Very basically it's reading a value off the top of the stack, incrementing it and pushing it back onto the stack.
You forgot the retn. It pops the return address from the stack and jumps there. Since the return address has just been messed with, the subsequent behavior strongly depends on the calling function and is likely to become undefined. I'm not all that familiar with x86 assembly, but under most architectures I know this would be a way to mess up your program really good.
I hope you're dripping that into an IV, not a catheter...
"Catheter" is a generic term for a tube that goes into any kind of body cavity or vessel. You can have intravenous catheters, intraarterial catheters, bladder catheters and whatnot.
... "most" Indian tech grade are unemployable, too, but for different reasons. (if you want a good laugh, check out the discussion boards for various microcontrollers. Not a day passes without someone posting a "please solve my homework/exam/project for me, it's URGENT" posting).
However, since India produces a lot more tech grads, there's still plenty of employable (and quite a few outright excellent) ones left to fill the existing positions.
Because you live in a fantasy world where drug costs are set independent of R&D costs,
No, you live in a fantasy world where drug makers work for the greater good instead of their bottom line. They will charge the amount that makes them the most profit.
and have to be set high enough to make up for all the vast majority of drugs which fail to make it to market?
But if the drugs _sell_ at that price point, why should someone who currently holds a monopoly on that drug due to a patent sell it any cheaper? (unless selling it cheaper would vastly increase the number of units sold and hence result in a larger overall profit despite making less profit per unit sold).
If the drug companies don't think they can sell a drug against a certain medical condition at a price point that's profitable for them, they won't make it. See orphan drugs.
Look at the cost of brand name drugs versus generics some time.
Generics are cheap because the patents on them long since expired. This means that basically everyone is allowed to make them, which creates competition and drives the price down. Brand name drugs are expensive either because they're still protected by patents (and hence don't have any competition unless the patent holder allows it), or because the patients are suckers and prefer the "brand name" stuff to the available generic, or maybe because they manage to set themselves apart from existing generics in some way (afaik only Bayer makes aspirin in fizzy tablet form, which has some advantages in onset time).
If we could look at case studies on European-approved drugs that have been out for, say, 10 years and use that as a basis to cheaply approve them in America, it'd probably help.
Well, that's part of the NIH complex that's ubiquitous in America. However, back when thalidomide entered the market, the testing requirements in Europe were a lot laxer than they are today.
My point exactly. I've seen a photograph once of a forklift palette of papers which was the entirety of one drug company's submissions to the FDA to get a drug approved.
That still doesn't explain your bogus interpretation of the $800M figure.
And it's kind of ironic seeing someone argue a libertarian point of view using the labor theory of value - "just reduce the production cost and the price for the product will go down". It doesn't work that way, if you reduce the production cost, the price will stay pretty much the same and profits will go up. Unless you assume that drug companies work for the greater good instead of their bottom line... which they don't, unless forced by people with guns.
That's where the real money goes, and that's probably the last place we want our drug savings to come from.
And in a real-world scenario, any savings on development and testing would go to profits and lawsuits rather than reducing the price of the drug while it's still covered by patents.
It's a lot more expensive than it needs to be, and you can thank the costs of FDA red tape for that.
So why do you think that drug companies would reduce their prices if it was cheaper, instead of making more profit? After all, making as much profit as possible for their owners is why they exist in the first place.
The censorship law will be struck down by our Bundesverfassungsgericht (equivalent to US Supreme Court) for unconstitutionality on various counts.
I'm still hoping for a law that prescribes a savage beating for the whole parliament every time a blatantly unconstitutional law gets struck down by the BVerfG. Heck, most of the representatives are fscking _lawyers_, they should know better than anyone else. There's absolutely no excuse.
On a related topic, have you ever wondered why drugs (especially non-generics) are so ungodly expensive in America?
Because the drug makers can charge whatever they want for them, as long as the patent lasts?
The process of getting a new drug researched, developed, tested, and evaluated, combined with the number of failed drugs that the successful drugs needs to pay for, means that we're getting reasonably safe and effective drugs, but we're paying through our noses for them.
Yes. And before there were rules like that, you were paying with corpses and body parts for them. Literally.
If we had less FDA controls, the price of medicine would go down, and more people would benefit from modern medicine.
No, you'd have bigger profits for the drug companies, because they can charge exactly the same price while paying much less for R&D.
