This is just stupid. So criminals support democrats so that they don't end up in jail?
You must have reading comprehension problems, which is not surprising since my guess is you were educated in public schools. I stated that as just one of the reasons criminals may be inclined to support democrats.
If there is a correlation between criminals and democrates, isn't it more likely that people from poor and neglected areas vote for someone who actually wants to improve their lifes instead of someone who cutes taxes for the rich and cut programs that have negative effect on the inner cities.
Thank you for hardening my original point by providing additional reasons why criminals are more likely to support Democrats.
By the way, you act as though tax cuts for the upper class are negative? Those are the people paying the most in taxes. Why not a low, flat tax with absolutely no loopholes?
All we need is one serious fuck-up, like California (the most liberal state around) being won by Bush, and you'll see voter riots.
I don't think it is too far-fetched to see Bush win California. California elected a Republican for Governor, and he's doing a good job. California is made up of a huge latino population, and believe it or not, the Bush family is fairly popular amongst latinos (thanks to W's connection to Texas, and his brother Jeb's hispanic connections via his wife). Why do you think Bush made that effort to 'help' illegals? He wants California. He could get it. I don't think there will be a riot either way, however....
Who do you think is more, or less, likely to have assault rifles in the home: Bush backers, or Kerry backers?
Why do they have to be assault rifles for people to be able to riot? Saturday night specials, hell, GASOLINE AND ROCKS can be used to riot. Pipes. Sheer human strength and madness.
But if you want to insist on guns for a riot, are you trying to say Democratic supporters don't own guns? What about the criminal element, they own guns right? Even illegal weapons. Criminals likely don't vote, but they sure as hell favor liberals over tough-on-crime conservatives.
And statistics plainly show that blacks make up a large majority of the criminal element. (Remember racists, correlation != causation, so you can't use this stat to further your agenda.)
And it is a fact that blacks vote for Democrats.
I think this clearly shows that, gun-control issues aside, a substantial portion of people that favor Democrats -- regardless of whether they actually took the time to vote -- are armed and have the potential to riot.
However, I have a bit more faith in our democracy than the conspiracy theorists on here, already salivating over something new they can use to claim they lost unfairly if it comes to that.
This can happen when something is so realistic that your brain says "THIS IS REAL" and your inner ear says "FUCK YOU, WE'RE NOT EVEN MOVING!"... next thing you know, you're throwing up.
There was something mentioned about this on slashdot in terms of ultra-HDTV's being developed in Japan that were so high-def and realistic that people were throwing up because their brain thought they were moving and they weren't. (Gross simplification.)
When I say Sunshine withheld Magic games, what I meant was they threatened to stop broadcasting a feed to TW if the contract was not re-negotiated. Since the Orlando Magic games were essentially the only programming on Sunshine at the time, the Magic game coverage was the primary issue.
Here's a similar story of channel/content providers holding their customers ransom in order to re-negotiate a contract...
Sunshine Network (broadcaster of the Orlando Magic home games -- insert Magic joke here) used the same tactics with Time Warner subscribers in Central Florida. They knew Magic fans (yes, they still exist) would scream bloody murder to TW over this.
What Sunshine failed to tell their viewers was that Central Florida was the only market in which they were withholding the Magic games in Florida -- because they knew the larger fan base there could apply pressure on TW. In other cities, they just granted the cable operators a temporary contract extension until they could work out the renewal. But in Central Florida, they aired warnings to call Time Warner or lose the Magic games, and ultimately ended up going off-air for a while on TW. Not sure which side caved, but the Sunshine Network channel came back eventually.
The real party that got screwed was the Orlando Magic. Aside from having the worst team in the NBA, they had to deal with their remaining fans being pissed off by Sunshine simply because they let them have the rights to broadcast home games.
As a wiser man once pointed out, stealing something does not change ownership. Buying something that was stolen does not make you the owner, as the person you bought the item from has no ownership rights to transfer.
And as an even wiser man than your wise man once said, "Possession is nine tenths of the law."
Are you completely retarded? Strip all attachments?
No, that is not what I said. Interesting, you call me retarded and yet you cannot even read simple sentences.
What I said was they should scan outgoing port 25 traffic looking for executable attachments, and if found, they should quarantine that customer so they cannot continue to spew viruses across the internet.
I see that you were able to persuade some idiots to mark my original post as flamebait/troll. Typical.
