And where in the constitution is the topic of intellectual property covered? In what way does legally obliging the federal government to not sign any treaty that may "weaken the stance of American intellectual property" then subvert the constitution?
If this is happening in the United States, the students were not getting paid by the University to do the work they did (as in salaried, not scholarship), the students created this as part of a class, did so without access to "specialized" University resources that other students might not have had and the students did not sign away their rights then the University has no legal claim to the students' work. I've had this discussion with several University officials and patent agents / technology transfer folks in my area. Even if the University claimed they have the rights to the software/IP, they have no enforceable claim excepting the situations listed above.
There's always been a bit of a gap between the $100 (low cost) and the $200 (high cost) smartphones, the Pearl vs the 8820 in blackberry land, for example. With a $99 pricetag the 3G (hardware, at least, the data contract is still damned expensive)is now in line with all of the low-end smartphones currently on the market. With Apple taking a 30% cut on app sales plus a share of the AT&T contract price, it makes sense to push the cost of last generation's hardware down. As much as I and probably a lot of others would love to see a more open platform (Android or Linux, for example) gain ground in the mobile space, this will make it a lot harder to establish a sizable marketshare for the platforms that are more recently emerging into the market.
Still, Android has a shot to build (and surpass) the app library of the iPhone by moving bottom up in terms of price-point. A large number of low to midrange phones running Android could give the platform the customer base it needs to support a large development community which would in turn help build the platform's maturity eventually leading to advanced smartphones with a large and diverse assortment of apps available. This would be almost the reverse of how the iPhone platform grew: starting out as a premium hardware and service, now working down to cheaper hardware to leverage growing revenue streams from a large app library and contracts from the installed (and growing) base. Philosophically and practically (monoculture is typically a bad thing) I would love to see Android succeed on a large scale in the marketplace but as much as I often disagree with Apple's stylistic choices and UI design I have to give kudos for how well they've executed the iPhone and app store as a business.
You mean Gov. Piyush Amrit Jindal? I find it interesting that the man tries so hard to distance himself from his heritage but still retains his Indian name as his legal name.
"non-invasive" is a very relative term here considering you still have to crack open a patient's skull to get the electrode array in. It is, however, less invasive than the electrodes used for deep brain stimulation that are implanted in the grey matter itself. I wonder how long these arrays last before they succumb to biofouling and scar tissue formation.
Producing high concentrations of viral nanoparticles is extremely feasible and hardly a technical challenge. Protein synthesis is something biotech has gotten very good at, even at industrial scales. Repeat dosing with an inert nanoparticle would still be highly preferable to the use of a "live" virus.
you just have to be extremely careful that they can't mutate in a way that harms cells you're wanting left alone
That's a much taller order than simply synthesizing more virus to inject. Figuring that out would certainly be Nobel Prize worthy as you've just discovered a key method in eradicating HIV, the flu and many other viruses that mutate too quickly to be properly controlled by vaccination or antivirals.
In any virus intended for therapeutic use in humans, allowing the virus to retain its reproductive mechanisms is just a bad idea. Viruses mutate rapidly and there's no guarantee that such a modified virus might not develop the right signals to enter and reproduce in healthy human cells. More promising efforts using engineered viruses involve the isolated production of viral structural RNA and coat proteins without the complete genome ever being copied or reproduced. This creates viral smart-particles that can be re-engineered to deliver payloads (therapeutics, contrast agents, nanoparticles etc) into targeted cell species. Nanovector is a recent start-up out of NC State University to commercialize this tech developed at a lab I used to work in as an undergrad.
Not quite. Not-for-profit does not mean no profit, it restricts where the profit can go. In a traditional for-profit company, some profit is meant to be returned to shareholders through dividends etc. Not-for-profits don't have shareholders, and thus all profits are kept by the entity to either reinvest in itself, make strategic investments on behalf of the not-for-profit or do almost anything it wants really. There are some restrictions on what they can do with their money that allows them to stay tax exempt, but these are relatively straight-forward. The difference is mostly a philosophical one regarding purpose. For-profits exist to make money for their shareholders, not-for-profits exist to do.... well, whatever they want to do other than make money for shareholders really.
