I wonder what happens when the tumor is gone and a tiny little lump of clustered nanoparticles is free to float around on its own. Stroke, anybody? I'm not a doctor, but they're probably going to need to find a way to dissolve these artificial clots when they finish with the therapy, or they'll cause all sorts of circulatory problems.
Oh no, man, it happens all the time. EVILBIGPHARMA finds out that some group of little bastard scientists at some university have the temerity to try to find a CURE for some disease, threatening the lucrative market for ineffective drugs from EVILBIGPHARMA, so they send in a special team of hit ninjas to wipe them out and suppress the research. Hell, they cured cancer 50 years ago, but it's so much more profitable to sell sick people sugar pills instead of real medicine.
I know how snarky I sound, but Jesus Christ, who do you think runs these companies, Darth Vader?
Yeah, those fucking corporations and their cancer profiteering. The way they sell all those cancer drugs makes me sick. Of course, most of those drugs are intended to eliminate the cancer outright so the patient won't need to take some kind of drug for the rest of their life, but still! How dare they!
Grow up. The company that comes up with a truly effective, broadly acting cure for cancer is going to make more money than God, even if they provide it at a low cost. And because every company hopes to be first, everybody has an incentive to throw a hat in the ring. And of course, once you make that huge investment, even if you can't be first, you still go to market, meaning that there's at least some competition to bring prices down.
Pharmaeceutical companies do plenty of seriously messed up stuff in order to make money, but disease profiteering isn't one of them. If there was the slightest shred of proof to show that they're purposefully avoiding developing a cure so they can instead sell palliatives, don't you think patients advocate groups would be screaming for blood from the rooftops?
Skepticism is always, intrinsically, and undivorcable from good science--even for those of us without biochem PhDs. However, when I read stories in the popular media about the dangers of cloned animal products and bioengineered crops, I don't see well-reasoned, scientific arguments. I see the kind of panicky diatribe I mockingly emulated above. Of course anything new we put into the food supply should be thoroughly checked out and vetted, but to do this properly, we need an open environment of unbiased inquiry that's not possible without "the humility of a little scepticism."
As for my tone, well, in 2002 Zambia refused to accept genetically modified corn from the UN's World Food Program. As it happens they were able to compensate with non-GM crops, but if they hadn't, a lot of people would have starved, based on merely the irrational fear that 'something' bad might happen. So, yeah, if you're arguing against the adoption of technologies that could safely feed lots of starving people, then you'd better have some good data backing you up.
"Oh nos! Genetically modified aminals! What if they get into the food supply?! DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A BABY WITH TWO HEADS?!?!?! You can't predict what might happen so don't let the evil government/corporations/boogeymen use us as their GM guinea pigs!"
Okay, so from now on, software companies aren't allowed to patent new products unless they do something in a totally new way. And no more "me too" games like, say, Half Life, or Counterstrike--don't they know that we've already got an FPS game? Or maybe Coke--no more of this cherry coke, coke vanilla nonsense. Come back when you've got Coke Filet Mignon!
I'm not going to say that the current system of IP as it applies to pharma is ideal; certainly, if companies can get away with marketing a slightly improved version of a drug for a premium price, they're going to. I just don't trust Congress to implement intelligent regulations of such a complex issue.
Most firms are now getting into pharmacoeconomics, which uses market data to figure out (in essence) what drugs are worth producing. I'd feel much better about a market-derived, self-regulation than anything imposed by almighty goverment.
If I was a low-rent evil genius, I'd have somebody harpoon this sucker. Not because I object to balloons or telescopes, or balloons with telescopes. I think I'd just really enjoy watching it zoom through the skies above the South Pole making that ridiculous 'air coming out of a balloon' sound.
And yet, despite all this, what has really been accomplished? Sure, there's more "awareness" but have people started scrapping their SUVs for Priuses? Have there been any major governmental (in the U.S., at least) commitments to renewable/carbon neutral technologies? Have we come any closer to an idea of how to deal with the fact that two of the most populous nations on Earth, China and India, are increasing in their use of fossil fuels as we speak?
Kudos to Gore for doing his part; Lord knows it's been a thankless task so far. But so far it seems like his is a voice in the wilderness, and as long as big oil has more lobbying power than the environmental movement any sweeping changes will be a long time coming.
You're correct that changing the amount supplied at a given price (aka, the supply curve) doesn't change the amount demanded at a given price (the demand curve). However, disregarding the distortions of taxation and the presence of alternatives, it's the intersection of those curves that determine how many people will buy, and what they'd be willing to pay.
