Depends... They're saying that poor people wouldn't get deductions and tax credits if they did this...
So... that's a credible point.
That said, if poor people did this then the form itself might get reformed enough to account for that without the complexity... perhaps by lowering the fucking taxes.
Why is it that when ever you say something might be excessive or that we might need to look at other options... people automatically assume you want to utterly destroy everything before in a giant scorched earth demolition derby?
I didn't say that.
Suggesting I did is merely an admission on your part that you didn't understand my post.
I'm not suggesting we get rid of the FDA. I'm suggesting that the FDA might be excessive.
Beyond that, I think there is room to have non-FDA approved medical procedures and drugs open to Americans.
Label it. Cover it in warnings. Whatever.
I am a HUGE believer in individual choice. If the consumer chooses to buy or use something that isn't government approved... that is their choice. Obviously make it clear to them so they don't do it by accident... but that's about it.
In regards to hyper competition versus competition... these are not valid economic terms that can be applied to the market place.
What you have instead is an over supply of a good or service fighting over a finite market for those goods and services.
The end result is that those less able to compete will be squeezed out of the business entirely.
This is already happening and will not be stopped.
You can lament that but you'd as well lament the rising of the sun in the east or the tides going out in the morning. Its going to happen.
You can take these people private so they can diversify into other businesses applying their skills to something that is more scalable. Or they can suffer.
But simply demanding the federal spending taps get turned up every time you've over produced researchers is not practical.
As to product horizons, there are a lot of companies that spend a lot of money on an ongoing basis in basic research and development.
Most of the aerospace companies research ideas for many years before they actually become products and many never do become products.
Chemical companies do the same thing.
the pharma companies can spend upwards of 10 years on a single drug... much longer then your 5 year figure.
I'm not sure how long Monsanto spends trying to put ice fish DNA in wheat but the whole process probably wasn't fast.
Don't tell me business doesn't do research. They do a lot of research. And in fact, they also offer a lot of grants to universities to research things for them.
Given all the scandals in bio medical academic papers over the last few years I find it suspect that they're begging for grant money now. There is huge potential for new medical technology and treatments. the market is very hungry for such things. Sadly genetically modified foods are taboo currently but you can probably still find a market for that as well. I think there is a lab in the UK that is cloning pets. That's a great idea. Rich people give you money and you get to continue your cloning research.
Figure something out. There is money out there. And if there isn't... then there isn't.
You condescension is undermined by the lack of an actual point.
In the future, if you wish to attempt to make cutting remarks, you might remember to not leave a rebuttal with some sort of underlying logic against any of the opposing points.
Lacking that your comment is meaningless and thus your attempted insults are little more then emotion laden animal noises.
A cave man grunting would be roughly as meaningful.
You're really beginning to show your ignorance. I'll start you off with this. That list does not include many original tribes that have been integrated into the main Brazilian population (like American Indian tribes have been in the US).
Actually the only thing showing is your desperation to make a failing point.
I never said Brazil didn't have native tribes. I said they have fewer distinct tribes. That's a fact.
And really none of this matters unless you can cite a higher litarcy rate in Brazil then in the US.
I base my statement on the speed with which such groups claim such rights and powers and the hesitation/resistance/etc they show when those same privileges are threatened.
They won't give up the money or the power.
And most human organizations work the same way.
Imagine if they were a corporation? Or a rival government... would either give up the money or the power? Of course not.
Could it be that the FDA makes your industry a living hell?
That's what I've heard from the pharma companies. They say that they spend so much money complying with the FDA that they have very little for anything else.
We have drug factories around the country that are going broke despite selling all their product. Some of them run 24 hours a day to meet demand. There are still shortages and they are still going broke.
I have to assume that's the FDA because nothing else could have that effect on US drug manufacturers and no one else.
In any case, I'm not going to compound the mistakes of over-regulation with over-subsidization.
While that is how many politicians keep themselves in office it is not their sole or even expected function.
These people are like the ambulance chasers of the legal profession. They're parasites of their craft. They've found a way to not do anything useful AND keep their jobs.
Ironic Dave that you'd pester me in another discussion after running away like a coward from the last.
I'd take that in stride if you didn't accuse me of running away from discussions. That was a mistake. I don't run away. I have something you've probably only heard of... "integrity".
I'm not claiming to be right every time but if I am, I take my medicine.
How about, punk... want to play or are you going to just throw out some more cheap insults and run away?
Government funding is like this... Rather then getting a feedback loop where research generates profits which pay for expansions which lead to more jobs. What you instead have is a static grant being offered by the government. When that is consumed there is no more and the government not making any money on the process can't afford to engage in a feedback system.
