Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was, Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
Dan wrote: I realize that this involves a switch in worldview because most of us were taught a convenient fiction in school. I certainly believed that the Nazi's had a police state, even for the Ayrians, from the start. I thought the Holocaust was very secret. But now, I accept the evidence that Nazi Germany was not a police state and the Holocaust was not all that hidden. Even if the Holocaust wasn't hidden, was there a mechanism for protest? Could someone have voiced their objections with impunity. Written a letter to the editor? Staged a protest? The idea seems rather ludicrous to me especially in view of the fact that their country was at war assumedly with the rights restrictions that are normally present in such cases. I'm not taking sides, BTW, but I'd be interested in further reading on this if anyone has a reference. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A pox on both your houses
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:56:49 -0500, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Randolph [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 10:05 PM Subject: Re: A pox on both your houses Where might one find the entire article, so as to read it in its entirety and draw one's own conclusions? That's what I obtained from my friend. I'm pretty sure that's the entire article. Dan M. washingtonpost.com The Other Candidate Bounce http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50944-2004Aug8?language=printer F*GI gary -- #2 on google for liberal news I don't try harder ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity L3
Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 7:55 PM Subject: Re: Killings, evil and pictures to assure accountabillity was, Re: The Mercies of The Vatican Gautam Mukunda wrote: Sonja, I'll make you a deal. If you stop making excuses for people who participated in the Holocaust, I'll stop calling you on it when you do it. No deal. Your basic presumption is flawed. Not every German during the holocaust was automatically and without exception a participant in the holocaust and a jew murdering nazi. Not every one, probably not. But, it was common knowledge and there was no indication of public horror at it. As Gautam said, it wasn't accidental; it was deliberate policy from on high. My point is that the lack of public horror wasn't contained or even exclusive to Germany. Europe, the US and the rest of the world were similarly disinterested in the stories of persecutions that did the rounds. I hold that it is too easy to dismiss a horror story (perhaps also because of the fact that the scope and magnitude these crimes were perpetrated on, up untill then, were totally unheard of) when you haven't got physical evidence as in f.i. pictures, portraying the actual magnitude of violence happening. I mean would you have believed Abu Graihb or believed that it was that severe if you'd not seen pictures of it? Would there have been a similar outcry? Up until a point in the war, the world simply didn't have an interest and without physical proof and ready available pictures/physical proof there was no incentive to change this attitude in what happened because it was convenient, not on their doorstep and basically at the time without solid irrefutable widespread proof. I've read your arguements on this type of subject for a while, and I've seen a pattern that I'd like some feedback on. Consistancy, you lump all bad outcomes together. What happened in Abu Ghraib was wrong. People should be punished; and that includes officers who were derelict in their duty to provide the proper environment. You saw my opinion expressed in my recent post. Having said that; there is no comparison with this and genocide. Genocide starts with that first murder, the first act against a fellow human. So I feel that there is room for thought experiments and comparison. One was, IMHO, a criminal neglect to establish a proper prison environment, where the long established procedure was not enforced. The second was a systematic, well planned slaughter of millions of innocent humans that gained momentum as new, more efficent murder techniques were developed. Information about this, according to documentation from the time, was readily available to the average citizen. Actually here we differ considerably. It wasn't mere neglect that caused it, to me it was a premeditated and consiously carried out policy of establishing superiority toward what are considered inferior peoples, at all cost. So the intent factor and the underlying potential for worse, to me makes it really bad. In the US, there was a hue and cry about the crimes. It may very well be that we will not sufficiently punish people far enough up the chain of command, but it is also clear that a number of pro-military people in the US are mad as hell that things were not done right. As always only some, not all. There are those that are even madder at the story getting out in the first place, and I'm not so sure that the displayed outrage for some isn't a mere saving face gesture. Of course there are those that are truely outraged so there is still hope for the future, although the edict to forbid camera's in the army isn't exactly inspiring much confidence. :o) I have not seen an acknowledgement of the multiple order of magnitude in the difference between these two things. To me, its like comparing a mother who yells at her kids when she shouldn't because she is upset about something else and a mother who burns her kids with a cigarette. Both are wrong, but the order of magnitude of the wrongs are enormously different. There is a magnitude of difference, but do I have to acknowledge that everytime I breach the subject. To me it is just as offensive to lump all people on the BADEVIL heap each time something controversial on US behaviour is mentioned on Brin-L. If I'd wanted I could construe that into something along the lines of being a denyer and defender for massacres committed in the name of the US and it's believes. But I don't since I do understand there is a difference. It seems to me that you differ with this idea. Bad is bad, wrong is wrong, and there is no worse. Indeed, bad is bad and wrong is wrong. To me the *only* difference is the magnitude and the scale. Maybe that's what's offensive, I don't know. The difficutly with this is that it lumps all non perfect things
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 06:13:40PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My numbers indicate that about 20% of the cost of drugs goes into development, cost and production, and that the rest is systematic overhead. I can't comment on this much (for obvious reasons). I Not so obvious, actually. There is plenty of publicly available information. I haven't studied the drug industry, but here is a very short look at some numbers from the income statements of a few: 20022003 20032003 TOTALTOTAL % PFEMRK ABT LLY OF SALES Revenue32373 22486 19681 1258287122 100.0 COGS404543159473267520508 23.5 Gross Profit 28328 18171 10207990766613 76.5 Operating Expenses SGA 1084663955051405526347 30.2 RD 517632801834235012640 14.5 Other630 (1106) 0 0 (476) (0.5) Operating 1167690833322350227583 31.7 Income Other Income and Expenses Interest Inc 120 419 412(240) 711 0.8 Taxes 26092433 981 701 6724 7.7 Net Income 912667392753256121179 24.3 I'm not going to try to explain all of the accounting conventions above to those who aren't familiar with them (but I will answer specific questions). But briefly, my way of looking at it is to start with Sales and look at everything else as a percentage of Sales. I added up the income statement numbers for Pfizer, Merck, Abbott, and Lilly as shown above. Total revenues were $87B. Cost of goods sold accounted for 23.5% of revenues. Sales, general, and administrative used up 30.2% of revenue, and research and development used of 14.5% of revenue. Unlike most companies these days, the drug companies are cash machines with little debt -- they actually EARNED 0.8% of sales as interest income (most other companies pay interest on their debt). They paid 7.7% of revenues as taxes, leaving a net profit margin of 24.3% (quite exceptional, few companies are so high). To summarize the major components of where revenue went: 23.5% COGS 30.2% SGA 14.5% RD 7.7% Tax 24.3% Net Income -- 100.2% TOTAL (not 100% since I left out a few small numbers) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The McCain Fizzle
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3pid=1732 Mccain'll never win the GOP presidential primary. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: The Next Superpower Re: AIDs in Africa
