My suggestion would be one company is going to control ALL the fibres that go through a particular section of conduit, adhering to some strong guidelines regarding the management, that way there's one company to blame, and not an anarchy of 100 companies to fight with each other and damage each other's cable. That way they could just put in one huge run per conduit, and no need for 100 small pipes wasting precious space
The plant-managing carrier for that segment of conduit can manage all the individual physical fibres as they like, provided they meet Service Level Availability requirements and Repair/Re-splice performance requirements, But set their legal requirement such they must Be a carrier that sells _ONLY_ Physical plant access in that area (Not related to any entity selling IP services) and _Only_ to licensed Layer-2 transport providers who have signed agreements which include L2 providers will provide services offered equally to competing ISPs, and Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Pricing for all involved, Must use field muxing technology such as DWDM on each fibre. The number of possible Colors Times the number of Installed and tested strands is considered the installed fibre circuit capacity. The plant management carrier will not lease, rent, or offer more than 25% of the available circuit capacity at any given time to any one Telecom/ISP or to any one customer, to maintain compliance the total calculated available capacity must be reduced if it is found a fibre or color is broken or out of spec, and not repaired within a 72 hour grace period, also if two customer ISP's become related such as in an acquisition, the two providers must surrender enough capacity to keep their total below the 25% for each conduit segment... And any particular L2 carrier may not offer more than 15% of their provisioned capacity on any segment as a dedicated, guaranteed, or priority network connection particular to any 1 customer or group of customers, the rest must be shared and available equally to all customers and applications, and the L2 carriers may not discriminate or refuse to sell services to any customer who is willing to commit to at least 1 year service 10 Megabits or higher, the L2 providers may not restrict, throttle, Randomly drop or refuse to forward any frames, or charge different prices per Gigabit purchased, except for cases of more than 100% usage of Purchased datarate, and 95th-percentile promised burst capacity usage: the L2 transport providers may not discriminate based on size of customer network, whether the customer is residential or a business, link speed purchased, cumulative number of bytes transferred, contents of packets, etc. The only allowed traffic management by L2 providers is to set a limit on the total maximum Datarate that any single one of their customers will be allowed to purchase --- the L2 providers should be required to expand their capacity or reduce their existing offerings on any conduit segment where purchased offerings advertise in peak burst datarate exceed 2000% of the bandwidth they have physically provisioned, or where base datarate or the sum of Top-line rates or for "Whatever claimed service speed or most-prominently listed speed is in advertising materials" for purchased services over a segment exceed 800% of the physically provisioned bandwidth available to those services.
When you pull the cable during construction you can verify and fix the conduit before you install the asphalt and close it all up.
That's not a necessary capability. I know people who do directional boring to install conduit. You basically get one shot to do it right. There's no "going back to fix the conduit", because it's buried and covered right away.
If you know what you're doing, and you do it right, there will be no issues pulling the cables through.
The Dig once thing could be a very smart idea, but the road planners do need to be given options to align the conduit that will be laid with where it will be most useful, otherwise the material cost will just make roads unnecessarily more expensive......
The issue with a city competing with an incumbent cable provider is one of contracts.
Stop confusing Cable and internet. The municipalities are not competing/wanting to compete with Cable TV providers or violate their contracts by laying their own fiber and providing internet.
The big broadband providers, including cable companies lobbied states to get special laws passed designed to kill the municipal projects.
The cable provider has a franchise that has all sorts of conditions and requirements
No: municipalities are only able to do this for Cable TV Service, the franchise agreements don't apply to other services that the municipalities are not empowered to create a monopoly in for the first place. Telecoms that put in and own fibre optics on the other hand are federally regulated and cannot be franchised by a municipality.
