I'm willing to fund the FDA as an advisory agency, but not a regulatory one.
Hmm, how can I put this to a Libertarian... "I'm willing to sell anyone guns, but completely outlaw bullets".
I understand your frustration with overly expensive prescriptions, but of course you are NOT using unregulated drugs, you are buying cheaper generic versions of drugs from other countries because we are ALLOWING the drug companies to sell the SAME SHIT in the US for MUCH HIGHER cost.
What you are being fucked over by is the lack of single payer buying power of a universal healthcare system, not FDA regulations. You are effectively taking advantage of Canadian and European universal healthcare drug negotiation policies by buying "grey market".
How can the individual make up their mind when they are being sold fake (or even worse, adulterated) prescription drugs (as happens all the time in countries that don't regulate them carefully)? Unless everyone has their own home gas chromatograph that's just not going to work... nice troll, but no thanks.
Do you know WHY Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan, etc all have drugs at 1/10th (or less) of the cost of the US? Because they are single-payer. In a monopsony the buyer has a lot of control on the price, as opposed to the US where the drug monopolies have free reign.
There may be some merit to that argument for places like Mexico where quality controls are quite poor
This is in fact a government granted monopoly.
HAH! This is one of my favorite hypocrisies of the Libertarian. So, do you want the government to ensure your drugs are safe, or do you want to let anyone make and sell any drugs as cheaply as possible?
Because the only "government monopoly" in this case specifically or in many others generally is that other companies feel that it costs to much to test their drug to make sure it's safe. Is the system maybe a bit too careful? Probably. But when it's a life saving drug (that can be dangerous, as you said, without proper quality controls) it's hard to justify cutting corners to safe money.
You cannot have both a free market AND a monopoly in most cases.
This is even more amazing! If that were true, anti-trust laws wouldn't be necessary. Wow. There are SO many examples that disprove this I wouldn't even know where to start. Thank you, it's been a long day so it was nice to have a good laugh...
Except this vehicle goes fast in a straight line, handles pretty well (not supercar well, but for 4 door? Definitely.) is ALL electric, seats 7, and is pretty close to being able to drive itself. And your numbers are off by 10x, it was $450M, not $4.9B. Due 2022, paid off in full in 2013.
I think they have earned the right to bleat on a bit.
I disagree about the "openness being a disadvantage." Seriously, name one thing that the carriers/OEMs do, in terms of software, that adds any significant value. I throw down the gauntlet.
The source cheaper hardware that require different (software) drivers. It adds significant value because they make their products more affordable to people who can't pay $700 for a smart phone. This is why Android is 80% of the smart phone market, and also why it's horribly fragmented. The openness is obviously both an advantage and disadvantage - cheaper phones, more market share, but a nightmare for cutting edge app developers to deal with.
That's great in theory, but in practice it's horribly restrictive to app developers that want some basic level of consistency among devices. It has nothing to do with "bling" and everything to do with support for all of the apps you use.
More than 10% of our Android app users are still on API 17 or earlier (*4* year old OS). We want to drop support for those devices but 10% is non trivial.
On the other hand, we stopped supporting iOS 6 (also released 4 years ago) so long ago I can't remember, and have required iOS 8 (released 2 years ago) since early this year with no complaints. We are planning on requiring iOS 9 in the next release (otherwise known as THE LATEST until 10 is released this fall) since Apple did not drop support for any devices with the new version.
The article is right that money talks, but to think they'd give any to an OEM. Ha.
Yep, that basically summarizes the whole problem. Money is the solution, Google doesn't want to share, and so OEMs have no incentive to keep their devices up to date.
And why should they? It's the same problem with all "smart" devices - phones, TVs, set top boxes, etc. Any development effort spent on updating last year's devices is expense with no reward. If Google wants to keep Android devices on the latest version the hardware supports they need to create an incentive for OEMs to spend money to do so.
The obvious solution is some sort of revenue sharing on Google Play and Ads. Until they suck it up and share some of the $$$ they are making, Android will always be horribly fragmented.
That way the OEM is only responsible for a microkernel.
Any embedded developers out there with more info?
Yeah... that's not how microkernels work. In a microkernel the device drivers run outside of the kernel - the kernel just implements the minimal core hardware access/virtualization and OS features. The microkernel for an ARM-based platform would probably be highly portable to many different SoCs, but the drivers outside of the microkernel would be specific to the various peripheral features of the SoC & other hardware on each device.
I would have given you that if it was an isolated incident. But... Taepodong? For a missile? Kim Jong-un knows Western culture, I think he's punking us.
