I feel nothing over the fall from grace of Mike McCurry. He isn't lobbying for the telcos because he has to, or because he is trying to help the internet be a better place. He is lobbying for profit. Screw him.
Which brings up a larger point: Why are Slashdot comments considered "news"?
Additionally, I fail to see how partisan bloggers and think tanks are "news" sources. They may be wonderful web sites for reading about what people on the right or left think re: current events....but "news" sources?
This news shouldn't surprise anyone I suppose, but...
Back in March of this year Gonzales "renewed his commitment" to the Justice Departament's Intellectual Property Task Force by appointing his then Deputy Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson as the new chairman. Official announcement.
Well, Sampson isn't new to the game of IP, politics, and the law. He was the one advising Senator Orrin "I Will Destroy Your Computer" Hatch from 1999-2001 on tech issues. Full bio
Oh, don't worry, my determination to be offended, and for that matter your capacity to offend me, are infinitesimal when compared to our apparently mutual desire to have the "last word" in this increasingly petty exchange. But hey...it is Slashdot!;)
BocaJuniors: Desire to harm anyone expressing religious opinion is much less neanderthal than doing harm in religion's name.
ozmanjusri: The desire to protect one's children from freaks predates the neanderthals by a long way.
BocaJuniors: Ergo, anyone expressing religious opinion = freak.
ozmanjusri: A less paranoid individual would have read it as "anyone threatening a child = freak."
Perhaps you're right, we just misunderstood eachother.
By the same token, I would think that a less paranoid individual, upon reading the words "anyone expressing religious opinion," wouldn't immediately think: "freaks.";)
I can tell you that if she ever does need some kind of treatment that someone objects to on religious grounds, that someone had better stay the hell out of my way.
Indeed.
Desire to harm anyone expressing religious opinion is much less neanderthal than doing harm in religion's name.
This is not simply "the government" making decisions - it is specfically the NIH.
Replace "the government" with "corporations" and "the NIH" with "Roche."
I mean...you're kind of playing with semantics here...
Now, the NIH has made a great many mistakes, but if you think the NIH even *approaches* the corruption and incompetence of the drug industry, you're from Mars.
I just registered an hour ago on Slashdot and already I'm being called a Martian. Cool.;)
I stand by my statement that public financing of R&D is less of a market distortion than are patents, and therefore is more capitalist. Why and in what way am I wrong?
First of all, I think that the "burden of proof," or whatever, is on you to show that public financing of an entire industry won't produce market distortions. I mean, you're basically saying: "I stand by my assertation, for which I've provided no evidence, now tell me why I'm wrong!"
That point aside, if I understand you correctly (and correct me if I'm wrong), you claim that nationalizing all pharmaceutical R&D will result in less market distortion than the current patent system. By extension, would this hold true for all other industries as well? Or is there something peculiar about the drug industry?
Why not nationalize the R&D of all tech research? "Surely the folks who helped fund the Internet and took us to the moon can do better than the tech companies..." or so the argument could go.
...that's part of the reason so many profitable designer drugs like zyban and paxil are on the market, but shit we actually need, like vaccines, antivirals, and antibiotics, aren't being persued becuase they're percieved as lower profit drugs.
I'm not clear on what you're trying to say here.
Are you claiming that people don't buy the drugs that they need ("vaccines, antivirals, and antibiotics") and instead frivolously consume unnecessary drugs ("zyban and paxil")?
Or you are simply stating your displeasure with the fact that drug companies make drugs that people are willing to pay money for?
Beyond that, corporate decision makers are also very corrupt. For example, in the vioxx case, concealing the evidence of deaths, and so forth.
Change "corporate" to "government" and "vioxx" to "Tuskegee."
There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to sling mud on both sides of the public/private debate.
If it makes you feel any better, this is really capitalist solution.
My guess is that you would be hard-pressed to find many economists who support the notion that nationalizing an entire industry is a "capitalist solution."
Slashdot Mirror
I feel nothing over the fall from grace of Mike McCurry. He isn't lobbying for the telcos because he has to, or because he is trying to help the internet be a better place. He is lobbying for profit. Screw him.
Evidently, my joke about pr0n, not Islamofascism, sucked. ;)
Evidently, a pious Islamofascist can only go so long without broadband pr0n.
Funny. You're comment is already in Google News. :)
See here.
Let the boycott begin!
Which brings up a larger point: Why are Slashdot comments considered "news"?
Additionally, I fail to see how partisan bloggers and think tanks are "news" sources. They may be wonderful web sites for reading about what people on the right or left think re: current events....but "news" sources?
Well, this certainly explains my experiences with Indian companies.
This news shouldn't surprise anyone I suppose, but...
Back in March of this year Gonzales "renewed his commitment" to the Justice Departament's Intellectual Property Task Force by appointing his then Deputy Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson as the new chairman. Official announcement.
Well, Sampson isn't new to the game of IP, politics, and the law. He was the one advising Senator Orrin "I Will Destroy Your Computer" Hatch from 1999-2001 on tech issues. Full bio
Kind of creepy...
It would be a KDE comic book?
Am I the only one who read that as, "...actor Brian Williams said." ?
You mean...a Slashdotter?
Hello, Peter. We need to talk about your TPS reports.
I don't think that "install" means to most people just "dumping the distro on the hard drive."
For most users it probably means a lot of other things too...like having a fully-functional system right out of the box.
And by that standard, Linux has come a long way.
Still in beta.
You can still find quite a few who advocate "privatisation" as being some kind of universal cure-all.
Indeed.
And I doubt they would claim that privatization is a "socialist solution."
Oh, don't worry, my determination to be offended, and for that matter your capacity to offend me, are infinitesimal when compared to our apparently mutual desire to have the "last word" in this increasingly petty exchange. But hey...it is Slashdot! ;)
Cheers.
Congratulations. You are now unequivically a freak.
Ergo, anyone expressing opinion in disagreement with ozmanjusri = freak (and Slashdot foe!)
Or did I get that wrong too?
In any case, I think that you've proven my point better than I.
Cheers.
Perhaps you're right, we just misunderstood eachother.
By the same token, I would think that a less paranoid individual, upon reading the words "anyone expressing religious opinion," wouldn't immediately think: "freaks." ;)
Ergo, anyone expressing religious opinion = freak.
How cordial.
Desire to harm anyone expressing religious opinion is much less neanderthal than doing harm in religion's name.
That point aside, if I understand you correctly (and correct me if I'm wrong), you claim that nationalizing all pharmaceutical R&D will result in less market distortion than the current patent system. By extension, would this hold true for all other industries as well? Or is there something peculiar about the drug industry?
Why not nationalize the R&D of all tech research? "Surely the folks who helped fund the Internet and took us to the moon can do better than the tech companies..." or so the argument could go.
Are you claiming that people don't buy the drugs that they need ("vaccines, antivirals, and antibiotics") and instead frivolously consume unnecessary drugs ("zyban and paxil")?
Or you are simply stating your displeasure with the fact that drug companies make drugs that people are willing to pay money for?