Think of it this way: if the supply of PS3s on eBay is unlimited, then anybody who thinks they look cool can buy one. Whereas if there was a single PS3 for sale, the bidding would be much more intense, and the selling price would be much higher.
Now, Sony doesn't sell their consoles at auction; they set a price that's paid by both die-hard fans and casual gamers alike. But in a free market situation, this presents an opportunity for arbitrage: I can buy one at the store price, and sell it to a die-hard fan at a much higher price (assuming he can't get one at the store himself). On the other hand, if I offered it at the same price to someone who's not a fan, he wouldn't pay it.
So technically, you're right. It would have been more accurate if I had said 'fewer units = greater quantity demanded;' the demand curve itself would not be affected. Not that I imagine you (or anybody) really cares that much, but those economics classes have to be good for something, right?;)
At the risk of oversimplifying, when supply shrinks, all else being equal, the number of units sold will decrease and the willingness to pay will increase. Which is exactly what we're seeing: the scarcity of consoles is driving a small population of people who REALLY want one to pay much higher prices to get one via eBay, or a scalper. Now, Sony doesn't see a dime of that money, so you could argue that it doesn't make sense for them to sell fewer units at a fixed price.
I'm not an expert on business in general or Sony in particular, but it seems like a lot of people on/. think Sony is manipulating supply levels of PS3s. If they are, it seems like the main reason to do so is the buzz generated--they whip everyone up now, and when they release more units in 2-3 months, people jump on them.
I'm not saying this is what's happening, only that it's plausible.
It's amusing to me that folks have no problem with somebody dropping hundreds of dollars on a console, but hiring homeless people to scalp them is some huge crime. Obviously the homeless guys felt taking some money to wait in a line was a better use of their time than whatever else they'd normally do--they made out here. As for the people who hired them, well...would you expect Steve Jobs to mow his own lawn? Why should he, if he can afford to pay someone else to do it. And as for Sony, like any company, they respond to incentives: in this case, fewer units = more demand. If you don't like it, change their incentives by not buying their shit.
'Receptor' in this case refers not to a cell, but to a specific protein structure called TRPV1. Many proteins exist in both plants and animals, particularly the ones most fundamental to life, such as those needed for DNA replication. This may be a little further afield, but it's really not shocking at all.
Further, TRPV1 (more familiarly known as capsaicin receptor) is, in fact, activated both by heat from traditional sources (the sun, a stove, etc.) but also by things which we perceive as hot (such as peppers, many if not most of which contain some amount of capsaicin). The tarantula venom studied also triggers this receptor. So it's not terribly surprising that all three types of stimulation--real heat, peppers, and the venom--produce similar sensations.
The most likely explanation for this is that the receptor existed first, and ancient proto-tarantulas who made venoms that could stimulate it were more effective at killing prey or chasing off predators. So it's not coincidence; it's just another example of nature building on what's available.
That's the argument that always gets me. Bush trotted out a group of "snowflake children" (kids born of frozen embryos that weren't initially implanted) to help garner support for preventing research into embryonic stem cells. But compared to the numbers of people currently suffering from nervous system problems, or Parkinson's, or what have you, it seems that the benefits are potentially far greater than the costs--especially if the research is conducted openly, and held to the highest ethical standards.
I'd argue that at this point (in the US, at least) there are very few people who are more worried about anthrax than about influenza, particularly the possibility of an H5N1 outbreak. Of course, that probably has more to do with the media flogging than anything else.
To what extent does seeing the media worry about something drive us to worry about it, too? And how does the media decide what to sensationalize?
I felt the same way. "Oh no, the most horrible disease in history! If we don't find a cure, it could kill everything on Earth? Oh, wait, no, it eats rubber now. THE END."
Like a battered housewife, I keep going back to this show, despite the fact that it's awful. That point annoyed the hell out of me. Not that I don't enjoy 20 minutes of cheerleader angst every week while every other more deserving plot element is marginalized, but Jesus Christ...
If I allow my family to suffer because I refuse to profit from ethically-suspect (not necessarily blatantly unethical) actions, have I really made the most ethical choice? If not sending my kids to a good school damns them to poverty and ignorance, then don't I have an ethical obligation to them, as well? And hey, if the old lady isn't paying her rent, then isn't she being unethical?
Ah, a little moral relativism after lunch. C'est maqnifique.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it was Lucy who used to pull the ball away at the last minute. Sally was the little sister.
I wonder what happens when the tumor is gone and a tiny little lump of clustered nanoparticles is free to float around on its own. Stroke, anybody? I'm not a doctor, but they're probably going to need to find a way to dissolve these artificial clots when they finish with the therapy, or they'll cause all sorts of circulatory problems.
