Three words, what about the IPCC? You know, the intergovernmental panel on climate change?
Some scientists call it global warming, most skeptics still call it global warming, but it seems that the vast majority of people pushing it's construct are calling it climate change.
As for being an idiot, well I guess you should hang out in our crowd a little more often. Then you just might be able to elevate your status to that of ours.
Probably. But I have to ask, when you say idiot denialists, are you just speaking of the ones that are idiots or lumping every one of them into the same group?
I say this because now it seems to be the issue with accurately predicting global warming is water vapor or cloud cover which is one of the idiotic questions initially poised by the deniers. It seems that after years of insulting the people asking questions about it and making all sorts of claims to it's incorrectness, it's now a hurdle the global warming scientists are trying to tackle. Several other issues raised by skeptics have had the same things done to them. One of which was the solar varience principle which is now incorporated into the modeling after long attempts to claim the ignorance and questioning of the integrity of the people purposing the question.
I don't ever think I made the statement that laws or regulation is good. I made the statement that defrauding someone is bad and preventing that in the terms of medical treatment is the primary goal of the FDA. Just because someone can't get defrauded by some well dressed slick tongued con artists is ancillary to the issue.
Now if you have a reason to believe that the FDA is restricting legitimate cures or treatments because of favoritism, corruption, or retaliation, then you can present that. But the argument that someone has a right to get scammed just doesn't jive. As I already agreed, the FDA's drug approval process could probably be streamlined to some degree as long as it doesn't decrease the legitimacy of the studies and information. There is already a fast track process for terminal conditions that could probably be improved too. I can think of probably a dozen things about the FDA I would change if I could so it's not like I love the agency, I just see the importance of it and do not equate stopping people from scamming others with depriving someone's right to be scammed.
Wow, what an informative post you have there. I can tell that you have it all figured out and know everything. I am intrigued by your comments. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter if you could send me the information.
Of course if the guy was wrong, and with all your vast knowledge, instead of sending names and insults, the correct information or links to the correct information would have been more beneficial. Well, that is unless your entire strong point of the argument is insults and not knowledge. In that case, we would just imagine you talking at a mirror.
You have to remember that some people have taken global warming up as a religion. You saying that they can't do something that is at the heart of the religion is akin to saying your god doesn't exit or can't do what you claim it can do. Morons like the GP will resort to vulgar insults when they have no clue how to work out the insufficient realities of their religion.
Stop being disingenuous. In the years running up to the "15 year period", the global warming crowd was claiming SEE, SEE, the earth is getting hotter, this is the hottest yet and it's because you drive an SUV. Now what has changed since then is not the amount of GHGs being pumped into the atmosphere as one would expect, but instead what has changed is the rise of temperature that was being blamed on the excess GHGs and one of the people making the claim admitting that the warming has stopped for some reason (other thenGHG buildup changes).
So why don't you tell us what claims you want us to listen to. Is it only the claims made today? Only claims made tomorrow when today's claims are once again not aligning with the observable facts? Or do you fancy rewriting history and ignoring everything that doesn't jive while just cherry picking what you think makes it work? And before you start claiming that the claims weren't made by scientists, you better remember James Hansen of NASA's fame which admitted to falsifying claims because he thought the ends justified the means. Why continue in his footsteps?
We are not agreeing to disagree, we are not even talking about the same things.
You jump from stopping people from preying on the gullible to the gullible's right to be preyed on and somehow justify that as your anger against the FDA.
It is really nothing more then a misleading advertisement, bait and switch, or misrepresentation of a product or service issue that is already illegal to do except that there is a specific agency assigned to build expertise in the area. Are you saying that a person has a right to go to a bank and be told they will get 25% interest guaranteed on a no risk investment and lose everything the next day because the investment was a fake? Are you saying that a person has a right to hear one company claim that another company is doing something wrong or that their products won't work but theirs will when they are the same thing? Are you saying that a person has a right to purchase what they think is a car only top find out after signing all the paperwork and forking over the money that it's actually a horse and buggy and the car they were shown and test drove was just a prop?
People may have a right to be tricked, swindled, and otherwise dishonestly taken advantage of, but in no way can you make the case where someone has the right to trick, swindle, or otherwise dishonestly take advantage of a person. The law in almost every state as well as the federal law makes that completely clear. The FDA doesn't stop you from being stupid and getting tricked, swindled, or otherwise dishonestly taken advantage of, they stop people from doing it to you by making sure that the claims and products being represented do what they say and that they aren't more dangerous then good. This is the only difference between the FDA and truth in advertisement laws or honest business practice laws. You can't talk about the FDA and then switch to the patient as if the FDa regulates them because it's simply not true. The FDA regulates the doctors and manufacturers and whoever else is making claims over a medicine, medical product, or procedure. The feds with guns aren't there to stop you from being an idiot, they are there to stop people from exploiting your ignorance. Do not confuse the casual benefit of being the person who gets saved with the intention of the FDA. They enforce the laws and set procedures to make sure claims are true and that the risks are understood while not too excessive- not walk around like superman stopping you from getting harmed.
No. I can't. It's not the FDA's job to consider the financial side of things. They're responsible for determining if it's safe enough to move into human trials. And, as far as I know, these sorts of experimental treatments are conducted free of charge (at least it was for my dad's cancer treatment).
Wrong, the FDA was specifically created because of all the snake oil treatments that were on the market, some of which did more harm then any good. The financial side of things is the entire reason the FDA was created, to stop people from preying on the desperate with bogus claims and devices.
The fact is, the FDA costs people's lives by having such a cumbersome, slow, bureaucratic process. And, that process contributes a lot to the cost of developing drugs, which is the whole argument big pharma uses for charging so much for their products. I'm not saying streamlining the process will help with the costs (especially since our new health care laws make it even more difficult to import lower cost drugs thanks to the big pharma lobbyists), but at least people will have the option of giving up their house and still having the need of one rather than still having a house that they get to leave to their estate.
