Re:An argument for doing away with drug patents
on
Patents Don't Pay
·
· Score: 1
First, I have no idea what relevance marketing has to R&D.
Second, I am just flabbergasted that you forgot to mention that most of that "marketing" is the free drugs that reps give to doctors, so that they can be given for free to the elderly and poor. How hideous of them!
Third, most of the remainder of the "marketing" budget involves the reps interacting with doctors. While you may think this is waste, it is not COMPLETELY waste. It may not be the most effective way to transfer this information, but this transfer of information is necessary.
The final ~10% of the marketing budget involves direct-to-consumer adds. Again, this is not waste. It is information transfer and has value. Again, you may argue that there is a more effective way to do this, but I don't know what you think it is.
Just about everything you have ever purchased became yours precisely because you were willing to pay more than anyone else that the previous owner could find. It has nothing to do with anyone anywhere deciding what was more important.
Capitalism works, my friend. I am sorry to disappoint you.
I WANT to be able to pay to keep my traffic ahead of the lazy college students downloading mountains of porn and mp3s off bit-torrent. My money says my claim is more important. What do you offer in return?
In any case, even if we changed the standard to "favor" consumers, oil companies would just adjust their prices accordingly and nothing would change...except for that consumers would be stuck paying for a bunch of sensors that pointlessly increase the accuracy of dispensed gasoline.
I want to beat the crap out of any NannyNazi who would sponsor such garbage. Therefore, by their own logic, they must ban themselves from discussing such laws on the internet or in any public forum.
They are improving only a few percent a year, with no signs of any acceleration in this trend. If anything, it is slowing. The reason is that batteries are actually pretty simple devices. Even the first ones over a hundred years ago weren't all that bad. Like the internal combustion engine, the simplicity of the device led to even the earliest designs being reasonably functional...and leaving little room for improvement.
One can never say never, but within the limits of our knowledge, it is unlikely that batteries as we know them will ever improve two-fold.
Well, if those profits are too "healty", why don't YOU step into the market, under-cut those prices a tad, and make a killing? And why not the next guy. And the next guy. And the next guy, until those profits are similar to those expected for other equally-risky investments.
* The way patent offices globally have turned the patent system into a pyramid scheme for their friends, printing coupons that are not backed by any state bank and yet are used as collateral to secure huge credits.
I am willing to wager that even if there were no safeguards against it, 99% of patents would be reviewed by people who had no knowledge of or connection to the persons or organizations applying for the patent. In reality, though, patent reviewers would excuse themselves from any such conflict of interest.
* The shakedown of numerous small businesses and large customers for "patent violations" based on legal instruments created by a mafia-style clique of lawyers.
Yeah, the founding fathers were surely the mafia lawyers from hell.
* The wide use of patent "licensing deals" to create cartels that would be illegal and criminal under normal competition law.
Cartels are illegal. Please bring forth your evidence and I am sure you can find a glory-hog prosecutor who would like to take your case.
* The use of patent "licenses" to tax the use of technology by the public, even though very often the public subsidised the original research.
Patents are not a "tax" in any way, as paying for them is purely optional. The "public subsidized the research" line is a red-herring and displays a fundamental mis-understanding of how corporate and academic research intermingle. While the public was subsidizing the corporations research, the corporation was subsidizing the public's research. Yes, we work together to solve common or related problems! In no way would this imply that one of us now owns the rights to the fruits of the other's labor.
* The use of "intellectual property laws" (designed and paid for by content industries) to prevent content falling into the public domain.
Uhhh, yes, this is what patents and IP are....but you are wrong about your parenthetical...this system was designed long before almost any modern company existed. This is a basic fact, and I have no idea why you are lying about it.
* The use of said laws to create artificial barriers to free trade, so prices can be raised in specific geographic areas.
Again, you are noting how patents actually work.
* The use of the global patent system to keep the costs of medicines artificially high (even at the cost of millions of deaths)
And the cost of not having a patent system would be hundreds of millions of deaths, as medicines would be invented far more slowly without any financial incentive to do so.
