I am a physicist. This is not how quantum mechanics works. Probability and randomness are the result of measurement and not knowing the starting conditions. Should you completely know the quantum state (singular) of all the interacting particles in your system, you could exactly predict the outcome.
I am not a physicist, but doesn't this assertion rely on the hidden variables interpretation of the uncertainty principle, which has fallen out of favor? If there are no hidden variables, then the uncertainty principle becomes a fundamental limitation and not merely a reflection of experimental limitations.
Look at the number of nuts who have used the word treason to apply to President Obama. At least half of that caused by the president not being snow white in color.
If you really believe that even a sizable minority of the negative feelings about Obama are racially motivated, then you're just mistaken. Sure, the racists are out there, but they are really just background noise.
I live in the south, and I personally know dozens of people who traditionally vote Republican who voted for Obama in 2008 specifically because he is black. My father was one of these people, and he said to me after the election that "it's just time for a black president." If anything, Obama received a huge boost from the fact that he was the first credible black candidate for president, and it helped that his competition was lackluster at best.
No, the people calling Obama treasonous or calling for impeachment are much more likely to be basing this on Obama's actions while in office. By and large, it's not the color of Obama's skin that they're judging, but rather the content of his character.
Personally, I'm viewing philosophers as the stepping stone between religion and science. You see, at the dawn of human civilization humans started asking questions: the first (incredibly bad) way of answering them was religion. Some people were not satisfied with the way religion answers them, so they went into the direction of philosophy. Some people went into the direction of science to try to answer questions. Religion and philosophy are flawed ways of finding things out.
If this is your position, then how does science address what "aught" to be. Science can certainly address what is, but just because something has always happened a certain way doesn't mean that it "should" happen that way. Most people would consider slavery to be something to be avoided, but if you looked to science during the 17th century (or earlier), you would be forced to conclude that slavery had existed as long as recorded history, so it must be "good". It took religion ("fundamentalist" Christians such as William Wilberforce) to "prove" to society that slavery as it existed then was morally wrong.
Philosophy is far broader than science, and when science tries to "do" philosophy, it usually turns out badly. That's not to say that philosophy should not and is not influenced by the progress of science, but it acknowledges that there are limits to what science can tell us, and it turns out that we're still interested in the answers to some of the questions that lie beyond that boundary.
Actually, the Microsoft 'KeyChangeTool' is quite leaps and bounds ahead of any... third-party... key changing tools. The Microsoft tool has the ability to transform a Corporate install into a Professional Non-Corporate install. No key changers can do this.
Why would I want to do this? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your advice overall, but you make it sound as if changing a corporate install without activation to a non-corp install with activation is actually a good thing.
...which neatly covers newspapers, magazines and bloggers (despite the fact that their "consideration for truth, fairness, balance, decency and ethics" is sometimes highly questionable).
Compare to cable television, for instance. If you subscribe to CATV, you are paying for the bandwidth (all those channels) to access the content, while at the same time, the CATV company is paying (slightly less) to carry those channels, and the network (CNN, Fox, TLC, SF, etc.) are charging advertisers for sending that content to you.
Your analogy is flawed. If this situation was similar to you analogy, then the ISP would be paying google for the right to carry their content, not the other way around. This really is a company wanting to get paid twice for the same sale.
Really though, it's not google but VOIP companies that should be most concerned about this. Google will most likely not pay, and has the means to make sure that customers are aware of the problem. If enough customers complain and/or take their business to a competitor, the ISP's will change remove the throttling from Google. However, VOIP companies are much smaller, and since we're talking about the major telco's here, they are not going to be as accomodating to a company that threatens their major cash cow. They would probably risk losing an internet customer rather than allowing VOIP to continue to undercut their core business.
I assume you're vegan, because animals have life too, and therefore it is wrong to kill them.
Maybe he values human life more than animal life. Many (i.e., virtually all) cultures make a major distinction between animals an humans. It is murder to kill a human, but it is at worst a property crime and at best a service to humanity to kill an animal (depending on the animal).
you forget the fact that it was Queen Elizabeth "the Catholic", who authorized Columbus to do his trip to "the indias".