I haven't looked at the patent itself but it sounds like its either a method patent that describes performing a diagnosis based on analyzing those genes or its a composition patent for PCR probes- the DNA templates used to amplify certain DNA sequences for detection purposes. Either way, patents like these really get in the way of getting effective diagnostic technologies to the people that need them. Bulk synthetic DNA is dirt cheap, but commercial probes are damned expensive since these companies have monopolies over the right to produce or use them as a diagnostic test. I don't understand pricing strategy when it comes to healthcare tech, the traditional rule-of-thumb approach of "charge as much as people are willing to pay" breaks down completely since people are willing to pay pretty much anything to keep on living... I think fundamental changes in the way healthcare is approached as a business will be necessary before we start seeing anything resembling universal global access to basic care.
Alas, we don't have Fry's in my area (I'm in NC). I don't know of any places here to buy the bags directly, so I either have to buy a 10-pack online and pay shipping on it plus wait a couple days or I order the samples. I actually do use the samples, though, usually stuff like surface-mount op-amps that can still be hand-soldered. I got a couple DSPs on sample from them a while back that I've been meaning to get mounted on a PCB to play around with but haven't gotten around to doing it yet.
A great way to get free anti-static bags is to order samples from semiconductor companies like TI and Analog Devices. They'll send you free stuff wrapped up in decently sized anti-static bags. Great for if you only have a couple drives to store, but if you need 10, for example, just go ahead and buy some.
If Linux netbooks aren't ready to go out of the box, the vendors are doing a poor job.
Therein lies the crux of the problem: hardware vendors don't want to have to bother with software. Why would a hardware vendor want to have to roll their own distribution or try to maintain hardware compatibility for a 3rd party distro when they already have access to a commercial OS that damn near supports everything currently on the market that the vendor would care to build into their system? User familiarity and brand is also a huge marketing factor for these vendors.
I love Linux, what it is and what it represents, but Linux on the netbook is not going to take off in a big way for the same reasons that Linux on the desktop hasn't taken off. Where we do have a chance at making huge gains are in the embedded space: smartphones and micro-tablets. Arguing that the fault lies with the vendors for doing a poor job misses the point- OEMs in the computer space prefer to buy rather than build core technologies. A big part of that is having the option to point your finger at someone when things don't work right. When a commercial linux vendor steps up to hardware venders with a well-designed end-to-end solution including the OS, OEM support and end-user support, then we might see some traction. In the end its still a tremendously risky business.
I think your last point is a straw man- a government that cannot be bribed is not necessarily then a government that cannot be changed especially since even theoretically "incorruptible" governments have systems in place to allow the interpretation of that law in the place of extenuating circumstances and questions regarding the intent of the law. Connecting that process of interpretation to monetary incentives is just... a really really bad idea. Bribes make change easier, but create a system of expectation in which bribes become almost necessary to enact that change. We need to work to reverse that expectation that has built up over the years so that we can allow democratic governments to function properly. If "defensive bribery" exists then "offensive bribery" must also be possible. Instead we should focus on getting the democratic systems that already exist to correct "unfortunate situations". Defensive bribery is NOT a legitimate response, especially when it is still technically ILLEGAL. The proper response, by your reasoning, is therefore to either democratically legalize bribery in which case it then becomes a legitimate response (still of dubious morality), or to use the same democratic effort to just legalize casinos, which is ALWAYS a legitimate response in a democratic system of government.