But nobody wants more Thalidomide babies, so this won't happen.
Why do you think that the US had so few cases (seventeen) of babies crippled by thalidomide, compared to a _few fscking thousand_ in, say, Germany? _Because_ there were clinical tests with the stuff in the US, and all of the cases happened during the trial, so the drug was never marketed as a "safe" anti-emetic for pregnant women.
I somehow doubt it, being deaf could be worse (IMO) than being blind.
It's not just IMO. Going deaf messes you up worse than going blind, since you essentially lose your ability to communicate like you used to. No more conversations or phone calls, no more early warning of things happening behind or next to you, etc.
If someone sells an ineffective product, then sue them based on your reliance upon any false claims they make in their advertising.
If you're still alive. And live long enough to see the end of the lawsuit.
If someone sells you cyanide as a cancer remedy, then they belong in jail for murder.
What if someone sells you mustard gas as a cancer remedy?
What I object to is the premise that our bodies are the property of the state, and that the state is entitled to override our own decisions as to what drugs we choose to use.
Most people, unfortunately, aren't smart enough to understand mechanisms like resistance formation. If anyone could pop antibiotics whenever they feel like it, then soon no one would be able to effectively fight an infection with them. Is that what you're proposing?
You can't prove that absolutely. However, you can prove that something is as effective as a placebo, or even less effective (i.e. actually harmful). All you need is doing a study with an appropriate sample size.
The page on wikipedia has a nice blurb about how, if the principle was true, normal water would contain EVERY homeopathic remedy, thanks to the closed nature of the water cycle.
And in really "high potency" dilution, no less.;)
But then again, the uncontrolled mixing probably disrupts the natural energy flow and renders the ingredients ineffective. At least that's something a homeopath would tell you, or some similar nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
Very basically it's reading a value off the top of the stack, incrementing it and pushing it back onto the stack.
You forgot the retn. It pops the return address from the stack and jumps there. Since the return address has just been messed with, the subsequent behavior strongly depends on the calling function and is likely to become undefined. I'm not all that familiar with x86 assembly, but under most architectures I know this would be a way to mess up your program really good.
"Catheter" is a generic term for a tube that goes into any kind of body cavity or vessel. You can have intravenous catheters, intraarterial catheters, bladder catheters and whatnot.
... "most" Indian tech grade are unemployable, too, but for different reasons. (if you want a good laugh, check out the discussion boards for various microcontrollers. Not a day passes without someone posting a "please solve my homework/exam/project for me, it's URGENT" posting).
However, since India produces a lot more tech grads, there's still plenty of employable (and quite a few outright excellent) ones left to fill the existing positions.
No, you live in a fantasy world where drug makers work for the greater good instead of their bottom line. They will charge the amount that makes them the most profit.
and have to be set high enough to make up for all the vast majority of drugs which fail to make it to market?
But if the drugs _sell_ at that price point, why should someone who currently holds a monopoly on that drug due to a patent sell it any cheaper? (unless selling it cheaper would vastly increase the number of units sold and hence result in a larger overall profit despite making less profit per unit sold).
If the drug companies don't think they can sell a drug against a certain medical condition at a price point that's profitable for them, they won't make it. See orphan drugs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_drug
Look at the cost of brand name drugs versus generics some time.
Generics are cheap because the patents on them long since expired. This means that basically everyone is allowed to make them, which creates competition and drives the price down. Brand name drugs are expensive either because they're still protected by patents (and hence don't have any competition unless the patent holder allows it), or because the patients are suckers and prefer the "brand name" stuff to the available generic, or maybe because they manage to set themselves apart from existing generics in some way (afaik only Bayer makes aspirin in fizzy tablet form, which has some advantages in onset time).
If we could look at case studies on European-approved drugs that have been out for, say, 10 years and use that as a basis to cheaply approve them in America, it'd probably help.
Well, that's part of the NIH complex that's ubiquitous in America. However, back when thalidomide entered the market, the testing requirements in Europe were a lot laxer than they are today.
That still doesn't explain your bogus interpretation of the $800M figure.
And it's kind of ironic seeing someone argue a libertarian point of view using the labor theory of value - "just reduce the production cost and the price for the product will go down". It doesn't work that way, if you reduce the production cost, the price will stay pretty much the same and profits will go up. Unless you assume that drug companies work for the greater good instead of their bottom line ... which they don't, unless forced by people with guns.
