By your reasoning Microsoft never had a monopoly to leverage either. Take your double standard and cram it. "Monopoly" in the context of anti-trust and anti-competition laws means "dominant market position",
Microsoft had a >85% share of the desktop market, and this is a point Federal Investigators made at the time they were considering bringing charges against Microsoft. None of those competing operating systems, taken together, had anywhere near enough market share to disrupt Microsoft effectively targeting Netscape and nearly putting them out of business. The E.U. agreed with this assessment, and brought similar charges to those brought by the DOJ in the U.S..
This is a matter of historical fact and court record.
Google has a dominant market position in search, webmail and web video, Microsoft has/had a dominant position in desktop operating systems.
Apparently you don't understand what wielding monopolistic power means either, but lever let details stop you from getting your frothing at the mouth on.
Say we grant your premise for the sake of argument. What services is Google forcing you to use, in place of what other services, by leveraging their dominant position? The only thing they are doing is using G+ as the primary placeholder for their combined credentials store, and even then, unless you are creating a new YouTube account, you can choose not to attach your existing YouTube account to the G+ credential.
The only thing that they are doing, which I think is kind of piss-poor on their part, but has nothing to do with the use of monopolistic power in any way, is preventing you creating *new* separate accounts for their various services, the same way you are unable to create separate accounts for Word or Excel on the Office365 site.
From a services management perspective, maintaining multiple back end account databases is a PITA, so I can understand why they are doing this, although I really hate that they are doing the whole Facebook-like thing and insisting on "Real Identities or well known pseudonyms", and denying account creation outside those categories. I think anonymity is important, but you aren't going to resolve that particular issue by having separate accounts, since giving that up is pretty much part of their TOS agreement, just as it's becoming part of everyone else's.
That's the point. G+ isn't market dominant, but GMail, Google Search and Youtube are. IE was not market dominant, but Windows was.
I'll give you Google Search, but you don't have to sign into G+ to use it.
YouTube doesn't seem market dominant, but as long as you aren't commenting, you can use your previously created YouTube account to post videos and they've *claimed* there's no intention to change that, so it's irrelevant (this is a "wait and see" for me).
GMail doesn't seem market dominant, but I'd be willing to look at numbers if you have them relative to Yahoo! Mail and Hotmail/Outlook.com, and if you can show 75% market share or above, I'll grant you that, though I think that the market for free stuff is more or less infinite.
I kind of don't see how this is any different from the Yahoo single sign-on or the Microsoft single sign-on that goes across all their properties, other than people don't like having their anonymity stripped away. Neither do I, but then I avoid it by not using merged single sign-on services from any of the three companies in question.
At the time, Windows had more that 75% of the desktop makretshare, so it counted as "monopolistic power".
As I said, the same thing and you are a Google marketing shill.
And you have obviously never read my posts about Google...
And what are you talking about with sock puppets? I am an AC, how can AC be a sock puppet?
It's really easy. Except, you know, on YouTube, where AC's are no longer allowed to make comments. And the newspaper sites where they are now requiring accounts. Bet that really pisses you off.
You are fucking blind or just a shill if you think forced integration with Google Mail and YouTube isn't leveraging monopolistic power. It is exactly the same thing, perhaps even worse.
Thanks for your uninformed opinion anyways.
Video: Vimeo, DailyMotion, Vube, Break, MetCafe, UStream, VEVO, FilmOn WebMail: Hotmail, Hushmail, Zoho Mail, iCloud Mail, Yahoo! Mail, Mail.com/GMX, Inbox.com, My Way Mail...Apparently you don't know what "wielding monopolistic power" means under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Yeah, it's annoying that you have to make actual sock puppet accounts to shill paid negative comments on YouTube videos now... boo freaking hoo for you, AC.
Them coalescing their user database is annoying, but it's not like it's not theirs to do what the hell they want with it, unless they are charging you for it.
It is no different when people made a stink over Microsoft bundling IE with Windows.
Wrong
They do not wield monopolistic power in the marketplace, and they are not leveraging monopolistic power (which they don't have) to obtain a monopoly in another market.
This is very different from Microsoft, which leveraged it's desktop monopoly in order to try to obtain a browser monopoly, and was convicted of same in a Federal Court.
PS: If you locked me away without books for 3 months, I'd probably come out of it as a supervillian, bent on wreaking vengeance on society. I'm just saying.
Hell leave the buses in as long as they stop obstructing the flow of traffic.
That won't work.
