Oddly enough, the petitions in the three Democrats' cases turned out to be fraudulent - the Republicans sent in someone previously convicted of felony election fraud and had them passing around petitions claiming it was to recall a Republican state senator, to "support schools", "support Indians", or to "support Democrats", then appended the signatures to their "recall petition" to recall the Democrats instead.
Always nice to see the Greed Over People part doing what they do best: FRAUD.
Republicans like to accuse Democrats of stealing elections, but whenever you see mention of someone who has actually been to prison for election fraud it's almost always a Republican.
Except brutality and suffering; those will be available to everyone camped outside of the enclaves.
There has been a concerted war on the public interest in Wisconsin (and a few other states) for the past several months. IIRC, Wisconsin is where three legislators are up for recall elections, three more have the signatures filed but not validated yet, and steaming mad voters are counting the days until they can start a recall effort on the governor too.
If so, the IMF takes over our economy. Judging from what they have done to countries like Malawi, Niger, and other victims, they will sell our assets off at pennies on the dollar to domestic and foreign corporations, force the end to the social safety net, workers rights, and any charitable work by the government. Famine and other cases of human suffering has no effect on the IMF. Corporate profit is all that matters.
We will be owned by the people who forced this crisis. It is called "Disaster Capitalism."
It's happening in the USA too. At the state and Federal level we're being told that we can no longer afford workers' rights and the social safety net, though somehow we can afford tax breaks for billionaires and corporations.
Basically, those who already have most of the money are using its power to squeeze more out of those who only have a little.
That and gutpunching the oil companies and putting our boots on their necks for intentionally manipulating the market
I read somewhere last week that a study has come out showing that 90% of the people driving oil prices up (by betting thus on the market) were just financial racketeers who don't actually do business related to oil.
The reason companies like Google give priority to people with degrees is because a degree is a signal that you're the kind of person that can complete a hard task (finishing college, in this case.)
Or maybe that you're the kind of person who is willing to put up with endless amounts of arbitrary bureaucratic bullshit...
Perhaps it is time to call a Constitutional Convention and revert to the Articles of Confederation again - a Union of States, rather than an out-of-control central authority that acts as if it has unbounded power.
I want to write novels set in a dystopian future where corporations and drug gangs fight over the scraps of what's left worth having in the USA.
Jefferson had the right idea when he proposed this amendment: "Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose." He suggested "19" be inserted into the blank.
I have thought of non-transferable IP as perhaps a good policy, but then you'd get murdered so your patent would expire.
I'm generally in favor of experimenting with other models. The NIH could fund a royalty free drug start-to-finish - perhaps even outsourcing the work to a pharma company (but retaining patent rights). The NIH could announce bounties for treatments for particular conditions.
Interesting ideas.
However, I'm under no illusions that any of this will be cheap.
Me neither. However, IMO the question we should ask before we ask what it costs is, "What is the value of public health to a Republic?" If the answer is "a lot", then we should be glad to spend a lot on it without complaining.
I don't believe for one second that most drugs that come to market are similar in effect to older drugs and come to market simply as a way to preserve the income for pharmaceutical companies.
I don't know about in general, but as I recall it Clariton's successor, with an active ingredient identical to the original except for one relatively small attachment, hit the market right when the patent on the original expired and you could start buying OTS clones. Sure looked like they timed it to keep the big bucks rolling in.
If you want things to change, how about changing the government.
Darn straight. But for medicine I don't think creationists are the problem in this case; it's just that our legislature doesn't want to pass any laws that undercut anyone's profits: the stock market is more important than public health.
1) Universities do research into drug possibilities, using public funds. Patent drug. 2) Once a drug proves to be useful, sell rights to drug to a big pharmacy.
Are universities usually involved? I thought the pharmaceuticals did their own research, and justified the patent-based stranglehold on your health as a necessary means for recouping their research investment.
