I've been in meetings where there are people who are thick enough that they often miss the point of what others are saying. But you, sir, take the cake.
Dude, when was the last time a *business* decided not do go with pulic opinion because it felt that the *moral* way was right? You must be new. On this planet.
Hello? This is 1991 calling, I have answers to your questions: Fortran NCSA HTTPd UNIX System V What's that? Lin-who? Sorry I can't year you over this analog telephone line.
No, that's only necessary if it's not *actually* the first post. But yea, I had no idea that I'd make first post with that comment heh. I just saw "Linux" in the title and thought "bah fuck it, I got karma to burn". I've been saving that in a txt file for a week now:P
In Soviet Russia, Linux-running, chair throwing, Beowulf clusters of shark overlords with laserbeams on their heads welcome you, you insensitive clods!
Just to point out that if someone says "fresh ground coffee" the mistake does not have to be the use of an adjective where an adverb should be used. Given that people often write things the way they hear them, they could be typing the phrase "fresh, ground coffee" where the comma is used to delimit the two adjectives used to describe the coffee. Nonetheless, leaving out the comma is still a mistake.
I think you'll find that "security of tenure" has valid arguments for it in some situations. Perhaps you were not referring to these, but I take issue with mindless blanket statements.
It'd be easier for a 5'6" 120lb guy to fight on equal terms with a 6'3" 220lb guy if they both had guns than rolling pins. And if your only defense is running, you're SOL the day someone faster decides to mug you. Given that hardened crims are usually fitter than the general population, saying you'd rather everyone be armed with sticks is pretty uninsightful.
Because once the freedom-mating Muslims are all killed, China will be the next "bad guy". The public perceptions that will be needed at that time are being seeded now.
If you have no gun, there would be no need for burglars to carry weapons
Are you delusional? Do you think that even if a robber knew for sure that a homeowner would have no weapons that he would knock on the front door and say "Excuse me but I'm here to take your telly"? No, he'd still carry a weapon. The arms-race between robbers and robbees argument is BS. Look at Australia, with about the tightest rules on gun ownership in the world and extremely low gun ownership. Yet still, violent crime happens.
Crime is not the result of the availability of the tools of crime. It is the result of social decay increasing the propensity for crime in a society and eroding the social inhibitions to commit it. Take guns out of modern American society and people will just beat each other to death with rolling pins.
That's true in theory. Now, welcome to the world where the line between government and the corporate sector has been erased under the boots of a million marching soldiers.
What you have effectively done is devalued effort (research), implementation (material/good investment), and ideas (intellectual property) that they belong to all. That doesn't even match the sniff test--without research, investment, and legal protection, most of these projects would not be pursued.
You seem to have missed the word "unreasonably" in my OP. Merck wouldn't sell the drug at a price that would place the drug in reach of the main body of the people. When a company patents a drug and then seeks to use that patent to extort money from people who need it to survive, it's at that precise point that I stop caring about the profit motive. As I said, if the profit motive is all that we as humans can use to motivate us to save each other's lives, then we really are in a sorry state of social affairs.
There are billions of people who make enough money to consolidate their earnings to go up against big pharma. They don't.
Indeed. This consolidation of political power that you are talking of is commonly called "government", although it is easy to see why you have forgotten that this is the very purpose of government if you look at the way modern western governments handle themselves and their responsibilities. It is the government's job to consolidate political power on behalf of the people (That is why we elect them isn't it? Because we think that the guy we elect will look after us the most effectively.) and use it to prevent powerful entities from extorting the disconnected masses.
On the last point, how does that work? I'm roughly 7 months into my 12 months of putting forward a set of patents--1 person knows what it is about and that's me. If I hold that threat of yours and say you can enforce that somehow with penalities, why the fuck would I not only come forward with the idea at all, but if you are to take it from me anyways, why should I forward it? And those questions sidestep the entire issue of if I didn't tell you this, you wouldn't know. I've withheld my ideas for months, and society continues. I'm on top of the current research, and no one is close on this one.
I am not saying that you cannot profit from your work. I am saying that you cannot expect to unreasonably profit just because you know that someone will die without it. The key here is "unreasonable". To use economic speak, the utility to a single person gained by a certain market decision cannot be used as a rationalization for harm to be caused to others. There is an economic concept called "externalities" that covers this. The decision to withhold a drug from the poor to increase profits causes death or suffering to others, this is an externality that the government, rightly, should intervene to prevent or mitigate. The concept that the market does not value the effects of economic agents' decisions on society is known as "market failure", and it too is mainstream economic theory.