Err .. no. I'm pretty sure that antibiotics attack the bacteria directly, chemotherapy drugs kill cancer cells (more than normal cells), etc.
And in a real-world scenario, any savings on development and testing would go to profits and lawsuits rather than reducing the price of the drug while it's still covered by patents.
You make it sound like this is doubtful.
Unfortunately, censorship would require that everything is submitted to the censorship authorities _before_ publishing.
However, there are other areas where the constitutionality of the law is questionable.
What are the odds the FDA did not discover this association in the last eight years because Zicam is a big sponsor on the Rush Limbaugh radio show?
So why do you think that drug companies would reduce their prices if it was cheaper, instead of making more profit? After all, making as much profit as possible for their owners is why they exist in the first place.
The opposition party members voted against the law, every single one.
Nope. Quite a number of the Greens chose to abstain, and one of the independent MPs voted for the law.
Privacy and Internet Rights Advocates for Technological Equality
Nice. ;)
Now I need to find one that works in German.
Yeah, it's also spelled with an 'ie'.
Yeah, right. If Germany doesn't have a constitution, why does it have a Federal Constitutional Court which solely judges on constitutional matters?
Tetris pieces (Tetrinos?) have only 4 blocks.
GP was clearly referring to the "pervert edition" of tetris, with increased, err, size.
I'm still hoping for a law that prescribes a savage beating for the whole parliament every time a blatantly unconstitutional law gets struck down by the BVerfG. Heck, most of the representatives are fscking _lawyers_, they should know better than anyone else. There's absolutely no excuse.
... why the PIRATE party (I hope they come up with a snazzy backronym for that) can expect to get my vote in the elections next fall.
Because the drug makers can charge whatever they want for them, as long as the patent lasts?
The process of getting a new drug researched, developed, tested, and evaluated, combined with the number of failed drugs that the successful drugs needs to pay for, means that we're getting reasonably safe and effective drugs, but we're paying through our noses for them.
Yes. And before there were rules like that, you were paying with corpses and body parts for them. Literally.
If we had less FDA controls, the price of medicine would go down, and more people would benefit from modern medicine.
No, you'd have bigger profits for the drug companies, because they can charge exactly the same price while paying much less for R&D. But nobody wants more Thalidomide babies, so this won't happen.
Why do you think that the US had so few cases (seventeen) of babies crippled by thalidomide, compared to a _few fscking thousand_ in, say, Germany? _Because_ there were clinical tests with the stuff in the US, and all of the cases happened during the trial, so the drug was never marketed as a "safe" anti-emetic for pregnant women.
So cocaine is a homeopathic medicine?
Yes. But only if you dilute it until there's not a single molecule left in the sample you're selling as medication.
It'd probably be used against restlessness and insomnia.
I somehow doubt it, being deaf could be worse (IMO) than being blind.
It's not just IMO. Going deaf messes you up worse than going blind, since you essentially lose your ability to communicate like you used to. No more conversations or phone calls, no more early warning of things happening behind or next to you, etc.
I'm sure your survivors will be thrilled.
If someone sells an ineffective product, then sue them based on your reliance upon any false claims they make in their advertising.
If you're still alive. And live long enough to see the end of the lawsuit.
If someone sells you cyanide as a cancer remedy, then they belong in jail for murder.
What if someone sells you mustard gas as a cancer remedy?
What I object to is the premise that our bodies are the property of the state, and that the state is entitled to override our own decisions as to what drugs we choose to use.
Most people, unfortunately, aren't smart enough to understand mechanisms like resistance formation. If anyone could pop antibiotics whenever they feel like it, then soon no one would be able to effectively fight an infection with them. Is that what you're proposing?
Duh, because the uncontrolled mixing disrupted the natural vibration flow and depolarized the energy matrix. That's elementary, really.
(Funny how similar technobabble and homeobabble are).
You can't prove that absolutely. However, you can prove that something is as effective as a placebo, or even less effective (i.e. actually harmful). All you need is doing a study with an appropriate sample size.
And in really "high potency" dilution, no less. ;)
But then again, the uncontrolled mixing probably disrupts the natural energy flow and renders the ingredients ineffective. At least that's something a homeopath would tell you, or some similar nonsense.