"... that would have the potential to turn into a baby if it were in a womb..."
Thank you for explaining the details so I know which part I specifically find morally objectionable. Good info!
So I am curious, since it is morally objectionable to deny a zygote the potential of turning into a baby do you also consider anyone who does not practice a strict regimen of sexual intercourse during the appropriate periods to prevent sperm and ovam being lost to nocturnal emission or a menstrual cycle as an immoral person?
If you find it morally objectionable to not provide a group of cells a womb in which to gestate because there is a potential to create a human being then you surely must also find it morally objectionable to not provide every sperm cell and every ovam a womb in which to combine into a zygote, grow into a blastocyst and eventually form into a human being.
And it gets worse. It is virtually impossible to locate an ovam and womb or every single sperm cell so every single male of the human species is a die hard baby killer, by your logic.
It is you who is either ignorant or just refuses to see others' viewpoints.
Considering that you responded to my point on the irrationality of designating non-viable clumps or single cells as a baby it appears you are fully aware that I understand their viewpoint, so I'll assume that you know I am not ignorant of their position and it just made you feel good to include an ad hominem attack.
Sperm and eggs are not humans, in any viewpoint. Fertilized eggs however are different. To pro-life people, and even many others, this is the point a new human is brought into existence. The number of cells matters not.
Yes, and this is irrational. A zygote or a blastocyst are no more a human being than is the sperm or the ovam from which they originated.
It is obvious that their beliefs are based on religious views or simply following what they are told, i.e. somebody reading the parent post might actually believe that babies are killed to produce embryonic stem cells which happens to be a complete lie. But what is not apparent even from your post is what the logic is to consider a zygote or blastocyst as a human being.
I can only assume that if logic was used to reach this belief then it must be based on the assumption that a zygote or blastocyst under the correct conditions has a significant probability of eventually become a human being. Therefore, if the probability of a single cell being capable of forming a complete human being is the logic needed to assume a single cell is considered a human being, or a baby, then by this same logic of probabilities so too are sperm and ovam.
Taking this logic one step further it becomes readily obvious that anyone who does not copulate on a regular schedule to ensure they do not lose sperm to nocturnal emission or an ovam to a menstrual cycle is intentionally sentencing the probable human being that would come from that sperm and ovam to a death sentence.
Now if you actually have some sane and logical argument to explain why a single human cell or a group of 100 cells should be considered as a human being then by all means share this logic.
Condoms are not part of nature and are only present to stop conception through the active intervention of a person. Certain groups happen to oppose their use because you are actively interfering with what they believe to be the will of God in people being fruitful and multiplying and others because it is not a natural process.
And if these people truly believe in their God and the will of their God then they should believe that a simple condom would be ineffective against the powers of their God. The do, after all, believe in the Virgin Mary, don't they? And if they do not believe in using anything that is not "part of nature" and may interfere with "the will of God" then they need to return to the hunter gatherer lifestyle and stop protecting themselves from the natural will of God.
Considering the westernized world were condoms and other contraceptive methods are widely used is currently in the process of depopulating itself and reducing its numbers in relation to other populations, an event which is usually fatal in every way to any society historically, those opposing various forms of contraception may actually have a very strong argument one day.
This I am sure is a very controversial topic and often the elephant in the room. But following both past and recent history I agree that there is an ethnic/racist factor often hidden in the crude religious push for genetic perpetuity. But this is topic deserving of its own thread.
I do oppose embryonic stem cell research, because it creates a demand for dead babies, which I have a huge moral problem with.
You have a moral issue with embryonic stem cell research because you have not clue what it entails.
Embryonic Stem Cell Basics "Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro--in an in vitro fertilization clinic--and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body. The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst."
A blastocyst is the embryonic clump of cells, approximately 70 to 100 cells, that would have the potential to turn into a baby if it were in a womb. As noted in the basics these blastocysts are not in a womb, they will never develop a placenta or form into a human.
Also, adult stem cell research has led to over seventy approved treatments being used today. The number from embryonic research? Zero. But for some reason all the noise is made about embryonic research. I really do not understand why.
Using political power and social pressure to hold back embryonic stem cell research does not mean it has no potential uses, it means there has been limited research, that's all.
I'm glad you admitted that you do not understand because that truly is the root of the entire debate.
Embryonic Stem Cell Basics - Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are thought to be limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. - Embryonic stem cells can be grown relatively easily in culture. Adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues, so isolating these cells from an adult tissue is challenging, and methods to expand their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.
In conclusion, there is no sane reason to be morally opposed to embryonic stem cell research due to a need for dead babies as no babies ever die for embryonic stem cell research.
Or perhaps you believe that virtually every man and woman on the planet are baby killers because they do not ensure that every single spermatozoa and ovam is given a chance to become a baby.
Perhaps you think that manufacturers of sanitary napkins and condoms are the enablers of baby killing.
You do see how irrational one can be when the probability of cells becoming a human becomes the basis for a moral standard, don't you? If you ever experience a nocturnal emission or go through a menstrual cycle without producing offspring then you are the same type of baby killer as the embryonic stem cell researchers. Obviously you did not kill any babies and neither did the researchers.
I suppose it depends on how you define "hard science".
The term is a bit vague, broad, and used loosely.
I would describe hard science as a combination of the theoretical work, hypothesising, experimenting to test a hypothesis, and publishing the work to enable critique, duplication, and further advancement.
And the more I read the more I find that hard science does take place in some corporations (albeit some issues arise in the publishing, duplication and further advancement by others), but as you noted there are limits to the science in which a corporation is going to invest. And in reading some of the history of the transistor and laser work from Bell Labs it appears that the profit motive and patenting process create an extremely tumultuous environment that eventually deteriorates into lawsuits and other forms of chicanery.
Anyhow, I believe my question about corporations and hard science is answered and the answer is yes they do get involved in hard science.