Well, even companies have a statement of incorporation that's essentially what a charter is for co-ops. I don't think the problem is necessarily the structure of the corporation itself but the motivations of the people who run them and the stated goals and missions of that corporation. The way I've heard it described before is that a company has a vision and a mission, its vision is tied to the products and services it offers and its mission is to execute well enough on its vision to make money. There's nothing wrong with profit (even non-profits make profit, its just a difference in where that money goes afterward), what I think is problematic, however, is simply that most for-profit companies work only to maximize profit instead of trying to strike a balance between profit and impact. There are plenty of socially responsible companies out there, Burt's Bees is an interesting one if you're interested in studying these kinds of things. It all boils down to the company's founders caring enough to define the company's statement of incorporation and mission to be about more than profit maximization. Burt's Bees was bought out by a private equity firm but the original management fought for (and won) the continuation of their philosophy of fair business practices and environment-friendly operations and products. They also made millions of dollars off of it. Not a bad deal for caring about the community you live and operate in.
Universal nut shellers in Uganda. I worked with an NGO to create a self-sustaining social enterprise that manufactures and sells nut shellers (at profit) to peanut growers in the country. We never gave a single bribe (we couldn't afford to even if we needed to!). Its hard, yes, but its not impossible.
I think you're close to the right track. I'm not sure what the right track is, but I think you're heading in that general direction. The problem is in the motivation and mission behind corporations, right? When the business' mission is to generate as large a financial return as possible, things start to go a little awry. For this reason, I'm extremely interested in the growing social entrepreneurship movement- spanning the whole spectrum from socially-conscious business to financially self-sustaining non-profits. There's a great student group out of my area (The Raleigh-Durham area in NC) called SEEDS working to study this movement and help gather resources to support it. There's also been an interest recently in Social Venture Capital, the idea of investing not just for a financial return but for a social return as well and making that a core part of the business. Do a Google search on the topic, there's a lot of really interesting stuff out there. There's also a book that I've heard recommended a lot, although I haven't read it yet, called How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurship and the Power of New Ideas by David Bornstein. I think its a fascinating topic and even just looking at what a single organization has been able to accomplish, such as Ashoka, gives me a lot of hope for the future.
Its definitely a big problem. It takes a certain critical mass to achieve change at the scales we need. I think inevitably its going to start with small companies and individuals, almost certainly in a set of industries where the lack of a "competitive advantage" based on deep pockets doesn't hurt as much. Just because we can be idealists doesn't mean we can't be realistic about achieving our goals as well. Public perception is a big deal and people appreciate honest, transparent efforts on the part of companies and organizations.
Take Nyaya Health for example. They do an amazing job at maintaining full transparency. Granted, this is not a commercial organization, but the principle is similar. People will back the honest underdog that's being overrun by the corrupt multi-billion dollar company, its a feeling that the general populace (both domestically and abroad) can empathize with. Eventually, public support can reach a critical mass of its own after which the government can no longer ignore the PR that would result from not punishing the corrupt when there's enough business running clean and enough popular support behind the ideals they stand for. Defense may certainly be one of the last industries to escape the corruption (if it ever can!) but I think there are plenty of other industries that act to lead the way- software and healthcare are two big ones that could and should take point on fighting corruption. Software has the advantage of leveraging the FOSS movement and the ideals it represents. The healthcare industry should theoretically represent the most basic needs of people but often is one of the more corrupt. I think a similar movement to FOSS needs to occur in medical tech for developing countries for this to change. The traditional model for medtech breaks down as soon as you leave North America/Europe/Japan/Australia. I'm actually currently working with a scientist in Boston to try to get an open source med-tech group started while I finish my own scientific training.
Its a complicated problem, but I think a few individuals with a little bit of ingenuity will go a long way. We've seen how small groups of people have changed the world before. In the end it takes a strong community willing to stand up for their ideals to turn the tides. Will it happen in the next 5 years? Probably not. But if we don't try now, its never going to just miraculously right itself.
