"Freight" doesn't go by plane. Some desirable foodstuffs and trinkets might get shipped by air, but everything else gets stuck on a ship.
Plenty of "freight" gets shipped by plane. No cars don't, but lightweight high value materials get shipped by plane to maintain lower inventories and leadtimes.
Are people in China inherently more susceptible to authoritarian regimes, or somehow less capable of existing in a democracy than other peoples? Do they desire freedom less than we do?
Yes, the historic & economic situation does not promote democracy. The lack of a merchant/middle class favors an authoritarian government. Unless people own property and are secure in their survival they will tend not to demand rights.
Lets ban babies from the car, because they can be more distracting than a cellphone because natural instinct is to give them attention when they cry. No books on tape, NPR, or any other radio programs that cause the driver to think. Also, no eating or drinking... that includes morning coffee on your commute, since spills can distract you.
People rely on the crutch of the law, when such laws are rarely enforceable - how many people get pulled over for being on a cellphone?, and have marginal effectiveness - hands free doesn't help much because the distraction principally comes from the conversation itself not holding the phone. Ultimately it comes down to personal responsibility and knowing your limits, laws won't protect others on the road they just allow greater penalties after-the-fact.
Take a look at the financial report of your average pharmco; approximately 15-20% is spend on R&D, 40% on marketing and administration, and 40% on comparatively inefficient production (compare generics pricing). That means we'd get 5 times as much medical R&D if the insurance companies and government simply funded it outright and let the free market generics handle the production and marketing.
While I agree that full government control over research would be better, its not as great as you think. Administration doesn't go away, marketing will still exist as the "generics" fight it out. The drugs that companies advertise are usually things there are generic equivalents, things like Tylenol ($250M/year) or drugs in heavily competitive markets. The advertising costs will still hit consumers since most of them want the warm n fuzzy feeling of a brand name. Litigation and risk reduction is a large part of the inefficient production. Complications usually are identified while the drug is still under patent protection, which means the company has to bear the brunt of settlements and court costs. What you'll get is about 20% more R&D which represents the profit difference between current drug companies and more competitive markets.
It turns out that if you grind through the math, it's cheaper to have taxpayers pay 100% for drug development and have the drugs produced generically than to give drug companies this economic incentive.
Exactly, The proponents of the freemarket system don't understand the medical industry is so heavily regulated that such economic theory breaks down. All we're paying for is the profit, and risk liability for new drugs. Of course big pharma is going to charge huge amounts, they're on the hook for potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in litigation and settlements, even after they jump through all the governmental hoops, even when there is no concrete scientific evidence of the claims.
And the argument for abolishing drug patents becomes even more compelling once you realize that drug companies are incentivized to develop the most profitable drugs, not the ones for which there is the greatest need. Companies have the biggest incentive to develop tiny, patented variations of symptomatic treatments for common ailments like light allergies and colds. Other drugs are drugs that try to compensate for unhealthy living and lack of exercise. Those are not the kinds of drugs that it makes sense to develop from a public health point of view.
I disagree on that point. They have the incentive to capitalize on less competitive markets. You can spend the cash to patent an allergy medication, then are forced to advertise to carve out a small segment of that market. Meanwhile you can create treatments for which there is no alternative and can charge the maximum the market will pay. The reason some ailments are saturated with products is because they are better understood so it's easy to create treatments. Alternatively government mandated research will become very focused based on the political climate and vocal special interest groups. Look at how much government spends on AIDS vaccine research vs how much of a public health threat it is.
If you're part of a system, then you're in some way supporting it. Examples of successfully changing a system from within are few and far between and are usually where someone couldn't voluntarily leave the system anyway. Systems are more usually replaced by a competing system. If Google want to change things, they should not submit to China's demands and walk away if need be. That would be a far stronger message and powerful effect than simply agreeing to their terms. I fail to see how they expect to change things through obedience.
Well unless you want to use a US/NATO/UN "peacekeeping" force, economic development is the only real method to promote change. Just walking away won't change anything, look at Cuba, North Korea, and other countries affected by isolationist policy. Poor farmers don't demand human rights, it's the educated affluent and middle class who have moved beyond worrying about their own survival and start to demand freedoms. If you don't own anything, you don't care about property rights, if you're not connected to a communication network, you don't care about free speech. When people have money they can do things like travel, get materials from the black market, become educated abroad, and have the means to demand change.
Parts of licenses being struck down in this manner to the damage of the copyright holder is essentially unheard of in German, where the case was to take place before Skype tucked their tail between their legs.
