IIRC uncompressed video requires at least 80GB/hour. So a two hour movie would require over 160 GB if you want to completely avoid compression artifacts. There are also lossless video compression algorithms like HuffyYUV (anyone have a link?) which allows for around 2:1 compression without any loss in quality. So that 160 GB movie would only be 80 GB. Also don't forget that storing the audio in uncompressed PCM or a losslessly compressed format like FLAC would also add to the storage requirements.
I am not sure if higher resolution film transfers would increase the storage requiremtents even further. I assume it would. So this tech may only be somewhat overkill.
Saying that "C is not inherently insecure" is like saying a sharp knife without a hilt isn't dangerous to the user.
A sharp knife with a hilt is also very dangerous. And the sharper it is the more dangerous it is. However I'll take the sharp knife over the dull (and safer) knife every time because my goal in even having the knife is to cut things as cleanly and efficiently as possible and that is precisely what the sharper, "unsafe" knife is good for. I don't need someone to protect me from myself. Any motor vehicle that travels in excess of 30 mph could also be (justifiably) called unsafe, but that does not mean they are not useful. And the faster they go the more useful they tend to be.
Any other reason than performance is not good enough.
So then I take it you would recommend C (perhaps with inline assembly?) for anyone who cares about performance? That should be all of us now that CPU tech has slowed nearly to a halt.
To write fast code in assembler you would need to have detailed knowledge of the register set and pipelining of the specific processor you are using.
So since such detailed knowledge is virtually impossible when your end users are all running different CPUs, are you actually saying that assembly langauge is slow? Ahem. Do you mean to imply that Java is faster than assembler? That a good Java program can execute the same task faster than an assembly program? And I am not comparing code written by a good Java programmer and a bad assembly programmer. I guess that is what you are saying. I find that difficult to believe.
I am not very familiar with Java. I have avoided it due to its reputation for inefficiency. But I have studied.NET a bit and found (IIRC) that it does not actually produce native code per se. That it is still essentially an interpreted language. I assume that converting from langauge terms to actual machine instructions still takes time in the meatspace world that we live in.
If Java is fully compiled (to machine code) at runtime, then the only performance penalty (in theory) would be waiting for it to compile before you can run it which for large programs could be significant of course. If this is how it works it is kind of an interesting compromise. While the user may have to wait 10 minutes for the program to compile before he uses it, in some cases the increased machine code optimisations could be worth it if the program is run for long periods.
My main complaint, which applies to any high level language without real inline assembly support is that I cannot roll my own functions efficiently. With c/c++ and inline assembly I can write functions that are more efficient for my particular task. I don't want to have to execute all kinds of instructions that I don't personally need but which seemed like a great idea for completeness and safety to the language writer. Particularly in a critical (according to the profiler) inner loop.
it may be cheaper to swap out their PCs than to change the software.
What if they already have the fastest PC: dual core or SMP, water or phase changed cooled and overclocked CPU, 4+ Gigs of low latency, high speed RAM etc? People who need the speed very often stay upgraded to the bleeding edge already. And that has just become a lot easier and cheaper due to the recent stagnation of CPU technologies.
In addition, code performance matters less and less as machines get faster, memory goes up etc.
But what about all these posts that say Java is as fast as C/C++ in all problem domains? If true, then fine (although I find it difficult to believe). If not then Java will soon be a dead language.
Also, maybe you haven't been keeping up with the news (working can do that to you), but the free ride is over. Software is now going to be more responsible for performance increases than hardware. That is the future. Efficient programing and real concurrency are the future. "cycles are cheap" and "just wait a year and it will be fast" will be laughed at in a decade. It is incredibly naive. Sure not all programs need to be fast, but some do. It is about time that programmers began to take some responsibility for the speed of their code again. I for one am hedging my bets by getting more into assembly again. Some kind of concurrent (built in from the ground up) low level (like highly macroed assembly) version of C or ADA is what I see as the future. If it is to be a managed language, fine, but that had better not impact on performance or you will simply lose out to your competitors even if it takes them longer to get their product out the door. I say again, the free ride is over. There is only so much you can get done in x seconds.
You do realize, right, that that turn of phrase really only makes sense as an observation. I.e. that information has a natural tendancy to spread, much like water seeks its own level only means that it flows downhill.