Thank you for your reply, to an extent I heartily agree with you, these governments themselves need to take action as well. But if everyone waits for the other side to take action, nothing will ever happen. I know that every now and then a number of these countries do make something of an effort- whether its genuine or for show, to clean themselves up. A couple years ago India through several politicians out of parliament for corruption. China hung several government officials for the same crimes as well. Granted these were relatively isolated incidents, but I think if we and the companies, NGOs etc that we run make the first move, we can build a lot of support from the people in these countries that do honestly want to see an end to corruption. The bottom line is that somebody has to act responsibly first and if we as Americans/Europeans/Developed Nations feel we have reason to be proud for being civilized and a shining beacon to the world, we need to step up to the plate and lead that movement.
And that attitude, especially among instructors (I've spoken to several business school faculty espousing this view before), prevents this from ever changing. At some point one has to make a decision about what ideals are worth holding on to. Having spent a lot of time in a country where corruption at every level is rampant (India) and seeing many successful businesses run cleanly, I don't believe your equation is entirely accurate. It is a decision on our part as individuals as to whether we want to actively propagate corruption in developing countries or not. To preach ethical practices in business, engineering and science and yet consider those practices to be naive is nothing short of ludicrous.
With the amount of harm it does to developing economies and the people that live there, doing business this way should be treated as a crime against humanity. It retards the progression of democracy and social justice abroad and creates future demand for corruption. Just because this was the way an older generation operated doesn't mean the new generations of leaders coming out of colleges now have to continue their mistakes. It all starts with the realization that one person can actually change the world- for good or for bad. The question you have to ask yourself is simple: which way do you want to change it?
That's really odd, I run the Win7 Beta on my Eee900 with 1GB of RAM and an 800MHz processor and I can run Office + Google Chrome + the OS without any issues.
Robert Hooke's Micrographia
Paul de Kruif's Microbe Hunters
R.A. Fisher's The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Considered to be one of the most important works on the topic since Darwin's)
James D. Watson's The Double Helix
Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene
And also some good philosophical works by scientists:
Erwin Schrodinger's What is Life? and Mind and Matter
Albert Einstein's Ideas and Opinions and The World as I see it
Enjoy!
Slashdot Mirror
And where in the constitution is the topic of intellectual property covered? In what way does legally obliging the federal government to not sign any treaty that may "weaken the stance of American intellectual property" then subvert the constitution?
If this is happening in the United States, the students were not getting paid by the University to do the work they did (as in salaried, not scholarship), the students created this as part of a class, did so without access to "specialized" University resources that other students might not have had and the students did not sign away their rights then the University has no legal claim to the students' work. I've had this discussion with several University officials and patent agents / technology transfer folks in my area. Even if the University claimed they have the rights to the software/IP, they have no enforceable claim excepting the situations listed above.
There's always been a bit of a gap between the $100 (low cost) and the $200 (high cost) smartphones, the Pearl vs the 8820 in blackberry land, for example. With a $99 pricetag the 3G (hardware, at least, the data contract is still damned expensive)is now in line with all of the low-end smartphones currently on the market. With Apple taking a 30% cut on app sales plus a share of the AT&T contract price, it makes sense to push the cost of last generation's hardware down. As much as I and probably a lot of others would love to see a more open platform (Android or Linux, for example) gain ground in the mobile space, this will make it a lot harder to establish a sizable marketshare for the platforms that are more recently emerging into the market.
Still, Android has a shot to build (and surpass) the app library of the iPhone by moving bottom up in terms of price-point. A large number of low to midrange phones running Android could give the platform the customer base it needs to support a large development community which would in turn help build the platform's maturity eventually leading to advanced smartphones with a large and diverse assortment of apps available. This would be almost the reverse of how the iPhone platform grew: starting out as a premium hardware and service, now working down to cheaper hardware to leverage growing revenue streams from a large app library and contracts from the installed (and growing) base. Philosophically and practically (monoculture is typically a bad thing) I would love to see Android succeed on a large scale in the marketplace but as much as I often disagree with Apple's stylistic choices and UI design I have to give kudos for how well they've executed the iPhone and app store as a business.
You mean Gov. Piyush Amrit Jindal? I find it interesting that the man tries so hard to distance himself from his heritage but still retains his Indian name as his legal name.
