The problem is two fold: 1) not all things that entertain you can be monetized. 2) often times the risk of failure is high enough that the individual is logically better served by the less fulfilling Job that is much more likely to pay more over the long term.
The math might looks something like this: Choice 1: Follow your dreams invest 1 - 5 years of time with a 90% chance of meaning $12,000 a year then failing. A 9% chance of earning $20,000 a year that becomes $300,000 and is sustainable and a less then 1% chance of making $15,000 a year and after 10 years making millions.
Compare too:
Choice 2: Find a nice steady job where you earn $50,000 a year for the next 30 years with a 90% certainty.
The choice is often made by the fact that you need more or less then the expected $12,000 income to live. A single person, it works, so what if you fail or starve, a parent has a different obligation to their children.
No, you have not talked to enough Gas station attendants, or people working at burger king. How many janitors are there to 'contribute' . That type of thought might be more prevalent among college educated people who have some choice in their work. Blue collar workers are generally doing whatever they can to feed their families and would rather do something more fulfilling but for various reasons don't have the opportunity.
That not to say that people don't 'WANT' to feel they are doing something useful, but the reality is that something like 25 to 50% of American workers don't have that experience.
Wow, I would think business environments would be the last place to tolerate this , for security reasons at least. Of coarse USA business have a stronger dependency on M$ produces so maybe they figure they can get away with it. I think a network best practice is point Microsoft update server at your corporate update server so maybe they are targeting home users using pro.
The problem is your sequence doesn't produce any objective answers as to what is ethical. for instance ( what is a human being has multiple answer, some people consider a fetus a human being others do not) historically the word person was coined as way of explaining the christian trinity.So it get's hard to define without reference to some non-physical no objective entity..
What is an individual ( from an objective sense) does not answer or even begin to answer any ethical questions. For instance , just because a fetus is certain an individual member of homo sapiens does that mean their individual life should be respected. What is a law , ( objectively it is an any arbitrary human syllogism enforced by thread of violent force by those with the ability to do so within society). The law can just as easily require you to kill escaped slaves as not to own slaves, legality and ethics have very little in common unless you want to discuss rights , which again don't objectively exist without reference to divinity.
etc. etc.
I see you have some strong values that I also share and can appreciate having spent some time as a military contractor. I would agree that the study of philosophy can be useful in helping a person to consider moral opinions.
However, the fact remains of what ever you value, weather it is human life, or respect of others, etc a person my invoke to seek a ethical rule IF there is not moral transcendent absolute, then you have made your choice arbitrary and in a way completely unbinding to others. The point being the study of ethics doesn't naturally lead to actual ethical behavior, unless it is also the study of Truth. That is a morally transcendent absolute that must have it's roots in some kind of divinity or primary cause. Otherwise , your morals are nothing more then your preferences conditions by your biology and environment.
what if what 'others' want done to them is NOT something I would want done to me? Or rather , what if what I very much want done to me isn't something others do not want.
So for instance, I like to be told when I'm wrong. I consider it an act of kindness to correct my mis-conceptions. ( although I might challenge your proof.) Some other people feel very differently.
I suppose you could go with the do to other's what they feel is what they want you to do, but how does that work when you don't want to do what they want ( who should be following the rule?) .
On the other hand , there are MANY people who would like to see force used to stop a murderer or a thief, except of coarse the murder or thief, so again, you can't apply that rule there, even if you would like someone to stop you from stealing or murdering.
The value of facts is a moral and philosophical position. It is part of a religious framework that values truth and rational capacity of human being to known. Modern liberalism has ensured that any discussion about actual facts or the value of truth and rational thought has been banished from the educational system under the guise of 'freedom of religion' There is no longer any such things as 'facts' that lead to 'truth' there is only 'your truth' and 'my truth' and both are to be equally valued. Trumps brilliance, weather intentional or not, is that he tied directly into that thought process and used it to push a specific agenda. He has exposed the hypocrisy on the left by exploiting ignorance of the right as it has been taught to them.
Anyone who talks about 'alternative truth' is engaging in moral relativism , which is exactly the opposite of 'traditional western thought' and in fact comes directly from European liberalism as promoted in american schools for the last 50 years. It also, naturally opposes any organized religion. Trump is in many ways more liberal then the left, just not on the issues that get him what he wants.