I don't disagree here. But I do want to make it clear that allowing drug manufactures to test their drugs on patients facing the chance of dieing without any testing on humans is completely wrong. Sure the process of approving treatments and drugs could probably be speed up, sure some people die or have died because the drug that would have saved them was stuck in testing. But how many people have died because no testing was done at all.
Do you know why a hysterectomy is called that? Do you know that the modern dildo was originally used as a medical device and most of the advances to them such as vibration was created in the name of medicine? Do you know a hysterical woman would be treated with the dildo or fingers until orgasms because that's what medicine without the FDA was like? I'm not saying that the FDA stopped that from happening, I'm saying that's just some of the wild claims that medicine has brought about. There are electrocution machines that supposedly cured baldness, heart condition and many other things. There were pills made of poison that pretty much did the same and so on. So there does need to be some checking of the claims being made. There does need to be some sort of knowledge of problems the crap will cause, but perhaps all this could be done faster without killing as many people that would be saved if something did come along that would save all those people dieing while waiting on FDA approval.
It depends on what, precisely, the "miracle cure" peddler is saying. Is he saying, "this tonic cures cancer", or is he saying, "in our studies, this stuff prevents cancer spreading in rats" ?
Lets say it is the later even though my example showed the previous,
The patient may be a fool, but he is attempting to transact business on a voluntary basis. So long as the drug manufacturer is not making fraudulent misrepresentations, these are two people voluntarily interacting with each other, believing the interaction to be mutually beneficial.
Here is the stickler in your problem. You see, the patient has to find out about the drugs and have some knowledge that they will help him or possibly help him. Patients just do not get a book of experimental drugs along with all the research and get to pick and choose what they might like. So someone has had to present the options to them and someone has had to suggest that they could help. When this is the manufacturer or a scientist or doctors working with the patient, the drugs or the rats, the later becomes the previous by by implication. They are not just saying "in our studies, this stuff prevents cancer spreading in rats", they have to say, we have this drug that might help because "in our studies, this stuff prevents cancer spreading in rats". Otherwise it's just a statement out there in limbo.
Then a third party, the FDA, steps in between the two, points a gun around, and tells them to stop.
The solution to the problem is not the guns of government.
I think you often see the cart before the horse and think if someone wasn't driving while obeying the rules of the road, the violator never would have gotten into an accident. The FDA doesn't stop the patient from taking a drug, it stops the doctors and manufacturers from making certain claims about the drugs in order to sell them until those claims are verified. The drug is probably not even classified as a drug until a certain level of testing is accomplished anyways. Any doctor can prescribe any drug off label (unless it's a class 1 narcotic), and any patient can take that drug without the FDA getting involved. It's when the representations are incorrect or the drug hasn't been shown to be safe in humans where the problem comes in.
The solution is not allowing wild claims to be made in order to profit from dieing people with little or no other hope.
Actually, there were quite a bit more churches then the roman catholic church before Rome even allowed Christianity to be practiced legally. Most of these churches were out of the empire and the roman catholic church was first and foremost a means of control which is why you see a lot of the history being connected to control.
There were 12 apostles who went out and spread the word after Jesus died. Christianity was practiced for 300 years before it was even allowed in the roman empire.
You are a bit misinformed. Mohamed isn't an invisible sky friend. He is some illiterate pedophile who attempted to prosthelytize Christianity and got it wrong. At least when the literate fuck who wrote it down a few generations later got it wrong. They call him a prophet not a god or Messiah.
So instead of it being "Muslim Extremist Kills People Because They Drew A Picture Of His Invisible Sky Friend.", it would be "Muslim Extremist Kills People Because They Drew A Picture Of His prophet."
I think you are missing the point of the reply. The entire reason you know how they work or what their side effects are or that the information you are researching is accurate is because the FDA has a stringent approval process and requirements for claims being made. I can produce all kinds of papers making my claims seem true to the layman or desperate person attempting to save their own life. I can produce an endless number of names and testimonials just like what happens in the herbal supplement businesses.
The post that was being replied to claimed that the FDA interfered with people who didn't care about the side effects. I do not think that the alternative treatment would even remotely be research-able if it wasn't for various stages of the FDA approval process.
I think the FDA's role in making people back up their claims is exactly what will allow others to do their own studying. I think their role is essential to not being made worse off or taken advantage of by con-artists attempting to exploit people at their weakest point.
You get diagnosed with bladder cancer and the entire bladder has to be removed. There is a simply procedure for this that is somewhat successful but it carries a risk of death. You know you will die without the operation, you know you might die, but you might also live with the operation. I come into the room and say, I have this drug that worked in mice, we haven't evaluated it in humans but would like to test it on you instead of you having the operation that could save your life. We don't know the side effects in humans of if it will even work, but you don't have to worry about dieing from the bladder removal operation. We aren't going to do regular trials of this drug, just use terminally ill patients as a guinea pig until we know it's safe for normal use.
So now you have to decide whether you are going to have an operation that might kill you, might save you, or take an untested pill that worked a little better in another animal altogether then the operation generally does but hasn't been tested properly in humans. The thing is, you have a chance with the operation, you don't know if you have a chance with the pill. So which is it, live of die, or should I say, take a chance while saving me money or take something that has been proven to be somewhat successful and is approved for treatment?
It's all semantics. You had it right when the armed men could prevent the "miracle cure" from being sold. But you fell off in your moral question. It's not if a panicked terminally-ill patient to part with his money in a fool's errand, It's if you can exploit their panicked state of mind.
