I don't agree. The parent poster didn't argue that drug companies are entitled to obscene riches or that they should price the drug out of reach of those who need it. He simply argued that profits are needed and justified. Considering the number of users, a dollar per inventor per patient would likely meet the "pro golfer" requirement. I totally agree that any scientist who contributes so greatly to mankind should be entitled to a reward at least as great as a Tiger Woods appearance fee or Lebron James's rookie signing bonus.
Looking at it from another perspective, anyone who pays $20K a year for meds now may be upset at having to pay $20K for a cure but he's sure as hell going to pay it. That alone doesn't make it right to charge that much, but there's no reason such a drug couldn't be priced to be a win for everyone involved.
Ahh, you sound poor. Let other people pay for things. You should receive benefits for free.
Just who would be responsible for setting prices based on your net worth and why would they care? So how about having the government give the meds away for free in exchange for higher taxation? Other countries think that's a good way to go.
So the problem is that the gay person isn't wearing the sign proclaiming his heterosexuality like everyone else? The job of every gay person is to fit in so that no straight people feel challenged to be tolerant?
Gays are just like everyone else in that everyone is different. Just because a specific gay person is easily identifiable doesn't mean it's his problem. There seems to be no problem with straight people acting "obviously straight" after all, so why can't a gay person act obviously gay? Gays are no more obligated to hide their sexuality than straights are.
who's to say that the 40 year old didn't vote for the right candidate and the 20 year old did. It's a silly, contrived example that means nothing. A candidate that's pro-environment doesn't necessarily make a better or more effective elected official. He may not even be better for the environment.
Fact is, a person who votes without understanding the issues or the candidates isn't helping, and a person who doesn't vote because he know he's uninformed isn't hurting. The smart person realizes there are ways to have a more meaningful contribution to the process than voting, since large voter turnouts lead to "the rule of the dumbest". There's nothing less useful to the process than "MTV rock the vote". Those are the votes we don't want, those and the ones of ppl who devote all their thought into playing gta: san andreas.
So, if a slight shade more 20 year olds had voted in 2000, history may have been different but in an arbitrary, who-knows-if-it's-better sort of way. Sure, anything would be better than George W. but the problem wasn't poor 20 year old voter turnout. 20 years olds in urban areas wouldn't have made a difference because Kerry was already strong there. 20 year olds in rural areas probably vote like their parents.
I don't think you're the camera "connoisseur" that's being targetted by manufacturers. Your needs are more properly met with a cameraphone. Good to know you're using "the best compact camera" to do your lo-res, no effort snaps though.
A color sensor is certainly better than any B&W film at color reproduction, so the point is clearly *what* you are comparing. Depending on that, 6MP DSLR's do, in fact, outperform any 35mm film. Doesn't mean they're better at everything.
In plenty of ways, DSLR's are even more amazingly adaptable than 35mm film. How convenient is it to change ISO between shots with film? How many shots can you get with each technology without opening the body? How convenient is it to change film when you are underwater? If 35mm film were so amazing as you say, it would have a bright future relative to its digital counterparts. Fact is that, for the most part, DSLR's are outperforming 35mm film now and 35mm film is going away fast.
"When CD's first came out they clipped off frequencies they claimed the human ear couldn't hear but people didn't like the sound so they had to increase the range."
What? The CD audio standard has never been changed since its introduction. Just what do you mean by "increase the range"? Talking out of your butt?
Of course sensors have limitations. The argument was a specific quantitative one which you have done nothing to refute. Foveon's approach has its own limitations which thus far have made it unsuccessful in the market. It isn't Canon/Nikon's lack of investment that's hurting Foveon, it's that they're getting outperformeed.
Being relevant to the future doesn't make him right nor necessarily relevant to the future and claiming free software wouldn't exist today without gcc is absurd. BSD exists today after all. It could be argued that Linux has done more to make Stallman relevant than anything Stallman has done himself. Most ppl are interested in the software, not the ideology. That appears to include Linus.
I think you mean "assuming the BIOS is not write protected";)
Of course you are completely right, but the suggestion here is far more insideous. Now a system compromise could result in the BIOS being MODIFIED, not just trashed. Of course, that fact is that modifying ACPI routines is only going to hamper the OS'es ability to control hardware devices and power management states. So what? Meaningless FUD.
answer the question. what can modified ACPI routines do? Virtually nothing. ACPI was chosen, though, because no other BIOS routines are used by Windows/otherOS at runtime. Thing is that ACPI routines are interpreted and heavily sandboxed. Malware running inside ACPI routines is pure FUD.
No doubt that IF a BIOS could be reflashed by malware then the machine could be killed, but installing a rootkit via ACPI is a joke.
Blah. Just because future macs may share flash interfaces with PC's doesn't mean a thing. Rogue software would have to gain access to hardware and know how to program it in order to update the firmware at all. That's very much an OS-dependent thing. Furthermore, to accomplish what is suggested (installing malware rather than just brinking the box) would be entirely mac-dependent. The reason macs don't have an advantage over PC's here is that the hypothetical risk even on a PC is essentially zero.
