And if this practice becomes wide-spread, such that drug development slows for lack of prospective profits, will YOU step in and donate your time/energy/money to develop new drugs?
Or will you quietly slink away into your corner and plead "it's not my fault those greedy bastards went out of business".
Who is preventing you from pursuing drug development for your (claimed) noble purpose?
The point is: what are the rights of the producers of a given drug (bridge, piece of software, etc.)?
The only answer appropriate to a free society is: they can do with their product exactly as they see fit, so long as they are not infringing the legitimate rights of others in the process. (And, to claim that one of the "legitimate rights of others" is for free/cheap/easy access to this product is to annihilate the concept of rights per se.)
To summarize: if you want to give away the drug you develop for free "so that people won't suffer", noone should be able to prevent you. But, neither should you, or the majority, or the dictator, or whomever, have the right to force someone else to provide their drug on any other terms than they are willing.
Israel and Japan have an entirely different approach to granting patents which might appeal to the Slashdot crowd: Submitted applications are published for public comment! Thus, an application is thoroughly vetted before being granted. Basically, everyone interested can do a peer-reviewed prior art search. The resulting patents are pretty darn litigation proof.
This obviously discourages frivolous applications. It may also discourage some good applications, since the method is no longer kept secret while third parties can attempt to thwart the app for their own ill-motivated ends. Still, maybe this would be an improvement, especially for software patents, where things are obviously out of control.
Israel grants automatic citizenship to halachic Jews (born to Jewish mothers) who ask for it. This is therefore not mysterious.
> [8] Tank commander.
Israel requires military service of the vast majority of able-bodied citizens. A tank commander would usually be a very intelligent person, and perfectly likely to now have a University degree is a technical field. This is therefore not mysterious.
Unsurprisingly, the AFL-CIO/CWA has taken a special interest in direct opposition to the general interest of the American citizenry. And, even less surprisingly, the hordes of economically uneducated Slashdot readers have responded with support for this essentially protectionist position.
Within the constraints of legitimate national security concerns, the freer the labor market, the more wealth an economy produces. The fundamental mechanism is that you can produce more stuff for less money. (All the complaints about not wanting some stuff to be produced are answered by more - not less - property rights, but that is another discussion.) This wealth then spreads throughout the economy making everyone better off. You can certainly protect the jobs of some American IT workers by reducing the inflow of competition from abroad. But, you will pay the price in less economic efficiency. This is another example of the way that free-market interests align with international cooperation, despite the fashionable ideas to the contrary.
An excellent explanation of the "what is seen and what is not seen" phenomenon - with examples in many other areas of economics can be found in the book "Economics is One Lesson", by Henry Hazlitt. Type it into Amazon.
Thank you for expressing so clearly the essence of the environmentalist credo: Humans right have no more moral import than the "rights" of non-human animals, plants, bacteria, etc.
Seems like a pretty interesting way to use technology to help the environment, which isn't something you see everyday.
You may not see it everyday, but perhaps your eyes aren't sufficiently open.
Think about big general trends: What aspect of modern life has the most significant impact on the size of woodlands and forests? It's the need to feed a growing population! From around 1850 to the turn of the 20th century, millions of acres of trees were cleared in order to make way for farmland.
1850: ~13 acres of farmland per person 1990: ~1 acre of farmland per person
And, this is with the U.S. now having gobs of surplus agricultural production to help feed the rest of the world! True, the report shows that a significant portion of this farmland became (sub)urbia. But, that is how a growing population distributes itself. Imagine how much worse it would have been for the forests had we needed to maintain that 13ac/person.
And what allowed this miracle to happen? It wasn't people sitting up in trees, that's for sure. It was technology, including machinery, pesticides, irrigation, and lately, lots of information technology to help with more efficient planting and harvesting protocols.
All this, in addition to the fact that only rich societies can even afford to care about such luxuries as old-growth forests. To the vast majority of the world, such concerns are trivialities. In a real sense, it is only technology which allows these tree-sitters to exist at all.