In 1917, Albert Einstein established the theoretic foundations for the LASER and the MASER in the paper Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung (On the Quantum Theory of Radiation); via a re-derivation of Max Planck's law of radiation, conceptually based upon probability coefficients (Einstein coefficients) for the absorption, spontaneous emission, and stimulated emission of electromagnetic radiation; in 1928, Rudolf W. Ladenburg confirmed the existences of the phenomena of stimulated emission and negative absorption;[5] in 1939, Valentin A. Fabrikant predicted the use of stimulated emission to amplify "short" waves;[6] in 1947, Willis E. Lamb and R. C. Retherford found apparent stimulated emission in hydrogen spectra and effected the first demonstration of stimulated emission;[5] in 1950, Alfred Kastler (Nobel Prize for Physics 1966) proposed the method of optical pumping, experimentally confirmed, two years later, by Brossel, Kastler, and Winter.[7]
In 1957, Charles Hard Townes and Arthur Leonard Schawlow, then at Bell Labs, began a serious study of the infrared laser.
Perhaps it is a fine line but I still suspect that AT&T was only performing research with the object of profits based on the previous open hard scientific work that was shared with the world. AT&T would share its findings after filing for patents on the work they were performing so others could not use their findings.
It also doesn't help that we don't have a lot of hard science going on in business right now. Our current business environment emphasizes short-term growth over long-term growth, so scientific developments that don't lead to real gains within a few years are being somewhat ignored
Has business ever been involved in hard science?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't but it seems to me that throughout history the hard science has been researched by interested individuals or by publicly supported organizations with the goal of attaining and sharing knowledge and understanding not a profit.
Business has been very good at converting hard science into hugely profitable enterprises with the objective of profit and thwarting the sharing of knowledge and understanding.
The profit motive is only bringing us the ubiquitous technological gadget tied to a media outlet designed to keep the consumer titillated and enthralled. The masses have an illusion of being technologically advanced because they know which buttons to push. And sadly this same technology is being used in some cases to turn the masses against science.
Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation In a contradiction between its grants and its endowment holdings, a Times investigation has found, the foundation reaps vast financial gains every year from investments that contravene its good works.
1. Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK-B) - 1,251,250 shares, 48.36% of the total portfolio
2. McDonald's Corp. (MCD) - 6,867,500 shares, 5.27% of the total portfolio
3. Canadian National Railway Company Fully (CNI) - 8,399,653 shares, 4.82% of the total portfolio
4. Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) - 4,285,000 shares, 4% of the total portfolio
5. Costco Wholesale Corp. (COST) - 6,128,000 shares, 3.74% of the total portfolio
Is this a philanthropic venture or a tax evasion investment scheme?
I do commend Gates for what he is doing but I would not go so far as to slobber all over him for his philanthropic works considering his past illicit activity that played a significant role in providing him with the funds to become a philanthropist.
Some fun facts about income: From 1947 to 1974 individual income in 2008 dollars for all age groups and sex on average increased annually. Ages 15 years and over on average increased annually, males 2.44%, females 1.40% Ages 25 to 34, males 2.95%, females 2.27% Ages 35 to 44, males 3.06%, females 1.86% Ages 45 to 54, males 3.21%, females 2.21% Ages 55 to 64, males 2.94%, females 2.63% Ages 65 and older, males 3.25%, females 2.81%
From 1947 to 1974 the GDP averaged 4.23% growth annually.
From 1975 to 2008 individual income in 2008 dollars had negative annual change almost across the board for males but females still managed small increases. Ages 15 years and over on average increased, males 0.01%, females 1.63% Ages 25 to 34, males -0.59%, females 1.11% Ages 35 to 44, males -0.31%, females 1.37% Ages 45 to 54, males -0.15%, females 1.31% Ages 55 to 64, males 0.22%, females 1.81% Ages 65 and older, males 1.01%, females 1.25%
From 1957 to 2008 the GDP averaged 2.68% growth.
There is a reason you hear "Median Household Income" in the media rather than individual income. As the number of households with two working adults has increased in the United States wages themselves have been stagnant. Both adults in a household have to work to survive. With many single adults now living at home what is the next step, include their children in household income to perpetuate the lie about increasing income?
It is unfortunate that people forget that the US economy stagnated during the leftist craze in the 60s and 70s and took off again with the deregulation of the Reagan years
You are seriously mistaken.
I guess you missed the fact that your chart peaks at 1966 before flattening out.
I guess you also failed to notice that the flat spots correlate to wars and oil embargoes. If you can assume that deregulation that started in the 80s and continued through the 90s and 2000s resulted in the upward trend in the stock market then we can also assume that all the regulations and unions that came out of the 30s and 40s resulted in the stock market gains through out the late 1930s, late 1940s, the 50s and the early 60s until the Vietnam war started and the oil embargoes reared their ugly head.
One bit of data that is not in any of these charts or spread sheets is private debt. What many are ignoring today is the fact that since individual income started to stagnate in the mid 1970s personal spending did not and the private debt owed by individuals has soared from about 20% of GDP in the 1940s and earlier to 100%+ of GDP today. Private individuals have been making up for the deficiency in wages by borrowing more.
The train unions first emerged not to demand better wages but better living conditions. They sold themselves to the train owners as a plan to increase professionalism and public respect. It worked. accident rates did go down. Barrier's to entry and standards increased training, retention of experience, and professional conduct. Workers took pride in their work. Many bars were closed People returned home on time and with money in their pockets.
Followed with...
What we have here in foxconn is a throwback to the same early situation. Workers living in company dorms, shitty pay, long hours and dangerous working conditions. That is to say, no union.
The solution to both these problems is not for the FOX conn to unionize.
HUH?!?
Unions solved many of the outrageously dehumanizing conditions created by United States corporations in the past but unions are not the solution to the same dehumanizing conditions in Chinese factories?