Please think and know that that's impossible. Virusses spread within hours, even before an ISP has a chance to update their scanners because there is no update to apply yet
It is not the ISP's responsibility to make sure that their clients do not get viruses.
I never said it was. However, it should be the ISP's responsibility to make sure their pipes aren't used to further spew the viruses out across the internet.
It is the user's responsibility to not open mail attachments, keep their OS patched, and to install antivirus software and firewalls.
How in earth are ISP's responsible for the actions of an individual ?
ISP's provide a service, allowing people infected with a virus to spread that virus to hundreds and thousands of other people on the internet.
What you are suggesting is like suggesting that we should file class actions against fuel companies for people causing accidents with cars
Terrible analogy. Unlike the gas station, the ISP is continuously providing you with the service that allows you to cause harm (i.e. send viruses).
The thing you are suggesting has been and is suggested by a lot of people. People who tend to think that ISP's carry the key to security.
Really? I very rarely see anyone mention the blocking of viruses by ISP as a solution. Please point out a few of these people that recommend the same thing.
But that does never leave out the fact that people themselves are responsible for checking up on the device they run, or let it be checked up by professionals. And let's face it, in the end the real guilty party is the people who write the virusses and spread them.
Yes, let's blame everyone but the people that actually stand a damn good chance of stopping the viruses from propagating.
I am not blaming the ISP's for stupidity of their users. I am blaming the ISP's for allowing their stupid users to spew viruses across the internet, when it could EASILY be foiled with a very simple filter. Hell, just block port 25 outgoing entirely, and make them send mail through your mail servers or proxies, and do the filtering there, even easier.
I didn't say the ISP should send an email to the person with an attachment. They QUARANTINE them. Any attempt to use the web, a page is returned from the ISP saying they are infected with a virus and need to deal with it before they can be reconnected.
I work for an ISP. We have a simple, inexpensive, yet effective solution. No outbound traffic destine for port 25, unless it routes through our mailserver. Users need to authenticate against our mailserver as well.
Do you quarantine users found to be sending viruses through your mail server? How do you handle those users, if not?
As for "The ONLY way you are ever going to get the ISP's to spend money to implement this filtering/quarantine is if you sue them for allowing their infected customers to cause harm to your business."
This is probably the best way to increase your monthly costs for connectivity.
The idea is not to sue the ISP's for money, but to sue them to make them filter or block outgoing viruses. If this raises the cost for their subscribers, those subscribers may go elsewhere, and the ISP will have to decide whether they need to absorb the costs of running these filters, or lose customers. The market place is fierce.
It seems to me the ISP's would actually save money in the long run, since the less virus traffic there is, the less they have to spend on processing virus traffic.
If you want to sue someone, sue the Luser that executed the virus on his machine.
You know as well as I that that is an impossibility. The goal is to effect change for the better. Suing one person that is infected helps no one. Suing an internet service provider that ALLOWS their SERVICE to be used to spread viruses is a perfect plan.
How about the realistic approach, protect your own networks. Make sure none of your users spread any mess. Block incoming attachments on your mail gateway.
We do already. Tell me, how is this working out so far?
Some ISPs supply DS-1 and higher connections and IP Block leases.
Then those ISP's upstream need to filter port 25, or get a waiver signed from these high-end customers that they will do the filtering for their block of IP space. In the event of a lawsuit, the ISP can produce this signed agreement and the blame falls on the customer.
But you know the most common problem is the dialup/cable/dsl user of a regular ISP that is infected and turned into a non-stop virus-sending zombie. I deal with morons like this all day long. You can't reach them because the virus spoofs everything but the originating IP. The ISP is the only one that can stop it, and therefore is liable.
1) Sometimes there are reasons that you might want to send executables. Legitimate reasons.
As I said to someone else, find another way to transmit the executable aside from email. Send the person a link to download it from a server. Rename the file extension to.bin and send it. Send it to them via IM. There are plenty of ways around it that are not facing the virus onslaught that email is.
2) Your plan fails when faced with the "require a password to open the zip archive" scheme that the current crop of viruses are using.
These viruses are not the most effective, obviously. So skip the.zip file scanning. The most important thing is to block executable Windows attachments.
3) False positives will make your customers very, very angry and they will take their business elsewhere.
If your company is worried about false positives, then you would need to implement actual anti-virus scanning instead of just looking for executables.
However, once the word is out that trying to email executable attachments will get you quarantined, you'll be amazed at how fast the market place will adapt.
wow, so you've just made it so noone can ever send any kind of executable attachment ever again, legitimate or not. yea, that'll make EVERYONE real happy.