Guns and Nuclear bombs are tech. Tech is neutral, the people who use it aren't and the gun runners are not with out responsibility, Weather or not it is 'moral' responsibility requires you first believe morals exists.
Like - giving women drugs that causes temporary or permanent damage to their reproductive organs so they can 'control their bodies' rather then their actions. Like - if that fails destroying forming human life so that the 'the mother' will not have to deal with the consequences. Like - assisting 'those in need' to destroy themselves to avoid pain Like - ensuring elderly and depressed people in nursing homes are coded as no life support and then making sure that definition includes food, water and anti-biotics. Like - creating people in test tubes so we can control the genesis of human life and 'relive the suffering' of infertile parents. Like - cutting people up to make their bodies look like the opposite sex, just cause they want us too. Like - blinding people with drano, to reduce their mental anguish of not being blind.
Ethics, first requires a moral context. If you don't believe in objective morality, sooner or later, you will abandon all ethics. The only way there is such a thing as objective morality is if it proceeded from as non material divine realm.
ethical decisions first require a moral context to be formed.
For instance, if I provide you with drugs that prevent you from reproducing. Am I harming your reproductive system? What I force the drugs on you? What if i provide you with 'treatment' that makes you blind? when you suffer from a psychosis that causes you mental pain that you are not blind? What about surgery where I cut off pieces of you to make you look like a sex you are not. Does that harm you? How about if I help you 'pass from pain to death'... ' of your own free will'. Then again , why is your free will important if I don't want to have to pay for you to be alive, or your living is a significant burden on those around you.
Moral context is everything to ethical decisions, by attempting to build a society based on materialistic pragmatism, the idea that ethics exists has been put into serious question. So , for a secular university there are only two ways to have an 'ethics' coarse. 1) promote someone's person religious/ philosophical views OR 2) Have a coarse about what is illegal and not illegal and why with no reference to weather or not the laws are morally correct.
I'm a little surprised this is even an article on/. It was exactly this kind of scenario and thought processed that caused the creation of the GNU foundation and FOSS licensing model. Doesn't most everyone here know that?
"On top of cultural limitations, less than a quarter of respondents strongly agree that senior management understands the importance of not sacrificing security for time-to-market success."
time to market can be a make or break for profit. So how much liability are you willing to accept to make a profit,if the alternative is bankruptcy , I'd say most managers would 'go for broke' and accept whatever risk is necessary to make a profit.
That is much the same reason we have the FDA, because large food companies , when left unregulated , have in the past, killed more then a few people in the name of greater profit.
There sooner or later will be more regulation on security critical software then there is now. That will slow down innovation, but prevent loss of life and property. A trade off that must be struck somewhere and will, weather good for everyone or not , be solved based on public perception.
Is they will always favor themselves and censor those things that criticize them. The problem with having no censor is people will have to decide for themselves what is true or false and will sometimes get it wrong.
The argument that 'The normal individual can't be trusted, or expected, to know what I true and false' Is the greatest argument against any kind of democratic rule that can be made. It is actually however the reason why our constitution created a republic with strong states rights. In as much as we have moved away from that model we have made it much easier for small groups of people to control the population.
the problem is this 'renewable' is not even a net zero return. which is to say you could not run the trucks and equipment used to produce bio-diesel on bio-diesel and expect to not add other fuel into the system. At best it needs to be views as an energy storage mechanism not a fuel. Maybe... one day... we will find a process to convert the plant to fuel that doesn't take more energy ( produced from oil) then you get back when you burn it , but that isn't today. Also, these has been being researched since the 60's how long to keep investing research money in a field that has shown little improvement in which there is no way to verify the problem is even solvable. It may be that physics of it simply don't allow a solution. No one knows.
In what universe is it a reasonable expectation that the amount of energy required to produce a fuel will be less then them amount of energy it produced when burns? Answer none.
The question is , is scientifically _possible_ to create an efficient enough process that the energy in the plant material itself ( which is basically solar energy if you think about it) is more then the amount of energy needed to process the plant into food.
otherwise what you have is at best something like a battery. A way to store energy. We do need better batteries but this doesn't look like one.
That doesn't mean you won't still need a delivery person inside the car. When I order pizza at a dorm or a hotel and any multi tenant building , I'm generally not interested in going outside and finding the car to get the pizza from it.
Donald Trump's unhinged tantrums on Twitter are game theory. Tit for tat. He is merely feeding back to the American public exactly what they are putting out.
