The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti on.billofrights.html#amendmentiv
So if the government can already get away with warrantless wiretaps, then the new records retention initiative will be just one more nail in the coffin of the Constitution.
"Without patents, patent-heavy fields like pharmaceutical research fall into cutthroat, razor-thin-margin price wars - but that is not a bad thing. In fact, it's not too different than desktop computers..."
Fortunately, manufacturers of desktop computers and software can disclaim any liability for your death if you use them. Pharmaceutical companies can't. They are a target-rich environment for ambulance chasers.
I agree that the cost of drugs (and medical care in general) is high today, but I don't think a totally free market devoid of patents will make it as cheap as everyone is hoping. It often takes ten years or more to develop a drug. Without a patent on a class of compounds, a drug company has no guarantee that its investment in a single drug (estimated at $500-800 million dollars by the time it hits the market, with the bulk of that sum coming in clinical trials) will be worth it if someone can beat them to the finish line.
There's no way doctors don't know. They are bombarded with visits from pharmaceutical sales reps, sometimes even multiple visits from reps *from the same company* in a single day. Believe me, the doctors are well aware of the often incremental changes in drug formulations and also of the high cost to their patients. Many will prescribe generics or offer samples to help their patients get the drugs they need.
The most common changes you will see after a drug hits the market is in its formulation, which determines its bioavailability. This is not a trivial problem to solve. You may have the greatest drug in the world, but if it crystallizes in your body, it won't do anyone any good. Formulating a drug so that it remains soluble and gets to the part of your body that needs it is an extremely challenging problem. Oftentimes, the new formulations will enhance the bioavailability, so not all of them are just gimmicks to dodge patent expirations.
Disclosure: I have worked as a researcher in the pharmaceutical industry for the past six years and I am married to a doctor. I get really pissed off when I hear people complaining about the high cost of drugs and how the doctors are out to get them. Believe me, that's not the case at all. Take your complaints to the CEOs and marketers who are setting the prices and making the real money off of your illnesses. And if you're unhappy with the high cost of drugs (or medical care), don't buy them and see how well you do.
I'm no audiophile, but it seems to me that I get tired of listening to MP3s more easily than I do listening to CDs. The MP3 just don't seem to have the "life" of a [relatively] lossless recording. I doubt I could really tell the difference between vinyl and CD (and I prefer the lower noise levels of CDs anyway), but it seems that there is still a valid audio reason to continue getting your music on disc (apart from the usual DRM and compression arguments, of course).
Another good point that should always appear in these "debates":
What are these murderers using to kill people: the game consoles themselves, or guns/knives/etc.? Lotsa folks have these weapons in their houses, but manage not to kill people...same goes for games. Frame it in this way, and the NRA is suddenly on your side! In fact....
How about "bases" or "base pairs"? Are they creating a string, or DNA? Granted, Forbes ain't a science rag, but still...let's show our readers we took some high school biology.
So let's stop being so defensive about attacks on science and start demanding that the fundies prove their own questionable assertions. Along the lines of the Ansari X-Prize, I propose the Slashdot B-Prize, to encourage the proof of the various assertions in the Bible.
First goal: Build a seaworthy ark of the dimensions cited in Genesis, populate it with two (or seven!) of every species currently on the planet (because the diversity of species can't be proven by evolution over less than six thousand years), crew it with as many people cited in Genesis, keep it afloat and the animals alive for several weeks (this involves disposing of tons of elephant, cow, and horse poop) with only that crew, and continue to feed the animals for several weeks after landing with the stored feed (since edible plant species would have been washed away in the flood). $10 million bucks for the chance to shut us fancy-pants scientists up with a real experiment. Who's with me on this?
Slashdot Mirror
Amendment IV
i on.billofrights.html#amendmentiv
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitut
So if the government can already get away with warrantless wiretaps, then the new records retention initiative will be just one more nail in the coffin of the Constitution.
"Without patents, patent-heavy fields like pharmaceutical research fall into cutthroat, razor-thin-margin price wars - but that is not a bad thing. In fact, it's not too different than desktop computers..."
Fortunately, manufacturers of desktop computers and software can disclaim any liability for your death if you use them. Pharmaceutical companies can't. They are a target-rich environment for ambulance chasers.
I agree that the cost of drugs (and medical care in general) is high today, but I don't think a totally free market devoid of patents will make it as cheap as everyone is hoping. It often takes ten years or more to develop a drug. Without a patent on a class of compounds, a drug company has no guarantee that its investment in a single drug (estimated at $500-800 million dollars by the time it hits the market, with the bulk of that sum coming in clinical trials) will be worth it if someone can beat them to the finish line.
There's no way doctors don't know. They are bombarded with visits from pharmaceutical sales reps, sometimes even multiple visits from reps *from the same company* in a single day. Believe me, the doctors are well aware of the often incremental changes in drug formulations and also of the high cost to their patients. Many will prescribe generics or offer samples to help their patients get the drugs they need.
The most common changes you will see after a drug hits the market is in its formulation, which determines its bioavailability. This is not a trivial problem to solve. You may have the greatest drug in the world, but if it crystallizes in your body, it won't do anyone any good. Formulating a drug so that it remains soluble and gets to the part of your body that needs it is an extremely challenging problem. Oftentimes, the new formulations will enhance the bioavailability, so not all of them are just gimmicks to dodge patent expirations.
Disclosure: I have worked as a researcher in the pharmaceutical industry for the past six years and I am married to a doctor. I get really pissed off when I hear people complaining about the high cost of drugs and how the doctors are out to get them. Believe me, that's not the case at all. Take your complaints to the CEOs and marketers who are setting the prices and making the real money off of your illnesses. And if you're unhappy with the high cost of drugs (or medical care), don't buy them and see how well you do.
...to bake a pretty cake.
I'm no audiophile, but it seems to me that I get tired of listening to MP3s more easily than I do listening to CDs. The MP3 just don't seem to have the "life" of a [relatively] lossless recording. I doubt I could really tell the difference between vinyl and CD (and I prefer the lower noise levels of CDs anyway), but it seems that there is still a valid audio reason to continue getting your music on disc (apart from the usual DRM and compression arguments, of course).
Another good point that should always appear in these "debates":
What are these murderers using to kill people: the game consoles themselves, or guns/knives/etc.? Lotsa folks have these weapons in their houses, but manage not to kill people...same goes for games. Frame it in this way, and the NRA is suddenly on your side! In fact....
"Games don't kill people...psychotic sociopaths kill people."
"If games are outlawed, only outlaws will have games."
etc.
Yep...just goes to show that even if astronomers use geological terms, they still don't know schist.
How about "bases" or "base pairs"? Are they creating a string, or DNA? Granted, Forbes ain't a science rag, but still...let's show our readers we took some high school biology.
So let's stop being so defensive about attacks on science and start demanding that the fundies prove their own questionable assertions. Along the lines of the Ansari X-Prize, I propose the Slashdot B-Prize, to encourage the proof of the various assertions in the Bible.
First goal: Build a seaworthy ark of the dimensions cited in Genesis, populate it with two (or seven!) of every species currently on the planet (because the diversity of species can't be proven by evolution over less than six thousand years), crew it with as many people cited in Genesis, keep it afloat and the animals alive for several weeks (this involves disposing of tons of elephant, cow, and horse poop) with only that crew, and continue to feed the animals for several weeks after landing with the stored feed (since edible plant species would have been washed away in the flood). $10 million bucks for the chance to shut us fancy-pants scientists up with a real experiment. Who's with me on this?