This thread is about Apple's interest in OSX. Being completely cynical about megacorporations in this case just reinforces my point: if money is what matters, OSX (recently renamed macOS to align their other products, iOS and tvOS) is still *highly* relevant.
Wait, what? Apple is on target to make well over $20B in revenue on Macs this year. The upcoming release (Sierra) has Siri and Apple Pay integrated (and a preview release of a new filesystem to replace HFS+ on SSDs, APFS). How the hell is that not showing interest?
And here's a really fun stat: while Apple has between 7-9% share on laptops UNITS, they have ALMOST 50% SHARE ON LAPTOP REVENUE. Market share by units is much less interesting than revenue. High margins have always been Apple's bread and butter, they obviously don't need a majority of mobile or laptop unit sales to be a $600B company.
Except it's the US that did all of the investigation and built up all of the evidence - and will bear all of the expense of a trial. Ireland probably doesn't want to bother prosecuting this one guy themselves, especially since he's not the only defendant. For whatever reason the US just loves to spend shit tons of money acting as the world's police force...
I just asked my marine-biolog-trained wife and yes, scientists call oxygen exchange via gills "breathing". You could also somewhat more generically say "respiring" but the first definition of respiring in most dictionaries is "breathing". So in both common and everyday scientific use they are interchanegable.
Summary: please go take your pointless pedantism somewhere else, we're all full up here.
As Joe Rogan once said on News Radio: "this is the Internet. You can't take the pee out of the pool."
The record labels lost the DRM war over 6 years ago, when Apple abandoned all DRM for iTunes music. Apple still has almost 65% of the purchase & download music market, so they basically get to dictate the terms to the studios.
In fact, that's why the movie studios have been so unwavering in their demands for DRM on video content (as well as the fairly absurd pricing model). They are doing everything they can to prevent the same thing happening to them that happened to the music industry...
"it is just diffing the two scenes to try to determine a 3D world view"
Are you implying that it uses stereo cameras? Because that's not how it works at all. It only has 1 camera, 1 radar sensor, and a bunch of ultrasound sensors.
Basically, nothing in your post makes any sense since you are assuming a completely different technology from what it actually uses...
My point is the current administration has one of the most cordial relationships with the journalistic media (I'm talking real media, not Fox News) in decades - probably because it's been the most scandal-free administrations in decades.
The next administration is guaranteed to be less cordial since it's either going to be a dynastic Washington insider with trust issues or a raving sociopath who has already "banned" several mainstream publications and stated on record he wants to weaken the 1st Amendment. In either case, it's going to be bad for journalism, and bad for government transparency.
Neither of your comments really changed or added to anything I said, especially since you just cut 2 phrases out that reversed my point - did you catch the "hopefully unsuccessfully"??
And technically you can argue ANYTHING, so facts have nothing to do with it. Though it's pretty much a fact that he violated the laws and his confidential clearance. Personally, I think the US and world is *better* for it and he should not be prosecuted (at least until all of those acts uncovered by his actions are first), but it is still grounds for a reasonable debate.
The treason crap, on the other hand, is so ridiculous it should not be open for debate, which was the actual POINT of my post.
The fact that terrorists might have been helped in some way by the releases (which there is no actual proof for) doesn't mean that Stone/Citizenfour are somehow materially supporting them.
Right, that's an insanely irresponsible argument that if an action you take later "supports or benefits terrorists" then it can be considered terrorism in itself. I mean, jeez, if that were the case Twitter and Facebook would be considered the most dangerous terrorist organizations on the planet.
I think you could at least argue treason (hopefully unsuccessfully since if anything he uncovered a lot more violations of the Constitution than his own actions). Certainly what he did violated Federal laws.
But claiming it's terrorism is absurd. The most common definition: "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes." He neither made any threats, used any violence, nor benefited politically from it. In fact, even if he had threatened to release documents before ehe did, that would still isn't terrorism since there is no element of fear/terror (except maybe to those in the US government fearing their illegal actions would be revealed...)
Again, I'm sorry, but I just don't follow the logic here. It's not my problem if a thief charges fraudulent charges on my card. It's the issuer's problem. So why is it acting in their interest and against mine that they decided not to add a PIN for my convenience's sake?
Have you ever had your CC stolen? I assume not. If you have, you'd understand that while you may not be out any literal money in the end, you could potentially be out countless hours of dealing with customer care or
Have you even been out of the US in the last 5 years? Again, I assume not. If you had, you'd have seen in all of Europe they have managed to adapt to chip+pin just fine. Yes, it's a bit more expense for cafes to bring you a mobile reader to enter your pin, but honestly I used my CC 20+ times last time I was in Europe and not ONCE did it take longer than the last few times I used the damn US chip+signature in the US. The industry fucked it up so badly that their fears of adding friction with chip+pin were moot.