So the moral question is really this: allowing me to create bogus miracle cures to market to people desperate to save their lives or the lives of a loved on, or stopping me from doing so.
The FDA doesn't really care if you buy a hair dryer, magnets, and aspirin in hopes to cure your cancer. What they care about is me making the false or unproven claim that it will help you or me charging you for administering that treatment. This is just as true as the FDA not caring if you go to church and ask people to pray for you to cure the cancer. It's not about stopping you from being stupid, it's about stopping me from exploiting your stupidity and making things worse.
The used a PBX to forge the incoming numbers. The regular phone service will retrieve the caller ID info.
There are only certain valid numbers allowed in certain area codes. They simple set a script up to scroll through all those numbers and phone another PBX internally which then looks the caller ID information up as normal operation. No hacking or unlawful access to the DBs. It works as designed except for the spoofing of the calling number. And because this can be done without accessing the outside network, I doubt the anti-caller ID-spoofing laws could bite on this action.
You should read the constitution again. The rights are already there, the constitution does not grant them or entitle anyone to them. It only restricts the government from interfering with them.
The US constitution directs actions of the government(s), not the people. If you look, the right to free speech, freedom of and from religion, and a free press is enumerated by restricting government from making a law concerning them. The right to keep and bear arms is prohibited from being infringed upon, the right to vote in the 19th and 26th amendments is protected by baring the US or a state from restricting it, and slavery is simply baring the US from allowing it to happen except in a limited circumstance.
Now it's it's often considered a matter of tort to have a claim again an individual who acted to deny rights protected by the constitution. But unless they manipulated the government into restricting your rights, then it's a matter of a law or common law that you would sue on and not constitutional grounds. I guess the confusions comes where most of the amendments in the constitution have a provision saying congress can make laws to enforce something. With that in mind, there are a lot of laws that allow criminal and civil prosecution for the same things the amendments protect.
It's not illegal to attempt to cure cancer with a hair dryer, magnets, and aspirin. It's illegal for me to sell you those items claiming it's a treatment to cure your cancer.
You see, you went from personal choice in getting cancer to someone else' choice in the treatment. They aren't the same, you are free to do whatever you want to yourself, I am not free to trick you out of your money or to mislead you into spending it somewhere when it comes to areas/matters of medical, financial, and a select few other areas.
And hence you will most likely be my first customer.
You see, that's what then FDA does. It validates the research and determines if it's accurate or not or dangerous or not so when I pile a bunch of fabricated papers in front of you, you do not think it's "promising research".
The only difference between my post and the article at this point is the obviousness of my discovery's fraudulent claims.
Risky and irrational behaviors are protected freedoms. Alcoholism, obesity, unprotected promiscuous sexual behavior and large expenditures on irrational superstitions ceremonies (religion) are all protected freedoms. They are all harmful but the government has no legal authority to prevent you from engaging in them and protects your rights to engage in those behaviors; If I harass you because you are extremely fat, then that is crime.
Well, you're partly right. Religion is the only expressly protected freedom that you mentioned. It is mentioned in the constitution and you have to have the religion recognized in order for it to be considered a religion. The others you mentioned can and are encroached upon by government already. For instance, some cities/areas have outlawed certain types of fat (saturated) and sugars. Most all areas have outlawed sex with people under certain ages, public displays of certain sexual acts, and sexual imposition on unwilling participants. Obesity isn't always a choice either as medical conditions and things outside your own control can cause or contribute to it more so then you are capable of preventing.
BTW, the government doesn't protect someone from you harassing them for a specific reason, they protect them from you harassing them period. The laws regarding that are generally agnostic to the reasoning behind why you are doing it unless you are speaking of discrimination situations where obesity has been declared a disability/disease. But even then, it's not obesity specifically, it's the disability specifically- the obesity is ancillary to the cause of actions even though it's the root of the claim.
So what makes dangerous and superstitious behavior illegal specifically in the context of medicine? Why regulate medicine for the public good but not regulate obesity, religion or sex for the public good?
A long time ago, the federal government decided that it was going to get out of being a constitutional government and interfere with commerce in the US. They did this by expanding the interstate commerce clause to allow them to fiddle with anything that effect interstate commerce. This happened back when FDR started the new deal and most all of the reform was declared unconstitutional. He basically said "so what, make me stop the programs". The Supreme court decided to avoid a constitutional meltdown and allowed most of the programs under the expansion of the interstate commerce clause.
You spoke about rights and stuff but I do not think you understand how the government gets the right to do anything or how you get your own rights. Here is a hint, it's not granted to you from anyone, especially any government. You either have a right or you do not. The government on the other hand is specifically given (or at one time was given) it's rights by the consent of the people. Unfortunately, our forefathers gave them an inch and the took a mile.
I created this miracle cure guaranteed to extend a terminal patients life by a significant amount of time. If you are ever terminally ill, you can look me up and pay me $10,000 for each use of the device. It may take several uses before you see the results. It's still experiments and doesn't always work but it's your only chance to live longer then the couple weeks the doctors told you. The device is revolutionary, it's basically a hair dryer with a bunch of magnets arranged in a specific pattern around the air chamber that blows on your while you ingest aspirin and sugar pills.
If you don't have the money, sell your house, all your worldly possessions, beg your loved ones, but get this experimental life extending treatment.
Can you see why the FDA has some reservations about opening the flood gates on medicines and procedures like that? People will bankrupt themselves trying to stay alive or to keep loved ones alive when someone claims there is a chance. What the FDA generally does is determine if that chance is there and if they would be better off with it. Sure, some experimental treatments and medications should have a fast track, but there should still be some safe checks that stop people like me from making a fortune because you lived two weeks longer over a process that is no more effective then not stepping on a crack to avoid breaking you mothers back.
