Hydrogen powered cars would almost certainly be electric cars. Whether or not chemical batteries prove the best option for average size/average trip cars, other types of storage might prove more efficient for larger/long haul vehicles.
The problem is charging the battery that quickly wears it out much faster. That's fine for rare cross country trips, but not frequent ones or every day use. The model X will be heavier and use the same battery packs as the model S.
If the data brokers/hospitals want to prove my consumer information is actually health information and thus HIPAA rules should bar the data brokers from selling it to most of their other clients... sign me up.
Health Care Clearinghouses—entities that process nonstandard health information they receive from another entity into a standard (i.e., standard electronic format or data content), or vice versa.
In addition, Business Associates of Covered Entities must follow parts of the HIPAA regulations.
First, what is wrong with a provider charging on both sides?
Nothing really, so long as different charges and levels of access aren't used to put competing content providers at a disadvantage. If your electric company was also a distributor for Anheuser Busch would you object if they charged more for electricity and let the voltage wander when your refrigerator was full of Stone smoked porter instead of Michelob? Charge more for better service by all means, but a utility (which is how broadband should be classified) shouldn't play favorites.
This analogy is falling apart, but: It's not a demand that all entrees be equally priced. It's whether the guy who owns ALL of the restaurants in town can charge more for fish and deliver it cold and 20 minutes after the other seafood entrees sent to the table if that fish was sourced from a competitor instead of from his own fishing boat like the other seafood items. Not really a problem in a competitive market, but a big problem in monopolies and duopolies.
In contrast, I've heard the drug development process at some companies compared to "piling up stacks of money and setting it on fire", which is why I'm really, really glad the universities and governments don't try to get deeply into the drug development business.
Lots of folks express that exact feeling about the NIH's efforts to get into translational medicine, which is establishing centers to do preclinical and clinical development. I'm pretty sanguine about that too. I could see some payouts happening though even if not many new drugs get made: 1, having publicly funded (and disclosed) research into how to conduct pharma R&D might improve the whole industry; 2, a stable funding source could allow really, really long clinical trials, which could be critical for areas like dementia; 3, an extra carrot for orphan disease drugs in addition to the ones supplied by the FDA.
Shareholders are hard to avoid. A new drug approval might cost just $200M (Optimer's Dificid), but on average companies are racking up ~$4B in R&D per new drug. (by new drug I mean new molecule, not new dose/formulation/indication for an old one). If you take venture capital they will be looking for a payout well before a drug is approved, probably by either selling the company or its ideas to a big pharma. Keeping it closely held has worked in the past - but you may need vasty deep (10 figure deep) pockets willing to stay the course for a decade.
Research only gives a pay off for the next CEO. Fuck that guy.
But the stock price moves based on the latest clinical trial results and letters from the FDA. What's a CEO to do?
ILOS: in license, out source. It's much faster to buy a promising drug candidate (in license) then to herd your own to phase II. It may also be less risky. Hence Valeant trying to buy Allergan. For your remaining pipeline outsourcing R &D to contract labs can cut your R&D budget nicely, and it's the investors looking at R&D spending as a black hole into which their money disappears that makes the CEO nervous. Though you will also lose all of the insight and acumen accumulated by the specialists you laid off when you closed that department.
You can also try lots of management tricks: give everyone metrics to measure up to so that they always look busy, the pipeline looks full, the competition creatively destructed. Just don't tell anyone the truth: the candidates you are advancing are actually shit, but you have to advance some to keep your bonus. Hey, that sort of thing worked for the Veterans Administration, should work fine for pharma.
Humans have never found a "cure" for a virus. We've been able to find cures for bacterial infections, and we've been able to find immunizations for SOME viruses (NOT a cure, just a stimulation of the body's own immune capabilities) but NEVER a cure for a virus.
You don't always need a patentable drug, just FDA exclusivity. If you find a new indication for an old generic drug and do the research to back it up you can get market exclusivity for a while and charge out the wazoo for it.
Year in, year out, 75-80% of new drugs are invented privately in biotechs/pharma. The remainder are invented by academia. In terms of money and sheer manpower required to get from "what causes this disease?" to "new drug approval" the pharma/biotech portion often isn't the short end of the stick either.
