Non-IT News Thread
-
-
Portland suspect shot dead by police during arrest
Police in the US have shot dead a man suspected of fatally shooting a right-wing activist during protests in Portland, Oregon, officials say.
Michael Reinoehl, 48, a self-described antifa supporter, was filmed shooting the man during last weekend's tension, and admitted to it before his death. Reinoehl earlier said he acted in self-defence when he shot Aaron Danielson, a supporter of the Patriot Prayer group. Police said he was armed and was shot during a confrontation with officers. Black Lives Matter protests have been taking place nightly in Portland since the killing of black man George Floyd in May. Last Saturday Trump supporters held a large rally and fought with anti-racism protesters in violent exchanges. Reinoehl, who regularly attended the protests, had told Vice News that he had thought he and a friend were going to be stabbed by Danielson. "I had no choice. I mean, I, I had a choice. I could have sat there and watched them kill a friend of mine of colour. But I wasn't going to do that," he said. -
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
With regards to the article, if the insulin market is roughly $24 Billion, why doesn't one of our great US philanthropist Billionaires (Aka Bezos, Gates) throw about $300 Mil at a new company and sell it dirt cheap (just above costs) directly to the pharmacies and just solve the problem.
Between the two of them, they could whip it up in about 6 months and proceed to use Amazon's distribution system to supply the pharmacies (via drones) in 6 hours or less. Heck, do the same thing for the Epipen. Two real world, in the moment, problems solved. Millions of parents save hundreds of dollars and millions of children living better lives.
Seems pretty simple till you put Government Regs, FDA and lobbyists in the middle.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
With regards to the article, if the insulin market is roughly $24 Billion, why doesn't one of our great US philanthropist Billionaires (Aka Bezos, Gates) throw about $300 Mil at a new company and sell it dirt cheap (just above costs) directly to the pharmacies and just solve the problem.
Generally because they are not allowed to in the US. The US medical market is government controlled, not a free market.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Heck, do the same thing for the Epipen.
That's illegal. You are forgetting patents. The US gov't determines who may and may not make this stuff. You can't just make it even if you have the resources.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Seems pretty simple till you put Government Regs, FDA and lobbyists in the middle.
It is. Because there is no free market, and it's all controlled by the government, but presented as a free market to confuse people, there's the worst of all worlds.... it's government controlled but without accountability or oversight or even nobles oblige.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Seems pretty simple till you put Government Regs, FDA and lobbyists in the middle.
It is. Because there is no free market, and it's all controlled by the government, but presented as a free market to confuse people, there's the worst of all worlds.... it's government controlled but without accountability or oversight or even nobles oblige.
I agree with all three posts. Exactly why I threw in my last line.
As for Patents, those are a form of government control and a good one. It its not without its issue though. I do believe we need patent reform to stop the Shkreli's of the world.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
As for Patents, those are a form of government control and a good one. It its not without its issue though.
I'm not a believer in patents. There's some sound idea behind it.... if you invent something you should have some advantage. But you already have an advantage, making it a monopoly hurts consumers. Patents work against capitalism and free markets and all traditional systems. The idea that "writing something down first" makes it yours is a problem. Once in a while, we can justify it by example, but rarely. There is hardly a patented item ever made that I think worked out. The idea of patents has nothing to do with invention, but exists to make it essentially impossible for individuals and small companies to compete and to shift money to big companies and lawyers.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
As for Patents, those are a form of government control and a good one. It its not without its issue though.
I'm not a believer in patents. There's some sound idea behind it.... if you invent something you should have some advantage. But you already have an advantage, making it a monopoly hurts consumers. Patents work against capitalism and free markets and all traditional systems. The idea that "writing something down first" makes it yours is a problem. Once in a while, we can justify it by example, but rarely. There is hardly a patented item ever made that I think worked out. The idea of patents has nothing to do with invention, but exists to make it essentially impossible for individuals and small companies to compete and to shift money to big companies and lawyers.
Patents do have their issues, no doubt (can we say zmodem and rounded corners). IMHO, I believe having some form of protection for one's idea spurs further innovation. Putting a few billion dollars and many years into development of a product only to have it abused by another in one month is not a good thing.
