Ah, I see you have looked at the space but never followed a drug all the way. It's crony capitalism everywhere, the governments pick winners, and the difference is whether you get to book the bribe as a legitimate business expense or not, and whether you bribe the regulatory body in the form of a service fee, or follow the Olympic Organizing Committee model and just pay to send the decisionmaker's kids to college.
The regulatory bodies over most of the world accept each others' study results. The EU countries are obvious, but Sweden, non-EU former-Soviet states, and the rest of the planet (the ones that have regulatory agencies) all accept a double-blind standard.
It's the FDA that mandates tests that deviate from the standard everybody follows. So the tests need to be re-done. And CFR 18 Rule 21 compliance issues are also incompatible with the EU electronic signature for research records directive, meaning double-entry is forced there as well.
First off, most governments tightly control the information on the efficacy of their programs. It's a shell game of accounting games, and it's really really hard to tell what's happening. Remember, nobody actually regulates the government, so other than saying "transparency" a lot, there is little else related to transparency happening.
In those governments that are moderately open, systems the ACA was modeled on was the worst financial performer. Regulatory realities intervene, so the US can't really have a system like Canada's since the US federalism and it's limits are more like Germany's, and they solved this problem in 1880 because they had a universally popular chancellor.
The most positive light on the ACA is that it's a very large body of horrible laws overlaid on horrible laws governing a broken system - the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but still. I can't even move six blocks to the north of where I do now and not have to change health insurance providers. Seriously.
American Exceptionalism: Doing what everybody else on the planet discarded as unworkable, and expecting a different outcome.
I have kept my family self-insured for years because I contracted, kicked off and sold start-ups. With a pre-existing condition (PTSD, and also the most horrible, needing Zyrtec for allergies) made getting self insurance pretty darn difficult even on plans that exempted mental health. Yes, I heard "we don't cover mental health, but underwriting has declined coverage because of your PTSD."
Fast forward to now: My family of four was PPO insured for $296 a month, $10,000 oop max $5,000 oop individual max, 20% co-pay, free kids' preventive care. It didn't cover maternity (I'm snipped dag-nammit) nor pediatric dental, but in all other aspects exceeded the ACA "Bronze" level plan.
But it was a direct plan. Insurance (CareFirst/BCBS) company cancels group.
Replacement: $690 was the lowest cost plan at the "Bronze" level PPO, which gives us $13900 oop max, $7000 oop individual max, 25 or 30% copay, no included kids' preventive care or immunizations, it rolls in with everything else. We do get maternity. And I get to pay for kids' dental TWICE, since dental insurance is either a family package or per individual.
So basically I get to pay almost $5000 per year more for less. My aggregate income tax rate where I live now 39%. Some places in Canada (okay, Alberta) are the same. California is much higher, with tax loads surpassing that of Germany.
So why should I bother kicking off another start-up here, or keep the ones I have running where they are?
I now pay the same, still get bills for medical services rendered six months ago stamped "overdue" from 4 different providers for a single doctor's visit, and get to sort the mess out all on my own. The ACA threw most self-insured people under the bus - "but hey, no pre-existing conditions anymore, so you get to pay the same as a smoker twice your age with asthma!"
Most libertarians have no problem with drones - they're cheaper to operate than manned aerial vehicles, and have a lot more on-station time. Nobody will argue with drones being sent to find someone lost in the woods.
The problem arises when drones are "on patrol" with narrowband radar looking into houses on fishing expeditions. And so the question remains - what appropriate checks and balances exist search with court permission?
T420, gen 2 i5 processor, base model except for the high res screen. It's fast, quiet, and has long battery life. And it can be found for under $800 with 4 GB of RAM and a pretty fast 320 gb hdd.
Running Ubuntu 11.04 and now 11.10 on it, no issues at all. Battery life on the stock kernels is about 4 hours for just typing and surfing.
The version of X that shipped with 11.04 did have the intel GMA system hang issue, but it was rare, and could be reduced even further by setting i915.semaphores=1 on the kernel command line. 11.10 does not have an issue, with or without that setting though.
Never mind those silly details like due process and unreasonable search & seizure . We're talking terrorism here, so it's straight off to room 101 with you.
Of course, tourist photos must be deleted though, you know, in the name of public safety. Where is the "shake my head in disbelief" animated icon again?
This sounds tongue-in-cheek, but is really a serious question. On one hand, you have the notion of ignorance is no excuse although there are precedents now stating if you're famous, that's okay. There are precedents for secret treatises for national security, like the withdrawal of missiles from Turkey at the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis. But how would the mechanics of enforcement work?
