of course there are actual biologists who read slashdot that don't think highly of evolution being thought of in terms of a ladder but rather fitness and genetic change over time in order to maximize the chances that organisms can and do reproduce. the summery did a poor job of phrasing what the researchers actually said on the matter calling it "bad for their evolution"
The summary was bad but the actual article does have this quote from Dr Conover "the bigger and older a fish is, the more offspring it produces,". Having more offspring could be a evolutionary advantage.
Go back and read your documentation. There is support for booting of partitions in VirtualBox, but get ready to go to the command line to do a little down and dirty work.
Where is it? I've searched the Virtualbox website for dualboot but it returns nothing. The actual document User Manual (version 2.1.4, updated 2009-02-16)[pdf] is the latest and does not say it can be done. The FAQ doesn't either. Searching the Virtualbox forums returns 56 results but none of them tell how to setup a dualboot Mac so that an installed OS can be run in a VM.
When our business doubled in size we switched to VirtualBox from Parallels 3. Not only is it quicker but it is more stable and its support of different network interfaces and USB devises is clearly superior. We run Eclipse, Apache and all sorts of other development tools on it to do special Windows only development. We also use it as a main support tool. Also don't overlook the fact that you can have multiple 32bit VMs running at the same time - something that Parallels can't do.
However as I said in the post you replied to Virtualbox does not do something that is important to me, the ability to run a second OS in a VM in one OS that is setup to dualboot. As I said I may install Ubuntu as a second OS to dualboot my Mac. If I do I will want to run Ubuntu in a VM while Leopard is running, as well as the reverse, run Leopard in a VM when Ubuntu is booted up. According to the Virtualbox forums Virtualbox can not do that. Let me rephrase that, none of the threads I read said it could be done and how to. Some said it was impossible and others suggested it might be possible but did not say how. And I found the forums by Googling virtualbox bootcamp. Trying virtualbox dualboot leopard doesn't return what I'm looking for either. I did find this which says how to do it using an external drive. However my Mac is a MacBook Pro and I may not be able to take and use an external drive everywhere I can take the laptop. As it is I replaced the hdd the MBP came with with a bigger drive, the 160GB drive it came with I replaced with a 320GB drive. Using Bootcamp and Disk Utility I'll partition it into 3 partitions, 2 partitions about 50GB each for each OS and the rest for user files.
MacTech dropped a clanger by not including VirtualBox!
In the latter case, however, the infraction is essentially happening everywhere at once
You're right, infraction occurs everywhere and thus should be enforced anywhere.
David suggests leaves the system open to various abuses, as has been documented with regard to the curiously skewed rulings being handed down in eastern Texas.
So fix the system in east Texas. Don't change the whole thing because there may be a problem in one location.
I switched from Parallels Desktop to VirtualBox and it has one feature which I really like; the ability to run for over a week without causing a kernel panic.
There is one feature both Parallels and VMWare has that Virtualbox does not have yet, the ability to run an OS than is installed on a dualboot computer. I may install Ubuntu on my Mac and if so then I will want to run Ubuntu in a VM when I bootup Leopard, as well as the other way around, but Virtualbox doesn't do that.
I have tested all three of these products. I like Sun Virtualbox not just for price (free) but for performance.
But Virtualbox doesn't work with another OS already installed on a multiboot computer. I may install Ubuntu on my Mac and if so then I'll also want to setup VMs to run Ubuntu when I bootup Leopard, and Leopard when I bootup Ubuntu.
Virtual Box rocks, cross platform and I swear it is faster running Windows on my home box versus the ESX server I run stuff on at work.
I was leaning towards using Virtualbox if I install Ubuntu on my Mac. However I'm not clear whether it can run another OS installed on a dualboot computer in a VM. If not then I'll need either VMWare or Parallels as they can both do that.
Actually, despite the misleading headline, that CNet article describes the SCOTUS decision as *tightening* the test (i.e., making it harder to pass)
It depends on how you look at it. According to TFA it makes it easier to challenge patents, which is loosing the rules to challenging them. What would be harder is to get patents and have them upheld.