At this point.... I don't frickin care about the states, because they've already dropped the ball. It's time for the feds to step in and set a goal of high-speed Fibre Gigabit or faster broadband to every household before 2020.
somehow, get in touch with some secretive agency somehow, hope that they don't already have this exploit, hope that they simply won't steal your exploit, hope that they won't jail you for something along the
No.... The joke was the three-letter agency will be watching you, knowing you're a security researcher, so they already know you developed the exploit; They will be paying you for exclusivity, Also they'll be needing more work out of you to weaponize it, As for the other concerns, It's not illegal to do security research or develop or possess exploit code, YET...
Dealing in a substantial $$$ amount in gift cards would be a way to get on FinCEN's watchlist Also, I believe no Amazon doesn't directly. At a time at least Overstock did. I believe you will be required to identify yourself to the retailer to conduct these kinds of transactions BTC is not for anonymity, at least not when dealing with reputable ecommerce companies.
Unless you mined them you'd do well to record your deductible cost so as to verify the gain or loss like any other cost
The guidance/recommended reporting is exactly the same deal if you mined the BTC, other than the fact a person who mined coins already had an obligation to report income and possibly have income and self-employment taxes due during the year they mined the coins. You had to have reported your ordinary income (Fair market Value of BTC earned minus Ammortized portions of the Fixed and Variable Costs which were Necessary and customary to earn the income) for the accounting period in which you mined the particular coins.
And if you held your coins and didn't sell them immediately your capital gain or loss will be whatever cash you get from Selling those lots of BTC Minus your basis (The original value of those lots at the time you mined those coins which you already reported as income).
If you mined and didn't report, then you best donate those BTC to a charity rather than selling them if the amount was substantial at the time you mined, b/c you could be in trouble. I don't believe selling and reporting a basis of $0 will dig you out of the hole, and I suspect getting a 1099 from a Bitcoin-related company may be an audit flag, so you want everything to be on the up and up, for sure.
Wash sale is a regulation that Only applies to transactions involving the trade of securities. It does not apply to Currencies, Futures, and Non-Equity options.
I believe the type of commodity called "Non-Equity Option" is the closest comparable transaction to securing the rights to BTC on an Exchange.
Your deposit to an exchange secures you the right, But not the obligation to have your exchange assign a number of BTC to your Wallet ID of choice; when you receive BTC on the BTC network, you have exercised your options ---- Which are contractual in nature, if the BTC itself is just an entry in a ledger, the BTC itself is not the asset, but a record of the value of options contracts you hold. Then you have BTC on the network, you can later enter into an agreement with another exchange and provide the BTC to the exchange's wallet ID of choice --- when you receive Cash for BTC, you have written this option, and when the exchange deposits your BTC to their wallet ID, they have exercised the right causing you to surrender your contracts to them in exchange for US$$$.
That's because the only BTC Satoshi is known to have has never been Spent.... that includes the 50 BTC award for the genesis Block 0 and the next few blocks. Because of how the code was written, however, Block 0's reward is unspendable, and the other early blocks have never been spent.
It's possible that Satoshi's secret identity would became known if coins from Block #1 get spent.
If Satoshi was smart, he could keep his ID hidden by leaving those in cold storage forever, and engaging in other mining activity later after the network was larger.
Go to Toronto, find a BTC ATM, cash out, convert to USD, go back to US and use said USD anonymously anywhere except online
That's a good way to get added to watch lists and have gov't agents seize your cash, unless/until you can prove that cash has not been involved in any crime before or after you came into possession of it.
Tax them instead. Lay down a $100 + 10% per day per person local tax for boarding someone on Residentially- zoned property in exchange for money, unless there's a 30 days or longer written lease agreement for this specific rental recorded on the title for the property prior to the lessee arriving at the property.
Being rich doesn't make anyone greedy. Being greedy makes them rich.
If greed makes people rich, then how can you explain why there are not many more rich people?
I see people visiting casinos all the time, or buying a handful of Powerball tickets, talking about how they want to have $1 Million or $1 Billion, Or they think somebody else should pay for everything they want out of life.
