Islam promotes Polygyny, You yourself said Africans were promiscuous so I told you the cause assuming you were right
No, in fact you didn't.
I dont think its being promiscuous behavior which spreads HIV
No, of course not. Sexually transmitted disease spreads by flying monkey.
In Africa they dont believe in using condoms, they have religious and cultural reasons to support this
They have nothing to "support" this position. They can believe whatever they want, but I won't pretend to know the average African's opinion of condoms.
At one point in the USA homosexuality was not acceptable
This is irrelevant, twit. Stop with your tangential nonsense.
Here is proof American children are slow in math and science. Most Americans don't understand science, we aren't educated to it either, the Japanese and Chinese now more science than we do.
"In science, no difference was detected between the average performance of U.S. fourth-grade students (565) and the average performance of students in Japan (574), but the average performance of U.S. students was higher than the performance of students in England (551), Canada (549), Scotland (536)"
"U.S. eighth-grade students had a lower mean score in science than their counterparts in Japan (550), Canada (533), and England (538). Eighth-grade students in the United States had higher average scores than their counterparts in Italy (493). No difference was detected between the mean scores of U.S. and Russian eighth-graders in science"
"In 1999, the United States had a full-time and part-time enrollment rate of 20 percent in higher education for adults ages 18 to 29. The enrollment rate for this age group was higher in the United States than in the other six countries presented"
"Eleven percent of first university degrees were awarded in science in the United States in 1999--placing the United States fifth among the countries presented. The percentage of first university degrees awarded in science in the United States was lower than the percentages in the United Kingdom (16 percent), France (15 percent), Germany (12 percent), and Canada (12 percent), but higher than the percentages in Japan (4 percent) and Italy (9 percent)"
So, where is China in general? I see Hong Kong, but where's the random sampling of the billion people of China? Of course, it's not there. I can't imagine why.
At the fourth grade level there's no significant difference between Japanese and U.S. scores, while at the eighth-grade level there is. At the post-secondary level, though, there's a significantly higher percentage of degrees awarded in the United States than in Japan for the science.
I'm of course trying to fight going off on a tangent with you, because it's realy a waste of my energy, but I'm going to be a tad less conservative with the content of this response for the sake of sanity. I don't believe the educational results of the U.S. match what they should be, but by no stretch of the imagination have you demonstrated either that "American children are slow in math and science," nor even that Japanese and Chinese people on average know more about science. That article is not "proof," even of what it claims to represent, so don't call it proof of anything. It's an opionated interpretation without any data or methodology.
Of course I know the difference between knowledge and intelligence.
I'm definitely not ignorant, my high IQ backed up by the fact that I'm in college should prove that
Its not s matter of intellectual capacity
Durrr.... No, no you don't. Citing IQ as an indicator that you are not ignorant of a subject, simpl
This is my reply. In the future repost a correctly formatted reply, if you notice you neglected to close a tag, or even bother to provide spacing between our posts.
Islam says you may have multiple wives. The Quran states that it is ok for a man to do this, therefore the Quran says to be promiscuous.
I'll just grab the relevant definition from dictionary.com, rather than transcribe it from a book. It's definitely not worth the effort.
promiscuous (pr-msky-s)
adj.
1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.
2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate.
Yes, please explain how having multiple sex partners, who have sex only with you, through the system of marriage, is promiscuous. I would be very interested in your explaination.
Most Americans don't understand science, we aren't educated to it either, the Japanese and Chinese now more science than we do. Does this make us ignorant? No, you don't have to understand science to know science is important.
1. American children are in fact educated in the sciences and certainly the scientific method from an early age, all the way through their entire standard educational career. Provide proof that they are not.
2. The majority of people in China are not educated to a level even approaching that of the children of the U.S.
3. Are "we" ignorant? The vast majoriy of the American public is ignorant about large quantities of things. Yes, we are ignorant. Are we as collectively ignorant as Africa? No. Is Africa comparatively ignorant to us? Yes.
You can't "know science is important" if you can't "understand science." That is ignorance. You don't have to specifically know anything about nucleo-cytoplasmic transport, homology groups, Hermitian operators, reverse transcription, or even the conservation of energy to recognize and understand the science involved in determining AIDS is easily sexually trasnmitted, and learning that is, taking rational steps to prevent your infection. As a person you're either unaware that promiscuity in Africa will result in you obtaining AIDS, or you're too stupid to value your life more than sex. The first case is a lack of education, which Government can address, the second case is non-trivial to do anything about.
My literacy skills were not on display as I was not putting them to use, so in this article I will have perfect grammar just to prove a point.
You did not use correct grammar in your post. If you think you did, you should have become better educated. You, of course, missed the point of what I was saying, prefering to simply interpret its content solely as insult, rather than understand that I was mocking you and your position.
I'm definitely not ignorant, my high IQ backed up by the fact that I'm in college should prove that I'm at least above average, sure there are people smarter than me but I doubt you are one of those people.
Considering that you don't know the difference between an absence of knowledge and intelligence, I find your comment delicious.
1. You don't know anything about economics, but you continue to speak on the subject.
2. You don't know the difference between the "U.S." and its Federal Government. I'll address this more on the subject of education.
3. You are not aware of the real situation of the African Governments with respect to the AIDS pandemic, and yet you certainly think you do.
4. You, for some reason, are under the impression that there has ever been a Communist State. I can only conclude that you have in fact know idea what you're talking about.
5. You entirely have no idea of the costs involved in developing a factory for developing drugs, don't understand the expertise required to design the process, nor to do continual testing of the results, and also do not understand the costs of operation.
6. You've even implicitly adopted the pos
I got bored and decided to help you out, since you weren't capable of even formatting the majority of your post correctly. Not too surprising, really
This post will simply be me, formatting you correctly. To which I will reply to myself with my reply to you.
