Should compulsory licensing of all medicines be the norm rather than the exception and drug patents be banned.
Drug patents aren't the problem here. This isn't a case of a company charging an arm and a leg (or maybe two legs - paraplegic with working arms might do) for a drug under patent, and drug patents don't last for that long anyway. The problem here is FDA approval, since getting something approved even if it's a copy of something else is expensive and time-consuming, and the newcomer into the field might not make that back if the original producer cuts prices sharply. It's good for the public if someone pushes this, but there has to be an incentive.
What nobody has ever told me is why I should care about the Kardashians, or why I should care about what people think about them. There's lots of things in life I just ignore and have no problems with. Having the Kardashians and the people who talk about them in that category works for me.
Even if you're not fixable, there's ways it can hurt you. I was turned down for life insurance because of my depression. There are mental health restrictions on owning guns, I'm told. I was told by someone who should know that I'm ASD, but it doesn't show up in the slowly growing list of things that are medically wrong with me, so nobody official is going to discriminate me because of that.
Why does he have DNC and not RNC emails? Why is he releasing them now, in an apparent attempt to influence the election? The release of DNC email and not RNC does not contribute to people's understanding of the situation, and functions as an act of deception.
I don't really care whether it was an intentional strategy or just Reagan doing stuff day-to-day. It was risky.
You're telling me that we now know that the Soviets didn't have the strength to do anything (although I'd like to get cites on that, as the sources I've seen say that the conventional forces were indeed there). That doesn't change how risky the strategy was when it was evaluated and put into practice.
The really dangerous part of an arms race is when one side has some sort of superiority and is going to lose that soon. Deliberately provoking that moment is risky, despite what the outcome is.
Accessed it at home. It's about a sailor that took a picture in a "classified engine room", which is intentionally doing something against the law, as opposed to Clinton's negligence. The dividing line between felony prosecution and no prosecution appears to be whether the act is intentional or a result of negligence, and not what classified material is involved. Clinton had no intention of leaking classified material. Saucier's phone, with the classified picture, was found in a dump (the article didn't say whether it was military or civilian), which suggests no particular care in making sure the picture didn't get into the wrong hands, and that's what kicked off the investigation.
It may well be that taking pictures in classified areas is common aboard submarines, and is handled administratively (although you'd think being demoted one rank would be something of a deterrent), and if the case had started before there was any possible dissemination, and Saucier had fessed up, it seems likely that he'd have been demoted or something. The fact that he destroyed evidence can''t have helped him either.
So another case of criminal intent vs. negligence. Nothing new here.
That would also be nice. I'm not getting into a self-driving car that can't be overridden by a human until I'm a lot more confident in the sensors and sensor processing than I am now.
If there's 21 people doing felony time for being negligent with classified materials, you should have no problem naming a few, or at least give me a better pointer than "read the Congressional hearings" without even specifying which hearings.
I've been asking for this for months now, and nobody has felt it necessary, or perhaps possible, to point me at a specific case of felony prosecution for anyone who's been negligent with classified material. The cases I've been given so far divide into (a) people who intentionally violated the law, and (b) people who didn't face felony prosecution.
Would it kill people to say things more specifically? The Marine I referred to was recent. If you'd like to discuss another Marine, fine, but it would help to know who you were thinking of.
We know that US foreign policy under Clinton towards Russia was unsuccessful. It's much harder to judge it as a bad idea at the time, since now that we know how it turned out we can easily find reasons why its failure was inevitable - and, of course, if we were currently nice and friendly with the Russians, we could easily find reasons why the policy succeeded. Humans are great at weaving events into stories.
If the superiority of Democrats at emotional propaganda is a statement of fact, I'd like to see some support for it. I've noticed that Republicans are adept at throwing dirt, which is a different form of emotional propaganda from what the Democrats are typically good at.
If you'd done what Clinton did, you would have been disciplined administratively, perhaps losing your job and/or your clearance. That is what the FBI director said, and I know of no case where negligence in handling classified materials resulted in a felony conviction. If you know of a case, I'd love to hear of it.
Federal records don't have to be available on-line at all times. Clinton handed over the federal records from her server, although it looks like there was some carelessness there also.
That was some time ago, and I'm not remembering where I got that.
However, the legality of the email server has nothing to do with the legality of anything done with it. She may well have broken the law doing things on a perfectly legal server.
TFS described topology as a branch of mathematics, which is in fact not physics. It then said that it was the study of things that change in increments, which is barely even wrong. Topology is the study of certain properties of sets, which can be finite or infinite, and don't have to be quantized. What people think of when they talk about topology is the study of properties that are invariant under transformations involving continuous functions. Sets of discrete objects can have topologies, but mathematicians are usually more interested in topologies on infinite sets that are continuous in some definition or other. This doesn't mean that physicists can't use topology as they please, and it may be that topologies on some set of the integers are what they use most, but they don't get to define it.