I thought that some of this "warmth" would be to to the frequency-response of the stylus mechanism (essentially, a low-pass filtering due to mechanical damping), and, to a lesser extent, the low-pass caused by wearing of the grooves in the vinyl itself.
Anyone know of any research to confirm/debunk this?
I was waiting for a comment on this well-known aspect of Einstein's views. I credit the poster for implicitly acknowledging that this perspective is a matter of both his and Einstein's opinion, and does not deserve any special credence because of the source. This is important, as, in today's impoverished intellectual climate, people often reach to the source of a viewpoint in order to validate it, without considering the supporting arguments.
In this area, Einstein was simply regurgitating a "sense" and "feeling" he had derived from powerful political/social forces which were in the air during his formative years. In his comments and writings on the subject, he shows no special grasp of the issues. Indeed, his naivity and lack of moral judgement are glaring.
Einstein was a brilliant physicist, but this has no bearing on the validity of his politics.
I would like to think the actual logic went something like:
1) Microsoft offers products people like to use/buy in the market, causing some businesses pain, and others to flourish. Mostly, it promotes the diffusion of information technology throughout the American and world economy. 2) The government inserts its coercive nose into this situation, seemingly helping some of Microsoft's direct competitors, but in reality raising the specter of intrusive meddling in the computer business, and the accompanying distortions and uncertainty. And, by the way, those competitors do little (if any) innovating of their own during the long period in which Microsoft is on trial. 3) After a settlement is reached, the market breathes a general sigh of relief in the (probably vain) hope that this will mean the end of these shenanigans. Maybe now everyone will get back to business.
But, the parent is probably right that this is just the usual short-term market madness. I predict Sun et. al. will continue their gradual decline as long as their primary corporate vision seems to be "whine about Microsoft".
It's only in the last few months that people have been able to "come out" against the warmongers in the administration without being shouted down as "terrorist-lovers".
Another slashdotter confused about the meaning of freedom: If being shouted down is enough to cause one to be timid about expressing their views, then they are lacking in courage, not freedom. And free speech/press cannot mean that others must provide you with the means. That would obviously be a violation of their speech rights.
Or are you willing to let me put up an "Oust Saddam Now!" sign on your house?
I never said that Gates was a principled advocate of my views of the constitution. Actually, it is pretty clear that Gates is not a principled advocate of any position. He is quite the modern pragmatist, trying to muddle through in our labyrinthine legal system as best as his money and lawyers will allow. Indeed, I am arguing that this system promotes such Gatesian shenanigans, because the law is so ambiguous.
The following are all prosecutable offences under the Sherman and Clayton acts, and have indeed all been prosecuted against, in some cases with the same defendant:
- Charging too high a price. - Charging too low a price. - Competing too strongly against a competitor. - Being too cooperative with a competitor. - Not revealing the inner workings of a product publicly. - Revealing the inner workings of a product publicly.
seems to be that judges should be allowed to speak their minds in public AND that such pronouncements should not be legally distinguished from statements they make in court.
This seems fine to me, as long as defendants reserve the right to enter the public pronouncements in the official trial record and to respond to them, and base appeals on them, if appropriate. Judicial transparency is good; it contributes to open dialog in a free society. That's what Jackson seems to be saying.
It would be hypocritical, however, to argue that these public statements should be off-limits for defendants (or prosecutors, for that matter). You couldn't have it both ways.
In this case, as many have pointed out, the public statements in fact worked to the defendant's advantage, in that they demonstrated an extra-judicial (i.e. outside the law) bias against Microsoft, based largely on personalities and attitudes, instead of of definable illegal behaviors.
As someone who believes the entire antitrust law to be unconstutional, because it is nearly impossible for a given company to determine ahead of time if a given action is legal or not, I am in favor of judges like Jackson showing their true colors as publicly as possible. I believe this will tend to show that most antitrust prosecutions are based on envy and resentment, not on any objective reading of the law.
As with all appropriations bills, this one originated in the House. I've heard this highway bill called Tip O'Neil's farewell gift to the Commonwealth (hah, there's an oxymoron, for you) of Massachusetts.
