No, I don't think our problems come from a "failure" to socialize medicine. Our problem comes from years and years of a bad system running rampant, and continuing to do so.
Simple economics is causing all service industries to be relatively more expensive. As I understand it, simple economics = supply and demand, with at least the concept of competition. I don't know any sort of economic model that could explain how doctors provide prescriptions but hide their kickbacks. And with incredible barriers to entry, there are very few companies that produce the products you need. These companies need to be approved by the FDA, and rightly so; (look at some of the problems with diethylene glycol in the news recently), the system really has no simple economics.
Medicine could be made cheaply here too. I worked at a biotech; we made huge batches of drugs at a time, each worth millions, yet the costs were much lower. It's not rare to see the marketing costs to be 50% of the drug's price (though they would like you to believe it's because of R&D or the FDA). You want to compare that with computer hardware prices? The costs of producing a single chip is about 60% of the price of the chip itself, at least for semiconductor companies like Intel and AMD (according to my professor). So the remaining 40% have to cover the costs of all the people and everything else. What does new technology have to do with this? Maybe it's like the days before AMD was a major market player in x86 processors, when Intel could out-muscle its rivals. But "new technology" does not account for a new set of surgical instruments to be $750k, or that a drug that costs a pharmacy $4 to buy would be marked up to $10.
Simple economics indicates that companies who fail to make money should go bankrupt. There was an article on some company in Guam or Samoa that hadn't made a profit in 20 years, yet was still operating and is still making partnerships. As for malpractice, I agree that the system needs to be overhauled. Doctors should be held accountable for their actions, but the courts shouldn't allow some of the more ridiculous lawsuits. Maybe a new industry of personal injury lawyers will develop, much like the patent trolls.
But in short, it's hardly an economic issue. Perhaps in a patient's ability to pay, but certainly not as a result of technology.
Just to add to that, I think bills should be named after the person or people who introduced it, so that there's some accountability. I know it would definitely lead to cryptic names (though Sarbanes-Oxley, Roth, etc. aren't that bad), but it's still better than having propaganda-like names such as the "USA PATRIOT Act" and the "Help America Vote Act" (which gave financial incentives to use DRE voting machines, though other provisions were certainly beneficial). I imagine that people would accuse a politician of being a "terrorist" for not supporting the "Patriot" act.
Disclaimer: I'm not of any Middle-Eastern descent, and have no personal interest in the case, just in the legal aspects. (It's sad when you have to make such statements...) Also, IANAL.
Salahi posted a response below, where he defends some of the charges. And he has a point regarding the claim ("tortious business interference"), because his original email, cited as Exhibit A in the plaintiff's reply to the anti-SLAPP motion, does not reference the job at all. In fact, the e-mail was sent in regards to Quantum Media, which is the web host (and a website design company, apparently). And the sportsblogger.com website is password-protected, so I also doubt whether Kaplan was going to be hired to write for a nonexistent site.
I'm not saying Salahi is innocent. It seems like both sides try to do an end-around of the legal system. Kaplan says Salahi used fake addresses and claimed to have never been served the motion to appear (=lying in court), which would probably be illegal. (I'm just summarizing his arguments from glancing over the documents.) Though I did find Salahi explanation of the picture prank thing to be quite amusing.
For what it's worth, Kaplan probably did pose as a congressional staffer and engage in criminal activities. See this article, which was cited in Salahi's legal filing. Here's another article about Kaplan and pro-Palestinian groups from the same paper.
Look, I loathe Microsoft and all of its business practices. But until something seriously threatens Windows, they really have little to worry about. People ask me, "Is that Vista?" "No, I'm running Linux with XGL/Compiz. Look at what I can do!" And they say wow and move on, because it wasn't Windows and they have no intent to use it. Nothing will stop them from making their programs incompatible with yours, or changing libraries or whatever to make OpenOffice.org so unbearably slow on Windows. If you want to play games, you'll probably need to support DirectX. The RIAA was voted the most-hated company in America by The Consumerist IIRC, yet their sales really have not been hit that badly (or not as much as they want you to think). It hasn't stopped people from buying music, listening to the radio, or supporting them indirectly.
