So they took a quote from one think tank as indicating a particular bias? This tells me two things: they don't understand context ("and here's another quote that shows how stupid the Cato institute is: '[...]'"), and they substitute their own bias for somebody elses in determining what is left and right. Woohoo.
According to http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/treat/ost/ost.html/, they can't. Then again, just wait until someone finds some energy source on the moon or other useful raw material. Then watch the gold rush.
Kickass! That means that they'll be able to distribute their stuff online without having to deal with Sony lawyers!
There will always be music and art. The only thing that might disappear is the distributors. Which might actually be a good thing.
RTFA is indeed a STFU n00b statement.I'm not sure what else it would be - or would you like to argue that you can debate the validity of an article without knowing what it says?
Hey, some data. Too bad it took a beating to get you to support some of your assertions.
You're completely right - there's no smoking gun that points to a decrease in productivity in pharma development. Conversely, the smoking gun that the act has increased productivity is missing as well. What we do know though is that IP lawsuits have increased dramatically as a result of this enactment, and that the focus of universities has shifted from fundamental science to immediately profitable science. In my book, that's bad. And while 4 years are too short a time period to evaluate its impact, I doubt we'll see many benefits from it.
Federal grants do not pay for drug validation.
And exactly how do you think you get to that stage? By just picking a random drug? No - there's research involved to get to that stage. Academics remove the biggest cost pharmaceuticals face - risk.
You're faced with two unproven assertions, and you choose to believe one without proof unless I can prove the other. That's not very rational.
I see. Your implication would be, however, that it is impossible to deduce anything about these assertions. You also wouldn't happen to subscribe to the theory that only a-priori knowledge is true knowledge? Probably not. From the effects that we know the Bayh-Dole act had, we can deduce the likelyhood of it increasing or decreasing scientific productivity. Again, so far, signs point to a decrease, not an increase. Wake me up when you have evidence to the contrary.
It claims that new drugs (not old drugs repatented under a different formula and target) have come on the market less frequently than before the Bayh-Dole act. Thereby showing that pharma has become less productive since the inception of the act.
You make a number of other mistakes in your posts (besides just pulling numbers out of your ass and making unsubstantiated claims like doctors recommending echinacea as a cure for cancer), but I'll focus on just one more. The costly experimentation in cell lines and animals that you think corporations do is actually done by the research scientists receiving those grants. At least, if you're still in the context of the article. Since this is a) the riskiest aspect of the business, and b)one of the most expensive aspects of drug development, it is accurate to say that the pharma companies are using tax dollars to do the hardest part of their work, and then simply go into management and marketing mode once they have something that looks useful.
In short, the only thing you've proven so far is that you didn't read the article mentioned and are prone to absurd exaggerations to prove your point. Once you show some hard data that the Bayh-Dole act lead to an increase in productivity, we'll talk again. Until then, the evidence points firmly to an unintended consequence of stifling innovation by reducing the incentive for scientists to collaborate.
And of course, you know the two reasons that countries go to war: either they think they can painlessly invade another country, or they have to make a surprise strike to take away the other country's ability to painlessly take them out. We've demonstrated part one in Iraq. I can guarantee you that with this doctrine in place, someone else will try the crippling pre-emptive strike. After all, if you have no clue whether you're gonna get nuked or not, you might as well try to take as many of those fuckers with you as possible.
Why do you think Iran is so keen on getting nukes? So that they can either make any invader (read: USA) pay a heavy price, or, even better, nuke any potential invader to the stone age to prevent any invasion. Bush is putting us on a course whose only possible outcome is that someone will get nuked, sooner or later. And then, Katrina is gonna look like a day at the beach.
This the same crap argument that people make about "stealing" someone's open wifi connection. If I have a big plug outside my home that you can plug your phone in - by all means, please do. That's what it's there for. The guy had his game available for everyone on the internet. That means anyone can deep link, hot link, link, or do whatever linking is possible.