The suggestion here seems to be that code could be installed into the ACPI routines assuming the author could figure out how to do that and how to reflash the BIOS within Windows. Since most, if not all, BIOS'es are compressed it would be an incredible feat (and unique to a platform) to accomplish such a thing even it were technically possible (highly unlikely). Ignoring that, ACPI code can't do JACK SHIT! This is a complete joke---a scam designed to make a select few "experts" money, much like the Y2K "catastrophe". Appalling FUD from shameless liars is all this is.
ha ha! you think Apple is more an expert at FW than Intel or that it matters? Intel has obviously seen no reason to integrate FW800 in its notebook chipsets and Apple isn't likely to sway them. If Intel wanted to do that it most certainly could.
Apple is NOT one of Intel's larger customers for chipsets and it isn't going to influence Intel's roadmaps after switching to them within the last year. Apple's choice is to take Intel's parts, someone else's parts, or roll their own. It's not like Apple tells Intel what to develop.
"2) Wait until a standard is picked up by Wintel machines before investing heavily in devices"
Like that happens a lot! Before you mention firewire, remember that firewire was introduced to the market by Sony, not Apple. Just what standards have Apple introduced that the PC world have adopted?
The ability to provide a lot of power over the cable is both a blessing and a curse. PC notebooks choose to implement only 4-pin firewire because of the power requirements so they can't power anything. Some external USB drives are successfully cable powered and the computer gets to decide whether it can manage that or not. You can also boot off USB so that's just a mac limitation. I agree though that firewire isn't disappearing any time soon. It's cheap, plentiful and useful.
USB was a long time in development and it wasn't going to be integrated into PC's until Intel provided it in their chipsets, MS supported it in Windows, and there were peripherals available that used it. All those things were progressing but had not quite occurred when the iMac came out. It was not Apple with the iMac that made USB, it was just the timing that made it seem that way. USB was entirely Intel's doing and it was their responsibility for it taking as long as it did.
So what? Every product could be said to be a rush job they had to bring to market. It only matters if the product is desirable, and Yonah appears to be.
Every next generation promises to be better than the last. Now we hear that Intel's processor 6 months from now will be better than today's. You're surprised by that? It suddenly makes today's part a me-too rush job?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't agree. The parent poster didn't argue that drug companies are entitled to obscene riches or that they should price the drug out of reach of those who need it. He simply argued that profits are needed and justified. Considering the number of users, a dollar per inventor per patient would likely meet the "pro golfer" requirement. I totally agree that any scientist who contributes so greatly to mankind should be entitled to a reward at least as great as a Tiger Woods appearance fee or Lebron James's rookie signing bonus.
Looking at it from another perspective, anyone who pays $20K a year for meds now may be upset at having to pay $20K for a cure but he's sure as hell going to pay it. That alone doesn't make it right to charge that much, but there's no reason such a drug couldn't be priced to be a win for everyone involved.
Ahh, you sound poor. Let other people pay for things. You should receive benefits for free.
Just who would be responsible for setting prices based on your net worth and why would they care? So how about having the government give the meds away for free in exchange for higher taxation? Other countries think that's a good way to go.
Good to hear that you know so much about what the costs are to develop, manufacture and distribute such a drug.
So the problem is that the gay person isn't wearing the sign proclaiming his heterosexuality like everyone else? The job of every gay person is to fit in so that no straight people feel challenged to be tolerant?
Gays are just like everyone else in that everyone is different. Just because a specific gay person is easily identifiable doesn't mean it's his problem. There seems to be no problem with straight people acting "obviously straight" after all, so why can't a gay person act obviously gay? Gays are no more obligated to hide their sexuality than straights are.
you should get a "+1 exactly". In fact, all other posts should be deleted so that everyone will be sure to read yours.
who's to say that the 40 year old didn't vote for the right candidate and the 20 year old did. It's a silly, contrived example that means nothing. A candidate that's pro-environment doesn't necessarily make a better or more effective elected official. He may not even be better for the environment.
Fact is, a person who votes without understanding the issues or the candidates isn't helping, and a person who doesn't vote because he know he's uninformed isn't hurting. The smart person realizes there are ways to have a more meaningful contribution to the process than voting, since large voter turnouts lead to "the rule of the dumbest". There's nothing less useful to the process than "MTV rock the vote". Those are the votes we don't want, those and the ones of ppl who devote all their thought into playing gta: san andreas.
So, if a slight shade more 20 year olds had voted in 2000, history may have been different but in an arbitrary, who-knows-if-it's-better sort of way. Sure, anything would be better than George W. but the problem wasn't poor 20 year old voter turnout. 20 years olds in urban areas wouldn't have made a difference because Kerry was already strong there. 20 year olds in rural areas probably vote like their parents.
of course, "moreso in most cases". we all know that we get less mature as we age.
I don't think you're the camera "connoisseur" that's being targetted by manufacturers. Your needs are more properly met with a cameraphone. Good to know you're using "the best compact camera" to do your lo-res, no effort snaps though.