The extreme and growing politicization of science we have observed over the past ~50 years is the direct result of the rapid growth of government funding of science during the same period. He that pays the piper calls the tune.
The only fundamental solution to this problem is the complete separation of science (and, as a corollary, economics) from the state, for the same reasons we should maintain a complete separation of church and state: To compel a man to pay for the support of ideas which he finds abhorrent is immoral. The state is force; science requires reason. Force and reason do not mix.
To those that say that ALL science is political, since it is practiced by humans: This is in essence an argument that discovering objective truth is impossible. It is pointless to argue with such a self-refuting contention. Suffice it to say that this argument does in fact lead logically to a constant state of pressure-group warfare, exactly as we observe today in Washington and state capitols throughout the country.
The scientific method - exposing hypotheses to repeatable experiments in an atmosphere of free and unfettered inquiry - has succeeded enormously in advancing the search for truth and improving lives since the enlightenment. Most of this advancement occurred without coercive funding. While it is possible to promote progress in certain areas with targetted government funding, the systemic cost to freedom, truth, and overall progress is unacceptable.
It is clear that you believe that artists should be free to share their creations with the public, without the music industry as intermediary.
Do you also believe that artists should be free to NOT share? If an artist (of whatever caliber or popularity) feels that noone should get their product with paying, should that wish be respected? Should violators of that wish be subject to penalty/prosecution?
Re:One of my favourite quotes...
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
Makes us look like wusses, throwing it all away in the face of the relatively very minor threats we face in 2002.
I disagree with your assessment of the threat. At those earlier times, there were no chemical, biological, radiation, and nuclear weapons which could be used to wreak substantial destruction against our civilian population.
That being said, I agree that these threats do not justify abrogating our rights. And, I would argue that there need NOT be any conflict between our objective rights and true security.
Clearly, all "communicated" dissent should be tolerated by the government. This obviously does not include advocacy of the violent overflow of the United States, which has moved from communication to the threat of force (i.e. the violation of the individual rights of others).
Nor, does it prevent individual citizens from criticizing this dissent in the strongest possible terms. One's right to free speech does not mean that you are free from such criticism. If it did, then my free speech rights would obviously be violated. And, when government officials speak, they should also be allowed to make arguments against these dissenting views, without treading into threats and intimidation against the holders of those views.
As for what the government should be doing to increase our security, I can think of a few possibilities:
- Formerly declare war (with a congressional declaration) against Al-Qaeda, with a well-defined endpoint for this war being that no governments in the world are supplying aid and comfort to any Al-Qaeda members.
- Cut off diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia unless they hand over anyone involved in or planning terrorism against the U.S.
- Give consistent moral support Israel's efforts to wipe out Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al Aksa Martyr's.
- Declare war against Iraq and remove the Baath party from power.
- Tell the current Iranian regime that they will be next unless they turn over anyone involved in or planning attacks against the U.S. or its citizens.
None of these actions would violate any American citizens constitutional rights. And all of them would go a long way toward improving our security. Moreover, such actions would send a clear message to anyone within the U.S. involved in planning attacks against us. If carried out consistently, such policies would make it very difficult for such internal enemies to finance and organize their operations.
Re:This reminds me of a business idea ...
on
Speaking in Tongues
·
· Score: 1
... involving extremely cunning linguists creating *brand new* languages
Boy, I can't tell you how long I've been waiting for a post containing those two words.
I'd be happy to see a list of cases where individual freedom was held in higher esteem than corporate interests.
Just to pile on... (I can't believe this is still sitting at "Insightful"):
Corporations are simply a collection of individuals who have voluntarily agreed to join forces. As long as they are pursuing peaceful ends (and, please, no confused blather that one is "forced" to buy Windows, or Office, or a computer, for that matter), these individuals are constitutionally protected in their activities. So, this conflict between "individual freedom" and "corporate interests" is a chimera, a logical fallacy. When you restrict the non-coercive activities of corporations, you are impeding the free association rights of the individuals which comprise the corporation.