JDG wrote: In terms of China running into potential instability vis-a-vis a Civil War or Taiwan, the risks of this strike me as on balance only marginally greater than the potential risks of India running into instability vis-a-vis a Civil War of their own, or else a Pakistan-Kashmir crisis. What would a Pakistan-Kashmir crisis entail, and what would drive India to civil war? I'd like to hear more. :) Ritu GCU Curious ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
New iMac
http://www.apple.com/imac/ I predict this one will sell better than the desk-lamp one because it looks more normal... -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Our products just aren't engineered for security. - Brian Valentine, senior vice president in charge of Microsoft's Windows development team. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 06:13:40PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: I can't comment on this much (for obvious reasons). I Not so obvious, actually. All right. The reason is that I spent most of the last two years working as a consultant to several companies in the pharmaceutical industry and therefore am not allowed to comment on the details of their financial performance, because much of what I saw during that time is confidential (that is, I would be in violation of confidentiality agreements). Does that make it clear? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
James Doohan bids farewell to fans
I had no idea that James Doohan was suffering from both Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. Wow, that's rough. http://www.trektoday.com/news/300804_02.shtml Doohan Bids Farewell To Fans August 30, 2004 - 9:57 PM James Doohan said farewell to the world of Star Trek this weekend at a convention in his honour entitled Beam Me Up Scotty, attended by the entire living cast of the original series and leading up to the ceremony on Tuesday at which he will be given a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Though ailing, Doohan was reportedly in high spirits for this final round of public appearances, attended by fans as well as actors, family members and an astronaut. The Associated Press (via The Mercury News) reported that the 84-year-old Scotty actor blew kisses to fans during events held to benefit a research foundation for Alzheimer's disease, from which Doohan suffers. The actor's son Chris Doohan credited Star Trek fans with helping raise money for the actor's star. The Los Angeles Times' Richard Fausset wrote from a ballroom at the Renaissance Hollywood Hotel that the denizens of this peculiar universe stood united: the valiant Starfleet commanders, the fierce Romulan warriors, the pimply speculators in the action figure market, noting that fans had paid up to $995 to take part in the two-day convention, where Doohan - suffering from Parkinson's disease as well - spoke at a news conference and circulated among fans. Some of the hundreds who made the trip for the chance to see him one last time said they paid the admission because over the years, the man they knew as Scotty always took the time to talk to them, sign autographs and chat about alternate universes, obscure plot points and spaceship specs, Fausset said. Chris Doohan observed that while many actors become upset about typecasting, that didn't concern him, because he was typecast as Scotty...it's been his bread and butter. TrekWeb has posted a report sent in by a fan, who first visited the dealer's room and saw Roddenberry On Patrol and the auction at which Doohan's outfit from Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Then William Shatner (Kirk) and Leonard Nimoy (Spock) held a panel at which they insult[ed] each other for an hour, with Nimoy joking about Shatner's weight and Shatner claiming that when he named a price for appearing on Star Trek: Enterprise, the producers seemed less interested in having him appear. After a taped tribute, Doohan himself appeared in a motorized wheelchair with his family and was greeted by astronaut Neil Armstrong. Planet Xpo put on the convention last weekend. Doohan will receive his star in front of the Hollywood Entertainment Museum at 7021 Hollywood Boulevard at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 07:05:23AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not so obvious, actually. All right. The reason is that I spent most of the last two years working as a consultant to several companies in the pharmaceutical industry and therefore am not allowed to comment on the details of their financial performance, because much of what I saw during that time is confidential (that is, I would be in violation of confidentiality agreements). Does that make it clear? It was clear what you meant before your clarification, just not relevant. You can obviously comment on publicly available information, of which there is a great deal, as I posted. Acting like you know a lot about a subject based on secret information that you can't share may score points in the consultant world, but not here, especially when you are disputing someone else's point who isn't claiming secret information. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
reply to msg 49 re: new drug development
Exerpt msg 49 post: I really don't disagree with you concerning the problems inherent in demanding cheap AIDs drugs, one way or another, we need to pay for the research and development. But, putting my rational advisor hat on, I'd argue that a successful drug company should do no real breakthrough developments. Rather, is should focus on developing patentable small variations in the chemical compound already used. Look for small advantages, and then market the heck out of them. The development risks are minimal, as are the market risks. Indeed, from what I've read, this is the model drug companies are going to. Its not that they wouldn't market a cure; its that, when ideas are pitched, the low risk higher gain ideas will get the money first. I have seen figures that say 60% of new drugs are existing drugs whose patent is about to expire and become public domain. The companies tinker with the formula in a small way and market a new drug, again covered under patent rights. I am not familiar with the ins and out of the current argument so perhaps I should not comment rather than be exposed for an uninformed layman, but doesn't this type of action have the consequence of supressing new discoveries that could lay in other areas than drug development? ks http//:www.chequamegon.blogspot.com - Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: reply to msg 49 re: new drug development
--- kate sisco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have seen figures that say 60% of new drugs are existing drugs whose patent is about to expire and become public domain. The companies tinker with the formula in a small way and market a new drug, again covered under patent rights. I am not familiar with the ins and out of the current argument so perhaps I should not comment rather than be exposed for an uninformed layman, but doesn't this type of action have the consequence of supressing new discoveries that could lay in other areas than drug development? ks Well, the issue here is that in this situation the old drug has gone off patent and gone generic. So if there's no therapeutic benefit for the new drug then it's a doctor's responsibility to prescribe the old one. Once a drug's patent has been filed, then the clock is ticking on its lifespan. That drug will go generic and nothing is going to stop that. So yes, lots of drug companies try this tactic, but unless the altered drug is therapeutically superior to the earlier one, it doesn't work very well at all. And isn't the purpose of the system to reward new, therapeutically superior drugs? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The McCain Fizzle
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 06:02:53 -0500, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3pid=1732 Mccain'll never win the GOP presidential primary. I don't think so either. I think despite McCain's loyalty to the party in campaigning for and endorsing Bush (and rejecting the Kerry VP offer), he will be remembered by the Republicans far more for his few small disloyalties like his assorted criticisms of Bush over the years, his weak Bush endorsement, and words of praise for Kerry. Given the close race, I think that these small things will be given exagerated weight, and he will be a major scapegoat if Bush loses. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The McCain Fizzle