You seem to be forgetting about mechanical leverage in whihc a device like a tredmill can easily take advantage of.
Now suppose that the treadmill is geared in a 2 to 1 ratio( or 1-2 ration if you look at treadmill to generator), that 720 meters per hour (about 2300 feet) is now reduced to 360 meters per hour (about 1200 feet). That's roughly 2 tenths of a mile per hour or.36 km/h vertical climb. A cow can walk about as fast as a human which should be between 3-5 miles per hour but lets take it a bit slower to something like 2 miles per hour (3128 meters or 3.2km per hour).
So if we take the 2-1 ration, adjust the.2mph to a conservative 2 mph, we only need to cover about 11 percent of the grade at the increased distances to equal the same rate of climb over the longer distance. At a 3 mph (4828m or 4.8km per hour), we would only need to cover roughly 7 percent of the grade.
Gearing and walking speeds can change the amount of sustained effort required to something more practice and believable. If you change the gearing ratio to something like 3 to 1, you only need to cover 240m (787 feet). So with this 3-1 ratio at 2 mph, your looking at about 7 percent of the grade again. At 3mph, your looking at about 5 percent of the grade. So I guess the question might be, is it realistic to expect a cow to walk at about 3mph up a 5 percent grade for one hour?
Now lets consider this possibility over a longer time span like the 8 hours a day instead of just one hour like the article suggested. In either case, the amount of climb the animal needs to do is suggested over 8 hours so it would only need to produce 1/8th of your original estimate.
I think you are confused. One can not implement Communism through dictatorships or fear. One can not a Communal Dictator. What you are referring to is the intermediate step between Capitalism and Communism, which, according to Marx, is socialism. And I'm not saying I believe in any of that, I'm just trying to set the facts straight.
I think you might be the one confused. What I am saying is that all attempts to implement communism resulted/will result into dictatorships and fear. Even your denotation of it left me stranded on a boat in the middle of the pacific with a sandwich and life jacket if I didn't pitch in enough. Communism is a completely imaginary thing that will never exist outside a very small number of people. Even communal tribes in the middle of the jungles have supreme leaders (usually known a shamans or chiefs).
If you look at it as a threat then it's certainly no more of a threat to one's life than capitalism. I see it is a benefit. You can starve in the ocean or become a productive member of society and have all your needs met. Given the choice I personally would chose to be productive. But that's no different than capitalism which says exactly the same thing. If you are not productive you will die.
The difference is that I'm free in capitalism to determine my fate. In your non-monetaryism, you determine my fate. So what happens in your ideal system when everyone decided to be accountants and no one farms? What happens when no one wants to be the police or the baker or the seamstress or the farmer. You either all die or you force people to do things they do not want to do. In capitalism, the things that happen is the value of the work increases making it more attractive to others who might not have wanted to originally do the work. But with your system, we are back to dictating that someone does it with threats of dieing alone in the ocean.
Again, the difference is freedom.
Everything accept communal animals like ants, termites, and Meerkats (Yes I realize that those are autocratic societies, but they are also communal). But what's better is humans have a higher intellect that we can use to overcome animal instincts.
Ants are sort of a bitch in this conversation because they do not share food nor do they all digest it completely. Most adult ants cannot digest raw food. They require younger ants, usually larvae, to regurgitate the food for them. Termites are about the same way but the other way around with the worker termite feeding the queen/king and soldier termites. I'm not too familiar with the Meerkats so I'll just give that one up. However, the behavior I spoke about is so prevalent that it's most likely a genetic flaw of evolution if it's not present.
You are correct, it is because there is not enough capitol available to market it. That's not to say that there is not enough capital, but instead because the capitol is controlled by a limited oligarchy. But that goes back to my original statement, that no one is looking for a cure because there is no capitol gain in a cure, but there is in keeping the country sick.
I must have missed that original statement. However, I do not believe that people interested in science- more specifically medical science, are motivated entirely by dollar signs. More to the point, enough money is present in medical research that isn't controlled by interests that the presence of a capitol gain isn't a limiting factor in finding cures. The pretense that we are being kept ill by treatment instead of cures is only valid if certain facts are ignored. Facts like the American lung association funding, political/government funding, and many many more non-profit charities that invest heavily in research.
Hey let's not compare what I proposed in one short little sentence fragment with what Stalin took years to destroy.
Doing away with money or the monetary system is about the same as communism. Money by definition is currency which is basically something of value that can be traded for something else of value. Even the IRS cracked down on people bartering which sparked one of the big FBI standoffs (the Freeman ordeal). Communism is more or less someone with a magic wand deciding who has a need and granting them something for it. That's really the only way doing away with the monetary system would work. And as I already said, no country has ever been able to implement communism or even Marxism without resorting to ruthless dictatorships where the people are more in fear of their lives then wanting to participate.
Then I put your ass on a boat and drop you off in the middle of the pacific with a bologna sandwich and life vest.
My point exactly. It won't work unless you threaten people's lives. Freedom goes out the window under your system and as history has shown us, eventually people will fight for freedom.
I imagine most people would rather be productive than have die of exposure.
Greed only exists because there is incentive to do so. Remove the incentive and you remove the greed.
Greed exists because it is a basic human trait. It is a animalistic trait that is seen in the wild too. It's the survival of the fittest in it's essence. If you think greed is a learned condition, then you really do need to rethink your position here. Everything from Lions to wild dogs will hoard their kills from even their own kind and they will sometimes do this after they have gotten their fill.
And this is where someone goes on about how no one would have the incentive to invent new things, but that's only because we assume the only motivation in monetary gain. While in reality most true inventions happen because the inventor actually wants to use his invention.
