I'm a bit skeptical of setting it to 50%. The accounting reason is one. Another is that, except for marketing dollars, a lot of the other 85% is being spent on unavoidable overhead. If your intent is to eat up profits, then the whole system breaks down for that reason. But maybe a system of tax incentives. For example, profits for certain classes of drugs are not taxed for X years if no patent is applied for or it is surrendered. No patent means increased competition. But no tax means a competitive advantage. A company could dominate a market, but the price they could charge would be capped by market forces. Tilt the field rather than create cliffs.
Note: I've been sole inventor on seminal patents that have led to medical products that are used in a million surgeries each year (not an exaggeration, but I don't see a dime though). I've seen the use of patents from the inside. They really do spur innovation, but not the way most people think. Money funds projects, projects spin out innovation. The decision to do a project is heavily influenced by the ability to build market share large enough to earn a profit. Patents are one way to do that. And I've seen good projects abandoned because we knew we could do it, but we knew everyone could copy before we could recoup the costs. No patent, no innovation. However, we are willing to move onto someone else's turf that has patent protection. Since we can't copy, we have to invent our own technology. Hey! Innovation!
It's a big game. But it works. People moan about patents, but the system does work. What is patentable is certainly a good debate. But patents themselves don't need much in the way of changes.
It was one of the Hero projects of the 1930's and one of the few Lysenko genetic successes. The resulting transgenetic hamster, referred to as a hampster for its inclusion of a THC gene taken from a hemp plant, was a constant companion to Stalin. Besides providing "comfort", the little guy was also personally directed the mass deportation of peasants and intellectuals to Siberia (thus the evil appellation).
All fine and good. Let's be clear: pharmaceutical companies are not altruistic entities. They are not an arm of public policy. They are companies in it for the profit. If they are off researching another boner pill, so be it. Just like millions of other companies not involved in researching drugs for the 3rd world. You might as well insist that the company that makes Chia Pet develop an HIV vaccine. Hey, it's a biotech firm, right?
So what's stopping you from starting your own pharmaceutical company that researches, tests, manufactures, and distributes drugs? Ah, you'd like someone else to front the cash? Fine, be my guest asking for it from anyone that will listen. And good luck to you.
Meanwhile, the patent system and drug companies, as flawed as they are, will be releasing new drugs too. A little sideshow that will actually be doing something.
Personally, I think you could harness that system better. Want cheap AIDS drugs? OK, how about a government act that trades an AIDS drug patent for an extension to one of the boner pill patents? You get unencumbered drugs that have some fine research behind them, and drug companies make tons of money. Heck, drug companies would be falling all over themselves to develop AIDS, malaria, antibiotics, etc.
You've hit what this whole debate is about. The article is about drug companies developing minor modifications to existing drugs and gathering patent protection for them. So what? The older drugs, which work nearly as well (and sometimes better) are cheaper. But people assume the latest and greatest is better and are prepared to pay more. Why? Marketing! The real issue isn't patents, it's folks not making rational health care decisions.
Bzzt. The ones motivated enough to organize a vote are motivated enough to get booze anyway. In an ideal, rational, educated system, you'd be right. But we're talking young folks who are busy trying to get a buzz and don't have time for fancy schmancy politics.
(don't take offense. I'm just yanking your chain)
The value of the currency has not dropped dramatically. As a matter of fact, it is too high by most estimates. And that is because China and other Asian countries are increasing foreign reserves to finance our trade imbalance. The federal deficit is actually less on a percentage basis than Japan and many European countries (France, Italy, Germany, etc).
The reason coins are worth less than the metal is due to the spike in metal prices over the last several years. This you can blame on China for buying up every scrap of iron, aluminum, copper, and anything else they can get. Hey, they've got an expanding economy to feed.
Oil is expensive because Opec got tired of $10 oil and everyone stopped investing in production. Throw in supply instability in Iraq, Nigeria, and Venezula; toss in higher demand from everyone; and you get a spike in oil prices.