Now, a private system is going to have its own issues but those issues will not be an over production of researchers competing for finite grant money.
And before anyone tells me this is a bad idea or that we need the government to do all this stuff... understand where I am coming from here. We had tens of thousands of engineers working for the military industrial complex and then the cold war ended... result? Many of them were out of a job. And guess where many of them lived? California. It was and still is a big defense contractor state. And what did those engineers do? Most of them found jobs in the private sector and to a large extent their technical contribution made the tech explosion in California happen. Suddenly business had access to a glut of engineers. And that is what we got out of it.
So... consider that we might do well to push a lot of these bio medical researchers at the private sector... It might do them well, it might do their fields well, and it might do the nation well.
And hey, the US Federal government might actually see a monetary return through their tax recipes. So... everyone wins.
Brazil has a lot of diversity but being 50 percent white means being 50 percent being something else.
Do they have as many Russians? As many people from the middle east? As many Muslims? Do they have large Buddhist communities? Do they have Amish? How many distinct Indian tribes do they have? I doubt more then four or five. We have that many in some states.
I'm sorry, but while Brazil does have a lot of diversity it is nothing like the US.
What is more, what is their literacy rate?
And here's another question, does Brazil have a high level of non-spanish speaking immigrants? I doubt it. Which impacts literacy... Right?
Look, I'm right. So don't get mad when my facts line up. I have an unfair advantage... I'm right.
You'd require evidence to make that argument and you've invalidated all evidence including any you'd use against me. As such you've invalidated the discussion itself and neither attacked my argument or supported your own.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't ask a question. You issued a stupid insult.
If you'd like to try again, ask your question in the form of a question rather then in the form of an insult.
Also, it might help if you put it in quotations just so you don't forget you were supposed to ask an actual question again.
They shouldn't have paid. They should have called comcast's bluff.
Depends... They're saying that poor people wouldn't get deductions and tax credits if they did this...
So... that's a credible point.
That said, if poor people did this then the form itself might get reformed enough to account for that without the complexity... perhaps by lowering the fucking taxes.
I didn't say stop government funded research.
Why is it that when ever you say something might be excessive or that we might need to look at other options... people automatically assume you want to utterly destroy everything before in a giant scorched earth demolition derby?
I didn't say that.
Suggesting I did is merely an admission on your part that you didn't understand my post.
I'm not suggesting we get rid of the FDA. I'm suggesting that the FDA might be excessive.
Beyond that, I think there is room to have non-FDA approved medical procedures and drugs open to Americans.
Label it. Cover it in warnings. Whatever.
I am a HUGE believer in individual choice. If the consumer chooses to buy or use something that isn't government approved... that is their choice. Obviously make it clear to them so they don't do it by accident... but that's about it.
I'm not saying its the same... I'm saying that you have to find a home for a lot of these researchers in the private sector.
You can't expect the government to just throw money at researchers because they're out of work.
The grant system exists for all the things you were talking about. Its great.
But it isn't a bottomless money tap. If you need more, then you need to do what everyone else does. Get a job in a company that makes money.
In regards to hyper competition versus competition... these are not valid economic terms that can be applied to the market place.
What you have instead is an over supply of a good or service fighting over a finite market for those goods and services.
The end result is that those less able to compete will be squeezed out of the business entirely.
This is already happening and will not be stopped.
You can lament that but you'd as well lament the rising of the sun in the east or the tides going out in the morning. Its going to happen.
You can take these people private so they can diversify into other businesses applying their skills to something that is more scalable. Or they can suffer.
But simply demanding the federal spending taps get turned up every time you've over produced researchers is not practical.
As to product horizons, there are a lot of companies that spend a lot of money on an ongoing basis in basic research and development.
Most of the aerospace companies research ideas for many years before they actually become products and many never do become products.
Chemical companies do the same thing.
the pharma companies can spend upwards of 10 years on a single drug... much longer then your 5 year figure.
I'm not sure how long Monsanto spends trying to put ice fish DNA in wheat but the whole process probably wasn't fast.
Don't tell me business doesn't do research. They do a lot of research. And in fact, they also offer a lot of grants to universities to research things for them.
Given all the scandals in bio medical academic papers over the last few years I find it suspect that they're begging for grant money now. There is huge potential for new medical technology and treatments. the market is very hungry for such things. Sadly genetically modified foods are taboo currently but you can probably still find a market for that as well. I think there is a lab in the UK that is cloning pets. That's a great idea. Rich people give you money and you get to continue your cloning research.
Figure something out. There is money out there. And if there isn't... then there isn't.
You condescension is undermined by the lack of an actual point.
In the future, if you wish to attempt to make cutting remarks, you might remember to not leave a rebuttal with some sort of underlying logic against any of the opposing points.
