I'm glad to see that someone else here understands this, too.
Every time the pharma patents come up on/., morons screaming bloody murder about how the eeeevil pharma corps are "killing poor AIDS patients" in Africa come out of woodwork.
Developing drugs is an extremely expensive business and as much as you'd like to believe in human goodness, medicine has never been done, is not done and will not be done in charity.
The brutal truth is: no profit, no research, no new drugs and much, much more dead people.
When was the last time you played a game that was genuinly new and exciting, that could keep your attention for days without getting repetative
I thought so too until this spring when I bought Ghost Recon boxed set (GR + 2 new campaigns) on a whim.
I've never played a game of this genre before. I never liked Wolfenstein, Doom or Quake variants. I don't play around with guns in the real life or have any interest in military tactics. Yet, inexplicably, I got hooked. Utterily and completely. It was just the perfect blend of eye-candy (unreal-engine: a truly beautiful 3D world), EAX sound (hear the enemy closing on you or almost feel the rumble as the enemy tank draws close), playability, tactics (not just running around killing monsters) and action (not just watching unit icons moving on a map).
Every day after getting home from work I played the game until 2-3 a.m. I began to had dreams of creeping with a sniper rifle or running through the city streets trying to find some cover from the 50 cal machine gun fire from a tank that just appeared around the corner.
I have been playing computer games since the 1980s (C64 onward) and thought that thoroughly interesting, challenging and so incredibly immersive games were lost. Fortunately, they still do exist and the best part is that the game comes with an editor. You can prepare your own scenarios and share them on the net.
Yes. It is a commercial, proprietary game. It's worth buying.
Ok. So you've got your M16 or AK47 knock-off. Maybe you've even modified them to operate in the full-auto mode.
Yet, the government can always out-escalate you. Trained professional forces. Armor and artillery. Airforce. Hell, they've even got nuclear weapons if they feel like using them.
What's that you're saying? That the military would never use such methods on civilians? If that's so, then why do you need the gun in the first place? I thought you were carrying a gun because you need to protect yourself from the government.
could you show any proof of Saddam having WMD (i.e., enough of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons to make a real threat) in the months before the war?
Since when did the "to make a real threat" become one of the requirements? Anyway, Iraq was obliged to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction. What the people seem to fail to understand is that inspectors' job was NOT to go out and try to find if WMDs had been destroyed. According to the UN resolution, Iraq was supposed to provide them all the necessary evidence that this had indeed taken place. Iraq failed to do this.
If you read Hans Blix's report, you'll find that Iraq failed to give any reasonable explanation for what happened, for instance, to the tens of thousands of tons of Anthrax. Was this arsenal destroyed? Perhaps, but the burden of proof was on Iraq not on UN. Any evidence never surfaced although, just like in any oppressive regime, people kept compulsively records on who did what, when and why just to cover their asses if the shit hit the fan. Thus, military action was imminently justified.
The fact that US and other western nations once provided Iraq with the means to produce WMDs is a moot point. We're talking what's happening today, not what happened decades ago. 20/20 hindsight was not going to change the threat the Iraq posed today.
Iraq's role in international terrorism is well known and the first hard proof was found last week.
Sure. Iraq exercised its sovereignity to full extent in the form of dictatorial regime, weapons of mass destruction and support of international terrorism.
With the sovereignity comes also accountability. That's precisely what happened last month: they were finally (no thanks to UN) made accountable for their actions.
scientist should say what is politically correct, not what their data shows them. The bush administration has thaught you well
There is no hard data showing that global warming is caused by the man and not by the increase in sun activity (which correlates with the warming) or natural Earth cycles (which is also corroborated by some models). Sure environmental science is politicised but you are really naive if you believe that certain global warming skeptics are the only ones that have biased interpreatations. Science is a social system just like a society. Pure hard data is just that - data. It doesn't tell you anything before you interpret it and after you've done that, you've imposed your own subjectivity on it.
It is hard to compare the case
That's right - and you should not even attempt to make such a comparision. Either you accept the authority of UN and play by its rules (and bow to the resistance of Russia/France) or you accept that UN is dead because you could ignore its procedures already in Kosovo.