I think you were headed in the right direction but then your logic fell off a cliff.
And isolating the United States economy through tariffs? Wrong answer. The majority of the economic growth is taking place outside of the United States, if you isolate us economically thinking it will increase global worker wages and improve conditions you are dead wrong, it will just further destroy the economy in the United States while places like China continue to grow.
Now if you suggested holding United States corporate board members liable for foreign actions that would be considered illegal in the States much like a paedophile trying to continue their illicit practices overseas and then coming home to the States then you might have been on to something. I'm sure Jobs and other CEOs would take much more interest in foreign workers if they faced the possibility of jail time.
Time and again it has been proven that when groups of people stand together against oppression by a few they often succeed in overcoming the tyranny. I find it astounding that in a nation where the people stood up against tyranny by creating a union (The United States of America) it is today considered evil, anti-american, socialist, communist, etc. for the people to stand together in a union against poor wages and working conditions.
I think you are correct that unions were instrumental in improving the plight of the U.S. worker in the past but I would say that today in some cases the U.S. is returning to those conditions before there were unions, and it is not because of China it is because unions are broken by corporations through political attacks, media attacks, and out right illegal activity.
How many times do we need to say the same thing before people start listening?
Nice cheat sheet but I was a bit surprised to see "* Also Enforce: Least Privilege" listed under "Additional Defenses". Perhaps it is just my opinion but it seems least privilege should be very high on the list as has the potential to negate many application code and query instances where a developer may make a mistake or is simply lax in their methods.
When I had a PHPBB website hit by an SQL Injection attack I not only stopped using PHPBB but I started an open source project with the idea of creating components to be used in the design of a database backed web application that could rely on the least privilege principle at the database engine rather than having absolute faith in the web application code itself to enforce security.
It is not a perfect solution but it has the potential to stop many SQL injection attacks even in cases where the web application has some bad code.
Microsoft was not in business to make a quality operating system (or quality product). They are in business to make money
I see you are getting hammered with comments that I believe misunderstand your professor's statement. Of course businesses are in business to make money, what people don't seem to get is that Microsoft's core competency, main objective, mission statement, sole purpose, etc. is to make money.
I could be wrong but I don't believe that Microsoft developers intentionally make bad products with the intention of getting customers hooked and then forced to upgrade. I believe this is just the end result of a business strategy that permeates virtually all of business management in the United States today. I would describe the U.S. business models as, greed is good slash and burn, hookers and extortion profit margin goals, end times are near hoarding and investment(or lack there of), and disaster focused management.
Greed is good slash and burn: There is an entire generation, perhaps more, of MBAs who watched Wallstreet and fell for Gekko's speech about greed as a driving factor for all human pursuits but either failed to watch the entire movie or did not make the connection to the plot where greed did not result excellence in business pursuits but instead led to cheating, destruction of other people's livelihoods to transfer wealth from a group of people to an individual, and out right criminal activity. And we don't need a movie to tell us that greed is not good, we have real life events that occur over and over and over that show us how greed left unchecked simply leads to crime not excellence.
Hookers and extortion profit margin goals: Profit margins are important for the viability of a business and its ability to expand and invest into future business opportunities, however, the greed mentality has created a deranged market concept that becomes detached from the real market and real viability of a product. I have seen this mentality at work at a hardware manufacturer during management and engineering meetings where Part B had a lower profit margin than Part A and it was repeatedly suggested that Part B should no longer be manufactured and Part A should be ramped up using the manufacturing capacity of Part B. Unfortunately the MBAs and engineers refused to listen to sanity, the bulk of the market wanted to buy Part B not Part A and the final products that used Part A also required Part B. Without the low margin Part B there was no market for Part A! Once logic failed I gave in to the greedy profit margin goal and suggested we replace all the engineers and manufacturing employees with hookers and thugs as the profit margin in the Hookers and Extortion business was probably better than making parts. As an engineer I would not be needed so I left.
End times are near hoarding and investment(or lack there of): Again driven by greed, rather than having long term multiple year future plans many U.S. corporations are more concerned with 3 month business plans as if there will be no future for the planet or business beyond the next 3 months. If your engineering project does not have an acceptable ROI within 3 months then it stays on the back burner. Even after presenting the same 3 year plan after 3 years on an annual basis and explaining that 3 years ago if it had been implemented the benefits would have been rolling in the project is perpetually placed on the back burner while the funds that could have financed the project are hoarded until upper management bonus time rolls around.
Disaster focused management: And as a result of the previous management techniques the focus of U.S. business management becomes continually locked in disaster recovery mode. With everything focused on greed the little things like safety, sustainability, future capability, etc. are all left to the way side until they becom
companies are choosing to list in overseas markets instead of the US, where they don't have SOX to contend with
The chart is not ignoring anything. Without SOX would more companies do their IPO in U.S. exchanges, perhaps, would it be worth it to drop SOX and get these IPOs, lets put it into perspective...
From the Bloomberg article: "It would cost us as much as $3.5 million a year to comply with the vigorous reporting requirements in the U.S. For a $100 million company, that's 3 to 4 percent of gross revenue."
Also from the Bloomberg article: "Bush signed Sarbanes-Oxley into law in July 2002 after Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. collapsed in the two biggest bankruptcies in U.S. history. Enron's decline wiped out $68 billion of market value, 5,000 jobs and at least $1 billion in retirement funds."
Considering the market value alone that Enron wiped out it will take 680 years of Peach Holdings revenue to replace the destruction of the Enron accounting shenanigans. I say screw Peach Holdings, let them do their IPO over seas and we'll keep our regulations here in the States to prevent another Enron.
This is easily seen as an even greater impediment to companies going public than the economic downturn. Just like the government intervention that allows companies to patent software, government interference in the market in the well-intentioned ideas behind SOX becomes simply another way that existing corporations can bludgeon upstart competition with their incumbent dominance and lobbying savvy.