No, the reality is that most inventions never get marketed. This is because their is no capitol or for some reason not enough capitol is available to market it. I'm sure intel has invented a lot of crappy processors that didn't even see the market. I know of three inventions right now that will never see use outside of the person who invented them because of the lack of capitol which is due to the lack of practical necessity.
Inventions would be around, that's for sure. But being around and being used outside of the close nit of the inventor is something that wouldn't happen.
I don't know why you were modded Flamebait but I can explain why people use Debit cards instead of credit cards.
Most newer ATM/debit cards are also check cards. The purpose isn't to mimic a Credit Card for the "user" but to facilitate easier "check" writing. Most Credit cards, unless you have an extremely good credit rating, has a bunch of annual fees attached to it along with service fees if you do not carry a certain balance level. Now compound this with a lot of companies saving money by demanding bank accounts for direct deposit instead of giving a traditional paycheck and all the sudden people are finding that they need to write more checks.
Most of these people either already have credit cards and use them for emergency spending only or they don't want the hassle of paying off the thing every month (or possibly paying interest) for what amounts to lunch and a soda or coffee over 30 days. But carrying a debit card instead of cash or checks is a great convenience for most and whether or not a credit card is available just doesn't enter the picture for this convenience.
So it's not about being able to own a credit card, it's not about self control, it's about convenience and costs. Most banks save money for debit card use instead of checks as the processing is more automated so they push it too.
Slashdot Mirror
Three words, what about the IPCC? You know, the intergovernmental panel on climate change?
Some scientists call it global warming, most skeptics still call it global warming, but it seems that the vast majority of people pushing it's construct are calling it climate change.
As for being an idiot, well I guess you should hang out in our crowd a little more often. Then you just might be able to elevate your status to that of ours.
Probably. But I have to ask, when you say idiot denialists, are you just speaking of the ones that are idiots or lumping every one of them into the same group?
I say this because now it seems to be the issue with accurately predicting global warming is water vapor or cloud cover which is one of the idiotic questions initially poised by the deniers. It seems that after years of insulting the people asking questions about it and making all sorts of claims to it's incorrectness, it's now a hurdle the global warming scientists are trying to tackle. Several other issues raised by skeptics have had the same things done to them. One of which was the solar varience principle which is now incorporated into the modeling after long attempts to claim the ignorance and questioning of the integrity of the people purposing the question.
I don't ever think I made the statement that laws or regulation is good. I made the statement that defrauding someone is bad and preventing that in the terms of medical treatment is the primary goal of the FDA. Just because someone can't get defrauded by some well dressed slick tongued con artists is ancillary to the issue.
Now if you have a reason to believe that the FDA is restricting legitimate cures or treatments because of favoritism, corruption, or retaliation, then you can present that. But the argument that someone has a right to get scammed just doesn't jive. As I already agreed, the FDA's drug approval process could probably be streamlined to some degree as long as it doesn't decrease the legitimacy of the studies and information. There is already a fast track process for terminal conditions that could probably be improved too. I can think of probably a dozen things about the FDA I would change if I could so it's not like I love the agency, I just see the importance of it and do not equate stopping people from scamming others with depriving someone's right to be scammed.
Wow, what an informative post you have there. I can tell that you have it all figured out and know everything. I am intrigued by your comments. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter if you could send me the information.
Of course if the guy was wrong, and with all your vast knowledge, instead of sending names and insults, the correct information or links to the correct information would have been more beneficial. Well, that is unless your entire strong point of the argument is insults and not knowledge. In that case, we would just imagine you talking at a mirror.
You have to remember that some people have taken global warming up as a religion. You saying that they can't do something that is at the heart of the religion is akin to saying your god doesn't exit or can't do what you claim it can do. Morons like the GP will resort to vulgar insults when they have no clue how to work out the insufficient realities of their religion.
Stop being disingenuous. In the years running up to the "15 year period", the global warming crowd was claiming SEE, SEE, the earth is getting hotter, this is the hottest yet and it's because you drive an SUV. Now what has changed since then is not the amount of GHGs being pumped into the atmosphere as one would expect, but instead what has changed is the rise of temperature that was being blamed on the excess GHGs and one of the people making the claim admitting that the warming has stopped for some reason (other thenGHG buildup changes).
So why don't you tell us what claims you want us to listen to. Is it only the claims made today? Only claims made tomorrow when today's claims are once again not aligning with the observable facts? Or do you fancy rewriting history and ignoring everything that doesn't jive while just cherry picking what you think makes it work? And before you start claiming that the claims weren't made by scientists, you better remember James Hansen of NASA's fame which admitted to falsifying claims because he thought the ends justified the means. Why continue in his footsteps?
We are not agreeing to disagree, we are not even talking about the same things.
You jump from stopping people from preying on the gullible to the gullible's right to be preyed on and somehow justify that as your anger against the FDA.
It is really nothing more then a misleading advertisement, bait and switch, or misrepresentation of a product or service issue that is already illegal to do except that there is a specific agency assigned to build expertise in the area. Are you saying that a person has a right to go to a bank and be told they will get 25% interest guaranteed on a no risk investment and lose everything the next day because the investment was a fake? Are you saying that a person has a right to hear one company claim that another company is doing something wrong or that their products won't work but theirs will when they are the same thing? Are you saying that a person has a right to purchase what they think is a car only top find out after signing all the paperwork and forking over the money that it's actually a horse and buggy and the car they were shown and test drove was just a prop?
