Why not have inspections with a random interval? Yah, I know -- cost. But considering how many pills these plants pump out, you'd think there'd be stricter oversight. Or is it that we just trust pharmaceutical companies to do the right thing (which means avoid the nightmare of tainted pills splashed across the evening news)?
There are different kinds of oversight. It doesn't make sense to do plant inspections all the time because what you really are inspecting are the systems not what is getting made. There should, however, be more regular oversight of what is getting made in terms of reviewing documentation and quality test results.
Other interesting point is that the FDA chooses not to fine companies/enforce regulations because of the cost of responding to legal challenges from the manufacturers. What excatly is the point of having oversight and inspections, then? Basically, the FDA must have crystal-clear evidence of plant-to-market malefeasance before they can do anything.
I agree, the FDA shouldn't have to fight things in court. Unless you give them absolute authority, the system breaks down.
A republic with democratic processes to elect representatives and make decisions. People are choosing not to involve themselves in those democratic processes which are the most important way to influence law.
Religious Right has power because they make deals with politicians. They can do this because they are unified. "Everyone else" is not a group.
Not just unified, but they also vote, sign up people to vote, and are vocal about issues that concern them. There are other groups in the country that are unified in belief, but don't excercise their power at the polls
Personally, I feel the drug companies shouldn't be allowed to advertise. (who actually goes to their doctor and specifically asks for Lipitor?) Perhaps that extra cash could be used to make the drugs a little more cheaper.
It won't make drugs cheaper, because most of the advertisement goes towards medication that are competitive. It's cold, pain, and sex medicine that's being advertised, not the really expensive cancer treatments. Advertising does help let the patient become more informed about what is out there, do their own research, and make informed decisions about their treatment. So no you don't go to the doctor and say "I want Lipitor," but you can do your research and tell them you're worried about the side effect of drug A, and would drug B be a viable alternative.
The high retail price of drugs bears almost no relation to its cost, partially because the drug industry spends more on advertising than R&D, but mostly because the market will bear it.
Advertising has little relation to the cost of drugs. Advertising is used for drugs that are competitive, for example $250M spent on Tylenol. The high priced drugs are those where there is no effective alternative, so no advertising is necessary. So yes, R&D does have a relation on the cost of medicines, because the higher priced ones are those which a company has been able to develop and no one else has developed a competitive alternative.
I'm always baffled to see people on Slashdot arguing we shouldn't fund basic research.
The question isn't should basic research be funded, but to what degree. You can spend the entire budget on basic research and not make any more breakthroughs and researchers will still be begging for more. Research funding is like gambling, it isn't about how much you want to spend to strike it big, it's about how much you want to spend on dead-end projects knowing there is a small possibilty for a substantial return.
Why would any company go so far out of it's way to intentionally anger it's customer base?
Maybe you should learn a little bit about business. It's fine to anger 5% of your customers if you can squeeze much more money out of the remaining 95%.
Does the Board of either company actually believe this $/GB model would have anything other than a short-term revenue burst? I refer of course, to the people who will receive their statement once this plan has been put into effect (I'm assuming it will be made retro-active for the billing period when the policy is put in place).
What $/GB does is give more flexibility to hide charges for long-term revenue growth. If you charge $/GB you can lower your support, and it will be transparent to many people. Those who do use more bandwidth will complain and get the message - "Sorry your connection is slow, but of course you chose to continue with the same payments through the economy plan... now if you upgrade for $20 more you can get the deluxe gold star plan where you will receive the same level of service you got last year"
That's seems very cynical and unethical. Can't I just cut out the middle man and start robbing the general public directly?
That's the problem with the US, participation in democracy is seen as a bad thing. That's why vocal special interest groups like the Christian Coalition have the politicians by the leash, they actively participate. But I guess it's easier to sit back with a beer, watch the Superbowl, and bitch about how bad things are than actually trying to fix them.
With the US so far behind the rest of the world already, it's time to just give up competing all together.
Define "behind". People have been clamoring that the US is "behind" for decades in terms of education, infrastructure, trade, etc. So the US has smaller tubes for internets to flow, they still own a lot of the content that flows through those tubes; it's about time the rest of the world starts to take their equal share.
But should I vote for Tweedle Dum, or Tweedle Dee?
