If you ask any average Joe what a Gimp was, they'll tell you it's a guy who walks funny.
I bet the average Joe will tell you it was the guy from Pulp Fiction.
That way Apple would have its "office" application - Photoshop etc... Plus some interesting development tools such as Apollo. Owning Adobe means they can launch new apps at the same time or before the windows versions.
HAWKING: Well, they want me to come up with an idea. On the creation of the Universe, I don't have any ideas.
GEORGE: Come on, how hard is that? Look at all the junk science these days. You want an idea? Here's an idea. A higher being, of incomprehensible power created it.
Hawking: Scientists don't like the idea of higher beings.
GEORGE: But it is a being of incomprehensible power.
HAWKING: That is not for everybody.
GEORGE: I know, but it's incomprehensible
HAWKING: That would make me look like such a schmuck.
GEORGE: All right, forget that idea, it's not for you....Okay, okay, I
got it. How about the Universe is created from nothing? Every scientist tries to make it about something, how about making this about nothing?
HAWKING: Yeah and...?
GEORGE: And people say hey it's about nothing, they look at their meaningless lives, and sort of just agree.
There is a drug (recently approved for my condition) that can be taken long term instead of the steroid prednisone (no noticeable side effects), and that drug is Axathropine. Wonder if it is approved for Asthma. Since I started taking it, I no longer have allergy symptoms in the spring. I do not take it for allergies or asthma.
They do not pocket all profits, because R&D at most big drug companies rise with profits. Pfizer R&D in 1996 $1.6 billion. In 2005 R&D hit $9 billion. No R&D no new drugs.
Thanks for the advice! I never thought of that. Ok, I'm off to get my PhD in biochem now.
You can hire some. You are nothing more than a typical anti-pharma blowhard.
Let's do some simple math. 15% of revenue spent on research. So in year one let's say the Drug company earns $1 billion in revenue. Then they create a blockbuster cholesterol drug (which may significantly reduce the costs associated with diseases caused by high cholesterol, but we will save that for another day), which earns $1 billion in revenue. Now the company spends 15% on $2 billion in revenue (they doubled revenue), or double their previous R&D.
I suggest you start your own drug company, and do not apply for patents on the drugs you make. It is called open source drug development.
Prove that is the case then. So far they have introduced new drugs, which is more evidence to the opposite of what you claim. Each of those new drugs needs to go through trials etc... Each of the new drugs was created by different companies, are you saying they conspired together? The only cure for my disease in gene therapy, which has a ways to go.
I for one am super thankful for me-too drugs. I have been through 4 iterations of basically the "same" drug for my condition. The first one caused a lot of awful side effects, and stopped working for me after awhile. The next few variations of the same thing (5-aminosalicyclic acid (5-ASA) were more effective and had no side effects. I was diagnosed with my condition about 14 years ago, and these little innovations have made all the difference.
You are correct about the before, but now there are networked ways to enforce copyright too. Sure eeks will break it, but not the common man. Going to get much harder.
I agree with you, and your post is more clear to the point I was trying to make. I was just trying to say that laws are not necessary to protect works from copying. Companies only need to offer their products so that the marginal benefit exceeds the marginal cost over any "free" version (there is no free lunch and free software, for example, has costs such as support etc...). I belive that this is the exact mechanic that has helped Miscrosoft achieve its wealth to a large degree - they used things like development tools etc...
My point originated from an argument that someone made where they felt MSFT only rich and/or successful becuase of copyright. I disagreed for several reasons. My point in this case is that it is possible to be wildly successful even when you do not have copy protection, and that anyone can implement their own protection schemes through value add, or straight DRM.
In a world with no copyright protection, companies will simply create their own protection schemes. Absent law that states otherwise, companies will not be obligated to share their protection schemes with anyone that won't meet their terms. Of course, people could try and circumvent the protection schemes, and the schemes might prevent market success for their products (though this is not guaranteed). But, it is foolish to think that without copyright everything would be easily copy able by everyone except the technologically savvy.
Without copyright, maybe even Microsoft might come up with a protection scheme that works.
MSFT is selling these buggers for a loss. They even had to lower the price below what they originally planned, becuase Apple priced the iPods more aggressively in their latest round of upgrades.