Islam doesn't tell you to be promiscuous. It doesn't tell you to engage in reckless sexual behavior that will kill you.
HanzoSan:
Islam says you may have multiple wives. The Quran states that it is ok for a man to do this, therefore the Quran says to be promiscuous.
They don't understand science because the majority of them are not educated in it. That was precisely what I said, that they were ignorant.
HandoSan:
Most Americans don't understand science, we aren't educated to it either, the Japanese and Chinese now more science than we do. Does this make us ignorant? No, you don't have to understand science to know science is important.
Your literacy skills are indeed fairly poor. Money alone doesn't provide knowledge, I'm afraid. I'm not going to get sucked into a tangential argument with you, however, about education. You skirt the issue rather than address things you cannot, because you're ignorant.
HanzoSan:
My literacy skills were not on display as I was not putting them to use, so in this article I will have perfect grammar just to prove a point. Usually I reserve my skills for college or things which are important, not for random postings to Internet websites. I'm definitely not ignorant, my high IQ backed up by the fact that I'm in college should prove that I'm at least above average, sure there are people smarter than me but I doubt you are one of those people.
People need to obtain money from somewhere. For one, you don't know what non-profit means, if you think it doesn't involve money.
HanzoSan:
I worked for a non profit, money can come from grants, donations, and many sources, money is the easiest part.
Their time has no value without the capital and skills required to exercise it. You should manifest what you desire, rather than demand others do. I say this both because I know that you won't, and because you should.
HanzoSan:
It doesn't take any skills to work in a factory. You act like you need a PHD to do that, all it takes is maybe a few weeks of training.
The U.N. is not a Government, and the WHO is:
HanzoSan:
Did I say it was ï½a government.ï½ Learn to read, I said Govs which means Governments.
1. Already involved in providing AIDS relief. They give money
2. Not the exercising of Africa developing their own drugs, as you said they can.
3. Not meeting your needs.
HanzoSan:
Patents must be removed
Long before you stampede on someone else's existing intellectual property rights in order to manifest a reality you desire, you get off of your own lazy, ignorant ass and make the sacrifices necessary to create it.
HanzoSan:
I don't believe any human has the right to own information and I certainly don't believe even if you do own it, that you have exclusive rights of its production or distribution, you only have rights to profit from it in my opinion.
The U.S. has pledged $15B for AIDS over a period of four years, starting in '94. Of that, only $700M will be due in '94. I also wouldn't, especially from your position, expect that $15B to ever materialize.
HanzoSan:
Correct your dates, I think you mean 2004, not 1994, next time learn proper grammar and do your research before trying to win a debate or argument on slash dot.
Uhh, the U.S. spends something along the lines of $320B a year on education. Just wander over to the NCES and find the statistics for any year you're interested in.
Nice delusion, Tex.
Repost your reply, formatted correctly. I'm not going to waste all of my time reading every single word, including my own, to find where you're saying what. Frankly you're too ignorant for your reply to be worth the effort.
No, they really wouldn't. If they were several times more wealthy they would buy or produce their own drugs, regardless of International law. As it is, they're dependant on foreign aid and have massive foreign debts. A lot of the countries have questionable Governments, weak economies, and more social problems than money to address them. They use patents to scapegoat Western corporations for their inability to reign in something the populations of Africa themselves don't even mitigate.
These people believe in Islam and to them Islam is more important than life itself,
Islam doesn't tell you to be promiscuous. It doesn't tell you to engage in reckless sexual behavior that will kill you.
and are too religious to understand science
They don't understand science because the majority of them are not educated in it. That was precisely what I said, that they were ignorant.
we have kids who cant even read and write
Your literacy skills are indeed fairly poor. Money alone doesn't provide knowledge, I'm afraid. I'm not going to get sucked into a tangential argument with you, however, about education. You skirt the issue rather than address things you cannot, because you're ignorant.
I see you've never heard of non profit orgs?
People need to obtain money from somewhere. For one, you don't know what non-profit means, if you think it doesn't involve money.
If I donate money I'm donating time, why should I donate money when Africans can donate time?
Their time has no value without the capital and skills required to exercise it. You should manifest what you desire, rather than demand others do. I say this both because I know that you won't, and because you should.
govs like the UN support these non profit orgs, and these orgs are the ones who create the generic drugs.
The U.N. is not a Government, and the WHO is:
1. Already involved in providing AIDS relief.
2. Not the exercising of Africa developing their own drugs, as you said they can.
3. Not meeting your needs.
Why do I need to donate?
Long before you stampede on someone else's existing intellectual property rights in order to manifest a reality you desire, you get off of your own lazy, ignorant ass and make the sacrifices necessary to create it.
Why do I need to donate? My tax dollars are going to pay, our government is spending 15 billion dollars to aid ther government
The U.S. has pledged $15B for AIDS over a period of four years, starting in '94. Of that, only $700M will be due in '94. I also wouldn't, especially from your position, expect that $15B to ever materialize.
, this is more than we spend a year on our school system in the USA.
Uhh, the U.S. spends something along the lines of $320B a year on education. Just wander over to the NCES and find the statistics for any year you're interested in.
Nice delusion, Tex.
this 15 billion we are sending them however is being wasted on converting them to Christianity because our president is stupid
If I were you, I won't go around throwing bricks in glass houses. You live in a country, which you yourself claim is so wealthy there's no excuse for someone to be as ignorant as yourself, but you have absolutely no problem with living with yourself.
The factories are built, I showed you URLs with links
You've shown me absolutely nothing of the sort.
You act as if I'm president of the united states
I sure as shit do not. I act as if you're a human responsible for manifesting your own vision, rather than pushing it off to others. It would be a frosty day in a magma bath before I would even, for a moment, suggest that you are or should be in a position of political authority. There are enough stupid politicians without you jumping in the pool.