* The use of the global patent system to prevent free competition in many markets.
Yep. That's exactly what it is supposed to do. It is a small, time-limited market failure created by the government that works to offset a larger, permanent market failure (the free-rider problem with respect to innovating).
* The use of the global patent system to stop alternative energy technologies being developed.
IP has no special relevance to alternative energy.
* The use of patents to create conflict and litigation than enriches lawyers and specialists.
First, people being enriched is a good thing, even people whom you dislike via steriotype (including me, because I am a specialist!). Of course, the patent system has an administrative cost, but it is well worth the price.
personally doing things about it, the hurricane excuse is the wrong one to justify action with. Simply put, we do not know what kind of effect global warming will have on hurricanes. It is not unlikely that warmer temperatures will result in in more or stronger hurricanes, but the models are all over the place on this issue. The reason is that any gains in hurricane strength predicted by warmer waters is offset by decreases in hurricane strength caused by wind shear (the difference in wind speeds/direction at different heights above the water). It is not at all clear what the net effect would be, and in any case, is likely to be fairly minor.
There are many virtually certain, much more costly effects of global warming (ecosystem changes, sea level rise, reduced crop yields, species extinction, increased drought, etc). You should be using those as your justification.
First, population density can be a bit tricky to compare. Canada has an extraordinarily low population density if measured in the traditional way (number of Canadians / area of Canada). However, most Canadians live in a few strips near the US border. The actual distance between the average Canadian and his nearest neighbor may or may not be higher than that of the US. The latter is a much more relevant influence on broadband penetration than the former. The same holds true in some very populous countries such as Japan or the Scandanavian countries - these countries are very mountainous and large parts are uninhabitable. Yet these mountain areas drive down the "population density" as tradionally defined, while actually causing HIGHER population density in the rare flat areas along the coasts.
That being said, I don't think this is the issue. Nor do I think it has anything to do with technology or corporations or government, either. Simply put, lots of Americans just don't want broadband. Seriously. My boss is the perfect example. He has a PhD. WE WORK IN THE SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY. He is completely computer literate. He lives in a mid-sized city with several options for broadband. He chooses not to have it, so that he doesn't waste time on the net (for work or pleasure) when he should be spending time with his three sons.
I know it is hard for geeks like us to imagine someone not wanting broadband (or even net access) but I know many people who deliberately choose to do so.
I respect that people have different views of what makes a human being.
I don't think there is any actual debate about this. An embryo IS a living human being. That is straight out of the textbook definitions of human, embryo, organism, etc. You and I probably disagree about the non-technical, philosophical issue of the borderline between what entities do and do not have particular rights.
However, to claim that ESC research is 'killing human beings' while allowing IVF to continue (absent unacceptable Italian-like controls) is just flat-out hypocritical.
Someone else may be hypocritical or uninformed, but I am not. Parts of the Italian law (specifically those dealing with the elimination of excess embryos) are something I am calling for. Politicians are caught in a different bind, and often avoid taking on battles they can't win in the short run. Just like conservative politicians won't take on IVF, even though it is the logical outcome of their professed beliefs, Democrats will not express their desire to impose a gasoline/carbon tax, even though it is the logical outcome of their beliefs, for example (yes, I SUPPORT a carbon tax, in exchange for a lower income tax).
I have yet to hear any moral or logical reason for why blastocysts that are destined for the trash should not instead be used to further stem cell research
I don't want to remind you of the horrors that logic has wrought upon the world.
Anything to actually back up that statement? Not to mention the fact that we could just take all to-be-discarded embryos that exist right now and develop stem cell lines from those and would be in fine shape.
No law is stopping you from doing this. Now you are the one being dishonest. Of course, you would have to pony up your own cash or collect it voluntarily, but that is asking too much from you, now isn't it?
As a scientist, I'm sure you know that ESC research doesn't depend on using a single embryo for an experiment, rather differentiatable cell lines are established from the initial cells.