Apparently he does not. It is scary how many people even on slashdot interpret that phrase to mean something more like "I want all information to be free. As in beer." The phrase is not even saying that information cannot be controlled, just that in the long run it can be exceedingly difficult to do so. That there is something inherently different about information as compared to other "goods".
Stephenson, in his "In the Beginning was the Command Line" does a good job of explaining the problem with trying to sell bits as if they were something more tangible and less reproducible. That should be required reading for folks who don't grok "information wants to be free".
Even if you are only 5 years old this strikes me as a bit on the optimistic side. Do we get flying cars, a HAL9000 computer, a holodeck, and warp drive as well? OTOH, maybe you are assuming that aging will be solved withing the next 50 years or so.
We really have no idea whether we will ever be able to manufacture those carbon nanotubes or the equivalent in a sufficiently inexpensive manner to enable space elevator technology. Even if we had the technology what makes you think anyone is going to spend the money? NASA is not exactly having money thrown at it. The space program is simply not a priority to most earthlings, especially the ones who vote.
Yeah right. The evidence for global warming is just SO overwhelming right? What was it? A 0.6 degree rise or something? And, oh yeah, for a good part of that period there was global cooling which was the theory du jour for a while. Oh yeah, and forget about urban heat island effects and the limited accuracy of the measuring instruments over the past 100 years. That might spoil some of the global warming parties. BTW when did you predict the end of the world again? Next year maybe? In a few months?
PLUS they do the stupid thing here and put in DDR-2 which does little for performance but increases system costs.
Well presumably DDR-2 will decrease in price eventually. At the moment cost is certainly an issue. But don't forget that DDR2 is lower voltage and saves power, which for a mobile chipset is extremely important. Whether it makes sense for a desktop chipset is another question. I just hope Aopen continues to release desktop motherboards for the Pentium M. It would be nice to see one based on this new chipset even if it means having to buy overpriced DDR-2. Of course it would also be nice to see a P-M motherboard at a reasonable price.
Exactly. The only news here is Intel essentially admitting their mistake with the marketing driven P4. For those who are surprised by these results see previousstories on the subject. See this Doom3 and Far Cry benchmark from the link in the first slashdot article and this extremetech article and this French benchmark. And these are not the only sources. The fact is that on a modern platform the Pentium M is quite competitive with not only a P4 at nearly twice the clock speed, but also with Athlon64 chips at nearly half the power of even a 90 nm Winchester Athlon64 with a max TDP of either 21 or 29 Watts for the older and newer chips respectively.
That's not to say that it is competitive in every domain, but for gaming it is tough to beat. And, yes, many modern games do scale with CPU power.
This is piracy or bootleging or whatever you want to call it. This is not typical p2p activity because there was commercial gain from it.
RTFA. There was no commercial gain in the sense in which those terms are normally used. The only "gain" was in terms of the value of the downloaded files. The only sense in which this was not "typical" p2p activity was that they went after the actual hub operators, probably just in order to shut down the hubs themselves. This was no doubt seen as a greater victory.
Arguable. The term "financial" usually denotes a more liquid form of assets. The original intent of that wording was to make the law more serious for people who were selling copyrighted works of others as a business, as a way to actually make money. Warez has little if any real market value. I've never heard of anyone supporting themselves that way. After all, it is available for free.
Selling a boxed version on Ebay or on the street is a different story. It seems the DOJ is trying their best to blur these lines. Good for the real software pirates, but bad for P2Pers.
Actually the Ministry of Justice are the ones who are being unethical. Putting file sharers in prison to be raped by HIV infected murderers/rapists/bank robbers because some obscenely rich record company or movie executives might have been able to put a few more gallons of gas in their yachts is obscenely immoral in my book. They are the ones without ethics or morality or a conscience. If anyone should be in prison it is Ashcroft.
The were just the operators of a couple of (randomly chosen no doubt) Direct Connect hubs. If you are not familiar with DC, it is very similar to IRC. You connect to a "hub" which is like an IRC channel and then you can upload and download to/from the others on that hub.
It is a very simple P2P system and has been around for a long time. No actual money changed hands. They are defining "commercial gain" to mean the barter value of downloaded files in exchange for uploaded files, or something like that. I'm not sure this would have held up in court, but since the guys plea bargained we will never know.
The laws of the US and the majority currently appear to disagree with you.
Actually, for the moment at least, the laws do agree with us. You might want to read them sometime. From a legal standpoint, copyright infringement is most definitely not a form of "theft".