Gah - I'm having some send issues here - my apologies if this message gets sent more than once! On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 06:02:53 -0500, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3pid=1732 Mccain'll never win the GOP presidential primary. I don't think so either. I think despite McCain's loyalty to the party in campaigning for and endorsing Bush (and rejecting the Kerry VP offer), he will be remembered by the Republicans far more for his few small disloyalties like his assorted criticisms of Bush over the years, his weak Bush endorsement, and words of praise for Kerry. Given the close race, I think that these small things will be given exagerated weight, and he will be a major scapegoat if Bush loses. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was clear what you meant before your clarification, just not relevant. You can obviously comment on publicly available information, of which there is a great deal, as I posted. Acting like you know a lot about a subject based on secret information that you can't share may score points in the consultant world, but not here, especially when you are disputing someone else's point who isn't claiming secret information. Well, Erik, I guess I'll have to live with your disapproval...forgive me while I sob. Anyone who read what I wrote might note: 1. I disputed it only to the point that I thought it was a little low 2. It was neither germane nor significant to the discussion If, at some point in the future, someone trusts you with a job that involves decisions and information that have to be handled responsibly, perhaps you will understand where I'm coming from. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated
Gautam Mukunda wrote: Well, Erik, I guess I'll have to live with your disapproval...forgive me while I sob. Anyone who read what I wrote might note: 1. I disputed it only to the point that I thought it was a little low I agree, there was no dispute, because we both agree on this subject - except that what Gautam points as an orientation for the future... As a purely rational advisor to the industry, I would tell them it was the dumbest mistake they ever made, though. Any pharmaco that invested in AIDS research and got a success out of it got _screwed_. I would use a harsher word, but I know how it bothers John. They took enormous publicity hits, and then were forced to sell it at a very low price. From a business standpoint, any pharmaco that invested in AIDS twenty years ago made a mistake. Any pharmaco that did it today would have to be run by idiots or saints, and the reason why is precisely the attitudes you describe. ... I claim that has _already_ been oriented to them in the past 50 or so years, where _no_ significant disease has found a final _cure_. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: thinking about free will
Folks, From the posts I've seen on this list, I'm guessing that not too many here hold with Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker, who rejects both what he calls the naturalistic fallacy (the belief that if something is natural, it must be good) and the moralistic fallacy (the belief that moral traits arise from nature). Pinker asserts that human values do not arise from nature, but in /spite/ of nature. Nature is what we are put here on this earth to rise above, he says, begging the question as to who or what put us here in the first place. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated
--- Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I claim that has _already_ been oriented to them in the past 50 or so years, where _no_ significant disease has found a final _cure_. Alberto Monteiro The problem, Alberto, is that the antibiotics were discovered a little bit before that. Anti-viral research is hard. No one has ever succeeded at that. Why, exactly, do you blame the pharma companies for not succeeding in doing something that no one has ever succeeded in doing? They have successfully managed to cure every bacterial disease - that's a pretty good record. Also, btw, you're completely ignoring the enormous progress that has been made against (for example) cancer. A generation ago (I don't remember the exact numbers, but these will be roughly correct) the majority of pediatric cancer patients died. Now it's under a quarter. Almost all of that improvement is due to the work of the pharmaceutical companies, and that's just a beginning. So if your argument is We can't beat cancer with one pill, and I blame the pharmacos, well, blame them all you want, but unless you want to point out to me the huge medical advances that (for example) the Soviet Union made I think you've got a pretty difficult situation trying to prove that this is because of a choice on their part. As the chief of RD at a very large pharmaco said in an interview a couple of weeks ago - This isn't rocket science. This is _much harder_ than rocket science. You can see a rocket. You know exactly how a rocket works. We don't (for example) understand the liver at all well - we barely understand it at all, really. Drug development is harder now because all of the low-hanging fruit - the bacterial diseases and the easy vaccines, basically - have already been plucked. Now the really hard slog is there. Despite that fact, the same pharma companies that you criticize have managed to change AIDS from a fatal to chronic disease and improve the survival rates for most forms of cancer by _multiples_. Do you think that was _easy_? Merck has more Nobel prize winners on staff than most universities - they didn't win all of those because they do poor work. They won them because they do extraordinary work on exceptionally difficult areas of research. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 1:11 PM Subject: Re: Privately funded medical research is evil,why it must be eradicated --- Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... I claim that has _already_ been oriented to them in the past 50 or so years, where _no_ significant disease has found a final _cure_. Alberto Monteiro The problem, Alberto, is that the antibiotics were discovered a little bit before that. Anti-viral research is hard. No one has ever succeeded at that. Yes and no. It is possible to come up with vacines to prevent viral diseases. The polio vacine is a great example of this. When the virus mutates on a regular basis, (e.g. the flu), the vacine is not as effective against the mutated form. The greater the mutation, the less immuity that a previous exposure/vacine gives. We now have a hepititus B vacine (IIRC), as well as German measles, measles, and mumps. They have all been developed during the last 30-40 years. Also, btw, you're completely ignoring the enormous progress that has been made against (for example) cancer. A generation ago (I don't remember the exact numbers, but these will be roughly correct) the majority of pediatric cancer patients died. Now it's under a quarter. Almost all of that improvement is due to the work of the pharmaceutical companies, and that's just a beginning. And there are subsets of pediatric cancer that have even higher sucess rates. With cancer, its never called a cure, but remissions that last 20 years and counting are a first order approximation to a cure. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes and no. It is possible to come up with vacines to prevent viral diseases. The polio vacine is a great example of this. When the virus mutates on a regular basis, (e.g. the flu), the vacine is not as effective against the mutated form. The greater the mutation, the less immuity that a previous exposure/vacine gives. We now have a hepititus B vacine (IIRC), as well as German measles, measles, and mumps. They have all been developed during the last 30-40 years. Sorry - by anti-viral research I meant literally, research on anti-virals - drugs that can be used to treat viral infections, not just vaccines. There has, in fact, been considerable work done on vaccines in the last 50 years. Here is (_again_) an area where the industry gets screwed, though. When a vaccine is put on the market, either or both of two things usually happens: 1. The government becomes the sole purchaser, exercises monopsony power, and sets a price so low that the vaccine never pays off the investment to develop it 2. The pharmaco that puts out the vaccine gets sued on specious grounds, and ends up having to pay through the nose I don't see, though, how either of these two things are the industry's _fault_. If anything, those pharmacos that do still do vaccine research (and some do) should be praised (although not, probably, by their shareholders) for being willing to continue on with this sort of research in this environment. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: JDG-Type ...Fool, this is out-of-line.
Behalf Of Andrew Paul Let's NOT have a flamewar with the TITLES of our posts? Seconded. Thirded. Fourthed. Fourth-a-ded. Four-a-th. Uh, me too! - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: JDG-Type ...Fool, this is out-of-line.
--- Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Behalf Of Andrew Paul Let's NOT have a flamewar with the TITLES of our posts? Seconded. Thirded. Fourthed. Fourth-a-ded. Four-a-th. Uh, me too! - jmh It is, of course, out of line...but the Fool has been similarly out of line for years. What makes this particular egregious insult any worse from ones in the past, if I may ask? = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: JDG-Type ...Fool, this is out-of-line.