Considering the massive financial impact investors endured from the likes of Enron, Worldcom, Tyco and others it is a tough sell to kill regulation like SOX. While it does introduce a cost burden there is a lot of that burden which should be in effect in the first place for any viable and reputable business. There is a lot of SOX costs that are blown out of proportion exactly because accounting costs that should have been in place are included with new requirements like audits.
Anyhow, costs aside the data does not agree with your assessment of the impact of SOX on IPOs.
Market pull backs and recessions that result in regulations like SOX are the cause of reduced IPOs not the regulation as can be seen in the charts in this article that clearly shows little or no impact to IPO trends from the passing of SOX in 2002. Once the market started to recover from the dot com bust the IPOs returned even though SOX was in place.
And organisms. Don't patent life, plants, seeds, living things, etc. AFTER *that* nonsense is stopped, and monsanto gets what's coming to 'em
Monsanto may get their dues before life patents are outlawed. When the rise of superweeds wipes out the Monsanto engineered crops there may be little choice but to fire up Soylent Green and I'm sure there will be more than a few ready to offer Monsanto's board as the first Soylent offering.
if a judge were to look at 35 USC 101, which says that patentable subject material includes "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" and pretend that software is not a process, or that "process" doesn't include software, that would be judicial activism.
I think I understand and in part agree with your logic, however, your conclusion is wrong for two reasons. First there had to be a starting point where software was considered by the courts for patent-ability. Since there was no precedence the conclusions by the court were not activism as the courts were not trying to bring about change. And second, in reading some of the early cases that concerned software patents and the conclusions it becomes readily obvious that the decisions were in fact based on previous case law and 35 USC 100 through 35 USC 104. It was in no way judicial activism.
In the case Diamond_v_Diehr where the tide turned and lawyers started to find ways of patenting software it may very well be judicial activism and there was a very strong and well reasoned dissenting opinion. I cannot say without a doubt that it is judicial activism as that type of conclusion would require more research to understand how the the justice's came to their conclusions that seemed to change several years and cases of precedence. I will only say it is a possibility and that I believe the dissenting opinion was correct in pointing out the flaws and errors in the majority opinion.
had those things not been in place to begin with, sane fiscal policies would have been made by the banks
There was this event in history commonly referred to as The Great Depression which was followed by many of the same regulations that were removed because prior to implementing these regulations there was a similar financial melt down in many cases caused by similar financial bubbles and out of control chicanery.
I find it to be more than a coincidence that the S&L crisis followed deregulation and the current financial melt down also followed deregulation.
And the fact that the regulations, like the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, came after the Great Depression suggests your conclusion about the regulations causing the crisis are dead wrong. Hell, the deregulation is what created "To Big to Fail" not the enactment of regulations.
large corporations have more say than voters in what our government does
And to add some previous insult to injury we have the recent "Health Care Reform" bill that addresses the out of control cost of health care insurance premiums by forcing every United States citizen into paying those same premiums to the same corporations or end up paying a fine on their annual taxes.
And then there is the 2003 Medicare Modernization act with the "competition" clause that prevents the Medicare plan coordinator from getting involved in price negotiations for pharmaceuticals. Instead the costs are determined by the insurance carrier, manufacturer and the pharmacy. I'm sure many were paid very well for that piece of legislation which is comparable to having a car manufacturer, the dealership and the bank determine how much you will pay for a new car rather than haggling on the price yourself. I guess the passage of such an obvious corporate paid for bill explains why 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage, after all, there job was done.
Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 Welcome the age of "too big to fail"
they usually create innovations independently then pay protection money to the trolls
Actually it works both ways.
While their primary function is not as a patent troll Apple, Microsoft and Amazon have in turn played the role of the frivilous patent litigant with the biggest difference being in their objective of halting the "Progress of Science and useful Arts" to the betterment of their bottom line.
Just the venture firms invest in what those companies would purchase instead of investing directly into the big names.
Pardon me if I am misunderstanding your logic but it appears that you care suggesting investment in start ups is equivalent to investment in the big corps because the hope is the big corporation will buy the start up. While it is true that VC investment in start ups hope to profit by eventually selling to a larger corporation it is far from an equivalent to investing in the big corporations R&D.
Software patents are used to prevent unforeseen competition from fresh start ups and they cut the VCs out of the loop because they don't invest in the big corporations, otherwise they would not be VCs they would just be investors.
For a VC it makes sense to stop the software patent nonsense because it is destroying not just start ups and new ideas but it also destroys investment opportunities in those start ups and new ideas.
America just doesn't understand how to do proper regulation. Every attempt at regulation ends up causing more problems than it manages to fix, or the lack of regulation ends up allowing horrid behavior to occur.
Every now and again the United States does get it right.
When a real war broke out, WW1, the United States had to buy aircraft from France because the United States business ventures were more interested in lawsuits than making aircraft.
After ending the patent war by forcing everyone into a patent pool the aircraft industry in the United States took off.
The patent lawyers and big patent holders often tell us that patents are needed to secure investment, so it's interesting to see now that venture capitalists are refuting that.
Seems logical that a venture capitalist would see the absurdity in software patents. After all, how many venture capitalists are investing in all the fresh innovations and inventions coming out of Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, etc.
the people that will need the drug have little or no ability to pay for it. It takes A LOT of money to get a drug approved, if the market for the drug itself is not there then the work just does not get done
This is also an issue for people who can pay for a drug, even United States citizens who have health insurance. There have been recent news articles highlighting the fact that the United States is facing a shortage of various anti-venoms because corporations are either stopping production or never bothered to develop a manufacturing process because there is no significant profit potential.