I totally agree. However, if you think Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton did anything different you are deceiving yourself the difference is really that Trump is a poor liar compared to those two. The reason he was elected is because the American public is tired of a the 'elite' creating a legal and political system that is a complete vacuum of logic. Consider the two of the hot button issues of they day , gay rights and abortion rights. Then aside from the term 'legal right' try and define the term 'right' without any reference to a deity or religion. The simple fact is the 'trump effect' is exactly what you get if you don't have any belief in a morality that demands social responsibility, self control, personal integrity. All of those things however are non-sense without context unless you have a workable , rational , moral framework from which to define them and agnosticism and atheism and for that matter liberal Protestantism, which naturally leads to the former , are not capable of creating the necessary philosophical and mental framework that supports the existence of a populous and culture that embraces values of personal integrity and policies based on hard data and logic. Still, those moral frameworks are exactly the ones enshrined in the democratic platform and regular pushed by all American large media outlets , which themselves show no inclination for either integrity of information or truth, but rather filter information to create a political illusion consistent with the ratings that fuel them..
I would guess you could have two separate companies a ( in state network) and and out of state network owned by different companies one that follows the rules and one that doesn't. as the state laws can't have any influence on companies that don't do business in the state.
Both companies could of coarse be owned by the same parent. Something like what happens with the insurance companies in Florida, after the state passed laws regulating what they could charge. So there is no 'state farm' insurance of Florida, however there is 'State Farm of Florida' insurance company that shares branding and is owned by state farm. So 'State Farm of Florida' can comply with Florida laws and charge all of their customers a similar price, that is different then the prices and regulations followed by 'State Farm' the company.
It's all out there? prove it. What was the research cost of this company during the time of this products development? How many products did it bring to market? What are their projected profits? I found one article saying the company posted huge losses last year, but where is the information as a whole is published on some wall street web site? I suspect much of what you say is correct, but all the people on here who are saying the price 'isn't fair' have never looked or seen the data. I can't say as I have either, as I'm not sure where to find it. You claim it is publicly available. Can you tell me where?
I didn't say I expected anyone to work for free. The whole article is about price and at least implied discussion fairness. I'm only attempting to get people to consider and quantify what they consider fair. It is possible the $850,000 treatment is barely breaking even for the company , in which case no one has any right to complain. A much more interesting question is when does making a profit, become , making a profit by the abuse of others. A classic case is something like Gas when a hurricane is in the Gulf of Mexico and people are trying to evacuate. Are gas station owners justified if they can sell all their gas at 10000 times the normal price and price, and let everyone either pay it or die? The consensus seems to be no, which is why their are anti-'price gouging' laws. So when does 'making a profit' become price gouging? if you are making 100% return on investment is that good enough? 200, 300, 3000, 1000000? Is there a limit and do you have any responsibility to the people who can't afford your price, especially on a product that is a need, like food , shelter, and medicine.
I think you entirely misread my statements , if not misinterpreted my point.
1st I didn't says they should 'have to ' do something to stay in business .
I implied ( although admittedly did not outright stated ) any large company that can't figure out weather or not they are able to make a profit on a given product isn't going to be in business long. So if you think the management of the company hasn't already done that kind of math I'm suggesting they make public you are very likely mistaken.
2nd my musing was more an attempt to get people to consider what 'fair' means. Is 50% profit fair ? 100% , 200% , who decides what is fair? Why and when? 200% return on your investment seems to be more then fair under most circumstance, do you say 5000% why or why not? Do you really believe that it is 'fair' to NOT provide life saving treatment to people so you can make a 5000% profit? I'm not attempting to set any specific limit, but I do think it is something people never actually discuss.
The other thing I suggested was that such a discussion can't really start until we have better transparency. So I'd much prefer to see laws that require reporting on these things first. Then , if the public sees a value in using the information for later laws, we can have the discussion.
Of coarse it is entirely possible in this specific case that the $850,000 price tag actually represents a 2 or 3% profit, because the company doesn't make numbers available that they should already have.
you defined a drug ( which are sometimes synonymous with medicine) . However , Medicine generally is a broader term, covering all practices which make people healthier. http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is two fold:
1) not all things that entertain you can be monetized.
2) often times the risk of failure is high enough that the individual is logically better served by the less fulfilling Job that is much more likely to pay more over the long term.