Sort of. Basically we need someone to invent a force field (mathematical model) that can simulate proteins, protein-substrate interactions, and protein-protein interactions so well that it can make accurate and useful de novo predictions about drug candidates and disease models. After that we've got plenty of med chemists, structural biologists, etc., ready to make use of it.
Insurance on a $7000 motorcycle is dirt cheap. Especially if you go with only liability coverage.
Short term and long term disability insurance on the other hand are not cheap, but should be considered unless you are planning on bankrupting your family after a crash.
Quinn has been firmly against all of the limitations on patents that have come from SCOTUS over the past few years; his blog is a further way for him to advocate for his clients.
SCOTUS has been limiting intellectual property rights for several years now. Prometheus (also unanimous), Myriad, and now Alice. It seems like one thing they can all get behind.
A few months after SCOTUS or congress shakes things up the USPTO sends out new guidelines to the affected patent examiners. This recently happened for patents involving genes and natural products after last years decision against Myriad (BRCA1 gene patents): examiners were instructed to kick a lot of claims that previously would have been allowed.
I don't think you can blame the examiners for following the guidelines that were in place at the time.
But slide to unlock is a physical implementation. Whether or not slide to unlock patents should be invalidated for other reasons they're not strictly software patents, i.e., something that works with a "generic computer implementation".
With what, fucked-over old VWs (well, licensed copies) with non-matching front and back halves? They don't have anything else that will pass the crash tests.
Volvos will be made in China and exported to the US beginning next year.
1. This device seems to "do a bit better" than conventional treatments. How much better? A lot or almost none at all?
You can read the full research article by going through OP's links, but here you go:
Among the adults, the mean plasma glucose level over the 5-day bionic-pancreas period was 138 mg per deciliter (7.7 mmol per liter), and the mean percentage of time with a low glucose level (less than 70 mg per deciliter [3.9 mmol per liter]) was 4.8%. After 1 day of automatic adaptation by the bionic pancreas, the mean (±SD) glucose level on continuous monitoring was lower than the mean level during the control period (133±13 vs. 159±30 mg per deciliter [7.4±0.7 vs. 8.8±1.7 mmol per liter], P less than 0.001) and the percentage of time with a low glucose reading was lower (4.1% vs. 7.3%, P=0.01). Among the adolescents, the mean plasma glucose level was also lower during the bionic-pancreas period than during the control period (138±18 vs. 157±27 mg per deciliter [7.7±1.0 vs. 8.7±1.5 mmol per liter], P=0.004), but the percentage of time with a low plasma glucose reading was similar during the two periods (6.1% and 7.6%, respectively; P=0.23). The mean frequency of interventions for hypoglycemia among the adolescents was lower during the bionic-pancreas period than during the control period (one per 1.6 days vs. one per 0.8 days, P less than 0.001).
This is the first outpatient trial of an experimental device. Check back when they are ready to send it to the FDA for approval.
3. When you eat - it can take (minimum 20 minutes, maximum much longer) for the carbohydrates you eat to be broken down into glucose, detectable by a CGM. This can be MUCH longer for fatty foods which can often result in the liver secreting Glucose. Commercially available insulin can take up to 2 ours to reach peak affect. This means that by the time you eat and your CGM begins to notice it - it is too late to take any meaningful affect and keep your blood sugar under reasonabily control (for the next several ours).
The device allows the patient to input info about their upcoming meal so that the algorithm can attempt to anticipate this problem.
Test strips. ~$1 each. 4x per day. 25 million diabetics in the US alone. Its a large recurring, renewable revenue stream that the insurance industry can swing around like a fire hose right now to their favorite phara company.
Any solution that doesn't require test strips will die before industry lets it exist.
Hell no. It's a recurring revenue stream for medical device/diagnostic companies, for the insurance companies It's a large recurring EXPENSE that they would love to be rid of. If strips cost $4 per day and new tech costs $3.75, insurance companies will be all over it. If the new tech costs $8 per day but cuts down complications by $2k per year insurance companies will be all over it.
Slashdot Mirror
Hydrogen powered cars would almost certainly be electric cars. Whether or not chemical batteries prove the best option for average size/average trip cars, other types of storage might prove more efficient for larger/long haul vehicles.