I know this will blow your mind, but (a) there are other ways of transferring files besides email, and (b) if you must use email, just rename the file extension and send it.
Note that I don't want to just block all messages containing attachments with certain extensions.
Why not? This is the fastest/easiest/best way to do it. Get a list of all Windows executable extensions, and block any attachments with those extensions. The 550 error you return can say, "This server only accepts benign attachments."
There are many legitimate reasons for someone to send me a zip file as an attachment.
Well a zip file is not executable, so I wouldn't necessarily block them. But if you did, just tell your buddy to rename them to.bin and send them through that way.
Unless you are talking about moving to a new version of the internet, where the sending and receiving of viruses is not technically possible, then your 'insightful' idea is completely flawed.
I can switch to Linux or MacOS all I want, but that does not mean these viruses are going to be slowed down. I have to deal with these at work. I have to download these binaries, regardless of whether my computer is going to execute them or not.
Hmmm, where have I seen that misspelling before? Let me think...
Yes, yes, slashdot is the only place where people misspell 'lose.' Are you insane? I see people in all walks of life mis-spell this word constantly.
However, in this case it is not a mis-spelling. The virus author was actually congratulating the author of Bagle! As in, "You have loosed havoc upon the Internet! Bravo."
This virus mess could be solved very rapidly: Anyone that provides internet service needs to monitor outgoing port 25 connections, and do attachment scanning. You don't even need to scan the attachments for viruses. Just look for all Windows executable file extensions (including inside.zip files), and if you find one, you quarantine your likely-infected customer so that the only webpage they can see is one served from your network explaining that they are infected. Until they take steps to clean their machines, you quarantine all outgoing traffic on their connection.
This is drastic, but unavoidable. The people that are causing these viruses to spread are (by and large) too ignorant to ever keep their machines disinfected by themselves, unless forced to. The only people that can force them to do this are the ones providing them with internet service.
Now back to the lawsuits. The ONLY way you are ever going to get the ISP's to spend money to implement this filtering/quarantine is if you sue them for allowing their infected customers to cause harm to your business. A class action lawsuit against ISP's on behalf of people doing business on the internet.
Actually, what was happening was photographers were going out of their way to take photographs with him and the statue's boobs as the central focus of the picture. He got tired of it, and had them put the blue curtains in front of the statues during press conferences. Yeah he's a prude, but this puts the matter in a bit of a different perspective I think.
Saying Free Trade works out well because faceless corporation make billions is just plain wrong.
You are correct, that reasoning is dead wrong. Luckily it is not the actual reason people say it works out well...
Consider that "between 1983 and 2003, outsourcing went from 6.5 million jobs to about 10 million jobs. Between 1983 and 2002 jobs in-sourcing -- jobs coming TO the United States -- went from 2.5 million to 6.5 million."
That is a net increase of half a million jobs coming TO the united states. The above was quoted from Neal Boortz's website, where he stated that he obtained this information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Boortz also brought up how this outsourcing has worked out in the past... near the time of the civil war in the US, the north was 'outsourcing' jobs to the south. The jobs being outsourced were menial jobs, and the result was good for both sides: the work force in the north learned more desirable job skills, and increased the quality of life in the north, while the south gained much needed jobs, and also increase quality of life.
Yes - get rid of drug patents too! Drug companies care about cash, not making ill people better.
And yet for decades they've done BOTH. Take away the cash incentive, and how far would they have gotten? Let's ask places like Russia. Let's see, famous Russian drugs I've heard of... ummm, let me get back to you on that.
Far better that all drug compnaies get nationalised (then rationalised, shutting down the overlap, perhaps putting their doctors back out to practice) and that drugs are researched and produced cooperatively around the world for the benefit of people.
As bad as government has fucked up every other program it has tried to run, what on earth makes you think that nationalizing our drug companies would improve them?
Look at what's happening with the poor old folk from the USA who have to come to lovely Canada for their affordable medicine.
That's funny, truly. Do you know WHY the drugs are "more affordable" in Canada? Because the Canadian government is making the people that earn more money PAY for them. They are only more affordable to us because we aren't the ones paying the outrageous Canadian taxes!
Slashdot Mirror
This world exists. We call it... Africa.
Enjoy!
It just pretends it has the capability to counter-attack.
This is just stupid. So criminals support democrats so that they don't end up in jail?