The higher euro is due to currency manipulation by Asian countries. Since the dollar is prevented from depreciating, the euro sees an odd effect and becomes overvalued.
And for those of you too lazy to even click: "In the United States, a design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers (see Fig. 1) and computer icons are examples of what can be protected with design patents."
Why would I want to back up my data on a 1 TB disc? So I can stop having copy the files onto almost 3 million 360k floppies! Finally, a worthy reason to ditch this 8086! I've been a bit cautious since spending the money upgrading to the DD drives.
Ironically, the latest studies show that obesity is now more prevalent than starvation worldwide. And it is frequently linked with low income (not just in western countries). Granted, I'd rather die from eating too much chicken than too little.
Also ironic is that studies show that income does not correlate to happiness. It seems that once basic needs are met, the percentage of people that are happy is constant. Again, I'd prefer to be rich and happy than poor and happy. But an interesting stat none the less.
And finally, as someone who has traveled to several dozen countries on 4 continents, I'm rather struck by how the US (and Canada) is not very far ahead of most of the world. We have more stuff, but we're not all that different. Most people aren't being bombed, most people have homes, and most people have food and water. There seems to be a misperception here and in other countries that Americans are to be hated because they are different.
And a final irony for you. Canada is a huge country. Plenty of room to spread out. Yet 90% of the population lives within 200 miles of the US. Seems that not everyone there is a bitter, narrow minded jerk-wad like you. If they were ("no one likes Americans") they'd be living a bit farther north.
After a trip to Aus and NZ I had some left over bills. A little wrinkled, but fit for framing (I've got a frame with currency from about 25 nations). I hadn't paid enough attention to realize they were plastic based (hats off to the folks making them. Great quality)) and ironed a NZ $10. It contracted like a piece of shrink tubing.
1: There must be a dozen data distributions. Normal is only one of them. 2: Choosing a distribution is called an assumption. You can test the assumption. But it's still an assumption. More samples does not eliminate it being an assumption.
Extreme example of poor sampling that can still be useful. What if in 2000 came to earth and asked one American the exact question "Who will be the next president?" There were 290,000,000 americans at the time, at least 100,000,000 qualifying to be president. But instead of a 1 in 100 million chance of finding the right answer, you had a nearly 1 in 2 chance of hearing the right answer. Bad sampling, terrible statistics, but useful data. Now sampling a dozen people would be better. But strangely, sampling ALL of them still left pollsters with a 50-50 probability of knowing the right answer for weeks.
Sample size is useful, but it's just another assumption.
While I think your test protocol would work better, I still have to take issue with claiming 55 articles is not statistically significant sample size. Even tests with 1 data point are statistically valid, just with no confidence. 3 is a nice start if you have variable data. You can start making some statistical predictions. 30 is a common sample size used by people, but only because s and sigma are closely converged. My point is that statistics don't care about the sample size. Significance is in the eye of the beholder and is determined independent of sample size (and hopefully set a priori). Your chances of the results being significant increase with sample size, but the sample size itself is neutral.
From the wikipedia article on experts: "The opposite of an expert is generally known as a layperson."
And defines layperson as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layperson (until someone corrects it).
Which seems to imply that only clergy are experts.
Industry doesn't want unsafe reactors. There's no money in that. It's often the multiple layers of safety features and procedures at nuclear power plants that make them more unsafe. For example, Three Mile Island mistakes were traced to a safety tag flopping down over the gage that indicated a problem. The shear complexity added by all the safety features makes monitoring very difficult.
But other designs don't require the safety systems. Pebble bed reactors for instance. Tests in Germany over a decade ago showed that they system was self regulating in the event of a breakdown of all the other systems.
So why do we use less safe designs? Because of regulations. Regulations that say you have to use the old designs.
Well, in the case of Chernobyl there was an inherent "unsafety." Using a graphite moderator lead to the fire and explosion. Plus no containment shell. Kind of like building a stove out of wood and not putting a wall between it and the rest of your furniture.