- Original Message - From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 3:32 PM Subject: RE: JDG-Type ...Fool, this is out-of-line. --- Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Behalf Of Andrew Paul Let's NOT have a flamewar with the TITLES of our posts? Seconded. Thirded. Fourthed. Fourth-a-ded. Four-a-th. Uh, me too! - jmh It is, of course, out of line...but the Fool has been similarly out of line for years. What makes this particular egregious insult any worse from ones in the past, if I may ask? It migrated to the title, I think. quote Let's NOT have a flamewar with the TITLES of our posts? ---David end quote Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated
Gautam Mukunda wrote: ... I claim that has _already_ been oriented to them in the past 50 or so years, where _no_ significant disease has found a final _cure_. The problem, Alberto, is that the antibiotics were discovered a little bit before that. Yep. And vaccines another 50 years before that. And sterile surgery another 50. So maybe there's a 50-year-cycle here :-) Anti-viral research is hard. No one has ever succeeded at that. And I have a suspicion as to _why_. Every other science has progressed geometrically over the past 50 years. If Medicine had advanced the way computers have, we would have a life expectancy of 500 years [except that once every 42 days our bodies would burn, and we would have to be rebuild from the clone backup :-)] Why, exactly, do you blame the pharma companies for not succeeding in doing something that no one has ever succeeded in doing? I am not blaming them for _not_ doing this. I am blaming everybody else that allows them to control medical research. They have successfully managed to cure every bacterial disease - that's a pretty good record. Did they? What about the new superbacterias that resist every antibiotic? Also, btw, you're completely ignoring the enormous progress that has been made against (for example) cancer. No, I am not. But there is no _cure_, just expensive drugs to turn cancer into a chronical disease. A generation ago (I don't remember the exact numbers, but these will be roughly correct) the majority of pediatric cancer patients died. Now it's under a quarter. Almost all of that improvement is due to the work of the pharmaceutical companies, and that's just a beginning. Who extract huge profits from drugs that keep cancer patients bound to them _forever_. So if your argument is We can't beat cancer with one pill, and I blame the pharmacos, well, blame them all you want, but unless you want to point out to me the huge medical advances that (for example) the Soviet Union made I think you've got a pretty difficult situation trying to prove that this is because of a choice on their part. Ok, but then it's still 0 x 0 :-) As the chief of RD at a very large pharmaco said in an interview a couple of weeks ago - This isn't rocket science. This is _much harder_ than rocket science. You can see a rocket. You know exactly how a rocket works. We don't (for example) understand the liver at all well - we barely understand it at all, really. Drug development is harder now because all of the low-hanging fruit - the bacterial diseases and the easy vaccines, basically - have already been plucked. Now the really hard slog is there. Despite that fact, the same pharma companies that you criticize have managed to change AIDS from a fatal to chronic disease and improve the survival rates for most forms of cancer by _multiples_. Do you think that was _easy_? Merck has more Nobel prize winners on staff than most universities - they didn't win all of those because they do poor work. They won them because they do extraordinary work on exceptionally difficult areas of research. I don't doubt the difficulty of the problem, and I don't deny that they deserve merit for those paliative drugs. But your keen understanding of _Capitalist_ just clarified my point. Do you think you are so much smarter than any advisor that has ever counseled the drug companies? Don't you think any other intelligent consultant could duplicate your reasoning that it's a bad idea to research a drug that cures disease X instead of a drug that keeps a X-patient forced _forever_ to buy drugs that will extend his life? Capitalism has no compassion :-/ Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: JDG-Type ...Fool, this is out-of-line.
Gautam Mukunda wrote: It is, of course, out of line...but the Fool has been similarly out of line for years. What makes this particular egregious insult any worse from ones in the past, if I may ask? Because it's an insult in the subject line. It's like if you replied to me in the pharmaco thread with Alberto is a children-eating communist! Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:20:01AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: If, at some point in the future, someone trusts you with a job that involves decisions and information that have to be handled responsibly, perhaps you will understand where I'm coming from. You know, Gautam, if you don't keep reminding us we might forget how important you are and how you have all sorts of contacts and secret information that you can't share with us. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Don't you think any other intelligent consultant could duplicate your reasoning that it's a bad idea to research a drug that cures disease X instead of a drug that keeps a X-patient forced _forever_ to buy drugs that will extend his life? Capitalism has no compassion :-/ Doesn't that become a pricing issue? My wife is two-thirds of the way through her chemotherapy, plus a radiotherapy treatment yet to come, and then many years of Tamoxifen still to come after that. While the pharmaceutical costs of all this must be high (and therefore the return to the drug companies lucrative), I wouldn't hesitate to mortgage our house to pay for a cure. Even on a basic financial cost, the price I would pay for a cure is the future value of the next 5 years of Tamoxifen, plus the cost of the Neurolastin for the next few months, plus the cost of the Epirubicin, Flourouracil and Cyclophosphamide currently being used, plus the cost of all the palliatives used to survive the treating drugs. Therefore, at that minimum a drug company could reasonably expect to be able to charge that much for its cure drug. Additionally, the drug company with the cure gets all of my money, whereas the maker of each treatment drug gets only the money for their component of the treatment package. Again, the return is higher for the cure. On top of that, what premium wouldn't I pay to not have her go through the trauma of chemo and the discomfort and inconvenience of radiotherapy? Perhaps (depending on the cure) to not have to go through the second and third operations she went through, or the reconstructions she faces next year? The answer is I would pay anything for a cure drug. Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: JDG-Type ...Fool, this is out-of-line.
On 1 Sep 2004, at 12:20 am, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: It is, of course, out of line...but the Fool has been similarly out of line for years. What makes this particular egregious insult any worse from ones in the past, if I may ask? Because it's an insult in the subject line. It's like if you replied to me in the pharmaco thread with Alberto is a children-eating communist! You're not a communist! -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Mac OS X is a rock-solid system that's beautifully designed. I much prefer it to Linux. - Bill Joy. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 09:58:39AM +1000, Russell Chapman wrote: On top of that, what premium wouldn't I pay to not have her go through the trauma of chemo and the discomfort and inconvenience of radiotherapy? Perhaps (depending on the cure) to not have to go through the second and third operations she went through, or the reconstructions she faces next year? The answer is I would pay anything for a cure drug. No. You would pay as much as you had (or could lay your hands on), but not anything. There is definitely a limit. For most people, that limit would probably be much lower than for you (the higher the price, the less the demand). And if insurance pays for it, then everyone pays for it, and the government(s) would find a way to force a lower price. Or someone else would find a slight variation and undercut the price of the original treatment. Or there would be a big black market. Or all of the above. It is almost surely less profitable to develop a cure rather than a long treatment. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated
Erik Reuter responded when: On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 09:58:39AM +1000, Russell Chapman wrote: On top of that, what premium wouldn't I pay to not have her go through the trauma of chemo and the discomfort and inconvenience of radiotherapy? Perhaps (depending on the cure) to not have to go through the second and third operations she went through, or the reconstructions she faces next year? The answer is I would pay anything for a cure drug. No. You would pay as much as you had (or could lay your hands on), but not anything. There is definitely a limit. For most people, that limit would probably be much lower than for you (the higher the price, the less the demand). And if insurance pays for it, then everyone pays for it, and the government(s) would find a way to force a lower price. Or someone else would find a slight variation and undercut the price of the original treatment. Or there would be a big black market. Or all of the above. It is almost surely less profitable to develop a cure rather than a long treatment. But whatever that abritrary amount is that I can lay my hands on, or that insurance companies will supply, it will always be a lot higher than for the treatment drugs. Especially if it removes all the hospital time and surgeon's costs that the patient and/or insurance company pay as well. All the other factors (undercutting/black market etc) apply to the treatment drugs as well so aren't as significant when we are talking about return on a cure compared to return on a treatment. Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The McCain Fizzle
At 12:33 PM 8/31/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote: I don't think so either. I think despite McCain's loyalty to the party in campaigning for and endorsing Bush (and rejecting the Kerry VP offer), he will be remembered by the Republicans far more for his few small disloyalties like his assorted criticisms of Bush over the years, his weak Bush endorsement, and words of praise for Kerry. Given the close race, I think that these small things will be given exagerated weight, and he will be a major scapegoat if Bush loses. You missed the biggest one... you have to be pro-life to win the Republican primaries, and McCain has gained a reputation as being insufficiently pro-life. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: JDG-Type ...Fool, this is out-of-line.