That's democracy I guess, US style.
That's right. Just bash US and don't even bother actually arguing your case. A sure way to get modded up.
international court of justice (with special emphasis on the fact that the U.S. now has a law condoning it to attack the Netherlands if a U.S. citizen is taken prisoner by the court)
I wonder why people insist that the US should join the international court of justice? A sovereign nation does what it wants and becomes a member of only those organizations it wants to. USA has no obligation to become a member of the international court of justice and as long as we're not a member state (for good reasons such as the lack of certain rights guaranteed by the US Constitution), we have every right to treat it as a hostile act to imprison an American and parade him/her in that court of justice.
when they confirm the existence of the global warming phenomenon?
They may have confirmed the existence of global warming, but there is absolutely no hard evidence that it is caused by geologically and climatologically insignifant human action.
broad consensus in the international community
Hot air. The fact remains that the action was taken without the blessings of the UN Security Council and explicitly against the wishes of one of its permanent members (Russia) - just like the war in Iraq.
"Broad international consensus" is just like "public opinion": largely irrelevant (and for a good reason). It may affect the decision makers who have political careers to look after, but it cannot in any way be used to justify decisions or actions that go against the procedures of UN. If the public opinion is allowed to justify going against the will of UN, then UN itself has become irrelevant.
In other words: you either accept UN as the authority in which case both Kosovo and Iraq were unjustified wars, or you accept that "public opinion" may override the authority of UN and that this makes UN irrelevant.
You can't have it both ways.
Dude, try watching something different than Fox News and CNN
I'm an ex-pat and don't see FOX here in Belgium. I watch CNN, BBC, EuroNews on cable as well as the local news broadcasts. You really should not throw the stereotypes around so lightly - it makes you sound so... euro-trashy.
Uhhuh? And did the people who grew Texamati, extracted Neem and used Tulsi have the means and infrastructure to make all these available worldwide or even on a national level? No? Well, don't complain when someone who actually can bring the benefits to the wider public does it.
How long have we had patent databases on the net? Now it's much easier to look for good ideas in a foreign patent database and steal those which are not patented in your own country.
With the States current attitude towards international law & agreements
Oh, you mean things like the Kyoto treaty and so called unilateral war with Iraq?
Why should we conform to a treaty that's supposed to address a phenomenon of which there is absolutely no scientific proof -- a treaty that would seriously undermine our economy. As far as Iraq goes, I bet you were happy that we intervened in Kosovo -- you do remember that that also took place without the approval of the UN?
Well, in my mind retributive damages are wrong in principle and also in practise since they encourage people to sue each other just in the hope of getting rich.
You got beaten up? Have the perp pay your hospital and general recovery bills. "Pain and suffering" is subjective, ill-defined and too easily abused and should therefore not entitle you to any compensation.
Joyriders trashed your new car? Have them buy you another one and meanwhile compensate for the immediate costs of having to live without a car (i.e. cover the costs for your essential transportation).
Someone killed your friend/family member? Lock the bastard up for life.
Pure utilitarianism: whatever is the most logical course of action. Revenge via proxy does not benefit the society as a whole and is counterproductive in the long term.
If it's not breaking the law, then retribution at *least* seems just
Law is not supposed to grant retribution.
The law should protect the society by preventing people from harming the collective and not cater to the base human instincts like the hunger for revenge.
"United States Secretary of State Colin Powell has said France will suffer consequences for having opposed the US over the war with Iraq."
Jesus Christ! What the hell is wrong with the GWB administration? France opposed the war with Iraq because on the grounds that there is no sufficient evidence that Iraq has not destroyed its WMDs - and now after the war, the evidence is still missing! So far France seems to have been right and these morons are still intent on "punishing" the France for trying to prevent this unjustified, unilateral war (the true motives, of course, were regime change, oil and GWB's personal issues with religion and his daddy).