He noted that American and European manufactures have a cost that Chinese manufacturers don't. You seem to be under some delusion that American industry pollutes far more per unit of product that anybody else. Americans consume tons of crap we shouldn't, and can fairly take the blame for that (i.e. we are the impetus for pollution, though not necessarily the source). But as for pollution per unit of production, we're about the same as Europe. China doesn't compare so well. What, you think they have some magic method that lets them manufacture without making toxics? Nope. As a matter of fact, they use dirtier processes AND fewer emission controls. The net release to the environment from China is actually higher even in absolute terms than the US or Europe in many categories.
So here's the dude's point rephrased: assuming consumption remains constant, it's a net pollution increase to encourage more products to be made where there is more pollution per unit of production. Use tarrifs to encourage production where there is less pollution per unit of production.
But if you'd like to use your bad assumptions and math, by all means do. But keep it to yourself.
And for your phobia of trangenetics, uh, you've never heard of endogenetic viruses have you? Dude! You're transgenic, your cat is, your dog is, the organic vegetables and grains you eat are. Born that way. Ever caught a cold or flu? Hey, you just became a little more transgenic.
It's not cavitation. Cavitation is entirely different both in its source and its action. This is bubbling air around a ship. Not huge frothing masses that will interfere with the prop. And it won't necessarily make a ship sit lower. It will likely make it sit higher. Air under the hull will add an upward force.
If it all worked the way you thought, you'd be right. But it doesn't, so you're wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a bit skeptical of setting it to 50%. The accounting reason is one. Another is that, except for marketing dollars, a lot of the other 85% is being spent on unavoidable overhead. If your intent is to eat up profits, then the whole system breaks down for that reason. But maybe a system of tax incentives. For example, profits for certain classes of drugs are not taxed for X years if no patent is applied for or it is surrendered. No patent means increased competition. But no tax means a competitive advantage. A company could dominate a market, but the price they could charge would be capped by market forces. Tilt the field rather than create cliffs.
Note: I've been sole inventor on seminal patents that have led to medical products that are used in a million surgeries each year (not an exaggeration, but I don't see a dime though). I've seen the use of patents from the inside. They really do spur innovation, but not the way most people think. Money funds projects, projects spin out innovation. The decision to do a project is heavily influenced by the ability to build market share large enough to earn a profit. Patents are one way to do that. And I've seen good projects abandoned because we knew we could do it, but we knew everyone could copy before we could recoup the costs. No patent, no innovation. However, we are willing to move onto someone else's turf that has patent protection. Since we can't copy, we have to invent our own technology. Hey! Innovation!
It's a big game. But it works. People moan about patents, but the system does work. What is patentable is certainly a good debate. But patents themselves don't need much in the way of changes.
It was one of the Hero projects of the 1930's and one of the few Lysenko genetic successes. The resulting transgenetic hamster, referred to as a hampster for its inclusion of a THC gene taken from a hemp plant, was a constant companion to Stalin. Besides providing "comfort", the little guy was also personally directed the mass deportation of peasants and intellectuals to Siberia (thus the evil appellation).
With all the close elections lately, #3 isn't isn't the certainty it once was. But you certainly get a gold star for #1 & #2.
All fine and good. Let's be clear: pharmaceutical companies are not altruistic entities. They are not an arm of public policy. They are companies in it for the profit. If they are off researching another boner pill, so be it. Just like millions of other companies not involved in researching drugs for the 3rd world. You might as well insist that the company that makes Chia Pet develop an HIV vaccine. Hey, it's a biotech firm, right? So what's stopping you from starting your own pharmaceutical company that researches, tests, manufactures, and distributes drugs? Ah, you'd like someone else to front the cash? Fine, be my guest asking for it from anyone that will listen. And good luck to you. Meanwhile, the patent system and drug companies, as flawed as they are, will be releasing new drugs too. A little sideshow that will actually be doing something. Personally, I think you could harness that system better. Want cheap AIDS drugs? OK, how about a government act that trades an AIDS drug patent for an extension to one of the boner pill patents? You get unencumbered drugs that have some fine research behind them, and drug companies make tons of money. Heck, drug companies would be falling all over themselves to develop AIDS, malaria, antibiotics, etc.