If you're rich and getting richer while others are poor and keep getting poorer then you're greedy, and that's a fact
NOPE. That's an opinion or unproven theory. You can also share without failing to continue getting richer, by making sure you continue to gain more than amount of what you share plus your regular expenses. What do you define greed as, And is it your opinion that greed is not a good thing ?
Assuming that if you come up with this exploit the CIA won't be knocking on your door with a better offer to tell them instead, and to keep it secret forever.
That's why there's something called a drivers license.
The driver's license doesn't change the risk. The primary purpose of a driver's license is to make sure the local government can identify its citizens. Also, you can be a pedestrian and step into the street without a driver's license, which puts other drivers' at just as much risk as a guy in a lawnchair puts other people in the air at risk.
If you go driving without a license or with one but ignoring safety for you and/or others then you are likely to get put in jail.
Nope. Not likely at all, not until After you get in a wreck and somebody is injured, And the assessment shows you were criminally negligent.
First: by not having any way to control the flight path
That's putting the guy in the lawnchair at risk, not anybody else
Second: by not informing pilots that he could fly into their path
It's the pilots duty to check for things that could fly into their path.
Third: by not having a license to pilot an aircraft
"License for piloting a lawnchair" makes about as much sense as suggesting a license for being a pedestrian, Or a license for Tubing or navigating a small Canoe, Raft, or Lifeboat, because the small craft could pose a risk to one those freighters in the Pacific. A lawnchair is not an aircraft, and the person riding it is not a Pilot. See first thing you mentioned: There's no ready means to alert the path through the air.
, Fourth: by moving into a dimension (up) where there, unlike ground vehicles, there is only a few dangers (birds) and unlike birds aircraft aren't constructed to survive impacts of a stupid guy in a chair.
So why aren't all the birds going to jail? This is what you call bad design of aircraft, if they're so ridiculously unsafe that some 200lb guy in a lawnchair poses some theoretical risk.
It doesn't matter who the ultimate beneficiary is; The court is directing the funds be forfeited from the defendent, not the defendant voluntarily exercising discretion on their funds to donate to a charity.
But, this guy should be in jail. He put the lives of others at risk. He says he has no regrets.
What do you mean? Everybody who drives a car puts the lives of others at risk, the moment they start up their car and drive onto the public street with other cars.
Don't see very many of them in jail.
So how is this guy and a Lawnchair putting other peoples' lives at any higher risk?
I don't know about the rules in Canada, but in the US, one of the rules governing the Income Tax is that Legally-imposed government fines and penalties are never tax-deductible, regardless if the fine is by the Federal government, or if it's the sentence imposed by a court.
The small percentage of the population which falls outside size norms want to pass laws requiring
No..... Even for people within size norms, the amount of space is inadequate and uncomfortble.
The regulation should benefit everyone, they should do two things at minimum: (1) Require enough space for comfortable seating for people within a standard deviation of the average height and size to not be squeezed, and have enough space to not contact or bump into their neighbors., AND
(2) Ban reclining seats --- Unless such additional space is added to the passenger seat behind each reclining seat to ensure the seat will not encroach upon the desk / laptop computer, lap, or knees, of the person behind for a reference person of 6'6" in height.
How does cutting funding help? The FDA will increase their backlog of drugs waiting for work required prior to approval that they don't have the manpower and resources to push through their pipeline as quickly, Since you've pulled back on funding, fewer drugs will be approved.
Sure, but these women had macular degeneration and were going blind anyway. MD causes the vision to deteriorate
By this logic, we should just let murderers go free, because the victim was suffering from a disease called Aging that was eventually going to kill them, anyways.
MD has a very gradual progression, and it is by no means certain that the person would still be alive by the time it resulted in near total blindness.
We are too cautious at the moment, and too reliant on for-profit groups doing the trials.