Will the FBI kick in your door, shoot your dog, and haul you off for breaking a secret law?
Would they need a secret warrant?
If you ever got your day in court, would that court be secret too, to protect that law?
----
Now for Canada: A judge last year tossed out a RIAA style copyright suit because the defendant had made CDs. As everyone knows, Canada has a special tax on blank media to reimburse the copyright holders for piracy that may or may not happen. Kind of like paying a partial speeding ticket before you get into your car each day. Since this implies guilt, the defendant was deemed to have been punished already, and was so exempt from being convicted again.
How would the secret treaty work in Canada? Change the laws secretly?
The difference is whether your actions effect me? You are only free to do what you want so long as it does not negatively impact me.
As driving around in a Hummer for example *DOES* effect me, if the majority of people say you don't get to do that then you don't get to do that. It is no more nanny state than making murder a crime.
As for telling kids to pray in school, well whether they pray or not has no impact on me so the state does not get to say they must.
Get the picture?
Yes, I do get the picture. YOU want to ban things YOU find offensive, because YOU know better than anyone else, comrade.
Driving cars with poor gas mileage, or more to the topic, with glass that's not the most efficient for air conditioning, is a societal problem?
Yikes, that's a scary precedent.
What else do you think is a serious societal problem?
Where do you stop meddling in my choices as to the products I buy? I can't buy it because you don't "approve"? Can I buy a pickup truck, or do I need to "prove" I am a farmer?
Or will you make me take transit?
The market will stop making things that people don't buy. The only cars I recall seeing with glass like that were the old lincolns with the orange windows that the old people drove.
As far as your nanny state retort: There are people who believe that people ought to be left to their own choices in life, good or bad. And there are people who believe that their choices must be made for them, because they know better than the person they're deciding for. You have made an argument for the latter.
Problems start when people who are under your control rightfully abrogate their responsibilities to you too - you see, when you can't decide, you shouldn't hold them responsible. So they sit on their butts, whine about benefits, and make babies in the meantime. Because they whine about not being responsible, they're making everyone else feel bad, so you repress them - speak your mind, fewer, or no benefits. Your money runs low anyways with that much drag on the system, so all you can make are Trabant cars with cardboard hoods. Until the money runs out. Now what?
So, did he ever get use that gun against the people who terminated him, I wonder?
I don't understand why he would, and he didn't, or else we'd have heard about it on CNN. It's probably facetious on your part, or you're ignorant about non-gangsta's with guns.
Law-abiding gun owners (and unless proven otherwise, he's still law-abiding) don't wave those things around, you know.
For all everyone's complaining here, did he really do anything that negatively impacted your lives?
No, but neither did any of those involved in the Rwandan genocide. One of the things about being a part of a society is that you are allowed to care about things that don't directly affect you personally.
So you're saying you should control people just because you can? Because that's how it reads. And Rwanda happened because of inaction - as in saying you care, but doing nothing.
If he has a permit, he's free to carry. If he feels he need a body guard, he can have one if he can afford one. I am sure there are plenty of investors that feel stiffed by his use of their money.
If you want something that gets 10 mpg, go ahead and buy it. Just don't come looking to me for a handout when you can no longer afford the gas. Yep, history spoke against me last year, yep, were 70,000 dollar Hummer drivers got their handouts.
Same with a 50 mpg car. Who cares how it gets there, as long as it meets all emission regulations and safety standards. When people who know nothing about automobile technology mandate what needs to be used, they'll be no better off than the software industry - beholden to marketing, lobbying and politics, and... never mind
What I find most ironic is how few people in the USA and the UK are really familiar with the works of Orwell. "1984" is an outstanding Sci-Fi book, although it's written as a narrative of the misery of oppressive politics, supported by (what was then) technology that could only be described as a fantasy.
For lighter reading, and lest you be accused of creating an oppressive atmosphere, one of the Douglas Adams like Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy should also be on the menu.
It stops terrorism about as well as the Canadian Gun Registry, London CCTV, and the Patriot Acts combined = 0, at least officially according to the General Accounting Office or their countries equivalent. Of course the real number they say, is secret, and zero isn't a real number...
The core of the problem is that for some reason "digital" means "different."
Rights are rights, and should apply equally whether the medium is digital or analog. Think about it.
So you could copy an analog tape? But copying a DVD is a crime?
You can call someone out on their misdeeds on a town meeting, and (if wrong) be subject to due process? If you post the same on your blog or an internet forum, no due process.
