FDA used to be about making sure the drugs didn't kill people, as if that's somehow a successful business model, but now drugs must also pass an effectiveness test.
Also, how many people does the FDA kill by not allowing drugs to the market? Has anyone done any studies on that?
Chertoff, when asked, did say his scanners would probably not have caught the underwear bomber, so he was being quasi-honest... certainly more honest than the people who swore up and down we needed these devices to stop terrorists from boarding our planes
"They will enter the country as "flight students" and then fly hijacked planes into buildings killing thousands."
- They did that one time, and as tragic as that event was, that many people die EACH MONTH from car accidents.
"They will cross the border from Canada as tourists, with a trunk full of explosives."
- And how many people have they killed that way? NONE
When will you wake up and understand that the intent of the terrorists isn't to kill everyone (that's an impossible goal), but to watch our country go bankrupt trying to swat a mosquito off a hippo's ass; They want us to destroy the very fabric of this country in a feeble attempt to prevent a mosquito from biting us again.
The terrorists are winning precisely because we're reacting exactly as they knew we would -- doing exactly what they knew we would, and they're laughing all the way to the bank.
Imagine if we had saved the horsebuggy industry when cars became commonplace?
An industry should save itself through innovation. If it can't, then it should die and those resources be reallocated in a more efficient manner. As usual, any time the gov interferes in the market, it creates huge inefficiencies. That's not what we need.
That's not entirely true. Simply building something that operates in a WordPress environment doesn't mean I have no choice when it comes to what license I distribute my work under. However that's what WordPress wants you to feel - that you have no choice but to comply with what they say. Certainly there's no case law that supports WordPress' stance, even if they found a law firm that agrees with them.
WordPress is taking the supreme overlord approach and saying if you don't do as we say then we'll drag your name through the mud and make your life as difficult as possible. If distributing a theme under the GPL caused harm to WordPress, one would imagine they'd have filed a lawsuit by now.
It wasn't until after the online debate between the 2 of them that the copied code was discovered, so my apologies for lack of clarity. But the behavior by WordPress isn't new. Matt from WordPress and Chris from DIYThemes (Thesis) have been sniping at each other since WordPress took the legally untested stance that all themes should be released GPL 3 years ago.
WordPress exerted tremendous pressure on devs since then to conform or else you'll be publicly bashed at nearly every opportunity.
Though Chris has never said publicly why he switched his license (at least not that I've seen), most in the community suspect it was because Thesis was found to have a couple huge sections of code taken straight out of the WordPress core. In such a case, derivative work would almost certainly apply, and to limit liability in the case of a lawsuit, he didn't have much choice.
The debate isn't over (and won't until a court gets involved), but what it does show you is how much pressure is applied and how much flak you get if you don't tow the WordPress line.
I was just thinking that myself. What business does NC have asking a private company for the details (even if the name is left off) of the purchases made that end up in their state?
This attempt to get at the "lost" sales tax revenue by attacking the seller is no different than the **AA whining about lost sales revenue. So find another way to earn that revenue. Eliminate the sales tax and find another means of collecting the necessary revenue to operate your government.
Let's increase the number of people paying into the system to support those currently taking out, never considering what will happen when the new entries come up for retirement. Isn't that the definition of a ponzi scheme?
Like when the buyer and the seller both benefit from the sale of a slave?
The good being sold in the transaction is irrelevant. Neither the seller nor the buyer were coerced to enter the transaction.
Wait a minute. Now you're getting the government involved? I thought "the market" was supposed to be self correcting and able to enforce moral behavior all by itself.
I never said the market will correct itself. I never said the free market was perfect. The market can't be perfect as it is comprised of people, who are imperfect. The courts were established under the Constitution to act as a retaliatory force when our liberties are infringed upon.
What is "the proper penalty"?
It's whatever the laws have established as the penalty for such a crime. In the case of the article, it would mean potentially going out of business and losing contracts.
I think you're confused as to whether you're really a capitalist or a socialist.
Far from it. Socialism is state-owned capital and economic engineering (the gov determines where the capital should be allocated). That has never and will never be a sustainable model for government.
I disagree completely - capitalism has morals. It is the only economic system where 2 parties enter into an agreement of their own free will and exit better off.
While it is not in a company's best interest to cause harm to its customers (customers can't buy from you if they're dead), some companies don't do what's in their best interest. When that happens and they cause harm to a customer, the courts are there as a medium for redressing those grievances.
There is no such thing as too big to fail. That's a BS title assigned by government for some political purpose. Any company that grows to a given size has done so because they're leveraging their competitive advantages and are selling products people want to buy. There is no need to break up those companies as there is sufficient competition in the marketplace. In fact, breaking them up would make the system worse as you are removing the economies of scale the large company could employ to keep costs down.
Your issue is not with capitalism but with government involvement in preventing the proper penalty from being assessed to the offending party. Those are separate issues.
This is what happens when business and gov't get into bed together. If Pfizer did not market a product honestly and it caused harm, they need to reap what they sow. The gov should not be protecting Pfizer from lawsuits simply because it does not want to see Pfizer go away.
Mike, I agree the system is the problem, but how do you get around the fact that the drug co will have to pay for the trials? Whether it's a 3rd party or the gov running them, it's still open to corruption.
IMO, the FDA should be optional. If you want to spend the billion dollars and 10 years for the FDA label, by all means, go right ahead. But if you don't, then you can sell your product without the label. Let the market decide if the FDA label is necessary on all products.
you also forgot to mention that the act GW signed did not mention the method to which the militia man "provided himself" the musket - he could have inherited it, traded for it, purchased it, or any other way I'm currently forgetting.