3) Big Pharmacy runs trials, hiding poor results while prominently publishing good results
Also, "we" don't define intelligence as "how close to human it is", as you would know if you had read Chapter 1 of any AI textbook currently in use.
That wasn't very helpful. I don't have an AI textbook handy, and Google and Wikipedia prove bad resources since they offer many different definitions.
The Russell & Norvig book, which is supposedly the most used AI textbook in the English speaking world, gives a 2x2 categorization, which I'll paraphrase from memory as "thinks like a human", "acts like a human", "thinks rationally", and "acts rationally".
I think they use "rationally" instead of "optimally" because optimal solutions for a lot of AI problems aren't tractable. So "rationally" ends up meaning something like "as near optimal as possible, given real-world constraints and (possibly) a lack of complete information about the problem".
Almost all actual AI research falls into the "acts rationally" corner of their grid. Few AI researchers try to get their agents to act like humans, and essentially none try to get their agents to "think", whether like humans or otherwise.
You can't really deny that most people speak of AI as "human simulators" though, and that we will have "strong AI" once it acts like us.
Most people's ideas about AI are based on what they've seen in movies.
Slashdot Mirror
Oddly enough, the petitions in the three Democrats' cases turned out to be fraudulent - the Republicans sent in someone previously convicted of felony election fraud and had them passing around petitions claiming it was to recall a Republican state senator, to "support schools", "support Indians", or to "support Democrats", then appended the signatures to their "recall petition" to recall the Democrats instead.
Always nice to see the Greed Over People part doing what they do best: FRAUD.
Republicans like to accuse Democrats of stealing elections, but whenever you see mention of someone who has actually been to prison for election fraud it's almost always a Republican.
Privatize everything.
Except brutality and suffering; those will be available to everyone camped outside of the enclaves.
There has been a concerted war on the public interest in Wisconsin (and a few other states) for the past several months. IIRC, Wisconsin is where three legislators are up for recall elections, three more have the signatures filed but not validated yet, and steaming mad voters are counting the days until they can start a recall effort on the governor too.
If so, the IMF takes over our economy. Judging from what they have done to countries like Malawi, Niger, and other victims, they will sell our assets off at pennies on the dollar to domestic and foreign corporations, force the end to the social safety net, workers rights, and any charitable work by the government. Famine and other cases of human suffering has no effect on the IMF. Corporate profit is all that matters.
We will be owned by the people who forced this crisis. It is called "Disaster Capitalism."
It's happening in the USA too. At the state and Federal level we're being told that we can no longer afford workers' rights and the social safety net, though somehow we can afford tax breaks for billionaires and corporations.
Basically, those who already have most of the money are using its power to squeeze more out of those who only have a little.
Obama is gunning for another Nobel Peace Prize by widening the war in Libya and even Yemen.
Supporting the protesters in one, and bombing them in the other.
That and gutpunching the oil companies and putting our boots on their necks for intentionally manipulating the market
I read somewhere last week that a study has come out showing that 90% of the people driving oil prices up (by betting thus on the market) were just financial racketeers who don't actually do business related to oil.
Don't get worked up over this. You know they only have their customers' best interests in mind.
...until the RIAA lawyers show up with the take-down notices.
Heaven forbid if someone should do "Happy Birthday"[*] - a SWAT team might show up instead.
[*] Can I use those words on Slashdot without getting fined?
I'd apply if I knew the requirements and experience??
A degree in Malware Engineering and 10 years experience with Stuxnet.
Since only a masochist would agree to participate in such an experiment, the results may not be applicable to the general population.
The reason companies like Google give priority to people with degrees is because a degree is a signal that you're the kind of person that can complete a hard task (finishing college, in this case.)
Or maybe that you're the kind of person who is willing to put up with endless amounts of arbitrary bureaucratic bullshit...
Then all you have to worry about are data leaks.
..a multinational corporation lied and the US government lied to protect it! What a huge surprise!
I was kinda surprised that there weren't any cruise missiles involved.
