"Every clinical trial that has ever been run demonstrates that the same drugs have different effects in different people - it's hardly a surprise that different drugs have different effects. And me-toos are different - different enough not to violate the patent on the innovator drug almost certainly means different enough to have different effects in some people. My local supermarket carries at least a dozen different styles of peanut butter, a fact of which I approve, but Angell thinks two angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors may be one too many (p.90). Give me a break.
Finally, it's important to recognize that small changes can actually make for important improvements. What could be more me-too than a once-a-day pill replacing a twice-a-day pill? Yet, to dismiss this change is to overlook the people factor. A once-a-day regime that people stick to is much better than a twice-a-day regime that people fail to follow. Forget the chemical structure the economics says a drug that people actually take is a better drug." ---------------- "If all drugs in each therapeutic class were identical, Celebrex would now be off the market along with Vioxx. In fact, one pill can turn out to be safer than another. Indeed, without going into details about Levitra and Viagra, their effects can also vary. .
G-d forbid you're disabled, or you even just appear unhealthy, or maybe people just see you as ugly. You can forget about that promotion, you're not worthy.
Whatever happened to judging people on performance? Nah, that's too easy, we need another
managment fad of the week instead.
He's hardly the first to postulate that "time is relative" (sorry:-) ) There are much more thoroughly thought out and soundly grounded works that preceed this paper (such as the distance-time premise of Keith Maxwell Hardy). Lynds' work is a nice critical piece, but it does not propose a working testable hypothesis.
"The distance-time premise is that distance and time are joined together in nature, possessing dual characteristics of distance and time. This premise contrasts with traditional views which separate time and space. The premise of distance-time may be proven wrong if distance or time can be measured independently. However, if any measurement is accomplished by particle motion, then an independent distance or time measurement has not been achieved since particles travel across distance and time jointly.
The rod (ruler) measurement has been traditionally seen as a measurement of distance separate from time. However, the location of every part of the rod is communicated by photons that traverse distance and time. Therefore, rod measurements are dependent on particle motion. They are not a measurement of distance separate from time. Furthermore, the difference between locations of physical bodies is always communicated by particle motion across distance and time. For instance, if I try to determine the difference of position between the earth's and the moon's surfaces, I may use a light beam or rocket. Yet, both are groups of particles which cross distance and time and move between the earth and the moon. Therefore, I would not achieve measurements of distance independent of time. Consequently, all measurements of distance by an observer in nature are made across a period of time.
Traditionally, the clock measurement also has been seen as a measurement of time separate from distance. However, clocks use particle motion in order to measure. The traditional clock has spindles which sweep across the face of the clock, crossing time and distance together. Also, a digital electronic clock requires electrons to move across time and distance jointly. These clocks do not achieve measurements of time independent of distance.
In the previous examples, measurements of distance or time, which are independent of each other, were not achieved. Therefore, the distance-time premise remains valid. However, traditional theories, such as relativity, do not use particles to define distance and time, and they do not satisfy the distance-time premise; instead, they always separate time from distance."
All the objections to the DCMA are just the
same objections to hacking that were used
as excuses for breaking in to other people's systems.
There is no right to other people's property,
and no right to duplicate a key or otherwise bypass a security system to gain access to someone's house or premises.
Academic work to prove a method or algorithm is flawed or insecure should certainly not be outlawed, but attempts to crack a specific product or protection scheme are valid actions
that can be legislated against.
Slashdot Mirror
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/me_too_drugs/
"Every clinical trial that has ever been run demonstrates that the same drugs have different effects in different people - it's hardly a surprise that different drugs have different effects. And me-toos are different - different enough not to violate the patent on the innovator drug almost certainly means different enough to have different effects in some people. My local supermarket carries at least a dozen different styles of peanut butter, a fact of which I approve, but Angell thinks two angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors may be one too many (p.90). Give me a break.
Finally, it's important to recognize that small changes can actually make for important improvements. What could be more me-too than a once-a-day pill replacing a twice-a-day pill? Yet, to dismiss this change is to overlook the people factor. A once-a-day regime that people stick to is much better than a twice-a-day regime that people fail to follow. Forget the chemical structure the economics says a drug that people actually take is a better drug."
----------------
"If all drugs in each therapeutic class were identical, Celebrex would now be off the market along with Vioxx. In fact, one pill can turn out to be safer than another. Indeed, without going into details about Levitra and Viagra, their effects can also vary. .
G-d forbid you're disabled, or you even just appear unhealthy, or maybe people just see you as ugly. You can forget about that promotion, you're not worthy. Whatever happened to judging people on performance? Nah, that's too easy, we need another managment fad of the week instead.
http://www.drgeorgepc.com/TsunamiMegaEvaluation.ht ml
What good is a simulator if you don't have any blinking lights!
Time Flies like an Arrow. Fruit Flies like a Banana.
He's hardly the first to postulate that "time is relative" (sorry :-) )
There are much more thoroughly thought out and soundly grounded works that preceed this paper (such as the distance-time premise of Keith Maxwell Hardy).
Lynds' work is a nice critical piece, but it does not propose a working testable hypothesis.
http://www.comcity.com/distance-time/
"The distance-time premise is that distance and time are joined together in nature, possessing dual characteristics of distance and time. This premise contrasts with traditional views which separate time and space. The premise of distance-time may be proven wrong if distance or time can be measured independently. However, if any measurement is accomplished by particle motion, then an independent distance or time measurement has not been achieved since particles travel across distance and time jointly.
The rod (ruler) measurement has been traditionally seen as a measurement of distance separate from time. However, the location of every part of the rod is communicated by photons that traverse distance and time. Therefore, rod measurements are dependent on particle motion. They are not a measurement of distance separate from time. Furthermore, the difference between locations of physical bodies is always communicated by particle motion across distance and time. For instance, if I try to determine the difference of position between the earth's and the moon's surfaces, I may use a light beam or rocket. Yet, both are groups of particles which cross distance and time and move between the earth and the moon. Therefore, I would not achieve measurements of distance independent of time. Consequently, all measurements of distance by an observer in nature are made across a period of time.
Traditionally, the clock measurement also has been seen as a measurement of time separate from distance. However, clocks use particle motion in order to measure. The traditional clock has spindles which sweep across the face of the clock, crossing time and distance together. Also, a digital electronic clock requires electrons to move across time and distance jointly. These clocks do not achieve measurements of time independent of distance.
In the previous examples, measurements of distance or time, which are independent of each other, were not achieved. Therefore, the distance-time premise remains valid. However, traditional theories, such as relativity, do not use particles to define distance and time, and they do not satisfy the distance-time premise; instead, they always separate time from distance."
All the objections to the DCMA are just the same objections to hacking that were used as excuses for breaking in to other people's systems. There is no right to other people's property, and no right to duplicate a key or otherwise bypass a security system to gain access to someone's house or premises. Academic work to prove a method or algorithm is flawed or insecure should certainly not be outlawed, but attempts to crack a specific product or protection scheme are valid actions that can be legislated against.