The purpose of a bus is to obstruct traffic so that you get wherever you are going no faster than had you ridden the bus. Then when you finally give up and sell your car and become a bus rider, at the first sign of civil unrest or epidemic, they can stop running the busses entirely, and they don't have to worry about you getting "uppity". At least that how the BART station closures worked wuring the wireless service shutdown protests and the Occupy movement protests...
Did you actually even bother checking this? No, most modern X11 servers run as root so they can* have hardware access to GLX and DRM. But, please tell me, which distro or OS do you run that runs your X11 server as non-root? Because I'd love to use a system like that.
I think you and I have different definitions of "modern": XQuartz, OpenBSD, KMS all perform privilege separation.
It's actually trivial to do privilege separation of FreeBSD and NetBSD as well, if you are willing to apply patches, but there are known bugs in their non-POSIX saved IDs implementations that are problematic in this case. Linux has similar credentials implementation problems surrounding supplementary groups.
In terms of tty ownership, there are POSIX calls which can be used to take and drop ownership pretty trivially, if they are used in the correct order, and the non-root credential you run as doesn't have to be the same as the logged in user, nor does the XServer need to have write access to its own configuration files.
Trojanning authentication dialogs and so on are still an issue in the case that the buffer overflow is used, in the absence of a font server, and with local write access to the fonts directory, using this bug, but the advisory is a serious exageration at best; if they have write access to your fonts directory, you're pretty much already screwed.
(1) wouldn't be very practical until it applied in most of the world and without a claim of who placed it in the public domain it'd be like grabbing random things with no copyright notice off web pages. Granted, you'd probably replace the two clause with "Placed in the public domain by [name], [year]" but it wouldn't really make it any easier to show that all your code is legally licensed.
I think that this would actually require some form of registration, which I would hope would be without charge, given that it's a gift to the public, and the public should perhaps pay the "gift tax".
(2) would be silly since everything derives from the public domain, you're trying to narrow down a direct reproduction (slap a license on it) as something special but you'd end up in a legal quagmire over how little needs to change. You can take a BSD codebase, add 0.01% spice and sell it as your own closed source binary, the public domain would be the same.
Direct reproduction. And there is already established case law regarding "trivial changes" which was hammered out the the USL/UCB lawsuit so no legal quagmire. Derivative works involving non-trivial changes would be subject to copyright (as the USL cpio.h header file, et. al.).
Regarding point (2) - would it be your intent to simply prevent distribution of a public domain work as a copyrighted work, or would it prevent the copyrighting of a derivative work from anything in the public domain.
The former. Derivative works would still be copyrightable. It would probably be useful to also require a notice of derivation when mentioning features or use, similar to the clause 3 in the 3 clause BSD, but only that it was derived from a public domain work, rather than preventing using someone else's good name. This would be contentious, I think, however.
It's not the DRM that gives them the ability to sue. It's the idea that they somehow gained any rights on the work by making an ebook from it (be it DRMed or not). Your suggestion is as if you'd try to fight theft not by making theft illegal, but by making it illegal to carry away stuff in bags.
The fact that there are forms which are capable of being filed gives them the right to sue; you can sue anyone for any reason. If someone paces something in the public domain, and then some company complains that the work belongs to them, and has a deep wallet to obtain a preponderance of evidence, vs. the person who did not profit from the work they placed in the public domain, and thus does not have a deep wallet, the probable outcome is clear.
Most Disney works do not fall into that category, BTW, since they are "transformative works", and thus are subject to copyright again. An eBook of a public domain book, however, is NOT a transformative work, unless it's some idiot editors idea of what Shakespeare would have written, had he only known proper English.
(1) If a work is explicitly placed into the public domain, then it receives indemnity protection equivalent to that provided by the BSD two clause license, so that authors are not *required* to keep a work out of the public domain and place a license on it in order to obtain a legal "hold harmless". Most BSD licensed software, for example, would have been placed in the public domain, rather than licensed at all, if it were not for the need for the author to disclaim legal liability.
(2) If a work is placed in the public domain, it shall not be legal to place it under other terms; it remains in the public domain in perpetuity. You can't just take a public domain work and slap a license or DRM on it; for example, a book placed in the public domain can not be converted to a DRM protected eBook format which would prevent further dissemination of the work (e.g. no grabbing Joseph Conrad from Project Gutenberg and making it non-redistributable).
So suggest that the EU should harmonize their nations' laws by using the 50 year TRIPS limit. The EU can do with without renegotiating any external treaties. Few works over 50 years old generate significant revenues, and longer terms just keep many works orphaned and forgotten, rather than in the public domain.