I don't know what most people believe since I am not aware of any polls, but I highly doubt that the average person thinks it is literally the same as theft either, at least if you give them a few minutes to think about it.
I am willing to do either (and no I don't like britney), but I am not going to intentionally get caught in order to do so. Mass civil disobedience is far more effective than a single person going to prison or being executed (which will be next).
The truth is that many of us regard being able to freely exchange bits on the internet to be a basic human right, the same as exchanging words in meat space. Anyone who wants to stop it had better be willing to build more jails and coffins because that is what it will take to stop it at this point. If you think the "war on drugs" is nearly impossible to win. That is nothing compared to this.
Some of us will be caught and some of us will go to prison. Such people are martyrs to the cause of freedom and many of us appreciate their sacrifice.
The DOJ cannot imprison all of us. They are hoping to discourage us, but it will not work. The chance of any one individual among millions to be caught and prosecuted is still fat and slim.
Also, until they succesfully change the wording of the laws, it will continue to be difficult to get actual convictions from people who are willing to go to trial. If you wish to know why then read the laws yourself. I have.
This is a simple fact - if a new potential drug is not patented it will never be developed and no new CURE.
No need to get vulgar. To the pharma corps CURE is indeed a 4 letter word. One they don't want to touch no matter how long the patents. What good does even a 20 year patent do them when everyone with the disease is cured within a couple of years? How will they pay for all of their research? And don't even mention the word VACCINE. God. Talk about a waste of their time.
So do me a favor. Next time use the correct word: TREATMENT. That's what they are after. And it's the only thing that patents encourage. As long as they have a slightly better treatment waiting in the wings when their first patent expires. And don't think for a minute that they would release it even one day before it does expire no matter what.
Patents only encourage just enough development to maximize profit. It does not encourage innovation in any sort of raw sense. At least not in a corporate environment. And once the patent has been granted it actively discourages further development for that company until that patent expires.
I wasn't speaking of doctors but of scientists or more to the point of the management who decides what research those scientists will pursue. The point is not what terms they use, but the fact that any kind prevention (i.e. vaccine) or cure (i.e. killing the virus, destroying all of the cancer cells etc) is extremely unprofitable.
This is not something that these companies hide. They openly admit it. All you have to do is ask them. They are in business to make money, not to save the world. That is not their job, and they are not ashamed of that fact. Due to the existence of patents, they cannot both act responsibly toward their stockholders and pursue vaccines or cures (look it up).
If they happen to stumble upon a single use treatment (i.e. cure) in the course of looking for a longer term, more profitable version then perhaps they will choose to make it public.
However, in general, they (and their stockholders) are better off waiting for a less effective treatment as long it is the same or slightly better than any of their competitors. If they are the only ones working on it then it is financial suicide and extremely irresponsible to the shareholders to make it available (at any price). Why kill the very goose that is making you rich? Keep the goose alive. Just reduce the symptoms from its eggs. And the day after that patent expires reduce it a bit more ad infinitum.
Although cures are indeed more difficult to find than treatments, that is not the only reason they are rare. If money is truly the answer, then you had better ask the right question.
This is also true for the lion. Make a few choice incisions in the lion's brain (yes he does have one, and it looks much like ours) and he will not be able to hunt anymore. All animals need to "reason", to think, to use logic in some way. The use of "instinct" to somehow explain all of "lower" animal behavior has been discredited for a long time now.
It certainly seems to be true that humans have certain intellectual abilities that lions do not, but that only shows that we are more intelligent. This is only a quantitative difference not a qualitative one, at least as far as any of us knows or has any evidence for.
You can't do that with an idea and therefore to have ownership of an idea at all it has to be exclusive.
The point of patents has never been to allow the ownership of an idea, but rather just of a specific mechanical invention, usually making liberal use of other people's ideas in the process. Ideas as such were never supposed to be patentable, and for good reason. The fact that the USPTO may effectively allow for the patenting of ideas is just one sign of how things have gone astray.
If you come up with a genuinely new idea it is yours.
And how exactly can you be certain that it is genuinely new? How can you be certain that no one has thought of it before you?
A man has a right to the product of his mind.
This statement is so vague as to be utterly meaningless. Does this mean that if I have the same idea as someone else but 30 minutes after he does, that I have the same right to its ownership? How can anyone prove who thought of the idea first, and what is the philosophical justification for honoring whoever was first anyway? What's the big deal who was first as long as the idea was thought up independently.