"non-invasive" is a very relative term here considering you still have to crack open a patient's skull to get the electrode array in. It is, however, less invasive than the electrodes used for deep brain stimulation that are implanted in the grey matter itself. I wonder how long these arrays last before they succumb to biofouling and scar tissue formation.
you just have to be extremely careful that they can't mutate in a way that harms cells you're wanting left alone
That's a much taller order than simply synthesizing more virus to inject. Figuring that out would certainly be Nobel Prize worthy as you've just discovered a key method in eradicating HIV, the flu and many other viruses that mutate too quickly to be properly controlled by vaccination or antivirals.
Worst episode ever.
light switches, thermostats, door locks, motorized shades, security systems, remote controls and some 36 million electric meters.
But I'd really prefer if my locks remain off any kind of network and have my security system talk over good old-fashioned copper.
In any virus intended for therapeutic use in humans, allowing the virus to retain its reproductive mechanisms is just a bad idea. Viruses mutate rapidly and there's no guarantee that such a modified virus might not develop the right signals to enter and reproduce in healthy human cells. More promising efforts using engineered viruses involve the isolated production of viral structural RNA and coat proteins without the complete genome ever being copied or reproduced. This creates viral smart-particles that can be re-engineered to deliver payloads (therapeutics, contrast agents, nanoparticles etc) into targeted cell species. Nanovector is a recent start-up out of NC State University to commercialize this tech developed at a lab I used to work in as an undergrad.
He had one thing not on your list yet: LSD.
Not quite. Not-for-profit does not mean no profit, it restricts where the profit can go. In a traditional for-profit company, some profit is meant to be returned to shareholders through dividends etc. Not-for-profits don't have shareholders, and thus all profits are kept by the entity to either reinvest in itself, make strategic investments on behalf of the not-for-profit or do almost anything it wants really. There are some restrictions on what they can do with their money that allows them to stay tax exempt, but these are relatively straight-forward. The difference is mostly a philosophical one regarding purpose. For-profits exist to make money for their shareholders, not-for-profits exist to do.... well, whatever they want to do other than make money for shareholders really.
I haven't looked at the patent itself but it sounds like its either a method patent that describes performing a diagnosis based on analyzing those genes or its a composition patent for PCR probes- the DNA templates used to amplify certain DNA sequences for detection purposes. Either way, patents like these really get in the way of getting effective diagnostic technologies to the people that need them. Bulk synthetic DNA is dirt cheap, but commercial probes are damned expensive since these companies have monopolies over the right to produce or use them as a diagnostic test. I don't understand pricing strategy when it comes to healthcare tech, the traditional rule-of-thumb approach of "charge as much as people are willing to pay" breaks down completely since people are willing to pay pretty much anything to keep on living... I think fundamental changes in the way healthcare is approached as a business will be necessary before we start seeing anything resembling universal global access to basic care.
Alas, we don't have Fry's in my area (I'm in NC). I don't know of any places here to buy the bags directly, so I either have to buy a 10-pack online and pay shipping on it plus wait a couple days or I order the samples. I actually do use the samples, though, usually stuff like surface-mount op-amps that can still be hand-soldered. I got a couple DSPs on sample from them a while back that I've been meaning to get mounted on a PCB to play around with but haven't gotten around to doing it yet.
A great way to get free anti-static bags is to order samples from semiconductor companies like TI and Analog Devices. They'll send you free stuff wrapped up in decently sized anti-static bags. Great for if you only have a couple drives to store, but if you need 10, for example, just go ahead and buy some.
If Linux netbooks aren't ready to go out of the box, the vendors are doing a poor job.
Therein lies the crux of the problem: hardware vendors don't want to have to bother with software. Why would a hardware vendor want to have to roll their own distribution or try to maintain hardware compatibility for a 3rd party distro when they already have access to a commercial OS that damn near supports everything currently on the market that the vendor would care to build into their system? User familiarity and brand is also a huge marketing factor for these vendors.
