Your argument is assuming that drug companies waste time and money researching drugs for "very rare conditions". They do not. In fact most of the drugs that are useful in "very rare conditions" were actually intended for something else and accidentally found to help said condition.
Not only that but it is possible for two comepltely unrelated people in different parts of the world to have exactly the same idea. In fact it's quite common. Ever wonder why so many theories and discoveries in science end up getting their name changed, or getting another name tacked on? Why is Nylon called Nylon?
In fact you have to be pretty egotistical to believe that you have had an idea that absolutely no one has ever come up with. But there is a great deal of difference between simply having an idea, and being the person to invest in it, go with it, explore it, research it, market it and bring your idea to market or apply it in a practical sense. It is the latter that is rewarded with money, not the former. "I had an idea, pay me" is a stupid business model. "I had an idea and invested millions in it and successfully gave the world "x" based on said idea", now that's something different.
you have to remember that each copy still has some kind of value.
No it doesn't. That's the exact problem. Content creators believe that the content itself has value - it does not. Value comes in convincing some idiot to pay for it, not from the thing itself. Therefore if I make a movie and I can convince cinemas and later cable companies to fork over money for broadcasting that movie, then the value comes from having made those arrangements. If the movie sucks and no one wants to play/air it, it doesn't matter if the movie cost $400M to make, it has no value. No one wants it.
Now explain to me what a movie studio loses from me watching "The Matrix" on my computer after having downloaded it, compared to watching "The Matrix" a day earlier on cable after it has played for the millionth time? And tell me, how many distributors refuse to distribute content because a torrent is available? Does that even enter into contract negotiations at all? "Yeah normally we'd be willing to pay you $2M for the distribution rights but I saw a torrent on the internet so we're only going to offer you $10k". Doesn't happen. The only possible case where a studio would lose it is if people managed to download said content before it was released, and not bother paying for it in a traditional way once it is released. The rest is just bullshit and a shameless money grab.
had a better claim to intellectual property protection because of the enormous investment it takes to create a successful drug.
Yeah, too bad Bayer doesn't make any money at all on acetyl salicylic acid because it hasn't been patent protected for many, many years. What the hell is this argument for drug companies? It becomes hardER to earn a profit once the patent expires, but it's certainly not impossible to do so. You would think that monopoly is the only way to make money, according to them. No, monopoly gets you the $50 pill and the $500 vaccine.
Er, in the bacterial colony each individual bacterium can fend for itself, absorbing and metabolizing the nutrients around it. Some of them can move, to a certain extent. And they can build and maintain their own cell walls and other structures (biofilm, pili, etc). People on welfare expect - no - demand to have the work done for them.
That is absolute rubbish. I know that's how we're told things work. How they actually work is that you will be repeatedly spammed on some "keyword" you used once. Is there any fucking reason I am still, 6 months after my trips, getting constant ads from Budget car rental and Miami holidays? The trip is over. I'm probably never going back. But somehow the advertisers seem to think that trips to Miami and Budget car rental are a fetish of mine. I know I could use adblock or something but it's not like I click on the ads anyway. So I figure any extra bandwidth I cost them for no return is all good.
When people get numbers in front of them, numbers seem to this way hypnotizing them. No one ever asks, "What do these nuumbers means? Are they relevant? Do they even mean anything?"
And they are told that if they sign the cheque it will make the bad numbers go away, and the good numbers come back. The world is full of people who don't care what the numbers are supposed to mean, all they care about is that the numbers on the clock say 5pm, or the numbers on the calendar say "week-end", and the numbers in their bank accounts lull them into a false sense of security.
They're using the ink-jet business model by overcharging for the "cartridges". Except they are charging an arm and a leg for the printer too. So for $1300 you can buy the printer and a cartridge, and additional cartridges are $50 each. For that $50, you can print (according to their website) between 10 and 14 creations. That means each creation costs between $3.50 and $5.00 each without starting to think about paying for the machine itself and other costs (software, design, licenses, electricity, etc). Funny to think it's still cheaper to make something in China and have it shipped to the other side of the planet.
When they are serious about this being more than just a toy, they'll drop the price on the cartridges to what it's really worth - like maybe $5.
No I think the point is that I won't install the new OS. But you speak about voluntarily. What choice of OS do you have when you buy a new laptop? Tell the vendor you want Windows XP on it and see how far that gets you.