The notion that free speech, fair use, freedom of expression are segregated between digital and analog is odious, and is used by the enemies of all freedoms to further their goals. Digitizing some sort of bill of rights cowtows as much to the evildoers, nanny states, and control freaks of the world as the honoring of sharia in western legal systems does to islamic extremists. It's sad to see.
So in Canada all blank media is subject to a fine for the piracy one might commit with that media, irrelevant of actual use.
This akin to you having to pay a partial speeding ticket every time you start your car; you're guilty, period.
Of course, courts ruled that since this is a fine, and has been paid, additional prosecution is difficult, which really upset Canada's RIAA, which pushed so hard for the blank media fine in the first place.
They were wrong. part of the problem is Government intrusion into the market. The market should be allowed to determine what lives and what dies
What the hell do you think Greenspan did? Jesus fucking christ, that was his *entire policy*! And now what does he say? "Oh, sorry, I assumed self-interest would be enough for businesses to protect shareholders, but... I guess not." Translation: people are douchebags, and leaving the market to regulate itself is a recipe for disaster.
Mark my words, this disaster will see the end of popular support for libertarian economic ideals, for at least the next decade. And rightly so, IMHO.
Nobody put a gun to your head and stated that:
1. You shall take mortgages you cannot afford. 2. You shall invest in sub-prime mortgage-backed derivatives.
The problem is the suckers, not the system, a fact conveniently ignored by socialists. "Blame the winners" is the rallying cry.
So it's my fault I did not invest in that and am better off than you as a result, huh?
Blatant corporate sponsorship. No wonder these kids think that Apple invented the Internet and the GUI.
Coming up next: Student suspended for listening to MP3's. Administration cannot decide whether it was because it was a Samsung phone or because the music was not sold by iTunes and subject to their DRM.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I see you have looked at the space but never followed a drug all the way. It's crony capitalism everywhere, the governments pick winners, and the difference is whether you get to book the bribe as a legitimate business expense or not, and whether you bribe the regulatory body in the form of a service fee, or follow the Olympic Organizing Committee model and just pay to send the decisionmaker's kids to college.
The regulatory bodies over most of the world accept each others' study results. The EU countries are obvious, but Sweden, non-EU former-Soviet states, and the rest of the planet (the ones that have regulatory agencies) all accept a double-blind standard.
It's the FDA that mandates tests that deviate from the standard everybody follows. So the tests need to be re-done. And CFR 18 Rule 21 compliance issues are also incompatible with the EU electronic signature for research records directive, meaning double-entry is forced there as well.
First off, most governments tightly control the information on the efficacy of their programs. It's a shell game of accounting games, and it's really really hard to tell what's happening. Remember, nobody actually regulates the government, so other than saying "transparency" a lot, there is little else related to transparency happening.
In those governments that are moderately open, systems the ACA was modeled on was the worst financial performer. Regulatory realities intervene, so the US can't really have a system like Canada's since the US federalism and it's limits are more like Germany's, and they solved this problem in 1880 because they had a universally popular chancellor.
The most positive light on the ACA is that it's a very large body of horrible laws overlaid on horrible laws governing a broken system - the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but still. I can't even move six blocks to the north of where I do now and not have to change health insurance providers. Seriously.
American Exceptionalism: Doing what everybody else on the planet discarded as unworkable, and expecting a different outcome.
I have kept my family self-insured for years because I contracted, kicked off and sold start-ups. With a pre-existing condition (PTSD, and also the most horrible, needing Zyrtec for allergies) made getting self insurance pretty darn difficult even on plans that exempted mental health. Yes, I heard "we don't cover mental health, but underwriting has declined coverage because of your PTSD."
Fast forward to now: My family of four was PPO insured for $296 a month, $10,000 oop max $5,000 oop individual max, 20% co-pay, free kids' preventive care. It didn't cover maternity (I'm snipped dag-nammit) nor pediatric dental, but in all other aspects exceeded the ACA "Bronze" level plan.
But it was a direct plan. Insurance (CareFirst/BCBS) company cancels group.
Replacement: $690 was the lowest cost plan at the "Bronze" level PPO, which gives us $13900 oop max, $7000 oop individual max, 25 or 30% copay, no included kids' preventive care or immunizations, it rolls in with everything else. We do get maternity. And I get to pay for kids' dental TWICE, since dental insurance is either a family package or per individual.
So basically I get to pay almost $5000 per year more for less. My aggregate income tax rate where I live now 39%. Some places in Canada (okay, Alberta) are the same. California is much higher, with tax loads surpassing that of Germany.