Meanwhile, the same issuers have debit cards with a PIN. It's annoying as shit, but because the customer is on the hook for fraudulent charges, they insist on a PIN anyway. So, I don't follow how you end up with your viewpoint on this.
This is mostly untrue in theory, and almost totally untrue in practice. The Electronic Fund Transfer Act equated liability for Debit cards to the same as credit cards - max $50 if you report it within 2 days of discovering the fraud. And, like CC case, most banks waive that since it's not worth losing a potential long term customer over $50.
Sounds exactly backwards. It's in my interest to have no PIN, because it will annoy the shit out of me. It's in their interest to have a PIN, because they are on the hook for charges of stolen cards.
Yeah, you clearly have never had you CC stolen. You just don't get it - plus, you are probably a responsible CC user and pay your balance every month. But many people aren't - and the big worry was the friction would cause people not to use CC's, and that would be larger than the loss from fraud. They don't care about your inconvenience, just your potential revenue.
Summary is, you really don't know the laws and practice of CC and Debit cards in the US. Making inaccurate comments on/. notwithstanding, you may want to actually learn the real laws since I assume you are a user of these services...
If you remember what happened in 2008, you would understand that the banks take no risks.
Really? Well, these 400+ banks would disagree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–present) The biggest few that were savable did get bailed out, but MANY smaller ones (or a couple of the big ones like Lehman that were so fucked there was no hope) failed.
But anyway, this whole discussion was about CREDIT CARDS, not shady subprime mortgages. I don't think there are many people (other than bankers) who are particularly happy with the shitshow that is the US banking system, but in the specific context of credit cards it's moronic to suggest the banks WANT people to commit credit card theft.
Anyway, I stand corrected! Pretty amazing that they just don't care. I guess the loss is small enough to them (no matter the inconvenience to some customers) that it's not worth fixing. In the end, credit cards are one of the purest forms of making profit off of convenience and nothing else...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm willing to fund the FDA as an advisory agency, but not a regulatory one.
Hmm, how can I put this to a Libertarian... "I'm willing to sell anyone guns, but completely outlaw bullets".
I understand your frustration with overly expensive prescriptions, but of course you are NOT using unregulated drugs, you are buying cheaper generic versions of drugs from other countries because we are ALLOWING the drug companies to sell the SAME SHIT in the US for MUCH HIGHER cost.
What you are being fucked over by is the lack of single payer buying power of a universal healthcare system, not FDA regulations. You are effectively taking advantage of Canadian and European universal healthcare drug negotiation policies by buying "grey market".
How can the individual make up their mind when they are being sold fake (or even worse, adulterated) prescription drugs (as happens all the time in countries that don't regulate them carefully)? Unless everyone has their own home gas chromatograph that's just not going to work... nice troll, but no thanks.
Do you know WHY Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan, etc all have drugs at 1/10th (or less) of the cost of the US? Because they are single-payer. In a monopsony the buyer has a lot of control on the price, as opposed to the US where the drug monopolies have free reign.
There may be some merit to that argument for places like Mexico where quality controls are quite poor
This is in fact a government granted monopoly.
HAH! This is one of my favorite hypocrisies of the Libertarian. So, do you want the government to ensure your drugs are safe, or do you want to let anyone make and sell any drugs as cheaply as possible?
Because the only "government monopoly" in this case specifically or in many others generally is that other companies feel that it costs to much to test their drug to make sure it's safe. Is the system maybe a bit too careful? Probably. But when it's a life saving drug (that can be dangerous, as you said, without proper quality controls) it's hard to justify cutting corners to safe money.
You cannot have both a free market AND a monopoly in most cases.
This is even more amazing! If that were true, anti-trust laws wouldn't be necessary. Wow. There are SO many examples that disprove this I wouldn't even know where to start. Thank you, it's been a long day so it was nice to have a good laugh...
Not sure about that, but it's definitely a dong.
The S has a 3rd row seat option that seats 7. That's been true for over 3 years.
Except this vehicle goes fast in a straight line, handles pretty well (not supercar well, but for 4 door? Definitely.) is ALL electric, seats 7, and is pretty close to being able to drive itself. And your numbers are off by 10x, it was $450M, not $4.9B. Due 2022, paid off in full in 2013.
I think they have earned the right to bleat on a bit.
I disagree about the "openness being a disadvantage." Seriously, name one thing that the carriers/OEMs do, in terms of software, that adds any significant value. I throw down the gauntlet.