If only they had the same rights as an individual and not more! ;)
They've merely been endowed by their creators with inalienable rights.
Perhaps it is time to call a Constitutional Convention and revert to the Articles of Confederation again - a Union of States, rather than an out-of-control central authority that acts as if it has unbounded power.
I want to write novels set in a dystopian future where corporations and drug gangs fight over the scraps of what's left worth having in the USA.
It told them to come, but they were already there.
the link doesn't work
Now that the worms have been outed, they're trying to suppress it before everyone finds out.
Talk about scary - is everyone supposed to be an expert in copyright law?
Yes, you are expected to know which YouTube videos are posted legally and which aren't. Make a mistake, and it's off to jail for you.
Jefferson had the right idea when he proposed this amendment: "Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose." He suggested "19" be inserted into the blank.
I have thought of non-transferable IP as perhaps a good policy, but then you'd get murdered so your patent would expire.
Whatever happened to our Constitutional protection from cruel and unjust punishments?
I think the BoR & 8th Amendment says cruel and unusual punishments.
My bad... I should have RTFC before posting.
Whatever happened to our Constitutional protection from cruel and unjust punishments?
Is this the new War on Drugs or something?
which means they are the most reliably defeatable enemies in the universe.
Surely they're not as incompetent as Evil Warlords, who are so bad that they have to keep a rulebook on screw-ups to avoid.
I'm generally in favor of experimenting with other models. The NIH could fund a royalty free drug start-to-finish - perhaps even outsourcing the work to a pharma company (but retaining patent rights). The NIH could announce bounties for treatments for particular conditions.
Interesting ideas.
However, I'm under no illusions that any of this will be cheap.
Me neither. However, IMO the question we should ask before we ask what it costs is, "What is the value of public health to a Republic?" If the answer is "a lot", then we should be glad to spend a lot on it without complaining.
I don't believe for one second that most drugs that come to market are similar in effect to older drugs and come to market simply as a way to preserve the income for pharmaceutical companies.
I don't know about in general, but as I recall it Clariton's successor, with an active ingredient identical to the original except for one relatively small attachment, hit the market right when the patent on the original expired and you could start buying OTS clones. Sure looked like they timed it to keep the big bucks rolling in.
If you want things to change, how about changing the government.
Darn straight. But for medicine I don't think creationists are the problem in this case; it's just that our legislature doesn't want to pass any laws that undercut anyone's profits: the stock market is more important than public health.
1) Universities do research into drug possibilities, using public funds. Patent drug.
2) Once a drug proves to be useful, sell rights to drug to a big pharmacy.
Are universities usually involved? I thought the pharmaceuticals did their own research, and justified the patent-based stranglehold on your health as a necessary means for recouping their research investment.
3) Big Pharmacy runs trials, hiding poor results while prominently publishing good results
Including little things like elevated suicide rates that get "lost" in the reporting.
Also, "we" don't define intelligence as "how close to human it is", as you would know if you had read Chapter 1 of any AI textbook currently in use.
That wasn't very helpful. I don't have an AI textbook handy, and Google and Wikipedia prove bad resources since they offer many different definitions.
The Russell & Norvig book, which is supposedly the most used AI textbook in the English speaking world, gives a 2x2 categorization, which I'll paraphrase from memory as "thinks like a human", "acts like a human", "thinks rationally", and "acts rationally".
I think they use "rationally" instead of "optimally" because optimal solutions for a lot of AI problems aren't tractable. So "rationally" ends up meaning something like "as near optimal as possible, given real-world constraints and (possibly) a lack of complete information about the problem".
Almost all actual AI research falls into the "acts rationally" corner of their grid. Few AI researchers try to get their agents to act like humans, and essentially none try to get their agents to "think", whether like humans or otherwise.
You can't really deny that most people speak of AI as "human simulators" though, and that we will have "strong AI" once it acts like us.
Most people's ideas about AI are based on what they've seen in movies.