You can do what you want with it.
Sure. So long as you don't try to "own it".
If you want to give it away, you do so.
Yes. We call this telling someone about it. If you don't want to give it away then DON'T TELL ANYONE.
If you want to protect your right to profit from it, you do so.
You mean the same right to profit from it that everyone else has?
When you die, your ownership of your idea should die with you.
Why? If you believe that one should truly be able to "own" an idea and prevent others from using it then why come up with the arbitrary period of one human lifetime. I could just as easily argue that as the original idea manufacturer that no one else should ever have rights to my idea.
(The extra time after death (usually short) where copyrights are still maintained makes long-term investments more practical... but I think this gets complex)
So you are arguing here that complexity is a valid argument against it?
Just remember this cuts both ways. Don't hold your breath waiting for that cure/vaccine. If you want to get the suits at a pharma corp laughing just ask them about what cures they're working on. Now that's a good one! Hahaha.
What they spend money on are the treatments. That's where the patents really pay off. And even there they save their best treatments until the patents on the lesser ones run out in 5, I mean, 10, I mean 15, years. Only government sponsored or academic researchers work on cures. And they don't need that monopoly motivation.
If you want to motivate people with money you had better be prepared to accept all the consequences of doing so.
Actually this is incorrect. I don't know where you read this, but it is simply untrue. It is a simple r drop, almost like standard British. I have lived in Boston for more than 30 years. So I know the accent quite well.
And neither I nor anyone I know drops their 'r's. A significant percentage of people here (maybe 30%) do speak that way, but not everyone.
I have met people from California who actually think a Boston accent is like a New York accent and start saying things like 'dawg' and 'cawfee'.
All that sand which was once rock. All those sandstorms. And now this bright shiny thing. Why has it not been eroded along with everything else? That is one cool looking meteorite. I wish we could bring it home.
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC uncompressed video requires at least 80GB/hour. So a two hour movie would require over 160 GB if you want to completely avoid compression artifacts. There are also lossless video compression algorithms like HuffyYUV (anyone have a link?) which allows for around 2:1 compression without any loss in quality. So that 160 GB movie would only be 80 GB. Also don't forget that storing the audio in uncompressed PCM or a losslessly compressed format like FLAC would also add to the storage requirements.
I am not sure if higher resolution film transfers would increase the storage requiremtents even further. I assume it would. So this tech may only be somewhat overkill.
Saying that "C is not inherently insecure" is like saying a sharp knife without a hilt isn't dangerous to the user.
A sharp knife with a hilt is also very dangerous. And the sharper it is the more dangerous it is. However I'll take the sharp knife over the dull (and safer) knife every time because my goal in even having the knife is to cut things as cleanly and efficiently as possible and that is precisely what the sharper, "unsafe" knife is good for. I don't need someone to protect me from myself. Any motor vehicle that travels in excess of 30 mph could also be (justifiably) called unsafe, but that does not mean they are not useful. And the faster they go the more useful they tend to be.
Any other reason than performance is not good enough.
So then I take it you would recommend C (perhaps with inline assembly?) for anyone who cares about performance? That should be all of us now that CPU tech has slowed nearly to a halt.
To write fast code in assembler you would need to have detailed knowledge of the register set and pipelining of the specific processor you are using.
.NET a bit and found (IIRC) that it does not actually produce native code per se. That it is still essentially an interpreted language. I assume that converting from langauge terms to actual machine instructions still takes time in the meatspace world that we live in.
So since such detailed knowledge is virtually impossible when your end users are all running different CPUs, are you actually saying that assembly langauge is slow? Ahem. Do you mean to imply that Java is faster than assembler? That a good Java program can execute the same task faster than an assembly program? And I am not comparing code written by a good Java programmer and a bad assembly programmer. I guess that is what you are saying. I find that difficult to believe.
I am not very familiar with Java. I have avoided it due to its reputation for inefficiency. But I have studied
If Java is fully compiled (to machine code) at runtime, then the only performance penalty (in theory) would be waiting for it to compile before you can run it which for large programs could be significant of course. If this is how it works it is kind of an interesting compromise. While the user may have to wait 10 minutes for the program to compile before he uses it, in some cases the increased machine code optimisations could be worth it if the program is run for long periods.