This is an OK suggestion, with the caveat that the TRIPS limit should be a limit cap, not the actual limit, since the effect of setting it to the TRIPS limit would be immediate and incessant lobbying to raise the TRIPS limit. This is a likely outcome of setting the TRIPS limit as a cap as well, but then there would be no obligation on the part of the EU to raise their limit, should such lobbying be successful.
Assuming this is done, there should also be a proviso that, should the TRIPS limit be lowered, that the EU limits are also automatically lowered, while any raises in the limit should require explicit EU legislation to match. So if the EU "harmonizes" to 50 years to equal the TRIPS limit, then the TRIPS limit goes down to 40 years, the EU automatically goes down to 40 years, and if the TRIPS limit is then jacked back up to 50 years or higher, the EU remains at 40 years, low watermarking the EU limit.
This would set a de-facto worldwide standard of 50 years. The US, with its much longer terms, would then be the major exception, and would be under pressure to reduce its copyright term.
This is highly unlikely; the two California Senators with the most power in regard to U.S. Copyright law are strongly incentivized through campaign contributions from the movie industry bodies (MPAA, et. al.), and, to a lesser extent, since it is less localized to California, the music industry.
In other words, there would be about as much pressure on the U.S. to lower its limits as there is for Disney to put Mickey Mouse in the public domain, and about as much as there is on the current WIPO to lower the TRIPS limits -- which is to say "effectively none".
Doesn't matter if you had a billion scientists saying something different, there is a single word that the other person can attach to and argue against, which means you will have lost.
Especially if most of those scientists that are doing the talking about it aren't actually climatologists, they're just the handy "scientist guy on retainer at the station" type people?
So when you play roulette and you see three odd numbers in a row, I guess that's empirical evidence that probability theory is wrong?
Naw, there's a slightly less than 1:8 probability of that (00 is technically even, I think). Do it 32 times in a row, though, and it's bout 130K less than a 1:4,294,967,296 probability, at which point I'm going to claim it's a rigged table (rigged source data set).
The real problem is not when you're drunk; eventually, you'll be sober and be able to log in later. That's almost a feature, like a breathalyzer on your phone to keep you from drunk-dialing old lovers who got married to someone else 5 years ago.
No, the real problem is when you *were* logged in, got drunk, did things, and now can't remember what you did the day after, since it involved StumbleUpon.com and one shot too many. How in the heck will you ever guess "Namibian Hang Glider Porn" (or whatever) after you sober up?
You need to read your references. They were operating under the auspices of FEMA as a relief operation. It even says so in the sources you were citing.
The simple reason is that the people who fund the research feel there is more profit in treating cancer than there ever would be in curing it.
Nonsense. The underlying causes of the uncontrolled cellular growth simply vary dramatically depending on the individual type of cancer. It is extremely complicated to even detect many cancers, yet alone come up with targeted treatments which don't adversely effect another part of a persons body. This is before you even start to factor in the cost of research, development and testing...;)
So things like Reolysin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reolysin which are effective against cancers dependent on an active RAS pathway, which means most solid-body tumor cancers, require a targeted treatment, and have adverse effects in other parts of people's bodies? I guess that explains why all the kids are dying from drinking mud puddle water or pond water when they go frog catching...
I agree with the GP: treatments are a hell of a lot more lucrative than cures, and the focus of Big Pharma has always been recurring revenue streams, rather than one-time payments.
Same reason the 1972 Dental Carries vaccine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caries_vaccine was never generally released to cure tooth decay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caries_vaccine; lot more money in fluoridating water for Alcoa, since Fluoride is a by-product of Aluminum processing anyway, and it'd put a lot of dentists out of business (especially in England, where they don't believe in orthodontia - probably something to do with Stonehenge...).
Slashdot Mirror
Desktop operating systems: BeOS, Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD MacOS.
By your reasoning Microsoft never had a monopoly to leverage either. Take your double standard and cram it. "Monopoly" in the context of anti-trust and anti-competition laws means "dominant market position",
Microsoft had a >85% share of the desktop market, and this is a point Federal Investigators made at the time they were considering bringing charges against Microsoft. None of those competing operating systems, taken together, had anywhere near enough market share to disrupt Microsoft effectively targeting Netscape and nearly putting them out of business. The E.U. agreed with this assessment, and brought similar charges to those brought by the DOJ in the U.S..
This is a matter of historical fact and court record.