The system only needs a few changes but my main changes would be, shorter term limits and very short term limits for patents without some type of prototype.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
As for Patents, those are a form of government control and a good one. It its not without its issue though.
I'm not a believer in patents. There's some sound idea behind it.... if you invent something you should have some advantage. But you already have an advantage, making it a monopoly hurts consumers. Patents work against capitalism and free markets and all traditional systems. The idea that "writing something down first" makes it yours is a problem. Once in a while, we can justify it by example, but rarely. There is hardly a patented item ever made that I think worked out. The idea of patents has nothing to do with invention, but exists to make it essentially impossible for individuals and small companies to compete and to shift money to big companies and lawyers.
If the story behind the intermittent windshield wiper is true, then your comments aren't completely right, but generally, yeah I agree, they are a way to keep the little man down, especially when you make patents on things you aren't actually making...
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
As for Patents, those are a form of government control and a good one. It its not without its issue though.
I'm not a believer in patents. There's some sound idea behind it.... if you invent something you should have some advantage. But you already have an advantage, making it a monopoly hurts consumers. Patents work against capitalism and free markets and all traditional systems. The idea that "writing something down first" makes it yours is a problem. Once in a while, we can justify it by example, but rarely. There is hardly a patented item ever made that I think worked out. The idea of patents has nothing to do with invention, but exists to make it essentially impossible for individuals and small companies to compete and to shift money to big companies and lawyers.
especially when you make patents on things you aren't actually making...
I see we were thinking along the same lines while cross posting.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
The system only needs a few changes but my main changes would be, shorter term limits and very short term limits for patents without some type of prototype.
Exactly, shorter for sure, like 2 years max... Drugs really need this!!!
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Putting a few billion dollars and many years into development of a product only to have it abused by another in one month is not a good thing.
There is already protection for that, though. No need for patents.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Putting a few billion dollars and many years into development of a product only to have it abused by another in one month is not a good thing.
There is already protection for that, though. No need for patents.
What is that protection?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Putting a few billion dollars and many years into development of a product only to have it abused by another in one month is not a good thing.
There is already protection for that, though. No need for patents.
I am missing something here. What protection is there. Based on what I know, drugs get a patent just like everything else.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
The system only needs a few changes but my main changes would be, shorter term limits and very short term limits for patents without some type of prototype.
It helps, but in the modern world, they don't work as any term is too long. I've never seen a scenario where I was comfortable with the patent process. Literally, none.
Now, if we tweaked absolutely everything.... I'd still not be okay with it but making it free would help. But then, the public is still paying for it.
All patents and patent processes are just used to funnel money from the public to the government.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Putting a few billion dollars and many years into development of a product only to have it abused by another in one month is not a good thing.
There is already protection for that, though. No need for patents.
What is that protection?
You can tell we are both in healthcare.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
As for Patents, those are a form of government control and a good one. It its not without its issue though.
I'm not a believer in patents. There's some sound idea behind it.... if you invent something you should have some advantage. But you already have an advantage, making it a monopoly hurts consumers. Patents work against capitalism and free markets and all traditional systems. The idea that "writing something down first" makes it yours is a problem. Once in a while, we can justify it by example, but rarely. There is hardly a patented item ever made that I think worked out. The idea of patents has nothing to do with invention, but exists to make it essentially impossible for individuals and small companies to compete and to shift money to big companies and lawyers.
If the story behind the intermittent windshield wiper is true, then your comments aren't completely right, but generally, yeah I agree, they are a way to keep the little man down, especially when you make patents on things you aren't actually making...
I have no idea what you mean.
-
@Dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Putting a few billion dollars and many years into development of a product only to have it abused by another in one month is not a good thing.
There is already protection for that, though. No need for patents.
What is that protection?
Trade secrets.
-
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@pmoncho said in Non-IT News Thread:
Putting a few billion dollars and many years into development of a product only to have it abused by another in one month is not a good thing.
There is already protection for that, though. No need for patents.
I am missing something here. What protection is there. Based on what I know, drugs get a patent just like everything else.
They do, andthat's evil, like any other patent (but worse, because it's holding people's lives for extortion.) But conceptually it's all evil.