My main complaint, which applies to any high level language without real inline assembly support is that I cannot roll my own functions efficiently. With c/c++ and inline assembly I can write functions that are more efficient for my particular task. I don't want to have to execute all kinds of instructions that I don't personally need but which seemed like a great idea for completeness and safety to the language writer. Particularly in a critical (according to the profiler) inner loop.
it may be cheaper to swap out their PCs than to change the software.
What if they already have the fastest PC: dual core or SMP, water or phase changed cooled and overclocked CPU, 4+ Gigs of low latency, high speed RAM etc? People who need the speed very often stay upgraded to the bleeding edge already. And that has just become a lot easier and cheaper due to the recent stagnation of CPU technologies.
In addition, code performance matters less and less as machines get faster, memory goes up etc.
But what about all these posts that say Java is as fast as C/C++ in all problem domains? If true, then fine (although I find it difficult to believe). If not then Java will soon be a dead language.
Also, maybe you haven't been keeping up with the news (working can do that to you), but the free ride is over. Software is now going to be more responsible for performance increases than hardware. That is the future. Efficient programing and real concurrency are the future. "cycles are cheap" and "just wait a year and it will be fast" will be laughed at in a decade. It is incredibly naive. Sure not all programs need to be fast, but some do. It is about time that programmers began to take some responsibility for the speed of their code again. I for one am hedging my bets by getting more into assembly again. Some kind of concurrent (built in from the ground up) low level (like highly macroed assembly) version of C or ADA is what I see as the future. If it is to be a managed language, fine, but that had better not impact on performance or you will simply lose out to your competitors even if it takes them longer to get their product out the door. I say again, the free ride is over. There is only so much you can get done in x seconds.
You do realize, right, that that turn of phrase really only makes sense as an observation. I.e. that information has a natural tendancy to spread, much like water seeks its own level only means that it flows downhill.
Apparently he does not. It is scary how many people even on slashdot interpret that phrase to mean something more like "I want all information to be free. As in beer." The phrase is not even saying that information cannot be controlled, just that in the long run it can be exceedingly difficult to do so. That there is something inherently different about information as compared to other "goods".
Stephenson, in his "In the Beginning was the Command Line" does a good job of explaining the problem with trying to sell bits as if they were something more tangible and less reproducible. That should be required reading for folks who don't grok "information wants to be free".
I expect this to occur within my lifetime
Even if you are only 5 years old this strikes me as a bit on the optimistic side. Do we get flying cars, a HAL9000 computer, a holodeck, and warp drive as well? OTOH, maybe you are assuming that aging will be solved withing the next 50 years or so.
We really have no idea whether we will ever be able to manufacture those carbon nanotubes or the equivalent in a sufficiently inexpensive manner to enable space elevator technology. Even if we had the technology what makes you think anyone is going to spend the money? NASA is not exactly having money thrown at it. The space program is simply not a priority to most earthlings, especially the ones who vote.
Actually they are CPU limited at least for the most recent high end graphics cards. It varies with the game and the current state of CPUs though.
Even Anand is predicting that CPUs will become more and more of a bottleneck as games become increasingly complex.
For games your money is still best spent maxing out the graphics card before the CPU, but a faster CPU definitely helps with a lot of games.
Yeah right. The evidence for global warming is just SO overwhelming right? What was it? A 0.6 degree rise or something? And, oh yeah, for a good part of that period there was global cooling which was the theory du jour for a while. Oh yeah, and forget about urban heat island effects and the limited accuracy of the measuring instruments over the past 100 years. That might spoil some of the global warming parties. BTW when did you predict the end of the world again? Next year maybe? In a few months?
PLUS they do the stupid thing here and put in DDR-2 which does little for performance but increases system costs.
Well presumably DDR-2 will decrease in price eventually. At the moment cost is certainly an issue. But don't forget that DDR2 is lower voltage and saves power, which for a mobile chipset is extremely important. Whether it makes sense for a desktop chipset is another question. I just hope Aopen continues to release desktop motherboards for the Pentium M. It would be nice to see one based on this new chipset even if it means having to buy overpriced DDR-2. Of course it would also be nice to see a P-M motherboard at a reasonable price.