How about neither. Become a volunteer for the candidate and get directly involved in politics. Instead of hoping things change, actually influence it. Candidate priorities are: Helping those who directly were involved in getting them elected - typically leaders of large special interest groups & high level campaign workers Helping those who indirectly were involved in getting them elected - contributers Those who voted for them Everybody else
Globalization is the *most* efficient tool of wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor, worldwide.
The problem is perception. Those who call themselves middle class in the US or Europe don't realize they are amongst the rich when looked at in global terms.
The United States of America is the richest country on the god-damned planet, there's gotta be more we can do to positively contribute to the third world. I suggest that we immediately stop toppling governments.
You do realize many times you can't positively contribute without toppling "governments. Many third world countries are suffering because that is how those in power maintain control.
The US political system seems to do a lot of that, and not much good ever seems to happen.
So do France, UN, NATO, etc. The first world countries constantly have been getting involved backing corrupt governments or rebels, in countries around the world to protect their own interests. Just because places like Haiti and the Ivory Coast aren't front page doesn't mean there isn't government toppling, and calling an occupying force "UN peacekeepers" doesn't make it any different from US troops in Iraq.
People wish for a cure for cancer, but it is not the fuel of imaginations. There is no Star Trek about a cure for cancer.
What about "House"? There are plenty of things people imagine in the field of medicine and genetic engineering - what if scenarios about cloning, genetic engineering of superhumans, creation of deadly supervirus, etc. Space in Star Trek is a setting, the same stories could be told underwater ala Seaquest, and in terms of inspiring people CSI has done the same thing.
Space is most emphatically not prohibitively expensive -- not if the goal is for humanity to have a presence in space, and to explore and learn. Sure it is if the goal is for every person to take vacations on the moon, but that's not the point. The fact that a few private sector hobbyists can do what they are should be a clue that space is amazingly accessible to humanity, not that's it inaccessible to individuals.
The cost per pound to launch things into space is still around $10k. And that's for a relatively trivial thing like putting something in orbit. It becomes exponentially more expensive the farther out in space you want to send things. Until we have a means to affordably do something meaningful (not just put a flag down and leave footprints) there is no compelling reason to really push for space exploration. You will see the boom when we can start to harvest raw materials from asteroids, but right now the technology just isn't there.
And lastly, it's nothing at all like asking for computers in every home 50 years ago. It would be more like asking why computer technology grew at an explosive pace until the 1970s and then slowed to a trickle -- because that's basically what happened with space exploration.
Space exploration was not booming in the 70's. There were a few very specific propaganda accomplishments. Right now we have people in space for over a year, we have a giant space telescope, we are placing rovers that can be controlled, launching satellites has become a common commercial venture. The stuff that excited people in the 60's, are so common that people don't care. Are you looking for the single "WOW" crowning achievement, or actual development of space exploration.
The cost of access has stayed about the same, when it should have come down by a factor of ten.
Has gravity decreased since the 70's? The cost has decreased, but launching things into space requires a number of different technologies. To achieve the breakthrough pricing you're looking for requires breakthroughs in many areas. And while the price per pound hasn't decreased 10x, with more powerful computers, lower weight materials, and other improved technology, the effectiveness per pound launched has gone far beyond 10x.
.. but when I see things like "professor and a postgrad have developed", I assume that the postgrad did all the work and the professor took most of the credit.
The postgrad probably did all the labor, but the professor probably came up with the idea, provided guidance, and secured the funding. Being a grad student is just like being an apprentice in any other walk of life.
"...indeed a black that is blacker than the usual black, sucking up almost all light that impinged upon it."
I think that would make a really sweet ring and would definitely wear one!
The government wouldn't have gotten involved if not for the snake oil and disgusting crap that deceitful businesses were peddling.
Those snake oil guys are still around promoting herbal remedies. So nothing has changed other than now the price of medicine is through the roof. The FDA isn't doing something a non-profit couldn't do, with a lot less bureaucracy and cost.
People are intested in genetics, semiconductors, and nanotechnology -- but there is no sense of awe, no sense of wonder, at least among the general public. Sure, people care, but they don't *dream*.