The source cheaper hardware that require different (software) drivers. It adds significant value because they make their products more affordable to people who can't pay $700 for a smart phone. This is why Android is 80% of the smart phone market, and also why it's horribly fragmented. The openness is obviously both an advantage and disadvantage - cheaper phones, more market share, but a nightmare for cutting edge app developers to deal with.
That's great in theory, but in practice it's horribly restrictive to app developers that want some basic level of consistency among devices. It has nothing to do with "bling" and everything to do with support for all of the apps you use.
More than 10% of our Android app users are still on API 17 or earlier (*4* year old OS). We want to drop support for those devices but 10% is non trivial.
On the other hand, we stopped supporting iOS 6 (also released 4 years ago) so long ago I can't remember, and have required iOS 8 (released 2 years ago) since early this year with no complaints. We are planning on requiring iOS 9 in the next release (otherwise known as THE LATEST until 10 is released this fall) since Apple did not drop support for any devices with the new version.
The article is right that money talks, but to think they'd give any to an OEM. Ha.
Yep, that basically summarizes the whole problem. Money is the solution, Google doesn't want to share, and so OEMs have no incentive to keep their devices up to date.
And why should they? It's the same problem with all "smart" devices - phones, TVs, set top boxes, etc. Any development effort spent on updating last year's devices is expense with no reward. If Google wants to keep Android devices on the latest version the hardware supports they need to create an incentive for OEMs to spend money to do so.
The obvious solution is some sort of revenue sharing on Google Play and Ads. Until they suck it up and share some of the $$$ they are making, Android will always be horribly fragmented.
That way the OEM is only responsible for a microkernel.
Any embedded developers out there with more info?
Yeah... that's not how microkernels work. In a microkernel the device drivers run outside of the kernel - the kernel just implements the minimal core hardware access/virtualization and OS features. The microkernel for an ARM-based platform would probably be highly portable to many different SoCs, but the drivers outside of the microkernel would be specific to the various peripheral features of the SoC & other hardware on each device.
I would have given you that if it was an isolated incident. But... Taepodong? For a missile? Kim Jong-un knows Western culture, I think he's punking us.
Manbang and chill, dude.
Which is completely irrelevant to the customers.
This thread is about Apple's interest in OSX. Being completely cynical about megacorporations in this case just reinforces my point: if money is what matters, OSX (recently renamed macOS to align their other products, iOS and tvOS) is still *highly* relevant.
Apple isn't showing any interest in OSX anymore.
Wait, what? Apple is on target to make well over $20B in revenue on Macs this year. The upcoming release (Sierra) has Siri and Apple Pay integrated (and a preview release of a new filesystem to replace HFS+ on SSDs, APFS). How the hell is that not showing interest?
And here's a really fun stat: while Apple has between 7-9% share on laptops UNITS, they have ALMOST 50% SHARE ON LAPTOP REVENUE. Market share by units is much less interesting than revenue. High margins have always been Apple's bread and butter, they obviously don't need a majority of mobile or laptop unit sales to be a $600B company.
Except it's the US that did all of the investigation and built up all of the evidence - and will bear all of the expense of a trial. Ireland probably doesn't want to bother prosecuting this one guy themselves, especially since he's not the only defendant. For whatever reason the US just loves to spend shit tons of money acting as the world's police force...
I just asked my marine-biolog-trained wife and yes, scientists call oxygen exchange via gills "breathing". You could also somewhat more generically say "respiring" but the first definition of respiring in most dictionaries is "breathing". So in both common and everyday scientific use they are interchanegable.
Summary: please go take your pointless pedantism somewhere else, we're all full up here.
As Joe Rogan once said on News Radio: "this is the Internet. You can't take the pee out of the pool."
The record labels lost the DRM war over 6 years ago, when Apple abandoned all DRM for iTunes music. Apple still has almost 65% of the purchase & download music market, so they basically get to dictate the terms to the studios.
In fact, that's why the movie studios have been so unwavering in their demands for DRM on video content (as well as the fairly absurd pricing model). They are doing everything they can to prevent the same thing happening to them that happened to the music industry...
"it is just diffing the two scenes to try to determine a 3D world view"
Are you implying that it uses stereo cameras? Because that's not how it works at all. It only has 1 camera, 1 radar sensor, and a bunch of ultrasound sensors.
Basically, nothing in your post makes any sense since you are assuming a completely different technology from what it actually uses...
No need to be an asshole.
My point is the current administration has one of the most cordial relationships with the journalistic media (I'm talking real media, not Fox News) in decades - probably because it's been the most scandal-free administrations in decades.