You want to sue Microsoft for sabotaging you or stealing your patents? Go right ahead. You'll be embroiled in a long, expensive lawsuit, and the eventual penalties, if you get any, will be very little. As a result of FUD or "embrace, extend, extinguish," your company is more likely to be marginalized by the end, like RealNetworks or Netscape. I really think the only way to have dealt with it was the major antitrust lawsuit by the government, but we know how that resulted.
The article lacks detail regarding the actual claims and which lawsuit it is, considering that there are probably many lawsuits against China by dissidents who have been oppressed or punished by the country. Here's an article from the Washington Post, dated two months ago, that said Wang Xiaoning filed a lawsuit against Yahoo! (I'm guessing this is the same suit). They argue that by giving up their information, Yahoo! is supporting torture (I believe), a violation of the Alien Tort Statute. My guess is that this Shi Tao is being added as a plaintiff to this lawsuit. From the article:
The suit, in trying to hold Yahoo accountable, could become an important test case. Advocacy groups are seeking to use a 217-year-old U.S. law to punish corporations for human rights violations abroad, an effort the Bush administration has opposed... Yahoo is guilty of "an act of corporate irresponsibility," said Morton Sklar, executive director of [World Organization for Human Rights USA]. "Yahoo had reason to know that if they provided China with identification information that those individuals would be arrested."
If that's true (which will need to be debated in court), then yes, Yahoo! did do something legally wrong.
That and the fact that Sudan has oil, which the Chinese are heavily invested in. Seriously though, I think China is the major threat to peace and stability in the world today. In addition to Sudan, China is also a major supporter of several other repressive countries in the world, including Burma, North Korea, and Zimbabwe. This includes both arms/military support and political clout in the United Nations. On the bright side, many activists are using the Olympics next year to bring up many of China's domestic and foreign policy issues. It's similar to what happened 19 years ago in South Korea, as the world will be placing greater scrutiny on the home country.
Let's hope the rest of the world will finally do something - we've seen Khartoum and Omar al-Bashir flaunt sanctions and other restrictions. I think dealing with the Sudanese government will involve a lot of "hard evidence" (sadly, eyewitness accounts are still being questioned by Sudan). Plus a stronger standing army not fighting other battles would be helpful too.
Well, things might get worse. Kenneth R. Williard, who was a member of the Kansas Board of Education (yes, you probably remember that) is running unopposed to be the president of the National Association of State Boards of Education, a non-profit organization of state school boards.
Apparently, when he was on the Kansas board, the board was looking for a replacement for the education commissioner, and hired the NASBE, the group he wants to lead - and fired it.
You bring up an interesting point about Bush. However, in a recent column, Prof. David Greenberg of Rutgers argues that he *is* a conservative, in that all the Republican presidents since Nixon (including Reagen and George HW Bush) publicly advocated for small government, low taxes, the military, etc. but pushed their own "operationally liberal" political agendas. For example, they all wanted to give out earmarks, spend lots of money on the military, and be more involved in foreign countries' politics - the large government that is generally considered to be "liberal".
Religious preachers? Anyone who preaches a religion is by definition a con artist, because religion... yeah, you get my point. L. Ron Hubbard was the worst of them all.
I understand the intentional irony in his actions, but I don't agree that it would work. It's the government, for crying out loud. They do not act rationally, neither in placing him on some terrorist watch list nor in continuing to monitor him because they don't trust someone with an Arabic-sounding name. Suppose his the batteries in his GPS unit fail - then the FBI would scream, "Get him! He's going off the grid!" My life is probably more boring than his, but I don't want invisible agents snooping around my house or following my online activities. Treat us like citizens should be treated, not like characters in a video game. I've never been detained at an airport, so I can't imagine what it's like to have to call the FBI before every flight.