I'm not much of a history scholar, but I believe that Queen Isabella of Spain was the monarch that comissioned Columbus' "trip to the indias". Queen Elizabeth I (I assume that this is who you were referring to) was a protestant (Anglican), and I don't believe that she was even alive in 1492. Queen Isabella was, however, a Catholic, and I agree that The Catholic Church was never officially in the flat-earth camp as a matter of dogma.
It says nothing of an exchange of things. Further, that's silly because a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is a contract, but there's no "exchange of things" there. Just the promise that one party won't go blabbing (not a legal term) about the information another party agrees to share.
An NDA has specific performance by both parties as consideration; that is why they are generally enforcable. Note that some NDAs are not in fact enforcable if the courts find that one side essentially provided no consideration.
To me, the worm turns on the gp's first point: lack of consideration. With boxed software, you have already entered into a valid contract with the merchant to purchase the software. You should not be required to enter into another one with the manufacturer just to use the product. Use of a legally purchased product is a basic consumer right, and therefore the manufacturer is not providing any aditional consideration in the EULA. The software companies would argue that just copying the software into memory and onto a hard disk violates their copyrights, but this arguement is absurd. They intend for you to do this when they package their software as a product. For services, the picture is more muddy, and TOS contract are typically legal and enforcable.
Part of the social contract is that you are obliged to give back to the society in which you prosper some portion of your prosperity. In a successful, prosperous society such as ours, it would be morally questionable to not let those who either are unable due to circumstance or who have been disenfranchised through various means to have access to the freedoms and services that the government guarantees. The degree to which you succeed determines the degree to which you are obligated to help your fellow citizen.
I don't remember signing any such contract. Can I at least re-negotiate the terms. And before you say that I can go somewhere else, I don't believe that the majority of Americans feel the way that you do. If we did away with income tax, social security, and FICA withholding, there would be a popular uprising against taxes the likes of which hasn't been seen for over 200 years.
The only means of fair apportionment of such obligations is through government taxes. That you already pay your taxes as a good citizen proves that you believe that it is your duty as a citizen to do so, despite griping about how much it may hurt your pocketbook. You have, by your acceptance of the social contract, already admitted that your earnings are not yours, that you do not have a fundamental right to your earnings.
This is some of the most rediculous logic that I've ever heard, and it scares me to think that someone might actually believe this. The government siezes taxes by force. If you don't think so, then don't pay your taxes for a year or two and see what happens. I pay taxes because the consequences of not paying are imprisonment and financial ruin.
A society is judged first and foremost on the amount of freedom it grants (inasmuch as such freedoms are "granted") to its citizens, but closely following that is how it treats its most disadvantaged citizens.
One of the great things about the U.S. was that it recognized that freedom wasn't "granted" by a benevolent government. The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". The U.S. Constitution acknowledges these in the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 - 10), and the 9th Amendment actually states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Clearly, the founders recognized that freedom was not something that government grants, but something inherent in the human condition.
The problem with your system is it is even more draconian that what we currently have in the US. Why can't I, as a private citizen, say anything I want (excluding obvious exclusions such as slander, incite to violence, etc.) regarding a political issue and/ore a political candidate whenever I want using any means of communication available to me? To me, this is what free speech is all about, and campaign finance reform prohibits it. If your proposal didn't restrict it as well, then it would be totally ineffective as "contributors" would just use their money as private citizens and the same message would get out in the same way. Campaign finance reform is an abomination that has done nothing but harm the political process. I would much rather there be a free-for-all that what we have now. The solution is to limit the power of politicians so that they cannot do too much damage.
LOL! I would mod you funny if I could. However, my questionable choice of words does not change the validity of the arguement. Is it better if I say "occupationally challenged"? Actually, the arguement works just as well for the rich trust-fund brat that has no real income but lives off his parents' or grandparents' assets. Taxes that discriminate based on success are an abomination. They punish those that produce and contribute to society without really rewarding the "needy".
You're saying that someone working 90 hours a week to put two kids through college values his time the same as some welfare bum drawing a check every month? Nice incentive system there. The reason that you earn money in the first place is that someone places that value on the goods or service that you provide. If I make less than you, it is either because I do not offer a service that is as valuable to an employer, or I do not do as good a job at marketing my skills. Either way, you should not be penalized because of my lack of success. You probably think that the only way someone succeeds is to "get lucky".