You must have reading comprehension problems, which is not surprising since my guess is you were educated in public schools. I stated that as just one of the reasons criminals may be inclined to support democrats.
If there is a correlation between criminals and democrates, isn't it more likely that people from poor and neglected areas vote for someone who actually wants to improve their lifes instead of someone who cutes taxes for the rich and cut programs that have negative effect on the inner cities.
Thank you for hardening my original point by providing additional reasons why criminals are more likely to support Democrats.
By the way, you act as though tax cuts for the upper class are negative? Those are the people paying the most in taxes. Why not a low, flat tax with absolutely no loopholes?
All we need is one serious fuck-up, like California (the most liberal state around) being won by Bush, and you'll see voter riots.
I don't think it is too far-fetched to see Bush win California. California elected a Republican for Governor, and he's doing a good job. California is made up of a huge latino population, and believe it or not, the Bush family is fairly popular amongst latinos (thanks to W's connection to Texas, and his brother Jeb's hispanic connections via his wife). Why do you think Bush made that effort to 'help' illegals? He wants California. He could get it. I don't think there will be a riot either way, however....
Who do you think is more, or less, likely to have assault rifles in the home: Bush backers, or Kerry backers?
Why do they have to be assault rifles for people to be able to riot? Saturday night specials, hell, GASOLINE AND ROCKS can be used to riot. Pipes. Sheer human strength and madness.
But if you want to insist on guns for a riot, are you trying to say Democratic supporters don't own guns? What about the criminal element, they own guns right? Even illegal weapons. Criminals likely don't vote, but they sure as hell favor liberals over tough-on-crime conservatives.
And statistics plainly show that blacks make up a large majority of the criminal element. (Remember racists, correlation != causation, so you can't use this stat to further your agenda.)
And it is a fact that blacks vote for Democrats.
I think this clearly shows that, gun-control issues aside, a substantial portion of people that favor Democrats -- regardless of whether they actually took the time to vote -- are armed and have the potential to riot.
However, I have a bit more faith in our democracy than the conspiracy theorists on here, already salivating over something new they can use to claim they lost unfairly if it comes to that.
This can happen when something is so realistic that your brain says "THIS IS REAL" and your inner ear says "FUCK YOU, WE'RE NOT EVEN MOVING!" ... next thing you know, you're throwing up.
There was something mentioned about this on slashdot in terms of ultra-HDTV's being developed in Japan that were so high-def and realistic that people were throwing up because their brain thought they were moving and they weren't. (Gross simplification.)
He only has one hand!
When I say Sunshine withheld Magic games, what I meant was they threatened to stop broadcasting a feed to TW if the contract was not re-negotiated. Since the Orlando Magic games were essentially the only programming on Sunshine at the time, the Magic game coverage was the primary issue.
Here's a similar story of channel/content providers holding their customers ransom in order to re-negotiate a contract...
Sunshine Network (broadcaster of the Orlando Magic home games -- insert Magic joke here) used the same tactics with Time Warner subscribers in Central Florida. They knew Magic fans (yes, they still exist) would scream bloody murder to TW over this.
What Sunshine failed to tell their viewers was that Central Florida was the only market in which they were withholding the Magic games in Florida -- because they knew the larger fan base there could apply pressure on TW. In other cities, they just granted the cable operators a temporary contract extension until they could work out the renewal. But in Central Florida, they aired warnings to call Time Warner or lose the Magic games, and ultimately ended up going off-air for a while on TW. Not sure which side caved, but the Sunshine Network channel came back eventually.
The real party that got screwed was the Orlando Magic. Aside from having the worst team in the NBA, they had to deal with their remaining fans being pissed off by Sunshine simply because they let them have the rights to broadcast home games.
As a wiser man once pointed out, stealing something does not change ownership. Buying something that was stolen does not make you the owner, as the person you bought the item from has no ownership rights to transfer.
And as an even wiser man than your wise man once said, "Possession is nine tenths of the law."
Are you completely retarded? Strip all attachments?
No, that is not what I said. Interesting, you call me retarded and yet you cannot even read simple sentences.
What I said was they should scan outgoing port 25 traffic looking for executable attachments, and if found, they should quarantine that customer so they cannot continue to spew viruses across the internet.
I see that you were able to persuade some idiots to mark my original post as flamebait/troll. Typical.
[snipped stupid analogy defense]
Please think and know that that's impossible. Virusses spread within hours, even before an ISP has a chance to update their scanners because there is no update to apply yet
Not if they block all executable attachments.