Understood, Falcon, but I think David's point was that this should be changed, such that "doing business in XX jurisdiction" is no longer sufficient, and instead the main criterion for choosing a litigation forum would be "having a principal place of business" (i.e. David's "main presence") in that jurisdiction.
Would you apply a criminal case the same? If someone commits murder in one state but lives in another which do you thing a trial should be held? The state the murder took place in or the state the murderer lives in?
There is a distinct sense of __non__coincedence__ in the air, the stink of M$ and rotten US corporatism and lack of effective regulation and enforcement of honest transparent business practices.
Where's your evidence Microsoft is involved. And about that part about corporations, you do know that Redhat is a corporations too? So is Dell and Hewlett-Packard, both of which are also named as defendants.
I don't like MS but I have not seen evidence MS is involved, unlike the SCO case.
There needs to be a test that goes beyond "prior art" for software patents. Namely, if a software solution is obvious given the problem and the tools, then it should not be patentable.
That court, and all federal courts, should start rejecting all suits from or against companies where neither party's main presence is in this court's jurisdiction.
Redhat does business in Texas, and that's what counts.
I have to ask once again, your personal feelings on who should pay for research aside, why does the technique used to further the research make a difference in who should pay for it?
Because, as seen here dealing with stem cell research, not everyone wants their tax dollars to fund certain research. When Michael J Fox asked congress to fund stem cell research for Parkinson's disease Rush Limbaugh made fun of him and accused him of acting when he shook. Me, I don't like my tax dollars paying for military research. The point is is that not everyone agrees on what research should be funded.
Here in Austin, Texas, kids on the college track are taking classes at Austin Community College during regular school hours and getting credit towards a bachelors degree. My wife, for example, had two years of undergrad credits finished by the time she graduated high school.
Perhaps that's what a friend of mine could have done. But instead when she was in 10th grade she dropped out of school, took her GED then started attending my community college. I don't know if her high school offered college classes though, although she was only a couple of year behind me and lived in the same neighborhood she went to a different HS and mine didn't have college classes. I'd love to have been able to take some, except for math I took as advanced classes as I could. For instance though only a year of bio was required for graduation I took that, half year of Marine Biology, 1 1/2 years of chemistry, and half year of ecology. I also took half year each of Business Law, Data Processing for business, and programming.
I sometimes wish I had gone into Marine Bio instead of Computer Engineering, or did a double major majoring in both. As I said before I didn't believe I could afford to go to college with a CE major without going into the military and saving money first. However as part of the Marine Bio class I took we went to Mote Marine Research Lab on a field trip. While there some of the scientists there ask a couple of us in the class if we wanted to go to college with a major in a related field. They said they'd help us get admitted and pay for it. I guessing our teacher had talked with them before hand because those of us who were asked spent a lot of tyme talking about it and about scuba diving, which we also did, with the teacher.
She then finished her BS degree in two years, followed by her masters a year and a half later, followed by unemployment, because nobody wants to hire a 21-year old masters holder. She's now in her 30s and making masters degree salary, and nobody even knows or cares how she got there.
I don't know if my sister took college classes in HS, she went to the same HS as my friend did because the school board changed school districts, but she got her AA from the community college then transfered to the university. There she got her BA then she Masters in Taxation. Now she's a partner and runs her own accounting business friends of hers and she started.
If you want to put a different spin on it, you could argue that it is actually smarter to go to a Community College for two years, because you pay much less for the pretty-much-useless low-level classes you HAVE to take.
Yeap! That's true. We used to call those "pretty-much-useless" classes weeding out classes.
You'll also be more "grown up" and responsible by the time you hit the meat of your degree plan and have a lower risk of dropping out than had you entered right into the local State (Party) School.
I think that really depends on the student. After having taken calculus and chemistry I tutored them on campus. Most of the students I tutored were sincere about learning, but one of them was a real turnoff and waste of tyme. She graduated that year from HS and her parents were paying her tuition. Because the college was a 2 year community college no alcoholic beverages were allowed on campus, but she always kept a cooler in her car filled with beer and every tyme I saw her she was drunk. After a couple of weeks I had to stop tutoring her.