Google has a dominant market position in search, webmail and web video, Microsoft has/had a dominant position in desktop operating systems.
Apparently you don't understand what wielding monopolistic power means either, but lever let details stop you from getting your frothing at the mouth on.
Say we grant your premise for the sake of argument. What services is Google forcing you to use, in place of what other services, by leveraging their dominant position? The only thing they are doing is using G+ as the primary placeholder for their combined credentials store, and even then, unless you are creating a new YouTube account, you can choose not to attach your existing YouTube account to the G+ credential.
The only thing that they are doing, which I think is kind of piss-poor on their part, but has nothing to do with the use of monopolistic power in any way, is preventing you creating *new* separate accounts for their various services, the same way you are unable to create separate accounts for Word or Excel on the Office365 site.
From a services management perspective, maintaining multiple back end account databases is a PITA, so I can understand why they are doing this, although I really hate that they are doing the whole Facebook-like thing and insisting on "Real Identities or well known pseudonyms", and denying account creation outside those categories. I think anonymity is important, but you aren't going to resolve that particular issue by having separate accounts, since giving that up is pretty much part of their TOS agreement, just as it's becoming part of everyone else's.
That's the point. G+ isn't market dominant, but GMail, Google Search and Youtube are.
IE was not market dominant, but Windows was.
I'll give you Google Search, but you don't have to sign into G+ to use it.
YouTube doesn't seem market dominant, but as long as you aren't commenting, you can use your previously created YouTube account to post videos and they've *claimed* there's no intention to change that, so it's irrelevant (this is a "wait and see" for me).
GMail doesn't seem market dominant, but I'd be willing to look at numbers if you have them relative to Yahoo! Mail and Hotmail/Outlook.com, and if you can show 75% market share or above, I'll grant you that, though I think that the market for free stuff is more or less infinite.
I kind of don't see how this is any different from the Yahoo single sign-on or the Microsoft single sign-on that goes across all their properties, other than people don't like having their anonymity stripped away. Neither do I, but then I avoid it by not using merged single sign-on services from any of the three companies in question.
Operating system: ... etc.
At the time, Windows had more that 75% of the desktop makretshare, so it counted as "monopolistic power".
As I said, the same thing and you are a Google marketing shill.
And you have obviously never read my posts about Google...
And what are you talking about with sock puppets? I am an AC, how can AC be a sock puppet?
It's really easy. Except, you know, on YouTube, where AC's are no longer allowed to make comments. And the newspaper sites where they are now requiring accounts. Bet that really pisses you off.
You are fucking blind or just a shill if you think forced integration with Google Mail and YouTube isn't leveraging monopolistic power. It is exactly the same thing, perhaps even worse.
Thanks for your uninformed opinion anyways.
Video: Vimeo, DailyMotion, Vube, Break, MetCafe, UStream, VEVO, FilmOn ...Apparently you don't know what "wielding monopolistic power" means under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
WebMail: Hotmail, Hushmail, Zoho Mail, iCloud Mail, Yahoo! Mail, Mail.com/GMX, Inbox.com, My Way Mail
Yeah, it's annoying that you have to make actual sock puppet accounts to shill paid negative comments on YouTube videos now... boo freaking hoo for you, AC.
Them coalescing their user database is annoying, but it's not like it's not theirs to do what the hell they want with it, unless they are charging you for it.
If G+ was market dominant, the argument could be made that by showing completions only from google services was anticompetitive.
G+ is not market dominant... even among Google employees.
It is no different when people made a stink over Microsoft bundling IE with Windows.
Wrong
They do not wield monopolistic power in the marketplace, and they are not leveraging monopolistic power (which they don't have) to obtain a monopoly in another market.
This is very different from Microsoft, which leveraged it's desktop monopoly in order to try to obtain a browser monopoly, and was convicted of same in a Federal Court.
Inform users and then obtain their consent in particular before storing cookies in their terminal
Can someone please name for me a single site that obtains my consent before storing cookies in my terminal?
Google doesn't ask permission to store cookies because it does not use cookies.
The books thing seems a bit harsh.
PS: If you locked me away without books for 3 months, I'd probably come out of it as a supervillian, bent on wreaking vengeance on society. I'm just saying.
Hell leave the buses in as long as they stop obstructing the flow of traffic.
That won't work.
The purpose of a bus is to obstruct traffic so that you get wherever you are going no faster than had you ridden the bus. Then when you finally give up and sell your car and become a bus rider, at the first sign of civil unrest or epidemic, they can stop running the busses entirely, and they don't have to worry about you getting "uppity". At least that how the BART station closures worked wuring the wireless service shutdown protests and the Occupy movement protests...