It is not the ISP's responsibility to make sure that their clients do not get viruses.
I never said it was. However, it should be the ISP's responsibility to make sure their pipes aren't used to further spew the viruses out across the internet.
It is the user's responsibility to not open mail attachments, keep their OS patched, and to install antivirus software and firewalls.
Sounds great. Too bad it obviously doesn't work.
How in earth are ISP's responsible for the actions of an individual ?
ISP's provide a service, allowing people infected with a virus to spread that virus to hundreds and thousands of other people on the internet.
What you are suggesting is like suggesting that we should file class actions against fuel companies for people causing accidents with cars
Terrible analogy. Unlike the gas station, the ISP is continuously providing you with the service that allows you to cause harm (i.e. send viruses).
The thing you are suggesting has been and is suggested by a lot of people. People who tend to think that ISP's carry the key to security.
Really? I very rarely see anyone mention the blocking of viruses by ISP as a solution. Please point out a few of these people that recommend the same thing.
But that does never leave out the fact that people themselves are responsible for checking up on the device they run, or let it be checked up by professionals. And let's face it, in the end the real guilty party is the people who write the virusses and spread them.
Yes, let's blame everyone but the people that actually stand a damn good chance of stopping the viruses from propagating.
I am not blaming the ISP's for stupidity of their users. I am blaming the ISP's for allowing their stupid users to spew viruses across the internet, when it could EASILY be foiled with a very simple filter. Hell, just block port 25 outgoing entirely, and make them send mail through your mail servers or proxies, and do the filtering there, even easier.
I didn't say the ISP should send an email to the person with an attachment. They QUARANTINE them. Any attempt to use the web, a page is returned from the ISP saying they are infected with a virus and need to deal with it before they can be reconnected.
I work for an ISP. We have a simple, inexpensive, yet effective solution. No outbound traffic destine for port 25, unless it routes through our mailserver. Users need to authenticate against our mailserver as well.
Do you quarantine users found to be sending viruses through your mail server? How do you handle those users, if not?
As for "The ONLY way you are ever going to get the ISP's to spend money to implement this filtering/quarantine is if you sue them for allowing their infected customers to cause harm to your business."
This is probably the best way to increase your monthly costs for connectivity.
The idea is not to sue the ISP's for money, but to sue them to make them filter or block outgoing viruses. If this raises the cost for their subscribers, those subscribers may go elsewhere, and the ISP will have to decide whether they need to absorb the costs of running these filters, or lose customers. The market place is fierce.
It seems to me the ISP's would actually save money in the long run, since the less virus traffic there is, the less they have to spend on processing virus traffic.
If you want to sue someone, sue the Luser that executed the virus on his machine.
You know as well as I that that is an impossibility. The goal is to effect change for the better. Suing one person that is infected helps no one. Suing an internet service provider that ALLOWS their SERVICE to be used to spread viruses is a perfect plan.
How about the realistic approach, protect your own networks. Make sure none of your users spread any mess. Block incoming attachments on your mail gateway.
We do already. Tell me, how is this working out so far?
Some ISPs supply DS-1 and higher connections and IP Block leases.
Then those ISP's upstream need to filter port 25, or get a waiver signed from these high-end customers that they will do the filtering for their block of IP space. In the event of a lawsuit, the ISP can produce this signed agreement and the blame falls on the customer.
But you know the most common problem is the dialup/cable/dsl user of a regular ISP that is infected and turned into a non-stop virus-sending zombie. I deal with morons like this all day long. You can't reach them because the virus spoofs everything but the originating IP. The ISP is the only one that can stop it, and therefore is liable.
1) Sometimes there are reasons that you might want to send executables. Legitimate reasons.
.bin and send it. Send it to them via IM. There are plenty of ways around it that are not facing the virus onslaught that email is.
.zip file scanning. The most important thing is to block executable Windows attachments.
As I said to someone else, find another way to transmit the executable aside from email. Send the person a link to download it from a server. Rename the file extension to
2) Your plan fails when faced with the "require a password to open the zip archive" scheme that the current crop of viruses are using.
These viruses are not the most effective, obviously. So skip the
3) False positives will make your customers very, very angry and they will take their business elsewhere.
If your company is worried about false positives, then you would need to implement actual anti-virus scanning instead of just looking for executables.
However, once the word is out that trying to email executable attachments will get you quarantined, you'll be amazed at how fast the market place will adapt.
wow, so you've just made it so noone can ever send any kind of executable attachment ever again, legitimate or not. yea, that'll make EVERYONE real happy.