To use an extreme example to illustrate: If there are 10 people who can be saved from your ideas, one a rich tycoon and the others middle class workers. If you price your idea at $1million you can have one sale, 9 people die. If you price it at $1,000 then everyone lives, but you only make $10,000. Unfortunately "capitalism" places no value on the extra 9 lives saved, as life cannot be traded on the open market (yet) so to you, 9 lives extra on Earth (who are mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters) represent nothing but lost revenue. So it is with Merck. They can charge $100 / dose and treat the first world. Or they can charge $10 per dose and treat proportionally less people, leading to less revenue. If pharma didn't spend so much on marketing then they'd have far less costs to recoup. Yes, they'd make less, but I don't see them making a loss given the size of the markets and the willingness of governments to pay. Cut out marketing and concentrate on saving life, and I hardly think that losses will be made. Don't believ
As for the 'value' of saving life, no one has the right to claim another's labor unearned for the sake of their own preservation.
That is true in almost all situations. I can't steal your kidney because mine is failing, nor can I steal your ideas because my business is failing. However, if your idea can be used to save my life without taking anything away from you, buddy, you can be damn sure I'm not going to give two shits about the lawsuit you'll bring when I use it without a license. Poor people can't afford the medication anyway, so it's not like Merck is losing revenue, its just that their ideas are being used by people who otherwise wouldn't have access to the drug at all.
If you think that the rules of property, especially intellectual property, should not be relaxed when human life is at stake or that life itself is a commodity that the free market should be allowed to value in monetary terms, then as I said in my original post: I will fight you tooth and nail until the day I die.
Not all moves to place fetters on the free market are the result of the hidden agendas of slavering, bloody thirsty autocrats, despite the media's attempt to make it seem so. The free market will not feed the poor, or give them medication or save their lives, as none of those activities are profitable. Ideas that save human life are the property of every human alive, and I will fight until the day I die the rights of people to unreasonably profit from or withhold those ideas from humankind. Those of you about to jump in with "but who'd pay for the research" arguments, pull your pants back up and get away from me. I've heard them all before and written on the subject many times. If our society cannot place a value on the saving of life itself, then we need to have a good, long, hard look at the belief that our society is the greatest one on Earth.
GE does not have a long history of that. Jack Welsh took over when it was ailing and decided to sell of every unit that was not 1 or 2 in it's industry. That policy has now slacked off, they are sticking with whats left pretty strongly as their portfolio of operations is pretty lean and healthy by now.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been in meetings where there are people who are thick enough that they often miss the point of what others are saying. But you, sir, take the cake.
You and I are on the same side, I think you missed my sarcasm :)
Dude, when was the last time a *business* decided not do go with pulic opinion because it felt that the *moral* way was right? You must be new. On this planet.
Hello? This is 1991 calling, I have answers to your questions:
Fortran
NCSA HTTPd
UNIX System V
What's that? Lin-who? Sorry I can't year you over this analog telephone line.
No, that's only necessary if it's not *actually* the first post. But yea, I had no idea that I'd make first post with that comment heh. I just saw "Linux" in the title and thought "bah fuck it, I got karma to burn". I've been saving that in a txt file for a week now :P
The last 4 characters in your username are a dead giveaway as to why you do not conform to the common mindset around here.
In Soviet Russia, Linux-running, chair throwing, Beowulf clusters of shark overlords with laserbeams on their heads welcome you, you insensitive clods!
Cancel or Allow?
Wait, what are we talking about again?
Just to point out that if someone says "fresh ground coffee" the mistake does not have to be the use of an adjective where an adverb should be used. Given that people often write things the way they hear them, they could be typing the phrase "fresh, ground coffee" where the comma is used to delimit the two adjectives used to describe the coffee. Nonetheless, leaving out the comma is still a mistake.
I think you'll find that "security of tenure" has valid arguments for it in some situations. Perhaps you were not referring to these, but I take issue with mindless blanket statements.
$16/hr?! I'll work for that!
It'd be easier for a 5'6" 120lb guy to fight on equal terms with a 6'3" 220lb guy if they both had guns than rolling pins. And if your only defense is running, you're SOL the day someone faster decides to mug you. Given that hardened crims are usually fitter than the general population, saying you'd rather everyone be armed with sticks is pretty uninsightful.
Because once the freedom-mating Muslims are all killed, China will be the next "bad guy". The public perceptions that will be needed at that time are being seeded now.
Are you delusional? Do you think that even if a robber knew for sure that a homeowner would have no weapons that he would knock on the front door and say "Excuse me but I'm here to take your telly"? No, he'd still carry a weapon. The arms-race between robbers and robbees argument is BS. Look at Australia, with about the tightest rules on gun ownership in the world and extremely low gun ownership. Yet still, violent crime happens.
