Yours is a very US-centric, consumerist-medicine point of view. You think 'I'm paying for my healthcare, therefore I should be cured when I want to be.'
Move over to nations with socialised healthcare systems and you'll find it's the government absorbing the costs of these pharmaceuticals. You may also find governments have much more clout when bargaining with pharmaceutical companies than the individual directly footing the bill. And then there's us here in the UK where direct marketing of prescription drugs to the general population is banned.
So, the proposition that big pharma is ignoring cures for treatments is untrue at best and a big delusion at worst. When consumerism is taken out of healthcare, and doctors are the ones dictating prescription policy (and NICE here in the UK - look it up on wikipedia) there is no incentive not to cure people if they can. The idea that government is colluding with big pharma to prevent cures from being made is simply paranoia. Not every nation is like the US in healthcare planning.
On a final note, you may find that doctors catch herpes and die of cancer just as often as the general population, even more telling is that the children and families of directors of big pharma companies also get sick and die of the same diseases that affect the rest of us. To suggest that there is a secret cache of cures just being held back from the public is wrong.
But of course, I may just be a mouthpiece for GSK...so don't take your tinfoil hat off yet!
I agere. I don't think there's a *single* live-able house anywhere in Britain for just one year's gross salary. The average income here is around £20,000pa (so US$35,000 or so). The average house (depending on area) - £80,000 to £250,000. The banks own your ass for most of your adult life if you get into a mortgage.
But amusingly, and many women will attest to this: they belive that men control the love in a relationship.
So we're left with a simple bargain: love for sex. One party provides each and desires the other. Wierd, huh.
Umm...you're talking about SQ4:Roger Wilco and the Time Rippers right? The game I played in my mid teens for many a night? It definitely does exist. However, the dreamed up sequels you could get to in the game don't.
such as SQ10:The Latex Babes of Estros SQ12:Vohaul's Revenge
and some others I can't quite recall.
That was one cool game. I was actually heartbroken when I found the SQ line was cancelled.
Re:Driving force for bloodless surgery
on
Bloodless Surgery
·
· Score: 1
Here in the UK the position is rather different. No judge would rule that a parent's religious views outweigh their child's right to live, and this has been proven in numerous test cases where courts have ruled against Jehova's Witnesses in paediatric cases.
However, if the child was 16 or above, of 'Gillick Compentence' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence to decide for themselves and firmly held their views then they'd be treated as an adult and their decision would be respected.
I honestly believe statutory rape is not real rape. It's all religious dogma masked by political posturing. Let's say I'm 21 and married to a 16 year old. Yep, that's legal in most of Europe. And we're having sex too (this is/. so you know this ain't real).
We fly out to the states for our honeymoon and bam I can be locked up for 5 years.
WTF?
Do girls really only become women in the US at 18 but in most of Europe at 16? 14 in the Netherlands?
Or is there an element of prudishness mixed with a lack of political will to look soft on anything with 'rape' in the title.
Real rape is a horrific deprivation of a woman's right to choose and consent to an intimate act. Statutory rape is a politician telling a woman she has no right to consent.
62 cases of statutory rape per month in California says more about a need to change the age of consent than it does the presence of predatory adults.
Funniest one I heard (here in the UK) was some little teenage chav shouting in his whiney unbroken voice at police who were escorting him into the back of a van:
'You're all pussy-holes'
Go on, say it over in your head. Now *that* was funny.
You raise a good point, but the problems are severalfold.
First, you need to identify the disease you're looking for. Next, you go to the lab and spend lots and lots of time looking to develop a test that is both sensitive and specific for that disease.
A couple of definitions:
Specific - Only picks up that disease (in reality, a test with a low false positive rate)
Sensitive - Able to detect that disease every time it's there (a low false negative rate)
Take prostate cancer for example.
In laymans terms many people think the following:
Some cells of the prostate produce PSA (prostate specific antigen). If the PSA level is raised this means cancer.
A urologist thinks:
This patient has a raised PSA. Many conditions other than prostate cancer can produce elevated PSA including infections, trauma and masturbation. Also, some prostate cancers don't produce elevated PSA. So, what's the chance this one-off screening test showing a mildly elevated PSA means this patient has cancer? Also remember that this result is distributed along a normal curve and may simply represent what is normal for this particular patient despite being high against the population as a whole.
And that's the problem.
1) Identifying a test-able target molecule(s) 2) Screening the population at large to define normal limits. Recognising 5% of patients fall outside these limits given a normal distribution curve 3) Finding what conditions other than your specific disease cause an elevation in your marker molecule(s) 4) Finding the number of patients who have your disease but don't produce your marker molecule(s)
So the actual testing of a target, once defined and fully catalogued, is actually the easiest part of the process given modern analytical techniques.
It's the thousands of man-hours of lab work, research PhDs and patients involved in defining a test to begin with that's prohibitive.
And that's why many rarer diseases don't have simple tests to uncover them. It's also why your doctor will produce a whole battery of tests before giving you a definitive diagnosis.
It's not because we're procrastinating or not willing to tell you the answer.
You yanks know that France also supported you in your War of Independence against us brits, right?
And gave you the Statue of Liberty?
