The problem is precisely the LACK of a patent system for this type of scenario. This drug shows exactly what would happen WITHOUT a patent system - no one would have an incentive to develop and test new drugs, because anyone else would copycat without the upfront costs, and win therefore win the price war.
way to Y?
br?
Thank you for pointing out the secular argument against abortion. If the ability to get to Y, rather than being there, is what matters, fetuses win.
Virtually no one believes such stupidy. Embryos are not sentient. Quit putting stupid words in other peoples' mouths and then refuting them. Beating the straw man is one of the lamest games in the book.
My only policy idea was to actually punish illegals, rather than dropping them off half a mile across the border, so they can re-cross again the next day.
is as secular as any other opinion on the matter. Your childish cry of "Your argument is religion, so I don't have to refute it" simply betrays your ignorance and unwillingness (or inability) to defend your position.
It is scientific fact that embryos, from conception onward, are living human organisms. One could say this alone gives them at least some basic rights. This is not a religious argument in any way.
Your argument is rather ironic, anyway. The Bible does not say anything particularly relevant to abortion or stem-cells in the first place.
There are hundreds of millions of people around the world living in dire poverty (far WORSE than in Mexico and Central America). These people would love to come too. Should we allow them ALL in, tripling our population in a matter of a few years, or will you recognize that there has to be some limits, orderliness, and fairness to the system? Allowing the people who cut in line to stay at the front is not it. I say we kick out every illegal and replace them with someone who DID follow the rules. There are probably thirty people willing to come for every one who has cheated. I am sure we can find at least one that is a better find than a demonstrated cheater and criminal. If you think its too hard to kick them out, it isn't. We just have to have the guts to punish them. How about we give them six months to get out, and after that, its ten years in a cage if you are caught here. Let them deport themselves.
We currently allowe about 500,000 legal immigrants every year. I could buy the argument that we should expand this, say to a million or so. But to have 500,000 legals and twice that many cheaters is not fair, not safe, and not sane.
I am single and rarely even have a second person the vehicle. On occasions that I am travelling in groups, it is virtually certain one of them will have a car.
The need to have a second car (or rent a car a few weeks per year) easily negates any savings from the electric.
A five year payback is great, roughly the equivalent of 15% interest. That's far better than stocks, with far less risk. Ignoring risks and commissions, the stock market can be expected to have a 8-10 "payback time".
You are right, though. The answer is dollars per watt. Solar is still not there yet, though it is getting close to matching peak prices in some markets (California, Japan, Germany). However, the "printed" thin-film versions are still highly inefficient compared to normal silicon-crystal systems. Their cost advantage does not make up for this.
I don't want a golf cart. I want a car - something that can go just about anywhere, can refuel quickly, haul at least four people comfortably, etc. We do not have the battery technology to do this, nor it is likely that we will unless there is an absolute transformative change in batteries. Unfortunately, they are a mature technology and improvement has been incremental for decades. I doubt I will see batteries with double the charge capacity (by weight and/or volume) in my lifetime.
I personally and work with plenty of mainland Chinese. Not one of them thinks that China is getting worse. Indeed, the number of people living in poverty there is plumetting. Thirty years ago, one of my co-workers had to spend months each winter living essentially off of yams. Now is a professional worker in the US, and can easily take care of his mother back in China.
There is no "electric car with regenerative breaking". There may be a few golf-cart sized vehicles with or small cars with limited ranges, but a practical, mid-sized sedan with acceptable range on electricity only is far from a reality. Also, he seems to forgete that the batteries have to carry themselves, lowering their efficiency. Of course this is true of liquid fuels as well, but their energy density is much higher, so this issue is much less of a concern.
It seems that the title of this article should be "hydrogen infererior to magic batteries".
I do not know of anyone who plans products for one year life cycles, and I work in the semiconductor industry, one of the fastest around. Rather, our products should be bleeding edge for a couple of years, and continue to provide robust revenue for a decade or more when they are no longer at the forefront, but used in non-critical layers. In any case, the sales in our FIRST year are often nil or trivially small.
Thankfully, Russia has agreed to stop allowing its citizens to rob foreigners. Now if they would only quit assassinating critics.
