What they are talking about are the market relevant forces: Insurance companies will pay for prevention if and only if it is cheaper than paying for the treatment/cure. Since 9 times in 10 the vaccine will be paid for by an insurance company (as opposed to the consumer), Merck is charging what the market will bear.

You also seem to forget that drug companies have to research dozens of drugs before they ever get one to market - that $11bn gross looks impressive until you factor in what they paid to get there, and what they'll have to pay before their next big marketable drug.

And how useful is that standard to you if no one can afford to pay for the license required to implement the software to read your archives?

*chinkchink. pause. chink. pause. chinkchink. *

At Chernobyl, this actually happened inside the containment vessel and the resulting explosion ruptured the vessel, leading to a serious release of core radioactives – though this has had basically zero effect on the world in general nor even much impact on the area around Chernobyl.

*faceplam*

I'm pretty pro-nuke/anti-hysteria, but this is just irresponsible. If you want the straight-up story, go to the IAEA page or see the analysis by Ars.

P = VI = I**2 R

When your frequency goes up, so does the number of current spikes due to the high frequency transients. You didn't think a square wave was actually square, did you?

http://www.microsoft.com/About/Legal/EN/US/IntellectualProperty/Trademarks/EN-US.aspx

And this is why the jailbreaking provision is not relevant. Unlocking is a different exercise, and it is addressed in the very next point of the same ruling:

(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.