Now, was Fuddrucker's polite about how it embedded the game onto its site? No. Was it even smart to do something like that? Hell no. Their webdeveloper got to feel how the Internet works. Now, was the asshat who made the game right to change his link? Absolutely. After all, it's his site, his game, and he can do with that UrI whatever he wants. But was he an asshat about how he went about it? Absolutely.
All I can say about this story is that one lazy ass met an asshole, and hilarity ensued. There's nothing illegal about anything that happened here, regardless of what you think costs money.
What does outsourcing have to do with being patriotic? How about worrying about the wellbeing of your fellow man, regardless of color, creed or nationality instead of this xenophobic claptrap? Apparently, you think there's a difference between moving a job to Cleveland and moving a job to Toronto - even though you know neither of the people there, they're only a couple of miles apart and very similar.
Face it - outsourcing happens every day in the US. It's just that the jobs don't go to those slimy indians or evil mexicans. Apparently, that is important to you. Go suck an egg.
Out of a job for two years ago? I guess you were looking for the same exact job with the same exact wage. Newsflash - life doesn't work that way. Adapt, change your approach for a little while, and before you know it, you're doing what you used to do, but with better pay and a better fit. Not to add insult to injury, but it seems to me that you might want to reassess your expectations of what you can be good at it. This has less to do with outsourcing than with personal expectations.
Which is exactly what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. It should never be the basis for an assignment, but it's a great place to start. Note that this means that it can never be an authority because of this.
Natural monopolies have nothing to do unit vs total costs. It has to do with costs - period. If it takes $1 million to lay one wire but $1 million and 1 to lay 1000 wires, that industry will still tend towards a natural monopoly - because each entrant has to lay out the cost of the initial wire.
Intelligent Design is not just unproven, it is inherently unprovable. Intelligent Design is not a science in any sense, but a theology, and as such, its place is in the church/mosque/synagogue/whatever, not in the classroom.
While I do agree with everything else you say, I'd like to comment on the idea that ID has no place in the class room. I strongly believe it actually has a place in the classroom - just not science class. Its place is in religion and philosophy classes. There, people can and should talk about it until the cows come home. At that point, students would understand what ID is a philosophy, not a science. Now if schools don't have these types of classes, that's a different problem.
Well, there are plenty of things that are allowed with direct permission. Sitting on the grass in Central Park. Walking into a store and browsing the merchandise. Going to a town hall meeting and asking questions. Using a public pay phone. Note how all these things are allowed because of one thing: they are "public" and open. Both of which come with the understanding that permission for use is implicit, and doesn't have to be explicit. Now does that mean that you can do anything you want? No. You can't build a house in Central Park without prior approval. You can't walk out of the store without paying for the items you took. You can't take a crowbar to the phone to get to the money. Again, access is permitted - use is regulated.
And that's how I see open Wifi spots. If it's open, it's open. I won't go snoop around their probably unsecured computer. I won't download my 800 MB Outlook archive file over their connection. I'll be nice. But I'll use it.
I agree that a lot of people don't know how to configure their router and that this might not be their intention. I can't agree though that we therefore need to assume that all open spots should be default be assumed to be closed. What if I want to have an open spot? By your logic, it would be impossible for me to provide a free access spot without having people contact me and get stuff in writing.
So what are the solutions for people who are ignorant? The same solution as always - get educated. Or don't use it. Should you be allowed to drive a car if you don't know how to use it? No. Kids are taught how to use electricity properly, how to operate microwave ovens, etc. Why can't adults be asked to learn how to properly operate their tools? I see this as a problem of education, not permission.
That standard of permission doesn't even apply to people! ("I wasn't violating the restraining order, her brother let me in!") Since when does it apply to inantimate objects?
Because it's not just any inanimate object - it's a router that is giving specific responses to specific requests. Since the owner of the router controls the router's responses, it is the owner of the router who is giving permission - or denying it. Stop bringing ridiculous analogies into this that have nothing to do with the situation.
If you really are a free hotspot it is trivial to indicate that you are in your SSID.