I love Linux, what it is and what it represents, but Linux on the netbook is not going to take off in a big way for the same reasons that Linux on the desktop hasn't taken off. Where we do have a chance at making huge gains are in the embedded space: smartphones and micro-tablets. Arguing that the fault lies with the vendors for doing a poor job misses the point- OEMs in the computer space prefer to buy rather than build core technologies. A big part of that is having the option to point your finger at someone when things don't work right. When a commercial linux vendor steps up to hardware venders with a well-designed end-to-end solution including the OS, OEM support and end-user support, then we might see some traction. In the end its still a tremendously risky business.
Thanks for the links! I wasn't aware of this group. Hilarious story, by the way.
I think your last point is a straw man- a government that cannot be bribed is not necessarily then a government that cannot be changed especially since even theoretically "incorruptible" governments have systems in place to allow the interpretation of that law in the place of extenuating circumstances and questions regarding the intent of the law. Connecting that process of interpretation to monetary incentives is just... a really really bad idea. Bribes make change easier, but create a system of expectation in which bribes become almost necessary to enact that change. We need to work to reverse that expectation that has built up over the years so that we can allow democratic governments to function properly. If "defensive bribery" exists then "offensive bribery" must also be possible. Instead we should focus on getting the democratic systems that already exist to correct "unfortunate situations". Defensive bribery is NOT a legitimate response, especially when it is still technically ILLEGAL. The proper response, by your reasoning, is therefore to either democratically legalize bribery in which case it then becomes a legitimate response (still of dubious morality), or to use the same democratic effort to just legalize casinos, which is ALWAYS a legitimate response in a democratic system of government.
Well, even companies have a statement of incorporation that's essentially what a charter is for co-ops. I don't think the problem is necessarily the structure of the corporation itself but the motivations of the people who run them and the stated goals and missions of that corporation. The way I've heard it described before is that a company has a vision and a mission, its vision is tied to the products and services it offers and its mission is to execute well enough on its vision to make money. There's nothing wrong with profit (even non-profits make profit, its just a difference in where that money goes afterward), what I think is problematic, however, is simply that most for-profit companies work only to maximize profit instead of trying to strike a balance between profit and impact. There are plenty of socially responsible companies out there, Burt's Bees is an interesting one if you're interested in studying these kinds of things. It all boils down to the company's founders caring enough to define the company's statement of incorporation and mission to be about more than profit maximization. Burt's Bees was bought out by a private equity firm but the original management fought for (and won) the continuation of their philosophy of fair business practices and environment-friendly operations and products. They also made millions of dollars off of it. Not a bad deal for caring about the community you live and operate in.
Universal nut shellers in Uganda. I worked with an NGO to create a self-sustaining social enterprise that manufactures and sells nut shellers (at profit) to peanut growers in the country. We never gave a single bribe (we couldn't afford to even if we needed to!). Its hard, yes, but its not impossible.
I think you're close to the right track. I'm not sure what the right track is, but I think you're heading in that general direction. The problem is in the motivation and mission behind corporations, right? When the business' mission is to generate as large a financial return as possible, things start to go a little awry. For this reason, I'm extremely interested in the growing social entrepreneurship movement- spanning the whole spectrum from socially-conscious business to financially self-sustaining non-profits. There's a great student group out of my area (The Raleigh-Durham area in NC) called SEEDS working to study this movement and help gather resources to support it. There's also been an interest recently in Social Venture Capital, the idea of investing not just for a financial return but for a social return as well and making that a core part of the business. Do a Google search on the topic, there's a lot of really interesting stuff out there. There's also a book that I've heard recommended a lot, although I haven't read it yet, called How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurship and the Power of New Ideas by David Bornstein. I think its a fascinating topic and even just looking at what a single organization has been able to accomplish, such as Ashoka, gives me a lot of hope for the future.
