some big pharma company, there's no way on earth to afford a 53' long tractor-trailer's worth of paperwork to support the application to bring my product to market.
That's what you call government imposing an unreasonable burden on inventors and entrepreneurs.