So why should I bother kicking off another start-up here, or keep the ones I have running where they are?
I now pay the same, still get bills for medical services rendered six months ago stamped "overdue" from 4 different providers for a single doctor's visit, and get to sort the mess out all on my own. The ACA threw most self-insured people under the bus - "but hey, no pre-existing conditions anymore, so you get to pay the same as a smoker twice your age with asthma!"
Most libertarians have no problem with drones - they're cheaper to operate than manned aerial vehicles, and have a lot more on-station time. Nobody will argue with drones being sent to find someone lost in the woods.
The problem arises when drones are "on patrol" with narrowband radar looking into houses on fishing expeditions. And so the question remains - what appropriate checks and balances exist search with court permission?
The would deprive us of watching another Darl McBride style train wreck!
Seriously, I learned a lot about the legal system from the "SCO Stupid" (sm). Other than that, I agree, common sense ... about something at last.
Really now, don't provoke "the man" unless you're willing to take it, and see it through to the end.
It's like wearing an offensive shirt elsewhere and getting called on it. Man up, or suck it up.
Some animals are more equal than others.
T420, gen 2 i5 processor, base model except for the high res screen. It's fast, quiet, and has long battery life. And it can be found for under $800 with 4 GB of RAM and a pretty fast 320 gb hdd.
Running Ubuntu 11.04 and now 11.10 on it, no issues at all. Battery life on the stock kernels is about 4 hours for just typing and surfing.
The version of X that shipped with 11.04 did have the intel GMA system hang issue, but it was rare, and could be reduced even further by setting i915.semaphores=1 on the kernel command line. 11.10 does not have an issue, with or without that setting though.
Never mind those silly details like due process and unreasonable search & seizure . We're talking terrorism here, so it's straight off to room 101 with you.
Well, I guess this had to happen. Full fail for street level cameras for billions, so the only option left is to go full retard.
One cannot even argue that this is a responsible use of public funds:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6082530/1000-CCTV-cameras-to-solve-just-one-crime-Met-Police-admits.html
Of course, tourist photos must be deleted though, you know, in the name of public safety. Where is the "shake my head in disbelief" animated icon again?
This sounds tongue-in-cheek, but is really a serious question. On one hand, you have the notion of ignorance is no excuse although there are precedents now stating if you're famous, that's okay. There are precedents for secret treatises for national security, like the withdrawal of missiles from Turkey at the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis. But how would the mechanics of enforcement work?
Will the FBI kick in your door, shoot your dog, and haul you off for breaking a secret law?
Would they need a secret warrant?
If you ever got your day in court, would that court be secret too, to protect that law?
----
Now for Canada: A judge last year tossed out a RIAA style copyright suit because the defendant had made CDs. As everyone knows, Canada has a special tax on blank media to reimburse the copyright holders for piracy that may or may not happen. Kind of like paying a partial speeding ticket before you get into your car each day. Since this implies guilt, the defendant was deemed to have been punished already, and was so exempt from being convicted again.
How would the secret treaty work in Canada? Change the laws secretly?
Positive for the toll-booth operators in CA, of course. More fines!
The difference is whether your actions effect me? You are only free to do what you want so long as it does not negatively impact me.
As driving around in a Hummer for example *DOES* effect me, if the majority of people say you don't get to do that then you don't get to do that. It is no more nanny state than making murder a crime.
As for telling kids to pray in school, well whether they pray or not has no impact on me so the state does not get to say they must.
Get the picture?
Yes, I do get the picture. YOU want to ban things YOU find offensive, because YOU know better than anyone else, comrade.
Driving cars with poor gas mileage, or more to the topic, with glass that's not the most efficient for air conditioning, is a societal problem?
Yikes, that's a scary precedent.
What else do you think is a serious societal problem?
Where do you stop meddling in my choices as to the products I buy? I can't buy it because you don't "approve"? Can I buy a pickup truck, or do I need to "prove" I am a farmer?
Or will you make me take transit?
The market will stop making things that people don't buy. The only cars I recall seeing with glass like that were the old lincolns with the orange windows that the old people drove.
As far as your nanny state retort: There are people who believe that people ought to be left to their own choices in life, good or bad. And there are people who believe that their choices must be made for them, because they know better than the person they're deciding for. You have made an argument for the latter.
Problems start when people who are under your control rightfully abrogate their responsibilities to you too - you see, when you can't decide, you shouldn't hold them responsible. So they sit on their butts, whine about benefits, and make babies in the meantime. Because they whine about not being responsible, they're making everyone else feel bad, so you repress them - speak your mind, fewer, or no benefits. Your money runs low anyways with that much drag on the system, so all you can make are Trabant cars with cardboard hoods. Until the money runs out. Now what?