Large drug companies dont really do ANYTHING for ANYONE, so they dont really matter.
Drug companies produce the medications you want to take their property rights away from. How many treatments for AIDS have you developed, you dysfunctional talking monkey?
This is like arguing for or against private schools.
No it most certainly is not. This is about intellectual property rights. Although, I must confess it's absolutely intriguing that you both claim that public schools do a bad job of educatin
Actually, I'm glad you mentioned that. You're the one that's trying to support this massive restriction on what people can manufacture and copy - the burden of proof is on you.
No, really, the burden of proof is on you. You made a claim, now back it up. If you cannot, then retract it. I stopped reading your post at this point, because I've concluded that you're intellectually dishonest. If you actually care to continue this discussion you can substantiate your claim, or formally state that you pulled it out of your ass.
They can comphrehend sexually transmitted disease, they just dont care, cannot afford condoms(yes you read it right), or its againnst their culture (people in africa are muslim and expect to have many wives)
No, they really cannot comprehend them.
If you're in a country where AIDS is rampant, and you cannot afford to engage in safe intercourse with other parties, you can either do the smart thing, or you can have intercourse with many parties anyway and receive disease. Which are they doing, HanzoSan? Yeah, that's right. Their cultural expectations mean squat. Acting with real understanding means doing what you know is best for yourself. Act irresposibly and you can die.
The solution to aids will not be "protection" because not every religion says you must only have one wife, Muslims believe you can have many wives, hell even some of the mormons in the USA beleive that.
Without promiscuity, it really matters rather little how many 'wives' you have. The solution is to act rationally and take steps to avoid becoming infected. The solution is not act like idiots, lie about HIV causing AIDS, demand the Western world give you life-time supplies of medications for all of the people that killed themselves with ignorance and irresponsible behavior, refuse to distribute supplies, and then blame your pandemic on patents.
You act like the third world has no factories but most of our cars, electronics, and food comes from these places, they do have factories, their people work slave labor already, telling them to work for free to solve an aids problem they suffer from makes more sense to these people than telling them to work in a sweatshop for a dollar a day.
1. I suggest you look at the real locations that develop the majority of goods you purchase, and their comparative infection rates.
2. Factories in foreign countries are often owned by Western companies, not by the countries themselves. The resources required to produce goods are purchased by these companies, not by the countries, and the goods are sold by those companies, not by their Governments.
3. This "slave labor" is an improvement upon the "no job" or "dead farmer" life that these people choose to leave. They don't work in factories because it's worse for them.
4. You haven't demonstrated the capital required to build, and perpetually buy resources and manufacture the drugs.
5. If these countries were capable, themselves, of producing these medications, then they would simply ignore the patents, as a great deal of third world countries already ignore all International Intellectual Property law anyway, and produce them.
Please do not claim a whole nation of a Billion people are ignorant, poor yes, ignorant no, hard working yes, in fact these people work harder than the average lazy American.
1. They are not a nation. They are a continent.
2. You don't understand the concept of "cost." People are not free. You missed the point, because you're either slow or dishonest.
3. I am quite sure there are people in Africa that are certainly more educated than "you are over here."
4. The populations of Africa are ignorant. There are educated people everywhere, but if you believe the standard of education is better in Africa, then please, provide links. That's irrelevant, though.
5. Your mythical highly educated Africans with the chemical and biological expertise to produce treatments for their illnesses, and the financial and production capacity to produce treatments, should have absolutely no problems developing alternative treatments for AIDS. I guess patents aren't a problem, then.
So yes its easy to believe that these people if infected with aids in great enough numbers would work for free and build factories, and alot of them can get educated here and go back there if you truely believe the myth that theres no schools in all of Africa.
1. Don't make claims about my beliefs you can't substantiate.
2. You've failed to provide
You know that the government DOES subsidize art, right?
Yes, I'm quite aware that there's public funding for museums, symphonies, and other such public things. That's really quite different, and doesn't meet the criteria of what I said. If you take a look at, say, France who actually subsidizes movies and the like through taxes on the services you'll better understand.
And that doing so, even if you personally don't like the art, is considered an important part of our social heritage?
A part of my "social heritage" that I'm not paying a regressive tax for. Especially not to a large private organization that produces large volumes of crap I don't like.
It doesn't subsidize pop stars, because they get plenty of private money.
They don't subsidize private artists, because that's not how the culture is structured, and it wouldn't be accepted. Just like it won't accept paying a large tax to the RIAA, to replace their current market earnings.
You really think there'd be more of the art you like if the only source of art funding and education was private?
I have no basis to make a conclusion about a future where the fairly mininal public arts spending is removed. In all likelihood, it would make absolutely no difference to me. I cannot predict its full impact, though.
If you were really asking me if I believe that art would be better if it was funded by taxes, then I'd feel pretty safe in saying that it would not. In the end, tax revenues are limited and volatile, and someone related to Government would be making standards decisions. That's not their job, and they aren't going to be any better at it than the recording industry.
If you're asking me if I believe that art should be publically funded, then the answer is also no. Art is a subjective, inherently demand-oriented thing, and our culture supports the art it likes with its freedom to personally fund the art that it likes. If I want to have more or better art in the forms I prefer, then I can manifest that through my spending. You don't better represent the "social heritage" by moving the decisions of culture from the actual people that embody it, to the much smaller population of Government agencies. My culture is not being expressed when you take from me to represent yours. That's definitely not representing the real heritage of people, that's attempting to fabricate it.
If you think increased Government involvement in art is a good thing, then I believe you should think for quite a long time. A second is far too litte time for true reflection, or to find sufficient information to come to a rational conclusion.
You have obviously no understanding of how civil law works, dipshit. You could have gone through the trouble of educating yourself, but since you're a Slashdot user, I'll just assume you prefer to be ignorant, than to be correct.
If you don't think getting votes together was how the laws were passed, you're naive.