Like many others, I found the piece to be biased and its arguments weak. Seeing as the (Sunday) New York Times is widely read, can we publish well-written letter to the editor to respond to the author's arguments? I don't understand copyright law well enough to articulate my points well (or maybe I'm just a little hypocritical and lazy). Better yet, we could try and get a notable author/celebrity to write an op-ed and hopefully have it published the following Sunday. Any suggestions?
I had the same reaction when I read that sentence. If I twist their own logic... can't I distribute Windows keys, because that's only "providing somebody access to a service"? I'll tell them to find their own copy to download, but the key is legitimate!
You do have a point. The CD market is not competitive; if I want to buy that ABBA CD, I have very limited choices. But the government (FTC) has tried to prosecute the music industry over price-fixing, and in at least one case, the industry has settled over the issue of "minimum advertising price". Also, Eliot Spitzer and nearly all the states settled as a result of the industry's MAP practices.
As I understand law, a settlement does not imply acknowledgement of guilt. Therefore, the industry has never been proved to be in collusion with each other (even though the FTC and the state AGs must have plenty of evidence). But just because the price of a U2 or Usher CD are similar does not mean that the market set the price; perhaps years of illegal price-fixing has ingrained in our minds that CDs always cost $15 (or whatever the hell it is - I haven't bought a CD in many years).
According to this article in The New York Times, Abraxane is a drug for late stage breast cancer. It is paclitaxel but coated in albumin, to minimize some of the allergic reactions in patients. Apparently it is slightly more effective, but it did not prolong lives longer than Taxol did.
While I agree with your argument, the biotech/pharmaceutical/medical device companies have also found creative ways of marketing to doctors as well. And IIRC, studies have shown that doctors are also influenced by the free samples, gifts (e.g., here 3rd article down), lunches, and any other marketing from sales reps. It's not giving money to doctors, but it affects the decisions they make. Of course, many doctors are great, but the others do give them a bad name.
RICO may be an overly broad law. But I remember when it was used by the Clinton DOJ to sue the tobacco industry, asking for a disgorgement of "ill gotten" gains. I remember reading, at the time, that quite a few legal scholars found it to be a brilliant tactic because it allowed the government to essentially try and bankrupt the tobacco industry.
But alas, Bush became president. I believe they watered down the monetary penalties so much that it became a joke. And we all know how incapable the DOJ is now.
Exactly. And to those people who argue for the free market (competition, profits, whatever): the pharmaceutical/biotech/healthcare is NOT a free market! There is literally no competition, and no regulation on pricing. It is true that a mere fraction of drugs will ever get approved, and it costs billions of dollars to do the research and the clinical trials.
But there is nothing that prevents a company from setting insanely high prices because most of the wealthy patients are shielded from the real cost. National healthcare is a great thing, but we must address the price gouging because the marginal cost to produce each pill is minimal, yet the costs are in the hundreds or thousands of dollars. I can pay $5 for my drug, but my (parent's) employer will cover the other several hundred dollars. And doctors usually won't encourage generics or alternatives, because it may strain their relationship with the patient. Would you really hesitate to get Abraxane, the FDA-approved brand-name drug at over $4000 a dose, or Taxol, the generic version of the same molecule that costs $150? Thankfully, Brazil knows what's in its citizen's best interests, at least in this case.
I believe the pharmaceuticals spend about half of their money on marketing (which includes direct-to-consumer advertising, marketing to doctors, marketing to hospitals, and others), not R&D or those poor, poor lobbyists and congresspeople.
I don't remember the debates in 2000 but do remember that the same thing happened in 2004. One person tried to substantiate his arguments with facts, and the other looked like a moron: "Got wood?" and "He forgot Poland" were some of the dumbest statements to come out of a presidential debate. Somehow the media called it even and barely dissected (or remembered) any of the arguments that were presented by either side.
I also think it's also the media's responsibility (as well as that of the citizens) to ask serious questions and to hold the politicions responsible.