People *dream* about a cure for cancer, people *dream* about all the possibilities of stem cell research, people *dream* about a future society and how robots and computers change our lives. Reality has muted the dreams of space exploration, just as they have muted those of flying cars - we haven't given up, but it's hard and there's other intereting things to look into for now.
Furthermore, space isn't *that* expensive. We could be doing a lot more on not much increase in budget if the willpower was there. And it wouldn't take much willpower and effort to bring the cost down dramatically -- it's happening slowly thanks to the private sector, but it could have been much faster if people wanted it. The biggest limitations are in our imaginations and desires, not technical capability or budgets.
Space is prohibitively expensive, look at who the private sector hobbyists are - extremely rich people who can afford the expense of space tourism or testing their own vehicles.
We should not simply sit back and passively wait for abstract technological forces to make space more accessible without our intervention. We should ask why it hasn't happened already, and push for it to happen *now*. The universe awaits us -- all we have to do is decide we want it.
Why shouldn't we wait? It's like asking why we didn't have a computer in every home in 1950 - too expensive, too slow, and isn't very compelling. Once the technology matures to the point of being accessable, then you will see the space boom.
We are wondering about different things. For example genetic engineering and medicine are now a driving force for all sorts of research. We looked into space, and just saw more space and rocks that are really expensive to get to, now we look into ourselves and see all kinds of possibilities. The excitement over a couple remote controlled cars on Mars shows there is still excitement about space it is only muted right now since it is so expensive we are very limited in what we can do. Eventually technology will make space easier to reach and the wonderment will be renewed.
fatiguing the market and making "better" artworks suffer because originality isn't profitable
Futurama = Simpsons in Space, Firefly = A-Team in Space. I enjoy both, but neither I would say is "better" than anything else that's out there. Would you prefer system that forces you to watch "true art," because we all know the highest form of art is that inspired by our Creator... now enjoy some gospel music, and watch some inspirational bible stories./sarcasm
It's not so entirely clear-cut as "just don't pirate it if you don't want to watch it" if it's all that is available after the monopoly squashed the competition and jacked up the price.
Where is the monopoly? All the music/publishing/movie industry has is protection on a very specific item within the industry, of which there are plenty of alternative substitutes for entertainment. It's like complaining that Pepsi has a monopoly on making Pepsi.
Which basically makes the point that the pharms aren't locking other out of the market, the fundamental problem is the long, expensive and bureaucratic government system getting in the way. It's easy to point the finger and say "evil company sucking all our money" but at the end of the day, it's really the government involvement that is creating the (legal) drug cartels.
They don't "research new drugs," they research how to make minor changes to existing drugs so they can re-patient.
I know that Big Pharma just keeps patenting similar drugs, the big question is why we don't get new breakthrough drugs from other companies? It can't be because of the patents, because Big Pharma isn't researching novel solutions.
Next, go and grab a handful of the essays and debates of the time. It shouldn't be difficult. People were debating the merits of rebellion in person and in print all over the place back then
Surf the net and read some blogs and you'll see the exact same thing happening now.
I want you to ponder whether the son of some (average) working class family today would even be able to read these at all, much less properly analyze, criticize or "think at that level". Again, I imagine you'll be rather surprised.
I would guess its the same as before, pretty much everybody will have an opionion, but only a few really understand all the subtleties. Even the leaders couldn't agree on what they were really fighting for - See the failure of the Articles of Confederation and the differences between Hamilton & Jefferson leading to the two party system.
The Revolutionary War was NOT the result of a few thinkers manipulating the crowds, although I think you can make a strong case of that sort of thing happening here and there (cough.. cough... Boston Tea Party... cough.. cough..). Many people in many corners of the colonies were very ready for independence. Indeed, it was almost certainly inevitable.
All wars are the result of a few thinkers manipulating the crowds, notice how most of the fighters are young & poor - the easiest people to manipulate.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, the FDA shouldn't have to fight things in court. Unless you give them absolute authority, the system breaks down.
Not just unified, but they also vote, sign up people to vote, and are vocal about issues that concern them. There are other groups in the country that are unified in belief, but don't excercise their power at the polls
So yes, R&D does have a relation on the cost of medicines, because the higher priced ones are those which a company has been able to develop and no one else has developed a competitive alternative.