Your statement (and many like it) assumes the general public is idiotic and incompetent, unable to discern what they really want in a product.
When will the zealots realize that the definition of a "good" product has many dimensions, appealing to the great diversity of desires in the marketplace?
Stop whining. If you don't want to make what the masses want, fine. Make what you want. But, then don't complain that the masses are stupid.
I think what your saying is NOT that diagnosis is easy, but that the PRODUCT of time_spent_diagnosing X difficulty_of_diagnosing is a small fraction of the time_spent_doing_other_things X difficulty_doing_other_things.
This may be true. However, you could still get a net benefit from making the diagnosing easier (depending on the cost of the system in dollars AND in time to use it). And, as others have pointed out, sometimes the cost of a misdiagnosis is very high, so the expected benefit might be larger than your gut tells you.
And, I would redudndantly chime in that this should NOT be a replacement for the MD's judgement, but should just be used to ensure that the search is thorough.
The WWF is a non-profit organisation, they are not in this to make money but to preserve the earth for future generations.
There are many egregious errors in your post, but this is perhaps the most naive statement therein. What the WWF and other enviro organizations are after is: <b> power </b>. They want the power to control my life (and yours, by the way), through coercion. Also, their staffers get paid; don't let the "non-profit" misnomer mislead you into thinking they're working for free.
Silicon Valley Power's website is singularly uninformative regarding its financial condition, the source of its power, or any subsidies it receives.
However, one can be sure that, independent of who OWNs the power, the laws of supply and demand cannot be overturned.
In a publicly owned utility, it is certainly possible to provide customers with below-market electricity rates, and even to absorb financial losses, so long as the property tax allocations keep rolling in. That these losses are hidden does not change the fact that they exist.
Read Hazlitt's 'Economic in One Lesson' if you want to get enlightened about "what is seen and what is not seen" in macroeconomics.
Slashdot Mirror
And if this practice becomes wide-spread, such that drug development slows for lack of prospective profits, will YOU step in and donate your time/energy/money to develop new drugs?
Or will you quietly slink away into your corner and plead "it's not my fault those greedy bastards went out of business".
Who is preventing you from pursuing drug development for your (claimed) noble purpose?
The point is: what are the rights of the producers of a given drug (bridge, piece of software, etc.)?
The only answer appropriate to a free society is: they can do with their product exactly as they see fit, so long as they are not infringing the legitimate rights of others in the process. (And, to claim that one of the "legitimate rights of others" is for free/cheap/easy access to this product is to annihilate the concept of rights per se.)
To summarize: if you want to give away the drug you develop for free "so that people won't suffer", noone should be able to prevent you. But, neither should you, or the majority, or the dictator, or whomever, have the right to force someone else to provide their drug on any other terms than they are willing.
Israel and Japan have an entirely different approach to granting patents which might appeal to the Slashdot crowd: Submitted applications are published for public comment! Thus, an application is thoroughly vetted before being granted. Basically, everyone interested can do a peer-reviewed prior art search. The resulting patents are pretty darn litigation proof.
This obviously discourages frivolous applications. It may also discourage some good applications, since the method is no longer kept secret while third parties can attempt to thwart the app for their own ill-motivated ends. Still, maybe this would be an improvement, especially for software patents, where things are obviously out of control.
> [7] dual Israeli-US citizenship
Israel grants automatic citizenship to halachic Jews (born to Jewish mothers) who ask for it. This is therefore not mysterious.
> [8] Tank commander.
Israel requires military service of the vast majority of able-bodied citizens. A tank commander would usually be a very intelligent person, and perfectly likely to now have a University degree is a technical field. This is therefore not mysterious.
Really?
Or does the 10-3 clinch it for you?
Unsurprisingly, the AFL-CIO/CWA has taken a special interest in direct opposition to the general interest of the American citizenry. And, even less surprisingly, the hordes of economically uneducated Slashdot readers have responded with support for this essentially protectionist position.