And exactly how does that work? Someone else already gave some good examples on how SSIDs that sound good might be something completely different. Why do you think it takes a team of lawyers and 20 pages to lay out the terms of use of a forum that essentially amount to "Don't be a jack ass or we'll kick you"?
English language is not precise - thankfully so. Therefore, don't require it to be. Instead, use technology standards, which have to be: if the WAP is open, it's open. If it's closed, it's closed. No if's, no but's, no legalese. If people abuse technology, it's their problem, not mine.
Now it would be good karma if I'd ask my neighbor "Hey, do you really want your WAP to be open?" But I should not have to run his system for him.
One day, 802.11* might have something added to make it easier to make it possible for a user to unambigiously give other's permission to use their networks (and that would be a useful feature anyway), but until then, look for notices, or talk to the operator. Don't assume.
This is retarded, even for slashdot standards. What, I now need to talk to the admin of every site that has an open http port? Should get a written statement (notarized, of course) from a local forum admin that I am indeed allowed to view the posts? Do you see how retarded this approach is that you're taking? Just because something is wireless (or any other broadcast medium) doesn't mean that the network rules of engagement suddenly change.
Open networks are exactly that - open. If you don't want anyone to trespass on them, put a sign up.
Here's a solution - don't come every day. Or better, don't read every story. Do you complain when cnn.com doesn't have an interesting story everyday? Do you complain when not every story in your news aggregator is relevant to you?
I can tell you why you're coming back, because it is the same reason I and everyone else keeps coming. For every 20 useless dupes and boring stories, there's something here that isn't picked up anywhere else - or even used by others as a news item (cough*economist*cough). Or even better - submit your own stories.
You mean, Timothy McVeigh - the Oklahoma Bomber? Or are you making the distinction that it is somehow better that he remotely detonated the bomb, but didn't blow himself up with it? Short-term memory indeed.
Since my job requires the existence of the Internet (and no, the job is not webmaster), I'd say that a working Internet for me is a necessity, not a luxury.
No. But it's endemic of the stupid approach to security. Monitor everything as quickly as you can, just because you might catch something interesting. This of course means that you have to do without any oversight until after the fact. After all, do you really think the FBI can get a wiretap within the 30 minutes or so that a passenger shows up on the passenger list and actually boards the plane? No. Things like this mean only one thing - that the FBI is trying to expand their monitoring without anybody checking what they are doing.
Slashdot Mirror
So they took a quote from one think tank as indicating a particular bias? This tells me two things: they don't understand context ("and here's another quote that shows how stupid the Cato institute is: '[...]'"), and they substitute their own bias for somebody elses in determining what is left and right. Woohoo.
According to http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/treat/ost/ost.html/, they can't. Then again, just wait until someone finds some energy source on the moon or other useful raw material. Then watch the gold rush.
Kickass! That means that they'll be able to distribute their stuff online without having to deal with Sony lawyers! There will always be music and art. The only thing that might disappear is the distributors. Which might actually be a good thing.
Note that the article says nothing about what the US has actually paid out, only about what it says it might.
e _United_Nations#The_U.S._arrears_issue
Check out the following wikipedia article on how the US pays the UN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_th
Completely agree. Dvorkin for President!
Hey, some data. Too bad it took a beating to get you to support some of your assertions.
You're completely right - there's no smoking gun that points to a decrease in productivity in pharma development. Conversely, the smoking gun that the act has increased productivity is missing as well. What we do know though is that IP lawsuits have increased dramatically as a result of this enactment, and that the focus of universities has shifted from fundamental science to immediately profitable science. In my book, that's bad. And while 4 years are too short a time period to evaluate its impact, I doubt we'll see many benefits from it.
Federal grants do not pay for drug validation.
And exactly how do you think you get to that stage? By just picking a random drug? No - there's research involved to get to that stage. Academics remove the biggest cost pharmaceuticals face - risk.
You're faced with two unproven assertions, and you choose to believe one without proof unless I can prove the other. That's not very rational.