We already have such lines, and both public and private money can be used to study them. Yes, some scientists screwed up and made them unacceptable for actual treatments, but research can still be done on them. Actual treatments can be developed by the private sector, using private money, on any stem cell lines they wish.
If Bush hadn't made his intellectually dishonest decree, we could've simply taken all IVF embryos available on that day, and likely never had to worry about it again.
There is nothing "dishonest" about forbidding someone from using public money to deliberately kill other human beings. You may prefer to dehumanize them for your own personal gain, but if you insist on doing so, at least have the honesty to put your money where your mouth is, rather than mine.
It's ironic that if every self-proclaimed liberal in the country would put up $50, they could pay for more ESC research than has ever been done up to this point. But liberals don't like to use their OWN money to solve problems.
Apparently you do not understand your own logic then. You claimed, in essence, that any behavior that affects the public is something that can be regulated. I hate to inform you, but that means EVERYTHING you do could be regulated and that NOTHING is private. I am sure you would not want to live in such a world.
Cancer, for example, is a private issue. It is not contagious and only has effects on third parties (such as your family and doctors) are via voluntary relationships. Claiming that it is "public" because you will be out of work and therefore not paying taxes is silly. If your definition of public is so broad, it covers everything and there is no privacy.
I am a scientist, actually, and know how the process works. Any basic knowledge gained via embryonic research would have been gained by non-embryonic research at a later date, in a different order. When this field reaches maturity, we will not use human embryos as the source material. We do so now because it is a simple short-cut.
I am not against IVF. I am against preparing extra embryos and freezing them. These are not the same thing. Italy banned the latter a few years ago and no major disasters occured. Even as it is, the number of frozen embryos from IVF is declining. It is simply a technological issue to make the extra number needed zero. By 2030, your SUPPLY of "free" embryos will probably disappear anyway - one more reason that embryonic treatments will never come to pass outside of experimental treatments.
First, if you would RTFS, much less article, much less paper, you would know that one of the fascinating things about this procedure is that it uses skin cells, not embryonic cells as a base. Very few people who believe in any invasive medicine have a problem with this. This is a breakthrough in part because it fixes problems like embryonic harvesting or even The Island-esqe people harvesting because a given sick person could use it on him or herself.
You clearly misundestood my entire line of reasoning. Sorry for not being clearer. The research in this article is unquestionably moral. Assuming we are going to fund medical research in the first place, we SHOULD be funding this project and the dozens like it that are taking the high road. The fact that so many high roads are open (and their are so many other worthy destinations to travel to, such as global warming research, to pick something random) makes it a dubious argument that we must also simultaneously pursue the controversial "low road" to one of our targets.
Secondly, a work force that lives productively into their 80's would be a lovely thing for any society's economies. A government should certainly be concerned about its nation's economy, yes?
No. First, such reasoning could be used to justify anything, as "economy" is so broad as to be meaningless in this context. Second, what we generally mean by "economy" is just the sum of lots and lots of private matters. LOTS of private matters does not make something public.
Thirdly, medical research=good for people.
If the government decided what was "best for the people" was to cut out your kidneys to save the lives of two others, would you object? "Good for people" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for something to be in the domain of government.
And for the record, a considerable majority of Americans do want stem cell research, even from embryos.
That is what I am working on. Most of them are grossly mis-informed about the matter. Majorities often want stupid, impossible, or contradictory things.
Btw, here is a challenge to you: What makes my post a troll? I completely fail to see it? Is it because it contradicts the conventional/. left-of-center, all-techy-stuff-is-good wisdom?
of creating stem cells on the very near horizon, what is the justification for using public money for research that tens of millions of people consider murder? Why not limit public funds to the tens of thousands of research projects (health-related or otherwise) that virtually no one disputes? Additionally, no stem-cell research that I know of is focused on any public health concern such as communicable diseases; rather, it is focused on private health issues such as cancer or Parkinson's disease. Hence, it is debatable whether such research is the domain of government at all. If the government is going to intrude so deeply into the private sphere, should it not do so under only the most benign of manners? I say this because some would argue, for example, that some military research is immoral. That may be true, but what is not particularly debatable that military affairs are the domain of government...indeed, one of its primary roles. The government MUST do military research, and inevitably, some will disagree. In contrast, there is no compelling reason for the government to fund stem-cell research at all...and even less so, given its controversy.