Within the constraints of legitimate national security concerns, the freer the labor market, the more wealth an economy produces. The fundamental mechanism is that you can produce more stuff for less money. (All the complaints about not wanting some stuff to be produced are answered by more - not less - property rights, but that is another discussion.) This wealth then spreads throughout the economy making everyone better off. You can certainly protect the jobs of some American IT workers by reducing the inflow of competition from abroad. But, you will pay the price in less economic efficiency. This is another example of the way that free-market interests align with international cooperation, despite the fashionable ideas to the contrary.
An excellent explanation of the "what is seen and what is not seen" phenomenon - with examples in many other areas of economics can be found in the book "Economics is One Lesson", by Henry Hazlitt. Type it into Amazon.
Thank you for expressing so clearly the essence of the environmentalist credo: Humans right have no more moral import than the "rights" of non-human animals, plants, bacteria, etc.
At that point, the conversation ends.
Seems like a pretty interesting way to use technology to help the environment, which isn't something you see everyday.
You may not see it everyday, but perhaps your eyes aren't sufficiently open.
Think about big general trends: What aspect of modern life has the most significant impact on the size of woodlands and forests? It's the need to feed a growing population! From around 1850 to the turn of the 20th century, millions of acres of trees were cleared in order to make way for farmland.
Now take a look at this report from the USGS.
Looking at the text I calculate the following:
1850: ~13 acres of farmland per person
1990: ~1 acre of farmland per person
And, this is with the U.S. now having gobs of surplus agricultural production to help feed the rest of the world! True, the report shows that a significant portion of this farmland became (sub)urbia. But, that is how a growing population distributes itself. Imagine how much worse it would have been for the forests had we needed to maintain that 13ac/person.
And what allowed this miracle to happen? It wasn't people sitting up in trees, that's for sure. It was technology, including machinery, pesticides, irrigation, and lately, lots of information technology to help with more efficient planting and harvesting protocols.
All this, in addition to the fact that only rich societies can even afford to care about such luxuries as old-growth forests. To the vast majority of the world, such concerns are trivialities. In a real sense, it is only technology which allows these tree-sitters to exist at all.
I thought that some of this "warmth" would be to to the frequency-response of the stylus mechanism (essentially, a low-pass filtering due to mechanical damping), and, to a lesser extent, the low-pass caused by wearing of the grooves in the vinyl itself.
Anyone know of any research to confirm/debunk this?
I was waiting for a comment on this well-known aspect of Einstein's views. I credit the poster for implicitly acknowledging that this perspective is a matter of both his and Einstein's opinion, and does not deserve any special credence because of the source. This is important, as, in today's impoverished intellectual climate, people often reach to the source of a viewpoint in order to validate it, without considering the supporting arguments.
In this area, Einstein was simply regurgitating a "sense" and "feeling" he had derived from powerful political/social forces which were in the air during his formative years. In his comments and writings on the subject, he shows no special grasp of the issues. Indeed, his naivity and lack of moral judgement are glaring.
Einstein was a brilliant physicist, but this has no bearing on the validity of his politics.
I would like to think the actual logic went something like:
1) Microsoft offers products people like to use/buy in the market, causing some businesses pain, and others to flourish. Mostly, it promotes the diffusion of information technology throughout the American and world economy.
2) The government inserts its coercive nose into this situation, seemingly helping some of Microsoft's direct competitors, but in reality raising the specter of intrusive meddling in the computer business, and the accompanying distortions and uncertainty. And, by the way, those competitors do little (if any) innovating of their own during the long period in which Microsoft is on trial.
3) After a settlement is reached, the market breathes a general sigh of relief in the (probably vain) hope that this will mean the end of these shenanigans. Maybe now everyone will get back to business.
But, the parent is probably right that this is just the usual short-term market madness. I predict Sun et. al. will continue their gradual decline as long as their primary corporate vision seems to be "whine about Microsoft".
It's only in the last few months that people have been able to "come out" against the warmongers in the administration without being shouted down as "terrorist-lovers".