It might be worthwhile to give drug companies a tax break for donating information that leads to effective cures for less profitable conditions
This is an excellent idea but I would even go so far as to suggest taking out the "leads to effective cures" requirement as it can take a long time to reap the benefits and corporations would be more likely to utilize the offer if it provided an immediate tax benefit.
However, tax breaks are far from enough. The only reason GSK was even researching a malaria vaccine was because of the huge profit potential from millions of infections globally. There are numerous ailments that will never receive corporate financing because there is no profit motive. Note the scorpion anti-venom case in the previously mentioned article where all the anti-venom is produced non-profit by a university professor and no corporation is willing to step up to create and sell a product.
Ultimately there are a vast number of medical and non-medical ventures that should be funded by the public because they do not present any significant profit potential to entice corporations but society would gain both tangible and intangible benefits.
Sadly the direction the United States appears to be headed is to a purist position of worship and submission to the almighty corporation, gross margins and a "greed is good" mentality. This can be seen in reading some of the articles on the anti-venom issue that suggest a solution is tort reform and easing of FDA regulations. Of course these arguments are a misnomer as these proponents admit themselves that the issue is a lack of profit potential and the suggested tort reform and easing of regulations are likely a one time benefit on the Internal Rate of Return calculation used to determine if a project is financially viable. The end result would still be no cures or research for low or no profit situations with the addition of federal protection for corporations against law suits from the public and elimination of regulations that are in place to help prevent the conditions that result in law suits in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
So I am curious, since it is morally objectionable to deny a zygote the potential of turning into a baby do you also consider anyone who does not practice a strict regimen of sexual intercourse during the appropriate periods to prevent sperm and ovam being lost to nocturnal emission or a menstrual cycle as an immoral person?
If you find it morally objectionable to not provide a group of cells a womb in which to gestate because there is a potential to create a human being then you surely must also find it morally objectionable to not provide every sperm cell and every ovam a womb in which to combine into a zygote, grow into a blastocyst and eventually form into a human being.
And it gets worse. It is virtually impossible to locate an ovam and womb or every single sperm cell so every single male of the human species is a die hard baby killer, by your logic.
Considering that you responded to my point on the irrationality of designating non-viable clumps or single cells as a baby it appears you are fully aware that I understand their viewpoint, so I'll assume that you know I am not ignorant of their position and it just made you feel good to include an ad hominem attack.
Yes, and this is irrational. A zygote or a blastocyst are no more a human being than is the sperm or the ovam from which they originated.
It is obvious that their beliefs are based on religious views or simply following what they are told, i.e. somebody reading the parent post might actually believe that babies are killed to produce embryonic stem cells which happens to be a complete lie. But what is not apparent even from your post is what the logic is to consider a zygote or blastocyst as a human being.
I can only assume that if logic was used to reach this belief then it must be based on the assumption that a zygote or blastocyst under the correct conditions has a significant probability of eventually become a human being. Therefore, if the probability of a single cell being capable of forming a complete human being is the logic needed to assume a single cell is considered a human being, or a baby, then by this same logic of probabilities so too are sperm and ovam.
Taking this logic one step further it becomes readily obvious that anyone who does not copulate on a regular schedule to ensure they do not lose sperm to nocturnal emission or an ovam to a menstrual cycle is intentionally sentencing the probable human being that would come from that sperm and ovam to a death sentence.
Now if you actually have some sane and logical argument to explain why a single human cell or a group of 100 cells should be considered as a human being then by all means share this logic.
And if these people truly believe in their God and the will of their God then they should believe that a simple condom would be ineffective against the powers of their God. The do, after all, believe in the Virgin Mary, don't they? And if they do not believe in using anything that is not "part of nature" and may interfere with "the will of God" then they need to return to the hunter gatherer lifestyle and stop protecting themselves from the natural will of God.
This I am sure is a very controversial topic and often the elephant in the room. But following both past and recent history I agree that there is an ethnic/racist factor often hidden in the crude religious push for genetic perpetuity. But this is topic deserving of its own thread.
You have a moral issue with embryonic stem cell research because you have not clue what it entails.
Embryonic Stem Cell Basics
"Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro--in an in vitro fertilization clinic--and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body. The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four or five days old and are a hollow microscopic ball of cells called the blastocyst."
A blastocyst is the embryonic clump of cells, approximately 70 to 100 cells, that would have the potential to turn into a baby if it were in a womb. As noted in the basics these blastocysts are not in a womb, they will never develop a placenta or form into a human.
Using political power and social pressure to hold back embryonic stem cell research does not mean it has no potential uses, it means there has been limited research, that's all.
I'm glad you admitted that you do not understand because that truly is the root of the entire debate.
Embryonic Stem Cell Basics
- Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are thought to be limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin.
- Embryonic stem cells can be grown relatively easily in culture. Adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues, so isolating these cells from an adult tissue is challenging, and methods to expand their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.
In conclusion, there is no sane reason to be morally opposed to embryonic stem cell research due to a need for dead babies as no babies ever die for embryonic stem cell research.
Or perhaps you believe that virtually every man and woman on the planet are baby killers because they do not ensure that every single spermatozoa and ovam is given a chance to become a baby.
Perhaps you think that manufacturers of sanitary napkins and condoms are the enablers of baby killing.
You do see how irrational one can be when the probability of cells becoming a human becomes the basis for a moral standard, don't you? If you ever experience a nocturnal emission or go through a menstrual cycle without producing offspring then you are the same type of baby killer as the embryonic stem cell researchers. Obviously you did not kill any babies and neither did the researchers.
The term is a bit vague, broad, and used loosely.
I would describe hard science as a combination of the theoretical work, hypothesising, experimenting to test a hypothesis, and publishing the work to enable critique, duplication, and further advancement.