Let's spend the money on cellulitic ethanol, or a new super-collider, or anti-AIDS vaccines instead.
The big donors to US political parties are not corporations. They are unions. Auto workers, trial lawyers, and teacher unions all contribute more than big oil, big pharma, or all of your other bogey men. Even more damning to your argument is the fact that corporate contributions are actually fairly evenly split among the two parties, while union donations favor one party at around 10:1 a ratio (I am sure you can guess which party this is, and now understand why they are beholden to special interests).
As I said, it is a complementary technology. 80% of phone calls aren't nor need to be five minutes. They are "Hey, I am going to be five minutes late" or "Do you wanna go out tonight?".
You would be amazed at how little you find that you need to actually talk when you are in an environment that discourages public talking and sets fair prices.
They yap everywhere. They have annoying ring-tones. Hell, I have never heard the ring of any cell phone I have ever owned. I put it on vibrate the minute I buy it and never turn it off. At work, it is either in my pocket or on the desk next to me. At home, I put it on my desk, where I am likely to hear the vibrate from most of the rooms in the house. Even if I don't, I don't care. Anyone who matters will leave a message.
Slashdot Mirror
First, I have no idea what relevance marketing has to R&D.
Second, I am just flabbergasted that you forgot to mention that most of that "marketing" is the free drugs that reps give to doctors, so that they can be given for free to the elderly and poor. How hideous of them!
Third, most of the remainder of the "marketing" budget involves the reps interacting with doctors. While you may think this is waste, it is not COMPLETELY waste. It may not be the most effective way to transfer this information, but this transfer of information is necessary.
The final ~10% of the marketing budget involves direct-to-consumer adds. Again, this is not waste. It is information transfer and has value. Again, you may argue that there is a more effective way to do this, but I don't know what you think it is.
Just about everything you have ever purchased became yours precisely because you were willing to pay more than anyone else that the previous owner could find. It has nothing to do with anyone anywhere deciding what was more important.
Capitalism works, my friend. I am sorry to disappoint you.
I WANT to be able to pay to keep my traffic ahead of the lazy college students downloading mountains of porn and mp3s off bit-torrent. My money says my claim is more important. What do you offer in return?
It is roughly the average temperature.
In any case, even if we changed the standard to "favor" consumers, oil companies would just adjust their prices accordingly and nothing would change...except for that consumers would be stuck paying for a bunch of sensors that pointlessly increase the accuracy of dispensed gasoline.
I want to beat the crap out of any NannyNazi who would sponsor such garbage. Therefore, by their own logic, they must ban themselves from discussing such laws on the internet or in any public forum.
Ahh, the wonders of hypocrisy.
They are improving only a few percent a year, with no signs of any acceleration in this trend. If anything, it is slowing. The reason is that batteries are actually pretty simple devices. Even the first ones over a hundred years ago weren't all that bad. Like the internal combustion engine, the simplicity of the device led to even the earliest designs being reasonably functional...and leaving little room for improvement.
One can never say never, but within the limits of our knowledge, it is unlikely that batteries as we know them will ever improve two-fold.
Well, if those profits are too "healty", why don't YOU step into the market, under-cut those prices a tad, and make a killing? And why not the next guy. And the next guy. And the next guy, until those profits are similar to those expected for other equally-risky investments.
Wow. Markets at work.
* The way patent offices globally have turned the patent system into a pyramid scheme for their friends, printing coupons that are not backed by any state bank and yet are used as collateral to secure huge credits.