Another slashdotter confused about the meaning of freedom: If being shouted down is enough to cause one to be timid about expressing their views, then they are lacking in courage, not freedom. And free speech/press cannot mean that others must provide you with the means. That would obviously be a violation of their speech rights.
Or are you willing to let me put up an "Oust Saddam Now!" sign on your house?
Gandhi and King did jail time. So should Gates.
I never said that Gates was a principled advocate of my views of the constitution. Actually, it is pretty clear that Gates is not a principled advocate of any position. He is quite the modern pragmatist, trying to muddle through in our labyrinthine legal system as best as his money and lawyers will allow. Indeed, I am arguing that this system promotes such Gatesian shenanigans, because the law is so ambiguous.
The following are all prosecutable offences under the Sherman and Clayton acts, and have indeed all been prosecuted against, in some cases with the same defendant:
- Charging too high a price.
- Charging too low a price.
- Competing too strongly against a competitor.
- Being too cooperative with a competitor.
- Not revealing the inner workings of a product publicly.
- Revealing the inner workings of a product publicly.
You get the idea.
seems to be that judges should be allowed to speak their minds in public AND that such pronouncements should not be legally distinguished from statements they make in court.
This seems fine to me, as long as defendants reserve the right to enter the public pronouncements in the official trial record and to respond to them, and base appeals on them, if appropriate. Judicial transparency is good; it contributes to open dialog in a free society. That's what Jackson seems to be saying.
It would be hypocritical, however, to argue that these public statements should be off-limits for defendants (or prosecutors, for that matter). You couldn't have it both ways.
In this case, as many have pointed out, the public statements in fact worked to the defendant's advantage, in that they demonstrated an extra-judicial (i.e. outside the law) bias against Microsoft, based largely on personalities and attitudes, instead of of definable illegal behaviors.
As someone who believes the entire antitrust law to be unconstutional, because it is nearly impossible for a given company to determine ahead of time if a given action is legal or not, I am in favor of judges like Jackson showing their true colors as publicly as possible. I believe this will tend to show that most antitrust prosecutions are based on envy and resentment, not on any objective reading of the law.
As with all appropriations bills, this one originated in the House. I've heard this highway bill called Tip O'Neil's farewell gift to the Commonwealth (hah, there's an oxymoron, for you) of Massachusetts.
However, obviously Ted slammed it home.
The extreme and growing politicization of science we have observed over the past ~50 years is the direct result of the rapid growth of government funding of science during the same period. He that pays the piper calls the tune.
The only fundamental solution to this problem is the complete separation of science (and, as a corollary, economics) from the state, for the same reasons we should maintain a complete separation of church and state: To compel a man to pay for the support of ideas which he finds abhorrent is immoral. The state is force; science requires reason. Force and reason do not mix.
To those that say that ALL science is political, since it is practiced by humans: This is in essence an argument that discovering objective truth is impossible. It is pointless to argue with such a self-refuting contention. Suffice it to say that this argument does in fact lead logically to a constant state of pressure-group warfare, exactly as we observe today in Washington and state capitols throughout the country.
The scientific method - exposing hypotheses to repeatable experiments in an atmosphere of free and unfettered inquiry - has succeeded enormously in advancing the search for truth and improving lives since the enlightenment. Most of this advancement occurred without coercive funding. While it is possible to promote progress in certain areas with targetted government funding, the systemic cost to freedom, truth, and overall progress is unacceptable.
Real scientists should just say no to grants.
That should of course say
..."
"... without paying
It is clear that you believe that artists should be free to share their creations with the public, without the music industry as intermediary.
Do you also believe that artists should be free to NOT share? If an artist (of whatever caliber or popularity) feels that noone should get their product with paying, should that wish be respected? Should violators of that wish be subject to penalty/prosecution?
Makes us look like wusses, throwing it all away in the face of the relatively very minor threats we face in 2002.
I disagree with your assessment of the threat. At those earlier times, there were no chemical, biological, radiation, and nuclear weapons which could be used to wreak substantial destruction against our civilian population.