You've hit what this whole debate is about. The article is about drug companies developing minor modifications to existing drugs and gathering patent protection for them. So what? The older drugs, which work nearly as well (and sometimes better) are cheaper. But people assume the latest and greatest is better and are prepared to pay more. Why? Marketing! The real issue isn't patents, it's folks not making rational health care decisions.
Bzzt. The ones motivated enough to organize a vote are motivated enough to get booze anyway. In an ideal, rational, educated system, you'd be right. But we're talking young folks who are busy trying to get a buzz and don't have time for fancy schmancy politics. (don't take offense. I'm just yanking your chain)
Why aren't 18-20 year olds voting as a block to change the drinking laws?
The value of the currency has not dropped dramatically. As a matter of fact, it is too high by most estimates. And that is because China and other Asian countries are increasing foreign reserves to finance our trade imbalance. The federal deficit is actually less on a percentage basis than Japan and many European countries (France, Italy, Germany, etc).
The reason coins are worth less than the metal is due to the spike in metal prices over the last several years. This you can blame on China for buying up every scrap of iron, aluminum, copper, and anything else they can get. Hey, they've got an expanding economy to feed.
Oil is expensive because Opec got tired of $10 oil and everyone stopped investing in production. Throw in supply instability in Iraq, Nigeria, and Venezula; toss in higher demand from everyone; and you get a spike in oil prices.
The higher euro is due to currency manipulation by Asian countries. Since the dollar is prevented from depreciating, the euro sees an odd effect and becomes overvalued.
Since so many people are confused as to what a design patent is :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
And for those of you too lazy to even click: "In the United States, a design patent is a patent granted on the ornamental design of a functional item. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers (see Fig. 1) and computer icons are examples of what can be protected with design patents."
Why would I want to back up my data on a 1 TB disc? So I can stop having copy the files onto almost 3 million 360k floppies! Finally, a worthy reason to ditch this 8086! I've been a bit cautious since spending the money upgrading to the DD drives.
They whip out the OEM image CD and reinstall. The down side is they have to get rid of all those AOL icons and replace Norton AV each time.
Ironically, the latest studies show that obesity is now more prevalent than starvation worldwide. And it is frequently linked with low income (not just in western countries). Granted, I'd rather die from eating too much chicken than too little.
Also ironic is that studies show that income does not correlate to happiness. It seems that once basic needs are met, the percentage of people that are happy is constant. Again, I'd prefer to be rich and happy than poor and happy. But an interesting stat none the less.
And finally, as someone who has traveled to several dozen countries on 4 continents, I'm rather struck by how the US (and Canada) is not very far ahead of most of the world. We have more stuff, but we're not all that different. Most people aren't being bombed, most people have homes, and most people have food and water. There seems to be a misperception here and in other countries that Americans are to be hated because they are different.
And a final irony for you. Canada is a huge country. Plenty of room to spread out. Yet 90% of the population lives within 200 miles of the US. Seems that not everyone there is a bitter, narrow minded jerk-wad like you. If they were ("no one likes Americans") they'd be living a bit farther north.
The first time was when a researcher about 10 years ago (give or take 10) claimed they were poured because he found a human hair embedded in one.
After a trip to Aus and NZ I had some left over bills. A little wrinkled, but fit for framing (I've got a frame with currency from about 25 nations). I hadn't paid enough attention to realize they were plastic based (hats off to the folks making them. Great quality)) and ironed a NZ $10. It contracted like a piece of shrink tubing.
I stopped in a few weeks back to buy some and some Russian dude in line ahead of me bought the last of it.
1: There must be a dozen data distributions. Normal is only one of them.
