any way you slice it people are going to die and make grave errors. but open transactions between researchers and free human beings would have drugs evolving much faster than unaccountable and corruptible overlords. reputation systems could replace much of their most important functionality.
> reputation systems could replace much of their most important functionality.
I'll start believing this once you show that a "reputation system" (don't these already exist?) actually does anything to stop quacks from peddling diluted water as a cure-all.
If you relied on reputation alone to regulate the medical market, feel-good snake oil treatments would prosper at the expense of legitimate medical advancement.
Do you honestly believe that people with a fatal illness, dealing with people offering a "cure" for that fatal illness, are free to make a rational choice?
You have cancer. You are going to die. Having a terminal illness changes the risk/reward beyond the bounds that most people can imagine. Even so, it seems that most people can make a reasonable decision, as long as the worst of the snake-oil peddlers are kept out. Here are your choices.
Do nothing. Make your time. You are going to die pretty soon. Try to make yourself and your family comfortable.
Take what treatment your insurer allows. You die more slowly, with a small chance of remission, but also with a small chance that the treatment will kill you sooner. Maybe your won't consume your family's assets.
Take what treatment you can afford. Die even more slowly (probably), with a small (but probably better) chance of remission, but also with a small chance that the treatment will kill you sooner. You may consume all your assets, and or incur huge debt/bankrupt your family.
Get yourself into an experimental trial. There is some chance that you will be in the control group (if one is used) in which case, you will die. There is some chance to suffer some adverse reaction in which case, you may be removed from the trial, back to step 1. There is some chance to suffer some catastrophic adverse reaction, in which case you will die, and if you are unlucky the death will be worse than death by cancer/chemo. There is some remote chance the treatment will work as good or marginally better than existing treatments, you win, congratulations. There is some very extremely remote chance the treatment will work amazingly (as in fairy-tale amazing) well, epic win. It may cost little or nothing, but who cares what it cost, you're alive and you just helped save the lives of many others.
Thanks, but I'd rather have medical research systems designed by scientists than libertarians. Free markets are not a panacea, and it's dangerous to think of them as such. In fact, the medical community used to be such a place, and it was dominated by quacks and snake oil salesmen.
willfully stupid is a perfect description - of your government. had you opened the process to any kind of competitive process you would find your coffers filled. i did this work ages ago and paid several hundred dollars just for the right to pass each home.
the cable companies laugh at local governments, all the way to the bank.
We thought we did pretty well, double dipping by hitting up both comcast and verizon.
Maybe we could have played hardball and refused to renew the contracts, but who do you think wins there? Take away people's TV? You crazy? Then we'd have gotten the same people lambasting us here (because they're shills) killing us for driving too hard a bargain (because they're shills).
exercising choice is exercising freedom. pleading for rights from entities that have seized them without your consent is truly depressing because it is hopeless.
Is it, or is it not criminal acts we are talking about here?
But ignoring that boycotts are largely fruitless. So if it is truly hopeless to demand your government respect your rights and freedoms then yes, you are probably fucked.
its a very bad thing that bitcoin is subject to government control. very quickly it will be used to tax and arm in order to .. tax and arm and its potential to break that loop will be lost.
Because if I can take from you without consequence, then that amounts to a great level of control. Normally if I take something of yours without your consent, I am a thief. If I do it at gunpoint, I'm an armed robber. Take away the veneer of legitimacy that many would grant to the DEA, and it, too, becomes a thief and/or armed robber.
arrington needs friends in silicon valley a lot more than he needs your clicks. whatever you think of the man this is an honest and indignant post and it's an example of the courage he speaks of.
it is fascinating that this concept is so difficult for an otherwise intelligent community to grasp and a reminder of why we still need journalists.
because participating in a hopelessly corrupted system is demoralizing. "activism" brings at the very best a delay followed by a shady deal as soon as your back is turned.
Technically they do. It's the Air National Guard, some who fly F-16s or even F-22 fighters. Of course, the Rules of Engagement are pretty restrictive, but they are available to protect a state from aerial threats.
I doubt they'll use F-22s to take out little drones taking photos of someones backyard.