Getting back on topic, placing the responsibility for recycling on the manufacturers allows for market effects to kick in. Sure, they will pass most or all of the costs to the consumer, but now it becomes a business expense to be managed. If one manufacturer can reduce the cost of recycling, then they will have a competitive advantage that can be leveraged. By levying a flat tax on consumers, there is no incentive for improvement.
You're saying that someone working 90 hours a week to put two kids through college values his time the same as some welfare bum drawing a check every month? Nice incentive system there. The reason that you earn money in the first place is that someone places that value on the goods or service that you provide. If I make less than you, it is either because I do not offer a service that is as valuable to an employer, or I do not do as good a job at marketing my skills. Either way, you should not be penalized because of my lack of success. You probably think that the only way someone succeeds is to "get lucky".
Getting back on topic, placing the responsibility for recycling on the manufacturers allows for market effects to kick in. Sure, they will pass most or all of the costs to the consumer, but now it becomes a business expense to be managed. If one manufacturer can reduce the cost of recycling, then they will have a competitive advantage that can be leveraged. By levying a flat tax on consumers, there is no incentive for improvement.
Tylenol is a bad example because its patent has been expired for a long time. However, if it were under patent, the company still wouldn't charge "a billion dollars". They could (from a legal standpoint, anyway), but how many people would be willing and/or able to pony up that much? Even if it were a life-saving drug, the number of people that have the disease that it treats and also can afford to pay that much would be VERY small. The drug companies will try to find a price that maximizes profits. This will be much lower that "a billion dollars", but it will also be higher (possibly much higher) than the marginal cost of production plus overhead (a proxy for the price under free competition).
Umm, it is trivial to "steal" the formulas to patented drugs. The drug companies are required to submit these in the patent app, as well as to the FDA during the approval process. None of this is secret or classified data. Anyone with the proper production equipment could bootleg a patented drug. Of course, this would be just as illegal as bootlegging software.
The problem with expensive pharmaceuticals is very complex. These companies must recoup their HUGE R&D investments in both successful and unsuccessful drugs. The real problem is price-fixing in the countries with socialized medicine. The drug companies have to gouge the free-market countries (primarily the US) to make up for the shortfall in profits from the Canadian and European markets. The drug companies go along with it because they are still making more than the marginal costs of production, and something is better than nothing. If they refused to do business with countries that have price controls, these countries would simply allow local companies to bootleg the drugs (remember that the formulae are publicly available) to sell locally. Honestly, I don't know why this isn't a WTO issue. The US consumer is having to subsidize those in Canada and the EU. The alternative is less R&D and fewer new drugs in the pipeline.
Of course, in a free-market economy with a patent system, the drug companies are essentially free to charge anything they wish while the drugs are under patent. They will (and should) choose a price that maximizes profits, and this will be a higer price than what would be possible under free competition. The difference is referred to as "monopoly rents". As a society, this is the incentive we provide to investors so that they will spend money to research new drugs. Without the patents, there would be essentially no private for-profit investment in pharmaceutical research. So there really is no easy solution to this problem. Maybe the length of the patent can be reduced, but this will make the drugs even more expensive during the duration of the patent.
One possible solution to the problem is to reduce the regulatory burden that the FDA places on these companies. This would place more of the burden of drug safety on the doctors and consumers. If the costs of getting a new drug to market are lower, then a shorter patent period would be acceptible since there will be less fixed cost that must be recouped. The obvious downside to this is that it is possible that drugs with serious side-effects will be more likely to make it to market. This is a trade-off, and we as a soceity must decide just how much "safety" we are willing to pay for. But simply villifying the drug companies solves nothing. I'm sure that they do some bad things in the pursuit of profits, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. We would have these problems even if these companies were perfectly ethical.
In WWI, the assassination of a prince caused two unstable factions to go to war. Because Austria/Hungry could not win, they called for help from Russia. England and France said dont go Russia, but Russia went anyways. Then in came France and England (of course other countries fought too).