Slashdot Mirror
Every time the pharma patents come up on /., morons screaming bloody murder about how the eeeevil pharma corps are "killing poor AIDS patients" in Africa come out of woodwork.
Developing drugs is an extremely expensive business and as much as you'd like to believe in human goodness, medicine has never been done, is not done and will not be done in charity.
The brutal truth is: no profit, no research, no new drugs and much, much more dead people.
Ah-ha? And where does the cure come from if research doesn't get funding from the sales?
I'd say it's better to at least have a cure and heal some people than not to have a cure at all.
Looks like even researchers can be idiots.
No patent == no increased funding == less resources for further research == less efficient research == more dead people.
I thought so too until this spring when I bought Ghost Recon boxed set (GR + 2 new campaigns) on a whim.
I've never played a game of this genre before. I never liked Wolfenstein, Doom or Quake variants. I don't play around with guns in the real life or have any interest in military tactics. Yet, inexplicably, I got hooked. Utterily and completely. It was just the perfect blend of eye-candy (unreal-engine: a truly beautiful 3D world), EAX sound (hear the enemy closing on you or almost feel the rumble as the enemy tank draws close), playability, tactics (not just running around killing monsters) and action (not just watching unit icons moving on a map).
Every day after getting home from work I played the game until 2-3 a.m. I began to had dreams of creeping with a sniper rifle or running through the city streets trying to find some cover from the 50 cal machine gun fire from a tank that just appeared around the corner.
I have been playing computer games since the 1980s (C64 onward) and thought that thoroughly interesting, challenging and so incredibly immersive games were lost. Fortunately, they still do exist and the best part is that the game comes with an editor. You can prepare your own scenarios and share them on the net.
Yes. It is a commercial, proprietary game. It's worth buying.
Yet, the government can always out-escalate you. Trained professional forces. Armor and artillery. Airforce. Hell, they've even got nuclear weapons if they feel like using them.
What's that you're saying? That the military would never use such methods on civilians? If that's so, then why do you need the gun in the first place? I thought you were carrying a gun because you need to protect yourself from the government.
How would something like this be enforced? House inspections?
So, now we'll see who actually subscribes to Slashdot.
Kafka, Tolstoi, Hemingway, ...
Since when did the "to make a real threat" become one of the requirements? Anyway, Iraq was obliged to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction. What the people seem to fail to understand is that inspectors' job was NOT to go out and try to find if WMDs had been destroyed. According to the UN resolution, Iraq was supposed to provide them all the necessary evidence that this had indeed taken place. Iraq failed to do this.
If you read Hans Blix's report, you'll find that Iraq failed to give any reasonable explanation for what happened, for instance, to the tens of thousands of tons of Anthrax. Was this arsenal destroyed? Perhaps, but the burden of proof was on Iraq not on UN. Any evidence never surfaced although, just like in any oppressive regime, people kept compulsively records on who did what, when and why just to cover their asses if the shit hit the fan. Thus, military action was imminently justified.
The fact that US and other western nations once provided Iraq with the means to produce WMDs is a moot point. We're talking what's happening today, not what happened decades ago. 20/20 hindsight was not going to change the threat the Iraq posed today.
Iraq's role in international terrorism is well known and the first hard proof was found last week.
Sure. Iraq exercised its sovereignity to full extent in the form of dictatorial regime, weapons of mass destruction and support of international terrorism.
With the sovereignity comes also accountability. That's precisely what happened last month: they were finally (no thanks to UN) made accountable for their actions.
scientist should say what is politically correct, not what their data shows them. The bush administration has thaught you well
There is no hard data showing that global warming is caused by the man and not by the increase in sun activity (which correlates with the warming) or natural Earth cycles (which is also corroborated by some models). Sure environmental science is politicised but you are really naive if you believe that certain global warming skeptics are the only ones that have biased interpreatations. Science is a social system just like a society. Pure hard data is just that - data. It doesn't tell you anything before you interpret it and after you've done that, you've imposed your own subjectivity on it.
It is hard to compare the case
That's right - and you should not even attempt to make such a comparision. Either you accept the authority of UN and play by its rules (and bow to the resistance of Russia/France) or you accept that UN is dead because you could ignore its procedures already in Kosovo.
