Lipitor is a real medicine which should be banned. It causes memory loss, though the makers deny it. The makers of Statin drugs bribed the FDA head with speaking engagements and he lowered the 'safe' levels of cholesterol to get more people on the drug.
You don't really thing that it was just a mistake that the CIA made when the USA targeted the PRC embassy in Iraq during Gulf War (I), "mistaking" it for the Iraqi military intelligence building?
Umm... dude, that wasn't in Iraq, it was in Europe. And it was because the Chinese embasy was acting as a radio relay station in violation of the tradition of embassies. Though the States won't admit it. It was the only bombing run that came directly from the CIA rather than NATO.
The point of Hamlet is that it's supposed to be a classic. It has enduring themes, etc. It takes somthing for a work of literature to survive 500 years. Also, since it was written around the ascension of the Brittish empire, it's popularision has an edge of cultural hegemony to that. Not that they ever tell you that in school, but interesting how that works.
Literature is based on older literature. You can just start in modern times, but then you don't understand how things progress over time. You won't undestand cultural references, etc.
For starters, since this chemical is naturally occuring, it can't be patented in the first place. Maybe the refinment process, but not the chemical itself. You'd have to alter it in some slight way to 'improve' it if you wanted a patent.
But here's what I'd suggest in terms of fixes;
1. Don't prevent people from buying drugs which are in use in other countries. Why should Americans support the majority of the R&D costs while other (developed) countries get the same drugs for less because they have price controls. If companies start refusing to sell drugs in price controlled countries, we'll have a fairer defrayal of drug costs.
2. Don't rely so damn much on proscriptions. Doctors just proscribe what drug companies tell them to, anyways. I've been able to make better decisions by researching the matter myself. That should be my choice. If people don't think they can handle this, they can go to the doctor and get an expert opinion.
3. End corruption at the FDA by preventing those people who make decisions from accepting money from drug companies while they work there or engaging in any conflict of interest for several years afterwards (i.e. if you helped approve drug A then you can't go to work later for the company that produced it.) This will stop fiascos like the unreasonably low setting for 'healthy' levels of cholesterol and the overproscription of lipitor and other statin drugs due to the head of the FDA accepting money from Lipitor's manufacturer. I think more drugs 'slip through' because of deliberate corruption than because of insufficient trials.
4. Focus on informed consent rather than outright prohibition.
5. Punish companies and indivduals who submit false information as part of the drug approval process.
6. Don't 'gift' discoveries to companies. The government has, at times, given patents to companies for them to develop. The gov should negotiate better on our behalf, rather than simply allowing sweetheart financial deals. If that means developing the government develops the drug, so be it. This is not more socialist than giving patents away and getting nothing in return.
7. End the tax break given to companies for health care. Company health coverage boosts the cost of health care by increasing the paperwork and allowing companies to charge more (because it'll be covered.) The system is practically set up to drive up the cost of health care.
Allow the government to offer deals - an extra year of patents in return for price fixing. That allows for more affordable drugs and companies can still recoup costs. Of course, this would probably be abused, so it might be a bad idea.
If you flung poo on cars they'd arrest you for flinging poo on cars. But not for whatever 'message' you were trying to communicate. (what would that be? that you were an alpha chimp?)
Going back to the hiker analogy, hikers are also fased with the same kind of delays yet you don't see precautions like that being taken for people hiking in the woods.
Yes, you do. They have trails, warning signs, and even maps on posts in national parks. If someone goes missing and you report them, the park service will go out and look for them (and won't even charge for it! Imagine that!)
In the states, ingredient labels are required on many foodstuffs so that people don't eat things that they don't want to or are allergic to.
They also have lifeguards in pools just in case someone gets hurt, and railing around the ledges of popular tourist places in case people fall over. What's more, if you have a pool you're required to put a fence around it, or you're legally liable for someone who goes and swims in it and hurts themself. It's covered under 'attractive nusiance laws.'
Even going back as far as talmudic law, if you have a roof (which in Babylon, were typically solid enough for people to walk on) you were required to put a railing around it.
You may not like all this, but it is how things are done, and how they've been done for quite some time. People are thought, by law, to have a basic responsibility to warn others of danger and prevent accidents related to that danger.
You may disagree with this, but your assertion that lighthouses are some kind of legal anomoly which should be un-funded lacks support.
... Lucas to get him to stop making Star Wars films?
