Indeed. We have moved to the next paradigm, and the vultures want to make sure that we are not permitted to move forward by imposing their old-world rules that needn't apply in the new-world. While they may have their points, they want to change the paradigm into one where we are surveilled in order to make sure we comply with their best interests. Generally speaking, the right of privacy lets us commit crimes in the privacy of our own homes. So given someone who wants to steal the book either way - what's better for mankind? Having him waste energy resources photocopying a book (something i've done on several occasions) that he drove his gasoline-powered car to obtain, once someone killed a tree to create it? Or having him make a copy? The paradigm shift of moving to the electronic world has its implications, and the response is mostly a one of corporations trying to increase their influence. I mean, all those RIAA lawsuits, that money went to the artists, right?
Library gets a copy of a physical book (originally paid for by whoever bought it first) and loans it out as many times as it wants, forever.
Electronic library gets a copy of an electronic book (originally paid for by whoever bought it first) and loans it out as many times as it wants, forever.
In both situations, someone who really wants a paid-for copy for themselves can pay for it themselves; someone who really wants to just borrow one can borrow and return/delete it; someone who really just wants to steal one can steal it with great ease (I probably have an unreturned library book somewhere.)
Main difference I'm seeing is that one kills trees and burns gasoline.
What is your point? All you've stated is that electronic books are different than physical books. Pretty sure both of us -- and everyone reading the article and our comments -- already knew this.
(Parody: When the author sells an ebook online, he still has it, even though he sold it! Weird, huh?)
I'm still not seeing a difference here:
Library gets a copy of a physical book (originally paid for by whoever bought it first) and loans it out as many times as it wants, forever.
Electronic library gets a copy of an electronic book (originally paid for by whoever bought it first) and loans it out as many times as it wants, forever.
In both situations, someone who really wants a paid-for copy for themselves can pay for it themselves; someone who really wants to just borrow one can borrow and return/delete it; someone who really just wants to steal one can steal it with great ease (I probably have an unreturned library book somewhere.)
Main difference I'm seeing is that one kills trees and burns gasoline.
I refer you to the original comment I made, which you did not answer. If you can answer that question, then I will proceed to the next step of the discussion. Why can I go to a library and get a book, but not download one? (And actually, where I live, everyone does have a right to a library card, which gives them free access to books. And don't say the taxes pay it, because you don't have to be a taxpaying citizen to get a library card, just a citizen, period.)
Inside the Washington, DC beltway. Why would I know libraries let you borrow ebooks? I've not stepped in one since I found out I could get the same content without leaving my house. Similar to a record store.
Wasn't the original ebook (that was copied) paid for to? I'm assuming someone didn't buy the book and type it all up (oh wait, this would require having bought the real thing, nevermind). How does one get the book without it being bought in the first place? These aren't leaks, are they? Someone had to buy it first, right? Just like at the library?
Do you have a reading comprehension defect? This site is for books. Why can I go to a library and get a book, but not download one? I have to burn gas and kill trees to read for free?
But a UI modification app, whether or not you think it is an app -- if it's something that you download, install, and run -- then it's something that has the potential to send private user data. Just because it's less likely to doesn't mean it shouldn't be examined or counted; that's like saying that Solitaire apps are less likely to use network traffic than Online Chat apps, and thus measuring them messes up the methodology. How about we just measure what is out there?
I actually knew that, and voted 3rd party. What I was proving was that the democrats are so blindly loyal that even when a democrat sponsors a bad bill, they bitch "oh those evil republicans". And I think that point was proven before I entered the discussion, actually. I just had to bring it to the attention of Mr.Republican-Whiner whining about a Democrat bill that can only pass with a Democrat president signing it. I love how the republicans are at fault when a president doesn't use his veto power.
I don't think you know what a strawman argument is. It's inventing something and then attacking that instead of the real thing said. Where did I invent something that isn't happening? If the president signs it then it means he approves it too -- same logic you just used. Now, who sponsored and created the bill in the first place, again? Oh i'm sorry, is bringing up the sponsor a "strawman"? hahaha.
Ah, so people can do it themselves, if they are smart enough. If they aren't, the only the government gets to decide who they may place their trust in. What could possibly go wrong? (Well, those people who sued the government to use drugs that had passed [only] Stage 1 clinical trials, because they were dying. Suit lost, people died, that shut them the fuck up now, didn't it?)