I know that happens at universities but she wasn't the only alcoholic at the college. On the other hand the average age of the students at the community college was 28/29. After working unskilled jobs for some years many decided to go back to school Working full tyme they'd only take one or two classes a semester. Eventually the college started offering classes on weekend because of this. Then there were grandparents as well. While one of my friends there was working on her degree her mother started taking classes too.
While I support embryonic stem cell research, I don't support taxpayer money supporting it. Reduce taxes and let those who want ESC research donate money.
While I do no support government funding of research I don't oppose it either. I'd rather government reduce tax and let others pay for research. Only as a last effort should government fund research. But when government does fund it then the research should be open sourced so anyone could use it.
There is very rarely any corporate funding for something that CAN'T BE PATENTED
Corporations aren't the only ones that fund research. Universitiesfundresearch as well. So do charities and non profits. Others fund St Jude's Children's Research Hospital, which then funds research. Before he died Danny Thomas put his heart and soul into starting and supporting St Jude's, as does his daughter Marlo Thomas.
The fact that BMS tried to stop generic Taxol is why they didn't hold up their end of the bargain. It isn't the government's fault that BMS tried to do something shady.
But it is the government's fault the government gave BMS exclusive rights to the data.
But not funding the basic science because of one example where the deal didn't work out well is a very bad solution.
Once again you're ignoring, or simply didn't read, what I wrote. Nowhere did I argue government should not fund basic research.
The quote you reference about stocks and proprietary access to data is in reference to a semi-synthetic method of production which the research could not get working well enough to produce the drug at any cost.
If the NCI was not able to produce the drug then what did it test? Fact is is FDA approval requires the very same thing for which approval is sought be what is tested. They won't approve drug A if drug B was tested instead of drug A. Actually that's one method by which pharmaceutical companies get new patents on a drug, they'll make one change to a drug, which allows them to file a new patent. However the FDA will require the new formula to be tested.
The drug was expensive, but was at least commercially available
It doesn't matter if it was available if you couldn't afford it and insurance wouldn't cover the cost. A rhetorical question, how many people died because they could not afford Taxol?
I still ask why this one example, even if it were the norm, would be evidence suggesting that government funding of basic research is bad or even negative.
GOD DAMN IT!!! How many tymes do I have to say I do not oppose government funding of basic research?
Once again, you just don't read. Not even what you are writing.
Unless you can point out where self selection is not allowed, and most definitions do not bar it, then it does apply.
I don't need to point out where it is allowed, or where it is not allowed. YOU are making the statement that it even makes a difference in your argument and proves the parents participated in actions that could be considered "eugenic", when self selection is irrelevant to this clinic and to the actions in the article
YOU have been making the statement that eugenics was selective breeding but left out the part about self selection.. And self selection is very much about what this clinic is about. The clinic allow parents to select which fertilized eggs will be used.
Eugenics affects whether or not this couple can procreate AT ALL.
I'll ask where is the definition of "eugenics" that can effect whether a couple can procreate AT ALL.
The point is, and I am still correct in saying so, is that if eugenics AFFECTED their act of procreation, fertilized embryos would never exist in the first place.
Excuse me? The fact that couples can choose which fertilized eggs will be used means that eugenics is used. A number of eggs are fertilized then specific eggs are selected, which is what eugenics is, selective breeding.
I don't see why this is so hard.
Because you're twisting the meaning of "eugenics".
It doesn't. It can't. It won't. Eugenics prohibits certain pairings of parents from ever performing the biological action of conception AT ALL.
Only your and the NAZI's definition of eugenics. You refuse to acknowledge eugenics can and does allow self selection.
Since you want to keep playing with word definitions I won't be replying again in this thread.
And as much as it sucks, I'd rather have the wrong people make money off of a new cancer drug than not have the cancer drug.
That's easy to solve. The NCI could have made all the data available to every company that wanted to manufacture Taxol. That would have have been better than allowing BMS exclusive rights. Each business could compeat with each other to lower costs.
Are you suggesting that the government should stop funding science in order to stop them from making a profit off of it? That seems like a crappy trade off.
