There are. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and Merck have worked together to supply ARV meds for several African countries, including Botswana, a country particularly hard hit (with HIV+ rate around 40%).
This kind of effort doesn't work in less friendly countries, however. Look at what efforts have gone into Nigeria, Namibia, Liberia, etc. Their situations are much more dire, even though they have lower HIV+ rates. The sad fact is that they don't offer hospitality to those with a desire to help.
Bringing this back on topic, however, patents work as they should in the drug world - regulatory approval and high investment risk requires patent-like exclusivity incentives - however, in other fields of technology, patents CAN be counterproductive. Just keep in mind, though, that innovating around existing patents is STILL innovation. Who knows what someone might come up with to get around this Apple patent? Patents provide incentives for the proprietor and for the competitor. Especially if the market goes unsatisfied.
Though this point will likely get lost in the abyss, most drug companies (if not every one of them) would love to supply drugs to poor countries at low prices. Frankly, most drug companies would be willing to supply poor countries with drugs FOR FREE. The problem is . . . many poor countries also have corrupt leadership. The governments of these poor countries are complicit in diverting donated medicine to other countries, for a profit. So not only would the drug company be donating medicine to a poor country, losing money in the process, but the drugs would then be shipped off to other countries where people would otherwise be paying for them . . . paying the drug company, that is. And the drug companies simply can't take that kind of a loss. Especially when the people in need in the poor country aren't getting any benefit.
I have yet to see a SINGLE intelligent civilization in this galaxy. I would like some empirical evidence of the possibility of intelligent civilizations before someone speculates wildly about their prolificacy.
This all started in the 80's and 90's. The original problem: the consolidation of money. With the advent of the 401k, vast amounts of money were being consolidated into the hands of institutional investors. Between the 401k and pension plans, we have collectively been handing our REAL wealth over to a small number of firms. And what do we want them to do with the money? Well, grow it, of course. But when we see our neighbors' retirement accounts growing at crazy rates (think: late '90s tech boom), we want OUR retirement accounts to do the same. So we demand our institutional investors take the same kind of risky investments that just CAN'T lose . . .
But they can. They did. The '90s tech bubble burst. The funny money that was created in the run up was promptly transferred into real estate. Lenders, overcome by a similar greed that overcame retirement investors, lent to people they knew they shouldn't have (or should have known). And voila. We have a horrible mess - basically, we think we have a lot more money than we actually do. The only viable solution? We need to realize the loss. It was never our money in the first place.
It's an exclusive dealing contract - not necessarily a bad thing, but looking at the effect on competition, seemingly competition is hindered more than efficiencies are created.
I don't think that the bricking of the iPhone is a big deal (but I haven't read the binding EULA, so I don't know if that kind of action is contractually authorized in the agreement). The big story here is, if this is affirmed, you will likely be able to get an iPhone on any number of carriers. This is actually GREAT for Apple as well (more sales). This is horrible for ATT, however.
As people stay healthier longer, people SHOULD continue to work. We shouldn't conceptualize the stages of human life in terms of years; Instead, we should conceptualize it in terms of percentages of expected life. Granted, the first 18 or so years are pretty much set in stone, but after that, we have a certain percentage of life available for each occupied stage. Looking only at labor, first there is education. Then, there is the career ramp-up. Then we have career maintenance -- perhaps a career switch (using skills from career #1 in career #2 . . . or not). Finally, we wind our careers down. A percentage of our healthy adult lives should be dedicated to each of these, with a percentage left for active retirement. There's nothing wrong with the actual number of years within each stage to increase in proportion to the amount of time we have to live well. This is the biggest benefit of progress in health and life expectancy.
The obvious problem, addressed in other replies, is that there are few (if any) better solutions for when police need to subdue someone who is acting violently and endangering the lives of others. I'd rather be tased than shot, hands down. However, police have been using tasers where they would never have used guns lawfully. I think that the same degree of restraint that police are required to have with guns should be used with tasers. Tasers should not be used unless there is immediate danger of the violent suspect seriously injuring themselves or another.
But he doesn't really address the possibility that there will be sufficient advanced life to "deal with" the advanced life trying to bring havoc to innocent blue-green balls. If you do expand the Drake equation thusly, you must also account for advanced civilizations interacting with advanced civilizations. What is the probability of an intergalactic ethic forming versus an intergalactic ethic not forming? Frankly, based on the fact that developing technology to the point of intergalactic travel requires social stability on your home world, I would think the balance favors HAVING an intergalactic ethic.
I knew there was a use for chaos theory, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and Schroedinger's cat . . . let's just all close our eyes preceding the collision . . . if we never observe it, we never know the outcome . . . and we'll all survive . . . or not . . . but we'll never know.