Not really, especially in cases with standard licenses and contracts which tend to favor the writer. If for some reason the court finds one of the stipulations in the license causes undo harm to the receiving party that term can be invalidated. Typically in Germany this is applied to "No Warranty" clauses in licenses, but could also be applied to any clause that causes excessive harm to the user. It does have to be an affirmative defense, but it is possible, considering that question was examined in other German GPL rulings.
Not necessarily, if only the "inclusion of source code" part is determined to be invalid, then the redistribution could occur without that part. Just like when a part of a EULA or shrinkwrap license is invalidated it doesn't mean you have to give the software back.
Doesn't the same argument work for DRM, shrinkwrap licenses, and EULAs. There is precedent that some licensing restrictions are unenforceable, even if the customer has agreed to the terms.
There are other ways to limit the player's view, without resorting to a gameplay restriction. Use smoke, cascading water, objects, mirrors... they all limit the usefulness of a flashlight.
Copyright stems from a time where only a few could fabricate copies of stuff. In order to regulate the copy fabricator market, the goverment decided to let the copy fabricators only fabricate copies of stuff they wrote/painted themselves. Fast forward 300 years, science fiction age: now everybody has miraculous machines capable of copying and storing everything the humankind ever wrote down. Everybody is able to access culture in amounts he can not even consume in a lifetime. But wait, no! The copy fabricators from once managed to enact laws which prohibit all that, since scarcity as it once existed makes them money and the science fiction age made their business model obsolete. In thousands, people who refuse to obey technology prohibition laws get branded as "pirates", get hunted down, sued, convicted and executed in gas chambers.
Your idea works, only if most everything can be automagically fabricated. How do you encourge people to create what can easily be reproduced, especially if their survival depends on trading it for items that cannot easily be reproduced? The purpose of creating intellectual property was to encourage people to take risks and invest to create culture & ideas.
Amazed by the successes of the copy fabricator industry, the ice deliverers from once announced plans to ban refrigerators in order to make the ice delivery business more lucrative like in the past.
The problem with your analogy is refrigerators that make ice can fully replace ice deliveries. Copying movies/music/etc still requires investment to create the initial version.
Copyright in its current form is not much different than ius primae noctis. Its a right completely pulled out of someones ass in order to make them richer and to keep the masses from accessing culture. Both were enforced from top down, without any kind of a democratic process bringing them up or without actually reflecting the populations sense of right and wrong. Nobody considers sharing and copying wrong, but it nevertheless is enforced as if it were so. The reasons nobody respects the "copy right" in practice are more or less the same nobody would respect a ius primae noctis
Copyright came from the observation of how the economics of creation breaks down, and tries to bridge the gap between tangible & intangible because of the recognition of the value in creating ideas. In the US the creation of copyright & intellectual property was part of the Constitution so was enacted in the same democratic process as freedom of speech. Further copyright is more democratic than the top-down approach of fostering culture by the grants from the rich. It allows anybody to take a risk and have the opportunity to reap a reward. So rather than the rich controlling what culture gets funding, the masses have a method to survive off their creative labor. With copyright, culture percolates out of the public, rather than chosen by the tastes of the aristocracy.
Nobody considers sharing and copying wrong, but it nevertheless is enforced as if it were so. The reasons nobody respects the "copy right" in practice are more or less the same nobody would respect a ius primae noctis.
I disagree. People don't respect copyright because of the tragedy of commons. Same reason people don't respect litering or disposing of batteries in the trash can; they don't see the immediate effect they have so it's fine.
In the last 10 years copyright has been perverted from an encouragement of risk for cultural advancement into a means to ensure a business model. There definately needs to be a scaling back of protection length and refocus on ensuring fair use is protected, but that does not mean the whole concept needs to be thrown out.
I got burned on Half Life 2. I bought the game on release, and was unable to play the game for 2 days because steam was down. I made a decision at that time to never buy another product that requires online activation.
I felt the same way at first, but I've found the inconvenience of using steam for activation is offset by the ability to download and install. No need to find CD for older games, or lug them around to play when I travel.
Atheists can follow moral objectivsm - where the definition of right and wrong exists, but it is unknowable to absolute terms. Moral objectivsm is similar to the modern scientific philosophy in there is absolute "truth," which we can gain insight to through experience, though it is unknowable to absolute terms (the way religions tend to treat morality). It also doesn't deny the ability of cultures to have different moral beliefs, much like science does not deny different theories.