Health insurance can really only be acquired via purchase.
If the something you want is worthwhile, but is not allowed by the Constitution to be enacted at the federal level, that leaves the states to enact those things. If X program works well, then other states will copy. Competition works at the state gov level also. Pushing some one-size-fits-all on the whole country is exactly what the founding fathers were attempting to avoid when they enacted a limited-powers federal government.
On the post: Is The FDA Helping Or Hindering Medical Innovation?
Re:
FDA used to be about making sure the drugs didn't kill people, as if that's somehow a successful business model, but now drugs must also pass an effectiveness test.
Also, how many people does the FDA kill by not allowing drugs to the market? Has anyone done any studies on that?
On the post: Armed TSA Agent Gets By Scanners Multiple Times
Re: Re: *hangs head*
On the post: As Expected, House Agrees To Extend Patriot Act With No Discussion, No Oversight
Re: Re:
- They did that one time, and as tragic as that event was, that many people die EACH MONTH from car accidents.
"They will cross the border from Canada as tourists, with a trunk full of explosives."
- And how many people have they killed that way? NONE
When will you wake up and understand that the intent of the terrorists isn't to kill everyone (that's an impossible goal), but to watch our country go bankrupt trying to swat a mosquito off a hippo's ass; They want us to destroy the very fabric of this country in a feeble attempt to prevent a mosquito from biting us again.
The terrorists are winning precisely because we're reacting exactly as they knew we would -- doing exactly what they knew we would, and they're laughing all the way to the bank.
On the post: Tesla Motors Pays Fine For Lacking Emissions Certificate Of Conformity... Even Though It Lacks Emissions
On the post: Video Game Exec Claims Used Games 'Cheat' Developers
On the post: Sense Of Entitlement? TV Show Creator Wants A Cut Of Hulu IPO Proceeds
Re: Empty jukebox?
On the post: Should We Be Interested In 'Saving' Any Industry?
An industry should save itself through innovation. If it can't, then it should die and those resources be reallocated in a more efficient manner. As usual, any time the gov interferes in the market, it creates huge inefficiencies. That's not what we need.
On the post: Does Checking Your Email On Your BlackBerry Count As Overtime?
Re: If it's *required* by the job, then pay *more*.
On the post: Lawsuit Averted As WordPress and Thesis Settle Differences Over Themes And The GPL
Re: tow the wordpress line
WordPress is taking the supreme overlord approach and saying if you don't do as we say then we'll drag your name through the mud and make your life as difficult as possible. If distributing a theme under the GPL caused harm to WordPress, one would imagine they'd have filed a lawsuit by now.
On the post: Lawsuit Averted As WordPress and Thesis Settle Differences Over Themes And The GPL
Re: Re:
WordPress exerted tremendous pressure on devs since then to conform or else you'll be publicly bashed at nearly every opportunity.
On the post: Lawsuit Averted As WordPress and Thesis Settle Differences Over Themes And The GPL
The debate isn't over (and won't until a court gets involved), but what it does show you is how much pressure is applied and how much flak you get if you don't tow the WordPress line.
On the post: Viacom Still Not Getting It -- Files Bogus Takedown And Kills Some Free Transformers Buzz
Re:
On the post: Video Professor Loses Lawsuit Against Amazon Over Keyword Advertising
haha...
On the post: North Carolina Demands Amazon Reveal Every Detail Of Purchases By NC Residents
Re: Amazon already gave away too much info
This attempt to get at the "lost" sales tax revenue by attacking the seller is no different than the **AA whining about lost sales revenue. So find another way to earn that revenue. Eliminate the sales tax and find another means of collecting the necessary revenue to operate your government.
On the post: An Answer To The Impending Bankruptcy Of Social Security: An Immigration Brain Gain
Ponzi Scheme anyone?
On the post: How Pfizer And The US Gov't Set Up A Fake Subsidiary To Take The Brunt Of Lawsuit Over Falsely Marketed Drugs
Re: Re: Re: Regulating a healthy market?
On the post: How Pfizer And The US Gov't Set Up A Fake Subsidiary To Take The Brunt Of Lawsuit Over Falsely Marketed Drugs
Re: Regulating a healthy market?
While it is not in a company's best interest to cause harm to its customers (customers can't buy from you if they're dead), some companies don't do what's in their best interest. When that happens and they cause harm to a customer, the courts are there as a medium for redressing those grievances.
There is no such thing as too big to fail. That's a BS title assigned by government for some political purpose. Any company that grows to a given size has done so because they're leveraging their competitive advantages and are selling products people want to buy. There is no need to break up those companies as there is sufficient competition in the marketplace. In fact, breaking them up would make the system worse as you are removing the economies of scale the large company could employ to keep costs down.
Your issue is not with capitalism but with government involvement in preventing the proper penalty from being assessed to the offending party. Those are separate issues.
On the post: How Pfizer And The US Gov't Set Up A Fake Subsidiary To Take The Brunt Of Lawsuit Over Falsely Marketed Drugs
Cronyism
Mike, I agree the system is the problem, but how do you get around the fact that the drug co will have to pay for the trials? Whether it's a 3rd party or the gov running them, it's still open to corruption.
IMO, the FDA should be optional. If you want to spend the billion dollars and 10 years for the FDA label, by all means, go right ahead. But if you don't, then you can sell your product without the label. Let the market decide if the FDA label is necessary on all products.
On the post: Why The DMCA Is An Unconstitutional Restriction On Free Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How does this happen?
Health insurance can really only be acquired via purchase.
On the post: Why The DMCA Is An Unconstitutional Restriction On Free Speech
Re: How does this happen?
Next >>