Read the brief. This is a throw away argument made in case the court didn't buy the real argument. They have a log of activities on the Defendants' computer. They hired an "investigator" to go on Kazaa and download songs off of their computer. The plaintiffs have a record of these activities. Pretty clear cut, here.
I preface this comment by saying that I am in no way bashing drug makers. They finance the development of life saving drugs and should be commended (usually). But seriously, Microsoft's consultants and business development teams NEED to look at the drug industry to get ideas on how to switch users from XP to Vista. Frequently when a drug looses patent exclusivity, the manufacturer will have in place a strategy to get most patients on that drug to switch to their "new" (and exclusive) drug. Just look at what AstraZenica did with Prilosec and Nexium. When Prilosec (a drug to treat GERD, aka, heartburn) was going off-patent, the AstraZenica had Nexium waiting in the hopper. The only difference between the 2 drugs was that Prilosec was a racemic mixture and Nexium was the active enantomer. So basically, AstraZenica was able to successfully switch millions of patients off of one drug and onto, basically, the SAME drug with a MUCH higher price tag.
So yes, Vista costs more than XP . . . and Vista is much more clunky, etc. Microsoft is going to need some serious marking muscle to move its customers over to a product that is, at best, a marginal improvement. Drug companies, as in the Prilosec to Nexium example are quite adept at this. They need to talk.
Easy. Article I, Section 8. It's called the commerce clause. That's how congress regulates . . . well . . . pretty much anything. If it affects commerce (and has a perceivable effect on interstate commerce), it most likely can be regulated.
No. Attractive nuisance would be a common law cause of action. This is a proposed law. They can say whatever they want as long as it falls within congress' constitutional power, and doesn't violate the constitution.
Yes, we all should secure our wi-fi connections. Sadly, I must keep mine open so that I can use it with my work computer (gotta love the IT policies at my employer!!). So if this law were passed, I'd be exposed to substantial liability when my neighbors use it to download porn. Great. Is the government going to subsidize the lead I'm going to have to install in my walls? Maybe I should just melt down my kids' toys and coat my walls and windows in the melted mess.
I'm convinced congress has zero insight into technology. I, frankly, think this is a great place for lobbyists to step in and give these guys a clue.
But see the beauty of a site where the only "friends" you have are the ones you actually converse with. If you cannot "add" a friend, other than by having regular and meaningful email conversation, people won't be friend counter whores like some tend to be on sites like myspace and facebook. Though I'm still in school (I've been a degree collector), my college years were just before the social networking scene took off, so I haven't had much interest in the myspace/facebook brand of social networking. I DO, however, like to keep in touch with people I ACTUALLY care about. It would be brilliant for google (I use gmail) to establish a "personal page" type of environment where people in MY ALREADY EXISTING network can, well, do their thing. This, and, frankly, I absolutely can't STAND the HORRIFIC design of most myspace pages. How many goddamn flashing graphics does one person need?!?!?!
I'll start off by saying that I know little more about x-ray crystallography than what you explained in your post. My concern with your objection is, however, more related to your criticism. I understand your distaste for the project's underhanded tactics in trying to generate publicity. Beyond that, however, your criticisms fail to address the merits of what the group IS doing (other than what I perceive as your criticism of high-throughput screening in general). If you feel that your technical criticism has merit, have you explained your concern to the team conducting the analysis?
Besides, even though many of the proteins are not proteins associated directly with cancer, the knowledge that will come from having thousands of additional proteins 3-D structures will surely aid future cancer research.
Yes, it's interesting how Silicon Valley may be where new car tech breakthroughs will happen, but the comparison here is misleading. The reason Detroit was the automobile mecca of the US was because that's where all of the cars were made. That's where hundreds of thousands of people toiled to send car after car off the assembly line. Do you think that the same is going to happen in Silicon Valley? SV will be the same thing it's been for the past several decades . . . a place where ideas and technology are born. And like a lot of the technology invented in SV, it will get manufactured in Taiwan, China, etc.
First, this was a search that wasn't under the standard set of protocols. Typically, the FBI would have to procure a warrant from a judge in an open court. There are a number of procedural checks in such a case. One of these checks is that the judge examines whether or not there is probable cause. In this case, the judge would have likely required more. That being said, however, this was under the FISA. What was under attack was the procedures by which the FBI was given permission to engage in this surveillance. There weren't adequate procedures in place to ensure that the search wasn't "unreasonable". In order for a proper warrant to issue, a court must determine probable cause. This court is unable to do so. Therefore, this court cannot constitutionally grant search warrants rendering it, in itself, unconstitutional as amended by the Patriot Act.