You may want to brush up on history, because Austria/Hungary fought against Russia in WWI. Russia entered the war because Austria attacked Serbia (Russia's ally). France came into the war because they were attacked by Germany (Austria's ally) and England came in because Germany attacked a neutral country (Belgium) to get to France over open country.
Of course, all of this was just propoganda for the masses, because the tensions that brought about WWI had been building for years, and the nations on both sides wanted to go to war to settle grievances and aquire territory.
Terrorism is caused by one man as well.
That is one of the most foolish statements I've read in a while. If you are referring to Bush, then I hate to break it to you, but terrorism was happening long before Bush came to power. Whether you support Bush or not, he's not the one that flew planes into buildings on 9/11. He's not the one blowing himself up in Israel and Iraq. You may disagree with his tactics in fighting terrorism, but to claim that he caused terrorism is absurd on its face.
Who in their right mind could argue that a 91% income tax on anyone is fair and desirable. Are you that jealous of others that you want to take (practically) everything that they earn. Not to mention the fact that most of the "fabulously rich" don't really earn that much in the sense of wages. They mostly live off their assets (this may involve capital gains, but that is a competely different tax structure).
Even with the current tax structure, the "rich" pay virtually all of the tax. In 2000, the top 1% of wage-earners pays 35% of the total tax bill. The top 50% pay over 95% of the tax! See the statisics here. I always find it funny that politicians and the media make such a big deal about "tax breaks for the rich". Given these statistics, how could any tax break fail to benefit the wealthy (i.e. those above the median income), the pay all of the tax! Why is it that someone who works harder to be successful should have to take up the slack for those that aren't as successful (for whatever reason)? I can understand setting a percentage-based tax, but why can't the same percentage apply to all? This will result in higher wage-earners paying more, but everyone will be required to contribute. Why even try to become successful if your reward is to simply give the fruits of you labor to the government?
Slashdot Mirror
I am not a physicist, but doesn't this assertion rely on the hidden variables interpretation of the uncertainty principle, which has fallen out of favor? If there are no hidden variables, then the uncertainty principle becomes a fundamental limitation and not merely a reflection of experimental limitations.
Unless I'm mistaken, I'm pretty user that they have battery replacement program for the 12-inch macbook.
Look at the number of nuts who have used the word treason to apply to President Obama. At least half of that caused by the president not being snow white in color.
If you really believe that even a sizable minority of the negative feelings about Obama are racially motivated, then you're just mistaken. Sure, the racists are out there, but they are really just background noise.
I live in the south, and I personally know dozens of people who traditionally vote Republican who voted for Obama in 2008 specifically because he is black. My father was one of these people, and he said to me after the election that "it's just time for a black president." If anything, Obama received a huge boost from the fact that he was the first credible black candidate for president, and it helped that his competition was lackluster at best.
No, the people calling Obama treasonous or calling for impeachment are much more likely to be basing this on Obama's actions while in office. By and large, it's not the color of Obama's skin that they're judging, but rather the content of his character.
Thanks, but I would seriously rather just rent the antenna from aereo and skip the installation costs and hassle.
So you honestly expect to pay 5 bucks and have the vendor keep a server alive for your lifetime to activate it?
Yes, if vendors chooses some sort of activation scheme, then it is their responsibility to maintain that infrastructure indefinitely.
Personally, I'm viewing philosophers as the stepping stone between religion and science. You see, at the dawn of human civilization humans started asking questions: the first (incredibly bad) way of answering them was religion. Some people were not satisfied with the way religion answers them, so they went into the direction of philosophy. Some people went into the direction of science to try to answer questions. Religion and philosophy are flawed ways of finding things out.
If this is your position, then how does science address what "aught" to be. Science can certainly address what is, but just because something has always happened a certain way doesn't mean that it "should" happen that way. Most people would consider slavery to be something to be avoided, but if you looked to science during the 17th century (or earlier), you would be forced to conclude that slavery had existed as long as recorded history, so it must be "good". It took religion ("fundamentalist" Christians such as William Wilberforce) to "prove" to society that slavery as it existed then was morally wrong.
Philosophy is far broader than science, and when science tries to "do" philosophy, it usually turns out badly. That's not to say that philosophy should not and is not influenced by the progress of science, but it acknowledges that there are limits to what science can tell us, and it turns out that we're still interested in the answers to some of the questions that lie beyond that boundary.