The Chinese are like Debian. Low risk, and slow to move to new versions. That's why you keep using it.
Mostly you keep using it because you've already invested all that time compiling, and you're convinced that it's *this close -> - to being done.
You do realize that there was not really a Death Star or massive ships, right?
It was a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. You couldn't be expected to remember that from your non-AP History classes.
Did you actually even bother checking this? No, most modern X11 servers run as root so they can* have hardware access to GLX and DRM. But, please tell me, which distro or OS do you run that runs your X11 server as non-root? Because I'd love to use a system like that.
I think you and I have different definitions of "modern": XQuartz, OpenBSD, KMS all perform privilege separation.
It's actually trivial to do privilege separation of FreeBSD and NetBSD as well, if you are willing to apply patches, but there are known bugs in their non-POSIX saved IDs implementations that are problematic in this case. Linux has similar credentials implementation problems surrounding supplementary groups.
In terms of tty ownership, there are POSIX calls which can be used to take and drop ownership pretty trivially, if they are used in the correct order, and the non-root credential you run as doesn't have to be the same as the logged in user, nor does the XServer need to have write access to its own configuration files.
Trojanning authentication dialogs and so on are still an issue in the case that the buffer overflow is used, in the absence of a font server, and with local write access to the fonts directory, using this bug, but the advisory is a serious exageration at best; if they have write access to your fonts directory, you're pretty much already screwed.
Privilege escalation is to the server credential. Modern X11 is never run as root. This is sensationalism.
(1) wouldn't be very practical until it applied in most of the world and without a claim of who placed it in the public domain it'd be like grabbing random things with no copyright notice off web pages. Granted, you'd probably replace the two clause with "Placed in the public domain by [name], [year]" but it wouldn't really make it any easier to show that all your code is legally licensed.
I think that this would actually require some form of registration, which I would hope would be without charge, given that it's a gift to the public, and the public should perhaps pay the "gift tax".
(2) would be silly since everything derives from the public domain, you're trying to narrow down a direct reproduction (slap a license on it) as something special but you'd end up in a legal quagmire over how little needs to change. You can take a BSD codebase, add 0.01% spice and sell it as your own closed source binary, the public domain would be the same.
Direct reproduction. And there is already established case law regarding "trivial changes" which was hammered out the the USL/UCB lawsuit so no legal quagmire. Derivative works involving non-trivial changes would be subject to copyright (as the USL cpio.h header file, et. al.).
Regarding point (2) - would it be your intent to simply prevent distribution of a public domain work as a copyrighted work, or would it prevent the copyrighting of a derivative work from anything in the public domain.
The former. Derivative works would still be copyrightable. It would probably be useful to also require a notice of derivation when mentioning features or use, similar to the clause 3 in the 3 clause BSD, but only that it was derived from a public domain work, rather than preventing using someone else's good name. This would be contentious, I think, however.
It's not the DRM that gives them the ability to sue. It's the idea that they somehow gained any rights on the work by making an ebook from it (be it DRMed or not). Your suggestion is as if you'd try to fight theft not by making theft illegal, but by making it illegal to carry away stuff in bags.
The fact that there are forms which are capable of being filed gives them the right to sue; you can sue anyone for any reason. If someone paces something in the public domain, and then some company complains that the work belongs to them, and has a deep wallet to obtain a preponderance of evidence, vs. the person who did not profit from the work they placed in the public domain, and thus does not have a deep wallet, the probable outcome is clear.
Most Disney works do not fall into that category, BTW, since they are "transformative works", and thus are subject to copyright again. An eBook of a public domain book, however, is NOT a transformative work, unless it's some idiot editors idea of what Shakespeare would have written, had he only known proper English.
Please add these provisos:
(1) If a work is explicitly placed into the public domain, then it receives indemnity protection equivalent to that provided by the BSD two clause license, so that authors are not *required* to keep a work out of the public domain and place a license on it in order to obtain a legal "hold harmless". Most BSD licensed software, for example, would have been placed in the public domain, rather than licensed at all, if it were not for the need for the author to disclaim legal liability.
(2) If a work is placed in the public domain, it shall not be legal to place it under other terms; it remains in the public domain in perpetuity. You can't just take a public domain work and slap a license or DRM on it; for example, a book placed in the public domain can not be converted to a DRM protected eBook format which would prevent further dissemination of the work (e.g. no grabbing Joseph Conrad from Project Gutenberg and making it non-redistributable).