Or at least to let someone else write the dialogue. Lucas used to know that he couldn't write dialogue and let someone else do it.
I'm surprised this didn't happen with anime first. After all, then you're not stuck with particular actors. You can get one-off voice actors. And you have the creative fanbase with the motivation to do this sort of thing. After all, they do fan art and fansubs and AMVs.
Okay, someone's probably done it, but it was probably just hentai or somthing along those lines.
Does that work on oceans as well as ponds? As I posted elsewhere, the anoxic and oxygenated zones in the deep ocean are separated by numereous thermoclines. Lakes 'turn over' and the water at the bottom becomes the water at the top, killing the fish. Oceans have cycles, but they take much longer, and there's time for the undecayed matter to be buried under sediment in the anoxic deep waters.
It's not my field of expertise, but I think if oceas are deep enough, the upper levels might remain oxygenated. The lower levels in some places might already be anoxic. I'm not sure.
The worst that could happen is that we find microbes on mars... and aren't sure if we put them there or not.
To date, we've sterilized any craft going to another planet.
It's a purely academic reason, but still...
Re:Original NASA Article from Feb/2001 with more i
on
NASA Proposes Warming Mars
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You're seriously scaring me.
But here's somthing I've never quite understood. I can understand how eutrophic ponds become anoxic when you have a sudden die-off and decomposition. But with the ocean, the surface should remain oxygenated (since it has living plantlife) but the depths would be anoxic. You can only suck so much oxygen from the water. Not all the plantlife would decay since you can only take so much oxygen out of the water and most of the organic matter would be buried under sediment.
The surface and depths should be separated by several thermoclines so the water won't mix like it would in a lake.
And oceans don't 'turn over' the same way that lakes do (though they do cycle, but that happens slowly over several centuries). So would an algal bloom really cause anoxyic conditions in water that was several miles deep the same way that it would in a shallow pond?
I don't think mars has enough gravity to hold molecular oxygen.
On a related note, the Earth doesn't have the gravity to hold Hydrogen or Helium. I've always imagined that the stuff probably boils off at a rate that varies with the amount of water in the upper atmosphere.
And there seems to be a good amount of water entering due to mini comets (see Dr. Frankl's mini comet theory, which received support a few years back from some NASA studies. We may be constantly getting new water added, mostly to our upper atmosphere.) If some of this water were broken apart, with the Hydrogen escaping and the oxygen remaining, this would be another argument in favor of early earth having an oxidizing atmosphere, an issue currently under some debate.
BTW, does anyone know if there any planets that actually have been confirmed to have a reducing atmosphere? Does Venus?
On a slightly related note, why not fight global warming by creating a eutrophic situation in the earth's oceans. Seed it with a little bit of iron, maybe some other nutrients. You'd just need only trace amounts of certain nutrients to get a huge algal bloom. It would suck CO2 from the air, and probably do wonders for Atlantic fishermen as well.
The rewards for fishermen would probably be even greater in an enclosed body of water like the Mediterranian.
To clarify my earlier post; Should the production of acid count against the Gaia hypothesis since it involves life producing conditions which aren't generally hospitable to life. Is there biased selection among proponents of Gaia theory to cite only processes that lend themselves to environmental homeostasis or are such things actually the norm?
One more point for the strong view of Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis, that the earth is a self regulating system that 'deliberatly' seeks homeostasis within a particular range.
Of course, I wonder how selective the strong view of the Gaia hypothesis is... some species produce acid or produce greenhouse gasses... Do these not count because they're just the most efficient way to produce energy and not somthing 'deliberate' on the part of the organism? I'm not sure...
Great logic there. "Expert X isn't perfect, therefore they're no better than the average idiot."
The average idiot couldn't set this thing up in the first place. These idiots were special.
Laypeople aren't that dangerous because they aren't that trusted. It takes an expert or professional making a small mistake on somthing very important to really cause a problem.
He was just saying the proverbial "noone's perfect"
Slashdot Mirror
Call us when you get sued for refilming Lord of the Rings in your back yard with your friends.
That would be disturbing the peace, right?
Or probably a fire hazzard, what with the Balrog and all.
Lipitor is a real medicine which should be banned. It causes memory loss, though the makers deny it. The makers of Statin drugs bribed the FDA head with speaking engagements and he lowered the 'safe' levels of cholesterol to get more people on the drug.
You don't really thing that it was just a mistake
that the CIA made when the USA targeted the PRC
embassy in Iraq during Gulf War (I), "mistaking"
it for the Iraqi military intelligence building?