At 01:32 PM 8/31/2004 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: Let's NOT have a flamewar with the TITLES of our posts? Seconded. Thirded. Fourthed. Fourth-a-ded. Four-a-th. Uh, me too! - jmh It is, of course, out of line...but the Fool has been similarly out of line for years. What makes this particular egregious insult any worse from ones in the past, if I may ask? Thank you to all those who responded. The ironic thing, of course, is that I have long since concluded that The Fool is not interested in serious conversation and he has been firmly planted in my killfile for a while now. So, without this welcome uproar I would never have known that this had happened. I am curious as to what a Jeeb-O is? Hopefully this will inspire The Fool to act like a member of a community, let alone a civilization. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Aug 26, 2004, at 7:18 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: So Perestroika and Glasnost and so on, and eventually Communism in Russia went away (for now!). The same will *probably* happen in China and North Korea, but I'll say again that it doesn't magically happen. There must be competition from other societies, if for no other reason than to get the oppressed thinking in terms of their own rights and liberties (as being at least as valid as those of the Great Leader). I think exactly the _opposite_: a totalitarian regime can only survive for a long time if there is an external competition. The external competition is the stabilizing factor that prevents the minions of the Evil Overlord to fight among themselves to become the next Evil Overlord. Mm, but you could argue that a similar social decay is taking place now in the US; we no longer have an Evil Empire to face, so we're slowly destroying ourselves, working frantically to hate *someone* and turning to the guy next door to do it. Of course this does not prevent the worst-case-scenario of 1984, with three competing totalitarian regimes. Could we become this, with China, the USA and someone else [Europe? The Muslim World? An Arab-Europe coalition?] turned into totalitarian regimes and oppressing the world? Three, or four maybe, sure. -- WthmO Warren's Workable Gun Control Plan: Arm everyone but the wealthy. -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
AIDS: The Moral Scourge
The RNC Speaker just told the assembly that hiv/AIDS was a Moral Scourge. -- [I]t is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. James Madison, Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1786). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
On Aug 26, 2004, at 1:07 PM, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gene space arguments are fine if you're discussing creatures with no clear sense of self-awareness or consequences for actions, such as bacteria or tobacco company attorneys. Once you install a sense of I, things change. Keep in mind, that a sense of I is limited entirely to the I. No; it actually predicts you -- by distinguishing oneself from others, others must logically spring into existence. That is, I don't think you can have an I in a vacuum. This means that the presence of self-awareness, being almost by definition other-awareness as well, changes how an I-conscious being behaves. Gene-motivated actions aren't the sole deciding factor any more. -- WthmO This email is a work of fiction. Any similarity between its contents and any truth, entire or partial, is purely coincidental and should not be misconstrued. -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The McCain Fizzle
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 12:33 PM 8/31/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote: I don't think so either. I think despite McCain's loyalty to the party in campaigning for and endorsing Bush (and rejecting the Kerry VP offer), he will be remembered by the Republicans far more for his few small disloyalties like his assorted criticisms of Bush over the years, his weak Bush endorsement, and words of praise for Kerry. Given the close race, I think that these small things will be given exagerated weight, and he will be a major scapegoat if Bush loses. You missed the biggest one... you have to be pro-life to win the Republican primaries, and McCain has gained a reputation as being insufficiently pro-life. I might be talked into voting for someone like mccain. I will never vote for someone like JDG. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
On Aug 26, 2004, at 6:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/25/2004 9:31:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's not evolved; the only reason one would have guilt after rape would be if one believed it to be a bad thing. Guilt is a socially-created phenomenon. Ah but here you are wrong. Guilt serves a very useful purpose in social animals that use recipricol altruism. It is an internal and largely unconscious talleying up of whether one's actions are likley to be viewed as reasonable by other members of the society. But that underscores my point of view. Assuming social rules change, and they do, guilt definitions change as well. Not wanting to be outcast from the group is surely older than primates (think small huddling rodentlike creatures); the idea of guilt over an action that is *socially proscribed* is really an extension of the desire not to be outcast. But the action itself is determined by society to be acceptable or not, so the presence of guilt (and the degree to which it's felt, and the ways in which it is to be ameliorated or addressed) are also social phenomena. Guilt is an internal sense of whether one is behaving correctly and therefore it is a inhibitor of selfish behavior. No; it's an inhibitor of behavior that one's peers would find objectionable. -- WthmO This email is being broadcast with a 5-second delay. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:52:48AM +1000, Russell Chapman wrote: But whatever that abritrary amount is that I can lay my hands on, or that insurance companies will supply, it will always be a lot higher than for the treatment drugs. No, in total it will be a lot lower. It is much easier to come up with $1000 per week than it is to come up with $1,000,000 at once. It is much easier to get around paying asking price for a single cure than it is for a drawn-out treatment. All the other factors (undercutting/black market etc) apply to the treatment drugs as well No, I don't think so. Not to the same degree. It is much easier to do it for a single cure than for a continuing treatment. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style
On Aug 26, 2004, at 6:40 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I still feel (so far) that, all things being equal or equivalent (population, power, etc) at the beginning of a contest, if you have two evenly-matched nations, one of which is totalitarian and the other more liberty-oriented, the totalitarian system will ultimately, eventually collapse. I don't believe totalitarian systems are flexible, innovative or robust enough to survive that kind of competition. This is an argument first made my Machiavelli in his Discourses on Livy. Tocqueville also suggested in _Democracy in America_, although, oddly enough, he didn't apply it to the US. In both cases, though, they believed that this was something that could happen only after a democracy had a long time to develop. I suppose the question then becomes how long a long time is. And one could argue that any government, at inception, is vulnerable; but it's probably fair to say that democracies tend to be more vulnerable for a longer time initially than, say, a dictatorship or theocracy. (But I repeat myself. ;) The point Dan and I are making, though, is that historically, things usually aren't equal. Very true. Which is why a democratic superpower is an interesting concept. There are lots of highly plausible scenarios you can spin where the most powerful country in the world is a fascist dictatorship (Nazi Germany), a totalitarian Communist dictatorship (the USSR), or any number of other options. For example, had the North lost the Civil War, it's arguable that democratic reform in England would have been far less successful - certainly, that's what Gladstone thought, and he ought to have known. Well, maybe. IIRC France had already taken up the banner by then as well, so possibly that could have been a factor. My European history is, however, nowhere near sufficient to let me speculate in anything like useful depth. If any of these things had happened, we wouldn't even know about this hypothetical advantage democracies have. The argument that good governments win their wars is based on events that could very easily have gone other ways, suggesting that such an advantage, if it exists, is so small that it's hardly sufficient to use to justify the superiority of liberal governments. I'm not so sure. Yes, the South was disadvantaged industrially in the American Civil War, and that could have just been an accident -- I mean if the North had been pro-slavery and the South against it, things might have gone quite differently. Of course another thing to consider is that agriculture might have been better suited to supporting slavery to begin with. But that's dipping back awfully far to try to counter an argument discussing events which are, in truth, historically unprecedented. For that reason I;m not entirely certain that looking at the history of Greece (example) can tell us much about what we'll have to deal with in the next 50 years, nor can it tell us much about the whys and wherefores of our current apparent position of success. It's a little weird, really, almost like trying to divine the present moment by scrying the past. Nostradamus would love it. -- WthmO I don't need a luxury yacht. A bare necessity yacht will do just fine, thanks. -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The McCain Fizzle
- Original Message - From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 7:59 PM Subject: Re: The McCain Fizzle From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 12:33 PM 8/31/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote: I don't think so either. I think despite McCain's loyalty to the party in campaigning for and endorsing Bush (and rejecting the Kerry VP offer), he will be remembered by the Republicans far more for his few small disloyalties like his assorted criticisms of Bush over the years, his weak Bush endorsement, and words of praise for Kerry. Given the close race, I think that these small things will be given exagerated weight, and he will be a major scapegoat if Bush loses. You missed the biggest one... you have to be pro-life to win the Republican primaries, and McCain has gained a reputation as being insufficiently pro-life. I might be talked into voting for someone like mccain. I will never vote for someone like JDG. Well.I wouldn't vote for John for a federal office either. But I *would* certainly vote for him in a more local office like Mayor or City Councilperson. I disagree with John on several issues, but I know him to be trustworthy and sincere. xponent No Really!!! Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: JDG-Type ...Fool, this is out-of-line.