Does this mean that they will finally have to pay up? I know the original decision was one to celebrate, but since then, it seems like the RIAA has been throwing every argument to either stall or reverse the decision (although the judge says it is not final). It would be unfortunate if they could drag this issue on, even though the case is over.
I also like the judge's first footnote in which he cites other RIAA cases to refute their argument. IANAL of course.
Wait a minute... shouldn't the lower court have ruled it an illegal search?
To make an analogy (albeit somewhat of a stretch): Suppose "Joe" owns a coffee shop with a computer, and has a pile of copied music/movies in a storeroom. Someone walks in and uses his own Yahoo account to send child pornography from a flash drive. The FBI traces the IP address (not the Yahoo account!) to me and obtains a warrant for a search. They can't find the images on the hard drive (let's say it's write-protected) but finds the illegal/pirated CDs/DVDs. And they charge him for that.
Or the situation could be hidden child pornography in Joe's house. It should be the same. And yes, the evidence is illegal in both cases, and child pornography is despicable. But aren't the initial grounds for the warrant at fault?
I'm assuming the lawyer tried that with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, but must have been unable to bring that up due to a technical reason. Obviously, he or she is a lawyer, and I'm not.
That's true, but Yahoo (their local branch, whatever it's called) is also based in Hong Kong. So they could challenge the request in Hong Kong courts. Or just tell China that they had no information.
Yes, but I think it's not a matter of paying money - the verdict, with any possible fines tacked on, is probably negligible compared to the amount of money they have. They don't want to lose, or at least never expected it. And they don't want to divulge any of their payment strategy (which could reveal how much their lawyers, expert witnesses, and other researchers or paralegals make).
Of course, if they do win, RIAA will probably try to offer an in-kind compensation -- discounts for music downloads. If it can be proven (and I think it might be hard to prove in a court of law), then I'm all for it.
But why do so many class-action lawsuits seem to end up with the "in-kind compensation" you mentioned above? I don't care about receiving payment of no value until I use it... to buy more things from them.
I can't remember what the specific decisions were, but I thought the Sony rootkit case, probably several Microsoft cases, and the Big 5 CD price-fixing one all resulted in coupons or discounts for use on future products. Some people participated in the lawsuit because they found a reason never to purchase anything from the companies.
I think the quality of schools (and of education) really depend on where you are, and of the students themselves. I graduated from San Francisco public schools, and now I'm across the bay, so here's my perspective:
Some parts of the Bay Area (including especially Menlo Park) are quite wealthy; one can generally assume that the socioeconomic factors have a role in the students' desire to learn. With the huge influx of immigrants, particularly from Asia, I would argue that the education wouldn't differ much from other places, even in the "liberal" Bay Area. The parents expect their children to get a good education (albeit one easier than the one they had in Asia). It was the case for me, as for many others I know. Private tutoring is also very common, to supplement the information they learn in school.
I remember TAing an algebra class once, and the textbook they used was some CPM book. The chapters were called "Burning Candle" or whatever problem was at the end of the chapter. I'm not sure what the point was. I can only imagine a student asking another one, "Hey, can you explain the chain rule to me? It's in the burning candle chapter!"
Yes, the whole ebonics debacle was ridiculous. I was a little young at the time to understand it, but I do remember reading the newspaper one day and finding out that ebonics has rules for its grammar. Go figure. And yes, Prop. 209 and Prop. 13 have changed the education here.
Thanks for clearing that bit up. I was wondering the same thing as I read the transcript. I've always been interested in the legal system, and I've learned some stuff today. The transcript is quite a humorous (albeit laborious) read.