You get Government for and by the people. Some people are more organized, active, and wealthy than others. If you thought you were going to dominate others by being unorganized whiny prats on Slashdot, then you were mistaken. If your point is that you don't believe that people will actually attempt to take control of their lives, rather than whine that those that do dominate them, then I hardly disagree. If you don't think it's precisely Government by its people, then you're amusing at the least.
People are far more interested in whining about the game than playing it, and that is why they never win. Hundreds of millions of lazy, uninformed, disorganized, inactive people all wants things, and never do anything to achieve it. Don't be surprised when it doesn't happen.
Patents provide incentives to take on liability and risk investment for long-term gain in the form of control of the fruits of your research. That is, to keep others from freeloading off of you.
You can license them or you can produce the product yourself. They prevent people that did nothing to foster the development, from 'implementing' them without the burden of research expense, or licensing fees.
The RIAA consists of people, too. Since they take an active role in Government, it's for them, and by them. It's not as if that number would be the judgement. If you're interested in placing a cap on the punitive damages, take an active role in political life. Otherwise, be content that there are far more malpractice lawsuits than there will be crackdowns on college kids, and there isn't a judge nor jury that would award a $98B judgement.
People that take no action, or are don't attempt to make collective action again legal abuses, are going to get the Government they've earned.
I consider this a pretty good country, though, myself. Warts and all.
Since they were providing a global indexing service for the distribution of copyrighted material, I think it's fairly safe to assume that they're referring to the number of songs available in totality. They're probably going to argue, as the article sort of hints, in a similar vein as with Napster. They could have gone the extra mile and nabbed the individual students sharing, but I think it's safe to assume they're looking to send a message to college students, rather than systematically sue each and every one of them. They're not particularly interested in whether or not Slashdot users believe they're clever when they say things like, "THEY ARE TRYING TO BAN ALL FILE SHARING, BECAUSE THIS SERVICE COULD BE PROVIDING LEGAL CONTENT BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!"
You know the drill, ten thousand monkeys have pawed at their keyboard for five years now on Slashdot; one chapter is the same as all the others.
Since when are damages a matter of how much "a student would spend in a year?"
It's not as if the amount will be that high, so along with the other zombie Slashdotters, could you take something for your hysteria?
And Hell, I sure spent a lot more than $100 a year as an undergrad. I'd like to find a seat on the plane going to the fantasy island where I can subsist off of $100 a year. On second thought, no, that would probably be a retched shithole. Forget I mentioned it...
And memory sticks, and portables players, and so on and so forth. I even recall reading about planned increases in scope and cost for the Canadian media welfare. You really got screwed, because they're always going to want more. I hope for the sake of my sanity the U.S. never falls into that pit of subsidizing media companies with regressive sales taxes on storage.
I think Ireland has got some kind of deal where the Government subsidizes the artists. I wouldn't mind if the U.S. set up something like that.
I would. Of all of the things I don't want my tax dollars spent on, subsidizing Britney Spears, Linkin' Park, The Backstreet Boys, P.O.D., Eminem, your poverty-stricken friend, and whatever the other current "real talent" happens to be, ranks pretty high up there. I'm sure the people that get slammed with the high end of the progressive income tax is really looking forward to subsidizing musicians so college students can feel better about downloading music off of the 'net.
If you're content with the results of socialized art, consider taking up residence where that is the cultural norm. That way you can pay the regressive tax on sales that always seems to accompany artist welfare, and the rest of us can stick with simply purchasing that music we actually value (definitely a luxury), and not what you want to hear.
If they can't comprehend sexually transmitted disease, and take precautions to avoid it, what basis do you have to believe that they can build a factory capable of fabricating the complex chemical compounds used to treat AIDS, or for that matter, to purchase the resources for production?
Really, if you think that patents are what really keep African nations from producing their own treatments for their diseases, you're quite a silly little creature.
As a side note:
1. Do you think any number of people are costless? They require food, housing, and education.
2. 75,000,000 ignorant people can't perform chemical marvels any more than 75,000,000 of you could build a 767.
What do you have against funding their treatment yourself? Surely you're not too greedy to simply buy the drugs for them, that would be selfish. You're not selfish, you're enlightened. Send them medication.
The first link is more interesting than the other two, since it appears to be well documented, where as the other are sort of mainstream reporting about the existence of an actual report, that would have some rationale for their figures. It'll take me a while to read through all of the material, but at a glance I don't see any information with regard to the actual drugs the major pharmaceutical companies have in their pipelines, nor the R&D expenditures that they're likely to have documented as part of their filings with the Government. Also at a glance, it doesn't say how pervasive the 'links' are between publically funded research and all of the final products.
Just for example: "And in a study with the National Eye Institute, published in 1996, C.H.I. found that 41 percent of patented eye-care technology was linked to research financed by the health institutes"
This doesn't tell me how exactly they're linked. It could be fairly loosely, or otherwise. I'll have to give it some more reading.
And last, you allege that the election in Florida was stolen.
Have you looked at this and this with respect to this subject?
You have to ask yourself, "Is it really worth having this discussion with this person?" It's almost like abusing the mentally handicapped.
In the end, you can't really enlighten people that are already convinced that they're right, without any real reason for believing that they are. Convincing this fellow seems like it would be a task equal to that of convincing this man.
Slashdot Mirror
Islam promotes Polygyny, You yourself said Africans were promiscuous so I told you the cause assuming you were right
No, in fact you didn't.
I dont think its being promiscuous behavior which spreads HIV
No, of course not. Sexually transmitted disease spreads by flying monkey.
In Africa they dont believe in using condoms, they have religious and cultural reasons to support this
They have nothing to "support" this position. They can believe whatever they want, but I won't pretend to know the average African's opinion of condoms.