Concepts of "right" and "wrong" are not knowledge, but shared decisions that we make and are ingrained into us through experience with the world around us. One society's "right" may be another's "wrong".
That is subject to epistomological debate.
Only religion posits "universal" morals
There are non religious philosophies that propose objective moral truths.
Without getting into to a long debate, my point is there are things that can be logically discussed and a body of information gathered for analysis, yet such discussions do not work under the structure of science. Whether or not you consider the body of information knowledge, those subjects are open topics that need critical thought applied and have a material impact on our lives.
It is much better to respond with empiricism and inquiry than carving stone idols.
Or acceptance and moving on, occassionaly using the question to gain insight into that which we can know. Will we ever know "the beginning," no, because the answer always begs the same question, "then what came before?" Too often people feel the need for an answer, so you end up with wacky ideas from both religion and science, rather than just accepting the fact that we don't know.
There is no kind of knowledge that science cannot asymptotically approach.
Yes, there is, knowledge of "right" and "wrong." All science can say is given X you get Y, it is neutral with regards to whether Y is an ideal result. Science can't prove freedom of speech, equality, or other philosophical concepts. That's not to say mysticism & religion are needed, but there are intellectual discussions and knowledge generated outside of the scientific domain.
You do have a point, but id assume their tackling problems early approach would actually help more with the little problems more than the US way of dealing with it, but as its not very quantifiable, and I haven't been there, i cant back that up.
I agree, medicine as it's practiced is reactionary; most people don't think about going to the doctor when they are healthy. At the same time, individuals expect doctors to "fix them" rather than taking an active role in preventing problems like keeping a healthy diet. Instead of spending so much money to fix back problems, an individual would be better served keeping a healthy weight to prevent it. Of course, unless the patient goes to the doctor before problems occur, they won't be educated on their risk factors.
That's a pretty high ammount over here, but it is also very frustrating that at 26, a university professor's options are to live with his parents or go the illegal way.
Don't worry, in the US CS graduates also live with their parents:)
Let's hope the income from selling computers to the "rich" goes to the Joven Clubs, our "social computing" project.
Hopefully this will also open the door to more donations of used equipment from abroad.
Are americans taught about marxism? Not as much as they are taught about american history and patriotism, both countries are indoctrinated, not quite as blatently as the Chinese "patriot re-education act", but pretending americans arnt indoctrinated is pretty dumb.
But people are free to investigate and discuss marxism. Anybody can go to the library and find numerous books discussing marxist ideology, and academics can write papers discussing the advantages of marxist systems. Those aren't things that can be done in more controlling countries. That's not to say the US is perfect with respect to open discussion, but it tends to focus on the "enemy of the day" rather than a wholesale rejection of ideas that conflict with the established systems.
Thats thier economic system completly unrelated to free speach, much more related to this big country next door to them spending 50 years trying to crush them.
There is a lot of interaction between economic systems and political ideologies. Centrally controlled economic systems must do so at the expense of individual freedoms. On the flip-side a completely free society results in economic opression. The ideal is somewhere in the middle.
But overall it is as good if not better than the US healthcare system. Sure measure stuff in waiting lines and America might look good, but measure any real factors, $ per head, life expectancy, etc and America is no better than many places and much worse than Europe.
Life expectancy is not the end-all for healthcare. The fact that life expectancy is relatively flat shows the limitation of medicine as it's practiced. Most healthcare that is provided is not about life & death, it is about quality of life. In the US and Europe people don't go to the doctor only when they are dying, they go if they can't sleep, if their leg hurts, and for every other little problem. In poorer countries a doctor might recommend a reduction in activy to deal with a back problem. In the land of instant gratification you'll get a bunch of medications, an MRI, surgery, and rehab. There is no impact on life expectancy, but the more complex more expensive solution gets you back to a higher quality of life and productivity faster.
It has to do with opportunity cost, capital & labor will demand higher prices if there is an evivalent investment with similar risk that earns them a greater return.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets ban babies from the car, because they can be more distracting than a cellphone because natural instinct is to give them attention when they cry. No books on tape, NPR, or any other radio programs that cause the driver to think. Also, no eating or drinking... that includes morning coffee on your commute, since spills can distract you.
People rely on the crutch of the law, when such laws are rarely enforceable - how many people get pulled over for being on a cellphone?, and have marginal effectiveness - hands free doesn't help much because the distraction principally comes from the conversation itself not holding the phone. Ultimately it comes down to personal responsibility and knowing your limits, laws won't protect others on the road they just allow greater penalties after-the-fact.