The math might looks something like this:
Choice 1: Follow your dreams invest 1 - 5 years of time with a 90% chance of meaning $12,000 a year then failing. A 9% chance of earning $20,000 a year that becomes $300,000 and is sustainable and a less then 1% chance of making $15,000 a year and after 10 years making millions.
Compare too:
Choice 2: Find a nice steady job where you earn $50,000 a year for the next 30 years with a 90% certainty.
The choice is often made by the fact that you need more or less then the expected $12,000 income to live. A single person, it works, so what if you fail or starve, a parent has a different obligation to their children.
No, you have not talked to enough Gas station attendants, or people working at burger king. How many janitors are there to 'contribute' . That type of thought might be more prevalent among college educated people who have some choice in their work. Blue collar workers are generally doing whatever they can to feed their families and would rather do something more fulfilling but for various reasons don't have the opportunity.
That not to say that people don't 'WANT' to feel they are doing something useful, but the reality is that something like 25 to 50% of American workers don't have that experience.
Is anyone sure this isn't some kind of worm or virus? has Microsoft admitted to it?
Widows Server 2000 was the best OS MS every made. Pretty much down hill from there.
Wow, I would think business environments would be the last place to tolerate this , for security reasons at least. Of coarse USA business have a stronger dependency on M$ produces so maybe they figure they can get away with it. I think a network best practice is point Microsoft update server at your corporate update server so maybe they are targeting home users using pro.
The problem is your sequence doesn't produce any objective answers as to what is ethical.
for instance ( what is a human being has multiple answer, some people consider a fetus a human being others do not) historically the word person was coined as way of explaining the christian trinity.So it get's hard to define without reference to some non-physical no objective entity..
What is an individual ( from an objective sense) does not answer or even begin to answer any ethical questions.
For instance , just because a fetus is certain an individual member of homo sapiens does that mean their individual life should be respected.
What is a law , ( objectively it is an any arbitrary human syllogism enforced by thread of violent force by those with the ability to do so within society).
The law can just as easily require you to kill escaped slaves as not to own slaves, legality and ethics have very little in common unless you want to discuss rights , which again don't objectively exist without reference to divinity.
etc. etc.
I see you have some strong values that I also share and can appreciate having spent some time as a military contractor. I would agree that the study of philosophy can be useful in helping a person to consider moral opinions.
However, the fact remains of what ever you value, weather it is human life, or respect of others, etc a person my invoke to seek a ethical rule IF there is not moral transcendent absolute, then you have made your choice arbitrary and in a way completely unbinding to others. The point being the study of ethics doesn't naturally lead to actual ethical behavior, unless it is also the study of Truth. That is a morally transcendent absolute that must have it's roots in some kind of divinity or primary cause. Otherwise , your morals are nothing more then your preferences conditions by your biology and environment.
what if what 'others' want done to them is NOT something I would want done to me?
Or rather , what if what I very much want done to me isn't something others do not want.
So for instance, I like to be told when I'm wrong. I consider it an act of kindness to correct my mis-conceptions. ( although I might challenge your proof.)
Some other people feel very differently.
I suppose you could go with the do to other's what they feel is what they want you to do, but how does that work when you don't want to do what they want ( who should be following the rule?) .
On the other hand , there are MANY people who would like to see force used to stop a murderer or a thief, except of coarse the murder or thief, so again, you can't apply that rule there, even if you would like someone to stop you from stealing or murdering.
The value of facts is a moral and philosophical position. It is part of a religious framework that values truth and rational capacity of human being to known.
Modern liberalism has ensured that any discussion about actual facts or the value of truth and rational thought has been banished from the educational system under the guise of 'freedom of religion' There is no longer any such things as 'facts' that lead to 'truth' there is only 'your truth' and 'my truth' and both are to be equally valued. Trumps brilliance, weather intentional or not, is that he tied directly into that thought process and used it to push a specific agenda. He has exposed the hypocrisy on the left by exploiting ignorance of the right as it has been taught to them.
Anyone who talks about 'alternative truth' is engaging in moral relativism , which is exactly the opposite of 'traditional western thought' and in fact comes directly from European liberalism as promoted in american schools for the last 50 years. It also, naturally opposes any organized religion. Trump is in many ways more liberal then the left, just not on the issues that get him what he wants.