2: Choosing a distribution is called an assumption. You can test the assumption. But it's still an assumption. More samples does not eliminate it being an assumption.
Extreme example of poor sampling that can still be useful. What if in 2000 came to earth and asked one American the exact question "Who will be the next president?" There were 290,000,000 americans at the time, at least 100,000,000 qualifying to be president. But instead of a 1 in 100 million chance of finding the right answer, you had a nearly 1 in 2 chance of hearing the right answer. Bad sampling, terrible statistics, but useful data. Now sampling a dozen people would be better. But strangely, sampling ALL of them still left pollsters with a 50-50 probability of knowing the right answer for weeks.
Sample size is useful, but it's just another assumption.
While I think your test protocol would work better, I still have to take issue with claiming 55 articles is not statistically significant sample size. Even tests with 1 data point are statistically valid, just with no confidence. 3 is a nice start if you have variable data. You can start making some statistical predictions. 30 is a common sample size used by people, but only because s and sigma are closely converged. My point is that statistics don't care about the sample size. Significance is in the eye of the beholder and is determined independent of sample size (and hopefully set a priori). Your chances of the results being significant increase with sample size, but the sample size itself is neutral.
I honestly hope we don't enact restrictions like Europe (and elsewhere) http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-02-26-euro pe-free-speech_x.htm.
"If the Constitution doesn't protect scum like me, it doesn't protect anybody."---Larry Flint.
Did you click on the link for layperson? Check out where wikipedia redirects you. Pretty funny, eh?
From the wikipedia article on experts: "The opposite of an expert is generally known as a layperson." And defines layperson as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layperson (until someone corrects it). Which seems to imply that only clergy are experts.
They were reviewing the articles on Ramen and sleep deprivation.
Industry doesn't want unsafe reactors. There's no money in that. It's often the multiple layers of safety features and procedures at nuclear power plants that make them more unsafe. For example, Three Mile Island mistakes were traced to a safety tag flopping down over the gage that indicated a problem. The shear complexity added by all the safety features makes monitoring very difficult.
But other designs don't require the safety systems. Pebble bed reactors for instance. Tests in Germany over a decade ago showed that they system was self regulating in the event of a breakdown of all the other systems.
So why do we use less safe designs? Because of regulations. Regulations that say you have to use the old designs.
Well, in the case of Chernobyl there was an inherent "unsafety." Using a graphite moderator lead to the fire and explosion. Plus no containment shell. Kind of like building a stove out of wood and not putting a wall between it and the rest of your furniture.
He noted that American and European manufactures have a cost that Chinese manufacturers don't. You seem to be under some delusion that American industry pollutes far more per unit of product that anybody else. Americans consume tons of crap we shouldn't, and can fairly take the blame for that (i.e. we are the impetus for pollution, though not necessarily the source). But as for pollution per unit of production, we're about the same as Europe. China doesn't compare so well. What, you think they have some magic method that lets them manufacture without making toxics? Nope. As a matter of fact, they use dirtier processes AND fewer emission controls. The net release to the environment from China is actually higher even in absolute terms than the US or Europe in many categories. So here's the dude's point rephrased: assuming consumption remains constant, it's a net pollution increase to encourage more products to be made where there is more pollution per unit of production. Use tarrifs to encourage production where there is less pollution per unit of production. But if you'd like to use your bad assumptions and math, by all means do. But keep it to yourself. And for your phobia of trangenetics, uh, you've never heard of endogenetic viruses have you? Dude! You're transgenic, your cat is, your dog is, the organic vegetables and grains you eat are. Born that way. Ever caught a cold or flu? Hey, you just became a little more transgenic.
It's not cavitation. Cavitation is entirely different both in its source and its action. This is bubbling air around a ship. Not huge frothing masses that will interfere with the prop. And it won't necessarily make a ship sit lower. It will likely make it sit higher. Air under the hull will add an upward force.
If it all worked the way you thought, you'd be right. But it doesn't, so you're wrong.