Wrong! Because of the economics of it, the internet is even more a political issue. The two tiered internet still has a chance with the Republican lame duck congress, and you can bet your @ss that the republicans will do everything they can to push through every bill they want or need now, before their chance expires. The phone companies who are pushing to get pay for performance internet access will make sure a vote occurs before January 3rd.
A great definition of politics is on Wikipedia: Politics is the process by which groups make decisions. The group desperately needs to make a decision on net neutrality, and painting the issue as already decided through economics stymies the action required. Even if you believe it, don't say it. It undermines what power we do have. Do something constructive instead, because apathy and cynicism serve no one.
Research into better antibiotics seems, from all that has been written about them, to be a self-defeating research effort. If antibiotics are doomed to fail us after repeated use, why bother at all?
Bacteriophages (bacteria eaters) present a different set of problems, but are potentially far more rewarding. Check out this article. With the advances in genetics, we could potentially develop bacterophage killers of all of these nasty bugs, and then we can worry about other things. These little buggers would be hard to patent too, because once they're developed and prescribed, they are out in the open. Free to be collected and reproduced at anyone's whim.
Might be worth a little effort from western medicine, but academia will probably have to do all of it. Not much profit I can see.
Plausible deniability has nothing to do with what the government's public statements being true. It has instead to do with US intelligence effectively lying. It is the reason intellegence agencies give for not telling elected officials things they should know. E.g. - lets say one of our intellegence agencies steals something damning and dangerous to four eastern states. When questioned by the president about this (who heard it from the press), the agency lies rather than cause alarm and panic among the citizens. They lie to the president so that he can be asked about it and "plausibly deny" the truth he never knew in the first place. The problem, of course, is that such agency tactics keep the people we elect to make decisions for us in the dark about those very things we supposedly want them to decide upon. The president might have decided to do something to save lives with the knowledge, but since he doesn't know anything, the decision now lies in the hands of an agency who's guiding principle is saving face. (After fifty years of fucking up it's a full time job)
America the beautiful baby!
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong! Because of the economics of it, the internet is even more a political issue. The two tiered internet still has a chance with the Republican lame duck congress, and you can bet your @ss that the republicans will do everything they can to push through every bill they want or need now, before their chance expires. The phone companies who are pushing to get pay for performance internet access will make sure a vote occurs before January 3rd.
A great definition of politics is on Wikipedia: Politics is the process by which groups make decisions. The group desperately needs to make a decision on net neutrality, and painting the issue as already decided through economics stymies the action required. Even if you believe it, don't say it. It undermines what power we do have. Do something constructive instead, because apathy and cynicism serve no one.
Research into better antibiotics seems, from all that has been written about them, to be a self-defeating research effort. If antibiotics are doomed to fail us after repeated use, why bother at all? Bacteriophages (bacteria eaters) present a different set of problems, but are potentially far more rewarding. Check out this article. With the advances in genetics, we could potentially develop bacterophage killers of all of these nasty bugs, and then we can worry about other things. These little buggers would be hard to patent too, because once they're developed and prescribed, they are out in the open. Free to be collected and reproduced at anyone's whim. Might be worth a little effort from western medicine, but academia will probably have to do all of it. Not much profit I can see.
Plausible deniability has nothing to do with what the government's public statements being true. It has instead to do with US intelligence effectively lying. It is the reason intellegence agencies give for not telling elected officials things they should know. E.g. - lets say one of our intellegence agencies steals something damning and dangerous to four eastern states. When questioned by the president about this (who heard it from the press), the agency lies rather than cause alarm and panic among the citizens. They lie to the president so that he can be asked about it and "plausibly deny" the truth he never knew in the first place. The problem, of course, is that such agency tactics keep the people we elect to make decisions for us in the dark about those very things we supposedly want them to decide upon. The president might have decided to do something to save lives with the knowledge, but since he doesn't know anything, the decision now lies in the hands of an agency who's guiding principle is saving face. (After fifty years of fucking up it's a full time job) America the beautiful baby!