So the equation might be:
V = value delivered to the rest of the world
P = Loss leader for MSFT
K = If we kill or beat the iPod, then we can profit
Slashdot Mirror
You have to pay, but the service covers most of the basics.
The cable internet monopoly in action.
What will Verizon's version be? Just like the iPhone, but with all of the features locked off.
Even the CIA knows that James Bond cannot be killed by sharks with lasers.
I would like one to use as a web browsing device (using WiFi, and not the cell network). Basically a slick alternative to the Nokia N800.
That would rock, probably coming.
In America you are shielded by missiles.
In Soviet Russia missiles shield you.
If you ask any average Joe what a Gimp was, they'll tell you it's a guy who walks funny.
I bet the average Joe will tell you it was the guy from Pulp Fiction.
That way Apple would have its "office" application - Photoshop etc... Plus some interesting development tools such as Apollo. Owning Adobe means they can launch new apps at the same time or before the windows versions.
GEORGE: Come on, how hard is that? Look at all the junk science these days. You want an idea? Here's an idea. A higher being, of incomprehensible power created it.
Hawking: Scientists don't like the idea of higher beings.
GEORGE: But it is a being of incomprehensible power.
HAWKING: That is not for everybody.
GEORGE: I know, but it's incomprehensible
HAWKING: That would make me look like such a schmuck.
GEORGE: All right, forget that idea, it's not for you....Okay, okay, I got it. How about the Universe is created from nothing? Every scientist tries to make it about something, how about making this about nothing?
HAWKING: Yeah and...?
GEORGE: And people say hey it's about nothing, they look at their meaningless lives, and sort of just agree.
There is a drug (recently approved for my condition) that can be taken long term instead of the steroid prednisone (no noticeable side effects), and that drug is Axathropine. Wonder if it is approved for Asthma. Since I started taking it, I no longer have allergy symptoms in the spring. I do not take it for allergies or asthma.
You can hire some. You are nothing more than a typical anti-pharma blowhard.
Thought some might find this interesting: Proposal For Open Source Drug Development.
Let's do some simple math. 15% of revenue spent on research. So in year one let's say the Drug company earns $1 billion in revenue. Then they create a blockbuster cholesterol drug (which may significantly reduce the costs associated with diseases caused by high cholesterol, but we will save that for another day), which earns $1 billion in revenue. Now the company spends 15% on $2 billion in revenue (they doubled revenue), or double their previous R&D.
I suggest you start your own drug company, and do not apply for patents on the drugs you make. It is called open source drug development.
Then why don't you start your own drug company, and run it according to your standards?
Prove that is the case then. So far they have introduced new drugs, which is more evidence to the opposite of what you claim. Each of those new drugs needs to go through trials etc... Each of the new drugs was created by different companies, are you saying they conspired together? The only cure for my disease in gene therapy, which has a ways to go.
I for one am super thankful for me-too drugs. I have been through 4 iterations of basically the "same" drug for my condition. The first one caused a lot of awful side effects, and stopped working for me after awhile. The next few variations of the same thing (5-aminosalicyclic acid (5-ASA) were more effective and had no side effects. I was diagnosed with my condition about 14 years ago, and these little innovations have made all the difference.
...the gun that shoots around corners.
Agree. The user has control. No government regs required. Keep the government as far away from net regulations as possible.
You are correct about the before, but now there are networked ways to enforce copyright too. Sure eeks will break it, but not the common man. Going to get much harder.
There is already open source software with most Windows capabilities, then why has it not toppled Windows?
My point originated from an argument that someone made where they felt MSFT only rich and/or successful becuase of copyright. I disagreed for several reasons. My point in this case is that it is possible to be wildly successful even when you do not have copy protection, and that anyone can implement their own protection schemes through value add, or straight DRM.
Without copyright, maybe even Microsoft might come up with a protection scheme that works.
Bingo, you are right. YouTube can sell ads. If the ad revenue exceeds costs to run the site, then they profit.
So the equation might be: V = value delivered to the rest of the world
P = Loss leader for MSFT
K = If we kill or beat the iPod, then we can profit