Exactly. The only news here is Intel essentially admitting their mistake with the marketing driven P4. For those who are surprised by these results see previous stories on the subject. See this Doom3 and Far Cry benchmark from the link in the first slashdot article and this extremetech article and this French benchmark. And these are not the only sources. The fact is that on a modern platform the Pentium M is quite competitive with not only a P4 at nearly twice the clock speed, but also with Athlon64 chips at nearly half the power of even a 90 nm Winchester Athlon64 with a max TDP of either 21 or 29 Watts for the older and newer chips respectively.
That's not to say that it is competitive in every domain, but for gaming it is tough to beat. And, yes, many modern games do scale with CPU power.
This is piracy or bootleging or whatever you want to call it. This is not typical p2p activity because there was commercial gain from it.
RTFA. There was no commercial gain in the sense in which those terms are normally used. The only "gain" was in terms of the value of the downloaded files. The only sense in which this was not "typical" p2p activity was that they went after the actual hub operators, probably just in order to shut down the hubs themselves. This was no doubt seen as a greater victory.
Arguable. The term "financial" usually denotes a more liquid form of assets. The original intent of that wording was to make the law more serious for people who were selling copyrighted works of others as a business, as a way to actually make money. Warez has little if any real market value. I've never heard of anyone supporting themselves that way. After all, it is available for free.
Selling a boxed version on Ebay or on the street is a different story. It seems the DOJ is trying their best to blur these lines. Good for the real software pirates, but bad for P2Pers.
Actually the Ministry of Justice are the ones who are being unethical. Putting file sharers in prison to be raped by HIV infected murderers/rapists/bank robbers because some obscenely rich record company or movie executives might have been able to put a few more gallons of gas in their yachts is obscenely immoral in my book. They are the ones without ethics or morality or a conscience. If anyone should be in prison it is Ashcroft.
The were just the operators of a couple of (randomly chosen no doubt) Direct Connect hubs. If you are not familiar with DC, it is very similar to IRC. You connect to a "hub" which is like an IRC channel and then you can upload and download to/from the others on that hub.
It is a very simple P2P system and has been around for a long time. No actual money changed hands. They are defining "commercial gain" to mean the barter value of downloaded files in exchange for uploaded files, or something like that. I'm not sure this would have held up in court, but since the guys plea bargained we will never know.
The laws of the US and the majority currently appear to disagree with you.
Actually, for the moment at least, the laws do agree with us. You might want to read them sometime. From a legal standpoint, copyright infringement is most definitely not a form of "theft".
I don't know what most people believe since I am not aware of any polls, but I highly doubt that the average person thinks it is literally the same as theft either, at least if you give them a few minutes to think about it.
I am willing to do either (and no I don't like britney), but I am not going to intentionally get caught in order to do so. Mass civil disobedience is far more effective than a single person going to prison or being executed (which will be next).
The truth is that many of us regard being able to freely exchange bits on the internet to be a basic human right, the same as exchanging words in meat space. Anyone who wants to stop it had better be willing to build more jails and coffins because that is what it will take to stop it at this point. If you think the "war on drugs" is nearly impossible to win. That is nothing compared to this.
Some of us will be caught and some of us will go to prison. Such people are martyrs to the cause of freedom and many of us appreciate their sacrifice.
The DOJ cannot imprison all of us. They are hoping to discourage us, but it will not work. The chance of any one individual among millions to be caught and prosecuted is still fat and slim.
Also, until they succesfully change the wording of the laws, it will continue to be difficult to get actual convictions from people who are willing to go to trial. If you wish to know why then read the laws yourself. I have.
This is a simple fact - if a new potential drug is not patented it will never be developed and no new CURE.
No need to get vulgar. To the pharma corps CURE is indeed a 4 letter word. One they don't want to touch no matter how long the patents. What good does even a 20 year patent do them when everyone with the disease is cured within a couple of years? How will they pay for all of their research? And don't even mention the word VACCINE. God. Talk about a waste of their time.
So do me a favor. Next time use the correct word: TREATMENT. That's what they are after. And it's the only thing that patents encourage. As long as they have a slightly better treatment waiting in the wings when their first patent expires. And don't think for a minute that they would release it even one day before it does expire no matter what.
Patents only encourage just enough development to maximize profit. It does not encourage innovation in any sort of raw sense. At least not in a corporate environment. And once the patent has been granted it actively discourages further development for that company until that patent expires.
They can't patent the poop itself-- everyone's is different.
Don't be so sure. With the USPTO and a good patent attorney I'd give it a 1 in 10 shot. Even with all the prior art.