And the more I read the more I find that hard science does take place in some corporations (albeit some issues arise in the publishing, duplication and further advancement by others), but as you noted there are limits to the science in which a corporation is going to invest. And in reading some of the history of the transistor and laser work from Bell Labs it appears that the profit motive and patenting process create an extremely tumultuous environment that eventually deteriorates into lawsuits and other forms of chicanery.
Anyhow, I believe my question about corporations and hard science is answered and the answer is yes they do get involved in hard science.
I noticed in a book I am reading, Schrödinger's Kittens, it mentions the work of scientists at Hamamatsu who published their work on the wave-particle duality of photons.
So there are corporations involved in hard science.
Laser Foundations
Perhaps it is a fine line but I still suspect that AT&T was only performing research with the object of profits based on the previous open hard scientific work that was shared with the world. AT&T would share its findings after filing for patents on the work they were performing so others could not use their findings.
Has business ever been involved in hard science?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it isn't but it seems to me that throughout history the hard science has been researched by interested individuals or by publicly supported organizations with the goal of attaining and sharing knowledge and understanding not a profit.
Business has been very good at converting hard science into hugely profitable enterprises with the objective of profit and thwarting the sharing of knowledge and understanding.
I suspect that if the United States does end up going through a scientific and technological dark age it will be concluded that a contributing factor was the rabidly religious devotion to privatized capitalist free markets in everything. The problem being that privatized capitalist free market competition is not going to produce On the Nature of the Universe, Opticae Thesaurus, Principia Mathematica, Experimental Researches In Electricity, A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field, Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, etc.
The profit motive is only bringing us the ubiquitous technological gadget tied to a media outlet designed to keep the consumer titillated and enthralled. The masses have an illusion of being technologically advanced because they know which buttons to push. And sadly this same technology is being used in some cases to turn the masses against science.
Dark cloud over good works of Gates Foundation
In a contradiction between its grants and its endowment holdings, a Times investigation has found, the foundation reaps vast financial gains every year from investments that contravene its good works.
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Holdings Outperforming S&P 500 Handily
It is also overweight Healthcare, Consumer Staples and Industrials. The Foundation is underweight Telecom, Consumer Discretionary and Energy, and it has a 0% weight in Technology, Utilities and Materials.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Owns Over 7 Million Shares of BP
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Buys CSX Corp., M&T Bank Corp., XTO Energy Inc. Mcdonald's, Devon Energy Corp., Sells Johnson & Johnson
These are the top 5 holdings of Bill Gates
1. Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK-B) - 1,251,250 shares, 48.36% of the total portfolio
2. McDonald's Corp. (MCD) - 6,867,500 shares, 5.27% of the total portfolio
3. Canadian National Railway Company Fully (CNI) - 8,399,653 shares, 4.82% of the total portfolio
4. Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) - 4,285,000 shares, 4% of the total portfolio
5. Costco Wholesale Corp. (COST) - 6,128,000 shares, 3.74% of the total portfolio
Is this a philanthropic venture or a tax evasion investment scheme?
I do commend Gates for what he is doing but I would not go so far as to slobber all over him for his philanthropic works considering his past illicit activity that played a significant role in providing him with the funds to become a philanthropist.
Median individual income by age and sex
Some fun facts about income:
From 1947 to 1974 individual income in 2008 dollars for all age groups and sex on average increased annually.
Ages 15 years and over on average increased annually, males 2.44%, females 1.40%
Ages 25 to 34, males 2.95%, females 2.27%
Ages 35 to 44, males 3.06%, females 1.86%
Ages 45 to 54, males 3.21%, females 2.21%
Ages 55 to 64, males 2.94%, females 2.63%
Ages 65 and older, males 3.25%, females 2.81%
From 1947 to 1974 the GDP averaged 4.23% growth annually.
From 1975 to 2008 individual income in 2008 dollars had negative annual change almost across the board for males but females still managed small increases.
Ages 15 years and over on average increased, males 0.01%, females 1.63%
Ages 25 to 34, males -0.59%, females 1.11%
Ages 35 to 44, males -0.31%, females 1.37%
Ages 45 to 54, males -0.15%, females 1.31%
Ages 55 to 64, males 0.22%, females 1.81%
Ages 65 and older, males 1.01%, females 1.25%
From 1957 to 2008 the GDP averaged 2.68% growth.
There is a reason you hear "Median Household Income" in the media rather than individual income. As the number of households with two working adults has increased in the United States wages themselves have been stagnant. Both adults in a household have to work to survive. With many single adults now living at home what is the next step, include their children in household income to perpetuate the lie about increasing income?
You are seriously mistaken.
I guess you missed the fact that your chart peaks at 1966 before flattening out.
I guess you also failed to notice that the flat spots correlate to wars and oil embargoes. If you can assume that deregulation that started in the 80s and continued through the 90s and 2000s resulted in the upward trend in the stock market then we can also assume that all the regulations and unions that came out of the 30s and 40s resulted in the stock market gains through out the late 1930s, late 1940s, the 50s and the early 60s until the Vietnam war started and the oil embargoes reared their ugly head.
One bit of data that is not in any of these charts or spread sheets is private debt. What many are ignoring today is the fact that since individual income started to stagnate in the mid 1970s personal spending did not and the private debt owed by individuals has soared from about 20% of GDP in the 1940s and earlier to 100%+ of GDP today. Private individuals have been making up for the deficiency in wages by borrowing more.
Followed with...
HUH?!?
Unions solved many of the outrageously dehumanizing conditions created by United States corporations in the past but unions are not the solution to the same dehumanizing conditions in Chinese factories?
I think you were headed in the right direction but then your logic fell off a cliff.
And isolating the United States economy through tariffs? Wrong answer. The majority of the economic growth is taking place outside of the United States, if you isolate us economically thinking it will increase global worker wages and improve conditions you are dead wrong, it will just further destroy the economy in the United States while places like China continue to grow.