I suggested no such thing. As I've repeatedly said the research taxpayer pay for such be open source, open to anyone to use. Allow those companies to compeat instead of favoring some companies over others. To pay for the research perhaps require those companies to pay royalties in addition to an initial fee. Using Taxol as an example, each pharmaceutical would have paid say 1 or 5 million dollars then 1% on sells. BMS paid less than $50 million and by 2000 had sales of about $1 billion. If any company had been allowed to make and sale Taxol they could have paid $5 million then having sold $500 million a year would pay $5,000,000. After 10 years one business would have paid $55 million. With that money the NCI could fund more research.
Besides, the point stands: no one but the government funds research that they don't believe will make them rich. Sometimes the government also funds that research.
Sure they do. Individuals invent things all the tyme not expecting to make a lot of money. Others spend money on basic research. Nikola Tesla did a lot of research and Westinghouse supported him. Some of it paid off but not all of it.
So in this day and age when it takes less than 15 minutes to establish a LLC and set yourself up as a private contractor, why would anyone work for one of these employment agencies?
Many people have to use these temp agencies because they don't have the skills needed to run their own business. Take a software business, being able to program isn't all that's needed to run a software company. The person also has to be able to market their skills as well as all the stuff needed to run a business. Simply sticking up an "Open for business" plaque isn't enough. Most businesses fail and many people who do make it only do so after failing in more than one business startup. "The Seven Pitfalls of Business Failure and How to Avoid Them".
Slashdot Mirror
of course there are actual biologists who read slashdot that don't think highly of evolution being thought of in terms of a ladder but rather fitness and genetic change over time in order to maximize the chances that organisms can and do reproduce. the summery did a poor job of phrasing what the researchers actually said on the matter calling it "bad for their evolution"
The summary was bad but the actual article does have this quote from Dr Conover "the bigger and older a fish is, the more offspring it produces,". Having more offspring could be a evolutionary advantage.
Falcon
Go back and read your documentation. There is support for booting of partitions in VirtualBox, but get ready to go to the command line to do a little down and dirty work.
Where is it? I've searched the Virtualbox website for dualboot but it returns nothing. The actual document User Manual (version 2.1.4, updated 2009-02-16)[pdf] is the latest and does not say it can be done. The FAQ doesn't either. Searching the Virtualbox forums returns 56 results but none of them tell how to setup a dualboot Mac so that an installed OS can be run in a VM.
Falcon
When our business doubled in size we switched to VirtualBox from Parallels 3. Not only is it quicker but it is more stable and its support of different network interfaces and USB devises is clearly superior. We run Eclipse, Apache and all sorts of other development tools on it to do special Windows only development. We also use it as a main support tool. Also don't overlook the fact that you can have multiple 32bit VMs running at the same time - something that Parallels can't do.
However as I said in the post you replied to Virtualbox does not do something that is important to me, the ability to run a second OS in a VM in one OS that is setup to dualboot. As I said I may install Ubuntu as a second OS to dualboot my Mac. If I do I will want to run Ubuntu in a VM while Leopard is running, as well as the reverse, run Leopard in a VM when Ubuntu is booted up. According to the Virtualbox forums Virtualbox can not do that. Let me rephrase that, none of the threads I read said it could be done and how to. Some said it was impossible and others suggested it might be possible but did not say how. And I found the forums by Googling virtualbox bootcamp. Trying virtualbox dualboot leopard doesn't return what I'm looking for either. I did find this which says how to do it using an external drive. However my Mac is a MacBook Pro and I may not be able to take and use an external drive everywhere I can take the laptop. As it is I replaced the hdd the MBP came with with a bigger drive, the 160GB drive it came with I replaced with a 320GB drive. Using Bootcamp and Disk Utility I'll partition it into 3 partitions, 2 partitions about 50GB each for each OS and the rest for user files.
MacTech dropped a clanger by not including VirtualBox!
I'll second that!
Falcon
In the latter case, however, the infraction is essentially happening everywhere at once
You're right, infraction occurs everywhere and thus should be enforced anywhere.
David suggests leaves the system open to various abuses, as has been documented with regard to the curiously skewed rulings being handed down in eastern Texas.