Bush's priority was never to "liberate Iraq." His original arguments for invasion were (off the top of my head):
1. Iraq (i.e., Saddam Hussein) was responsible for what happened in Sept. 2001 (which is untrue)
2. Al Qaeda was in Iraq (also untrue - and Iraq is mostly Shiite Muslims, Al Qaeda is comprised of mostly Sunni)
3. Iraq had WMDs (also untrue)
Only after these attempts failed did he change his argument to include those you are thinking of, although I don't remember the exact order (it might have been at the same time):
4. Spreading democracy in the Middle East
5. Saddam Hussein is a dictator
Who said people here "blast any attempt at safeguarding freedom"? I'm sure many readers would support a democratic government in Burma, an overthrow of communist governments (aren't they all fascist now, anyway?), ridding the world of racism in Sudan and Zimbabwe, and all the horrible atrocities that are occurring in this world right now. But foreign politics is not as simple as black and white. Shiites hate Sunnis, and vice versa. Communist governments will sometimes oppose other communist governments (like the Khmer Rouge, Vietnam, Russia, and China in the 70's). And in Iraq, the US has replaced a dictatorship with civil war and sectarian violence.
I'm not defending Hussein in any way. He committed many frightening atrocities. But that has little to do with freedom, at least in your context. Bush lied. There's ample evidence that Bush long had a desire to overthrow Hussein (see The Vulcans, the name he and his cronies called themselves, or the Downing Street Memo, etc.). Bush never had the intention of creating freedom in the Middle East.
Slashdot Mirror
Medicine could be made cheaply here too. I worked at a biotech; we made huge batches of drugs at a time, each worth millions, yet the costs were much lower. It's not rare to see the marketing costs to be 50% of the drug's price (though they would like you to believe it's because of R&D or the FDA). You want to compare that with computer hardware prices? The costs of producing a single chip is about 60% of the price of the chip itself, at least for semiconductor companies like Intel and AMD (according to my professor). So the remaining 40% have to cover the costs of all the people and everything else. What does new technology have to do with this? Maybe it's like the days before AMD was a major market player in x86 processors, when Intel could out-muscle its rivals. But "new technology" does not account for a new set of surgical instruments to be $750k, or that a drug that costs a pharmacy $4 to buy would be marked up to $10.
Simple economics indicates that companies who fail to make money should go bankrupt. There was an article on some company in Guam or Samoa that hadn't made a profit in 20 years, yet was still operating and is still making partnerships. As for malpractice, I agree that the system needs to be overhauled. Doctors should be held accountable for their actions, but the courts shouldn't allow some of the more ridiculous lawsuits. Maybe a new industry of personal injury lawyers will develop, much like the patent trolls.
But in short, it's hardly an economic issue. Perhaps in a patient's ability to pay, but certainly not as a result of technology.
Just to add to that, I think bills should be named after the person or people who introduced it, so that there's some accountability. I know it would definitely lead to cryptic names (though Sarbanes-Oxley, Roth, etc. aren't that bad), but it's still better than having propaganda-like names such as the "USA PATRIOT Act" and the "Help America Vote Act" (which gave financial incentives to use DRE voting machines, though other provisions were certainly beneficial). I imagine that people would accuse a politician of being a "terrorist" for not supporting the "Patriot" act.
Disclaimer: I'm not of any Middle-Eastern descent, and have no personal interest in the case, just in the legal aspects. (It's sad when you have to make such statements...) Also, IANAL.
Salahi posted a response below, where he defends some of the charges. And he has a point regarding the claim ("tortious business interference"), because his original email, cited as Exhibit A in the plaintiff's reply to the anti-SLAPP motion, does not reference the job at all. In fact, the e-mail was sent in regards to Quantum Media, which is the web host (and a website design company, apparently). And the sportsblogger.com website is password-protected, so I also doubt whether Kaplan was going to be hired to write for a nonexistent site.
I'm not saying Salahi is innocent. It seems like both sides try to do an end-around of the legal system. Kaplan says Salahi used fake addresses and claimed to have never been served the motion to appear (=lying in court), which would probably be illegal. (I'm just summarizing his arguments from glancing over the documents.) Though I did find Salahi explanation of the picture prank thing to be quite amusing.
For what it's worth, Kaplan probably did pose as a congressional staffer and engage in criminal activities. See this article, which was cited in Salahi's legal filing. Here's another article about Kaplan and pro-Palestinian groups from the same paper.