That's democracy I guess, US style.
That's right. Just bash US and don't even bother actually arguing your case. A sure way to get modded up.
As did your closing tag.
Again, I challenge you to refute my points with facts - if you can. Short, meaningless sentences like your post serve no-one.
I don't see how the commercialization of traditional medicine, food and other products would not serve the public.
I wonder why people insist that the US should join the international court of justice? A sovereign nation does what it wants and becomes a member of only those organizations it wants to. USA has no obligation to become a member of the international court of justice and as long as we're not a member state (for good reasons such as the lack of certain rights guaranteed by the US Constitution), we have every right to treat it as a hostile act to imprison an American and parade him/her in that court of justice.
when they confirm the existence of the global warming phenomenon?
They may have confirmed the existence of global warming, but there is absolutely no hard evidence that it is caused by geologically and climatologically insignifant human action.
broad consensus in the international community
Hot air. The fact remains that the action was taken without the blessings of the UN Security Council and explicitly against the wishes of one of its permanent members (Russia) - just like the war in Iraq.
"Broad international consensus" is just like "public opinion": largely irrelevant (and for a good reason). It may affect the decision makers who have political careers to look after, but it cannot in any way be used to justify decisions or actions that go against the procedures of UN. If the public opinion is allowed to justify going against the will of UN, then UN itself has become irrelevant.
In other words: you either accept UN as the authority in which case both Kosovo and Iraq were unjustified wars, or you accept that "public opinion" may override the authority of UN and that this makes UN irrelevant.
You can't have it both ways.
Dude, try watching something different than Fox News and CNN
I'm an ex-pat and don't see FOX here in Belgium. I watch CNN, BBC, EuroNews on cable as well as the local news broadcasts. You really should not throw the stereotypes around so lightly - it makes you sound so... euro-trashy.
Uhhuh? And did the people who grew Texamati, extracted Neem and used Tulsi have the means and infrastructure to make all these available worldwide or even on a national level? No? Well, don't complain when someone who actually can bring the benefits to the wider public does it.
I challenge you to refute the points I made.
How long have we had patent databases on the net? Now it's much easier to look for good ideas in a foreign patent database and steal those which are not patented in your own country.
Oh, you mean things like the Kyoto treaty and so called unilateral war with Iraq?
Why should we conform to a treaty that's supposed to address a phenomenon of which there is absolutely no scientific proof -- a treaty that would seriously undermine our economy. As far as Iraq goes, I bet you were happy that we intervened in Kosovo -- you do remember that that also took place without the approval of the UN?
Patent something domestically and someone in a country with cheap labour will copy your idea and outproduce you.
Ever thought about how much happiness such a little insulated wire can bring into our lives?
You got beaten up? Have the perp pay your hospital and general recovery bills. "Pain and suffering" is subjective, ill-defined and too easily abused and should therefore not entitle you to any compensation.
Joyriders trashed your new car? Have them buy you another one and meanwhile compensate for the immediate costs of having to live without a car (i.e. cover the costs for your essential transportation).
Someone killed your friend/family member? Lock the bastard up for life.
Pure utilitarianism: whatever is the most logical course of action. Revenge via proxy does not benefit the society as a whole and is counterproductive in the long term.
Law is not supposed to grant retribution.
The law should protect the society by preventing people from harming the collective and not cater to the base human instincts like the hunger for revenge.
It just occurred to me that wouldn't this, not the sea level changes, explain fossiles found high in modern day mountains?
Actually that's pretty much how Freenet works.
Just call him "85".
Jesus Christ! What the hell is wrong with the GWB administration? France opposed the war with Iraq because on the grounds that there is no sufficient evidence that Iraq has not destroyed its WMDs - and now after the war, the evidence is still missing! So far France seems to have been right and these morons are still intent on "punishing" the France for trying to prevent this unjustified, unilateral war (the true motives, of course, were regime change, oil and GWB's personal issues with religion and his daddy).