What you'll get is about 20% more R&D which represents the profit difference between current drug companies and more competitive markets.
I disagree on that point. They have the incentive to capitalize on less competitive markets. You can spend the cash to patent an allergy medication, then are forced to advertise to carve out a small segment of that market. Meanwhile you can create treatments for which there is no alternative and can charge the maximum the market will pay. The reason some ailments are saturated with products is because they are better understood so it's easy to create treatments.
Alternatively government mandated research will become very focused based on the political climate and vocal special interest groups. Look at how much government spends on AIDS vaccine research vs how much of a public health threat it is.
Not necessarily, if only the "inclusion of source code" part is determined to be invalid, then the redistribution could occur without that part. Just like when a part of a EULA or shrinkwrap license is invalidated it doesn't mean you have to give the software back.
Doesn't the same argument work for DRM, shrinkwrap licenses, and EULAs.
There is precedent that some licensing restrictions are unenforceable, even if the customer has agreed to the terms.
There are other ways to limit the player's view, without resorting to a gameplay restriction. Use smoke, cascading water, objects, mirrors... they all limit the usefulness of a flashlight.
Use a firewall - there is one called "Trojan" (oh the irony)
Never, ever give them your credit card.
The purpose of creating intellectual property was to encourage people to take risks and invest to create culture & ideas.
The problem with your analogy is refrigerators that make ice can fully replace ice deliveries. Copying movies/music/etc still requires investment to create the initial version.
Copyright came from the observation of how the economics of creation breaks down, and tries to bridge the gap between tangible & intangible because of the recognition of the value in creating ideas. In the US the creation of copyright & intellectual property was part of the Constitution so was enacted in the same democratic process as freedom of speech.
Further copyright is more democratic than the top-down approach of fostering culture by the grants from the rich. It allows anybody to take a risk and have the opportunity to reap a reward. So rather than the rich controlling what culture gets funding, the masses have a method to survive off their creative labor. With copyright, culture percolates out of the public, rather than chosen by the tastes of the aristocracy.
I disagree. People don't respect copyright because of the tragedy of commons. Same reason people don't respect litering or disposing of batteries in the trash can; they don't see the immediate effect they have so it's fine.
In the last 10 years copyright has been perverted from an encouragement of risk for cultural advancement into a means to ensure a business model. There definately needs to be a scaling back of protection length and refocus on ensuring fair use is protected, but that does not mean the whole concept needs to be thrown out.
Atheists can follow moral objectivsm - where the definition of right and wrong exists, but it is unknowable to absolute terms.
Moral objectivsm is similar to the modern scientific philosophy in there is absolute "truth," which we can gain insight to through experience, though it is unknowable to absolute terms (the way religions tend to treat morality). It also doesn't deny the ability of cultures to have different moral beliefs, much like science does not deny different theories.
There are non religious philosophies that propose objective moral truths.
Without getting into to a long debate, my point is there are things that can be logically discussed and a body of information gathered for analysis, yet such discussions do not work under the structure of science. Whether or not you consider the body of information knowledge, those subjects are open topics that need critical thought applied and have a material impact on our lives.
Science doesn't have all the answers.
Dude it's Socrates!
Not to mention they have Pink Floyd laser shows.
Too often people feel the need for an answer, so you end up with wacky ideas from both religion and science, rather than just accepting the fact that we don't know.
That's not to say mysticism & religion are needed, but there are intellectual discussions and knowledge generated outside of the scientific domain.
I always thought of Firefly as the A-team in spaaaace.
Hopefully this will also open the door to more donations of used equipment from abroad.
There is a lot of interaction between economic systems and political ideologies. Centrally controlled economic systems must do so at the expense of individual freedoms. On the flip-side a completely free society results in economic opression. The ideal is somewhere in the middle.
Life expectancy is not the end-all for healthcare. The fact that life expectancy is relatively flat shows the limitation of medicine as it's practiced. Most healthcare that is provided is not about life & death, it is about quality of life. In the US and Europe people don't go to the doctor only when they are dying, they go if they can't sleep, if their leg hurts, and for every other little problem. In poorer countries a doctor might recommend a reduction in activy to deal with a back problem. In the land of instant gratification you'll get a bunch of medications, an MRI, surgery, and rehab. There is no impact on life expectancy, but the more complex more expensive solution gets you back to a higher quality of life and productivity faster.
It has to do with opportunity cost, capital & labor will demand higher prices if there is an evivalent investment with similar risk that earns them a greater return.