A color sensor is certainly better than any B&W film at color reproduction, so the point is clearly *what* you are comparing. Depending on that, 6MP DSLR's do, in fact, outperform any 35mm film. Doesn't mean they're better at everything.
In plenty of ways, DSLR's are even more amazingly adaptable than 35mm film. How convenient is it to change ISO between shots with film? How many shots can you get with each technology without opening the body? How convenient is it to change film when you are underwater? If 35mm film were so amazing as you say, it would have a bright future relative to its digital counterparts. Fact is that, for the most part, DSLR's are outperforming 35mm film now and 35mm film is going away fast.
"When CD's first came out they clipped off frequencies they claimed the human ear couldn't hear but people didn't like the sound so they had to increase the range."
What? The CD audio standard has never been changed since its introduction. Just what do you mean by "increase the range"? Talking out of your butt?
Of course sensors have limitations. The argument was a specific quantitative one which you have done nothing to refute. Foveon's approach has its own limitations which thus far have made it unsuccessful in the market. It isn't Canon/Nikon's lack of investment that's hurting Foveon, it's that they're getting outperformeed.
I believe you've heard wrong. Tristimulus devices work the way they work. Your eye is one of those.
Being relevant to the future doesn't make him right nor necessarily relevant to the future and claiming free software wouldn't exist today without gcc is absurd. BSD exists today after all. It could be argued that Linux has done more to make Stallman relevant than anything Stallman has done himself. Most ppl are interested in the software, not the ideology. That appears to include Linus.
So you're saying Linus is morally weak because he doesn't support GPL3?
I think you mean "assuming the BIOS is not write protected" ;)
Of course you are completely right, but the suggestion here is far more insideous. Now a system compromise could result in the BIOS being MODIFIED, not just trashed. Of course, that fact is that modifying ACPI routines is only going to hamper the OS'es ability to control hardware devices and power management states. So what? Meaningless FUD.
answer the question. what can modified ACPI routines do? Virtually nothing. ACPI was chosen, though, because no other BIOS routines are used by Windows/otherOS at runtime. Thing is that ACPI routines are interpreted and heavily sandboxed. Malware running inside ACPI routines is pure FUD.
No doubt that IF a BIOS could be reflashed by malware then the machine could be killed, but installing a rootkit via ACPI is a joke.
more like the timetable is short because the slimes purpetrating these lies are negotiating a contract and want to aply some pressure.
Blah. Just because future macs may share flash interfaces with PC's doesn't mean a thing. Rogue software would have to gain access to hardware and know how to program it in order to update the firmware at all. That's very much an OS-dependent thing. Furthermore, to accomplish what is suggested (installing malware rather than just brinking the box) would be entirely mac-dependent. The reason macs don't have an advantage over PC's here is that the hypothetical risk even on a PC is essentially zero.
The suggestion here seems to be that code could be installed into the ACPI routines assuming the author could figure out how to do that and how to reflash the BIOS within Windows. Since most, if not all, BIOS'es are compressed it would be an incredible feat (and unique to a platform) to accomplish such a thing even it were technically possible (highly unlikely). Ignoring that, ACPI code can't do JACK SHIT! This is a complete joke---a scam designed to make a select few "experts" money, much like the Y2K "catastrophe". Appalling FUD from shameless liars is all this is.
"...do not pass goal, do not collect $200."
that would be "do not pass Go, do not collect $200.", a reference to the game Monopoly.
If you double the number of bricks do you double the size of the house?
ha ha! you think Apple is more an expert at FW than Intel or that it matters? Intel has obviously seen no reason to integrate FW800 in its notebook chipsets and Apple isn't likely to sway them. If Intel wanted to do that it most certainly could.
Apple is NOT one of Intel's larger customers for chipsets and it isn't going to influence Intel's roadmaps after switching to them within the last year. Apple's choice is to take Intel's parts, someone else's parts, or roll their own. It's not like Apple tells Intel what to develop.
"2) Wait until a standard is picked up by Wintel machines before investing heavily in devices"
Like that happens a lot! Before you mention firewire, remember that firewire was introduced to the market by Sony, not Apple. Just what standards have Apple introduced that the PC world have adopted?
The ability to provide a lot of power over the cable is both a blessing and a curse. PC notebooks choose to implement only 4-pin firewire because of the power requirements so they can't power anything. Some external USB drives are successfully cable powered and the computer gets to decide whether it can manage that or not. You can also boot off USB so that's just a mac limitation. I agree though that firewire isn't disappearing any time soon. It's cheap, plentiful and useful.
USB was a long time in development and it wasn't going to be integrated into PC's until Intel provided it in their chipsets, MS supported it in Windows, and there were peripherals available that used it. All those things were progressing but had not quite occurred when the iMac came out. It was not Apple with the iMac that made USB, it was just the timing that made it seem that way. USB was entirely Intel's doing and it was their responsibility for it taking as long as it did.
So what? Every product could be said to be a rush job they had to bring to market. It only matters if the product is desirable, and Yonah appears to be.
Every next generation promises to be better than the last. Now we hear that Intel's processor 6 months from now will be better than today's. You're surprised by that? It suddenly makes today's part a me-too rush job?