Actually, the problem is that if an investment doesn't pay out for over 10 years a 200% payout is actually kind of skimpy. When you factor in risk of complete failure, you really need more like 1000% for it to make sense to start spending.
what really caught my attention was the plot of introduction and bacterial resistance over time. the newest antibiotics produced had a "shelf-life" of an order of magnitude less than their predecessors.
Some of that is because most new antibiotics aren't really all that new. The one on that list with the shortest "shelf life", levofloxacin, is a fluoroquinolone. We had already been using fluoroquinolones for 25 years by the time lefofloxacin came around.
Part of the problem is start up costs. To do serious research you need labs, equipment, researchers, staff, test subjects, etc. If you have that much money the bounty had better be huge so that you do not just decide to play the stock market or real estate instead.
And that is why biotech is funded by VC firms and eccentric rich folks.
And you can pull those same numbers for other companies and find that as an industry Pharma spends more on R&D than any other as a percentage of revenue. Sure, Google and Intel beat them but they are the outliers of the tech world, not the average.
things got privatized, subsidies got cut down because government spending had to be cut down because of...
The subsidies didn't get cut (well, maybe for a year or so during the last recession), they even increased faster than inflation most years. They just haven't grown nearly as fast as the cost of research. The concept of "low hanging fruit" applies big time to drug discovery, and the fruit that are left are much harder (and more expensive) to pick than the ones people chased in the 70's and the 80's.
That said, year in, year out, about 25% of new drugs are invented in academia, principally through public funding. They are then licensed out to Pharma for the expensive part: clinical trials.
The solution to that will be private hospitals with much better hygiene and isolation of patients. And if you have to ask then no your insurance won't cover them.
Untracked freemen? The most valuable use of tracking will be of c-suite executives. At $1k per hour and up, their time is far too valuable to leave unexamined. And seeing as they are getting so much of their work done while out of the office (on the golf course, over drinks, etc) it would really be best if they were just tracked all the time.
If you are on T-mobile (I have been for about 16 months) calls will frequently go to your voicemail because there is no service available for your phone when you are: in a large building, on a subway, in a suburban area, in an urban area...
It does seem to work, but since all of your data traffic is now through mobiwol, aren't you trusting the owners of the app with all of your data traffic?
The original manufacturer, because the buyer would remove your label and then serve all his friends a bottle of "$400 Pappy Van Winkle", all of whom would now think "Jeez, this stuff tastes like $14 Evan Williams (cause that's what you put in the bottle). Don't think I'll every buy any myself".
Similarly, authors and musicians. After all, the new novel by Pepty could just be printed by J. McDonald Press and sold on Amazon right beside the ones printed by a publisher who actually paid me.
Bullshit. Papers directly supported by funding/grants should, and usually do, thank/credit the sources. But just because someone funded you for one thing doesn't mean you have to disclose that in every paper you write that is remotely related.
If on the one hand you describe the papers you write as "deliverables" to your funders, and on the other hand the editors of the journals you are publishing in require you disclose conflicts of interests, then yes, you should disclose those sources of funding.
Most journals, including some of the ones he published in, require their authors to disclose conflicts of interest. He lied to the editors to get his articles published, so it was definitely unethical.
Conducting research in his case is reviewing other people's datasets. It looks like his expenses are his overhead at the Smithsonian and his own salary - which is paid for by the grant money he brings in.
So you should be able to copy a bottle of Pappy Van Winkle (I.e., copy the bourbon, bottle, and label), tie a label to the bottle that reads "made by J. McDonald" and sell it?
Assuming you also have the bit(s) that have worn or broken off, or been melted, there are no voids that you didn't scan correctly but are necessary for the part to function...
For what it is, absolutely. You can go to an OEM and buy a base system, sans SSD and RAM, for $1000 that would massively outperform this.
You are leaving out two of the most important specs for people who are in the market for this type of machine:
Dimensions: 12.8 x 8.9 x 0.5 inches
Weight
2.6 pounds
Will the OEM system be at or below those numbers? If you are in the market for a 13" laptop instead of a tablet, it's because you want the extra screen size and a keyboard.
3D printing parts can save a fortune in logistics and lost time, enough to offset the higher manufacturing cost.
If you have a non-broken copy of the part and can scan it, or if someone has already made a.stl file for a new ecu connector dust cover for Nissan Micro Jan-March 2013 and has put it someplace you can get it.
I can only think of one car repair I have performed or had performed on 4 different cars that could have been done cheaper by a thermoplastic printer. Even then, I just went to a junkyard and got a sun visor mount for $10 instead of $150.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the problem is that if an investment doesn't pay out for over 10 years a 200% payout is actually kind of skimpy. When you factor in risk of complete failure, you really need more like 1000% for it to make sense to start spending.
what really caught my attention was the plot of introduction and bacterial resistance over time. the newest antibiotics produced had a "shelf-life" of an order of magnitude less than their predecessors.