So suggest that the EU should harmonize their nations' laws by using the 50 year TRIPS limit. The EU can do with without renegotiating any external treaties. Few works over 50 years old generate significant revenues, and longer terms just keep many works orphaned and forgotten, rather than in the public domain.
This is an OK suggestion, with the caveat that the TRIPS limit should be a limit cap, not the actual limit, since the effect of setting it to the TRIPS limit would be immediate and incessant lobbying to raise the TRIPS limit. This is a likely outcome of setting the TRIPS limit as a cap as well, but then there would be no obligation on the part of the EU to raise their limit, should such lobbying be successful.
Assuming this is done, there should also be a proviso that, should the TRIPS limit be lowered, that the EU limits are also automatically lowered, while any raises in the limit should require explicit EU legislation to match. So if the EU "harmonizes" to 50 years to equal the TRIPS limit, then the TRIPS limit goes down to 40 years, the EU automatically goes down to 40 years, and if the TRIPS limit is then jacked back up to 50 years or higher, the EU remains at 40 years, low watermarking the EU limit.
This would set a de-facto worldwide standard of 50 years. The US, with its much longer terms, would then be the major exception, and would be under pressure to reduce its copyright term.
This is highly unlikely; the two California Senators with the most power in regard to U.S. Copyright law are strongly incentivized through campaign contributions from the movie industry bodies (MPAA, et. al.), and, to a lesser extent, since it is less localized to California, the music industry.
In other words, there would be about as much pressure on the U.S. to lower its limits as there is for Disney to put Mickey Mouse in the public domain, and about as much as there is on the current WIPO to lower the TRIPS limits -- which is to say "effectively none".
Doesn't matter if you had a billion scientists saying something different, there is a single word that the other person can attach to and argue against, which means you will have lost.
Especially if most of those scientists that are doing the talking about it aren't actually climatologists, they're just the handy "scientist guy on retainer at the station" type people?
sf bay area has been 'tee shirts and shorts' weather the past week or so.
"Winter" in the SF Bay Area is that time of year you wear socks.
So when you play roulette and you see three odd numbers in a row, I guess that's empirical evidence that probability theory is wrong?
Naw, there's a slightly less than 1:8 probability of that (00 is technically even, I think). Do it 32 times in a row, though, and it's bout 130K less than a 1:4,294,967,296 probability, at which point I'm going to claim it's a rigged table (rigged source data set).
lemme in ya fukcin piceec of shhhtt!!!!!!
The real problem is not when you're drunk; eventually, you'll be sober and be able to log in later. That's almost a feature, like a breathalyzer on your phone to keep you from drunk-dialing old lovers who got married to someone else 5 years ago.
No, the real problem is when you *were* logged in, got drunk, did things, and now can't remember what you did the day after, since it involved StumbleUpon.com and one shot too many. How in the heck will you ever guess "Namibian Hang Glider Porn" (or whatever) after you sober up?
You need to read your references. They were operating under the auspices of FEMA as a relief operation. It even says so in the sources you were citing.
The simple reason is that the people who fund the research feel there is more profit in treating cancer than there ever would be in curing it.
Nonsense. The underlying causes of the uncontrolled cellular growth simply vary dramatically depending on the individual type of cancer. It is extremely complicated to even detect many cancers, yet alone come up with targeted treatments which don't adversely effect another part of a persons body. This is before you even start to factor in the cost of research, development and testing... ;)
So things like Reolysin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reolysin which are effective against cancers dependent on an active RAS pathway, which means most solid-body tumor cancers, require a targeted treatment, and have adverse effects in other parts of people's bodies? I guess that explains why all the kids are dying from drinking mud puddle water or pond water when they go frog catching...
I agree with the GP: treatments are a hell of a lot more lucrative than cures, and the focus of Big Pharma has always been recurring revenue streams, rather than one-time payments.
Same reason the 1972 Dental Carries vaccine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caries_vaccine was never generally released to cure tooth decay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caries_vaccine; lot more money in fluoridating water for Alcoa, since Fluoride is a by-product of Aluminum processing anyway, and it'd put a lot of dentists out of business (especially in England, where they don't believe in orthodontia - probably something to do with Stonehenge...).
Three! Three stuck icebreakers!
Muahhhaaaahhaaaahhaaahhaaahhh!
I *love* to COUNT! That's why they call me the COUNT!
Muahhhaaaahhaaaahhaaahhaaahhh!