If some trials for a treatment are government-subsidized, Then there should be no exclusive rights to the product being trialed for any 1 company.... Perhaps by the gov't using eminent domain to take necessary patents on lifesaving medication, setting a license fee for active ingredient X that all competitors will have to pay, and for Just compensation to the original patent owner --- a portion of their license fees to the government to be determined on an annual basis will be waived.
We're too cautious.... Yes. It is OK for for-profit groups doing trials, But the Profit part should not be allowed to come until After they have an approved product.
If you Pay for a treatment for an experimental. unapproved, or under trial product as a patient, then you are effectively funding the company's research, and deserve a Cut of ownership on the results, if the product turns out to be profitable ---- Also, if you submit as a human subject for testing, which could be a dangerous treatment, Then you are a member of a group taking a risk and should have a stake in outcome just like the actual investors in the company take a risk.
We need a revision to the law, where: (A) Human guinea pigs Can't be charged a fee above nominal admin. charges if the treatment doesn't work, And, (B) Human test subjects as a group are automatically assigned a 20% interest in every patent, or other intellectual property related to a drug or treatment developed and demonstrated by the required clinical research distributed evenly among test subjects throughout the research, which is assigned after approval, the ownership share is protected from any creditor, and no contract or covenant can be made by a participant waiving, disposing of, pledging, or otherwise regarding adding any rights or restrictions about that person's share/interest, until after the study or their active participation concludes, the treatment receives approval, and the past human test subject prove that they've engaged licensed attorneys for advise on the matter.
And I would expect a lot of good answers and prior studies before having them do that to people.
Yeah.... Injecting ANYTHING into somebody's Eye is dangerous business. You need more than a hunch to do that.
It's not as the article's author suggested a justification for a FDA 'Crack down' on potential stem cell treatments for things that don't involve doing something ridiculous --- like injecting the cells directly into a vital organ such as the eyes, brain, heart, spine, kidneys, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
They issued root faking ability to bluecoat. Their certs are untrustable at this point.
Cool. Can we get someone who owns one of the Bluecoat appliances to extract the private key that it's using to sign the SSL intercept certs with?
My suggestion would be one company is going to control ALL the fibres that go through a particular section of conduit, adhering to some strong guidelines regarding the management, that way there's one company to blame, and not an anarchy of 100 companies to fight with each other and damage each other's cable. That way they could just put in one huge run per conduit, and no need for 100 small pipes wasting precious space
The plant-managing carrier for that segment of conduit can manage all the individual physical fibres as they like, provided they meet Service Level Availability requirements and Repair/Re-splice performance requirements, But set their legal requirement such they must Be a carrier that sells _ONLY_ Physical plant access in that area (Not related to any entity selling IP services) and _Only_ to licensed Layer-2 transport providers who have signed agreements which include L2 providers will provide services offered equally to competing ISPs, and Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Pricing for all involved, Must use field muxing technology such as DWDM on each fibre. The number of possible Colors Times the number of Installed and tested strands is considered the installed fibre circuit capacity.
The plant management carrier will not lease, rent, or offer more than 25% of the available circuit capacity at any given time to any one Telecom/ISP or to any one customer, to maintain compliance the total calculated available capacity must be reduced if it is found a fibre or color is broken or out of spec, and not repaired within a 72 hour grace period, also if two customer ISP's become related such as in an acquisition, the two providers must surrender enough capacity to keep their total below the 25% for each conduit segment...
And any particular L2 carrier may not offer more than 15% of their provisioned capacity on any segment as a dedicated, guaranteed, or priority network connection particular to any 1 customer or group of customers, the rest must be shared and available equally to all customers and applications, and the L2 carriers may not discriminate or refuse to sell services to any customer who is willing to commit to at least 1 year service 10 Megabits or higher, the L2 providers may not restrict, throttle, Randomly drop or refuse to forward any frames, or charge different prices per Gigabit purchased, except for cases of more than 100% usage of Purchased datarate, and 95th-percentile promised burst capacity usage: the L2 transport providers may not discriminate based on size of customer network, whether the customer is residential or a business, link speed purchased, cumulative number of bytes transferred, contents of packets, etc. The only allowed traffic management by L2 providers is to set a limit on the total maximum Datarate that any single one of their customers will be allowed to purchase --- the L2 providers should be required to expand their capacity or reduce their existing offerings on any conduit segment where purchased offerings advertise in peak burst datarate exceed 2000% of the bandwidth they have physically provisioned,
or where base datarate or the sum of Top-line rates or for "Whatever claimed service speed or most-prominently listed speed is in advertising materials" for purchased services over a segment exceed 800% of the physically provisioned bandwidth available to those services.