Its definitely a big problem. It takes a certain critical mass to achieve change at the scales we need. I think inevitably its going to start with small companies and individuals, almost certainly in a set of industries where the lack of a "competitive advantage" based on deep pockets doesn't hurt as much. Just because we can be idealists doesn't mean we can't be realistic about achieving our goals as well. Public perception is a big deal and people appreciate honest, transparent efforts on the part of companies and organizations.
Take Nyaya Health for example. They do an amazing job at maintaining full transparency. Granted, this is not a commercial organization, but the principle is similar. People will back the honest underdog that's being overrun by the corrupt multi-billion dollar company, its a feeling that the general populace (both domestically and abroad) can empathize with. Eventually, public support can reach a critical mass of its own after which the government can no longer ignore the PR that would result from not punishing the corrupt when there's enough business running clean and enough popular support behind the ideals they stand for. Defense may certainly be one of the last industries to escape the corruption (if it ever can!) but I think there are plenty of other industries that act to lead the way- software and healthcare are two big ones that could and should take point on fighting corruption. Software has the advantage of leveraging the FOSS movement and the ideals it represents. The healthcare industry should theoretically represent the most basic needs of people but often is one of the more corrupt. I think a similar movement to FOSS needs to occur in medical tech for developing countries for this to change. The traditional model for medtech breaks down as soon as you leave North America/Europe/Japan/Australia. I'm actually currently working with a scientist in Boston to try to get an open source med-tech group started while I finish my own scientific training.
Its a complicated problem, but I think a few individuals with a little bit of ingenuity will go a long way. We've seen how small groups of people have changed the world before. In the end it takes a strong community willing to stand up for their ideals to turn the tides. Will it happen in the next 5 years? Probably not. But if we don't try now, its never going to just miraculously right itself.
Sorry for the long-winded / ranting response.
Thank you for your reply, to an extent I heartily agree with you, these governments themselves need to take action as well. But if everyone waits for the other side to take action, nothing will ever happen. I know that every now and then a number of these countries do make something of an effort- whether its genuine or for show, to clean themselves up. A couple years ago India through several politicians out of parliament for corruption. China hung several government officials for the same crimes as well. Granted these were relatively isolated incidents, but I think if we and the companies, NGOs etc that we run make the first move, we can build a lot of support from the people in these countries that do honestly want to see an end to corruption. The bottom line is that somebody has to act responsibly first and if we as Americans/Europeans/Developed Nations feel we have reason to be proud for being civilized and a shining beacon to the world, we need to step up to the plate and lead that movement.
And that attitude, especially among instructors (I've spoken to several business school faculty espousing this view before), prevents this from ever changing. At some point one has to make a decision about what ideals are worth holding on to. Having spent a lot of time in a country where corruption at every level is rampant (India) and seeing many successful businesses run cleanly, I don't believe your equation is entirely accurate. It is a decision on our part as individuals as to whether we want to actively propagate corruption in developing countries or not. To preach ethical practices in business, engineering and science and yet consider those practices to be naive is nothing short of ludicrous.
With the amount of harm it does to developing economies and the people that live there, doing business this way should be treated as a crime against humanity. It retards the progression of democracy and social justice abroad and creates future demand for corruption. Just because this was the way an older generation operated doesn't mean the new generations of leaders coming out of colleges now have to continue their mistakes. It all starts with the realization that one person can actually change the world- for good or for bad. The question you have to ask yourself is simple: which way do you want to change it?
That's really odd, I run the Win7 Beta on my Eee900 with 1GB of RAM and an 800MHz processor and I can run Office + Google Chrome + the OS without any issues.
Robert Hooke's Micrographia Paul de Kruif's Microbe Hunters R.A. Fisher's The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Considered to be one of the most important works on the topic since Darwin's) James D. Watson's The Double Helix Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene And also some good philosophical works by scientists: Erwin Schrodinger's What is Life? and Mind and Matter Albert Einstein's Ideas and Opinions and The World as I see it Enjoy!