I could be 100% wrong but I think the sticking point of the "High profile cases" that the/. post mentions is that people called and verified that it was indeed the owner of the phone who had answered it at a time when a crime occured. But I dunno that for sure.
He's not a TV personality that can dedicate himself to it full time (like Steve on Monster House, who's cool too). He has his own shop where he runs his own company to produce his own brand of choppers. Imagine working two jobs and being able to choose which one you get to spend more time at, and one's capable of completely going bankrupt if you don't babysit it. He's at that one.
"The reason is that the total cost of the system it what counts. The incremental cost of producing a number of these drugs is small (which is one reason that they are provided to third world countries at greatly reduced cost)."
The total cost of the system is padded and fluffed up for the benefit of people who aren't pulling their weight when it comes to making a difference in good progress and lagging.
"Your argument can be extended too all of medicine, food production, and damn near anything else. It is a fundamental view that companies should be run as charities."
It can be, but being unprepared for such an endeavor, I'll opt not to. I hold no view that companies should be run as charities, I'm not sure what you mean by that.
"You may not realize this, but there are many diseases killing vast numbers of people in the third world - not just AIDS. Should we force the drug companies to give away their treatments for all of these?"
Not give, but certainly not profit in a financially gluttonous fashion. They get enough of that here.
"Should we force them to send people to those countries to force the populace to use the drugs properly (because in many of the poor countries, people use drugs improperly, increasing the speed of the development of drug resistance)?"
Send a phamplet. If they opt to use the drugs improperly in spite of knowing how to use it properly, I don't care.
"Where do we stop? Do you want poor people in America to subsidize the poor people in Africa?"
Where have we started? And no, poor people in America don't need to subsidize poor people in Africa. Rich companies in America simply ought to stop sucking cash out of poor people in Africa (and NO, this is NOT to say that the treatments should be GIVEN out. Stop saying that I'm arguing that point).
""Holding out on third world countries" - holding out what? AIDS drugs that they spent billions of dollars developing? Food (a lot of people starve, too, you know)?"
The rest of the sentence that you started to quote explains the question you've asked: Holding out on treatments *unless* the patients (as it were...) pay often more than they can afford and often more than the production companies need to stay in the black.
"Somehow the idea that companies are morally related to the Nazi medical researchers because they don't give away all of their products to those who cannot afford them is just silly."
What the... you said that this (in a royal, big picture sense) is the most efficient way to get things done, and implied that because of *that*, that there is nothing wrong with it. The quickest way to show that the most efficient and productive way to do something can still be wrong is to reference to Nazi medical research. It was a rebuttal, and a proper one to what you had said.
Because it puts rich people in a position to get richer by holding out on third world countries that are being down right devestated by a disease unless the people afflicted by it give up a larger percentage of their income than they can usually afford.
Your contention that I feel these companies should pump out the drugs at a loss untill they're bankrupt actually puts in an idea: If Brazil can manufacture AIDS treatments at a very affordable price for its citizens and not end up putting that enterprise into the red, why is it that (when dealing with nations whose populations can't afford it) the drug companies can't do the same? They make more than enough money from North America and Western Europe, why do they need to sell treatment at a profit in poorer countries?
Also, the argument that being the most effective way for it to work making it not wrong is a bad one. Nazi Germany was doing some pretty effective medical research with Jewish subjects, it's still wrong.
Government grants, subsidized research, grad school pre-doctoral thesis work.
I agree that they are an industry and it costs real money to do research. It may even cost huge amounts of it. But there's still huge amounts of sick people's money/insurance going into the wallets of corporate workers who don't do anything other than look at the world in black and red.
"For example, the pharmaceutical industry, because of its huge upfront costs, often will not develop a perfectly useful drug unless it can patent it. The reason is that without patent protection, other companies will free-ride on the FDA approval process and other startup costs."
Also, without patent protection, they'd be forced to stop screwing over third world countries suffering heavily from the AIDS epidemic. Brazil comes to mind.
If your argument is that they *needed* patents as a foundation for profit just so they would *want* to research treatments/cures for AIDS, then my argument is that they have no heart.