In a message dated 8/31/2004 6:39:01 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am curious as to what a Jeeb-O is? Any video footage of a Florida governor that makes him look bad and can be put on national network news, replacing a minor news story, say like a 7.0 earthquake in Japan. There's always more room tor more Jeeb-O. Vilyehm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 8:11 PM Subject: Re: Privately funded medical research is evil,why it must be eradicated On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:52:48AM +1000, Russell Chapman wrote: But whatever that abritrary amount is that I can lay my hands on, or that insurance companies will supply, it will always be a lot higher than for the treatment drugs. No, in total it will be a lot lower. It is much easier to come up with $1000 per week than it is to come up with $1,000,000 at once. It is much easier to get around paying asking price for a single cure than it is for a drawn-out treatment. All the other factors (undercutting/black market etc) apply to the treatment drugs as well No, I don't think so. Not to the same degree. It is much easier to do it for a single cure than for a continuing treatment. Erik is right. Think: vitamins vs. immortality treatments (Per the claim that vitamins can extend ones life.) xponent Exaggerations Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
Warren Ockrassa wrote: Keep in mind, that a sense of I is limited entirely to the I. No; it actually predicts you -- by distinguishing oneself from others, others must logically spring into existence. That is, I don't think you can have an I in a vacuum. This means that the presence of self-awareness, being almost by definition other-awareness as well, changes how an I-conscious being behaves. Gene-motivated actions aren't the sole deciding factor any more. Experimentally, there is no such thing as an I: take a healthy person, cut the brain in half, removing all communication between the two hemispheres, and you end up with _two_ different personalities, each one of them remembers being the former I. I imagine that if it were possible to keep cutting with surviving remains we would get other smaller versions of I. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: thinking about free will
On Aug 27, 2004, at 4:44 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: Free will, pretty well be definition, means that it is possible to make Except you don't have a useful definition of free will, as you well know. Free Will means that your decisions are taken by a soul. *Screech of tires* ...would you care to define soul? A soul means that there is something in you that can't be explained by physics, chemistry, or biology. Explained, or simply observed? = or = (Materialist definition) A soul means that the processes that happen inside a brain are so complex that it's impossible [*] to build any machine that exactly reproduces them. [*] because such machine would be bigger than the Universe But then there are people like me who reject *any* concept of soul and who don't even use the term because it's far too laden with baggage. I also don't believe the processes in the brain are too complex to be reproduced or modeled; that's obviously false, as there are 6 billion human examples of brainic models right outside my yard. It's a pretty grave mistake to take today's technology and, using it, try to determine what will be impossible in the next few decades. While miniaturization of microchips is probably close to its bottom limit now, there are other computer options out there, and we might eventually see a biological-mechanical hybrid, an engineered collection of neurons that functions like a computer, but organically. Definitions are evil, why they must be eradicated: then an electron has a soul, because by QM we can't predict the behaviour of one electron :-/ That doesn't say anything except that -- possibly -- QM is incomplete, though. And maybe not even that. I can't predict better than 50% reliability how a balanced coin will toss. That doesn't mean the coin is volitional *or* ensouled. It means it can occupy one of two states; my assigning it a value for each toss -- either before *or* after the flip -- is, on some level, arbitrary. (It presupposes consciousness and will, yes, but not in the coin.) -- WthmO More fun than a bucket of live bait. But not as much fun as a trailerful of raccoons. -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: JDG-Type ...Fool, this is out-of-line.
I'd like to put a cap on this thread by adding that Julia and I have a agreed that this deserved a formal warning from the list managers, to refrain from personal attacks, which we're hereby offering to the Fool. Often, we do this in public, but given the fact that so many others publicly condemned it, I figured we might as well say so in public... which also seems reasonable given the fact that the Fool chooses not to comply with the list's request that people identify themselves by their real names, and thus the only personality affected by such a warning is the fictious one. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
On Aug 31, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: Keep in mind, that a sense of I is limited entirely to the I. No; it actually predicts you -- by distinguishing oneself from others, others must logically spring into existence. That is, I don't think you can have an I in a vacuum. This means that the presence of self-awareness, being almost by definition other-awareness as well, changes how an I-conscious being behaves. Gene-motivated actions aren't the sole deciding factor any more. Experimentally, there is no such thing as an I: take a healthy person, cut the brain in half, removing all communication between the two hemispheres, and you end up with _two_ different personalities, each one of them remembers being the former I. I seem to recall something along those lines, yes. Says something pretty interesting about the nature of consciousness. Mostly (I think) that it's not a constant state; that in order for consciousness to exist it must always be changing. Memory appears to give us a sense of continuity, but the process itself seems like soap in bathwater: The harder you try to get hold of it the faster it squirts away. I imagine that if it were possible to keep cutting with surviving remains we would get other smaller versions of I. I'm sure you're correct. This is actually one reason I was so intrigued by _Kiln People_ -- a sort of energetic resonance being passed into clay, and then inloaded (before it had too much time to digress into its own consciousness) is an interesting idea. If you haven't read the book you might want to. ;) It's why I don't really buy the idea of someone becoming immortal by putting his consciousness into a machine. There'd be immediate divergence which would only grow over time; in essence you'd have two distinct entities in very short order. (Oh, you could kill the body -- but that would end the distinct consciousness in the body. I don't think there's one essence allotted to a person, IOW.) But my point was that in distinguishing oneself from the world, one has already defined the existence of a place called the world from which one is distinct, and any decisions one takes will have that in the account. So purely genetics-delimited behavioral definitions do not wash with me, especially where high intellect (primate, cetacian, possibly mollusccan) is present. -- WthmO There is no such thing as mad vegetable disease. -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You know, Gautam, if you don't keep reminding us we might forget how important you are and how you have all sorts of contacts and secret information that you can't share with us. Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ You know, Erik, if you didn't keep reminding us we might forget what a jackass you are. Let me try to be more clear. There are certain things I can't comment on. Even commenting on publicly available information can involve me needing to consult a lawyer on potential securities violations. Since I'm not an expert on that field and I don't feel any desire to do that, I don't, and can't, comment on anything involving the financials of any pharmaceutical company, or the industry in general. I was trying to courteously say that to Dan, so that he would not carry that part of the discussion further. Being a considerate guy, he understood that. Since you aren't, you didn't. I _can_ talk about general principles on non-financial issues which is, in fact, what I've done. Now is it clear? My ego's okay, and of all the ways I can think of to boost it, showing off in front of you has got to be dead last on the list. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com ___ Do you Yahoo!? Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now. http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
US wounded total in Iraq approaching 7,000
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/244/wash/US_wounded_total_in_Iraq_approP.shtml The number of American troops wounded in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 is approaching 7,000, according to figures published Tuesday by the Pentagon. The death toll for U.S. military personnel is 975, plus three Defense Department civilians. The wounded total has approximately doubled since mid-April, when casualties and deaths mounted rapidly as the insurgency intensified. The death toll over that period has grown by about 300. The Pentagon, which generally updates its casualty count each week, said the number of wounded stands at 6,916, up 226 from a week earlier. In the two months since the United States handed over political sovereignty to an interim Iraq government, the wounded total has grown by about 1,500. The vast majority of casualties have been Marines and Army soldiers, although the Pentagon announced on Tuesday the 13th member of the Air Force to die in Iraq. Airman 1st Class Carl L. Anderson Jr., 21, of Georgetown, S.C., was killed by a roadside bomb on Sunday near the northern city of Mosul. He was assigned to the 3rd Logistics Readiness Squadron based at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska. xponent Not Good News Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: JDG-Type ...Fool, this is out-of-line.