At one point in the USA homosexuality was not acceptable
This is irrelevant, twit. Stop with your tangential nonsense.
Here is proof American children are slow in math and science.
Most Americans don't understand science, we aren't educated to it either, the Japanese and Chinese now more science than we do.
Real are I told you to look.
"In science, no difference was detected between the average performance of U.S. fourth-grade students (565) and the average performance of students in Japan (574), but the average performance of U.S. students was higher than the performance of students in England (551), Canada (549), Scotland (536)"
"U.S. eighth-grade students had a lower mean score in science than their counterparts in Japan (550), Canada (533), and England (538). Eighth-grade students in the United States had higher average scores than their counterparts in Italy (493). No difference was detected between the mean scores of U.S. and Russian eighth-graders in science"
"In 1999, the United States had a full-time and part-time enrollment rate of 20 percent in higher education for adults ages 18 to 29. The enrollment rate for this age group was higher in the United States than in the other six countries presented"
"Eleven percent of first university degrees were awarded in science in the United States in 1999--placing the United States fifth among the countries presented. The percentage of first university degrees awarded in science in the United States was lower than the percentages in the United Kingdom (16 percent), France (15 percent), Germany (12 percent), and Canada (12 percent), but higher than the percentages in Japan (4 percent) and Italy (9 percent)"
So, where is China in general? I see Hong Kong, but where's the random sampling of the billion people of China? Of course, it's not there. I can't imagine why.
At the fourth grade level there's no significant difference between Japanese and U.S. scores, while at the eighth-grade level there is. At the post-secondary level, though, there's a significantly higher percentage of degrees awarded in the United States than in Japan for the science.
I'm of course trying to fight going off on a tangent with you, because it's realy a waste of my energy, but I'm going to be a tad less conservative with the content of this response for the sake of sanity. I don't believe the educational results of the U.S. match what they should be, but by no stretch of the imagination have you demonstrated either that "American children are slow in math and science," nor even that Japanese and Chinese people on average know more about science. That article is not "proof," even of what it claims to represent, so don't call it proof of anything. It's an opionated interpretation without any data or methodology.
Of course I know the difference between knowledge and intelligence.
I'm definitely not ignorant, my high IQ backed up by the fact that I'm in college should prove that
Its not s matter of intellectual capacity
Durrr.... No, no you don't. Citing IQ as an indicator that you are not ignorant of a subject, simpl
I would assume that I am in fact have a higher IQ
After a cup of tea, I came to the conclusion that this was probably too subtle a means of mocking the penis contest you were trying to engage in.
For the slow: It's intentional self-derision. Don't waste your time making it a talking point, I don't have the energy for such inane things.
This is my reply. In the future repost a correctly formatted reply, if you notice you neglected to close a tag, or even bother to provide spacing between our posts.
Islam says you may have multiple wives. The Quran states that it is ok for a man to do this, therefore the Quran says to be promiscuous.
I'll just grab the relevant definition from dictionary.com, rather than transcribe it from a book. It's definitely not worth the effort.
promiscuous (pr-msky-s)
adj.
1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners; indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.
2. Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate.
Yes, please explain how having multiple sex partners, who have sex only with you, through the system of marriage, is promiscuous. I would be very interested in your explaination.
Most Americans don't understand science, we aren't educated to it either, the Japanese and Chinese now more science than we do. Does this make us ignorant? No, you don't have to understand science to know science is important.
1. American children are in fact educated in the sciences and certainly the scientific method from an early age, all the way through their entire standard educational career. Provide proof that they are not.
2. The majority of people in China are not educated to a level even approaching that of the children of the U.S.
3. Are "we" ignorant? The vast majoriy of the American public is ignorant about large quantities of things. Yes, we are ignorant. Are we as collectively ignorant as Africa? No. Is Africa comparatively ignorant to us? Yes.
You can't "know science is important" if you can't "understand science." That is ignorance. You don't have to specifically know anything about nucleo-cytoplasmic transport, homology groups, Hermitian operators, reverse transcription, or even the conservation of energy to recognize and understand the science involved in determining AIDS is easily sexually trasnmitted, and learning that is, taking rational steps to prevent your infection. As a person you're either unaware that promiscuity in Africa will result in you obtaining AIDS, or you're too stupid to value your life more than sex. The first case is a lack of education, which Government can address, the second case is non-trivial to do anything about.
My literacy skills were not on display as I was not putting them to use, so in this article I will have perfect grammar just to prove a point.
You did not use correct grammar in your post. If you think you did, you should have become better educated. You, of course, missed the point of what I was saying, prefering to simply interpret its content solely as insult, rather than understand that I was mocking you and your position.
I'm definitely not ignorant, my high IQ backed up by the fact that I'm in college should prove that I'm at least above average, sure there are people smarter than me but I doubt you are one of those people.
Considering that you don't know the difference between an absence of knowledge and intelligence, I find your comment delicious.
1. You don't know anything about economics, but you continue to speak on the subject.
2. You don't know the difference between the "U.S." and its Federal Government. I'll address this more on the subject of education.
3. You are not aware of the real situation of the African Governments with respect to the AIDS pandemic, and yet you certainly think you do.
4. You, for some reason, are under the impression that there has ever been a Communist State. I can only conclude that you have in fact know idea what you're talking about.
5. You entirely have no idea of the costs involved in developing a factory for developing drugs, don't understand the expertise required to design the process, nor to do continual testing of the results, and also do not understand the costs of operation.
6. You've even implicitly adopted the pos
I got bored and decided to help you out, since you weren't capable of even formatting the majority of your post correctly. Not too surprising, really
This post will simply be me, formatting you correctly. To which I will reply to myself with my reply to you.
Islam doesn't tell you to be promiscuous. It doesn't tell you to engage in reckless sexual behavior that will kill you.
HanzoSan:
Islam says you may have multiple wives. The Quran states that it is ok for a man to do this, therefore the Quran says to be promiscuous.
