Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Final Diagnosis (Score 2) 192

Why is it the medical field gets paid for a incorrect diagnosis and the treatment as well as correct ones? I think performance would increase if they knew they wouldn't get paid or have to refund it.

Excellent point, but we can take it further. How about programmers only get paid when they produce bug-free code?

Comment Re:Didn't ANYBODY Check Wikileaks?! (Score 1) 689

Well, since you're big on actual quotes, let's look at an actual quote of what she said last night:

As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie "Abraham Lincoln" . . .

Which could only be considered "completely accurate" if you're engaging in some good old-fashioned Clintonian word parsing. The message she intended to convey, of course, was that she was only talking about Lincoln, not today, and certainly not about herself. But your own quote shows she wasn't only talking about Lincoln -- she simply invoked Lincoln as a historic example of the general principle she was espousing:

. . . and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln . . .

And then, after finishing with Lincoln, she returned to her general principle:

I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.

So no, her representation last night was not even close to "completely accurate" -- it was the best spin she could come up with to try to save face.

Comment Re:What a crock (Score 3, Informative) 404

Yes, seriously.

Citing a bunch of 5-star "would give again" ratings (didn't we just have an article about that a day or so ago?) says absolutely squat about how much of the money actually ends up actually doing useful charitable work. Which, if you read carefully, was the statement I said needed a citation. Not how many people wuv it.

Hint: I've read their consolidated financial statements. Further hint: they don't drill down nearly far enough to reveal slush-funding, keeping cronies on payroll, etc.

If you have actual evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to look at it. But cut-and-paste cites to a bunch of cheerleading doesn't cut it.

Comment Re:FAA is barred from legislating by sec 331 (Score 1) 192

So the section 336 exemption is followed exactly, except that the FAA says that if the drone is more than 0.55lbs it must be registered.

The fundamental problem here is that there can be no "except." Section 336 explicitly says the FAA has no power to regulate "model aircraft" as defined therein. The registration requirement is a regulation. Your theory that the "enforcement action" clause can be stretched to the point where it effectively nullifies the rest of Section 336 violates some pretty basic principles of statutory construction.

But it's up to the agency to create the laws that follow the outline in the law, and on general principle courts will yield to the regulating authority unless the disconnect is "big enough".

You mean like, for example, if the law explicitly says "the Federal Aviation Administration may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft" and then the FAA does so? That's not a matter of degree or interpretation -- that's the executive thumbing its nose at the legislature.

Comment Re:Single payer system would avoid this problem (Score 1) 327

Ah, so if the grant total of other administrative expenses for a drug company (of which your article freely admits that marketing is only a part, and tellingly doesn't even attempt to quantify how much) are more than R&D, and if you cherry-pick a single year such that it obfuscates the cyclic nature of R&D (where R&D for a given drug will be separated from marketing expenses and profits for that drug by many years), then R&D doesn't cost much of anything and thus need not really impact the sales price of a drug. Got it. I really want to think you would be a bit more attuned to this kind of shoddy analysis and faulty logic if its conclusion wasn't what you already obviously want to believe.

And it's also interesting that after you painted yourself into a corner on the original topic -- that the U.S. can't arbitrarily slash its pricing structure for drugs without adversely affecting the overall drug landscape, both for itself and others -- you've jumped to another lilypad and are now embracing a fundamental change to that landscape, arguing to put the entire pharmaceutical industry under state control (employing, dare I say, banal socialist propaganda?). I guess that's fine as long as you don't mind new, useful drugs -- and maybe even sufficient quantities of existing drugs -- becoming roughly as available as health care for veterans or eggs in Venezuela. Party on, comrade.

Comment Re:Single payer system would avoid this problem (Score 1) 327

You're completely missing the point that the drug wouldn't exist in the first place if there wasn't enough of a revenue stream to justify its R&D. The fact that a drug company can bring in additional revenue through price discrimination in new markets after the R&D is paid for doesn't mean they could sell to everyone for that reduced price from day 1. This is pretty basic math.

Comment Re:Single payer system would avoid this problem (Score 1) 327

In any single payer system the national health service basically sets the price they are willing to pay and that's what it costs. End of story. We only run into this problem because we have a portion of our population who breaks out in hives anytime they hear the words "socialized medicine".

You do realize that really means the U.S. is subsidizing the cost of the drug for those other countries, right? Free riders do not a free lunch make.

Comment Re:Doesn't solve the problem (Score 3, Informative) 115

You are making the lawyers lot of money though I guess

How? Read their site -- the donated money in excess of the PTO filing fees gets paid to the prior art searchers.

which is probably why the Newegg lawyer thought of this brilliant idea

Or maybe it's because every bad patent that's killed through this process is one less bad patent that Newegg may have to pay real money to fight later on.

Comment Re:Bundling is monopolistic (Score 1) 92

So, basically, you have a physical monopoly (the connection coming into your house), that we, the taxpayers subsided, that is now being abused as a content monopoly.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Customers who have both TV and internet service are more likely to watch TV shows via the TV service. Particularly for cable, that comes out of a different bucket of bandwidth than if you watch TV shows via an internet streaming service. In short, cord-cutters will use more--and likely far, far more--internet bandwidth over time than will TV subscribers. Building out infrastructure so that any given subscriber can reliably stream around the clock costs money. Data caps help keep the aggregate demand in balance with the current size of the infrastructure, and surcharges for uncapped data help the infrastructure grow to balance the increased demand.

I don't like it any more than you do, but at bottom there's no such thing as a free lunch. (In the hope of fending off at least a few reflexive downmods, let me be clear that this is a different issue than whether a provider's overall pricing is reasonable or is a monopoly rent -- I'm just discussing the provider's pricing delta (or lack thereof) between a TV subscriber and a cord cutter.)

Slashdot Top Deals

A university faculty is 500 egotists with a common parking problem.