Nick Arnett wrote: Often, we do this in public I meant private, of course... Had a sleep study a few weeks ago, which showed that I have severe sleep apnea, with 42 events (not breathing for at least 10 seconds) a hour. This will now be my excuse for any mistakes I may make... ;-) Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: JDG-Type ...Fool, this is out-of-line.
On Aug 31, 2004, at 7:53 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: Had a sleep study a few weeks ago, which showed that I have severe sleep apnea, with 42 events (not breathing for at least 10 seconds) a hour. This will now be my excuse for any mistakes I may make... ;-) Ah. Apnea subverts your free will! -- WthmO ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated
--- Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gautam Mukunda wrote: And I have a suspicion as to _why_. Every other science has progressed geometrically over the past 50 years. If Medicine had advanced the way computers have, we would have a life expectancy of 500 years [except that once every 42 days our bodies would burn, and we would have to be rebuild from the clone backup :-)] I was about to make that joke... First, I don't think every other science _has_ progressed geometrically over the past 50 years. I'm not sure that theoretical physics, for example, is all that far advanced today over where it was in 1960, say - Dan M. can confirm or deny that statement. But the reason for that is because biology doesn't have the theoretical foundations that physics and chemistry do. It doesn't have anything to do with the pharmacos, it's just that this stuff is harder. We don't have a theoretical model of any high degree of usefulness for the brain or the liver, for example. We still don't understand how proteins interact. We only sequenced the human genome a few years ago, and we've barely begun figuring out what proteins are expressed by it, much less how those proteins will interact with each other. That puts biology in about the place physics was...before Newton. So _of course_ medical science hasn't advanced geometrically yet. I am not blaming them for _not_ doing this. I am blaming everybody else that allows them to control medical research. But they don't. They're pretty good at it, but I doubt that even half of the US's research spending is from the pharmacos. What they do control is _development_, but they control it because they're the only people who are any good at it. Medical research is still heavily the province of governments and universities, so if we're not finding cures, it's because _they_ haven't found them. Did they? What about the new superbacterias that resist every antibiotic? What about them? There are almost no cases of such bacteria actually doing much outside the laboratory. As it is, we got 50 years of virtual freedom from bacterial diseases, which was pretty good, and we can still knock them back much more often than 999 times out of 1000. The reason that those superbacteria aren't killing many people yet is, again, because of the fecundity of the pharmacos, developing not just one antibiotic (penicillin), but everything from amoxicillin to cipro, so we have many different ways to attack a bug. Not enough, and we need to develop more, but the ones we have are because of private industry efforts. No, I am not. But there is no _cure_, just expensive drugs to turn cancer into a chronical disease. Alberto, I don't understand what you mean by this. One of my aunt's had breast cancer a few years ago - she had surgery, took chemo for a while, and now she's not. It's past the five year point, so statistically her likelihood of a recurrence is (IIRC) about the same as that for a person who has never had cancer. She's not taking any drugs right now. If that's not a cure, what is? Cancer isn't a bacteria, we can't kill it with a single pill. It's hard to do. What's amazing is how far we've come. Who extract huge profits from drugs that keep cancer patients bound to them _forever_. Except they don't. To pick an example, one of my best friends in high school had pediatric cancer as an infact - something in his eye, I think. He wasn't on any drugs. He had been cured, for all practical purposes? Now, if a pharmaco could create a drug that could turn every cancer into a chronic condition - what a blessing that would be! If only we were somehow able to do that. But we can't. The record so far is pretty good, though. Not good enough, but it gets better every day. I would not be stunned to see most cancers treated exactly that way - turned into chronic conditions - in my lifetime. I _expect_ to see heart disease treated that way in my lifetime (if the results from the Phase II clinical trials on Pfizer's HDL enhancing drug end up being as good as some people hope, that result might actually be in sight.) Ok, but then it's still 0 x 0 :-) Yeah, but the record of people trying to run a 2 minute mile is also pretty bad. We don't tell runners to stop running because of it, or call them incompetent for failing to do it. Do you think you are so much smarter than any advisor that has ever counseled the drug companies? Don't you think any other intelligent consultant could duplicate your reasoning that it's a bad idea to research a drug that cures disease X instead of a drug that keeps a X-patient forced _forever_ to buy drugs that will extend his life? I was a very average consultant, so I'm sure plenty of other consultants have made this calculation. Here's the thing, though. If pharmaco A has a drug that converts a life-threatening condition into a chronic one...then pharmacos B, C, D, E, and F have an incentive to
Re: The McCain Fizzle
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:44:26 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 12:33 PM 8/31/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote: I don't think so either. I think despite McCain's loyalty to the party in campaigning for and endorsing Bush (and rejecting the Kerry VP offer), he will be remembered by the Republicans far more for his few small disloyalties like his assorted criticisms of Bush over the years, his weak Bush endorsement, and words of praise for Kerry. Given the close race, I think that these small things will be given exagerated weight, and he will be a major scapegoat if Bush loses. You missed the biggest one... you have to be pro-life to win the Republican primaries, and McCain has gained a reputation as being insufficiently pro-life. Really? I had thought one of the serious sticking points that kept him from taking the Kerry VP spot was his pro-life position. If not the pres nomination itself, do you think McCain has a chance to get a Republican VP offer? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The McCain Fizzle
At 11:11 PM 8/31/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote: On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:44:26 -0400, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 12:33 PM 8/31/2004 -0400 Bryon Daly wrote: I don't think so either. I think despite McCain's loyalty to the party in campaigning for and endorsing Bush (and rejecting the Kerry VP offer), he will be remembered by the Republicans far more for his few small disloyalties like his assorted criticisms of Bush over the years, his weak Bush endorsement, and words of praise for Kerry. Given the close race, I think that these small things will be given exagerated weight, and he will be a major scapegoat if Bush loses. You missed the biggest one... you have to be pro-life to win the Republican primaries, and McCain has gained a reputation as being insufficiently pro-life. Really? I had thought one of the serious sticking points that kept him from taking the Kerry VP spot was his pro-life position. True also. McCain has managed to strike a middle-of-the-road position on abortion that ends up pleasing noone. At the core of it is that while McCain has generally cast mostly pro-life votes, he has never appeared to speak from the heart about the pro-life issue, and most critically of all, has said that he would consider appointing justices who actually believe that Roe vs. Wade was a decent piece of jurisprudence. If not the pres nomination itself, do you think McCain has a chance to get a Republican VP offer? First, I think that McCain's age is such that he probably would not accept the VP slot. The VP slot is generally seen these days as primarily a ticket to the nomination in 8 years. McCain isn't sure he wants to run for President in 2008, let alone in 2016. Secondly, McCain was widely mooted as a potential VP candidate in 2000, and the pro-life faction of the Republican Party made it abundantly clear that they would be very displeased to have someone whom they viewed as insufficiently pro-life only a heartbeat away from the Presidency, and the heir apparent for 2008. Moreover, Bush himself did not exactly have strong pro-life bona fides in 2000, and thus needed to shore up support from the pro-life faction of the Republican base with a pro-life running mate.The nominee in 2008 could easily be in a similar predicament. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The McCain Fizzle