Guns and Nuclear bombs are tech. Tech is neutral, the people who use it aren't and the gun runners are not with out responsibility, Weather or not it is 'moral' responsibility requires you first believe morals exists.
Like - giving women drugs that causes temporary or permanent damage to their reproductive organs so they can 'control their bodies' rather then their actions.
Like - if that fails destroying forming human life so that the 'the mother' will not have to deal with the consequences.
Like - assisting 'those in need' to destroy themselves to avoid pain
Like - ensuring elderly and depressed people in nursing homes are coded as no life support and then making sure that definition includes food, water and anti-biotics.
Like - creating people in test tubes so we can control the genesis of human life and 'relive the suffering' of infertile parents.
Like - cutting people up to make their bodies look like the opposite sex, just cause they want us too.
Like - blinding people with drano, to reduce their mental anguish of not being blind.
Ethics, first requires a moral context. If you don't believe in objective morality, sooner or later, you will abandon all ethics. The only way there is such a thing as objective morality is if it proceeded from as non material divine realm.
ethical decisions first require a moral context to be formed.
For instance, if I provide you with drugs that prevent you from reproducing. Am I harming your reproductive system? What I force the drugs on you? ... ' of your own free will'. Then again , why is your free will important if I don't want to have to pay for you to be alive, or your living is a significant burden on those around you.
What if i provide you with 'treatment' that makes you blind? when you suffer from a psychosis that causes you mental pain that you are not blind?
What about surgery where I cut off pieces of you to make you look like a sex you are not. Does that harm you?
How about if I help you 'pass from pain to death'
Moral context is everything to ethical decisions, by attempting to build a society based on materialistic pragmatism, the idea that ethics exists has been put into serious question. So , for a secular university there are only two ways to have an 'ethics' coarse. 1) promote someone's person religious/ philosophical views OR 2) Have a coarse about what is illegal and not illegal and why with no reference to weather or not the laws are morally correct.
I'm a little surprised this is even an article on /.
It was exactly this kind of scenario and thought processed that caused the creation of the GNU foundation and FOSS licensing model. Doesn't most everyone here know that?
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/manife...
"On top of cultural limitations, less than a quarter of respondents strongly agree that senior management understands the importance of not sacrificing security for time-to-market success."
time to market can be a make or break for profit. So how much liability are you willing to accept to make a profit ,if the alternative is bankruptcy , I'd say most managers would 'go for broke' and accept whatever risk is necessary to make a profit.
That is much the same reason we have the FDA, because large food companies , when left unregulated , have in the past, killed more then a few people in the name of greater profit.
There sooner or later will be more regulation on security critical software then there is now. That will slow down innovation, but prevent loss of life and property. A trade off that must be struck somewhere and will, weather good for everyone or not , be solved based on public perception.
Is they will always favor themselves and censor those things that criticize them.
The problem with having no censor is people will have to decide for themselves what is true or false and will sometimes get it wrong.
The argument that 'The normal individual can't be trusted, or expected, to know what I true and false' Is the greatest argument against any kind of democratic rule that can be made. It is actually however the reason why our constitution created a republic with strong states rights. In as much as we have moved away from that model we have made it much easier for small groups of people to control the population.
that would probably would introduce a monitoring stage if that turns out to be the case.
the problem is this 'renewable' is not even a net zero return. which is to say you could not run the trucks and equipment used to produce bio-diesel on bio-diesel and expect to not add other fuel into the system. At best it needs to be views as an energy storage mechanism not a fuel. Maybe ... one day ... we will find a process to convert the plant to fuel that doesn't take more energy ( produced from oil) then you get back when you burn it , but that isn't today. Also, these has been being researched since the 60's how long to keep investing research money in a field that has shown little improvement in which there is no way to verify the problem is even solvable. It may be that physics of it simply don't allow a solution. No one knows.
In what universe is it a reasonable expectation that the amount of energy required to produce a fuel will be less then them amount of energy it produced when burns? Answer none.
The question is , is scientifically _possible_ to create an efficient enough process that the energy in the plant material itself ( which is basically solar energy if you think about it) is more then the amount of energy needed to process the plant into food.
otherwise what you have is at best something like a battery. A way to store energy. We do need better batteries but this doesn't look like one.
That doesn't mean you won't still need a delivery person inside the car. When I order pizza at a dorm or a hotel and any multi tenant building , I'm generally not interested in going outside and finding the car to get the pizza from it.