Umm... dude, that wasn't in Iraq, it was in Europe. And it was because the Chinese embasy was acting as a radio relay station in violation of the tradition of embassies. Though the States won't admit it. It was the only bombing run that came directly from the CIA rather than NATO.
One more thing to add to the analogy.
The DEA in this case has one of the largest stockpiles of drugs in the world.
It just says it doesn't use them unless it really really needs them.
The point of Hamlet is that it's supposed to be a classic. It has enduring themes, etc. It takes somthing for a work of literature to survive 500 years. Also, since it was written around the ascension of the Brittish empire, it's popularision has an edge of cultural hegemony to that. Not that they ever tell you that in school, but interesting how that works.
Literature is based on older literature. You can just start in modern times, but then you don't understand how things progress over time. You won't undestand cultural references, etc.
For starters, since this chemical is naturally occuring, it can't be patented in the first place.
Maybe the refinment process, but not the chemical itself. You'd have to alter it in some slight way to 'improve' it if you wanted a patent.
But here's what I'd suggest in terms of fixes;
1. Don't prevent people from buying drugs which are in use in other countries. Why should Americans support the majority of the R&D costs while other (developed) countries get the same drugs for less because they have price controls. If companies start refusing to sell drugs in price controlled countries, we'll have a fairer defrayal of drug costs.
2. Don't rely so damn much on proscriptions. Doctors just proscribe what drug companies tell them to, anyways. I've been able to make better decisions by researching the matter myself. That should be my choice. If people don't think they can handle this, they can go to the doctor and get an expert opinion.
3. End corruption at the FDA by preventing those people who make decisions from accepting money from drug companies while they work there or engaging in any conflict of interest for several years afterwards (i.e. if you helped approve drug A then you can't go to work later for the company that produced it.) This will stop fiascos like the unreasonably low setting for 'healthy' levels of cholesterol and the overproscription of lipitor and other statin drugs due to the head of the FDA accepting money from Lipitor's manufacturer. I think more drugs 'slip through' because of deliberate corruption than because of insufficient trials.
4. Focus on informed consent rather than outright prohibition.
5. Punish companies and indivduals who submit false information as part of the drug approval process.
6. Don't 'gift' discoveries to companies. The government has, at times, given patents to companies for them to develop. The gov should negotiate better on our behalf, rather than simply allowing sweetheart financial deals. If that means developing the government develops the drug, so be it. This is not more socialist than giving patents away and getting nothing in return.
7. End the tax break given to companies for health care. Company health coverage boosts the cost of health care by increasing the paperwork and allowing companies to charge more (because it'll be covered.) The system is practically set up to drive up the cost of health care.
Allow the government to offer deals - an extra year of patents in return for price fixing. That allows for more affordable drugs and companies can still recoup costs. Of course, this would probably be abused, so it might be a bad idea.
This would explain why stupid people tend to get 'first posts.'
about the people who did really well on the SAT.
And what does 'those who are perceived as likely to succeed' mean?
They're arguing in favor of another type of test to replace 'high pressure tests' but they don't detail this other metric in detail.
If you flung poo on cars they'd arrest you for flinging poo on cars. But not for whatever 'message' you were trying to communicate. (what would that be? that you were an alpha chimp?)
Get a woman. You'll forget your PC was ever there.
Can I buy those online?
Or do I have to go to a store?
Going back to the hiker analogy, hikers are also fased with the same kind of delays yet you don't see precautions like that being taken for people hiking in the woods.
Yes, you do. They have trails, warning signs, and even maps on posts in national parks. If someone goes missing and you report them, the park service will go out and look for them (and won't even charge for it! Imagine that!)
In the states, ingredient labels are required on many foodstuffs so that people don't eat things that they don't want to or are allergic to.
They also have lifeguards in pools just in case someone gets hurt, and railing around the ledges of popular tourist places in case people fall over. What's more, if you have a pool you're required to put a fence around it, or you're legally liable for someone who goes and swims in it and hurts themself. It's covered under 'attractive nusiance laws.'
Even going back as far as talmudic law, if you have a roof (which in Babylon, were typically solid enough for people to walk on) you were required to put a railing around it.
You may not like all this, but it is how things are done, and how they've been done for quite some time. People are thought, by law, to have a basic responsibility to warn others of danger and prevent accidents related to that danger.