No no, he's over there talking to the Europeans, trying to find a new population to drive insane!
Look, I loathe Microsoft and all of its business practices. But until something seriously threatens Windows, they really have little to worry about. People ask me, "Is that Vista?" "No, I'm running Linux with XGL/Compiz. Look at what I can do!" And they say wow and move on, because it wasn't Windows and they have no intent to use it. Nothing will stop them from making their programs incompatible with yours, or changing libraries or whatever to make OpenOffice.org so unbearably slow on Windows. If you want to play games, you'll probably need to support DirectX. The RIAA was voted the most-hated company in America by The Consumerist IIRC, yet their sales really have not been hit that badly (or not as much as they want you to think). It hasn't stopped people from buying music, listening to the radio, or supporting them indirectly.
You want to sue Microsoft for sabotaging you or stealing your patents? Go right ahead. You'll be embroiled in a long, expensive lawsuit, and the eventual penalties, if you get any, will be very little. As a result of FUD or "embrace, extend, extinguish," your company is more likely to be marginalized by the end, like RealNetworks or Netscape. I really think the only way to have dealt with it was the major antitrust lawsuit by the government, but we know how that resulted.
Let's hope the rest of the world will finally do something - we've seen Khartoum and Omar al-Bashir flaunt sanctions and other restrictions. I think dealing with the Sudanese government will involve a lot of "hard evidence" (sadly, eyewitness accounts are still being questioned by Sudan). Plus a stronger standing army not fighting other battles would be helpful too.
Well, things might get worse. Kenneth R. Williard, who was a member of the Kansas Board of Education (yes, you probably remember that) is running unopposed to be the president of the National Association of State Boards of Education, a non-profit organization of state school boards.
Apparently, when he was on the Kansas board, the board was looking for a replacement for the education commissioner, and hired the NASBE, the group he wants to lead - and fired it.
You bring up an interesting point about Bush. However, in a recent column, Prof. David Greenberg of Rutgers argues that he *is* a conservative, in that all the Republican presidents since Nixon (including Reagen and George HW Bush) publicly advocated for small government, low taxes, the military, etc. but pushed their own "operationally liberal" political agendas. For example, they all wanted to give out earmarks, spend lots of money on the military, and be more involved in foreign countries' politics - the large government that is generally considered to be "liberal".
Religious preachers? Anyone who preaches a religion is by definition a con artist, because religion... yeah, you get my point. L. Ron Hubbard was the worst of them all.
I understand the intentional irony in his actions, but I don't agree that it would work. It's the government, for crying out loud. They do not act rationally, neither in placing him on some terrorist watch list nor in continuing to monitor him because they don't trust someone with an Arabic-sounding name. Suppose his the batteries in his GPS unit fail - then the FBI would scream, "Get him! He's going off the grid!" My life is probably more boring than his, but I don't want invisible agents snooping around my house or following my online activities. Treat us like citizens should be treated, not like characters in a video game. I've never been detained at an airport, so I can't imagine what it's like to have to call the FBI before every flight.
Like many others, I found the piece to be biased and its arguments weak. Seeing as the (Sunday) New York Times is widely read, can we publish well-written letter to the editor to respond to the author's arguments? I don't understand copyright law well enough to articulate my points well (or maybe I'm just a little hypocritical and lazy). Better yet, we could try and get a notable author/celebrity to write an op-ed and hopefully have it published the following Sunday. Any suggestions?
I had the same reaction when I read that sentence. If I twist their own logic... can't I distribute Windows keys, because that's only "providing somebody access to a service"? I'll tell them to find their own copy to download, but the key is legitimate!
You do have a point. The CD market is not competitive; if I want to buy that ABBA CD, I have very limited choices. But the government (FTC) has tried to prosecute the music industry over price-fixing, and in at least one case, the industry has settled over the issue of "minimum advertising price". Also, Eliot Spitzer and nearly all the states settled as a result of the industry's MAP practices.
