The British use a
National service framework to determine who gets what in healthcare. As opposed to, "Do you have insurance?" in the US.
"The National Service Framework sets five standards and identifies 30 markers of good practice which will help the NHS and its partners manage demand, increase fairness of access and improve choice and quality in dialysis and kidney transplant services." My point is NOT that they have it perfect, just that they don't use money as the determining factor for who gets what healthcare. (I think thats more fair.)
As to distributed software development and incremental changes, vs. the expense of drug development, I just wanted to point out that other systems also work for making drugs. The way the US does drug research now isn't how it was done in the past; Corporations used to do *much* more research by funding University and hospital researchers and studies.
The restriction of knowledge in drug companies goes hand-in-hand with IP Laws that effect software. We can change the rules in both areas to get more of what we want by focusing on fairness, but this will mean taking away profits (and power) from vested interests.
again, as this threads originator said:
This fight is about taking ideas out of the hands of a few powerful entities with a vested interest in maintaining their power, and shifting it to everyone.
In order to use M$, Brazil has to pay $$ (as in "USD"). And because Brazil does not (you inconsiderate clods...) have a convertable currency, it has to convert something tangible -- soybeans will do -- into $$.
You clearly understand that its money which decides medical help in the US... but why not aim for a system based on ideals of fairness rather then just economy?
And human health has benefitted tremendously from the new drugs [...] If you cut off that funding, you cut off new research and you eliminate future, continuing improvements in human health.
I'm sure you don't believe this is true of software. (Pay M$ or we won't get advancements.) So why do you think it so with drugs? Is the current IP law and regulatory environment the only place where advancement has happened? Even if you argue that its the most productive, why not try for something more fair?
As this threads originator said:
This fight is about taking ideas out of the hands of a few powerful entities with a vested interest in maintaining their power, and shifting it to everyone.
The 'few powerful entities' includes drug companies.
We need a way to track down what we install, modify or remove.
parent said:
Apt is fantastic for managing a core set of distribution provided packages.
Top down configuration and package management from IT seems to be lacking. How many copies of {proprietary app} are installed? How can I force a sub-group of machines to install software? There are solutions to these issue: but they are FAR from the those available on windows.
Not even if the software if primarily used for illegal stuff? Not trolling here, just curious. Should a single legitimate use for a tool render it free for anyone to use, even though the vast majority would use it for illegal purposes?
Thats a fair question: hunting rifles are OK, hangrenades are not. The potential utility, common use, and general intent of actual users, all go into our deciding whats OK.
P2P (as we all know) has many legitimate uses. But what of its common use?
If its only copyrighted MP3 music files we are discussing, P2P is in a bad way: The common use is for stealing (and helping the terrorists win.) It has little potential utility since central control is desired. And as to the general intent of users: well, mostly its to get music you don't have.
We may know how crazy it is to ban P2P for specific file types (its all just bits) but that does not mean the courts will. We ban gun use for many things (like opening beer cans,) and that works. So why not demand it of tech.?
What's the point of having an entire Linux distro for a single "game"?
There are many Go players who want to see/try all the different Go software but would never try working with Linux. Now they can, and find out that Linux is pretty nice.
The CERN document is for their internal use; their network rules -- not a public warning.
More then that, CERN's policy is wrong! For people who can't get an incoming connection, the network lets them make an outbound connection to a 'Supernode.' The supernode will need to allow incoming connections for this to work, and that is entirely in the hands of the firewall admin.
Slashdot Mirror
The British use a National service framework to determine who gets what in healthcare. As opposed to, "Do you have insurance?" in the US. "The National Service Framework sets five standards and identifies 30 markers of good practice which will help the NHS and its partners manage demand, increase fairness of access and improve choice and quality in dialysis and kidney transplant services." My point is NOT that they have it perfect, just that they don't use money as the determining factor for who gets what healthcare. (I think thats more fair.)
As to distributed software development and incremental changes, vs. the expense of drug development, I just wanted to point out that other systems also work for making drugs. The way the US does drug research now isn't how it was done in the past; Corporations used to do *much* more research by funding University and hospital researchers and studies.
The restriction of knowledge in drug companies goes hand-in-hand with IP Laws that effect software. We can change the rules in both areas to get more of what we want by focusing on fairness, but this will mean taking away profits (and power) from vested interests.
again, as this threads originator said: This fight is about taking ideas out of the hands of a few powerful entities with a vested interest in maintaining their power, and shifting it to everyone.
What? How did this get rated insightful?
Brazilian Currency Rises for 3rd Day in 4 Against U.S. Dollar
And human health has benefitted tremendously from the new drugs [...] If you cut off that funding, you cut off new research and you eliminate future, continuing improvements in human health.
I'm sure you don't believe this is true of software. (Pay M$ or we won't get advancements.) So why do you think it so with drugs? Is the current IP law and regulatory environment the only place where advancement has happened? Even if you argue that its the most productive, why not try for something more fair?
As this threads originator said: This fight is about taking ideas out of the hands of a few powerful entities with a vested interest in maintaining their power, and shifting it to everyone. The 'few powerful entities' includes drug companies.
Thats a fair question: hunting rifles are OK, hangrenades are not. The potential utility, common use, and general intent of actual users, all go into our deciding whats OK.
P2P (as we all know) has many legitimate uses. But what of its common use?
If its only copyrighted MP3 music files we are discussing, P2P is in a bad way: The common use is for stealing (and helping the terrorists win.) It has little potential utility since central control is desired. And as to the general intent of users: well, mostly its to get music you don't have.
We may know how crazy it is to ban P2P for specific file types (its all just bits) but that does not mean the courts will. We ban gun use for many things (like opening beer cans,) and that works. So why not demand it of tech.?
There are many Go players who want to see/try all the different Go software but would never try working with Linux. Now they can, and find out that Linux is pretty nice.
More then that, CERN's policy is wrong! For people who can't get an incoming connection, the network lets them make an outbound connection to a 'Supernode.' The supernode will need to allow incoming connections for this to work, and that is entirely in the hands of the firewall admin.
See this from The Register.