Lacking that your comment is meaningless and thus your attempted insults are little more then emotion laden animal noises.
A cave man grunting would be roughly as meaningful.
Actually the only thing showing is your desperation to make a failing point.
I never said Brazil didn't have native tribes. I said they have fewer distinct tribes. That's a fact.
And really none of this matters unless you can cite a higher litarcy rate in Brazil then in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
Brazil is cited as 94 percent and the US is cited as 99 percent.
So what exactly was your point? Lets say you're right and brazil is more diverse... well they're also more illiterate.
So... my point about diversity not helping that statistic wouldn't be threatened.
I base my statement on the speed with which such groups claim such rights and powers and the hesitation/resistance/etc they show when those same privileges are threatened.
They won't give up the money or the power.
And most human organizations work the same way.
Imagine if they were a corporation? Or a rival government... would either give up the money or the power? Of course not.
Well these are all human organizations.
As to your demand for citations... you're funny.
And why is that?
Could it be that the FDA makes your industry a living hell?
That's what I've heard from the pharma companies. They say that they spend so much money complying with the FDA that they have very little for anything else.
We have drug factories around the country that are going broke despite selling all their product. Some of them run 24 hours a day to meet demand. There are still shortages and they are still going broke.
I have to assume that's the FDA because nothing else could have that effect on US drug manufacturers and no one else.
In any case, I'm not going to compound the mistakes of over-regulation with over-subsidization.
I'd rather push you off into private practice that create some uber elite priesthood that subsists entirely on government grants.
While that is how many politicians keep themselves in office it is not their sole or even expected function.
These people are like the ambulance chasers of the legal profession. They're parasites of their craft. They've found a way to not do anything useful AND keep their jobs.
Explain your problem.
Ironic Dave that you'd pester me in another discussion after running away like a coward from the last.
I'd take that in stride if you didn't accuse me of running away from discussions. That was a mistake. I don't run away. I have something you've probably only heard of... "integrity".
I'm not claiming to be right every time but if I am, I take my medicine.
How about, punk... want to play or are you going to just throw out some more cheap insults and run away?
Government funding is like this... Rather then getting a feedback loop where research generates profits which pay for expansions which lead to more jobs. What you instead have is a static grant being offered by the government. When that is consumed there is no more and the government not making any money on the process can't afford to engage in a feedback system.
Now, a private system is going to have its own issues but those issues will not be an over production of researchers competing for finite grant money.
And before anyone tells me this is a bad idea or that we need the government to do all this stuff... understand where I am coming from here. We had tens of thousands of engineers working for the military industrial complex and then the cold war ended... result? Many of them were out of a job. And guess where many of them lived? California. It was and still is a big defense contractor state. And what did those engineers do? Most of them found jobs in the private sector and to a large extent their technical contribution made the tech explosion in California happen. Suddenly business had access to a glut of engineers. And that is what we got out of it.
So... consider that we might do well to push a lot of these bio medical researchers at the private sector... It might do them well, it might do their fields well, and it might do the nation well.
And hey, the US Federal government might actually see a monetary return through their tax recipes. So... everyone wins.
I didn't actually like Fallout 3... but New Vegas is the real deal.
As suspected, you're all talk. You threw out some baseless insult, suggested I was a coward, and the ran away.
I didn't like it... however, New Vegas is amazing. If you like fallout, try New Vegas... its very good... get all the DLC... it's worth it.
Brazil has a lot of diversity but being 50 percent white means being 50 percent being something else.
Do they have as many Russians? As many people from the middle east? As many Muslims? Do they have large Buddhist communities? Do they have Amish? How many distinct Indian tribes do they have? I doubt more then four or five. We have that many in some states.
I'm sorry, but while Brazil does have a lot of diversity it is nothing like the US.
What is more, what is their literacy rate?
And here's another question, does Brazil have a high level of non-spanish speaking immigrants? I doubt it. Which impacts literacy... Right?
Look, I'm right. So don't get mad when my facts line up. I have an unfair advantage... I'm right.
there are a lot of free places to park that this thing doesn't list... useless.
What they want is control over global industry, insane amounts of unaudited "international aid money" and absolute moral authority.
Solve the problem and you take away their power, their money, and their claims to moral superiority.
This is something they will never let die.
If we fixed the climate tomorrow they'd still be harping about it.
Actually not.
You'd require evidence to make that argument and you've invalidated all evidence including any you'd use against me. As such you've invalidated the discussion itself and neither attacked my argument or supported your own.
You nuked the moon.
you are in the position of saying there is no illiteracy issue in the US or that there is no evidence of such.
Therefore your argument is that the whole discussion is null.