You may disagree with this, but your assertion that lighthouses are some kind of legal anomoly which should be un-funded lacks support.
... Lucas to get him to stop making Star Wars films?
Or at least to let someone else write the dialogue. Lucas used to know that he couldn't write dialogue and let someone else do it.
I'm surprised this didn't happen with anime first. After all, then you're not stuck with particular actors. You can get one-off voice actors. And you have the creative fanbase with the motivation to do this sort of thing. After all, they do fan art and fansubs and AMVs.
Okay, someone's probably done it, but it was probably just hentai or somthing along those lines.
or a firm idea of what separates planets from stars
Space! Mostly a vacuume, but with small charged particles 'heated' to ~4 degrees K.
If Venus has less gravity than Earth, why is its atmosphere so damn thick?
Does that work on oceans as well as ponds? As I posted elsewhere, the anoxic and oxygenated zones in the deep ocean are separated by numereous thermoclines. Lakes 'turn over' and the water at the bottom becomes the water at the top, killing the fish. Oceans have cycles, but they take much longer, and there's time for the undecayed matter to be buried under sediment in the anoxic deep waters.
It's not my field of expertise, but I think if oceas are deep enough, the upper levels might remain oxygenated. The lower levels in some places might already be anoxic. I'm not sure.
The worst that could happen is that we find microbes on mars... and aren't sure if we put them there or not.
To date, we've sterilized any craft going to another planet.
It's a purely academic reason, but still...
You're seriously scaring me.
But here's somthing I've never quite understood. I can understand how eutrophic ponds become anoxic when you have a sudden die-off and decomposition. But with the ocean, the surface should remain oxygenated (since it has living plantlife) but the depths would be anoxic. You can only suck so much oxygen from the water. Not all the plantlife would decay since you can only take so much oxygen out of the water and most of the organic matter would be buried under sediment.
The surface and depths should be separated by several thermoclines so the water won't mix like it would in a lake.
And oceans don't 'turn over' the same way that lakes do (though they do cycle, but that happens slowly over several centuries). So would an algal bloom really cause anoxyic conditions in water that was several miles deep the same way that it would in a shallow pond?
I don't think mars has enough gravity to hold molecular oxygen.
On a related note, the Earth doesn't have the gravity to hold Hydrogen or Helium. I've always imagined that the stuff probably boils off at a rate that varies with the amount of water in the upper atmosphere.
And there seems to be a good amount of water entering due to mini comets (see Dr. Frankl's mini comet theory, which received support a few years back from some NASA studies. We may be constantly getting new water added, mostly to our upper atmosphere.) If some of this water were broken apart, with the Hydrogen escaping and the oxygen remaining, this would be another argument in favor of early earth having an oxidizing atmosphere, an issue currently under some debate.
BTW, does anyone know if there any planets that actually have been confirmed to have a reducing atmosphere? Does Venus?
Why does Mars lack phosphorus? Could it be added?
On a slightly related note, why not fight global warming by creating a eutrophic situation in the earth's oceans. Seed it with a little bit of iron, maybe some other nutrients. You'd just need only trace amounts of certain nutrients to get a huge algal bloom. It would suck CO2 from the air, and probably do wonders for Atlantic fishermen as well.
The rewards for fishermen would probably be even greater in an enclosed body of water like the Mediterranian.
To clarify my earlier post; Should the production of acid count against the Gaia hypothesis since it involves life producing conditions which aren't generally hospitable to life. Is there biased selection among proponents of Gaia theory to cite only processes that lend themselves to environmental homeostasis or are such things actually the norm?
One more point for the strong view of Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis, that the earth is a self regulating system that 'deliberatly' seeks homeostasis within a particular range.
Of course, I wonder how selective the strong view of the Gaia hypothesis is... some species produce acid or produce greenhouse gasses... Do these not count because they're just the most efficient way to produce energy and not somthing 'deliberate' on the part of the organism? I'm not sure...
Great logic there. "Expert X isn't perfect, therefore they're no better than the average idiot."
The average idiot couldn't set this thing up in the first place. These idiots were special.
Laypeople aren't that dangerous because they aren't that trusted. It takes an expert or professional making a small mistake on somthing very important to really cause a problem.
He was just saying the proverbial "noone's perfect"
--I think, therefore I am. You don't, so therefore...what, you are not?
Hmm.... I don't know.
Tell me that you actually understood the joke and you're just trolling...
Hm?