So fix the system in east Texas. Don't change the whole thing because there may be a problem in one location.
Falcon
I switched from Parallels Desktop to VirtualBox and it has one feature which I really like; the ability to run for over a week without causing a kernel panic.
There is one feature both Parallels and VMWare has that Virtualbox does not have yet, the ability to run an OS than is installed on a dualboot computer. I may install Ubuntu on my Mac and if so then I will want to run Ubuntu in a VM when I bootup Leopard, as well as the other way around, but Virtualbox doesn't do that.
Falcon
Makes you wonder why Apple doesn't insist on proper uninstallers, like Windows apps.
Installers for Windows can be just as bad if not worse. Those who release software need to make sure there is a good installer/uninstaller.
Falcon
When people by a Mac and then run Windows on it.
People want to be able to run Windows apps even when they're using Macs. I'm typing this on a Mac and I may install Ubuntu on it.
Falcon
I have tested all three of these products. I like Sun Virtualbox not just for price (free) but for performance.
But Virtualbox doesn't work with another OS already installed on a multiboot computer. I may install Ubuntu on my Mac and if so then I'll also want to setup VMs to run Ubuntu when I bootup Leopard, and Leopard when I bootup Ubuntu.
Falcon
Virtual Box rocks, cross platform and I swear it is faster running Windows on my home box versus the ESX server I run stuff on at work.
I was leaning towards using Virtualbox if I install Ubuntu on my Mac. However I'm not clear whether it can run another OS installed on a dualboot computer in a VM. If not then I'll need either VMWare or Parallels as they can both do that.
Falcon
When I setup my Mac to dualboot as I'm leaning towards it I may use VirtualBox myself. It would have been nice if Mactech had included it.
Falcon
Yes I am what?
Really? Is that your argument?
Argument about what?
Falcon
Actually, despite the misleading headline, that CNet article describes the SCOTUS decision as *tightening* the test (i.e., making it harder to pass)
It depends on how you look at it. According to TFA it makes it easier to challenge patents, which is loosing the rules to challenging them. What would be harder is to get patents and have them upheld.
Falcon
Understood, Falcon, but I think David's point was that this should be changed, such that "doing business in XX jurisdiction" is no longer sufficient, and instead the main criterion for choosing a litigation forum would be "having a principal place of business" (i.e. David's "main presence") in that jurisdiction.
Would you apply a criminal case the same? If someone commits murder in one state but lives in another which do you thing a trial should be held? The state the murder took place in or the state the murderer lives in?
Falcon
There is a distinct sense of __non__coincedence__ in the air, the stink of M$ and rotten US corporatism and lack of effective regulation and enforcement of honest transparent business practices.
Where's your evidence Microsoft is involved. And about that part about corporations, you do know that Redhat is a corporations too? So is Dell and Hewlett-Packard, both of which are also named as defendants.
I don't like MS but I have not seen evidence MS is involved, unlike the SCO case.
Falcon
There needs to be a test that goes beyond "prior art" for software patents. Namely, if a software solution is obvious given the problem and the tools, then it should not be patentable.
There is a test for non-obviousness. The "Supreme Court loosens patent 'obviousness' test"
Falcon
That court, and all federal courts, should start rejecting all suits from or against companies where neither party's main presence is in this court's jurisdiction.
Redhat does business in Texas, and that's what counts.
Falcon
No, that was simply the fevered hope of many open source criminals who seek to profit off the hard work and innovation of others.
Like those programmers who work hard for open source projects?
Falcon
I have to ask once again, your personal feelings on who should pay for research aside, why does the technique used to further the research make a difference in who should pay for it?
Because, as seen here dealing with stem cell research, not everyone wants their tax dollars to fund certain research. When Michael J Fox asked congress to fund stem cell research for Parkinson's disease Rush Limbaugh made fun of him and accused him of acting when he shook. Me, I don't like my tax dollars paying for military research. The point is is that not everyone agrees on what research should be funded.
Falcon
Here in Austin, Texas, kids on the college track are taking classes at Austin Community College during regular school hours and getting credit towards a bachelors degree. My wife, for example, had two years of undergrad credits finished by the time she graduated high school.