When you pull the cable during construction you can verify and fix the conduit before you install the asphalt and close it all up.
That's not a necessary capability. I know people who do directional boring to install conduit.
You basically get one shot to do it right. There's no "going back to fix the conduit", because it's buried and covered right away.
If you know what you're doing, and you do it right, there will be no issues pulling the cables through.
The Dig once thing could be a very smart idea, but the road planners do need to be given options to align the conduit that will be laid with where it will be most useful, otherwise the material cost will just make roads unnecessarily more expensive......
The issue with a city competing with an incumbent cable provider is one of contracts.
Stop confusing Cable and internet. The municipalities are not competing/wanting to compete with Cable TV providers or violate their contracts by laying their own fiber and providing internet.
The big broadband providers, including cable companies lobbied states to get special laws passed designed to kill the municipal projects.
The cable provider has a franchise that has all sorts of conditions and requirements
No: municipalities are only able to do this for Cable TV Service, the franchise agreements don't apply to other services that the municipalities are not empowered to create a monopoly in for the first place. Telecoms that put in and own fibre optics on the other hand are federally regulated and cannot be franchised by a municipality.
At this point.... I don't frickin care about the states, because they've already dropped the ball.
It's time for the feds to step in and set a goal of high-speed Fibre Gigabit or faster broadband to every household before 2020.
somehow, get in touch with some secretive agency somehow, hope that they don't already have this exploit, hope that they simply won't steal your exploit, hope that they won't jail you for something along the
No.... The joke was the three-letter agency will be watching you, knowing you're a security researcher, so they already know you developed the exploit; They will be paying you for exclusivity, Also they'll be needing more work out of you to weaponize it, As for the other concerns, It's not illegal to do security research or develop or possess exploit code, YET...
Dealing in a substantial $$$ amount in gift cards would be a way to get on FinCEN's watchlist
Also, I believe no Amazon doesn't directly. At a time at least Overstock did. I believe you will be required to identify yourself to the retailer to conduct these kinds of transactions BTC is not for anonymity, at least not when dealing with reputable ecommerce companies.
Unless you mined them you'd do well to record your deductible cost so as to verify the gain or loss like any other cost
The guidance/recommended reporting is exactly the same deal if you mined the BTC, other than the fact a person who mined coins already had an obligation to report income and possibly have income and self-employment taxes due during the year they mined the coins. You had to have reported your ordinary income (Fair market Value of BTC earned minus Ammortized portions of the Fixed and Variable Costs which were Necessary and customary to earn the income) for the accounting period in which you mined the particular coins.
And if you held your coins and didn't sell them immediately your capital gain or loss will be whatever cash you get from Selling those lots of BTC Minus your basis (The original value of those lots at the time you mined those coins which you already reported as income).
If you mined and didn't report, then you best donate those BTC to a charity rather than selling them if the amount was substantial at the time you mined, b/c you could be in trouble. I don't believe selling and reporting a basis of $0 will dig you out of the hole, and I suspect getting a 1099 from a Bitcoin-related company may be an audit flag, so you want everything to be on the up and up, for sure.
or trade minus his basis, subject to "wash sale"
Wash sale is a regulation that Only applies to transactions involving the trade of securities. It does not apply to Currencies, Futures, and Non-Equity options.