Now if you suggested holding United States corporate board members liable for foreign actions that would be considered illegal in the States much like a paedophile trying to continue their illicit practices overseas and then coming home to the States then you might have been on to something. I'm sure Jobs and other CEOs would take much more interest in foreign workers if they faced the possibility of jail time.
Time and again it has been proven that when groups of people stand together against oppression by a few they often succeed in overcoming the tyranny. I find it astounding that in a nation where the people stood up against tyranny by creating a union (The United States of America) it is today considered evil, anti-american, socialist, communist, etc. for the people to stand together in a union against poor wages and working conditions.
I think you are correct that unions were instrumental in improving the plight of the U.S. worker in the past but I would say that today in some cases the U.S. is returning to those conditions before there were unions, and it is not because of China it is because unions are broken by corporations through political attacks, media attacks, and out right illegal activity.
Nice cheat sheet but I was a bit surprised to see "* Also Enforce: Least Privilege" listed under "Additional Defenses". Perhaps it is just my opinion but it seems least privilege should be very high on the list as has the potential to negate many application code and query instances where a developer may make a mistake or is simply lax in their methods.
When I had a PHPBB website hit by an SQL Injection attack I not only stopped using PHPBB but I started an open source project with the idea of creating components to be used in the design of a database backed web application that could rely on the least privilege principle at the database engine rather than having absolute faith in the web application code itself to enforce security.
It is not a perfect solution but it has the potential to stop many SQL injection attacks even in cases where the web application has some bad code.
I see you are getting hammered with comments that I believe misunderstand your professor's statement. Of course businesses are in business to make money, what people don't seem to get is that Microsoft's core competency, main objective, mission statement, sole purpose, etc. is to make money.
I could be wrong but I don't believe that Microsoft developers intentionally make bad products with the intention of getting customers hooked and then forced to upgrade. I believe this is just the end result of a business strategy that permeates virtually all of business management in the United States today. I would describe the U.S. business models as, greed is good slash and burn, hookers and extortion profit margin goals, end times are near hoarding and investment(or lack there of), and disaster focused management.
Greed is good slash and burn: There is an entire generation, perhaps more, of MBAs who watched Wallstreet and fell for Gekko's speech about greed as a driving factor for all human pursuits but either failed to watch the entire movie or did not make the connection to the plot where greed did not result excellence in business pursuits but instead led to cheating, destruction of other people's livelihoods to transfer wealth from a group of people to an individual, and out right criminal activity. And we don't need a movie to tell us that greed is not good, we have real life events that occur over and over and over that show us how greed left unchecked simply leads to crime not excellence.
Hookers and extortion profit margin goals: Profit margins are important for the viability of a business and its ability to expand and invest into future business opportunities, however, the greed mentality has created a deranged market concept that becomes detached from the real market and real viability of a product. I have seen this mentality at work at a hardware manufacturer during management and engineering meetings where Part B had a lower profit margin than Part A and it was repeatedly suggested that Part B should no longer be manufactured and Part A should be ramped up using the manufacturing capacity of Part B. Unfortunately the MBAs and engineers refused to listen to sanity, the bulk of the market wanted to buy Part B not Part A and the final products that used Part A also required Part B. Without the low margin Part B there was no market for Part A! Once logic failed I gave in to the greedy profit margin goal and suggested we replace all the engineers and manufacturing employees with hookers and thugs as the profit margin in the Hookers and Extortion business was probably better than making parts. As an engineer I would not be needed so I left.
End times are near hoarding and investment(or lack there of): Again driven by greed, rather than having long term multiple year future plans many U.S. corporations are more concerned with 3 month business plans as if there will be no future for the planet or business beyond the next 3 months. If your engineering project does not have an acceptable ROI within 3 months then it stays on the back burner. Even after presenting the same 3 year plan after 3 years on an annual basis and explaining that 3 years ago if it had been implemented the benefits would have been rolling in the project is perpetually placed on the back burner while the funds that could have financed the project are hoarded until upper management bonus time rolls around.
Disaster focused management: And as a result of the previous management techniques the focus of U.S. business management becomes continually locked in disaster recovery mode. With everything focused on greed the little things like safety, sustainability, future capability, etc. are all left to the way side until they becom
The chart is not ignoring anything. Without SOX would more companies do their IPO in U.S. exchanges, perhaps, would it be worth it to drop SOX and get these IPOs, lets put it into perspective...
From the Bloomberg article: "It would cost us as much as $3.5 million a year to comply with the vigorous reporting requirements in the U.S. For a $100 million company, that's 3 to 4 percent of gross revenue."
Also from the Bloomberg article: "Bush signed Sarbanes-Oxley into law in July 2002 after Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. collapsed in the two biggest bankruptcies in U.S. history. Enron's decline wiped out $68 billion of market value, 5,000 jobs and at least $1 billion in retirement funds."
Considering the market value alone that Enron wiped out it will take 680 years of Peach Holdings revenue to replace the destruction of the Enron accounting shenanigans. I say screw Peach Holdings, let them do their IPO over seas and we'll keep our regulations here in the States to prevent another Enron.
Considering the massive financial impact investors endured from the likes of Enron, Worldcom, Tyco and others it is a tough sell to kill regulation like SOX. While it does introduce a cost burden there is a lot of that burden which should be in effect in the first place for any viable and reputable business. There is a lot of SOX costs that are blown out of proportion exactly because accounting costs that should have been in place are included with new requirements like audits.
Anyhow, costs aside the data does not agree with your assessment of the impact of SOX on IPOs.
Market pull backs and recessions that result in regulations like SOX are the cause of reduced IPOs not the regulation as can be seen in the charts in this article that clearly shows little or no impact to IPO trends from the passing of SOX in 2002. Once the market started to recover from the dot com bust the IPOs returned even though SOX was in place.