People may have a right to be tricked, swindled, and otherwise dishonestly taken advantage of, but in no way can you make the case where someone has the right to trick, swindle, or otherwise dishonestly take advantage of a person. The law in almost every state as well as the federal law makes that completely clear. The FDA doesn't stop you from being stupid and getting tricked, swindled, or otherwise dishonestly taken advantage of, they stop people from doing it to you by making sure that the claims and products being represented do what they say and that they aren't more dangerous then good. This is the only difference between the FDA and truth in advertisement laws or honest business practice laws. You can't talk about the FDA and then switch to the patient as if the FDa regulates them because it's simply not true. The FDA regulates the doctors and manufacturers and whoever else is making claims over a medicine, medical product, or procedure. The feds with guns aren't there to stop you from being an idiot, they are there to stop people from exploiting your ignorance. Do not confuse the casual benefit of being the person who gets saved with the intention of the FDA. They enforce the laws and set procedures to make sure claims are true and that the risks are understood while not too excessive- not walk around like superman stopping you from getting harmed.
Lol.. What an insightful and complete statement there.
The only way the analogy is bogus is if you are either not paying attention to the thread or have blinder over your eyes.
Wrong, the FDA was specifically created because of all the snake oil treatments that were on the market, some of which did more harm then any good. The financial side of things is the entire reason the FDA was created, to stop people from preying on the desperate with bogus claims and devices.
I don't disagree here. But I do want to make it clear that allowing drug manufactures to test their drugs on patients facing the chance of dieing without any testing on humans is completely wrong. Sure the process of approving treatments and drugs could probably be speed up, sure some people die or have died because the drug that would have saved them was stuck in testing. But how many people have died because no testing was done at all.
Do you know why a hysterectomy is called that? Do you know that the modern dildo was originally used as a medical device and most of the advances to them such as vibration was created in the name of medicine? Do you know a hysterical woman would be treated with the dildo or fingers until orgasms because that's what medicine without the FDA was like? I'm not saying that the FDA stopped that from happening, I'm saying that's just some of the wild claims that medicine has brought about. There are electrocution machines that supposedly cured baldness, heart condition and many other things. There were pills made of poison that pretty much did the same and so on. So there does need to be some checking of the claims being made. There does need to be some sort of knowledge of problems the crap will cause, but perhaps all this could be done faster without killing as many people that would be saved if something did come along that would save all those people dieing while waiting on FDA approval.
Lets say it is the later even though my example showed the previous,
Here is the stickler in your problem. You see, the patient has to find out about the drugs and have some knowledge that they will help him or possibly help him. Patients just do not get a book of experimental drugs along with all the research and get to pick and choose what they might like. So someone has had to present the options to them and someone has had to suggest that they could help. When this is the manufacturer or a scientist or doctors working with the patient, the drugs or the rats, the later becomes the previous by by implication. They are not just saying "in our studies, this stuff prevents cancer spreading in rats", they have to say, we have this drug that might help because "in our studies, this stuff prevents cancer spreading in rats". Otherwise it's just a statement out there in limbo.
I think you often see the cart before the horse and think if someone wasn't driving while obeying the rules of the road, the violator never would have gotten into an accident. The FDA doesn't stop the patient from taking a drug, it stops the doctors and manufacturers from making certain claims about the drugs in order to sell them until those claims are verified. The drug is probably not even classified as a drug until a certain level of testing is accomplished anyways. Any doctor can prescribe any drug off label (unless it's a class 1 narcotic), and any patient can take that drug without the FDA getting involved. It's when the representations are incorrect or the drug hasn't been shown to be safe in humans where the problem comes in.
The solution is not allowing wild claims to be made in order to profit from dieing people with little or no other hope.
Actually, there were quite a bit more churches then the roman catholic church before Rome even allowed Christianity to be practiced legally. Most of these churches were out of the empire and the roman catholic church was first and foremost a means of control which is why you see a lot of the history being connected to control.
There were 12 apostles who went out and spread the word after Jesus died. Christianity was practiced for 300 years before it was even allowed in the roman empire.
You are a bit misinformed. Mohamed isn't an invisible sky friend. He is some illiterate pedophile who attempted to prosthelytize Christianity and got it wrong. At least when the literate fuck who wrote it down a few generations later got it wrong. They call him a prophet not a god or Messiah.
So instead of it being "Muslim Extremist Kills People Because They Drew A Picture Of His Invisible Sky Friend.", it would be "Muslim Extremist Kills People Because They Drew A Picture Of His prophet."
I think you are missing the point of the reply. The entire reason you know how they work or what their side effects are or that the information you are researching is accurate is because the FDA has a stringent approval process and requirements for claims being made. I can produce all kinds of papers making my claims seem true to the layman or desperate person attempting to save their own life. I can produce an endless number of names and testimonials just like what happens in the herbal supplement businesses.
The post that was being replied to claimed that the FDA interfered with people who didn't care about the side effects. I do not think that the alternative treatment would even remotely be research-able if it wasn't for various stages of the FDA approval process.
I think the FDA's role in making people back up their claims is exactly what will allow others to do their own studying. I think their role is essential to not being made worse off or taken advantage of by con-artists attempting to exploit people at their weakest point.
Well, think about this scenario.
You get diagnosed with bladder cancer and the entire bladder has to be removed. There is a simply procedure for this that is somewhat successful but it carries a risk of death. You know you will die without the operation, you know you might die, but you might also live with the operation. I come into the room and say, I have this drug that worked in mice, we haven't evaluated it in humans but would like to test it on you instead of you having the operation that could save your life. We don't know the side effects in humans of if it will even work, but you don't have to worry about dieing from the bladder removal operation. We aren't going to do regular trials of this drug, just use terminally ill patients as a guinea pig until we know it's safe for normal use.
So now you have to decide whether you are going to have an operation that might kill you, might save you, or take an untested pill that worked a little better in another animal altogether then the operation generally does but hasn't been tested properly in humans. The thing is, you have a chance with the operation, you don't know if you have a chance with the pill. So which is it, live of die, or should I say, take a chance while saving me money or take something that has been proven to be somewhat successful and is approved for treatment?