Actually, the Microsoft 'KeyChangeTool' is quite leaps and bounds ahead of any ... third-party ... key changing tools. The Microsoft tool has the ability to transform a Corporate install into a Professional Non-Corporate install. No key changers can do this.
Why would I want to do this? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your advice overall, but you make it sound as if changing a corporate install without activation to a non-corp install with activation is actually a good thing.
...which neatly covers newspapers, magazines and bloggers (despite the fact that their "consideration for truth, fairness, balance, decency and ethics" is sometimes highly questionable).
Yea, and the bloggers aren't much better.
Compare to cable television, for instance. If you subscribe to CATV, you are paying for the bandwidth (all those channels) to access the content, while at the same time, the CATV company is paying (slightly less) to carry those channels, and the network (CNN, Fox, TLC, SF, etc.) are charging advertisers for sending that content to you.
Your analogy is flawed. If this situation was similar to you analogy, then the ISP would be paying google for the right to carry their content, not the other way around. This really is a company wanting to get paid twice for the same sale.
Really though, it's not google but VOIP companies that should be most concerned about this. Google will most likely not pay, and has the means to make sure that customers are aware of the problem. If enough customers complain and/or take their business to a competitor, the ISP's will change remove the throttling from Google. However, VOIP companies are much smaller, and since we're talking about the major telco's here, they are not going to be as accomodating to a company that threatens their major cash cow. They would probably risk losing an internet customer rather than allowing VOIP to continue to undercut their core business.
Name one real IP invented by MS.
Two words... Microsoft Bob!
I assume you're vegan, because animals have life too, and therefore it is wrong to kill them.
Maybe he values human life more than animal life. Many (i.e., virtually all) cultures make a major distinction between animals an humans. It is murder to kill a human, but it is at worst a property crime and at best a service to humanity to kill an animal (depending on the animal).
you forget the fact that it was Queen Elizabeth "the Catholic", who authorized Columbus to do his trip to "the indias".
I'm not much of a history scholar, but I believe that Queen Isabella of Spain was the monarch that comissioned Columbus' "trip to the indias". Queen Elizabeth I (I assume that this is who you were referring to) was a protestant (Anglican), and I don't believe that she was even alive in 1492. Queen Isabella was, however, a Catholic, and I agree that The Catholic Church was never officially in the flat-earth camp as a matter of dogma.
Old-fashioned of you...going back how far? Anti-monopoly laws have only been in effect a relatively short time.
In the US, the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed in 1890. Unless you're talking plate tectonics, I wouldn't call 115 years a "realtively short time".
It says nothing of an exchange of things. Further, that's silly because a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is a contract, but there's no "exchange of things" there. Just the promise that one party won't go blabbing (not a legal term) about the information another party agrees to share.
An NDA has specific performance by both parties as consideration; that is why they are generally enforcable. Note that some NDAs are not in fact enforcable if the courts find that one side essentially provided no consideration.
To me, the worm turns on the gp's first point: lack of consideration. With boxed software, you have already entered into a valid contract with the merchant to purchase the software. You should not be required to enter into another one with the manufacturer just to use the product. Use of a legally purchased product is a basic consumer right, and therefore the manufacturer is not providing any aditional consideration in the EULA. The software companies would argue that just copying the software into memory and onto a hard disk violates their copyrights, but this arguement is absurd. They intend for you to do this when they package their software as a product. For services, the picture is more muddy, and TOS contract are typically legal and enforcable.
Part of the social contract is that you are obliged to give back to the society in which you prosper some portion of your prosperity. In a successful, prosperous society such as ours, it would be morally questionable to not let those who either are unable due to circumstance or who have been disenfranchised through various means to have access to the freedoms and services that the government guarantees. The degree to which you succeed determines the degree to which you are obligated to help your fellow citizen.
I don't remember signing any such contract. Can I at least re-negotiate the terms. And before you say that I can go somewhere else, I don't believe that the majority of Americans feel the way that you do. If we did away with income tax, social security, and FICA withholding, there would be a popular uprising against taxes the likes of which hasn't been seen for over 200 years.