I believe the type of commodity called "Non-Equity Option" is the closest comparable transaction to securing the rights to BTC on an Exchange.
Your deposit to an exchange secures you the right, But not the obligation to have your exchange assign a number of BTC to your Wallet ID of choice; when you receive BTC on the BTC network, you have exercised your options ---- Which are contractual in nature, if the BTC itself is just an entry in a ledger, the BTC itself is not the asset, but a record of the value of options contracts you hold. Then you have BTC on the network, you can later enter into an agreement with another exchange and provide the BTC to the exchange's wallet ID of choice --- when you receive Cash for BTC, you have written this option, and when the exchange deposits your BTC to their wallet ID, they have exercised the right causing you to surrender your contracts to them in exchange for US$$$.
That's because the only BTC Satoshi is known to have has never been Spent.... that includes the 50 BTC award for the genesis Block 0 and the next few blocks. Because of how the code was written, however, Block 0's reward is unspendable,
and the other early blocks have never been spent.
It's possible that Satoshi's secret identity would became known if coins from Block #1 get spent.
If Satoshi was smart, he could keep his ID hidden by leaving those in cold storage forever, and engaging in other mining activity later after the network was larger.
Go to Toronto, find a BTC ATM, cash out, convert to USD, go back to US and use said USD anonymously anywhere except online
That's a good way to get added to watch lists and have gov't agents seize your cash, unless/until you can prove that cash has not been involved in any crime before or after you came into possession of it.
Tax them instead. Lay down a $100 + 10% per day per person local tax for boarding someone on Residentially-
zoned property in exchange for money, unless there's a 30 days or longer written lease agreement for this specific rental
recorded on the title for the property prior to the lessee arriving at the property.
Being rich doesn't make anyone greedy. Being greedy makes them rich.
If greed makes people rich, then how can you explain why there are not many more rich people?
I see people visiting casinos all the time, or buying a handful of Powerball tickets, talking about how they want to have $1 Million or $1 Billion, Or they think somebody else should pay for everything they want out of life.
If you're rich and getting richer while others are poor and keep getting poorer then you're greedy, and that's a fact
NOPE. That's an opinion or unproven theory. You can also share without failing to continue getting richer, by making sure you continue to gain more than amount of what you share plus your regular expenses. What do you define greed as, And is it your opinion that greed is not a good thing ?
instead of selling it on the black market.
Assuming that if you come up with this exploit the CIA won't be knocking on your door with a better offer to tell them instead, and to keep it secret forever.
That's why there's something called a drivers license.
The driver's license doesn't change the risk. The primary purpose of a driver's license is to make sure the local government can identify its citizens. Also, you can be a pedestrian and step into the street without a driver's license, which puts other drivers' at just as much risk as a guy in a lawnchair puts other people in the air at risk.
If you go driving without a license or with one but ignoring safety for you and/or others then you are likely to get put in jail.
Nope. Not likely at all, not until After you get in a wreck and somebody is injured, And the assessment shows you were criminally negligent.
First: by not having any way to control the flight path
That's putting the guy in the lawnchair at risk, not anybody else
Second: by not informing pilots that he could fly into their path
It's the pilots duty to check for things that could fly into their path.
Third: by not having a license to pilot an aircraft
"License for piloting a lawnchair" makes about as much sense as suggesting a license for
being a pedestrian, Or a license for Tubing or navigating a small Canoe, Raft, or Lifeboat, because
the small craft could pose a risk to one those freighters in the Pacific. A lawnchair is not an aircraft,
and the person riding it is not a Pilot. See first thing you mentioned: There's no ready means to
alert the path through the air.
, Fourth: by moving into a dimension (up) where there, unlike ground vehicles, there is only a few dangers (birds) and unlike birds aircraft aren't constructed to survive impacts of a stupid guy in a chair.
So why aren't all the birds going to jail?
This is what you call bad design of aircraft, if they're so ridiculously unsafe that some 200lb guy in a lawnchair poses some theoretical risk.