Perhaps that's what a friend of mine could have done. But instead when she was in 10th grade she dropped out of school, took her GED then started attending my community college. I don't know if her high school offered college classes though, although she was only a couple of year behind me and lived in the same neighborhood she went to a different HS and mine didn't have college classes. I'd love to have been able to take some, except for math I took as advanced classes as I could. For instance though only a year of bio was required for graduation I took that, half year of Marine Biology, 1 1/2 years of chemistry, and half year of ecology. I also took half year each of Business Law, Data Processing for business, and programming.
I sometimes wish I had gone into Marine Bio instead of Computer Engineering, or did a double major majoring in both. As I said before I didn't believe I could afford to go to college with a CE major without going into the military and saving money first. However as part of the Marine Bio class I took we went to Mote Marine Research Lab on a field trip. While there some of the scientists there ask a couple of us in the class if we wanted to go to college with a major in a related field. They said they'd help us get admitted and pay for it. I guessing our teacher had talked with them before hand because those of us who were asked spent a lot of tyme talking about it and about scuba diving, which we also did, with the teacher.
She then finished her BS degree in two years, followed by her masters a year and a half later, followed by unemployment, because nobody wants to hire a 21-year old masters holder. She's now in her 30s and making masters degree salary, and nobody even knows or cares how she got there.
I don't know if my sister took college classes in HS, she went to the same HS as my friend did because the school board changed school districts, but she got her AA from the community college then transfered to the university. There she got her BA then she Masters in Taxation. Now she's a partner and runs her own accounting business friends of hers and she started.
If you want to put a different spin on it, you could argue that it is actually smarter to go to a Community College for two years, because you pay much less for the pretty-much-useless low-level classes you HAVE to take.
Yeap! That's true. We used to call those "pretty-much-useless" classes weeding out classes.
You'll also be more "grown up" and responsible by the time you hit the meat of your degree plan and have a lower risk of dropping out than had you entered right into the local State (Party) School.
I think that really depends on the student. After having taken calculus and chemistry I tutored them on campus. Most of the students I tutored were sincere about learning, but one of them was a real turnoff and waste of tyme. She graduated that year from HS and her parents were paying her tuition. Because the college was a 2 year community college no alcoholic beverages were allowed on campus, but she always kept a cooler in her car filled with beer and every tyme I saw her she was drunk. After a couple of weeks I had to stop tutoring her.
I know that happens at universities but she wasn't the only alcoholic at the college. On the other hand the average age of the students at the community college was 28/29. After working unskilled jobs for some years many decided to go back to school Working full tyme they'd only take one or two classes a semester. Eventually the college started offering classes on weekend because of this. Then there were grandparents as well. While one of my friends there was working on her degree her mother started taking classes too.
Falcon
What I said before:
While I support embryonic stem cell research, I don't support taxpayer money supporting it. Reduce taxes and let those who want ESC research donate money.
While I do no support government funding of research I don't oppose it either. I'd rather government reduce tax and let others pay for research. Only as a last effort should government fund research. But when government does fund it then the research should be open sourced so anyone could use it.
There is very rarely any corporate funding for something that CAN'T BE PATENTED
Corporations aren't the only ones that fund research. Universities fund research as well. So do charities and non profits. Others fund St Jude's Children's Research Hospital, which then funds research. Before he died Danny Thomas put his heart and soul into starting and supporting St Jude's, as does his daughter Marlo Thomas.
Falcon
The fact that BMS tried to stop generic Taxol is why they didn't hold up their end of the bargain. It isn't the government's fault that BMS tried to do something shady.
But it is the government's fault the government gave BMS exclusive rights to the data.
But not funding the basic science because of one example where the deal didn't work out well is a very bad solution.
Once again you're ignoring, or simply didn't read, what I wrote. Nowhere did I argue government should not fund basic research.
The quote you reference about stocks and proprietary access to data is in reference to a semi-synthetic method of production which the research could not get working well enough to produce the drug at any cost.