"Consumers have a reasonable expectation that they can replace the original product with a competing universal product without violating federal law,"
IANAL, so I'm wondering how this statement is inapplicable to ink cartridges. It seems to me that a judge sitting on another bench would be unable to make a distinction between this precedent as it applies to one product over another.
It's my understanding that when something is a hot-button issue with a lot of people, the lack of legislation against it leads a gigantic door open for legislation propogating it.
If I leave a loaded gun next to a crackhead, I may be responsible.
However, computers are more along the lines of a general utility. A better analogy is leaving a car with the keys in the ignition to see how fast the crackhead hops in. If he immediately uses the car to purposely run someone over, well wow, bummer, but who knew?
"My business faces ruin. CD sales have dropped through the floor." "I don't sell sick stuff like Marilyn Manson or cop-killer rap, and I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Christian rock sections that I know of." ""That's it. What's your name? You're blacklisted. Now take yourself and your little bitch friend out of my store - and don't come back.""
My name is Troy. I'd like to apply for your blacklist, and suggest that you get out of and avoid any business that attempts to make money.
the Jackass suggests that the open source community needs a "sustainable business model". What a unbelievable case of tunnel vision.
He's right, in the sense that Adolf Hitler was right. Adolf Hitler was right that Jews were trying to take over the world and needed to be stopped, the twist is that the Jew was him: He was, allegedly, a quarter/eighth Jewish, and he tried to take over the world, and he needed to be stopped.
SCO, formerly Caldera, put out a version of Linux with the source code available to the public, which technically constitutes them as a (small) part of the Open Source Community. And as you can see, giving up their real business of putting out a decent product has been replaced by FUD + Litigation, which is not a "sustainable business model." He's actually pointing out that his company can't survive this shit, and must therefor return to a s.b.m. He just doesn't know it yet.
It would also be Microsoft's right to institute a method for denying MSN subscribers from accessing AIM/YIM/ICQ networks using MSN dialup lines. Will you support them if they should choose this legal and revenue-increasing path?
How will anyone know that s/he hasn't paid for everything?
And what happens if someone gets their kicks descretely clipping scramblers/neutralizers on numerous items and then watching people get arrested for suspected shoplifting when they unwittingly pay $5 for $150 of merchandise.
AOL is, needless to say, an over-the-top form of User-Friendly setup for an ISP. Now you may be use to customizing everything that has a plug in it, but for a parent who just wants his kid to get connected for school/after school purposes... it's nice to know that your little one WON'T be getting offers to enlarge his pre-pubescent penis by three inches, increase in girth, etc etc...
Take the term "public" away from "sale" (which, I could be mistaken on, is entirely possible to implement) and you have the "sale of material deemed inappropriate..." The sale portion can be, you know, a "private action between two people," but pray tell, what did you really mean by "there are differences"?
"If people really love each other, then they give each other the real stone," he says, during an interview at council headquarters on the Hoveniersstraat in Antwerp. "It is not a symbol of eternal love if it is something that was created last week."
Not to knock on anybody's wife, but how many diamond-recipients can so much as ballpark an estimate on how a natural diamond is created? Or more specifically related to the article, how long it takes...
International English follows the British spelling
That's nice, but the international economy follows the American economy, British troops follow American troops, British dental hygiene follows... you see where I'm going with this. Location of origin is dandy, but my country's population compared to yours seems to indicate that the majority of native speakers as a whole are favoring (snicker) our color (cackle) of spelling.
He can't because they don't give out names. But he's right, there were two Gitmo prisoners that were beaten to death. However, that doesn't mean that things CAN'T be turned on there held come election year. Even a tyrannical president can be held accountable with the right legislation.
Yeah whatever, like the people have a chance to change the system through the system.
Your sarcasm is duly noted, and I'd like to point you in the direction of the US Constitution. In spite of what any given administration is up to, the basic functions of democracy are still in your own hands. There's pricks in the way, but they ultimately can't stop a good movement that rings true with the people.
Slashdot Mirror
I could be 100% wrong but I think the sticking point of the "High profile cases" that the /. post mentions is that people called and verified that it was indeed the owner of the phone who had answered it at a time when a crime occured. But I dunno that for sure.