Even if the fine is required to go to a charity?
It doesn't matter who the ultimate beneficiary is; The court is directing the funds be forfeited from the defendent, not the defendant voluntarily exercising discretion on their funds to donate to a charity.
But, this guy should be in jail. He put the lives of others at risk. He says he has no regrets.
What do you mean? Everybody who drives a car puts the lives of others at risk, the moment they start up their car
and drive onto the public street with other cars.
Don't see very many of them in jail.
So how is this guy and a Lawnchair putting other peoples' lives at any higher risk?
I don't know about the rules in Canada, but in the US, one of the rules governing the Income Tax is that
Legally-imposed government fines and penalties are never tax-deductible, regardless if the fine is by the Federal government,
or if it's the sentence imposed by a court.
The small percentage of the population which falls outside size norms want to pass laws requiring
No..... Even for people within size norms, the amount of space is inadequate and uncomfortble.
The regulation should benefit everyone, they should do two things at minimum:
(1) Require enough space for comfortable seating for people within a standard deviation of the average
height and size to not be squeezed, and have enough space to not contact or bump into their neighbors., AND
(2) Ban reclining seats --- Unless such additional space is added to the passenger seat behind each reclining seat to ensure the seat will not encroach upon the desk / laptop computer, lap, or knees, of the person behind for a reference person of 6'6" in height.
How does cutting funding help? The FDA will increase their backlog of drugs waiting for work required prior to approval that they don't have the manpower and resources to push through their pipeline as quickly, Since you've pulled back on funding, fewer drugs will be approved.
Sure, but these women had macular degeneration and were going blind anyway. MD causes the vision to deteriorate
By this logic, we should just let murderers go free, because the victim was suffering from a disease called Aging that was eventually going to kill them, anyways.
MD has a very gradual progression, and it is by no means certain that the person would still be alive by the time it resulted in near total blindness.
We are too cautious at the moment, and too reliant on for-profit groups doing the trials.
If some trials for a treatment are government-subsidized, Then there should be no exclusive rights to the product being trialed for any 1 company.... Perhaps by the gov't using eminent domain to take necessary patents on lifesaving medication, setting a license fee for active ingredient X that all competitors will have to pay, and for Just compensation to the original patent owner --- a portion of their license fees to the government to be determined on an annual basis will be waived.
We're too cautious.... Yes. It is OK for for-profit groups doing trials, But the Profit part should not
be allowed to come until After they have an approved product.
If you Pay for a treatment for an experimental. unapproved, or under trial product as a patient, then you are effectively funding the company's research, and deserve a Cut of ownership on the results, if the product turns out to be profitable ---- Also, if you submit as a human subject for testing, which could be a dangerous treatment, Then you are a member of a group taking a risk and should have a stake in outcome just like the actual investors in the company take a risk.
We need a revision to the law, where: (A) Human guinea pigs Can't be charged a fee above nominal admin. charges if the treatment doesn't work, And,
(B) Human test subjects as a group are automatically assigned a 20% interest in every patent, or other intellectual property related to a drug or treatment developed and demonstrated by the required clinical research distributed evenly among test subjects throughout the research, which is assigned after approval, the ownership share is protected from any creditor, and no contract or covenant can be made by a participant waiving, disposing of, pledging, or otherwise regarding adding any rights or restrictions about that person's share/interest, until after the study or their active participation concludes, the treatment receives approval, and the past human test subject prove that they've engaged licensed attorneys for advise on the matter.
And I would expect a lot of good answers and prior studies before having them do that to people.
Yeah.... Injecting ANYTHING into somebody's Eye is dangerous business.
You need more than a hunch to do that.
It's not as the article's author suggested a justification for a FDA 'Crack down' on potential stem cell treatments for things that don't
involve doing something ridiculous --- like injecting the cells directly into a vital organ such as the eyes, brain, heart, spine, kidneys, etc.