Crime is not the result of the availability of the tools of crime. It is the result of social decay increasing the propensity for crime in a society and eroding the social inhibitions to commit it. Take guns out of modern American society and people will just beat each other to death with rolling pins.
Is that why you didn't write IANAL? Because you obviously do?
Of course, you are aware that there's a difference between a public company and a public trust. Aren't you?
So in East Germany, the right to make Soviet Union jokes acquires you?
That's true in theory. Now, welcome to the world where the line between government and the corporate sector has been erased under the boots of a million marching soldiers.
I never knew Nietzsche was Russian!
Greatest. Vertical. Distance. Between. Joke. And. Head. Ever.
Not that I disagree, but seriously, you work for Microsoft, don't you? :P
You seem to have missed the word "unreasonably" in my OP. Merck wouldn't sell the drug at a price that would place the drug in reach of the main body of the people. When a company patents a drug and then seeks to use that patent to extort money from people who need it to survive, it's at that precise point that I stop caring about the profit motive. As I said, if the profit motive is all that we as humans can use to motivate us to save each other's lives, then we really are in a sorry state of social affairs.
Indeed. This consolidation of political power that you are talking of is commonly called "government", although it is easy to see why you have forgotten that this is the very purpose of government if you look at the way modern western governments handle themselves and their responsibilities. It is the government's job to consolidate political power on behalf of the people (That is why we elect them isn't it? Because we think that the guy we elect will look after us the most effectively.) and use it to prevent powerful entities from extorting the disconnected masses.
I am not saying that you cannot profit from your work. I am saying that you cannot expect to unreasonably profit just because you know that someone will die without it. The key here is "unreasonable". To use economic speak, the utility to a single person gained by a certain market decision cannot be used as a rationalization for harm to be caused to others. There is an economic concept called "externalities" that covers this. The decision to withhold a drug from the poor to increase profits causes death or suffering to others, this is an externality that the government, rightly, should intervene to prevent or mitigate. The concept that the market does not value the effects of economic agents' decisions on society is known as "market failure", and it too is mainstream economic theory.
To use an extreme example to illustrate: If there are 10 people who can be saved from your ideas, one a rich tycoon and the others middle class workers. If you price your idea at $1million you can have one sale, 9 people die. If you price it at $1,000 then everyone lives, but you only make $10,000. Unfortunately "capitalism" places no value on the extra 9 lives saved, as life cannot be traded on the open market (yet) so to you, 9 lives extra on Earth (who are mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters) represent nothing but lost revenue. So it is with Merck. They can charge $100 / dose and treat the first world. Or they can charge $10 per dose and treat proportionally less people, leading to less revenue. If pharma didn't spend so much on marketing then they'd have far less costs to recoup. Yes, they'd make less, but I don't see them making a loss given the size of the markets and the willingness of governments to pay. Cut out marketing and concentrate on saving life, and I hardly think that losses will be made. Don't believ
That is true in almost all situations. I can't steal your kidney because mine is failing, nor can I steal your ideas because my business is failing. However, if your idea can be used to save my life without taking anything away from you, buddy, you can be damn sure I'm not going to give two shits about the lawsuit you'll bring when I use it without a license. Poor people can't afford the medication anyway, so it's not like Merck is losing revenue, its just that their ideas are being used by people who otherwise wouldn't have access to the drug at all.
If you think that the rules of property, especially intellectual property, should not be relaxed when human life is at stake or that life itself is a commodity that the free market should be allowed to value in monetary terms, then as I said in my original post: I will fight you tooth and nail until the day I die.
All of that is discussed in the article I linked to. It sounds like you'd agree with most of it, so if you get a chance, read it :)
Not all moves to place fetters on the free market are the result of the hidden agendas of slavering, bloody thirsty autocrats, despite the media's attempt to make it seem so. The free market will not feed the poor, or give them medication or save their lives, as none of those activities are profitable. Ideas that save human life are the property of every human alive, and I will fight until the day I die the rights of people to unreasonably profit from or withhold those ideas from humankind. Those of you about to jump in with "but who'd pay for the research" arguments, pull your pants back up and get away from me. I've heard them all before and written on the subject many times. If our society cannot place a value on the saving of life itself, then we need to have a good, long, hard look at the belief that our society is the greatest one on Earth.
GE does not have a long history of that. Jack Welsh took over when it was ailing and decided to sell of every unit that was not 1 or 2 in it's industry. That policy has now slacked off, they are sticking with whats left pretty strongly as their portfolio of operations is pretty lean and healthy by now.