See, I prefer that people be allowed to trust who they want. The alternative that you stated could be reduced to "people less smart can't ask people more smart to do the things they {the smart ones} know how to do, unless the government says they are smart enough."
Reminds me of back-alley abortionists - we can either let a doctor with a license do this, or we can have Inject-Fix-A-Flat-style parties where people do this on the side. At least this is valid science, but I'd much rather not drive people underground when getting what they want.
How does a dead person sue someone anyway? I'm saying if you're going to die in a few months, yes, let them do whatever the hell they want. Including suicide. The government stepping in and saying "no you can't do what you want to do, and if you're out of options, too fucking bad, you die now" is not protecting anybody from anything. Too bad the people in TFA aren't dying; would make this conversation easier.
>Did the article tell you that, or are you making it up?
Well, I'm assuming if the procedure isn't covered by insurance, and this doctor is the only doctor that is being prosecuted for it, then the people have already tried alternatives for which insurance would pay (and thus have exhausted many alternatives), and that this doctor is the one person to help them (because he is the only one mentioned in the article).
I see I was right to not want to go into antibiotic resistance, as I find your FAA metaphor just as flawed. Nobody's flying anybody into a mountain or endangering 100s of people who don't know the risks. I'm thinking you probably have to give more information than usual about the risks associated with a non-approved procedure. Hell, I can barely get a root canal without having to sign a waver telling me about the risks. We are not in an information vacuum.
My assumption is that if there are really hundreds of people seeking snake oil treatments for joint pains, that perhaps the best way to deflect people into the arms of a legitimate therapy is to hurry the fuck up and approve it, and also to run a system that approves of things globally accepted, instead of a system where we get the latest treatments way after Europe and and Japan and such have them.
My assumption is also that snake oil is still sold with the FDA -- just like murderers still murder with the police, and even with gun control -- but that with so many legitimate treatments out there that weren't out there 20, 50, and 100 years ago, that it's much less of a problem than it ever was.
My assumption is also that legitimate people are being thwarted from legitimate therapies (also reminds me of gun control in that respect) using the boogeyman of snake oil tactics that simply cannot be effective as they were 50 or 100 yeras ago (Wonder if there's any consistently tracked Justice Department statistics about this sort of thing? Too bad that would probably say more about enforcement levels than cirme levels.).
Basically, smart people are kept from doing as they please because of the actions of stupid people. (Also reminds me of the drug war in that respect.)
Metaphorically, there's a difference between a guard rail protecting you from the bad, and a barbed wire fence keeping you from ever committing any danger you might want to. Unfortunately, respect for rule of law means less and less as the law becomes more and more of an authoritarian, bureaucratic asshole.
And again, if it's truly about harm, why aren't people already slated to die imminently allowed to participate in non-approved drugs that have passed stage 1 trials? What are they being protected from -- dying faster? I tend to think the insurance companies want new treatments treated as rare and as late as possible; gives them more times to pedal actual pharmaceutical drugs, or deny making a payout. And in this specific case, no companies cover it. So the people are intelligent enough to be able to afford to pay for this out of pocket. They aren't paupers tricked by someone lying to them in an information vacuum; this isn't 1912.