On Aug 31, 2004, at 8:11 PM, Bryon Daly wrote: If not the pres nomination itself, do you think McCain has a chance to get a Republican VP offer? One can only wish. I'm certainly not Republican but I would definitely have voted for him in 2000, had I had an opportunity. (I voted for Nader, but not in a state where it mattered anyway. Which might be all 50! ;) I don't see it happening. He's stumping for Dub now but I'd be looking more closely at Giuliani shooting for the chair in '04. If that were to happen McCain *might* get the veep nod but I still wouldn't count on it. The Repubs have swung so far into religion lately that I can't imagine them being very tolerant of any deviation from their rapidly-narrowing definition of what's acceptable. It's unfortunate. Lincoln was an unbelievably progressive president. To hear him mentioned in the same breath with Reagan -- and without a trace of irony -- set my teeth on edge. The US's agrarian areas are (IMO) being a little too heavily represented in government lately -- by which I mean that apparent policy does not seem to align with what the true majority would favor -- and had we had a demographic like this one in the 1850s, the South might not have needed to secede to keep its bigotries intact. -- WthmO George W. Bush: Putting the 'dense' in presidency since 2001. -- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:14:20 -0700, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 31, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: I imagine that if it were possible to keep cutting with surviving remains we would get other smaller versions of I. I'm sure you're correct. This is actually one reason I was so intrigued by _Kiln People_ -- a sort of energetic resonance being passed into clay, and then inloaded (before it had too much time to digress into its own consciousness) is an interesting idea. If you haven't read the book you might want to. ;) It's why I don't really buy the idea of someone becoming immortal by putting his consciousness into a machine. There'd be immediate divergence which would only grow over time; in essence you'd have two distinct entities in very short order. (Oh, you could kill the body -- but that would end the distinct consciousness in the body. I don't think there's one essence allotted to a person, IOW.) Poul Anderson explored this some in his series beginning with _Harvest the Stars_. I recommend it. (Not just for that, but for other divergence issues.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Shrub Hamster...
Didn't make it. Proving yet again, Stupidity is genetic. -- Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. - Napoleon Bonaparte ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 6:46 PM Subject: Re: Privately funded medical research is evil,why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style] On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:20:01AM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: If, at some point in the future, someone trusts you with a job that involves decisions and information that have to be handled responsibly, perhaps you will understand where I'm coming from. You know, Gautam, if you don't keep reminding us we might forget how important you are and how you have all sorts of contacts and secret information that you can't share with us. ROTFLMAO. Erik, I really appreciate the work you do in research for this group, but on this subject you are speaking from ignorance. Gautam and I are friends. We share our personal triumphs and tragedies. Knowing what I know about him, a reasonable person would categorize his self-description on the list as rather modest. Indeed, his restraint verges on amazing from time to time...particularly when he could come back with a rather stunning response. BTW, I got why he couldn't talk even about common knowledge from the beginning. At Teleco, we knew when our VPs knew something because they would stop talking about subjects that they talked about before. We knew what was going on, and respected them for it. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: US wounded total in Iraq approaching 7,000
Robert G. Seeberger wrote: http://www.boston.com/dailynews/244/wash/US_wounded_total_in_Iraq_approP.shtml The number of American troops wounded in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 is approaching 7,000, according to figures published Tuesday by the Pentagon. The death toll for U.S. military personnel is 975, plus three Defense Department civilians. The wounded total has approximately doubled since mid-April, when casualties and deaths mounted rapidly as the insurgency intensified. The death toll over that period has grown by about 300. rest snipped The death toll for soldiers from Fort Hood just hit 100: http://www.statesman.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/tuesday/news_144332e607a0d0c400b9.html (this link will be good through Monday of next week) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: JDG-Type ...Fool, this is out-of-line.
Nick Arnett wrote: Nick Arnett wrote: Often, we do this in public I meant private, of course... Had a sleep study a few weeks ago, which showed that I have severe sleep apnea, with 42 events (not breathing for at least 10 seconds) a hour. This will now be my excuse for any mistakes I may make... ;-) Will you be undergoing treatment? That might help out on the mistake front after awhile. ;) (And improve your health in general, in all likelihood) Julia Good Sleep Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The McCain Fizzle
JDG wrote: At the core of it is that while McCain has generally cast mostly pro-life votes, he has never appeared to speak from the heart about the pro-life issue, and most critically of all, has said that he would consider appointing justices who actually believe that Roe vs. Wade was a decent piece of jurisprudence. Dang. I don't believe that Roe v. Wade was decent jurisprudence, not on abortion grounds, but because it was legislation handed down by the judicial branch. Maybe I'm too hung up on the Constitution, but when I read that decision in the light of what the Constitution says the powers of the judiciary are, and compare it to other famous Supreme Court decisions, it just reads *wrong*. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Privately funded medical research is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Fascist Censorship Spreads: Vichy Style]
Dan wrote: BTW, I got why he couldn't talk even about common knowledge from the beginning. At Teleco, we knew when our VPs knew something because they would stop talking about subjects that they talked about before. We knew what was going on, and respected them for it. When you hold a government clearance you aren't supposed to even discuss stuff that is common knowledge because by doing so you may verify or discount information that may or may not be correct. I'm not sure it the same in the private sector, but I'm sure the principal holds -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Mercies of The Vatican
Warren wrote: That is, I don't think you can have an I in a vacuum. In fact, I think your I's pop right out in a vacuum... -- Doug headed for the hills ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