The problem is charging the battery that quickly wears it out much faster. That's fine for rare cross country trips, but not frequent ones or every day use. The model X will be heavier and use the same battery packs as the model S.
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/consumers/index.html
Who must follow these [HIPAA] laws:
Health Care Clearinghouses—entities that process nonstandard health information they receive from another entity into a standard (i.e., standard electronic format or data content), or vice versa.
In addition, Business Associates of Covered Entities must follow parts of the HIPAA regulations.
1. Neighbor lets you rent antenna on his roof, you and he run a coax cable from it to your TV
2. Same but more neighbors/antennas.
3. Same but digitally encoded.
4. Same but using internet connections as opposed to a cable between the houses.
5. Same but also includes a cloud based DVR.
6. Aereo.
First, what is wrong with a provider charging on both sides?
Nothing really, so long as different charges and levels of access aren't used to put competing content providers at a disadvantage. If your electric company was also a distributor for Anheuser Busch would you object if they charged more for electricity and let the voltage wander when your refrigerator was full of Stone smoked porter instead of Michelob? Charge more for better service by all means, but a utility (which is how broadband should be classified) shouldn't play favorites.
This analogy is falling apart, but: It's not a demand that all entrees be equally priced. It's whether the guy who owns ALL of the restaurants in town can charge more for fish and deliver it cold and 20 minutes after the other seafood entrees sent to the table if that fish was sourced from a competitor instead of from his own fishing boat like the other seafood items. Not really a problem in a competitive market, but a big problem in monopolies and duopolies.
In contrast, I've heard the drug development process at some companies compared to "piling up stacks of money and setting it on fire", which is why I'm really, really glad the universities and governments don't try to get deeply into the drug development business.
Lots of folks express that exact feeling about the NIH's efforts to get into translational medicine, which is establishing centers to do preclinical and clinical development. I'm pretty sanguine about that too. I could see some payouts happening though even if not many new drugs get made: 1, having publicly funded (and disclosed) research into how to conduct pharma R&D might improve the whole industry; 2, a stable funding source could allow really, really long clinical trials, which could be critical for areas like dementia; 3, an extra carrot for orphan disease drugs in addition to the ones supplied by the FDA.
Shareholders are hard to avoid. A new drug approval might cost just $200M (Optimer's Dificid), but on average companies are racking up ~$4B in R&D per new drug. (by new drug I mean new molecule, not new dose/formulation/indication for an old one). If you take venture capital they will be looking for a payout well before a drug is approved, probably by either selling the company or its ideas to a big pharma. Keeping it closely held has worked in the past - but you may need vasty deep (10 figure deep) pockets willing to stay the course for a decade.
Research only gives a pay off for the next CEO. Fuck that guy.
But the stock price moves based on the latest clinical trial results and letters from the FDA. What's a CEO to do?
ILOS: in license, out source. It's much faster to buy a promising drug candidate (in license) then to herd your own to phase II. It may also be less risky. Hence Valeant trying to buy Allergan. For your remaining pipeline outsourcing R &D to contract labs can cut your R&D budget nicely, and it's the investors looking at R&D spending as a black hole into which their money disappears that makes the CEO nervous. Though you will also lose all of the insight and acumen accumulated by the specialists you laid off when you closed that department.
You can also try lots of management tricks: give everyone metrics to measure up to so that they always look busy, the pipeline looks full, the competition creatively destructed. Just don't tell anyone the truth: the candidates you are advancing are actually shit, but you have to advance some to keep your bonus. Hey, that sort of thing worked for the Veterans Administration, should work fine for pharma.
Humans have never found a "cure" for a virus. We've been able to find cures for bacterial infections, and we've been able to find immunizations for SOME viruses (NOT a cure, just a stimulation of the body's own immune capabilities) but NEVER a cure for a virus.
Hepatitis C.
You don't always need a patentable drug, just FDA exclusivity. If you find a new indication for an old generic drug and do the research to back it up you can get market exclusivity for a while and charge out the wazoo for it.
Year in, year out, 75-80% of new drugs are invented privately in biotechs/pharma. The remainder are invented by academia. In terms of money and sheer manpower required to get from "what causes this disease?" to "new drug approval" the pharma/biotech portion often isn't the short end of the stick either.