They don't understand science because the majority of them are not educated in it. That was precisely what I said, that they were ignorant.
HandoSan:
Most Americans don't understand science, we aren't educated to it either, the Japanese and Chinese now more science than we do. Does this make us ignorant? No, you don't have to understand science to know science is important.
Your literacy skills are indeed fairly poor. Money alone doesn't provide knowledge, I'm afraid. I'm not going to get sucked into a tangential argument with you, however, about education. You skirt the issue rather than address things you cannot, because you're ignorant.
HanzoSan:
My literacy skills were not on display as I was not putting them to use, so in this article I will have perfect grammar just to prove a point. Usually I reserve my skills for college or things which are important, not for random postings to Internet websites. I'm definitely not ignorant, my high IQ backed up by the fact that I'm in college should prove that I'm at least above average, sure there are people smarter than me but I doubt you are one of those people.
People need to obtain money from somewhere. For one, you don't know what non-profit means, if you think it doesn't involve money.
HanzoSan:
I worked for a non profit, money can come from grants, donations, and many sources, money is the easiest part.
Their time has no value without the capital and skills required to exercise it. You should manifest what you desire, rather than demand others do. I say this both because I know that you won't, and because you should.
HanzoSan:
It doesn't take any skills to work in a factory. You act like you need a PHD to do that, all it takes is maybe a few weeks of training.
The U.N. is not a Government, and the WHO is:
HanzoSan:
Did I say it was ï½a government.ï½ Learn to read, I said Govs which means Governments.
1. Already involved in providing AIDS relief. They give money
2. Not the exercising of Africa developing their own drugs, as you said they can.
3. Not meeting your needs.
HanzoSan:
Patents must be removed
Long before you stampede on someone else's existing intellectual property rights in order to manifest a reality you desire, you get off of your own lazy, ignorant ass and make the sacrifices necessary to create it.
HanzoSan:
I don't believe any human has the right to own information and I certainly don't believe even if you do own it, that you have exclusive rights of its production or distribution, you only have rights to profit from it in my opinion.
The U.S. has pledged $15B for AIDS over a period of four years, starting in '94. Of that, only $700M will be due in '94. I also wouldn't, especially from your position, expect that $15B to ever materialize.
HanzoSan:
Correct your dates, I think you mean 2004, not 1994, next time learn proper grammar and do your research before trying to win a debate or argument on slash dot.
Uhh, the U.S. spends something along the lines of $320B a year on education. Just wander over to the NCES and find the statistics for any year you're interested in. Nice delusion, Tex.
HanzoSan:
Not the federal governm
Repost your reply, formatted correctly. I'm not going to waste all of my time reading every single word, including my own, to find where you're saying what. Frankly you're too ignorant for your reply to be worth the effort.
I stand corrected. Sigh.
No, they really wouldn't. If they were several times more wealthy they would buy or produce their own drugs, regardless of International law. As it is, they're dependant on foreign aid and have massive foreign debts. A lot of the countries have questionable Governments, weak economies, and more social problems than money to address them. They use patents to scapegoat Western corporations for their inability to reign in something the populations of Africa themselves don't even mitigate.
These people believe in Islam and to them Islam is more important than life itself,
Islam doesn't tell you to be promiscuous. It doesn't tell you to engage in reckless sexual behavior that will kill you.
and are too religious to understand science
They don't understand science because the majority of them are not educated in it. That was precisely what I said, that they were ignorant.
we have kids who cant even read and write
Your literacy skills are indeed fairly poor. Money alone doesn't provide knowledge, I'm afraid. I'm not going to get sucked into a tangential argument with you, however, about education. You skirt the issue rather than address things you cannot, because you're ignorant.
I see you've never heard of non profit orgs?
People need to obtain money from somewhere. For one, you don't know what non-profit means, if you think it doesn't involve money.
If I donate money I'm donating time, why should I donate money when Africans can donate time?
Their time has no value without the capital and skills required to exercise it. You should manifest what you desire, rather than demand others do. I say this both because I know that you won't, and because you should.
govs like the UN support these non profit orgs, and these orgs are the ones who create the generic drugs.
The U.N. is not a Government, and the WHO is:
1. Already involved in providing AIDS relief.
2. Not the exercising of Africa developing their own drugs, as you said they can.
3. Not meeting your needs.
Why do I need to donate?
Long before you stampede on someone else's existing intellectual property rights in order to manifest a reality you desire, you get off of your own lazy, ignorant ass and make the sacrifices necessary to create it.
Why do I need to donate? My tax dollars are going to pay, our government is spending 15 billion dollars to aid ther government
The U.S. has pledged $15B for AIDS over a period of four years, starting in '94. Of that, only $700M will be due in '94. I also wouldn't, especially from your position, expect that $15B to ever materialize.
, this is more than we spend a year on our school system in the USA.
Uhh, the U.S. spends something along the lines of $320B a year on education. Just wander over to the NCES and find the statistics for any year you're interested in.
Nice delusion, Tex.
this 15 billion we are sending them however is being wasted on converting them to Christianity because our president is stupid
If I were you, I won't go around throwing bricks in glass houses. You live in a country, which you yourself claim is so wealthy there's no excuse for someone to be as ignorant as yourself, but you have absolutely no problem with living with yourself.
The factories are built, I showed you URLs with links
You've shown me absolutely nothing of the sort.
You act as if I'm president of the united states
I sure as shit do not. I act as if you're a human responsible for manifesting your own vision, rather than pushing it off to others. It would be a frosty day in a magma bath before I would even, for a moment, suggest that you are or should be in a position of political authority. There are enough stupid politicians without you jumping in the pool.
Large drug companies dont really do ANYTHING for ANYONE, so they dont really matter.