In fact, the US owes one hell of a lot to France, and yet your arrogant turd of a president feels it's OK to go around maligning them just because they weren't happy committing thousands of young men to a needless war?
Freedom fries?
Disgraceful behaviour!
PS Marking me down as a troll does nothing to negate the truth of my argument.
Umm...you're full of shit. Recent legal changes within the English (and Welsh) legal system following recommendation from the Law Lords have changed the system to allow 'reasonable force' up to and including manslaughter in extremis to prevent crime from occurring on your property.
>>Hopefully, the guy they've put in charge of this review has his head screwed on the right way
You're talking about the same government that wants to suspend trial by jury, presumption of innocence and the right to face your accusers in court for persons suspected of terrorist offences, right?
My reply to this type of comment is to divide up the possibilities of human input into the climate into three categories. In such a way, we can argue whether human input into our climate has been:
1) Positive 2) Neutral 3) Negative
Now, I see very little (read: none) evidence that we are having a 'positive' effect on the climate of the Earth. That is to say, that the climate, bird migrations, average rainfall, rainforest coverage, is *benefitting* from our pollution and waste.
That leaves the last two possibilities - that we are having a neutral effect on the environment (in which case, why not stop what we are doing? Arguably you could say, therefore why not carry on)...
Or, we could possibly be having a *negative* effect on our environment. This would require us to square up to the problem and take responsible steps to mitigate against our impact to date.
So you see, until you can provide me with evidence that we are having an objectively *good* and beneficial effect on our environment, I'm going to have to fall into one of the other two camps and ask - Why not take the bus to work tomorrow?
"Scary as it is, Microsoft and other large software companies have patented software ideas and algorithms in order to make sure that no other company would go and patent the same idea and use it against them."
You mean...they've gone and got patents because they wanted the protection a patent offers?
And you realise that the latest apple pricing scheme for video downloads amounts to £1.89 per video, or US$3.33 - once again we are being unashamedly ripped off.
Slashdot Mirror
You do know it's an 'offshore' account, not something named after a guy called 'Shaw' right...
Now Ninjas on a Plane...that I'd see!
I was once told by a rather rich person:
"You will never go poor underestimating people's greed or stupidity"
and another one:
"It is better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission"
Of course, the second one doesn't relate to this case...but it's and interesting take on the old 'carpe diem'
Yours is a very US-centric, consumerist-medicine point of view. You think 'I'm paying for my healthcare, therefore I should be cured when I want to be.'
Move over to nations with socialised healthcare systems and you'll find it's the government absorbing the costs of these pharmaceuticals. You may also find governments have much more clout when bargaining with pharmaceutical companies than the individual directly footing the bill. And then there's us here in the UK where direct marketing of prescription drugs to the general population is banned.
So, the proposition that big pharma is ignoring cures for treatments is untrue at best and a big delusion at worst. When consumerism is taken out of healthcare, and doctors are the ones dictating prescription policy (and NICE here in the UK - look it up on wikipedia) there is no incentive not to cure people if they can. The idea that government is colluding with big pharma to prevent cures from being made is simply paranoia. Not every nation is like the US in healthcare planning.
On a final note, you may find that doctors catch herpes and die of cancer just as often as the general population, even more telling is that the children and families of directors of big pharma companies also get sick and die of the same diseases that affect the rest of us. To suggest that there is a secret cache of cures just being held back from the public is wrong.
But of course, I may just be a mouthpiece for GSK...so don't take your tinfoil hat off yet!
I agere. I don't think there's a *single* live-able house anywhere in Britain for just one year's gross salary. The average income here is around £20,000pa (so US$35,000 or so). The average house (depending on area) - £80,000 to £250,000. The banks own your ass for most of your adult life if you get into a mortgage.
-Nano.
But amusingly, and many women will attest to this: they belive that men control the love in a relationship.
So we're left with a simple bargain: love for sex. One party provides each and desires the other.
Wierd, huh.
Umm...you're talking about SQ4:Roger Wilco and the Time Rippers right? The game I played in my mid teens for many a night? It definitely does exist. However, the dreamed up sequels you could get to in the game don't.
such as SQ10:The Latex Babes of Estros
SQ12:Vohaul's Revenge
and some others I can't quite recall.
That was one cool game. I was actually heartbroken when I found the SQ line was cancelled.
Here in the UK the position is rather different. No judge would rule that a parent's religious views outweigh their child's right to live, and this has been proven in numerous test cases where courts have ruled against Jehova's Witnesses in paediatric cases.
However, if the child was 16 or above, of 'Gillick Compentence' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence to decide for themselves and firmly held their views then they'd be treated as an adult and their decision would be respected.
-Nano.
I think you'll find it's a little hexagon of culture...
But Star Trek 2 was the good one!
I may go down in a ball of flames for this but...
/. so you know this ain't real).
I honestly believe statutory rape is not real rape. It's all religious dogma masked by political posturing. Let's say I'm 21 and married to a 16 year old. Yep, that's legal in most of Europe. And we're having sex too (this is
We fly out to the states for our honeymoon and bam I can be locked up for 5 years.
WTF?