The only means of fair apportionment of such obligations is through government taxes. That you already pay your taxes as a good citizen proves that you believe that it is your duty as a citizen to do so, despite griping about how much it may hurt your pocketbook. You have, by your acceptance of the social contract, already admitted that your earnings are not yours, that you do not have a fundamental right to your earnings.
This is some of the most rediculous logic that I've ever heard, and it scares me to think that someone might actually believe this. The government siezes taxes by force. If you don't think so, then don't pay your taxes for a year or two and see what happens. I pay taxes because the consequences of not paying are imprisonment and financial ruin.
A society is judged first and foremost on the amount of freedom it grants (inasmuch as such freedoms are "granted") to its citizens, but closely following that is how it treats its most disadvantaged citizens. One of the great things about the U.S. was that it recognized that freedom wasn't "granted" by a benevolent government. The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". The U.S. Constitution acknowledges these in the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 - 10), and the 9th Amendment actually states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Clearly, the founders recognized that freedom was not something that government grants, but something inherent in the human condition.
The problem with your system is it is even more draconian that what we currently have in the US. Why can't I, as a private citizen, say anything I want (excluding obvious exclusions such as slander, incite to violence, etc.) regarding a political issue and/ore a political candidate whenever I want using any means of communication available to me? To me, this is what free speech is all about, and campaign finance reform prohibits it. If your proposal didn't restrict it as well, then it would be totally ineffective as "contributors" would just use their money as private citizens and the same message would get out in the same way. Campaign finance reform is an abomination that has done nothing but harm the political process. I would much rather there be a free-for-all that what we have now. The solution is to limit the power of politicians so that they cannot do too much damage.
Microsoft's first two versions of any product always sucks. Why should this be any different.
LOL! I would mod you funny if I could. However, my questionable choice of words does not change the validity of the arguement. Is it better if I say "occupationally challenged"? Actually, the arguement works just as well for the rich trust-fund brat that has no real income but lives off his parents' or grandparents' assets. Taxes that discriminate based on success are an abomination. They punish those that produce and contribute to society without really rewarding the "needy".
You're saying that someone working 90 hours a week to put two kids through college values his time the same as some welfare bum drawing a check every month? Nice incentive system there. The reason that you earn money in the first place is that someone places that value on the goods or service that you provide. If I make less than you, it is either because I do not offer a service that is as valuable to an employer, or I do not do as good a job at marketing my skills. Either way, you should not be penalized because of my lack of success. You probably think that the only way someone succeeds is to "get lucky".
Getting back on topic, placing the responsibility for recycling on the manufacturers allows for market effects to kick in. Sure, they will pass most or all of the costs to the consumer, but now it becomes a business expense to be managed. If one manufacturer can reduce the cost of recycling, then they will have a competitive advantage that can be leveraged. By levying a flat tax on consumers, there is no incentive for improvement.
You're saying that someone working 90 hours a week to put two kids through college values his time the same as some welfare bum drawing a check every month? Nice incentive system there. The reason that you earn money in the first place is that someone places that value on the goods or service that you provide. If I make less than you, it is either because I do not offer a service that is as valuable to an employer, or I do not do as good a job at marketing my skills. Either way, you should not be penalized because of my lack of success. You probably think that the only way someone succeeds is to "get lucky".
Getting back on topic, placing the responsibility for recycling on the manufacturers allows for market effects to kick in. Sure, they will pass most or all of the costs to the consumer, but now it becomes a business expense to be managed. If one manufacturer can reduce the cost of recycling, then they will have a competitive advantage that can be leveraged. By levying a flat tax on consumers, there is no incentive for improvement.
Tylenol is a bad example because its patent has been expired for a long time. However, if it were under patent, the company still wouldn't charge "a billion dollars". They could (from a legal standpoint, anyway), but how many people would be willing and/or able to pony up that much? Even if it were a life-saving drug, the number of people that have the disease that it treats and also can afford to pay that much would be VERY small. The drug companies will try to find a price that maximizes profits. This will be much lower that "a billion dollars", but it will also be higher (possibly much higher) than the marginal cost of production plus overhead (a proxy for the price under free competition).