Realistically, Clinton was probably not briefed intensely, and that probably applies to all Cabinet-level officials. I'm also inclined to give a lot of leeway for operations at that level, since those people are supposed to be able to make decisions in the interests of the country. That doesn't mean I'll give any of them a pass for violating the rights of individuals, but handling classified material is a government function that doesn't violate anyone's rights.
Is anyone sure that Powell didn't have classified documents at some time on his private email account? I wouldn't be surprised if he did. I also wouldn't particularly care.
Please point to the word "negligence" that doesn't occur with the word "gross". There's a difference between "negligence" and "gross negligence", and I'm not enough of a lawyer to sort that one out. The fact that there was only about a hundred classified documents among tens of thousands suggests negligence but not gross negligence to me, but I'm not an authority.
I did check on the law concerning email servers. It would be illegal now but wasn't when Clinton was Secretary of State. I would feel better about it if it had been well administered, since I have no particular faith in government IT security.
Legally, she hasn't been convicted of a crime, so she's not a criminal. Neither is Trump.
If a private computer device, for whatever reason, gets "contaminated" with secure information, it becomes the property of the federal government, and must be immediately surrendered to the appropriate security officials.
Could you point me at the law here? This sounds fishy, the sort of thing that would be in the UCMJ or contractual arrangements.
Um, since when was it in the least unusual for a celebrity to give a private speech to an organization in exchange for speaking fees (no scare quotes necessary)? And what the heck would the Secretary of State be doing administering a Treasury program like TARP?
If you actually read about the uranium sale, you'll find that Clinton was only one of several people approving it. You might want to check our diplomatic stance towards Russia at the time and see if the sale was inconsistent with how we were treating Russia at the time.
Politicians aren't entirely ethical. Get over it. The only President in my lifetime I'd consider ethical was Carter, and he wasn't a good President. (I suppose Ford could count, also, but he wasn't much of a President either.)
What we have here is a dump of information that was at best illegally obtained, and likely contains some stuff made up out of whole cloth, and may be a complete fabrication, and people are trying to pull unethical behavior out of it.
Otto von Bismarck said that people who like sausage and laws shouldn't want them being made. What we have here is, at best, a look at the unpleasant side of one political party, without corresponding information for the other one.
There was nothing illegal about Clinton using her own email server for government work. It would be illegal now, but that law was passed a year after Clinton left State.
Sure. However, the Clinton Foundation didn't have anything to do with the beginning of TARP, so some of us are wondering why you're trying to link it with the Clinton Foundation, or why anyone would think that Clinton had anything to do with TARP in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
There's degrees of compliance, and I doubt Mayer is off the spectrum. Other CEOs have done essentially the same thing.
Drug patents aren't the problem here. This isn't a case of a company charging an arm and a leg (or maybe two legs - paraplegic with working arms might do) for a drug under patent, and drug patents don't last for that long anyway. The problem here is FDA approval, since getting something approved even if it's a copy of something else is expensive and time-consuming, and the newcomer into the field might not make that back if the original producer cuts prices sharply. It's good for the public if someone pushes this, but there has to be an incentive.
What nobody has ever told me is why I should care about the Kardashians, or why I should care about what people think about them. There's lots of things in life I just ignore and have no problems with. Having the Kardashians and the people who talk about them in that category works for me.
Even if you're not fixable, there's ways it can hurt you. I was turned down for life insurance because of my depression. There are mental health restrictions on owning guns, I'm told. I was told by someone who should know that I'm ASD, but it doesn't show up in the slowly growing list of things that are medically wrong with me, so nobody official is going to discriminate me because of that.
Why does he have DNC and not RNC emails? Why is he releasing them now, in an apparent attempt to influence the election? The release of DNC email and not RNC does not contribute to people's understanding of the situation, and functions as an act of deception.
I don't really care whether it was an intentional strategy or just Reagan doing stuff day-to-day. It was risky.
You're telling me that we now know that the Soviets didn't have the strength to do anything (although I'd like to get cites on that, as the sources I've seen say that the conventional forces were indeed there). That doesn't change how risky the strategy was when it was evaluated and put into practice.
The really dangerous part of an arms race is when one side has some sort of superiority and is going to lose that soon. Deliberately provoking that moment is risky, despite what the outcome is.
Accessed it at home. It's about a sailor that took a picture in a "classified engine room", which is intentionally doing something against the law, as opposed to Clinton's negligence. The dividing line between felony prosecution and no prosecution appears to be whether the act is intentional or a result of negligence, and not what classified material is involved. Clinton had no intention of leaking classified material. Saucier's phone, with the classified picture, was found in a dump (the article didn't say whether it was military or civilian), which suggests no particular care in making sure the picture didn't get into the wrong hands, and that's what kicked off the investigation.
It may well be that taking pictures in classified areas is common aboard submarines, and is handled administratively (although you'd think being demoted one rank would be something of a deterrent), and if the case had started before there was any possible dissemination, and Saucier had fessed up, it seems likely that he'd have been demoted or something. The fact that he destroyed evidence can''t have helped him either.