Oh no, man, it happens all the time. EVILBIGPHARMA finds out that some group of little bastard scientists at some university have the temerity to try to find a CURE for some disease, threatening the lucrative market for ineffective drugs from EVILBIGPHARMA, so they send in a special team of hit ninjas to wipe them out and suppress the research. Hell, they cured cancer 50 years ago, but it's so much more profitable to sell sick people sugar pills instead of real medicine.
I know how snarky I sound, but Jesus Christ, who do you think runs these companies, Darth Vader?
Yeah, those fucking corporations and their cancer profiteering. The way they sell all those cancer drugs makes me sick. Of course, most of those drugs are intended to eliminate the cancer outright so the patient won't need to take some kind of drug for the rest of their life, but still! How dare they!
Grow up. The company that comes up with a truly effective, broadly acting cure for cancer is going to make more money than God, even if they provide it at a low cost. And because every company hopes to be first, everybody has an incentive to throw a hat in the ring. And of course, once you make that huge investment, even if you can't be first, you still go to market, meaning that there's at least some competition to bring prices down.
Pharmaeceutical companies do plenty of seriously messed up stuff in order to make money, but disease profiteering isn't one of them. If there was the slightest shred of proof to show that they're purposefully avoiding developing a cure so they can instead sell palliatives, don't you think patients advocate groups would be screaming for blood from the rooftops?
Skepticism is always, intrinsically, and undivorcable from good science--even for those of us without biochem PhDs. However, when I read stories in the popular media about the dangers of cloned animal products and bioengineered crops, I don't see well-reasoned, scientific arguments. I see the kind of panicky diatribe I mockingly emulated above. Of course anything new we put into the food supply should be thoroughly checked out and vetted, but to do this properly, we need an open environment of unbiased inquiry that's not possible without "the humility of a little scepticism."
As for my tone, well, in 2002 Zambia refused to accept genetically modified corn from the UN's World Food Program. As it happens they were able to compensate with non-GM crops, but if they hadn't, a lot of people would have starved, based on merely the irrational fear that 'something' bad might happen. So, yeah, if you're arguing against the adoption of technologies that could safely feed lots of starving people, then you'd better have some good data backing you up.
"Oh nos! Genetically modified aminals! What if they get into the food supply?! DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A BABY WITH TWO HEADS?!?!?! You can't predict what might happen so don't let the evil government/corporations/boogeymen use us as their GM guinea pigs!"
Okay, so from now on, software companies aren't allowed to patent new products unless they do something in a totally new way. And no more "me too" games like, say, Half Life, or Counterstrike--don't they know that we've already got an FPS game? Or maybe Coke--no more of this cherry coke, coke vanilla nonsense. Come back when you've got Coke Filet Mignon!
I'm not going to say that the current system of IP as it applies to pharma is ideal; certainly, if companies can get away with marketing a slightly improved version of a drug for a premium price, they're going to. I just don't trust Congress to implement intelligent regulations of such a complex issue.
Most firms are now getting into pharmacoeconomics, which uses market data to figure out (in essence) what drugs are worth producing. I'd feel much better about a market-derived, self-regulation than anything imposed by almighty goverment.
If I was a low-rent evil genius, I'd have somebody harpoon this sucker. Not because I object to balloons or telescopes, or balloons with telescopes. I think I'd just really enjoy watching it zoom through the skies above the South Pole making that ridiculous 'air coming out of a balloon' sound.
That's my morning moment of Zen.
They tried to get Uwe, but he didn't like the way the producers were looking at him, so he punched them out.
I prefer the brain slugs. ::dazed voice::
Take that, you blowholin' sons of bitches! Try playing ball with Shamu now!
And yet, despite all this, what has really been accomplished? Sure, there's more "awareness" but have people started scrapping their SUVs for Priuses? Have there been any major governmental (in the U.S., at least) commitments to renewable/carbon neutral technologies? Have we come any closer to an idea of how to deal with the fact that two of the most populous nations on Earth, China and India, are increasing in their use of fossil fuels as we speak?
Kudos to Gore for doing his part; Lord knows it's been a thankless task so far. But so far it seems like his is a voice in the wilderness, and as long as big oil has more lobbying power than the environmental movement any sweeping changes will be a long time coming.
"Other ideas floating around include gloves that would give its user 'bionic strength'..."
So...would that make it some kind of...power glove?
That's SOOOOOO bad.
You're correct that changing the amount supplied at a given price (aka, the supply curve) doesn't change the amount demanded at a given price (the demand curve). However, disregarding the distortions of taxation and the presence of alternatives, it's the intersection of those curves that determine how many people will buy, and what they'd be willing to pay.