Research funding is like gambling, it isn't about how much you want to spend to strike it big, it's about how much you want to spend on dead-end projects knowing there is a small possibilty for a substantial return.
What $/GB does is give more flexibility to hide charges for long-term revenue growth. If you charge $/GB you can lower your support, and it will be transparent to many people. Those who do use more bandwidth will complain and get the message - "Sorry your connection is slow, but of course you chose to continue with the same payments through the economy plan... now if you upgrade for $20 more you can get the deluxe gold star plan where you will receive the same level of service you got last year"
But I guess it's easier to sit back with a beer, watch the Superbowl, and bitch about how bad things are than actually trying to fix them.
So the US has smaller tubes for internets to flow, they still own a lot of the content that flows through those tubes; it's about time the rest of the world starts to take their equal share.
Candidate priorities are:
Helping those who directly were involved in getting them elected - typically leaders of large special interest groups & high level campaign workers
Helping those who indirectly were involved in getting them elected - contributers
Those who voted for them
Everybody else
So do France, UN, NATO, etc. The first world countries constantly have been getting involved backing corrupt governments or rebels, in countries around the world to protect their own interests. Just because places like Haiti and the Ivory Coast aren't front page doesn't mean there isn't government toppling, and calling an occupying force "UN peacekeepers" doesn't make it any different from US troops in Iraq.
Space in Star Trek is a setting, the same stories could be told underwater ala Seaquest, and in terms of inspiring people CSI has done the same thing.
The cost per pound to launch things into space is still around $10k. And that's for a relatively trivial thing like putting something in orbit. It becomes exponentially more expensive the farther out in space you want to send things. Until we have a means to affordably do something meaningful (not just put a flag down and leave footprints) there is no compelling reason to really push for space exploration. You will see the boom when we can start to harvest raw materials from asteroids, but right now the technology just isn't there.
Space exploration was not booming in the 70's. There were a few very specific propaganda accomplishments. Right now we have people in space for over a year, we have a giant space telescope, we are placing rovers that can be controlled, launching satellites has become a common commercial venture. The stuff that excited people in the 60's, are so common that people don't care. Are you looking for the single "WOW" crowning achievement, or actual development of space exploration.
Has gravity decreased since the 70's? The cost has decreased, but launching things into space requires a number of different technologies. To achieve the breakthrough pricing you're looking for requires breakthroughs in many areas. And while the price per pound hasn't decreased 10x, with more powerful computers, lower weight materials, and other improved technology, the effectiveness per pound launched has gone far beyond 10x.
Reality has muted the dreams of space exploration, just as they have muted those of flying cars - we haven't given up, but it's hard and there's other intereting things to look into for now.
Space is prohibitively expensive, look at who the private sector hobbyists are - extremely rich people who can afford the expense of space tourism or testing their own vehicles.
Why shouldn't we wait? It's like asking why we didn't have a computer in every home in 1950 - too expensive, too slow, and isn't very compelling. Once the technology matures to the point of being accessable, then you will see the space boom.
We are wondering about different things.
For example genetic engineering and medicine are now a driving force for all sorts of research. We looked into space, and just saw more space and rocks that are really expensive to get to, now we look into ourselves and see all kinds of possibilities. The excitement over a couple remote controlled cars on Mars shows there is still excitement about space it is only muted right now since it is so expensive we are very limited in what we can do. Eventually technology will make space easier to reach and the wonderment will be renewed.
Where is the monopoly? All the music/publishing/movie industry has is protection on a very specific item within the industry, of which there are plenty of alternative substitutes for entertainment. It's like complaining that Pepsi has a monopoly on making Pepsi.
Which basically makes the point that the pharms aren't locking other out of the market, the fundamental problem is the long, expensive and bureaucratic government system getting in the way.
It's easy to point the finger and say "evil company sucking all our money" but at the end of the day, it's really the government involvement that is creating the (legal) drug cartels.
I would guess its the same as before, pretty much everybody will have an opionion, but only a few really understand all the subtleties. Even the leaders couldn't agree on what they were really fighting for - See the failure of the Articles of Confederation and the differences between Hamilton & Jefferson leading to the two party system.
All wars are the result of a few thinkers manipulating the crowds, notice how most of the fighters are young & poor - the easiest people to manipulate.