It's all semantics. You had it right when the armed men could prevent the "miracle cure" from being sold. But you fell off in your moral question. It's not if a panicked terminally-ill patient to part with his money in a fool's errand, It's if you can exploit their panicked state of mind.
So the moral question is really this: allowing me to create bogus miracle cures to market to people desperate to save their lives or the lives of a loved on, or stopping me from doing so.
The FDA doesn't really care if you buy a hair dryer, magnets, and aspirin in hopes to cure your cancer. What they care about is me making the false or unproven claim that it will help you or me charging you for administering that treatment. This is just as true as the FDA not caring if you go to church and ask people to pray for you to cure the cancer. It's not about stopping you from being stupid, it's about stopping me from exploiting your stupidity and making things worse.
The used a PBX to forge the incoming numbers. The regular phone service will retrieve the caller ID info.
There are only certain valid numbers allowed in certain area codes. They simple set a script up to scroll through all those numbers and phone another PBX internally which then looks the caller ID information up as normal operation. No hacking or unlawful access to the DBs. It works as designed except for the spoofing of the calling number. And because this can be done without accessing the outside network, I doubt the anti-caller ID-spoofing laws could bite on this action.
You should read the constitution again. The rights are already there, the constitution does not grant them or entitle anyone to them. It only restricts the government from interfering with them.
The US constitution directs actions of the government(s), not the people. If you look, the right to free speech, freedom of and from religion, and a free press is enumerated by restricting government from making a law concerning them. The right to keep and bear arms is prohibited from being infringed upon, the right to vote in the 19th and 26th amendments is protected by baring the US or a state from restricting it, and slavery is simply baring the US from allowing it to happen except in a limited circumstance.
Now it's it's often considered a matter of tort to have a claim again an individual who acted to deny rights protected by the constitution. But unless they manipulated the government into restricting your rights, then it's a matter of a law or common law that you would sue on and not constitutional grounds. I guess the confusions comes where most of the amendments in the constitution have a provision saying congress can make laws to enforce something. With that in mind, there are a lot of laws that allow criminal and civil prosecution for the same things the amendments protect.
It's not illegal to attempt to cure cancer with a hair dryer, magnets, and aspirin. It's illegal for me to sell you those items claiming it's a treatment to cure your cancer.
You see, you went from personal choice in getting cancer to someone else' choice in the treatment. They aren't the same, you are free to do whatever you want to yourself, I am not free to trick you out of your money or to mislead you into spending it somewhere when it comes to areas/matters of medical, financial, and a select few other areas.
And hence you will most likely be my first customer.
You see, that's what then FDA does. It validates the research and determines if it's accurate or not or dangerous or not so when I pile a bunch of fabricated papers in front of you, you do not think it's "promising research".
The only difference between my post and the article at this point is the obviousness of my discovery's fraudulent claims.
Well, you're partly right. Religion is the only expressly protected freedom that you mentioned. It is mentioned in the constitution and you have to have the religion recognized in order for it to be considered a religion. The others you mentioned can and are encroached upon by government already. For instance, some cities/areas have outlawed certain types of fat (saturated) and sugars. Most all areas have outlawed sex with people under certain ages, public displays of certain sexual acts, and sexual imposition on unwilling participants. Obesity isn't always a choice either as medical conditions and things outside your own control can cause or contribute to it more so then you are capable of preventing.
BTW, the government doesn't protect someone from you harassing them for a specific reason, they protect them from you harassing them period. The laws regarding that are generally agnostic to the reasoning behind why you are doing it unless you are speaking of discrimination situations where obesity has been declared a disability/disease. But even then, it's not obesity specifically, it's the disability specifically- the obesity is ancillary to the cause of actions even though it's the root of the claim.
A long time ago, the federal government decided that it was going to get out of being a constitutional government and interfere with commerce in the US. They did this by expanding the interstate commerce clause to allow them to fiddle with anything that effect interstate commerce. This happened back when FDR started the new deal and most all of the reform was declared unconstitutional. He basically said "so what, make me stop the programs". The Supreme court decided to avoid a constitutional meltdown and allowed most of the programs under the expansion of the interstate commerce clause.
You spoke about rights and stuff but I do not think you understand how the government gets the right to do anything or how you get your own rights. Here is a hint, it's not granted to you from anyone, especially any government. You either have a right or you do not. The government on the other hand is specifically given (or at one time was given) it's rights by the consent of the people. Unfortunately, our forefathers gave them an inch and the took a mile.
I created this miracle cure guaranteed to extend a terminal patients life by a significant amount of time. If you are ever terminally ill, you can look me up and pay me $10,000 for each use of the device. It may take several uses before you see the results. It's still experiments and doesn't always work but it's your only chance to live longer then the couple weeks the doctors told you. The device is revolutionary, it's basically a hair dryer with a bunch of magnets arranged in a specific pattern around the air chamber that blows on your while you ingest aspirin and sugar pills.
If you don't have the money, sell your house, all your worldly possessions, beg your loved ones, but get this experimental life extending treatment.
Can you see why the FDA has some reservations about opening the flood gates on medicines and procedures like that? People will bankrupt themselves trying to stay alive or to keep loved ones alive when someone claims there is a chance. What the FDA generally does is determine if that chance is there and if they would be better off with it. Sure, some experimental treatments and medications should have a fast track, but there should still be some safe checks that stop people like me from making a fortune because you lived two weeks longer over a process that is no more effective then not stepping on a crack to avoid breaking you mothers back.
You seem to be forgetting about mechanical leverage in whihc a device like a tredmill can easily take advantage of.