I know this will blow your mind, but (a) there are other ways of transferring files besides email, and (b) if you must use email, just rename the file extension and send it.
Note that I don't want to just block all messages containing attachments with certain extensions.
.bin and send them through that way.
Why not? This is the fastest/easiest/best way to do it. Get a list of all Windows executable extensions, and block any attachments with those extensions. The 550 error you return can say, "This server only accepts benign attachments."
There are many legitimate reasons for someone to send me a zip file as an attachment.
Well a zip file is not executable, so I wouldn't necessarily block them. But if you did, just tell your buddy to rename them to
Unless you are talking about moving to a new version of the internet, where the sending and receiving of viruses is not technically possible, then your 'insightful' idea is completely flawed.
I can switch to Linux or MacOS all I want, but that does not mean these viruses are going to be slowed down. I have to deal with these at work. I have to download these binaries, regardless of whether my computer is going to execute them or not.
Hmmm, where have I seen that misspelling before? Let me think ...
Yes, yes, slashdot is the only place where people misspell 'lose.' Are you insane? I see people in all walks of life mis-spell this word constantly.
However, in this case it is not a mis-spelling. The virus author was actually congratulating the author of Bagle! As in, "You have loosed havoc upon the Internet! Bravo."
Class action lawsuits. Hear me out.
.zip files), and if you find one, you quarantine your likely-infected customer so that the only webpage they can see is one served from your network explaining that they are infected. Until they take steps to clean their machines, you quarantine all outgoing traffic on their connection.
This virus mess could be solved very rapidly: Anyone that provides internet service needs to monitor outgoing port 25 connections, and do attachment scanning. You don't even need to scan the attachments for viruses. Just look for all Windows executable file extensions (including inside
This is drastic, but unavoidable. The people that are causing these viruses to spread are (by and large) too ignorant to ever keep their machines disinfected by themselves, unless forced to. The only people that can force them to do this are the ones providing them with internet service.
Now back to the lawsuits. The ONLY way you are ever going to get the ISP's to spend money to implement this filtering/quarantine is if you sue them for allowing their infected customers to cause harm to your business. A class action lawsuit against ISP's on behalf of people doing business on the internet.
Care to join me?
Actually, what was happening was photographers were going out of their way to take photographs with him and the statue's boobs as the central focus of the picture. He got tired of it, and had them put the blue curtains in front of the statues during press conferences. Yeah he's a prude, but this puts the matter in a bit of a different perspective I think.
Why am I unable to hear the parent post in anything other than Comic Book Guy's voice?
Saying Free Trade works out well because faceless corporation make billions is just plain wrong.
You are correct, that reasoning is dead wrong. Luckily it is not the actual reason people say it works out well...
Consider that "between 1983 and 2003, outsourcing went from 6.5 million jobs to about 10 million jobs. Between 1983 and 2002 jobs in-sourcing -- jobs coming TO the United States -- went from 2.5 million to 6.5 million."
That is a net increase of half a million jobs coming TO the united states. The above was quoted from Neal Boortz's website, where he stated that he obtained this information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Boortz also brought up how this outsourcing has worked out in the past... near the time of the civil war in the US, the north was 'outsourcing' jobs to the south. The jobs being outsourced were menial jobs, and the result was good for both sides: the work force in the north learned more desirable job skills, and increased the quality of life in the north, while the south gained much needed jobs, and also increase quality of life.
This is why free trade works out well.
Yes - get rid of drug patents too! Drug companies care about cash, not making ill people better.
... ummm, let me get back to you on that.
And yet for decades they've done BOTH. Take away the cash incentive, and how far would they have gotten? Let's ask places like Russia. Let's see, famous Russian drugs I've heard of
Far better that all drug compnaies get nationalised (then rationalised, shutting down the overlap, perhaps putting their doctors back out to practice) and that drugs are researched and produced cooperatively around the world for the benefit of people.
As bad as government has fucked up every other program it has tried to run, what on earth makes you think that nationalizing our drug companies would improve them?
Look at what's happening with the poor old folk from the USA who have to come to lovely Canada for their affordable medicine.
That's funny, truly. Do you know WHY the drugs are "more affordable" in Canada? Because the Canadian government is making the people that earn more money PAY for them. They are only more affordable to us because we aren't the ones paying the outrageous Canadian taxes!
Truly, you have dizzying intellect.