;)
Think of it this way: if the supply of PS3s on eBay is unlimited, then anybody who thinks they look cool can buy one. Whereas if there was a single PS3 for sale, the bidding would be much more intense, and the selling price would be much higher.
Now, Sony doesn't sell their consoles at auction; they set a price that's paid by both die-hard fans and casual gamers alike. But in a free market situation, this presents an opportunity for arbitrage: I can buy one at the store price, and sell it to a die-hard fan at a much higher price (assuming he can't get one at the store himself). On the other hand, if I offered it at the same price to someone who's not a fan, he wouldn't pay it.
So technically, you're right. It would have been more accurate if I had said 'fewer units = greater quantity demanded;' the demand curve itself would not be affected. Not that I imagine you (or anybody) really cares that much, but those economics classes have to be good for something, right?
Does it go to 11? Ours go to 11.
At the risk of oversimplifying, when supply shrinks, all else being equal, the number of units sold will decrease and the willingness to pay will increase. Which is exactly what we're seeing: the scarcity of consoles is driving a small population of people who REALLY want one to pay much higher prices to get one via eBay, or a scalper. Now, Sony doesn't see a dime of that money, so you could argue that it doesn't make sense for them to sell fewer units at a fixed price.
/. think Sony is manipulating supply levels of PS3s. If they are, it seems like the main reason to do so is the buzz generated--they whip everyone up now, and when they release more units in 2-3 months, people jump on them.
I'm not an expert on business in general or Sony in particular, but it seems like a lot of people on
I'm not saying this is what's happening, only that it's plausible.
It's amusing to me that folks have no problem with somebody dropping hundreds of dollars on a console, but hiring homeless people to scalp them is some huge crime. Obviously the homeless guys felt taking some money to wait in a line was a better use of their time than whatever else they'd normally do--they made out here. As for the people who hired them, well...would you expect Steve Jobs to mow his own lawn? Why should he, if he can afford to pay someone else to do it. And as for Sony, like any company, they respond to incentives: in this case, fewer units = more demand. If you don't like it, change their incentives by not buying their shit.
'Receptor' in this case refers not to a cell, but to a specific protein structure called TRPV1. Many proteins exist in both plants and animals, particularly the ones most fundamental to life, such as those needed for DNA replication. This may be a little further afield, but it's really not shocking at all.
Further, TRPV1 (more familiarly known as capsaicin receptor) is, in fact, activated both by heat from traditional sources (the sun, a stove, etc.) but also by things which we perceive as hot (such as peppers, many if not most of which contain some amount of capsaicin). The tarantula venom studied also triggers this receptor. So it's not terribly surprising that all three types of stimulation--real heat, peppers, and the venom--produce similar sensations.
The most likely explanation for this is that the receptor existed first, and ancient proto-tarantulas who made venoms that could stimulate it were more effective at killing prey or chasing off predators. So it's not coincidence; it's just another example of nature building on what's available.
That's the argument that always gets me. Bush trotted out a group of "snowflake children" (kids born of frozen embryos that weren't initially implanted) to help garner support for preventing research into embryonic stem cells. But compared to the numbers of people currently suffering from nervous system problems, or Parkinson's, or what have you, it seems that the benefits are potentially far greater than the costs--especially if the research is conducted openly, and held to the highest ethical standards.
THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?! Or at least, the freezer embryos?
I'd argue that at this point (in the US, at least) there are very few people who are more worried about anthrax than about influenza, particularly the possibility of an H5N1 outbreak. Of course, that probably has more to do with the media flogging than anything else.
To what extent does seeing the media worry about something drive us to worry about it, too? And how does the media decide what to sensationalize?
I felt the same way. "Oh no, the most horrible disease in history! If we don't find a cure, it could kill everything on Earth? Oh, wait, no, it eats rubber now. THE END."
Like a battered housewife, I keep going back to this show, despite the fact that it's awful. That point annoyed the hell out of me. Not that I don't enjoy 20 minutes of cheerleader angst every week while every other more deserving plot element is marginalized, but Jesus Christ...
Microsoft, when will you learn? Pulling out is NOT a reliable precaution. It's almost as bad as counting business cycles.
If I allow my family to suffer because I refuse to profit from ethically-suspect (not necessarily blatantly unethical) actions, have I really made the most ethical choice? If not sending my kids to a good school damns them to poverty and ignorance, then don't I have an ethical obligation to them, as well? And hey, if the old lady isn't paying her rent, then isn't she being unethical?
Ah, a little moral relativism after lunch. C'est maqnifique.