Let's see if I can actually get the formatting right . . . sorry!
Background:
The Patriot Act's amendment to the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) changed the FISA (enacted in 1978) from authorizing the use of electronic surveillance where the PRIMARY purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence to authorizing the same for merely SUBSTANTIAL purposes. This effectively gave the federal government the authority to conduct domestic criminal investigations under the watch of the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - staffed by 10 district judges). The application for surveillance under the FISA must be certified as "substantially for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence" by a executive official (such as the director of the FBI). The FISC can only overrule this authority if the certification is "clearly erroneous." This standard of review is extremely high. Rarely are the decisions of people in-the-know "clearly erroneous," and therefore, rarely could the court make this determination, overruling the authority to engage in surveillance.
Facts of the Case:
This case involved some of the FBI's surveillance activities related to the Madrid train bombings (March 11, 2004 - bombs exploded in Madrid killing 191 and injuring 1600). Here, a fingerprint was found on a plastic bag holding one of the explosives. The FBI ran this fingerprint through their database and didn't get a perfect match. They then queried the system for the 20 best matches. The fourth best match discovered was Mayfield, an Oregon resident, a lawyer, and a Muslim. The fact that he was a Muslim notably influenced the FBI's interest. Despite the fact that the Spanish authorities examined the fingerprint and the supposed match and subsequently determined that there in fact was no match, the FBI's interest continued. The FBI, through the FISA court's approval, electronically spied on Mayfield and his family, entered into his house when he was away, and followed him, his wife, and his children. Eventually a search warrant was issued and many of the family's possessions were seized (computers, kids' homework, etc). Mayfield was arrested and held from May 6, 2004 through May 20, 2004. He was released because the Spanish authorities found the man who matched the fingerprint (Algerian, Ouhane Daoud). Mayfield contested the constitutionality of the Patriot Act's amendment to the FISA, claiming that, on its face, it violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition on illegal searches and seizures.
Summary (ignoring issues of standing, ripeness, etc):
The Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized." U.S. Const. Amend. IV. For a surveillance warrant to issue, law enforcement officials typically need to prove probable cause. This would generally require the demonstration of some set of facts that would implicate an individual in a crime. Under the original FISA, electronic surveillance could have been conducted upon demonstrating that the PRIMARY purpose of the surveillance was to gather foreign intelligence. The Patriot Act amendment virtually removes any safeguard that surveillance would be conducted for the primary purpose of domestic law enforcement. The District Court concluded that because there is no check to prevent the domestic surveillance of a US citizen, this amendment to FISA is unconstitutional on its face.
The primary problem was the certification and standard of review. Executive officials are, in effect, members of law enforcement for the purpose of certifying FISA applications. Their primary goal is to engage in these activities to support their investigations. To require their findings to only be overruled if they are "clearly erroneous" gives them too much leverage.
Slashdot Mirror
This kind of effort doesn't work in less friendly countries, however. Look at what efforts have gone into Nigeria, Namibia, Liberia, etc. Their situations are much more dire, even though they have lower HIV+ rates. The sad fact is that they don't offer hospitality to those with a desire to help.
Bringing this back on topic, however, patents work as they should in the drug world - regulatory approval and high investment risk requires patent-like exclusivity incentives - however, in other fields of technology, patents CAN be counterproductive. Just keep in mind, though, that innovating around existing patents is STILL innovation. Who knows what someone might come up with to get around this Apple patent? Patents provide incentives for the proprietor and for the competitor. Especially if the market goes unsatisfied.
Though this point will likely get lost in the abyss, most drug companies (if not every one of them) would love to supply drugs to poor countries at low prices. Frankly, most drug companies would be willing to supply poor countries with drugs FOR FREE. The problem is . . . many poor countries also have corrupt leadership. The governments of these poor countries are complicit in diverting donated medicine to other countries, for a profit. So not only would the drug company be donating medicine to a poor country, losing money in the process, but the drugs would then be shipped off to other countries where people would otherwise be paying for them . . . paying the drug company, that is. And the drug companies simply can't take that kind of a loss. Especially when the people in need in the poor country aren't getting any benefit.
I have yet to see a SINGLE intelligent civilization in this galaxy. I would like some empirical evidence of the possibility of intelligent civilizations before someone speculates wildly about their prolificacy.
But they can. They did. The '90s tech bubble burst. The funny money that was created in the run up was promptly transferred into real estate. Lenders, overcome by a similar greed that overcame retirement investors, lent to people they knew they shouldn't have (or should have known). And voila. We have a horrible mess - basically, we think we have a lot more money than we actually do. The only viable solution? We need to realize the loss. It was never our money in the first place.