Umm, it is trivial to "steal" the formulas to patented drugs. The drug companies are required to submit these in the patent app, as well as to the FDA during the approval process. None of this is secret or classified data. Anyone with the proper production equipment could bootleg a patented drug. Of course, this would be just as illegal as bootlegging software.
The problem with expensive pharmaceuticals is very complex. These companies must recoup their HUGE R&D investments in both successful and unsuccessful drugs. The real problem is price-fixing in the countries with socialized medicine. The drug companies have to gouge the free-market countries (primarily the US) to make up for the shortfall in profits from the Canadian and European markets. The drug companies go along with it because they are still making more than the marginal costs of production, and something is better than nothing. If they refused to do business with countries that have price controls, these countries would simply allow local companies to bootleg the drugs (remember that the formulae are publicly available) to sell locally. Honestly, I don't know why this isn't a WTO issue. The US consumer is having to subsidize those in Canada and the EU. The alternative is less R&D and fewer new drugs in the pipeline.
Of course, in a free-market economy with a patent system, the drug companies are essentially free to charge anything they wish while the drugs are under patent. They will (and should) choose a price that maximizes profits, and this will be a higer price than what would be possible under free competition. The difference is referred to as "monopoly rents". As a society, this is the incentive we provide to investors so that they will spend money to research new drugs. Without the patents, there would be essentially no private for-profit investment in pharmaceutical research. So there really is no easy solution to this problem. Maybe the length of the patent can be reduced, but this will make the drugs even more expensive during the duration of the patent.
One possible solution to the problem is to reduce the regulatory burden that the FDA places on these companies. This would place more of the burden of drug safety on the doctors and consumers. If the costs of getting a new drug to market are lower, then a shorter patent period would be acceptible since there will be less fixed cost that must be recouped. The obvious downside to this is that it is possible that drugs with serious side-effects will be more likely to make it to market. This is a trade-off, and we as a soceity must decide just how much "safety" we are willing to pay for. But simply villifying the drug companies solves nothing. I'm sure that they do some bad things in the pursuit of profits, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation. We would have these problems even if these companies were perfectly ethical.
When I read this headline, I thought you were talking about Al Gore, and I had to agree!
In WWI, the assassination of a prince caused two unstable factions to go to war. Because Austria/Hungry could not win, they called for help from Russia. England and France said dont go Russia, but Russia went anyways. Then in came France and England (of course other countries fought too).
You may want to brush up on history, because Austria/Hungary fought against Russia in WWI. Russia entered the war because Austria attacked Serbia (Russia's ally). France came into the war because they were attacked by Germany (Austria's ally) and England came in because Germany attacked a neutral country (Belgium) to get to France over open country.
Of course, all of this was just propoganda for the masses, because the tensions that brought about WWI had been building for years, and the nations on both sides wanted to go to war to settle grievances and aquire territory.
Terrorism is caused by one man as well.
That is one of the most foolish statements I've read in a while. If you are referring to Bush, then I hate to break it to you, but terrorism was happening long before Bush came to power. Whether you support Bush or not, he's not the one that flew planes into buildings on 9/11. He's not the one blowing himself up in Israel and Iraq. You may disagree with his tactics in fighting terrorism, but to claim that he caused terrorism is absurd on its face.
Who in their right mind could argue that a 91% income tax on anyone is fair and desirable. Are you that jealous of others that you want to take (practically) everything that they earn. Not to mention the fact that most of the "fabulously rich" don't really earn that much in the sense of wages. They mostly live off their assets (this may involve capital gains, but that is a competely different tax structure).
Even with the current tax structure, the "rich" pay virtually all of the tax. In 2000, the top 1% of wage-earners pays 35% of the total tax bill. The top 50% pay over 95% of the tax! See the statisics here. I always find it funny that politicians and the media make such a big deal about "tax breaks for the rich". Given these statistics, how could any tax break fail to benefit the wealthy (i.e. those above the median income), the pay all of the tax! Why is it that someone who works harder to be successful should have to take up the slack for those that aren't as successful (for whatever reason)? I can understand setting a percentage-based tax, but why can't the same percentage apply to all? This will result in higher wage-earners paying more, but everyone will be required to contribute. Why even try to become successful if your reward is to simply give the fruits of you labor to the government?