He's not a TV personality that can dedicate himself to it full time (like Steve on Monster House, who's cool too). He has his own shop where he runs his own company to produce his own brand of choppers. Imagine working two jobs and being able to choose which one you get to spend more time at, and one's capable of completely going bankrupt if you don't babysit it. He's at that one.
"The reason is that the total cost of the system it what counts. The incremental cost of producing a number of these drugs is small (which is one reason that they are provided to third world countries at greatly reduced cost)."
The total cost of the system is padded and fluffed up for the benefit of people who aren't pulling their weight when it comes to making a difference in good progress and lagging.
"Your argument can be extended too all of medicine, food production, and damn near anything else. It is a fundamental view that companies should be run as charities."
It can be, but being unprepared for such an endeavor, I'll opt not to. I hold no view that companies should be run as charities, I'm not sure what you mean by that.
"You may not realize this, but there are many diseases killing vast numbers of people in the third world - not just AIDS. Should we force the drug companies to give away their treatments for all of these?"
Not give, but certainly not profit in a financially gluttonous fashion. They get enough of that here.
"Should we force them to send people to those countries to force the populace to use the drugs properly (because in many of the poor countries, people use drugs improperly, increasing the speed of the development of drug resistance)?"
Send a phamplet. If they opt to use the drugs improperly in spite of knowing how to use it properly, I don't care.
"Where do we stop? Do you want poor people in America to subsidize the poor people in Africa?"
Where have we started? And no, poor people in America don't need to subsidize poor people in Africa. Rich companies in America simply ought to stop sucking cash out of poor people in Africa (and NO, this is NOT to say that the treatments should be GIVEN out. Stop saying that I'm arguing that point).
""Holding out on third world countries" - holding out what? AIDS drugs that they spent billions of dollars developing? Food (a lot of people starve, too, you know)?"
The rest of the sentence that you started to quote explains the question you've asked: Holding out on treatments *unless* the patients (as it were...) pay often more than they can afford and often more than the production companies need to stay in the black.
"Somehow the idea that companies are morally related to the Nazi medical researchers because they don't give away all of their products to those who cannot afford them is just silly."
What the... you said that this (in a royal, big picture sense) is the most efficient way to get things done, and implied that because of *that*, that there is nothing wrong with it. The quickest way to show that the most efficient and productive way to do something can still be wrong is to reference to Nazi medical research. It was a rebuttal, and a proper one to what you had said.
Because it puts rich people in a position to get richer by holding out on third world countries that are being down right devestated by a disease unless the people afflicted by it give up a larger percentage of their income than they can usually afford.
Your contention that I feel these companies should pump out the drugs at a loss untill they're bankrupt actually puts in an idea: If Brazil can manufacture AIDS treatments at a very affordable price for its citizens and not end up putting that enterprise into the red, why is it that (when dealing with nations whose populations can't afford it) the drug companies can't do the same? They make more than enough money from North America and Western Europe, why do they need to sell treatment at a profit in poorer countries?
Also, the argument that being the most effective way for it to work making it not wrong is a bad one. Nazi Germany was doing some pretty effective medical research with Jewish subjects, it's still wrong.
Government grants, subsidized research, grad school pre-doctoral thesis work.
I agree that they are an industry and it costs real money to do research. It may even cost huge amounts of it. But there's still huge amounts of sick people's money/insurance going into the wallets of corporate workers who don't do anything other than look at the world in black and red.
Therein lies my clue, pick up on it.
"For example, the pharmaceutical industry, because of its huge upfront costs, often will not develop a perfectly useful drug unless it can patent it. The reason is that without patent protection, other companies will free-ride on the FDA approval process and other startup costs."
Also, without patent protection, they'd be forced to stop screwing over third world countries suffering heavily from the AIDS epidemic. Brazil comes to mind.
If your argument is that they *needed* patents as a foundation for profit just so they would *want* to research treatments/cures for AIDS, then my argument is that they have no heart.
"Consumers have a reasonable expectation that they can replace the original product with a competing universal product without violating federal law,"
IANAL, so I'm wondering how this statement is inapplicable to ink cartridges. It seems to me that a judge sitting on another bench would be unable to make a distinction between this precedent as it applies to one product over another.