Drug companies produce the medications you want to take their property rights away from. How many treatments for AIDS have you developed, you dysfunctional talking monkey?
This is like arguing for or against private schools.
No it most certainly is not. This is about intellectual property rights. Although, I must confess it's absolutely intriguing that you both claim that public schools do a bad job of educatin
Actually, I'm glad you mentioned that. You're the one that's trying to support this massive restriction on what people can manufacture and copy - the burden of proof is on you.
No, really, the burden of proof is on you. You made a claim, now back it up. If you cannot, then retract it. I stopped reading your post at this point, because I've concluded that you're intellectually dishonest. If you actually care to continue this discussion you can substantiate your claim, or formally state that you pulled it out of your ass.
I should also point out, if they cannot manufacture condoms for themselves, they have no chance with the perpetual life sentence of HIV medication.
They can comphrehend sexually transmitted disease, they just dont care, cannot afford condoms(yes you read it right), or its againnst their culture (people in africa are muslim and expect to have many wives)
No, they really cannot comprehend them.
If you're in a country where AIDS is rampant, and you cannot afford to engage in safe intercourse with other parties, you can either do the smart thing, or you can have intercourse with many parties anyway and receive disease. Which are they doing, HanzoSan? Yeah, that's right. Their cultural expectations mean squat. Acting with real understanding means doing what you know is best for yourself. Act irresposibly and you can die.
The solution to aids will not be "protection" because not every religion says you must only have one wife, Muslims believe you can have many wives, hell even some of the mormons in the USA beleive that. Without promiscuity, it really matters rather little how many 'wives' you have. The solution is to act rationally and take steps to avoid becoming infected. The solution is not act like idiots, lie about HIV causing AIDS, demand the Western world give you life-time supplies of medications for all of the people that killed themselves with ignorance and irresponsible behavior, refuse to distribute supplies, and then blame your pandemic on patents.
You act like the third world has no factories but most of our cars, electronics, and food comes from these places, they do have factories, their people work slave labor already, telling them to work for free to solve an aids problem they suffer from makes more sense to these people than telling them to work in a sweatshop for a dollar a day.
1. I suggest you look at the real locations that develop the majority of goods you purchase, and their comparative infection rates.
2. Factories in foreign countries are often owned by Western companies, not by the countries themselves. The resources required to produce goods are purchased by these companies, not by the countries, and the goods are sold by those companies, not by their Governments.
3. This "slave labor" is an improvement upon the "no job" or "dead farmer" life that these people choose to leave. They don't work in factories because it's worse for them.
4. You haven't demonstrated the capital required to build, and perpetually buy resources and manufacture the drugs. 5. If these countries were capable, themselves, of producing these medications, then they would simply ignore the patents, as a great deal of third world countries already ignore all International Intellectual Property law anyway, and produce them.
Please do not claim a whole nation of a Billion people are ignorant, poor yes, ignorant no, hard working yes, in fact these people work harder than the average lazy American.
1. They are not a nation. They are a continent.
2. You don't understand the concept of "cost." People are not free. You missed the point, because you're either slow or dishonest.
3. I am quite sure there are people in Africa that are certainly more educated than "you are over here."
4. The populations of Africa are ignorant. There are educated people everywhere, but if you believe the standard of education is better in Africa, then please, provide links. That's irrelevant, though. 5. Your mythical highly educated Africans with the chemical and biological expertise to produce treatments for their illnesses, and the financial and production capacity to produce treatments, should have absolutely no problems developing alternative treatments for AIDS. I guess patents aren't a problem, then.
So yes its easy to believe that these people if infected with aids in great enough numbers would work for free and build factories, and alot of them can get educated here and go back there if you truely believe the myth that theres no schools in all of Africa.
1. Don't make claims about my beliefs you can't substantiate.
2. You've failed to provide
You know that the government DOES subsidize art, right?
Yes, I'm quite aware that there's public funding for museums, symphonies, and other such public things. That's really quite different, and doesn't meet the criteria of what I said. If you take a look at, say, France who actually subsidizes movies and the like through taxes on the services you'll better understand.
And that doing so, even if you personally don't like the art, is considered an important part of our social heritage?
A part of my "social heritage" that I'm not paying a regressive tax for. Especially not to a large private organization that produces large volumes of crap I don't like.
It doesn't subsidize pop stars, because they get plenty of private money.
They don't subsidize private artists, because that's not how the culture is structured, and it wouldn't be accepted. Just like it won't accept paying a large tax to the RIAA, to replace their current market earnings.
You really think there'd be more of the art you like if the only source of art funding and education was private?
I have no basis to make a conclusion about a future where the fairly mininal public arts spending is removed. In all likelihood, it would make absolutely no difference to me. I cannot predict its full impact, though.
If you were really asking me if I believe that art would be better if it was funded by taxes, then I'd feel pretty safe in saying that it would not. In the end, tax revenues are limited and volatile, and someone related to Government would be making standards decisions. That's not their job, and they aren't going to be any better at it than the recording industry.
If you're asking me if I believe that art should be publically funded, then the answer is also no. Art is a subjective, inherently demand-oriented thing, and our culture supports the art it likes with its freedom to personally fund the art that it likes. If I want to have more or better art in the forms I prefer, then I can manifest that through my spending. You don't better represent the "social heritage" by moving the decisions of culture from the actual people that embody it, to the much smaller population of Government agencies. My culture is not being expressed when you take from me to represent yours. That's definitely not representing the real heritage of people, that's attempting to fabricate it.
If you think increased Government involvement in art is a good thing, then I believe you should think for quite a long time. A second is far too litte time for true reflection, or to find sufficient information to come to a rational conclusion.
You have obviously no understanding of how civil law works, dipshit. You could have gone through the trouble of educating yourself, but since you're a Slashdot user, I'll just assume you prefer to be ignorant, than to be correct.