Sort of. Basically we need someone to invent a force field (mathematical model) that can simulate proteins, protein-substrate interactions, and protein-protein interactions so well that it can make accurate and useful de novo predictions about drug candidates and disease models. After that we've got plenty of med chemists, structural biologists, etc., ready to make use of it.
Companies like HP, Xerox, etc, built empires on that kind of research.
Tech research is a lot less risky and has a much shorter wait til revenue then Pharma/Biotech (these days).
In an action movie or like for reals?
So put on a tin foil cap to protect yourself from the big bad brain imaging satellite. I suggest making it cone shaped.
Insurance on a $7000 motorcycle is dirt cheap. Especially if you go with only liability coverage.
Short term and long term disability insurance on the other hand are not cheap, but should be considered unless you are planning on bankrupting your family after a crash.
Alice vs CLS Bank.
Quinn has been firmly against all of the limitations on patents that have come from SCOTUS over the past few years; his blog is a further way for him to advocate for his clients.
SCOTUS has been limiting intellectual property rights for several years now. Prometheus (also unanimous), Myriad, and now Alice. It seems like one thing they can all get behind.
I don't think you can blame the examiners for following the guidelines that were in place at the time.
But slide to unlock is a physical implementation. Whether or not slide to unlock patents should be invalidated for other reasons they're not strictly software patents, i.e., something that works with a "generic computer implementation".
With what, fucked-over old VWs (well, licensed copies) with non-matching front and back halves? They don't have anything else that will pass the crash tests.
Volvos will be made in China and exported to the US beginning next year.
Let me count the issues here:
1. This device seems to "do a bit better" than conventional treatments. How much better? A lot or almost none at all?
You can read the full research article by going through OP's links, but here you go:
Among the adults, the mean plasma glucose level over the 5-day bionic-pancreas period was 138 mg per deciliter (7.7 mmol per liter), and the mean percentage of time with a low glucose level (less than 70 mg per deciliter [3.9 mmol per liter]) was 4.8%. After 1 day of automatic adaptation by the bionic pancreas, the mean (±SD) glucose level on continuous monitoring was lower than the mean level during the control period (133±13 vs. 159±30 mg per deciliter [7.4±0.7 vs. 8.8±1.7 mmol per liter], P less than 0.001) and the percentage of time with a low glucose reading was lower (4.1% vs. 7.3%, P=0.01). Among the adolescents, the mean plasma glucose level was also lower during the bionic-pancreas period than during the control period (138±18 vs. 157±27 mg per deciliter [7.7±1.0 vs. 8.7±1.5 mmol per liter], P=0.004), but the percentage of time with a low plasma glucose reading was similar during the two periods (6.1% and 7.6%, respectively; P=0.23). The mean frequency of interventions for hypoglycemia among the adolescents was lower during the bionic-pancreas period than during the control period (one per 1.6 days vs. one per 0.8 days, P less than 0.001).
This is the first outpatient trial of an experimental device. Check back when they are ready to send it to the FDA for approval.
3. When you eat - it can take (minimum 20 minutes, maximum much longer) for the carbohydrates you eat to be broken down into glucose, detectable by a CGM. This can be MUCH longer for fatty foods which can often result in the liver secreting Glucose. Commercially available insulin can take up to 2 ours to reach peak affect. This means that by the time you eat and your CGM begins to notice it - it is too late to take any meaningful affect and keep your blood sugar under reasonabily control (for the next several ours).
The device allows the patient to input info about their upcoming meal so that the algorithm can attempt to anticipate this problem.
Test strips. ~$1 each. 4x per day. 25 million diabetics in the US alone. Its a large recurring, renewable revenue stream that the insurance industry can swing around like a fire hose right now to their favorite phara company.
Any solution that doesn't require test strips will die before industry lets it exist.
Hell no. It's a recurring revenue stream for medical device/diagnostic companies, for the insurance companies It's a large recurring EXPENSE that they would love to be rid of. If strips cost $4 per day and new tech costs $3.75, insurance companies will be all over it. If the new tech costs $8 per day but cuts down complications by $2k per year insurance companies will be all over it.