I am willing to wager that even if there were no safeguards against it, 99% of patents would be reviewed by people who had no knowledge of or connection to the persons or organizations applying for the patent. In reality, though, patent reviewers would excuse themselves from any such conflict of interest.
* The shakedown of numerous small businesses and large customers for "patent violations" based on legal instruments created by a mafia-style clique of lawyers.
Yeah, the founding fathers were surely the mafia lawyers from hell.
* The wide use of patent "licensing deals" to create cartels that would be illegal and criminal under normal competition law.
Cartels are illegal. Please bring forth your evidence and I am sure you can find a glory-hog prosecutor who would like to take your case.
* The use of patent "licenses" to tax the use of technology by the public, even though very often the public subsidised the original research.
Patents are not a "tax" in any way, as paying for them is purely optional. The "public subsidized the research" line is a red-herring and displays a fundamental mis-understanding of how corporate and academic research intermingle. While the public was subsidizing the corporations research, the corporation was subsidizing the public's research. Yes, we work together to solve common or related problems! In no way would this imply that one of us now owns the rights to the fruits of the other's labor.
* The use of "intellectual property laws" (designed and paid for by content industries) to prevent content falling into the public domain.
Uhhh, yes, this is what patents and IP are....but you are wrong about your parenthetical...this system was designed long before almost any modern company existed. This is a basic fact, and I have no idea why you are lying about it.
* The use of said laws to create artificial barriers to free trade, so prices can be raised in specific geographic areas.
Again, you are noting how patents actually work.
* The use of the global patent system to keep the costs of medicines artificially high (even at the cost of millions of deaths)
And the cost of not having a patent system would be hundreds of millions of deaths, as medicines would be invented far more slowly without any financial incentive to do so.
* The use of the global patent system to prevent free competition in many markets.
Yep. That's exactly what it is supposed to do. It is a small, time-limited market failure created by the government that works to offset a larger, permanent market failure (the free-rider problem with respect to innovating).
* The use of the global patent system to stop alternative energy technologies being developed.
IP has no special relevance to alternative energy.
* The use of patents to create conflict and litigation than enriches lawyers and specialists.
First, people being enriched is a good thing, even people whom you dislike via steriotype (including me, because I am a specialist!). Of course, the patent system has an administrative cost, but it is well worth the price.
personally doing things about it, the hurricane excuse is the wrong one to justify action with. Simply put, we do not know what kind of effect global warming will have on hurricanes. It is not unlikely that warmer temperatures will result in in more or stronger hurricanes, but the models are all over the place on this issue. The reason is that any gains in hurricane strength predicted by warmer waters is offset by decreases in hurricane strength caused by wind shear (the difference in wind speeds/direction at different heights above the water). It is not at all clear what the net effect would be, and in any case, is likely to be fairly minor.
There are many virtually certain, much more costly effects of global warming (ecosystem changes, sea level rise, reduced crop yields, species extinction, increased drought, etc). You should be using those as your justification.
Two comments:
First, population density can be a bit tricky to compare. Canada has an extraordinarily low population density if measured in the traditional way (number of Canadians / area of Canada). However, most Canadians live in a few strips near the US border. The actual distance between the average Canadian and his nearest neighbor may or may not be higher than that of the US. The latter is a much more relevant influence on broadband penetration than the former. The same holds true in some very populous countries such as Japan or the Scandanavian countries - these countries are very mountainous and large parts are uninhabitable. Yet these mountain areas drive down the "population density" as tradionally defined, while actually causing HIGHER population density in the rare flat areas along the coasts.
That being said, I don't think this is the issue. Nor do I think it has anything to do with technology or corporations or government, either. Simply put, lots of Americans just don't want broadband. Seriously. My boss is the perfect example. He has a PhD. WE WORK IN THE SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY. He is completely computer literate. He lives in a mid-sized city with several options for broadband. He chooses not to have it, so that he doesn't waste time on the net (for work or pleasure) when he should be spending time with his three sons.
I know it is hard for geeks like us to imagine someone not wanting broadband (or even net access) but I know many people who deliberately choose to do so.