It's my understanding that when something is a hot-button issue with a lot of people, the lack of legislation against it leads a gigantic door open for legislation propogating it.
You're absolutely right. Unless somebody's actually been framed. Then you're a fucking moron.
He's also effectively debunking the RIAA's strategy of suing mp3 distributors.
For giving us this real world example of why privatizing the schools in America is a shit-for-brains idea, I wholeheartedly thank you.
If I leave a loaded gun next to a crackhead, I may be responsible.
However, computers are more along the lines of a general utility. A better analogy is leaving a car with the keys in the ignition to see how fast the crackhead hops in. If he immediately uses the car to purposely run someone over, well wow, bummer, but who knew?
"My business faces ruin. CD sales have dropped through the floor."
"I don't sell sick stuff like Marilyn Manson or cop-killer rap, and I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Christian rock sections that I know of."
""That's it. What's your name? You're blacklisted. Now take yourself and your little bitch friend out of my store - and don't come back.""
My name is Troy. I'd like to apply for your blacklist, and suggest that you get out of and avoid any business that attempts to make money.
the Jackass suggests that the open source community needs a "sustainable business model". What a unbelievable case of tunnel vision.
He's right, in the sense that Adolf Hitler was right. Adolf Hitler was right that Jews were trying to take over the world and needed to be stopped, the twist is that the Jew was him: He was, allegedly, a quarter/eighth Jewish, and he tried to take over the world, and he needed to be stopped.
SCO, formerly Caldera, put out a version of Linux with the source code available to the public, which technically constitutes them as a (small) part of the Open Source Community. And as you can see, giving up their real business of putting out a decent product has been replaced by FUD + Litigation, which is not a "sustainable business model." He's actually pointing out that his company can't survive this shit, and must therefor return to a s.b.m. He just doesn't know it yet.
It would also be Microsoft's right to institute a method for denying MSN subscribers from accessing AIM/YIM/ICQ networks using MSN dialup lines. Will you support them if they should choose this legal and revenue-increasing path?
How will anyone know that s/he hasn't paid for everything?
And what happens if someone gets their kicks descretely clipping scramblers/neutralizers on numerous items and then watching people get arrested for suspected shoplifting when they unwittingly pay $5 for $150 of merchandise.
AOL is, needless to say, an over-the-top form of User-Friendly setup for an ISP. Now you may be use to customizing everything that has a plug in it, but for a parent who just wants his kid to get connected for school/after school purposes... it's nice to know that your little one WON'T be getting offers to enlarge his pre-pubescent penis by three inches, increase in girth, etc etc...
So what do you call getting numerous AOL installation CDs over the years if not spam minus the electronic delivery?
Take the term "public" away from "sale" (which, I could be mistaken on, is entirely possible to implement) and you have the "sale of material deemed inappropriate..." The sale portion can be, you know, a "private action between two people," but pray tell, what did you really mean by "there are differences"?
"If people really love each other, then they give each other the real stone," he says, during an interview at council headquarters on the Hoveniersstraat in Antwerp. "It is not a symbol of eternal love if it is something that was created last week."
Not to knock on anybody's wife, but how many diamond-recipients can so much as ballpark an estimate on how a natural diamond is created? Or more specifically related to the article, how long it takes...
International English follows the British spelling
That's nice, but the international economy follows the American economy, British troops follow American troops, British dental hygiene follows... you see where I'm going with this. Location of origin is dandy, but my country's population compared to yours seems to indicate that the majority of native speakers as a whole are favoring (snicker) our color (cackle) of spelling.
Dude they were right the first time. Wary as in cautious, not weary as in tired.
I can now have sex with another man in... interesting orifices, but I can't sell pictures of it to other adults?
He can't because they don't give out names. But he's right, there were two Gitmo prisoners that were beaten to death. However, that doesn't mean that things CAN'T be turned on there held come election year. Even a tyrannical president can be held accountable with the right legislation.
Yeah whatever, like the people have a chance to change the system through the system.
Your sarcasm is duly noted, and I'd like to point you in the direction of the US Constitution. In spite of what any given administration is up to, the basic functions of democracy are still in your own hands. There's pricks in the way, but they ultimately can't stop a good movement that rings true with the people.