I see. Your implication would be, however, that it is impossible to deduce anything about these assertions. You also wouldn't happen to subscribe to the theory that only a-priori knowledge is true knowledge? Probably not. From the effects that we know the Bayh-Dole act had, we can deduce the likelyhood of it increasing or decreasing scientific productivity. Again, so far, signs point to a decrease, not an increase. Wake me up when you have evidence to the contrary.
You still haven't read the article.
It claims that new drugs (not old drugs repatented under a different formula and target) have come on the market less frequently than before the Bayh-Dole act. Thereby showing that pharma has become less productive since the inception of the act.
You make a number of other mistakes in your posts (besides just pulling numbers out of your ass and making unsubstantiated claims like doctors recommending echinacea as a cure for cancer), but I'll focus on just one more. The costly experimentation in cell lines and animals that you think corporations do is actually done by the research scientists receiving those grants. At least, if you're still in the context of the article. Since this is a) the riskiest aspect of the business, and b)one of the most expensive aspects of drug development, it is accurate to say that the pharma companies are using tax dollars to do the hardest part of their work, and then simply go into management and marketing mode once they have something that looks useful.
In short, the only thing you've proven so far is that you didn't read the article mentioned and are prone to absurd exaggerations to prove your point. Once you show some hard data that the Bayh-Dole act lead to an increase in productivity, we'll talk again. Until then, the evidence points firmly to an unintended consequence of stifling innovation by reducing the incentive for scientists to collaborate.
And of course, you know the two reasons that countries go to war: either they think they can painlessly invade another country, or they have to make a surprise strike to take away the other country's ability to painlessly take them out. We've demonstrated part one in Iraq. I can guarantee you that with this doctrine in place, someone else will try the crippling pre-emptive strike. After all, if you have no clue whether you're gonna get nuked or not, you might as well try to take as many of those fuckers with you as possible. Why do you think Iran is so keen on getting nukes? So that they can either make any invader (read: USA) pay a heavy price, or, even better, nuke any potential invader to the stone age to prevent any invasion. Bush is putting us on a course whose only possible outcome is that someone will get nuked, sooner or later. And then, Katrina is gonna look like a day at the beach.
This the same crap argument that people make about "stealing" someone's open wifi connection. If I have a big plug outside my home that you can plug your phone in - by all means, please do. That's what it's there for. The guy had his game available for everyone on the internet. That means anyone can deep link, hot link, link, or do whatever linking is possible. Now, was Fuddrucker's polite about how it embedded the game onto its site? No. Was it even smart to do something like that? Hell no. Their webdeveloper got to feel how the Internet works. Now, was the asshat who made the game right to change his link? Absolutely. After all, it's his site, his game, and he can do with that UrI whatever he wants. But was he an asshat about how he went about it? Absolutely. All I can say about this story is that one lazy ass met an asshole, and hilarity ensued. There's nothing illegal about anything that happened here, regardless of what you think costs money.
That's what they said about chess bots as well.... about 15 years ago. Now it's news when a human player actually beats a computer.
What does outsourcing have to do with being patriotic? How about worrying about the wellbeing of your fellow man, regardless of color, creed or nationality instead of this xenophobic claptrap? Apparently, you think there's a difference between moving a job to Cleveland and moving a job to Toronto - even though you know neither of the people there, they're only a couple of miles apart and very similar. Face it - outsourcing happens every day in the US. It's just that the jobs don't go to those slimy indians or evil mexicans. Apparently, that is important to you. Go suck an egg.
Awesome. Can I work for you?
Out of a job for two years ago? I guess you were looking for the same exact job with the same exact wage. Newsflash - life doesn't work that way. Adapt, change your approach for a little while, and before you know it, you're doing what you used to do, but with better pay and a better fit. Not to add insult to injury, but it seems to me that you might want to reassess your expectations of what you can be good at it. This has less to do with outsourcing than with personal expectations.
Which is exactly what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. It should never be the basis for an assignment, but it's a great place to start. Note that this means that it can never be an authority because of this.