I respect that people have different views of what makes a human being.
I don't think there is any actual debate about this. An embryo IS a living human being. That is straight out of the textbook definitions of human, embryo, organism, etc. You and I probably disagree about the non-technical, philosophical issue of the borderline between what entities do and do not have particular rights.
However, to claim that ESC research is 'killing human beings' while allowing IVF to continue (absent unacceptable Italian-like controls) is just flat-out hypocritical.
Someone else may be hypocritical or uninformed, but I am not. Parts of the Italian law (specifically those dealing with the elimination of excess embryos) are something I am calling for. Politicians are caught in a different bind, and often avoid taking on battles they can't win in the short run. Just like conservative politicians won't take on IVF, even though it is the logical outcome of their professed beliefs, Democrats will not express their desire to impose a gasoline/carbon tax, even though it is the logical outcome of their beliefs, for example (yes, I SUPPORT a carbon tax, in exchange for a lower income tax).
I have yet to hear any moral or logical reason for why blastocysts that are destined for the trash should not instead be used to further stem cell research
I don't want to remind you of the horrors that logic has wrought upon the world.
Anything to actually back up that statement? Not to mention the fact that we could just take all to-be-discarded embryos that exist right now and develop stem cell lines from those and would be in fine shape.
No law is stopping you from doing this. Now you are the one being dishonest. Of course, you would have to pony up your own cash or collect it voluntarily, but that is asking too much from you, now isn't it?
As a scientist, I'm sure you know that ESC research doesn't depend on using a single embryo for an experiment, rather differentiatable cell lines are established from the initial cells.
We already have such lines, and both public and private money can be used to study them. Yes, some scientists screwed up and made them unacceptable for actual treatments, but research can still be done on them. Actual treatments can be developed by the private sector, using private money, on any stem cell lines they wish.
If Bush hadn't made his intellectually dishonest decree, we could've simply taken all IVF embryos available on that day, and likely never had to worry about it again.
There is nothing "dishonest" about forbidding someone from using public money to deliberately kill other human beings. You may prefer to dehumanize them for your own personal gain, but if you insist on doing so, at least have the honesty to put your money where your mouth is, rather than mine.
It's ironic that if every self-proclaimed liberal in the country would put up $50, they could pay for more ESC research than has ever been done up to this point. But liberals don't like to use their OWN money to solve problems.
Apparently you do not understand your own logic then. You claimed, in essence, that any behavior that affects the public is something that can be regulated. I hate to inform you, but that means EVERYTHING you do could be regulated and that NOTHING is private. I am sure you would not want to live in such a world.
Cancer, for example, is a private issue. It is not contagious and only has effects on third parties (such as your family and doctors) are via voluntary relationships. Claiming that it is "public" because you will be out of work and therefore not paying taxes is silly. If your definition of public is so broad, it covers everything and there is no privacy.
Communicable disease issues. Demographic issues. Education issues. Wow! The public is affected.
Clearly, such activity should be regulated!
Somehow, I don't think you like your argument anymore.
I am a scientist, actually, and know how the process works. Any basic knowledge gained via embryonic research would have been gained by non-embryonic research at a later date, in a different order. When this field reaches maturity, we will not use human embryos as the source material. We do so now because it is a simple short-cut.
I am not against IVF. I am against preparing extra embryos and freezing them. These are not the same thing. Italy banned the latter a few years ago and no major disasters occured. Even as it is, the number of frozen embryos from IVF is declining. It is simply a technological issue to make the extra number needed zero. By 2030, your SUPPLY of "free" embryos will probably disappear anyway - one more reason that embryonic treatments will never come to pass outside of experimental treatments.
I will pay you ten to one that in 2030, there will be no major health-related treatments that are based on destroying human embryos.
Nazi researchers didn't know how long you could dunk someone in ice water before you could no longer save them. That is why they researched it.
I hate bringing out the N-bomb but you set yourself up for it totally.