As I understand law, a settlement does not imply acknowledgement of guilt. Therefore, the industry has never been proved to be in collusion with each other (even though the FTC and the state AGs must have plenty of evidence). But just because the price of a U2 or Usher CD are similar does not mean that the market set the price; perhaps years of illegal price-fixing has ingrained in our minds that CDs always cost $15 (or whatever the hell it is - I haven't bought a CD in many years).
According to this article in The New York Times, Abraxane is a drug for late stage breast cancer. It is paclitaxel but coated in albumin, to minimize some of the allergic reactions in patients. Apparently it is slightly more effective, but it did not prolong lives longer than Taxol did.
While I agree with your argument, the biotech/pharmaceutical/medical device companies have also found creative ways of marketing to doctors as well. And IIRC, studies have shown that doctors are also influenced by the free samples, gifts (e.g., here 3rd article down), lunches, and any other marketing from sales reps. It's not giving money to doctors, but it affects the decisions they make. Of course, many doctors are great, but the others do give them a bad name.
RICO may be an overly broad law. But I remember when it was used by the Clinton DOJ to sue the tobacco industry, asking for a disgorgement of "ill gotten" gains. I remember reading, at the time, that quite a few legal scholars found it to be a brilliant tactic because it allowed the government to essentially try and bankrupt the tobacco industry.
But alas, Bush became president. I believe they watered down the monetary penalties so much that it became a joke. And we all know how incapable the DOJ is now.
Exactly. And to those people who argue for the free market (competition, profits, whatever): the pharmaceutical/biotech/healthcare is NOT a free market! There is literally no competition, and no regulation on pricing. It is true that a mere fraction of drugs will ever get approved, and it costs billions of dollars to do the research and the clinical trials.
But there is nothing that prevents a company from setting insanely high prices because most of the wealthy patients are shielded from the real cost. National healthcare is a great thing, but we must address the price gouging because the marginal cost to produce each pill is minimal, yet the costs are in the hundreds or thousands of dollars. I can pay $5 for my drug, but my (parent's) employer will cover the other several hundred dollars. And doctors usually won't encourage generics or alternatives, because it may strain their relationship with the patient. Would you really hesitate to get Abraxane, the FDA-approved brand-name drug at over $4000 a dose, or Taxol, the generic version of the same molecule that costs $150? Thankfully, Brazil knows what's in its citizen's best interests, at least in this case.
I believe the pharmaceuticals spend about half of their money on marketing (which includes direct-to-consumer advertising, marketing to doctors, marketing to hospitals, and others), not R&D or those poor, poor lobbyists and congresspeople.
I don't remember the debates in 2000 but do remember that the same thing happened in 2004. One person tried to substantiate his arguments with facts, and the other looked like a moron: "Got wood?" and "He forgot Poland" were some of the dumbest statements to come out of a presidential debate. Somehow the media called it even and barely dissected (or remembered) any of the arguments that were presented by either side.
I also think it's also the media's responsibility (as well as that of the citizens) to ask serious questions and to hold the politicions responsible.
Thanks for the updates, Mr. Beckerman.
Does this mean that they will finally have to pay up? I know the original decision was one to celebrate, but since then, it seems like the RIAA has been throwing every argument to either stall or reverse the decision (although the judge says it is not final). It would be unfortunate if they could drag this issue on, even though the case is over.
I also like the judge's first footnote in which he cites other RIAA cases to refute their argument. IANAL of course.
Wait a minute... shouldn't the lower court have ruled it an illegal search?
To make an analogy (albeit somewhat of a stretch): Suppose "Joe" owns a coffee shop with a computer, and has a pile of copied music/movies in a storeroom. Someone walks in and uses his own Yahoo account to send child pornography from a flash drive. The FBI traces the IP address (not the Yahoo account!) to me and obtains a warrant for a search. They can't find the images on the hard drive (let's say it's write-protected) but finds the illegal/pirated CDs/DVDs. And they charge him for that.
Or the situation could be hidden child pornography in Joe's house. It should be the same. And yes, the evidence is illegal in both cases, and child pornography is despicable. But aren't the initial grounds for the warrant at fault?