Considering from the moderators here that "troll" means "any post I don't agree with", you need to understand why this is such a bad idea. What is a troll, exactly? Concrete, objective definition please.
Except, given a product with a guaranteed standard strength and some education, it's likely they wouldn't ever overdose, which is the point I am trying to make. When have you heard of terminal cancer patients accidentally overdosing on their morphine? Some do it on purpose, choosing suicide instead of the long drawn out death process that awaits them. But that is not by accident. The more opioids you take, the more tolerant you become, and the higher the dose you need to achieve the desired effect but also the more dose you can tolerate. Addicts regularly take doses that would kill you and me very quickly, without their suffering any of the dangerous cardiovascular depressive effects. There is no limit to the amount of opioids a person can tolerate, over time. The limit is the amount of money they can afford to spend daily on their habit.
As a doctor I happen to know quite a bit about these drugs. It's unfortunate that they have been demonized so much, because you will not ever find a better painkiller, a better cough suppressant, and a better anti-diarrheal medication, all rolled into one. People used to take opium derivatives all the time 100 years ago with little if any professional oversight, and society failed to collapse. But today mention opium and suddenly people are afraid of the boogey-man.
It's actually very hard to "wipe yourself out" with opioids. The problem comes when an addict either receives a stronger dose than usual because there is no regulation on how drugs are "cut", or an addict that has stopped using for a while, loses his tolerance, and starts using again at his old dose. However there is no upper limit to the amount of opioids a body can take over time. The curve simply shifts to the right.
Confirming there are no penniless heroin addicts today. Oh wait you think that legalising drugs means that everyone will start consuming drugs, just like everyone smokes and everyone drinks alcohol, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument is assuming that drug companies waste time and money researching drugs for "very rare conditions". They do not. In fact most of the drugs that are useful in "very rare conditions" were actually intended for something else and accidentally found to help said condition.
If you "cloned one" then where is the other one, and how did the original owner even know that you "stole" it?
Not only that but it is possible for two comepltely unrelated people in different parts of the world to have exactly the same idea. In fact it's quite common. Ever wonder why so many theories and discoveries in science end up getting their name changed, or getting another name tacked on? Why is Nylon called Nylon?
In fact you have to be pretty egotistical to believe that you have had an idea that absolutely no one has ever come up with. But there is a great deal of difference between simply having an idea, and being the person to invest in it, go with it, explore it, research it, market it and bring your idea to market or apply it in a practical sense. It is the latter that is rewarded with money, not the former. "I had an idea, pay me" is a stupid business model. "I had an idea and invested millions in it and successfully gave the world "x" based on said idea", now that's something different.
you have to remember that each copy still has some kind of value.
No it doesn't. That's the exact problem. Content creators believe that the content itself has value - it does not. Value comes in convincing some idiot to pay for it, not from the thing itself. Therefore if I make a movie and I can convince cinemas and later cable companies to fork over money for broadcasting that movie, then the value comes from having made those arrangements. If the movie sucks and no one wants to play/air it, it doesn't matter if the movie cost $400M to make, it has no value. No one wants it.
Now explain to me what a movie studio loses from me watching "The Matrix" on my computer after having downloaded it, compared to watching "The Matrix" a day earlier on cable after it has played for the millionth time? And tell me, how many distributors refuse to distribute content because a torrent is available? Does that even enter into contract negotiations at all? "Yeah normally we'd be willing to pay you $2M for the distribution rights but I saw a torrent on the internet so we're only going to offer you $10k". Doesn't happen. The only possible case where a studio would lose it is if people managed to download said content before it was released, and not bother paying for it in a traditional way once it is released. The rest is just bullshit and a shameless money grab.
had a better claim to intellectual property protection because of the enormous investment it takes to create a successful drug.
Yeah, too bad Bayer doesn't make any money at all on acetyl salicylic acid because it hasn't been patent protected for many, many years. What the hell is this argument for drug companies? It becomes hardER to earn a profit once the patent expires, but it's certainly not impossible to do so. You would think that monopoly is the only way to make money, according to them. No, monopoly gets you the $50 pill and the $500 vaccine.
Down-modded by the overly sensitive politically correct mod, because apparently brown people are not dark at all.
I think you have failed to notice that the BBC and NYT don't publish those kinds of article anymore.
That way managers don't have to decide
Except, isn't that what managers are paid to do? It's like the judge who says "I have no choice". Why bother even having a judge in that case.