The next administration is guaranteed to be less cordial since it's either going to be a dynastic Washington insider with trust issues or a raving sociopath who has already "banned" several mainstream publications and stated on record he wants to weaken the 1st Amendment. In either case, it's going to be bad for journalism, and bad for government transparency.
Neither of your comments really changed or added to anything I said, especially since you just cut 2 phrases out that reversed my point - did you catch the "hopefully unsuccessfully"??
And technically you can argue ANYTHING, so facts have nothing to do with it. Though it's pretty much a fact that he violated the laws and his confidential clearance. Personally, I think the US and world is *better* for it and he should not be prosecuted (at least until all of those acts uncovered by his actions are first), but it is still grounds for a reasonable debate.
The treason crap, on the other hand, is so ridiculous it should not be open for debate, which was the actual POINT of my post.
The fact that terrorists might have been helped in some way by the releases (which there is no actual proof for) doesn't mean that Stone/Citizenfour are somehow materially supporting them.
Right, that's an insanely irresponsible argument that if an action you take later "supports or benefits terrorists" then it can be considered terrorism in itself. I mean, jeez, if that were the case Twitter and Facebook would be considered the most dangerous terrorist organizations on the planet.
He didn't "willfully" aid any enemy, unless of course the US regards journalists as enemies.
Not yet, but depending on the outcome of the next election it could...
I think you could at least argue treason (hopefully unsuccessfully since if anything he uncovered a lot more violations of the Constitution than his own actions). Certainly what he did violated Federal laws.
But claiming it's terrorism is absurd. The most common definition: "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes." He neither made any threats, used any violence, nor benefited politically from it. In fact, even if he had threatened to release documents before ehe did, that would still isn't terrorism since there is no element of fear/terror (except maybe to those in the US government fearing their illegal actions would be revealed...)
Again, I'm sorry, but I just don't follow the logic here. It's not my problem if a thief charges fraudulent charges on my card. It's the issuer's problem. So why is it acting in their interest and against mine that they decided not to add a PIN for my convenience's sake?
Have you ever had your CC stolen? I assume not. If you have, you'd understand that while you may not be out any literal money in the end, you could potentially be out countless hours of dealing with customer care or
Have you even been out of the US in the last 5 years? Again, I assume not. If you had, you'd have seen in all of Europe they have managed to adapt to chip+pin just fine. Yes, it's a bit more expense for cafes to bring you a mobile reader to enter your pin, but honestly I used my CC 20+ times last time I was in Europe and not ONCE did it take longer than the last few times I used the damn US chip+signature in the US. The industry fucked it up so badly that their fears of adding friction with chip+pin were moot.
Meanwhile, the same issuers have debit cards with a PIN. It's annoying as shit, but because the customer is on the hook for fraudulent charges, they insist on a PIN anyway. So, I don't follow how you end up with your viewpoint on this.
This is mostly untrue in theory, and almost totally untrue in practice. The Electronic Fund Transfer Act equated liability for Debit cards to the same as credit cards - max $50 if you report it within 2 days of discovering the fraud. And, like CC case, most banks waive that since it's not worth losing a potential long term customer over $50.
Sounds exactly backwards. It's in my interest to have no PIN, because it will annoy the shit out of me. It's in their interest to have a PIN, because they are on the hook for charges of stolen cards.
Yeah, you clearly have never had you CC stolen. You just don't get it - plus, you are probably a responsible CC user and pay your balance every month. But many people aren't - and the big worry was the friction would cause people not to use CC's, and that would be larger than the loss from fraud. They don't care about your inconvenience, just your potential revenue.
Summary is, you really don't know the laws and practice of CC and Debit cards in the US. Making inaccurate comments on /. notwithstanding, you may want to actually learn the real laws since I assume you are a user of these services...
If you remember what happened in 2008, you would understand that the banks take no risks.
Really? Well, these 400+ banks would disagree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...–present)
The biggest few that were savable did get bailed out, but MANY smaller ones (or a couple of the big ones like Lehman that were so fucked there was no hope) failed.
But anyway, this whole discussion was about CREDIT CARDS, not shady subprime mortgages. I don't think there are many people (other than bankers) who are particularly happy with the shitshow that is the US banking system, but in the specific context of credit cards it's moronic to suggest the banks WANT people to commit credit card theft.
As the only non-AC replying, I'll reply to you...
Anyway, I stand corrected! Pretty amazing that they just don't care. I guess the loss is small enough to them (no matter the inconvenience to some customers) that it's not worth fixing. In the end, credit cards are one of the purest forms of making profit off of convenience and nothing else...