Do girls really only become women in the US at 18 but in most of Europe at 16? 14 in the Netherlands?
Or is there an element of prudishness mixed with a lack of political will to look soft on anything with 'rape' in the title.
Real rape is a horrific deprivation of a woman's right to choose and consent to an intimate act. Statutory rape is a politician telling a woman she has no right to consent.
62 cases of statutory rape per month in California says more about a need to change the age of consent than it does the presence of predatory adults.
-Nano.
i take it from the context that 'woodbie' = 'would-be'
Wow! Under US$550? Fully loaded?
Just like a Mac Mini you mean...
Funniest one I heard (here in the UK) was some little teenage chav shouting in his whiney unbroken voice at police who were escorting him into the back of a van:
'You're all pussy-holes'
Go on, say it over in your head. Now *that* was funny.
-Nano.
4.6L engine with only 22mpg economy considered a good car?
Only in the US...
-Nano.
You raise a good point, but the problems are severalfold.
First, you need to identify the disease you're looking for.
Next, you go to the lab and spend lots and lots of time looking to develop a test that is both sensitive and specific for that disease.
A couple of definitions:
Specific - Only picks up that disease (in reality, a test with a low false positive rate)
Sensitive - Able to detect that disease every time it's there (a low false negative rate)
Take prostate cancer for example.
In laymans terms many people think the following:
Some cells of the prostate produce PSA (prostate specific antigen). If the PSA level is raised this means cancer.
A urologist thinks:
This patient has a raised PSA. Many conditions other than prostate cancer can produce elevated PSA including infections, trauma and masturbation. Also, some prostate cancers don't produce elevated PSA. So, what's the chance this one-off screening test showing a mildly elevated PSA means this patient has cancer? Also remember that this result is distributed along a normal curve and may simply represent what is normal for this particular patient despite being high against the population as a whole.
And that's the problem.
1) Identifying a test-able target molecule(s)
2) Screening the population at large to define normal limits. Recognising 5% of patients fall outside these limits given a normal distribution curve
3) Finding what conditions other than your specific disease cause an elevation in your marker molecule(s)
4) Finding the number of patients who have your disease but don't produce your marker molecule(s)
So the actual testing of a target, once defined and fully catalogued, is actually the easiest part of the process given modern analytical techniques.
It's the thousands of man-hours of lab work, research PhDs and patients involved in defining a test to begin with that's prohibitive.
And that's why many rarer diseases don't have simple tests to uncover them. It's also why your doctor will produce a whole battery of tests before giving you a definitive diagnosis.
It's not because we're procrastinating or not willing to tell you the answer.
-Nano.
Unique DNA signature?
I fail to see how getting some poor lab worker to masturbate over 120 footballs is going to prevent crime?
-Nano.
You yanks know that France also supported you in your War of Independence against us brits, right?
And gave you the Statue of Liberty?
In fact, the US owes one hell of a lot to France, and yet your arrogant turd of a president feels it's OK to go around maligning them just because they weren't happy committing thousands of young men to a needless war?
Freedom fries?
Disgraceful behaviour!
PS Marking me down as a troll does nothing to negate the truth of my argument.
Very interesting stuff. Good to hear of someone else who operates in the same way I seem to :)
-Nano.
Umm...you're full of shit. Recent legal changes within the English (and Welsh) legal system following recommendation from the Law Lords have changed the system to allow 'reasonable force' up to and including manslaughter in extremis to prevent crime from occurring on your property.
-Nano.
>>Seriously, remind me why I need privacy. I forget sometimes.
Try my 2-step program to making you care again:
1) Give me your name, address and phone number.
2) Give me two weeks.
-Nano.
>>Hopefully, the guy they've put in charge of this review has his head screwed on the right way
You're talking about the same government that wants to suspend trial by jury, presumption of innocence and the right to face your accusers in court for persons suspected of terrorist offences, right?
-Nano.
My reply to this type of comment is to divide up the possibilities of human input into the climate into three categories. In such a way, we can argue whether human input into our climate has been:
1) Positive
2) Neutral
3) Negative
Now, I see very little (read: none) evidence that we are having a 'positive' effect on the climate of the Earth. That is to say, that the climate, bird migrations, average rainfall, rainforest coverage, is *benefitting* from our pollution and waste.
That leaves the last two possibilities - that we are having a neutral effect on the environment (in which case, why not stop what we are doing? Arguably you could say, therefore why not carry on)...
Or, we could possibly be having a *negative* effect on our environment. This would require us to square up to the problem and take responsible steps to mitigate against our impact to date.
So you see, until you can provide me with evidence that we are having an objectively *good* and beneficial effect on our environment, I'm going to have to fall into one of the other two camps and ask - Why not take the bus to work tomorrow?
-Nano.
"Scary as it is, Microsoft and other large software companies have patented software ideas and algorithms in order to make sure that no other company would go and patent the same idea and use it against them."
You mean...they've gone and got patents because they wanted the protection a patent offers?
What an empty, zero-content statement.
And you realise that the latest apple pricing scheme for video downloads amounts to £1.89 per video, or US$3.33 - once again we are being unashamedly ripped off.
Go UK!
-Nano.