Natural monopolies have nothing to do unit vs total costs. It has to do with costs - period. If it takes $1 million to lay one wire but $1 million and 1 to lay 1000 wires, that industry will still tend towards a natural monopoly - because each entrant has to lay out the cost of the initial wire.
While I do agree with everything else you say, I'd like to comment on the idea that ID has no place in the class room. I strongly believe it actually has a place in the classroom - just not science class. Its place is in religion and philosophy classes. There, people can and should talk about it until the cows come home. At that point, students would understand what ID is a philosophy, not a science. Now if schools don't have these types of classes, that's a different problem.
And that's how I see open Wifi spots. If it's open, it's open. I won't go snoop around their probably unsecured computer. I won't download my 800 MB Outlook archive file over their connection. I'll be nice. But I'll use it.
I agree that a lot of people don't know how to configure their router and that this might not be their intention. I can't agree though that we therefore need to assume that all open spots should be default be assumed to be closed. What if I want to have an open spot? By your logic, it would be impossible for me to provide a free access spot without having people contact me and get stuff in writing.
So what are the solutions for people who are ignorant? The same solution as always - get educated. Or don't use it. Should you be allowed to drive a car if you don't know how to use it? No. Kids are taught how to use electricity properly, how to operate microwave ovens, etc. Why can't adults be asked to learn how to properly operate their tools? I see this as a problem of education, not permission.
That standard of permission doesn't even apply to people! ("I wasn't violating the restraining order, her brother let me in!") Since when does it apply to inantimate objects? Because it's not just any inanimate object - it's a router that is giving specific responses to specific requests. Since the owner of the router controls the router's responses, it is the owner of the router who is giving permission - or denying it. Stop bringing ridiculous analogies into this that have nothing to do with the situation.
And exactly how does that work? Someone else already gave some good examples on how SSIDs that sound good might be something completely different. Why do you think it takes a team of lawyers and 20 pages to lay out the terms of use of a forum that essentially amount to "Don't be a jack ass or we'll kick you"?
English language is not precise - thankfully so. Therefore, don't require it to be. Instead, use technology standards, which have to be: if the WAP is open, it's open. If it's closed, it's closed. No if's, no but's, no legalese. If people abuse technology, it's their problem, not mine.
Now it would be good karma if I'd ask my neighbor "Hey, do you really want your WAP to be open?" But I should not have to run his system for him.
This is retarded, even for slashdot standards. What, I now need to talk to the admin of every site that has an open http port? Should get a written statement (notarized, of course) from a local forum admin that I am indeed allowed to view the posts? Do you see how retarded this approach is that you're taking? Just because something is wireless (or any other broadcast medium) doesn't mean that the network rules of engagement suddenly change.
Open networks are exactly that - open. If you don't want anyone to trespass on them, put a sign up.
Here's a solution - don't come every day. Or better, don't read every story. Do you complain when cnn.com doesn't have an interesting story everyday? Do you complain when not every story in your news aggregator is relevant to you? I can tell you why you're coming back, because it is the same reason I and everyone else keeps coming. For every 20 useless dupes and boring stories, there's something here that isn't picked up anywhere else - or even used by others as a news item (cough*economist*cough). Or even better - submit your own stories.
You mean, Timothy McVeigh - the Oklahoma Bomber? Or are you making the distinction that it is somehow better that he remotely detonated the bomb, but didn't blow himself up with it? Short-term memory indeed.
Since my job requires the existence of the Internet (and no, the job is not webmaster), I'd say that a working Internet for me is a necessity, not a luxury.
No. But it's endemic of the stupid approach to security. Monitor everything as quickly as you can, just because you might catch something interesting. This of course means that you have to do without any oversight until after the fact. After all, do you really think the FBI can get a wiretap within the 30 minutes or so that a passenger shows up on the passenger list and actually boards the plane? No. Things like this mean only one thing - that the FBI is trying to expand their monitoring without anybody checking what they are doing.
I'd rather be a dead chump than one who is in constant fear of being hauled off to Guantanamo. Where is YOUR civic backbone?