So, did he ever get use that gun against the people who terminated him, I wonder?
I don't understand why he would, and he didn't, or else we'd have heard about it on CNN. It's probably facetious on your part, or you're ignorant about non-gangsta's with guns.
Law-abiding gun owners (and unless proven otherwise, he's still law-abiding) don't wave those things around, you know.
For all everyone's complaining here, did he really do anything that negatively impacted your lives?
No, but neither did any of those involved in the Rwandan genocide. One of the things about being a part of a society is that you are allowed to care about things that don't directly affect you personally.
So you're saying you should control people just because you can? Because that's how it reads. And Rwanda happened because of inaction - as in saying you care, but doing nothing.
If he has a permit, he's free to carry. If he feels he need a body guard, he can have one if he can afford one. I am sure there are plenty of investors that feel stiffed by his use of their money.
But should be up to the customer.
If you want something that gets 10 mpg, go ahead and buy it. Just don't come looking to me for a handout when you can no longer afford the gas. Yep, history spoke against me last year, yep, were 70,000 dollar Hummer drivers got their handouts.
Same with a 50 mpg car. Who cares how it gets there, as long as it meets all emission regulations and safety standards. When people who know nothing about automobile technology mandate what needs to be used, they'll be no better off than the software industry - beholden to marketing, lobbying and politics, and ... never mind
What I find most ironic is how few people in the USA and the UK are really familiar with the works of Orwell. "1984" is an outstanding Sci-Fi book, although it's written as a narrative of the misery of oppressive politics, supported by (what was then) technology that could only be described as a fantasy.
For lighter reading, and lest you be accused of creating an oppressive atmosphere, one of the Douglas Adams like Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy should also be on the menu.
It stops terrorism about as well as the Canadian Gun Registry, London CCTV, and the Patriot Acts combined = 0, at least officially according to the General Accounting Office or their countries equivalent. Of course the real number they say, is secret, and zero isn't a real number...
Not as a green card holder - do that and they deny you the renewal. An "isolated incident" of course.
The core of the problem is that for some reason "digital" means "different."
Rights are rights, and should apply equally whether the medium is digital or analog. Think about it.
So you could copy an analog tape? But copying a DVD is a crime?
You can call someone out on their misdeeds on a town meeting, and (if wrong) be subject to due process? If you post the same on your blog or an internet forum, no due process.
The notion that free speech, fair use, freedom of expression are segregated between digital and analog is odious, and is used by the enemies of all freedoms to further their goals. Digitizing some sort of bill of rights cowtows as much to the evildoers, nanny states, and control freaks of the world as the honoring of sharia in western legal systems does to islamic extremists. It's sad to see.
So in Canada all blank media is subject to a fine for the piracy one might commit with that media, irrelevant of actual use.
This akin to you having to pay a partial speeding ticket every time you start your car; you're guilty, period.
Of course, courts ruled that since this is a fine, and has been paid, additional prosecution is difficult, which really upset Canada's RIAA, which pushed so hard for the blank media fine in the first place.
Retarded.
They were wrong. part of the problem is Government intrusion into the market. The market should be allowed to determine what lives and what dies
What the hell do you think Greenspan did? Jesus fucking christ, that was his *entire policy*! And now what does he say? "Oh, sorry, I assumed self-interest would be enough for businesses to protect shareholders, but... I guess not." Translation: people are douchebags, and leaving the market to regulate itself is a recipe for disaster.
Mark my words, this disaster will see the end of popular support for libertarian economic ideals, for at least the next decade. And rightly so, IMHO.
Nobody put a gun to your head and stated that:
1. You shall take mortgages you cannot afford.
2. You shall invest in sub-prime mortgage-backed derivatives.
The problem is the suckers, not the system, a fact conveniently ignored by socialists. "Blame the winners" is the rallying cry.
So it's my fault I did not invest in that and am better off than you as a result, huh?
Blatant corporate sponsorship. No wonder these kids think that Apple invented the Internet and the GUI.
Coming up next: Student suspended for listening to MP3's. Administration cannot decide whether it was because it was a Samsung phone or because the music was not sold by iTunes and subject to their DRM.
Oh, and this differs from the DHS claiming the right to confiscate all data in my personal possession when crossing the border how, exactly?
Not like how taped conversations between Airbus and its customers were "accidentally released" to Boeing to better their negotiations?
Oh yeah - one is a government, I forgot.