I mean, I've known about this therapy for a long time. I never knew it involved stem cells, or maybe this is a new version that also cultivates those -- but it sounds exactly like platelet replacement therapy (if i can remember the name), something I've been investigating for my chronic foot pain. Not able to stand up more than 10 minutes, burning sensation when I sit... 24 hours, 5 years now. Because I ran away from mosquitoes on the beach one night. This isn't a witch doctor selling snake oil, this is a doctor with a degree, a license, performing a scientifically accepted treatment. How would disinformation on the internet make that possible again? Maybe a fake diploma mill degree, but how's he going to pay for his medical center if he can't really treat people? How would the lawsuits not show up in public record? How would there not be a bunch of negative Yelp reviews if this doctor was really hurting people? And if what you said was true - then why don't they let people with terminal illnesses who are already dying use drugs that have already passed stage 1 trials? The government appealed and took that right away in 2006 (?). You really think this is about an equation of harm vs harm? That's the excuse. I feel you've been duped. But you also seem to have some of your own anecdotal experience to help clarify your judgment further. However, I feel like you are maybe mis-equating this situation to worse situations you've seen, when in fact all situations are nuanced, and this is not the same as those.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. We have moved to the next paradigm, and the vultures want to make sure that we are not permitted to move forward by imposing their old-world rules that needn't apply in the new-world. While they may have their points, they want to change the paradigm into one where we are surveilled in order to make sure we comply with their best interests. Generally speaking, the right of privacy lets us commit crimes in the privacy of our own homes. So given someone who wants to steal the book either way - what's better for mankind? Having him waste energy resources photocopying a book (something i've done on several occasions) that he drove his gasoline-powered car to obtain, once someone killed a tree to create it? Or having him make a copy? The paradigm shift of moving to the electronic world has its implications, and the response is mostly a one of corporations trying to increase their influence. I mean, all those RIAA lawsuits, that money went to the artists, right?
Hahaha, ok! Still though - fuel and energy is spent. That was my true point, personal-gas-expenditures aside :) Hats off to you tho :)
The original downloaded ebook was paid for.
Electronic library gets a copy of an electronic book (originally paid for by whoever bought it first) and loans it out as many times as it wants, forever.
In both situations, someone who really wants a paid-for copy for themselves can pay for it themselves; someone who really wants to just borrow one can borrow and return/delete it; someone who really just wants to steal one can steal it with great ease (I probably have an unreturned library book somewhere.)
Main difference I'm seeing is that one kills trees and burns gasoline.
(Parody: When the author sells an ebook online, he still has it, even though he sold it! Weird, huh?)
I'm still not seeing a difference here:
Library gets a copy of a physical book (originally paid for by whoever bought it first) and loans it out as many times as it wants, forever.
Electronic library gets a copy of an electronic book (originally paid for by whoever bought it first) and loans it out as many times as it wants, forever.
In both situations, someone who really wants a paid-for copy for themselves can pay for it themselves; someone who really wants to just borrow one can borrow and return/delete it; someone who really just wants to steal one can steal it with great ease (I probably have an unreturned library book somewhere.)
Main difference I'm seeing is that one kills trees and burns gasoline.
I refer you to the original comment I made, which you did not answer. If you can answer that question, then I will proceed to the next step of the discussion. Why can I go to a library and get a book, but not download one? (And actually, where I live, everyone does have a right to a library card, which gives them free access to books. And don't say the taxes pay it, because you don't have to be a taxpaying citizen to get a library card, just a citizen, period.)
Inside the Washington, DC beltway. Why would I know libraries let you borrow ebooks? I've not stepped in one since I found out I could get the same content without leaving my house. Similar to a record store.
Wasn't the original ebook (that was copied) paid for to? I'm assuming someone didn't buy the book and type it all up (oh wait, this would require having bought the real thing, nevermind). How does one get the book without it being bought in the first place? These aren't leaks, are they? Someone had to buy it first, right? Just like at the library?
A great deal of library books are donated, used books.
Do you have a reading comprehension defect? This site is for books. Why can I go to a library and get a book, but not download one? I have to burn gas and kill trees to read for free?
But a UI modification app, whether or not you think it is an app -- if it's something that you download, install, and run -- then it's something that has the potential to send private user data. Just because it's less likely to doesn't mean it shouldn't be examined or counted; that's like saying that Solitaire apps are less likely to use network traffic than Online Chat apps, and thus measuring them messes up the methodology. How about we just measure what is out there?
yeah.. you're wrong.
I actually knew that, and voted 3rd party. What I was proving was that the democrats are so blindly loyal that even when a democrat sponsors a bad bill, they bitch "oh those evil republicans". And I think that point was proven before I entered the discussion, actually. I just had to bring it to the attention of Mr.Republican-Whiner whining about a Democrat bill that can only pass with a Democrat president signing it. I love how the republicans are at fault when a president doesn't use his veto power.
I don't think you know what a strawman argument is. It's inventing something and then attacking that instead of the real thing said. Where did I invent something that isn't happening? If the president signs it then it means he approves it too -- same logic you just used. Now, who sponsored and created the bill in the first place, again? Oh i'm sorry, is bringing up the sponsor a "strawman"? hahaha.