Er, in the bacterial colony each individual bacterium can fend for itself, absorbing and metabolizing the nutrients around it. Some of them can move, to a certain extent. And they can build and maintain their own cell walls and other structures (biofilm, pili, etc). People on welfare expect - no - demand to have the work done for them.
"that the world is moving into tablets" actually means "we want to move the world into tablets".
I fully agree. Yet I can't.....stop......playing-
Care to list them? I can think of exactly ... two.
EVE Online and what else?
That is absolute rubbish. I know that's how we're told things work. How they actually work is that you will be repeatedly spammed on some "keyword" you used once. Is there any fucking reason I am still, 6 months after my trips, getting constant ads from Budget car rental and Miami holidays? The trip is over. I'm probably never going back. But somehow the advertisers seem to think that trips to Miami and Budget car rental are a fetish of mine. I know I could use adblock or something but it's not like I click on the ads anyway. So I figure any extra bandwidth I cost them for no return is all good.
When people get numbers in front of them, numbers seem to this way hypnotizing them. No one ever asks, "What do these nuumbers means? Are they relevant? Do they even mean anything?"
And they are told that if they sign the cheque it will make the bad numbers go away, and the good numbers come back. The world is full of people who don't care what the numbers are supposed to mean, all they care about is that the numbers on the clock say 5pm, or the numbers on the calendar say "week-end", and the numbers in their bank accounts lull them into a false sense of security.
They're using the ink-jet business model by overcharging for the "cartridges". Except they are charging an arm and a leg for the printer too. So for $1300 you can buy the printer and a cartridge, and additional cartridges are $50 each. For that $50, you can print (according to their website) between 10 and 14 creations. That means each creation costs between $3.50 and $5.00 each without starting to think about paying for the machine itself and other costs (software, design, licenses, electricity, etc). Funny to think it's still cheaper to make something in China and have it shipped to the other side of the planet.
When they are serious about this being more than just a toy, they'll drop the price on the cartridges to what it's really worth - like maybe $5.
No I think the point is that I won't install the new OS. But you speak about voluntarily. What choice of OS do you have when you buy a new laptop? Tell the vendor you want Windows XP on it and see how far that gets you.
When we get rid of the command line AND the start button? Ahh I see where this is going. NO, it's MY computer. Piss off, monopolistic OS vendor.
Considering from the moderators here that "troll" means "any post I don't agree with", you need to understand why this is such a bad idea. What is a troll, exactly? Concrete, objective definition please.
Could an experiment called MintChip brewing in Canada finally take us to cashless nirvana?
Governments WANT transactions to be traceable.
Yes your post is consistent with the fact that the first stealth aircraft was - a bomber.
And isn't that the real purpose of owning a van?
Oh? I thought this was...
I think you needed to read the next sentence, where I said "Some do it on purpose... but that is not by accident".
Except, given a product with a guaranteed standard strength and some education, it's likely they wouldn't ever overdose, which is the point I am trying to make. When have you heard of terminal cancer patients accidentally overdosing on their morphine? Some do it on purpose, choosing suicide instead of the long drawn out death process that awaits them. But that is not by accident. The more opioids you take, the more tolerant you become, and the higher the dose you need to achieve the desired effect but also the more dose you can tolerate. Addicts regularly take doses that would kill you and me very quickly, without their suffering any of the dangerous cardiovascular depressive effects. There is no limit to the amount of opioids a person can tolerate, over time. The limit is the amount of money they can afford to spend daily on their habit.
As a doctor I happen to know quite a bit about these drugs. It's unfortunate that they have been demonized so much, because you will not ever find a better painkiller, a better cough suppressant, and a better anti-diarrheal medication, all rolled into one. People used to take opium derivatives all the time 100 years ago with little if any professional oversight, and society failed to collapse. But today mention opium and suddenly people are afraid of the boogey-man.
It's actually very hard to "wipe yourself out" with opioids. The problem comes when an addict either receives a stronger dose than usual because there is no regulation on how drugs are "cut", or an addict that has stopped using for a while, loses his tolerance, and starts using again at his old dose. However there is no upper limit to the amount of opioids a body can take over time. The curve simply shifts to the right.
Confirming there are no penniless heroin addicts today. Oh wait you think that legalising drugs means that everyone will start consuming drugs, just like everyone smokes and everyone drinks alcohol, right?