If you don't think getting votes together was how the laws were passed, you're naive.
You get Government for and by the people. Some people are more organized, active, and wealthy than others. If you thought you were going to dominate others by being unorganized whiny prats on Slashdot, then you were mistaken. If your point is that you don't believe that people will actually attempt to take control of their lives, rather than whine that those that do dominate them, then I hardly disagree. If you don't think it's precisely Government by its people, then you're amusing at the least.
People are far more interested in whining about the game than playing it, and that is why they never win. Hundreds of millions of lazy, uninformed, disorganized, inactive people all wants things, and never do anything to achieve it. Don't be surprised when it doesn't happen.
African leaders claimed HIV didn't cause AIDS, either.
I don't care what excuses they use. Don't confuse bullshit with "fact." They're not the same.
Research doesn't cure disease. The drugs do.
The drugs that appear from the sky, like magic.
Patents prohibit implementation of such drugs
Patents provide incentives to take on liability and risk investment for long-term gain in the form of control of the fruits of your research. That is, to keep others from freeloading off of you.
You can license them or you can produce the product yourself. They prevent people that did nothing to foster the development, from 'implementing' them without the burden of research expense, or licensing fees.
It works fine, really.
My take is, I hope the RIAA keeps going after colleges, because they're really close to getting a massive backlash.
Backlash, eh? What are they going to do, illegally copy their music?
The RIAA consists of people, too. Since they take an active role in Government, it's for them, and by them. It's not as if that number would be the judgement. If you're interested in placing a cap on the punitive damages, take an active role in political life. Otherwise, be content that there are far more malpractice lawsuits than there will be crackdowns on college kids, and there isn't a judge nor jury that would award a $98B judgement.
People that take no action, or are don't attempt to make collective action again legal abuses, are going to get the Government they've earned.
I consider this a pretty good country, though, myself. Warts and all.
Since they were providing a global indexing service for the distribution of copyrighted material, I think it's fairly safe to assume that they're referring to the number of songs available in totality. They're probably going to argue, as the article sort of hints, in a similar vein as with Napster. They could have gone the extra mile and nabbed the individual students sharing, but I think it's safe to assume they're looking to send a message to college students, rather than systematically sue each and every one of them. They're not particularly interested in whether or not Slashdot users believe they're clever when they say things like, "THEY ARE TRYING TO BAN ALL FILE SHARING, BECAUSE THIS SERVICE COULD BE PROVIDING LEGAL CONTENT BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!"
You know the drill, ten thousand monkeys have pawed at their keyboard for five years now on Slashdot; one chapter is the same as all the others.
Since when are damages a matter of how much "a student would spend in a year?"
It's not as if the amount will be that high, so along with the other zombie Slashdotters, could you take something for your hysteria?
And Hell, I sure spent a lot more than $100 a year as an undergrad. I'd like to find a seat on the plane going to the fantasy island where I can subsist off of $100 a year. On second thought, no, that would probably be a retched shithole. Forget I mentioned it...
That since I am paying a piracy tax on blank cdrs
And memory sticks, and portables players, and so on and so forth. I even recall reading about planned increases in scope and cost for the Canadian media welfare. You really got screwed, because they're always going to want more. I hope for the sake of my sanity the U.S. never falls into that pit of subsidizing media companies with regressive sales taxes on storage.
I think Ireland has got some kind of deal where the Government subsidizes the artists. I wouldn't mind if the U.S. set up something like that.
I would. Of all of the things I don't want my tax dollars spent on, subsidizing Britney Spears, Linkin' Park, The Backstreet Boys, P.O.D., Eminem, your poverty-stricken friend, and whatever the other current "real talent" happens to be, ranks pretty high up there. I'm sure the people that get slammed with the high end of the progressive income tax is really looking forward to subsidizing musicians so college students can feel better about downloading music off of the 'net.
If you're content with the results of socialized art, consider taking up residence where that is the cultural norm. That way you can pay the regressive tax on sales that always seems to accompany artist welfare, and the rest of us can stick with simply purchasing that music we actually value (definitely a luxury), and not what you want to hear.
If they can't comprehend sexually transmitted disease, and take precautions to avoid it, what basis do you have to believe that they can build a factory capable of fabricating the complex chemical compounds used to treat AIDS, or for that matter, to purchase the resources for production?
Really, if you think that patents are what really keep African nations from producing their own treatments for their diseases, you're quite a silly little creature.
As a side note: 1. Do you think any number of people are costless? They require food, housing, and education.
2. 75,000,000 ignorant people can't perform chemical marvels any more than 75,000,000 of you could build a 767.
What do you have against funding their treatment yourself? Surely you're not too greedy to simply buy the drugs for them, that would be selfish. You're not selfish, you're enlightened. Send them medication.
The first link is more interesting than the other two, since it appears to be well documented, where as the other are sort of mainstream reporting about the existence of an actual report, that would have some rationale for their figures. It'll take me a while to read through all of the material, but at a glance I don't see any information with regard to the actual drugs the major pharmaceutical companies have in their pipelines, nor the R&D expenditures that they're likely to have documented as part of their filings with the Government. Also at a glance, it doesn't say how pervasive the 'links' are between publically funded research and all of the final products.
Just for example: "And in a study with the National Eye Institute, published in 1996, C.H.I. found that 41 percent of patented eye-care technology was linked to research financed by the health institutes"
This doesn't tell me how exactly they're linked. It could be fairly loosely, or otherwise. I'll have to give it some more reading.
Thanks.
And last, you allege that the election in Florida was stolen.
Have you looked at this and this with respect to this subject?
You have to ask yourself, "Is it really worth having this discussion with this person?" It's almost like abusing the mentally handicapped.
In the end, you can't really enlighten people that are already convinced that they're right, without any real reason for believing that they are. Convincing this fellow seems like it would be a task equal to that of convincing this man.