If you do not pay what someone is asking for their product, you are stealing. Even if your gang of thugs (err, government) says they don't care because they don't like the guy you are stealing from.
that does not reward the artists and technicians involved in the production of the music. AllOfMp3's token payments do not count. It would be no different if I stole your paycheck but then handed you a $5 bill.
If you pirate, you are stealing. Quit trying to justify your cheap and sleazy behavior.
one's "own laws" should reflect international norms and basic fairness. That's half the point of the WTO. Russia had a loophole in its law that allowed piracy. They have shut it down. Good ridance.
It takes many man-years of effort to develop a new plastic, and there is often a lag time of a year or more between the first customer samples and the first major sales. If your customers are allowed to reverse-engineer your products without penalty, by the time they test and decide upon the variation that they like best, and you figure out how to scale it, it would be already too late. It is regularly a process of 3-5 years from patent to commercial-scale product.
Here is something more realistic: Your company makes cell-phones. You find that SuperPlastic, from Chemical Company X works great - but it is pretty pricey. So you send some to your firm's analytical department (or one of the many for hire), reverse engineer it, and then either start manufacturing it yourself or contract some cheap Chinese firm to do it for you. This would take less than a year in most cases. Without IP to protect it, Chemical Company X is out of luck. All the money it spent on R&D, as well as the free development samples it likely gave away, are now wasted.
IP may have some serious problems in the world of computer code, but actually works quite well for most inventions.
That was my first thought when I read this (at Scientific American, no less...thanks for the fact checking!). Water is BY FAR the biggest greenhouse gas, followed by CO2 then methane. The global warming that we are all talking about is actually water's amplication of a small temperature increase caused by CO2.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is precisely the LACK of a patent system for this type of scenario. This drug shows exactly what would happen WITHOUT a patent system - no one would have an incentive to develop and test new drugs, because anyone else would copycat without the upfront costs, and win therefore win the price war.
way to Y?
br? Thank you for pointing out the secular argument against abortion. If the ability to get to Y, rather than being there, is what matters, fetuses win.
Virtually no one believes such stupidy. Embryos are not sentient. Quit putting stupid words in other peoples' mouths and then refuting them. Beating the straw man is one of the lamest games in the book.
You may find the definitions of "alive" "life" "living" "human being" "human" "organism" and "embryo" particularly enlightening on this matter.
From conception onward, an embryo is ALIVE, HUMAN, and an distinct ORGANISM (not part of an organism). These are sure as sunshine and rain.
What is a "human" embryo at 18 weeks, pray tell? A monkey? A rat? A slug?
My only policy idea was to actually punish illegals, rather than dropping them off half a mile across the border, so they can re-cross again the next day.
is as secular as any other opinion on the matter. Your childish cry of "Your argument is religion, so I don't have to refute it" simply betrays your ignorance and unwillingness (or inability) to defend your position.
It is scientific fact that embryos, from conception onward, are living human organisms. One could say this alone gives them at least some basic rights. This is not a religious argument in any way.
Your argument is rather ironic, anyway. The Bible does not say anything particularly relevant to abortion or stem-cells in the first place.
There are hundreds of millions of people around the world living in dire poverty (far WORSE than in Mexico and Central America). These people would love to come too. Should we allow them ALL in, tripling our population in a matter of a few years, or will you recognize that there has to be some limits, orderliness, and fairness to the system? Allowing the people who cut in line to stay at the front is not it. I say we kick out every illegal and replace them with someone who DID follow the rules. There are probably thirty people willing to come for every one who has cheated. I am sure we can find at least one that is a better find than a demonstrated cheater and criminal. If you think its too hard to kick them out, it isn't. We just have to have the guts to punish them. How about we give them six months to get out, and after that, its ten years in a cage if you are caught here. Let them deport themselves.
We currently allowe about 500,000 legal immigrants every year. I could buy the argument that we should expand this, say to a million or so. But to have 500,000 legals and twice that many cheaters is not fair, not safe, and not sane.
I am single and rarely even have a second person the vehicle. On occasions that I am travelling in groups, it is virtually certain one of them will have a car.
The need to have a second car (or rent a car a few weeks per year) easily negates any savings from the electric.
A five year payback is great, roughly the equivalent of 15% interest. That's far better than stocks, with far less risk. Ignoring risks and commissions, the stock market can be expected to have a 8-10 "payback time".