I'm assuming the lawyer tried that with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, but must have been unable to bring that up due to a technical reason. Obviously, he or she is a lawyer, and I'm not.
That's true, but Yahoo (their local branch, whatever it's called) is also based in Hong Kong. So they could challenge the request in Hong Kong courts. Or just tell China that they had no information.
Yes, but I think it's not a matter of paying money - the verdict, with any possible fines tacked on, is probably negligible compared to the amount of money they have. They don't want to lose, or at least never expected it. And they don't want to divulge any of their payment strategy (which could reveal how much their lawyers, expert witnesses, and other researchers or paralegals make).
But why do so many class-action lawsuits seem to end up with the "in-kind compensation" you mentioned above? I don't care about receiving payment of no value until I use it... to buy more things from them.
I can't remember what the specific decisions were, but I thought the Sony rootkit case, probably several Microsoft cases, and the Big 5 CD price-fixing one all resulted in coupons or discounts for use on future products. Some people participated in the lawsuit because they found a reason never to purchase anything from the companies.
I think the quality of schools (and of education) really depend on where you are, and of the students themselves. I graduated from San Francisco public schools, and now I'm across the bay, so here's my perspective:
Some parts of the Bay Area (including especially Menlo Park) are quite wealthy; one can generally assume that the socioeconomic factors have a role in the students' desire to learn. With the huge influx of immigrants, particularly from Asia, I would argue that the education wouldn't differ much from other places, even in the "liberal" Bay Area. The parents expect their children to get a good education (albeit one easier than the one they had in Asia). It was the case for me, as for many others I know. Private tutoring is also very common, to supplement the information they learn in school.
I remember TAing an algebra class once, and the textbook they used was some CPM book. The chapters were called "Burning Candle" or whatever problem was at the end of the chapter. I'm not sure what the point was. I can only imagine a student asking another one, "Hey, can you explain the chain rule to me? It's in the burning candle chapter!"
Yes, the whole ebonics debacle was ridiculous. I was a little young at the time to understand it, but I do remember reading the newspaper one day and finding out that ebonics has rules for its grammar. Go figure. And yes, Prop. 209 and Prop. 13 have changed the education here.
Thanks for clearing that bit up. I was wondering the same thing as I read the transcript. I've always been interested in the legal system, and I've learned some stuff today. The transcript is quite a humorous (albeit laborious) read.
And as always, your work is much appreciated.
Bush's priority was never to "liberate Iraq." His original arguments for invasion were (off the top of my head):
1. Iraq (i.e., Saddam Hussein) was responsible for what happened in Sept. 2001 (which is untrue)
2. Al Qaeda was in Iraq (also untrue - and Iraq is mostly Shiite Muslims, Al Qaeda is comprised of mostly Sunni)
3. Iraq had WMDs (also untrue)
Only after these attempts failed did he change his argument to include those you are thinking of, although I don't remember the exact order (it might have been at the same time):
4. Spreading democracy in the Middle East
5. Saddam Hussein is a dictator
Who said people here "blast any attempt at safeguarding freedom"? I'm sure many readers would support a democratic government in Burma, an overthrow of communist governments (aren't they all fascist now, anyway?), ridding the world of racism in Sudan and Zimbabwe, and all the horrible atrocities that are occurring in this world right now. But foreign politics is not as simple as black and white. Shiites hate Sunnis, and vice versa. Communist governments will sometimes oppose other communist governments (like the Khmer Rouge, Vietnam, Russia, and China in the 70's). And in Iraq, the US has replaced a dictatorship with civil war and sectarian violence.
I'm not defending Hussein in any way. He committed many frightening atrocities. But that has little to do with freedom, at least in your context. Bush lied. There's ample evidence that Bush long had a desire to overthrow Hussein (see The Vulcans, the name he and his cronies called themselves, or the Downing Street Memo, etc.). Bush never had the intention of creating freedom in the Middle East.