First, if you would RTFS, much less article, much less paper, you would know that one of the fascinating things about this procedure is that it uses skin cells, not embryonic cells as a base. Very few people who believe in any invasive medicine have a problem with this. This is a breakthrough in part because it fixes problems like embryonic harvesting or even The Island-esqe people harvesting because a given sick person could use it on him or herself.
/. left-of-center, all-techy-stuff-is-good wisdom?
You clearly misundestood my entire line of reasoning. Sorry for not being clearer. The research in this article is unquestionably moral. Assuming we are going to fund medical research in the first place, we SHOULD be funding this project and the dozens like it that are taking the high road. The fact that so many high roads are open (and their are so many other worthy destinations to travel to, such as global warming research, to pick something random) makes it a dubious argument that we must also simultaneously pursue the controversial "low road" to one of our targets.
Secondly, a work force that lives productively into their 80's would be a lovely thing for any society's economies. A government should certainly be concerned about its nation's economy, yes?
No. First, such reasoning could be used to justify anything, as "economy" is so broad as to be meaningless in this context. Second, what we generally mean by "economy" is just the sum of lots and lots of private matters. LOTS of private matters does not make something public.
Thirdly, medical research=good for people.
If the government decided what was "best for the people" was to cut out your kidneys to save the lives of two others, would you object? "Good for people" is a necessary but not sufficient condition for something to be in the domain of government.
And for the record, a considerable majority of Americans do want stem cell research, even from embryos.
That is what I am working on. Most of them are grossly mis-informed about the matter. Majorities often want stupid, impossible, or contradictory things.
Btw, here is a challenge to you: What makes my post a troll? I completely fail to see it? Is it because it contradicts the conventional
I love the irony of your post. I wish I believed it was intentional.
of creating stem cells on the very near horizon, what is the justification for using public money for research that tens of millions of people consider murder? Why not limit public funds to the tens of thousands of research projects (health-related or otherwise) that virtually no one disputes? Additionally, no stem-cell research that I know of is focused on any public health concern such as communicable diseases; rather, it is focused on private health issues such as cancer or Parkinson's disease. Hence, it is debatable whether such research is the domain of government at all. If the government is going to intrude so deeply into the private sphere, should it not do so under only the most benign of manners? I say this because some would argue, for example, that some military research is immoral. That may be true, but what is not particularly debatable that military affairs are the domain of government...indeed, one of its primary roles. The government MUST do military research, and inevitably, some will disagree. In contrast, there is no compelling reason for the government to fund stem-cell research at all...and even less so, given its controversy.
Let's spend the money on cellulitic ethanol, or a new super-collider, or anti-AIDS vaccines instead.
number on the internet. Since it would be then easy to steal his identity, it would be ok!
by this measure. I am already booking my plane tickets to Finland, and will start my new career as a home pirate by looting this judge's home.
barring a major upset in the next presidential election. Expect even more protectionist trade policies, workplace regulations, etc.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.asp?order=A
Note all the asses...
The big donors to US political parties are not corporations. They are unions. Auto workers, trial lawyers, and teacher unions all contribute more than big oil, big pharma, or all of your other bogey men. Even more damning to your argument is the fact that corporate contributions are actually fairly evenly split among the two parties, while union donations favor one party at around 10:1 a ratio (I am sure you can guess which party this is, and now understand why they are beholden to special interests).
As I said, it is a complementary technology. 80% of phone calls aren't nor need to be five minutes. They are "Hey, I am going to be five minutes late" or "Do you wanna go out tonight?".
You would be amazed at how little you find that you need to actually talk when you are in an environment that discourages public talking and sets fair prices.
They yap everywhere. They have annoying ring-tones. Hell, I have never heard the ring of any cell phone I have ever owned. I put it on vibrate the minute I buy it and never turn it off. At work, it is either in my pocket or on the desk next to me. At home, I put it on my desk, where I am likely to hear the vibrate from most of the rooms in the house. Even if I don't, I don't care. Anyone who matters will leave a message.