Now suppose that the treadmill is geared in a 2 to 1 ratio( or 1-2 ration if you look at treadmill to generator), that 720 meters per hour (about 2300 feet) is now reduced to 360 meters per hour (about 1200 feet). That's roughly 2 tenths of a mile per hour or .36 km/h vertical climb. A cow can walk about as fast as a human which should be between 3-5 miles per hour but lets take it a bit slower to something like 2 miles per hour (3128 meters or 3.2km per hour).
So if we take the 2-1 ration, adjust the .2mph to a conservative 2 mph, we only need to cover about 11 percent of the grade at the increased distances to equal the same rate of climb over the longer distance. At a 3 mph (4828m or 4.8km per hour), we would only need to cover roughly 7 percent of the grade.
Gearing and walking speeds can change the amount of sustained effort required to something more practice and believable. If you change the gearing ratio to something like 3 to 1, you only need to cover 240m (787 feet). So with this 3-1 ratio at 2 mph, your looking at about 7 percent of the grade again. At 3mph, your looking at about 5 percent of the grade. So I guess the question might be, is it realistic to expect a cow to walk at about 3mph up a 5 percent grade for one hour?
Now lets consider this possibility over a longer time span like the 8 hours a day instead of just one hour like the article suggested. In either case, the amount of climb the animal needs to do is suggested over 8 hours so it would only need to produce 1/8th of your original estimate.
I think you might be the one confused. What I am saying is that all attempts to implement communism resulted/will result into dictatorships and fear. Even your denotation of it left me stranded on a boat in the middle of the pacific with a sandwich and life jacket if I didn't pitch in enough. Communism is a completely imaginary thing that will never exist outside a very small number of people. Even communal tribes in the middle of the jungles have supreme leaders (usually known a shamans or chiefs).
The difference is that I'm free in capitalism to determine my fate. In your non-monetaryism, you determine my fate. So what happens in your ideal system when everyone decided to be accountants and no one farms? What happens when no one wants to be the police or the baker or the seamstress or the farmer. You either all die or you force people to do things they do not want to do. In capitalism, the things that happen is the value of the work increases making it more attractive to others who might not have wanted to originally do the work. But with your system, we are back to dictating that someone does it with threats of dieing alone in the ocean.
Again, the difference is freedom.
Ants are sort of a bitch in this conversation because they do not share food nor do they all digest it completely. Most adult ants cannot digest raw food. They require younger ants, usually larvae, to regurgitate the food for them. Termites are about the same way but the other way around with the worker termite feeding the queen/king and soldier termites. I'm not too familiar with the Meerkats so I'll just give that one up. However, the behavior I spoke about is so prevalent that it's most likely a genetic flaw of evolution if it's not present.
I must have missed that original statement. However, I do not believe that people interested in science- more specifically medical science, are motivated entirely by dollar signs. More to the point, enough money is present in medical research that isn't controlled by interests that the presence of a capitol gain isn't a limiting factor in finding cures. The pretense that we are being kept ill by treatment instead of cures is only valid if certain facts are ignored. Facts like the American lung association funding, political/government funding, and many many more non-profit charities that invest heavily in research.
I'm glad you are so impressed. But it really is
Hey let's not compare what I proposed in one short little sentence fragment with what Stalin took years to destroy.
Doing away with money or the monetary system is about the same as communism. Money by definition is currency which is basically something of value that can be traded for something else of value. Even the IRS cracked down on people bartering which sparked one of the big FBI standoffs (the Freeman ordeal). Communism is more or less someone with a magic wand deciding who has a need and granting them something for it. That's really the only way doing away with the monetary system would work. And as I already said, no country has ever been able to implement communism or even Marxism without resorting to ruthless dictatorships where the people are more in fear of their lives then wanting to participate.
My point exactly. It won't work unless you threaten people's lives. Freedom goes out the window under your system and as history has shown us, eventually people will fight for freedom.
If there is no monetary system, then everything would be free. Remember the line where you said "If we provided for the needs of all citizens and made all none essential resources shared property of the people" How would one die of exposure- unless it's your participate or die methodology of getting people to not be greedy or lazy.
Greed exists because it is a basic human trait. It is a animalistic trait that is seen in the wild too. It's the survival of the fittest in it's essence. If you think greed is a learned condition, then you really do need to rethink your position here. Everything from Lions to wild dogs will hoard their kills from even their own kind and they will sometimes do this after they have gotten their fill.
No, the reality is that most inventions never get marketed. This is because their is no capitol or for some reason not enough capitol is available to market it. I'm sure intel has invented a lot of crappy processors that didn't even see the market. I know of three inventions right now that will never see use outside of the person who invented them because of the lack of capitol which is due to the lack of practical necessity.
Inventions would be around, that's for sure. But being around and being used outside of the close nit of the inventor is something that wouldn't happen.
I don't know why you were modded Flamebait but I can explain why people use Debit cards instead of credit cards.
Most newer ATM/debit cards are also check cards. The purpose isn't to mimic a Credit Card for the "user" but to facilitate easier "check" writing. Most Credit cards, unless you have an extremely good credit rating, has a bunch of annual fees attached to it along with service fees if you do not carry a certain balance level. Now compound this with a lot of companies saving money by demanding bank accounts for direct deposit instead of giving a traditional paycheck and all the sudden people are finding that they need to write more checks.
Most of these people either already have credit cards and use them for emergency spending only or they don't want the hassle of paying off the thing every month (or possibly paying interest) for what amounts to lunch and a soda or coffee over 30 days. But carrying a debit card instead of cash or checks is a great convenience for most and whether or not a credit card is available just doesn't enter the picture for this convenience.
So it's not about being able to own a credit card, it's not about self control, it's about convenience and costs. Most banks save money for debit card use instead of checks as the processing is more automated so they push it too.