You are right, though. The answer is dollars per watt. Solar is still not there yet, though it is getting close to matching peak prices in some markets (California, Japan, Germany). However, the "printed" thin-film versions are still highly inefficient compared to normal silicon-crystal systems. Their cost advantage does not make up for this.
I don't want a golf cart. I want a car - something that can go just about anywhere, can refuel quickly, haul at least four people comfortably, etc. We do not have the battery technology to do this, nor it is likely that we will unless there is an absolute transformative change in batteries. Unfortunately, they are a mature technology and improvement has been incremental for decades. I doubt I will see batteries with double the charge capacity (by weight and/or volume) in my lifetime.
and can recharge in five minutes.
Sorry, range and refueling issues are still a major downside to pure electrics.
I personally and work with plenty of mainland Chinese. Not one of them thinks that China is getting worse. Indeed, the number of people living in poverty there is plumetting. Thirty years ago, one of my co-workers had to spend months each winter living essentially off of yams. Now is a professional worker in the US, and can easily take care of his mother back in China.
You can thank our DVD buying habits for that.
There is no "electric car with regenerative breaking". There may be a few golf-cart sized vehicles with or small cars with limited ranges, but a practical, mid-sized sedan with acceptable range on electricity only is far from a reality. Also, he seems to forgete that the batteries have to carry themselves, lowering their efficiency. Of course this is true of liquid fuels as well, but their energy density is much higher, so this issue is much less of a concern.
It seems that the title of this article should be "hydrogen infererior to magic batteries".
Whoopdie doo...
that the Journal of the American Chemical Society (and subsequently all of its daughter journals) banned "novel" from titles a couple of years ago.
I do not know of anyone who plans products for one year life cycles, and I work in the semiconductor industry, one of the fastest around. Rather, our products should be bleeding edge for a couple of years, and continue to provide robust revenue for a decade or more when they are no longer at the forefront, but used in non-critical layers. In any case, the sales in our FIRST year are often nil or trivially small.
Thankfully, Russia has agreed to stop allowing its citizens to rob foreigners. Now if they would only quit assassinating critics.
If you do not pay what someone is asking for their product, you are stealing. Even if your gang of thugs (err, government) says they don't care because they don't like the guy you are stealing from.
But a year or so later? That could happen quite easily if the law didn't prevent it. We could not possibly recoup the development costs in one year.
More like a fraction of a penny. Either way, that amount should be the copyright holder's choice, not AllofMP3's.
that does not reward the artists and technicians involved in the production of the music. AllOfMp3's token payments do not count. It would be no different if I stole your paycheck but then handed you a $5 bill.
If you pirate, you are stealing. Quit trying to justify your cheap and sleazy behavior.
one's "own laws" should reflect international norms and basic fairness. That's half the point of the WTO. Russia had a loophole in its law that allowed piracy. They have shut it down. Good ridance.
It takes many man-years of effort to develop a new plastic, and there is often a lag time of a year or more between the first customer samples and the first major sales. If your customers are allowed to reverse-engineer your products without penalty, by the time they test and decide upon the variation that they like best, and you figure out how to scale it, it would be already too late. It is regularly a process of 3-5 years from patent to commercial-scale product.
Here is something more realistic: Your company makes cell-phones. You find that SuperPlastic, from Chemical Company X works great - but it is pretty pricey. So you send some to your firm's analytical department (or one of the many for hire), reverse engineer it, and then either start manufacturing it yourself or contract some cheap Chinese firm to do it for you. This would take less than a year in most cases. Without IP to protect it, Chemical Company X is out of luck. All the money it spent on R&D, as well as the free development samples it likely gave away, are now wasted.
IP may have some serious problems in the world of computer code, but actually works quite well for most inventions.
That was my first thought when I read this (at Scientific American, no less...thanks for the fact checking!). Water is BY FAR the biggest greenhouse gas, followed by CO2 then methane. The global warming that we are all talking about is actually water's amplication of a small temperature increase caused by CO2.
real markets. You gonna have the balls to ban re-importation, and stand up to those who do it?
I didn't think so.
manufactured themselves, tested themselves, packaged themselves, marketed themselves, and shipped themselves.
Pharma maintains a quite high level of R&D spending, above the norm for technical companies.