So another case of criminal intent vs. negligence. Nothing new here.
That would also be nice. I'm not getting into a self-driving car that can't be overridden by a human until I'm a lot more confident in the sensors and sensor processing than I am now.
If there's 21 people doing felony time for being negligent with classified materials, you should have no problem naming a few, or at least give me a better pointer than "read the Congressional hearings" without even specifying which hearings.
I've been asking for this for months now, and nobody has felt it necessary, or perhaps possible, to point me at a specific case of felony prosecution for anyone who's been negligent with classified material. The cases I've been given so far divide into (a) people who intentionally violated the law, and (b) people who didn't face felony prosecution.
Would it kill people to say things more specifically? The Marine I referred to was recent. If you'd like to discuss another Marine, fine, but it would help to know who you were thinking of.
We know that US foreign policy under Clinton towards Russia was unsuccessful. It's much harder to judge it as a bad idea at the time, since now that we know how it turned out we can easily find reasons why its failure was inevitable - and, of course, if we were currently nice and friendly with the Russians, we could easily find reasons why the policy succeeded. Humans are great at weaving events into stories.
If the superiority of Democrats at emotional propaganda is a statement of fact, I'd like to see some support for it. I've noticed that Republicans are adept at throwing dirt, which is a different form of emotional propaganda from what the Democrats are typically good at.
If you'd done what Clinton did, you would have been disciplined administratively, perhaps losing your job and/or your clearance. That is what the FBI director said, and I know of no case where negligence in handling classified materials resulted in a felony conviction. If you know of a case, I'd love to hear of it.
Federal records don't have to be available on-line at all times. Clinton handed over the federal records from her server, although it looks like there was some carelessness there also.
That was some time ago, and I'm not remembering where I got that.
However, the legality of the email server has nothing to do with the legality of anything done with it. She may well have broken the law doing things on a perfectly legal server.
TFS described topology as a branch of mathematics, which is in fact not physics. It then said that it was the study of things that change in increments, which is barely even wrong. Topology is the study of certain properties of sets, which can be finite or infinite, and don't have to be quantized. What people think of when they talk about topology is the study of properties that are invariant under transformations involving continuous functions. Sets of discrete objects can have topologies, but mathematicians are usually more interested in topologies on infinite sets that are continuous in some definition or other. This doesn't mean that physicists can't use topology as they please, and it may be that topologies on some set of the integers are what they use most, but they don't get to define it.
And Clinton had personal emails deleted. Apparently insufficient care was used, because some government emails got deleted also.
Realistically, Clinton was probably not briefed intensely, and that probably applies to all Cabinet-level officials. I'm also inclined to give a lot of leeway for operations at that level, since those people are supposed to be able to make decisions in the interests of the country. That doesn't mean I'll give any of them a pass for violating the rights of individuals, but handling classified material is a government function that doesn't violate anyone's rights.
Is anyone sure that Powell didn't have classified documents at some time on his private email account? I wouldn't be surprised if he did. I also wouldn't particularly care.
Please point to the word "negligence" that doesn't occur with the word "gross". There's a difference between "negligence" and "gross negligence", and I'm not enough of a lawyer to sort that one out. The fact that there was only about a hundred classified documents among tens of thousands suggests negligence but not gross negligence to me, but I'm not an authority.
I did check on the law concerning email servers. It would be illegal now but wasn't when Clinton was Secretary of State. I would feel better about it if it had been well administered, since I have no particular faith in government IT security.
Legally, she hasn't been convicted of a crime, so she's not a criminal. Neither is Trump.
Does Clinton? I guess neither are criminals.
Could you point me at the law here? This sounds fishy, the sort of thing that would be in the UCMJ or contractual arrangements.
Um, since when was it in the least unusual for a celebrity to give a private speech to an organization in exchange for speaking fees (no scare quotes necessary)? And what the heck would the Secretary of State be doing administering a Treasury program like TARP?
If you actually read about the uranium sale, you'll find that Clinton was only one of several people approving it. You might want to check our diplomatic stance towards Russia at the time and see if the sale was inconsistent with how we were treating Russia at the time.
There was nothing untoward about the sale.
Politicians aren't entirely ethical. Get over it. The only President in my lifetime I'd consider ethical was Carter, and he wasn't a good President. (I suppose Ford could count, also, but he wasn't much of a President either.)
What we have here is a dump of information that was at best illegally obtained, and likely contains some stuff made up out of whole cloth, and may be a complete fabrication, and people are trying to pull unethical behavior out of it.
Otto von Bismarck said that people who like sausage and laws shouldn't want them being made. What we have here is, at best, a look at the unpleasant side of one political party, without corresponding information for the other one.
There was nothing illegal about Clinton using her own email server for government work. It would be illegal now, but that law was passed a year after Clinton left State.
Sure. However, the Clinton Foundation didn't have anything to do with the beginning of TARP, so some of us are wondering why you're trying to link it with the Clinton Foundation, or why anyone would think that Clinton had anything to do with TARP in the first place.