If the NCI was not able to produce the drug then what did it test? Fact is is FDA approval requires the very same thing for which approval is sought be what is tested. They won't approve drug A if drug B was tested instead of drug A. Actually that's one method by which pharmaceutical companies get new patents on a drug, they'll make one change to a drug, which allows them to file a new patent. However the FDA will require the new formula to be tested.
The drug was expensive, but was at least commercially available
It doesn't matter if it was available if you couldn't afford it and insurance wouldn't cover the cost. A rhetorical question, how many people died because they could not afford Taxol?
I still ask why this one example, even if it were the norm, would be evidence suggesting that government funding of basic research is bad or even negative.
GOD DAMN IT!!! How many tymes do I have to say I do not oppose government funding of basic research?
Falcon
Once again, you just don't read. Not even what you are writing.
Unless you can point out where self selection is not allowed, and most definitions do not bar it, then it does apply.
I don't need to point out where it is allowed, or where it is not allowed. YOU are making the statement that it even makes a difference in your argument and proves the parents participated in actions that could be considered "eugenic", when self selection is irrelevant to this clinic and to the actions in the article
YOU have been making the statement that eugenics was selective breeding but left out the part about self selection.. And self selection is very much about what this clinic is about. The clinic allow parents to select which fertilized eggs will be used.
Eugenics affects whether or not this couple can procreate AT ALL.
I'll ask where is the definition of "eugenics" that can effect whether a couple can procreate AT ALL.
The point is, and I am still correct in saying so, is that if eugenics AFFECTED their act of procreation, fertilized embryos would never exist in the first place.
Excuse me? The fact that couples can choose which fertilized eggs will be used means that eugenics is used. A number of eggs are fertilized then specific eggs are selected, which is what eugenics is, selective breeding.
I don't see why this is so hard.
Because you're twisting the meaning of "eugenics".
It doesn't. It can't. It won't. Eugenics prohibits certain pairings of parents from ever performing the biological action of conception AT ALL.
Only your and the NAZI's definition of eugenics. You refuse to acknowledge eugenics can and does allow self selection.
Since you want to keep playing with word definitions I won't be replying again in this thread.
Falcon
And as much as it sucks, I'd rather have the wrong people make money off of a new cancer drug than not have the cancer drug.
That's easy to solve. The NCI could have made all the data available to every company that wanted to manufacture Taxol. That would have have been better than allowing BMS exclusive rights. Each business could compeat with each other to lower costs.
Are you suggesting that the government should stop funding science in order to stop them from making a profit off of it? That seems like a crappy trade off.
I suggested no such thing. As I've repeatedly said the research taxpayer pay for such be open source, open to anyone to use. Allow those companies to compeat instead of favoring some companies over others. To pay for the research perhaps require those companies to pay royalties in addition to an initial fee. Using Taxol as an example, each pharmaceutical would have paid say 1 or 5 million dollars then 1% on sells. BMS paid less than $50 million and by 2000 had sales of about $1 billion. If any company had been allowed to make and sale Taxol they could have paid $5 million then having sold $500 million a year would pay $5,000,000. After 10 years one business would have paid $55 million. With that money the NCI could fund more research.
Besides, the point stands: no one but the government funds research that they don't believe will make them rich. Sometimes the government also funds that research.
Sure they do. Individuals invent things all the tyme not expecting to make a lot of money. Others spend money on basic research. Nikola Tesla did a lot of research and Westinghouse supported him. Some of it paid off but not all of it.
Falcon
So in this day and age when it takes less than 15 minutes to establish a LLC and set yourself up as a private contractor, why would anyone work for one of these employment agencies?
Many people have to use these temp agencies because they don't have the skills needed to run their own business. Take a software business, being able to program isn't all that's needed to run a software company. The person also has to be able to market their skills as well as all the stuff needed to run a business. Simply sticking up an "Open for business" plaque isn't enough. Most businesses fail and many people who do make it only do so after failing in more than one business startup. "The Seven Pitfalls of Business Failure and How to Avoid Them".
Falcon
You need to pay top dollar for the best talent.
It was the best talent that got us in this recession. That is best at creating imaginary financial instruments.
Falcon