Donald Trump's unhinged tantrums on Twitter are game theory. Tit for tat.
He is merely feeding back to the American public exactly what they are putting out.
I totally agree. However, if you think Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton did anything different you are deceiving yourself the difference is really that Trump is a poor liar compared to those two. The reason he was elected is because the American public is tired of a the 'elite' creating a legal and political system that is a complete vacuum of logic. Consider the two of the hot button issues of they day , gay rights and abortion rights. Then aside from the term 'legal right' try and define the term 'right' without any reference to a deity or religion. The simple fact is the 'trump effect' is exactly what you get if you don't have any belief in a morality that demands social responsibility, self control, personal integrity. All of those things however are non-sense without context unless you have a workable , rational , moral framework from which to define them and agnosticism and atheism and for that matter liberal Protestantism, which naturally leads to the former , are not capable of creating the necessary philosophical and mental framework that supports the existence of a populous and culture that embraces values of personal integrity and policies based on hard data and logic. Still, those moral frameworks are exactly the ones enshrined in the democratic platform and regular pushed by all American large media outlets , which themselves show no inclination for either integrity of information or truth, but rather filter information to create a political illusion consistent with the ratings that fuel them..
I would guess you could have two separate companies a ( in state network) and and out of state network owned by different companies one that follows the rules and one that doesn't. as the state laws can't have any influence on companies that don't do business in the state.
Both companies could of coarse be owned by the same parent. Something like what happens with the insurance companies in Florida, after the state passed laws regulating what they could charge. So there is no 'state farm' insurance of Florida, however there is 'State Farm of Florida' insurance company that shares branding and is owned by state farm. So 'State Farm of Florida' can comply with Florida laws and charge all of their customers a similar price, that is different then the prices and regulations followed by 'State Farm' the company.
It's all out there? prove it. What was the research cost of this company during the time of this products development?
How many products did it bring to market? What are their projected profits?
I found one article saying the company posted huge losses last year, but where is the information as a whole is published on some wall street web site?
I suspect much of what you say is correct, but all the people on here who are saying the price 'isn't fair' have never looked or seen the data.
I can't say as I have either, as I'm not sure where to find it. You claim it is publicly available. Can you tell me where?
I didn't say I expected anyone to work for free. The whole article is about price and at least implied discussion fairness. I'm only attempting to get people to consider and quantify what they consider fair. It is possible the $850,000 treatment is barely breaking even for the company , in which case no one has any right to complain. A much more interesting question is when does making a profit, become , making a profit by the abuse of others. A classic case is something like Gas when a hurricane is in the Gulf of Mexico and people are trying to evacuate. Are gas station owners justified if they can sell all their gas at 10000 times the normal price and price, and let everyone either pay it or die? The consensus seems to be no, which is why their are anti-'price gouging' laws. So when does 'making a profit' become price gouging? if you are making 100% return on investment is that good enough? 200, 300, 3000, 1000000? Is there a limit and do you have any responsibility to the people who can't afford your price, especially on a product that is a need, like food , shelter, and medicine.
That would fall under company overhead ( insurance and litigation).
I think you entirely misread my statements , if not misinterpreted my point.
1st I didn't says they should 'have to ' do something to stay in business
.
I implied ( although admittedly did not outright stated ) any large company that can't figure out weather or not they are able to make a profit on a given product isn't going to be in business long. So if you think the management of the company hasn't already done that kind of math I'm suggesting they make public you are very likely mistaken.
2nd my musing was more an attempt to get people to consider what 'fair' means. Is 50% profit fair ? 100% , 200% , who decides what is fair?
Why and when? 200% return on your investment seems to be more then fair under most circumstance, do you say 5000% why or why not? Do you really believe that it is 'fair' to NOT provide life saving treatment to people so you can make a 5000% profit? I'm not attempting to set any specific limit, but I do think it is something people never actually discuss.
The other thing I suggested was that such a discussion can't really start until we have better transparency. So I'd much prefer to see laws that require reporting on these things first. Then , if the public sees a value in using the information for later laws, we can have the discussion.
Of coarse it is entirely possible in this specific case that the $850,000 price tag actually represents a 2 or 3% profit, because the company doesn't make numbers available that they should already have.
you defined a drug ( which are sometimes synonymous with medicine) . However , Medicine generally is a broader term, covering all practices which make people healthier.
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...