It's an exclusive dealing contract - not necessarily a bad thing, but looking at the effect on competition, seemingly competition is hindered more than efficiencies are created. I don't think that the bricking of the iPhone is a big deal (but I haven't read the binding EULA, so I don't know if that kind of action is contractually authorized in the agreement). The big story here is, if this is affirmed, you will likely be able to get an iPhone on any number of carriers. This is actually GREAT for Apple as well (more sales). This is horrible for ATT, however.
As people stay healthier longer, people SHOULD continue to work. We shouldn't conceptualize the stages of human life in terms of years; Instead, we should conceptualize it in terms of percentages of expected life. Granted, the first 18 or so years are pretty much set in stone, but after that, we have a certain percentage of life available for each occupied stage. Looking only at labor, first there is education. Then, there is the career ramp-up. Then we have career maintenance -- perhaps a career switch (using skills from career #1 in career #2 . . . or not). Finally, we wind our careers down. A percentage of our healthy adult lives should be dedicated to each of these, with a percentage left for active retirement. There's nothing wrong with the actual number of years within each stage to increase in proportion to the amount of time we have to live well. This is the biggest benefit of progress in health and life expectancy.
No need to be brass.
The obvious problem, addressed in other replies, is that there are few (if any) better solutions for when police need to subdue someone who is acting violently and endangering the lives of others. I'd rather be tased than shot, hands down. However, police have been using tasers where they would never have used guns lawfully. I think that the same degree of restraint that police are required to have with guns should be used with tasers. Tasers should not be used unless there is immediate danger of the violent suspect seriously injuring themselves or another.
But he doesn't really address the possibility that there will be sufficient advanced life to "deal with" the advanced life trying to bring havoc to innocent blue-green balls. If you do expand the Drake equation thusly, you must also account for advanced civilizations interacting with advanced civilizations. What is the probability of an intergalactic ethic forming versus an intergalactic ethic not forming? Frankly, based on the fact that developing technology to the point of intergalactic travel requires social stability on your home world, I would think the balance favors HAVING an intergalactic ethic.
I knew there was a use for chaos theory, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and Schroedinger's cat . . . let's just all close our eyes preceding the collision . . . if we never observe it, we never know the outcome . . . and we'll all survive . . . or not . . . but we'll never know.
I believe you win the award for the most Adams-esque post.
Does it increase or decrease my geek status that I get your Cartesian proof of the existence of God reference?
This took some serious effort. I applaud you! I wonder if this will be considered prior art when an engine similar to this is patented . . .
Kewl! This is so, like . . . 1999 . . . makes me feel l33t all over again.
Read the brief. This is a throw away argument made in case the court didn't buy the real argument. They have a log of activities on the Defendants' computer. They hired an "investigator" to go on Kazaa and download songs off of their computer. The plaintiffs have a record of these activities. Pretty clear cut, here.
As opposed to, "We'd better get this on tape." - Richard Nixon
Easy. Article I, Section 8. It's called the commerce clause. That's how congress regulates . . . well . . . pretty much anything. If it affects commerce (and has a perceivable effect on interstate commerce), it most likely can be regulated.
No. Attractive nuisance would be a common law cause of action. This is a proposed law. They can say whatever they want as long as it falls within congress' constitutional power, and doesn't violate the constitution.
Yes, we all should secure our wi-fi connections. Sadly, I must keep mine open so that I can use it with my work computer (gotta love the IT policies at my employer!!). So if this law were passed, I'd be exposed to substantial liability when my neighbors use it to download porn. Great. Is the government going to subsidize the lead I'm going to have to install in my walls? Maybe I should just melt down my kids' toys and coat my walls and windows in the melted mess.
I'm convinced congress has zero insight into technology. I, frankly, think this is a great place for lobbyists to step in and give these guys a clue.
But see the beauty of a site where the only "friends" you have are the ones you actually converse with. If you cannot "add" a friend, other than by having regular and meaningful email conversation, people won't be friend counter whores like some tend to be on sites like myspace and facebook. Though I'm still in school (I've been a degree collector), my college years were just before the social networking scene took off, so I haven't had much interest in the myspace/facebook brand of social networking. I DO, however, like to keep in touch with people I ACTUALLY care about. It would be brilliant for google (I use gmail) to establish a "personal page" type of environment where people in MY ALREADY EXISTING network can, well, do their thing. This, and, frankly, I absolutely can't STAND the HORRIFIC design of most myspace pages. How many goddamn flashing graphics does one person need?!?!?!
