The ruling pertains to anybody who does business in the US. So, they can leave the USA, as long as they don't sell anything in the USA.

Has nothing to do with the relative spending of academia vs industry on development.

Also has nothing to do with the relative spending of academia vs industry on development.

This is about basic research, not development. As I said in my post, "That said, when it comes to the basic research side of things pharma companies do tend to let the academics do the work for them."

Also has nothing to do with the relative spending of academia vs industry on development.

My point was that most drug DEVELOPMENT costs are incurred by private industry, because it isn't a low-risk publication environment.

I wasn't saying that the drug industry didn't have problems.

Maybe another zero. A single drug candidate doesn't have to be all that expensive. The problem is that there are so many of them for each one that succeeds.

As the other post indicated, this is all from certification costs. These would be issued by the FAA, and thus the FAA would bear these costs and not pass them along (out of interest for public safety). This would make planes safer as well, since everybody would have them and not just pilots with more money to burn.

There is nothing in an ADS-B transceiver that isn't present in a feature phone. It is a GPS, a micro-controller, and a radio. Many cheap hobby UAVs already have all 3 anyway.

How do you figure. The damage from either is kinetic energy. Either can smash a window, distract a driver, and so on.

Many utilities operated under a cost-plus arrangement. If they waste more money, they make more profits.

That is why stuff like this has to be prevented.

This is why Bell Labs back in the day got Nobel Prizes. This wasn't corporate philanthropy - at the time they could consider that R&D expenditure part of providing phone service and charge higher rates to recoup it, plus a profit on top. When the rules were changed, Bell Labs died (at least, in the sense of what it used to be).

Agree. This isn't an SEO issue so much as stewardship issue. Utilities shouldn't be advertising, unless it is part of some kind of public service goal (like informing poor people of benefits programs or something like that).

Utilities are generally monopolies. If I want electricity for my home, there is exactly one place to get it. If I don't want it, that should be fine. There should be no expenditure of what amounts to a form of tax dollars to advertise services that aren't in competition with anything else.

Ditto for utilities sponsoring the Olympics and such. If funding the Olympics is a valid political goal then it should just get a spending bill in the legislature like anything else.

What is the risk of a drone hovering 100 feet up taking photos of a house?

Just have the FAA issue $50 ADS-B transponders which anybody can install on a drone or aircraft and that would probably do a lot more to promote collision avoidance than keeping people from taking pictures of their own houses.

As far as heavy drones go - regulate them like baseballs hit into windows and such. You don't need a license to operate a baseball and yet we don't have them showering down on our cars all day long.

Flatten the organization is simple enough - fire or demote managers so that there are more people reporting to any particular manager.

Really this sounds like the kind of buzz-speak I was hearing at work a few years ago when the same sorts of things were done. The same Accenture consultant probably wrote the slide deck.

Fewer people = fewer people involved in each decision, etc. They always talk about changing the culture, because talking about layoffs doesn't exactly make people excited to go to work.

You get a radio pulse every time lightning strikes. I think that this is a fairly unlikely explanation. If it were more regular and had some kind of repeating pattern to it then I'd start thinking galactic navigation beacon or something, but natural pulsars probably work well enough for that already.

Yeah, I get a chuckle every time I hear some IT manager at my employer talk about "big data." Often it is followed by a reference to an archive of raw scientific data which spans maybe 8-10 TB from the last 6 years or so and is mostly junk in a huge variety of formats.

When your big data problem can fit in the PC sitting under my desk, it isn't a big data problem. Heck, I'd give them "you can solve it like you would a big data problem" angle except they're not really doing that either.

The problem with this is the tragedy of the commons. It would be like letting your kids decide how to spend the household budget. You'd go to 14 movies each weekend, and eat Happy Meals every night, and nobody would pay the mortgage.

If the average voter can't figure out how to vote for somebody other than the guy with the biggest campaign fund, how is giving them a line-item veto over the budget going to help?

Oh, and keep in mind who pays all the taxes. Funding for the pesky SEC, who needs that? ERISA and OSHA - how quaint! Let's go ahead and spend the national budget on more corporate bailouts!

Ironically that link just gets an access denied message for anybody hosting a tor relay node (not an exit node)... :)

Must make it fun dealing with people with Klinefelter's. Just how do you define "gender" in today's society? Today we're just getting started with the marriage debate, but in 20 years we'll progress to figuring out what to do with bathrooms and workplace etiquette.

So, as others pointed out acetaminophen is actually fairly dangerous as drugs go. However, let's pick on something like ibuprofen instead which is definitely safer.

Today even ibuprofen would have trouble making it as a non-prescription drug.

Pain-killers in general have the deck stacked against them. For something like a heart medication to get on the market you basically have to show that it saves more lives than it takes. So, if it prevents 10k more heart attacks per year than any other drug on the market, and it kills 10 people per year due to liver toxicity, then it isn't hard to get it approved.

Painkillers don't benefit from this kind of calculus. If it kills 3 people a year, you can't point to a single life that they save to balance it out. So, our regulatory system tends to keep painkillers off the market. It is hard to balance lives cut short vs long lives lived in agony.

Diet medications have a lot of problems with suicide and tend to be kept off the market for the same reason. (Which makes me really wonder about the interaction between diet, obesity, and depression - eating is a basic instinct and we already know that people eat when they're upset - the need to eat is in many ways driven by emotion.)