That being said, I agree that these threats do not justify abrogating our rights. And, I would argue that there need NOT be any conflict between our objective rights and true security.
Clearly, all "communicated" dissent should be tolerated by the government. This obviously does not include advocacy of the violent overflow of the United States, which has moved from communication to the threat of force (i.e. the violation of the individual rights of others).
Nor, does it prevent individual citizens from criticizing this dissent in the strongest possible terms. One's right to free speech does not mean that you are free from such criticism. If it did, then my free speech rights would obviously be violated. And, when government officials speak, they should also be allowed to make arguments against these dissenting views, without treading into threats and intimidation against the holders of those views.
As for what the government should be doing to increase our security, I can think of a few possibilities:
- Formerly declare war (with a congressional declaration) against Al-Qaeda, with a well-defined endpoint for this war being that no governments in the world are supplying aid and comfort to any Al-Qaeda members.
- Cut off diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia unless they hand over anyone involved in or planning terrorism against the U.S.
- Give consistent moral support Israel's efforts to wipe out Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al Aksa Martyr's.
- Declare war against Iraq and remove the Baath party from power.
- Tell the current Iranian regime that they will be next unless they turn over anyone involved in or planning attacks against the U.S. or its citizens.
None of these actions would violate any American citizens constitutional rights. And all of them would go a long way toward improving our security. Moreover, such actions would send a clear message to anyone within the U.S. involved in planning attacks against us. If carried out consistently, such policies would make it very difficult for such internal enemies to finance and organize their operations.
Boy, I can't tell you how long I've been waiting for a post containing those two words.
I'd be happy to see a list of cases where individual freedom was held in higher esteem than corporate interests.
... (I can't believe this is still sitting at "Insightful"):
Just to pile on
Corporations are simply a collection of individuals who have voluntarily agreed to join forces. As long as they are pursuing peaceful ends (and, please, no confused blather that one is "forced" to buy Windows, or Office, or a computer, for that matter), these individuals are constitutionally protected in their activities. So, this conflict between "individual freedom" and "corporate interests" is a chimera, a logical fallacy. When you restrict the non-coercive activities of corporations, you are impeding the free association rights of the individuals which comprise the corporation.
More elitist sour grapes.
Your statement (and many like it) assumes the general public is idiotic and incompetent, unable to discern what they really want in a product.
When will the zealots realize that the definition of a "good" product has many dimensions, appealing to the great diversity of desires in the marketplace?
Stop whining. If you don't want to make what the masses want, fine. Make what you want. But, then don't complain that the masses are stupid.
I think what your saying is NOT that diagnosis is easy, but that the PRODUCT of time_spent_diagnosing X difficulty_of_diagnosing is a small fraction of the time_spent_doing_other_things X difficulty_doing_other_things.
This may be true. However, you could still get a net benefit from making the diagnosing easier (depending on the cost of the system in dollars AND in time to use it). And, as others have pointed out, sometimes the cost of a misdiagnosis is very high, so the expected benefit might be larger than your gut tells you.
And, I would redudndantly chime in that this should NOT be a replacement for the MD's judgement, but should just be used to ensure that the search is thorough.
The WWF is a non-profit organisation, they are not in this to make money but to preserve the earth for future generations.
There are many egregious errors in your post, but this is perhaps the most naive statement therein. What the WWF and other enviro organizations are after is: <b> power </b>. They want the power to control my life (and yours, by the way), through coercion. Also, their staffers get paid; don't let the "non-profit" misnomer mislead you into thinking they're working for free.
Silicon Valley Power's website is singularly uninformative regarding its financial condition, the source of its power, or any subsidies it receives.
However, one can be sure that, independent of who OWNs the power, the laws of supply and demand cannot be overturned.
In a publicly owned utility, it is certainly possible to provide customers with below-market electricity rates, and even to absorb financial losses, so long as the property tax allocations keep rolling in. That these losses are hidden does not change the fact that they exist.
Read Hazlitt's 'Economic in One Lesson' if you want to get enlightened about "what is seen and what is not seen" in macroeconomics.