I'll start off by saying that I know little more about x-ray crystallography than what you explained in your post. My concern with your objection is, however, more related to your criticism. I understand your distaste for the project's underhanded tactics in trying to generate publicity. Beyond that, however, your criticisms fail to address the merits of what the group IS doing (other than what I perceive as your criticism of high-throughput screening in general). If you feel that your technical criticism has merit, have you explained your concern to the team conducting the analysis?
Besides, even though many of the proteins are not proteins associated directly with cancer, the knowledge that will come from having thousands of additional proteins 3-D structures will surely aid future cancer research.
Yes, it's interesting how Silicon Valley may be where new car tech breakthroughs will happen, but the comparison here is misleading. The reason Detroit was the automobile mecca of the US was because that's where all of the cars were made. That's where hundreds of thousands of people toiled to send car after car off the assembly line. Do you think that the same is going to happen in Silicon Valley? SV will be the same thing it's been for the past several decades . . . a place where ideas and technology are born. And like a lot of the technology invented in SV, it will get manufactured in Taiwan, China, etc.
First, this was a search that wasn't under the standard set of protocols. Typically, the FBI would have to procure a warrant from a judge in an open court. There are a number of procedural checks in such a case. One of these checks is that the judge examines whether or not there is probable cause. In this case, the judge would have likely required more. That being said, however, this was under the FISA. What was under attack was the procedures by which the FBI was given permission to engage in this surveillance. There weren't adequate procedures in place to ensure that the search wasn't "unreasonable". In order for a proper warrant to issue, a court must determine probable cause. This court is unable to do so. Therefore, this court cannot constitutionally grant search warrants rendering it, in itself, unconstitutional as amended by the Patriot Act.
Let's see if I can actually get the formatting right . . . sorry!
Background:
The Patriot Act's amendment to the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) changed the FISA (enacted in 1978) from authorizing the use of electronic surveillance where the PRIMARY purpose was for gathering foreign intelligence to authorizing the same for merely SUBSTANTIAL purposes. This effectively gave the federal government the authority to conduct domestic criminal investigations under the watch of the FISC (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - staffed by 10 district judges). The application for surveillance under the FISA must be certified as "substantially for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence" by a executive official (such as the director of the FBI). The FISC can only overrule this authority if the certification is "clearly erroneous." This standard of review is extremely high. Rarely are the decisions of people in-the-know "clearly erroneous," and therefore, rarely could the court make this determination, overruling the authority to engage in surveillance.
Facts of the Case:
This case involved some of the FBI's surveillance activities related to the Madrid train bombings (March 11, 2004 - bombs exploded in Madrid killing 191 and injuring 1600). Here, a fingerprint was found on a plastic bag holding one of the explosives. The FBI ran this fingerprint through their database and didn't get a perfect match. They then queried the system for the 20 best matches. The fourth best match discovered was Mayfield, an Oregon resident, a lawyer, and a Muslim. The fact that he was a Muslim notably influenced the FBI's interest. Despite the fact that the Spanish authorities examined the fingerprint and the supposed match and subsequently determined that there in fact was no match, the FBI's interest continued. The FBI, through the FISA court's approval, electronically spied on Mayfield and his family, entered into his house when he was away, and followed him, his wife, and his children. Eventually a search warrant was issued and many of the family's possessions were seized (computers, kids' homework, etc). Mayfield was arrested and held from May 6, 2004 through May 20, 2004. He was released because the Spanish authorities found the man who matched the fingerprint (Algerian, Ouhane Daoud). Mayfield contested the constitutionality of the Patriot Act's amendment to the FISA, claiming that, on its face, it violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition on illegal searches and seizures.
Summary (ignoring issues of standing, ripeness, etc):
The Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized." U.S. Const. Amend. IV. For a surveillance warrant to issue, law enforcement officials typically need to prove probable cause. This would generally require the demonstration of some set of facts that would implicate an individual in a crime. Under the original FISA, electronic surveillance could have been conducted upon demonstrating that the PRIMARY purpose of the surveillance was to gather foreign intelligence. The Patriot Act amendment virtually removes any safeguard that surveillance would be conducted for the primary purpose of domestic law enforcement. The District Court concluded that because there is no check to prevent the domestic surveillance of a US citizen, this amendment to FISA is unconstitutional on its face.
The primary problem was the certification and standard of review. Executive officials are, in effect, members of law enforcement for the purpose of certifying FISA applications. Their primary goal is to engage in these activities to support their investigations. To require their findings to only be overruled if they are "clearly erroneous" gives them too much leverage.