Monsanto may get their dues before life patents are outlawed. When the rise of superweeds wipes out the Monsanto engineered crops there may be little choice but to fire up Soylent Green and I'm sure there will be more than a few ready to offer Monsanto's board as the first Soylent offering.
I think I understand and in part agree with your logic, however, your conclusion is wrong for two reasons. First there had to be a starting point where software was considered by the courts for patent-ability. Since there was no precedence the conclusions by the court were not activism as the courts were not trying to bring about change. And second, in reading some of the early cases that concerned software patents and the conclusions it becomes readily obvious that the decisions were in fact based on previous case law and 35 USC 100 through 35 USC 104. It was in no way judicial activism.
In the case Diamond_v_Diehr where the tide turned and lawyers started to find ways of patenting software it may very well be judicial activism and there was a very strong and well reasoned dissenting opinion. I cannot say without a doubt that it is judicial activism as that type of conclusion would require more research to understand how the the justice's came to their conclusions that seemed to change several years and cases of precedence. I will only say it is a possibility and that I believe the dissenting opinion was correct in pointing out the flaws and errors in the majority opinion.
There was this event in history commonly referred to as The Great Depression which was followed by many of the same regulations that were removed because prior to implementing these regulations there was a similar financial melt down in many cases caused by similar financial bubbles and out of control chicanery.
I find it to be more than a coincidence that the S&L crisis followed deregulation and the current financial melt down also followed deregulation.
And the fact that the regulations, like the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, came after the Great Depression suggests your conclusion about the regulations causing the crisis are dead wrong. Hell, the deregulation is what created "To Big to Fail" not the enactment of regulations.
And to add some previous insult to injury we have the recent "Health Care Reform" bill that addresses the out of control cost of health care insurance premiums by forcing every United States citizen into paying those same premiums to the same corporations or end up paying a fine on their annual taxes.
And then there is the 2003 Medicare Modernization act with the "competition" clause that prevents the Medicare plan coordinator from getting involved in price negotiations for pharmaceuticals. Instead the costs are determined by the insurance carrier, manufacturer and the pharmacy. I'm sure many were paid very well for that piece of legislation which is comparable to having a car manufacturer, the dealership and the bank determine how much you will pay for a new car rather than haggling on the price yourself. I guess the passage of such an obvious corporate paid for bill explains why 14 congressional aides quit their jobs to work for the drug and medical lobbies immediately after the bill's passage, after all, there job was done.
Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980
Say hello to risky and out of control lending
Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, 1982
Enjoy the savings and loan crisis
Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933
Welcome the age of "too big to fail"
Actually it works both ways.
While their primary function is not as a patent troll Apple, Microsoft and Amazon have in turn played the role of the frivilous patent litigant with the biggest difference being in their objective of halting the "Progress of Science and useful Arts" to the betterment of their bottom line.
Pardon me if I am misunderstanding your logic but it appears that you care suggesting investment in start ups is equivalent to investment in the big corps because the hope is the big corporation will buy the start up. While it is true that VC investment in start ups hope to profit by eventually selling to a larger corporation it is far from an equivalent to investing in the big corporations R&D.
Software patents are used to prevent unforeseen competition from fresh start ups and they cut the VCs out of the loop because they don't invest in the big corporations, otherwise they would not be VCs they would just be investors.
For a VC it makes sense to stop the software patent nonsense because it is destroying not just start ups and new ideas but it also destroys investment opportunities in those start ups and new ideas.
Every now and again the United States does get it right.
Before the United States government forced aircraft manufacturers and patent holders into the Manufacturers Aircraft Association there was a patent war that resulted in lots of litigation in the United States but no aircraft manufacturing or innovation once the patent war started.
When a real war broke out, WW1, the United States had to buy aircraft from France because the United States business ventures were more interested in lawsuits than making aircraft.
After ending the patent war by forcing everyone into a patent pool the aircraft industry in the United States took off.
There are other similar cases that plainly show how the patent system has been a failure from the beginning in serving the Constitutional requirements. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.
Seems logical that a venture capitalist would see the absurdity in software patents. After all, how many venture capitalists are investing in all the fresh innovations and inventions coming out of Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, etc.
I guess you are pretty well !#@%ed, but then again the world still needs ditch diggers. ;)
This is also an issue for people who can pay for a drug, even United States citizens who have health insurance. There have been recent news articles highlighting the fact that the United States is facing a shortage of various anti-venoms because corporations are either stopping production or never bothered to develop a manufacturing process because there is no significant profit potential.
This is an excellent idea but I would even go so far as to suggest taking out the "leads to effective cures" requirement as it can take a long time to reap the benefits and corporations would be more likely to utilize the offer if it provided an immediate tax benefit.
The recent move by GlaxoSmithKline that we all read about is a good example of a case where a corporation should be given a tax break.
However, tax breaks are far from enough. The only reason GSK was even researching a malaria vaccine was because of the huge profit potential from millions of infections globally. There are numerous ailments that will never receive corporate financing because there is no profit motive. Note the scorpion anti-venom case in the previously mentioned article where all the anti-venom is produced non-profit by a university professor and no corporation is willing to step up to create and sell a product.
Ultimately there are a vast number of medical and non-medical ventures that should be funded by the public because they do not present any significant profit potential to entice corporations but society would gain both tangible and intangible benefits.
Sadly the direction the United States appears to be headed is to a purist position of worship and submission to the almighty corporation, gross margins and a "greed is good" mentality. This can be seen in reading some of the articles on the anti-venom issue that suggest a solution is tort reform and easing of FDA regulations. Of course these arguments are a misnomer as these proponents admit themselves that the issue is a lack of profit potential and the suggested tort reform and easing of regulations are likely a one time benefit on the Internal Rate of Return calculation used to determine if a project is financially viable. The end result would still be no cures or research for low or no profit situations with the addition of federal protection for corporations against law suits from the public and elimination of regulations that are in place to help prevent the conditions that result in law suits in the first place.