I wasn't speaking of doctors but of scientists or more to the point of the management who decides what research those scientists will pursue. The point is not what terms they use, but the fact that any kind prevention (i.e. vaccine) or cure (i.e. killing the virus, destroying all of the cancer cells etc) is extremely unprofitable.
This is not something that these companies hide. They openly admit it. All you have to do is ask them. They are in business to make money, not to save the world. That is not their job, and they are not ashamed of that fact. Due to the existence of patents, they cannot both act responsibly toward their stockholders and pursue vaccines or cures (look it up).
If they happen to stumble upon a single use treatment (i.e. cure) in the course of looking for a longer term, more profitable version then perhaps they will choose to make it public.
However, in general, they (and their stockholders) are better off waiting for a less effective treatment as long it is the same or slightly better than any of their competitors. If they are the only ones working on it then it is financial suicide and extremely irresponsible to the shareholders to make it available (at any price). Why kill the very goose that is making you rich? Keep the goose alive. Just reduce the symptoms from its eggs. And the day after that patent expires reduce it a bit more ad infinitum.
Although cures are indeed more difficult to find than treatments, that is not the only reason they are rare. If money is truly the answer, then you had better ask the right question.
Only if he uses his mind can he possibly survive!
... but I think this gets complex)
This is also true for the lion. Make a few choice incisions in the lion's brain (yes he does have one, and it looks much like ours) and he will not be able to hunt anymore. All animals need to "reason", to think, to use logic in some way. The use of "instinct" to somehow explain all of "lower" animal behavior has been discredited for a long time now.
It certainly seems to be true that humans have certain intellectual abilities that lions do not, but that only shows that we are more intelligent. This is only a quantitative difference not a qualitative one, at least as far as any of us knows or has any evidence for.
You can't do that with an idea and therefore to have ownership of an idea at all it has to be exclusive.
The point of patents has never been to allow the ownership of an idea, but rather just of a specific mechanical invention, usually making liberal use of other people's ideas in the process. Ideas as such were never supposed to be patentable, and for good reason. The fact that the USPTO may effectively allow for the patenting of ideas is just one sign of how things have gone astray.
If you come up with a genuinely new idea it is yours.
And how exactly can you be certain that it is genuinely new? How can you be certain that no one has thought of it before you?
A man has a right to the product of his mind.
This statement is so vague as to be utterly meaningless. Does this mean that if I have the same idea as someone else but 30 minutes after he does, that I have the same right to its ownership? How can anyone prove who thought of the idea first, and what is the philosophical justification for honoring whoever was first anyway? What's the big deal who was first as long as the idea was thought up independently.
You can do what you want with it.
Sure. So long as you don't try to "own it".
If you want to give it away, you do so.
Yes. We call this telling someone about it. If you don't want to give it away then DON'T TELL ANYONE.
If you want to protect your right to profit from it, you do so.
You mean the same right to profit from it that everyone else has?
When you die, your ownership of your idea should die with you.
Why? If you believe that one should truly be able to "own" an idea and prevent others from using it then why come up with the arbitrary period of one human lifetime. I could just as easily argue that as the original idea manufacturer that no one else should ever have rights to my idea.
(The extra time after death (usually short) where copyrights are still maintained makes long-term investments more practical
So you are arguing here that complexity is a valid argument against it?
Just remember this cuts both ways. Don't hold your breath waiting for that cure/vaccine. If you want to get the suits at a pharma corp laughing just ask them about what cures they're working on. Now that's a good one! Hahaha.
What they spend money on are the treatments. That's where the patents really pay off. And even there they save their best treatments until the patents on the lesser ones run out in 5, I mean, 10, I mean 15, years. Only government sponsored or academic researchers work on cures. And they don't need that monopoly motivation.
If you want to motivate people with money you had better be prepared to accept all the consequences of doing so.
Actually this is incorrect. I don't know where you read this, but it is simply untrue. It is a simple r drop, almost like standard British. I have lived in Boston for more than 30 years. So I know the accent quite well.
And neither I nor anyone I know drops their 'r's. A significant percentage of people here (maybe 30%) do speak that way, but not everyone.
I have met people from California who actually think a Boston accent is like a New York accent and start saying things like 'dawg' and 'cawfee'.
All that sand which was once rock. All those sandstorms. And now this bright shiny thing. Why has it not been eroded along with everything else? That is one cool looking meteorite. I wish we could bring it home.