Some of that is because most new antibiotics aren't really all that new. The one on that list with the shortest "shelf life", levofloxacin, is a fluoroquinolone. We had already been using fluoroquinolones for 25 years by the time lefofloxacin came around.
Part of the problem is start up costs. To do serious research you need labs, equipment, researchers, staff, test subjects, etc. If you have that much money the bounty had better be huge so that you do not just decide to play the stock market or real estate instead.
And that is why biotech is funded by VC firms and eccentric rich folks.
drug testing in China seems to have hit some hiccups though. Too many fraudulent trials.
Oddly enough Cuba is actually a player in biotech, and has invented a treatment for malaria amongst other things.
If you look at any of the well-known names in the great advances in the science of medicine, rarely will you see a for-profit corporation listed.
But if you look at the big advances from over the past 30 years. PCR? Corporate. Cure for hepatitis? Corporate. Advances in DNA sequencing? Corporate.
And you can pull those same numbers for other companies and find that as an industry Pharma spends more on R&D than any other as a percentage of revenue. Sure, Google and Intel beat them but they are the outliers of the tech world, not the average.
So let the people with hepatitis die until Gilead finds a treatment for c. diff too?
things got privatized, subsidies got cut down because government spending had to be cut down because of ...
The subsidies didn't get cut (well, maybe for a year or so during the last recession), they even increased faster than inflation most years. They just haven't grown nearly as fast as the cost of research. The concept of "low hanging fruit" applies big time to drug discovery, and the fruit that are left are much harder (and more expensive) to pick than the ones people chased in the 70's and the 80's. That said, year in, year out, about 25% of new drugs are invented in academia, principally through public funding. They are then licensed out to Pharma for the expensive part: clinical trials.
The solution to that will be private hospitals with much better hygiene and isolation of patients. And if you have to ask then no your insurance won't cover them.
Untracked freemen? The most valuable use of tracking will be of c-suite executives. At $1k per hour and up, their time is far too valuable to leave unexamined. And seeing as they are getting so much of their work done while out of the office (on the golf course, over drinks, etc) it would really be best if they were just tracked all the time.
Replace "smoker" with "assembling search terms for patent searches for drugs for different diseases every week" I
If you are on T-mobile (I have been for about 16 months) calls will frequently go to your voicemail because there is no service available for your phone when you are: in a large building, on a subway, in a suburban area, in an urban area ...
It does seem to work, but since all of your data traffic is now through mobiwol, aren't you trusting the owners of the app with all of your data traffic?
Similarly, authors and musicians. After all, the new novel by Pepty could just be printed by J. McDonald Press and sold on Amazon right beside the ones printed by a publisher who actually paid me.
Bullshit. Papers directly supported by funding/grants should, and usually do, thank/credit the sources. But just because someone funded you for one thing doesn't mean you have to disclose that in every paper you write that is remotely related.
If on the one hand you describe the papers you write as "deliverables" to your funders, and on the other hand the editors of the journals you are publishing in require you disclose conflicts of interests, then yes, you should disclose those sources of funding.
The funding agency DOES NOT MATTER... if proper peer review is undertaken. If the science is good... then the science is good...
I'll skip the obvious comment and just call Godwin's law on myself.
Most journals, including some of the ones he published in, require their authors to disclose conflicts of interest. He lied to the editors to get his articles published, so it was definitely unethical.
Conducting research in his case is reviewing other people's datasets. It looks like his expenses are his overhead at the Smithsonian and his own salary - which is paid for by the grant money he brings in.
So you should be able to copy a bottle of Pappy Van Winkle (I.e., copy the bourbon, bottle, and label), tie a label to the bottle that reads "made by J. McDonald" and sell it?
Assuming you also have the bit(s) that have worn or broken off, or been melted, there are no voids that you didn't scan correctly but are necessary for the part to function ...
...more would get you a quad core 13" Sager with a discrete gpu...
a several pounds heavier Sager with 1/3 or less of the battery life. Different market segment.
For what it is, absolutely. You can go to an OEM and buy a base system, sans SSD and RAM, for $1000 that would massively outperform this.
You are leaving out two of the most important specs for people who are in the market for this type of machine:
Dimensions: 12.8 x 8.9 x 0.5 inches
Weight 2.6 pounds
Will the OEM system be at or below those numbers? If you are in the market for a 13" laptop instead of a tablet, it's because you want the extra screen size and a keyboard.
3D printing parts can save a fortune in logistics and lost time, enough to offset the higher manufacturing cost.
If you have a non-broken copy of the part and can scan it, or if someone has already made a .stl file for a new ecu connector dust cover for Nissan Micro Jan-March 2013 and has put it someplace you can get it.
I can only think of one car repair I have performed or had performed on 4 different cars that could have been done cheaper by a thermoplastic printer. Even then, I just went to a junkyard and got a sun visor mount for $10 instead of $150.