Congratulations: You've proven Republicans exist!
If you think voting Democrat was voting against this, you're wrong.
In real life, you simply couldn't see that the people you were talking to couldn't spell :)
Would be an apt metaphor if me getting a stem cell treatment threatened the lives of people around me, but it doesn't.
See, I prefer that people be allowed to trust who they want. The alternative that you stated could be reduced to "people less smart can't ask people more smart to do the things they {the smart ones} know how to do, unless the government says they are smart enough."
Reminds me of back-alley abortionists - we can either let a doctor with a license do this, or we can have Inject-Fix-A-Flat-style parties where people do this on the side. At least this is valid science, but I'd much rather not drive people underground when getting what they want.
>Did the article tell you that, or are you making it up?
Well, I'm assuming if the procedure isn't covered by insurance, and this doctor is the only doctor that is being prosecuted for it, then the people have already tried alternatives for which insurance would pay (and thus have exhausted many alternatives), and that this doctor is the one person to help them (because he is the only one mentioned in the article).
I see I was right to not want to go into antibiotic resistance, as I find your FAA metaphor just as flawed. Nobody's flying anybody into a mountain or endangering 100s of people who don't know the risks. I'm thinking you probably have to give more information than usual about the risks associated with a non-approved procedure. Hell, I can barely get a root canal without having to sign a waver telling me about the risks. We are not in an information vacuum.
Very cool! I mean, once it's actually used on people ;)
See you at the black market! ;)
My assumption is also that snake oil is still sold with the FDA -- just like murderers still murder with the police, and even with gun control -- but that with so many legitimate treatments out there that weren't out there 20, 50, and 100 years ago, that it's much less of a problem than it ever was.
My assumption is also that legitimate people are being thwarted from legitimate therapies (also reminds me of gun control in that respect) using the boogeyman of snake oil tactics that simply cannot be effective as they were 50 or 100 yeras ago (Wonder if there's any consistently tracked Justice Department statistics about this sort of thing? Too bad that would probably say more about enforcement levels than cirme levels.).
Basically, smart people are kept from doing as they please because of the actions of stupid people. (Also reminds me of the drug war in that respect.)
Metaphorically, there's a difference between a guard rail protecting you from the bad, and a barbed wire fence keeping you from ever committing any danger you might want to. Unfortunately, respect for rule of law means less and less as the law becomes more and more of an authoritarian, bureaucratic asshole.
And again, if it's truly about harm, why aren't people already slated to die imminently allowed to participate in non-approved drugs that have passed stage 1 trials? What are they being protected from -- dying faster? I tend to think the insurance companies want new treatments treated as rare and as late as possible; gives them more times to pedal actual pharmaceutical drugs, or deny making a payout. And in this specific case, no companies cover it. So the people are intelligent enough to be able to afford to pay for this out of pocket. They aren't paupers tricked by someone lying to them in an information vacuum; this isn't 1912.
I made a better comment after that one ;)
I mean, I've known about this therapy for a long time. I never knew it involved stem cells, or maybe this is a new version that also cultivates those -- but it sounds exactly like platelet replacement therapy (if i can remember the name), something I've been investigating for my chronic foot pain. Not able to stand up more than 10 minutes, burning sensation when I sit ... 24 hours, 5 years now. Because I ran away from mosquitoes on the beach one night. This isn't a witch doctor selling snake oil, this is a doctor with a degree, a license, performing a scientifically accepted treatment. How would disinformation on the internet make that possible again? Maybe a fake diploma mill degree, but how's he going to pay for his medical center if he can't really treat people? How would the lawsuits not show up in public record? How would there not be a bunch of negative Yelp reviews if this doctor was really hurting people? And if what you said was true - then why don't they let people with terminal illnesses who are already dying use drugs that have already passed stage 1 trials? The government appealed and took that right away in 2006 (?). You really think this is about an equation of harm vs harm? That's the excuse. I feel you've been duped. But you also seem to have some of your own anecdotal experience to help clarify your judgment further. However, I feel like you are maybe mis-equating this situation to worse situations you've seen, when in fact all situations are nuanced, and this is not the same as those.