Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Charge what it costs to certify (Score 2) 123

by Hungus (#47398189) Attached to: FDA: We Can't Scale To Regulate Mobile Health Apps

Rather than simply make a quip, would you care to show a general trend of neglect in the pharmaceutical industry? While there are instances of abuse, the over all standards for pharmaceuticals in the US for safety is far better than what one would expect from your comment.

I beg to differ. Are you unaware of the 6+ year history of enforcement actions against the pharmaceutical giant Ranbaxy for gross violations of health and safety standards? http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/24/us-ranbaxy-ban-idUSBREA0N06Z20140124. And the FDA enforcements were only started after the pharma giant had been documented by private auditing firms as intentionally neglecting health and safety standards in their drug production processes. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-05-28/news/39580238_1_ranbaxy-case-us-drug-regulator-paonta-sahib

That's 3 extra years that American health was at-risk because the pharmaceutical industry was allowed to rely on non-government, private safety inspectors.

You can 'beg to differ" all you want to, but you made my point for me with "FDA enforcements were only started after the pharma giant had been documented by private auditing firms".

In fact, I am well aware of that case and it was the specific case I had in mind when I mentioned the exception that proves the rule.

Comment: Re:Charge what it costs to certify (Score 1) 123

by Hungus (#47396625) Attached to: FDA: We Can't Scale To Regulate Mobile Health Apps

I am not certain why you think my ideas are Libertarian, especially given that I rate libertarians somewhere along the lines of neocons (I agree with them about 50%).

You make several comments that are absolutely falsifiable however. such as: "government agency is always more trustworthy than a private company"

I do find it interesting that you accuse me of being, or at least having, libertarian [ideas] and then go on to describe a libertarian viewpoint. Not being Libertarian, I do not agree with that viewpoint.

In any case, you have failed to make you case with me, I see that you are simply going to be dogmatic and provide neither reason nor proof. I suspect it is because we have very different qualifications for what is a "reason" and what is "proof". So how about we simply agree to disagree? You can think I am a libertarian, and I will think you are wrong. One of us will be correct.

Comment: Re:Not a federal role is not equiv to no gov't rol (Score 1) 123

by Hungus (#47396567) Attached to: FDA: We Can't Scale To Regulate Mobile Health Apps

Thank you for providing another viewpoint. I do appreciate other people rephrasing things within their own experience as I know my own view points are only expressed through my own lenses. Diversity helps people get past hangups they may have with my particular affectations.

Comment: Re:Charge what it costs to certify (Score 1) 123

by Hungus (#47396527) Attached to: FDA: We Can't Scale To Regulate Mobile Health Apps

Actually no I did not say that. Again you are making a link that private regulation is no regulation, and even in the OP I did not say simply private regulation I said with oversight. It is really no different that hiring contractors, which is something we do frequently via the Federal Government and in private industry.

I have already given a simple example of how it could work, twice now you have simply responded with a dogmatic statement and no connecting evidence or reason.

  If you do not provide any I will have to infer three things:
1) You simply believe only the government is capable of doing the work
2) All government workers must be actual government works and not contractors
3) The government is incorruptible.

Since I know that all 3 of these are historically and factually false we will have no where left to go.

Comment: Re:FDA shouldn't even exist in the first place (Score 1, Troll) 123

by Hungus (#47396479) Attached to: FDA: We Can't Scale To Regulate Mobile Health Apps

How does the existence of radium products grant a power to the Federal Givernment? {spelling intentional). I was under the impression that we had things called laws that laid out what the government could and could not do .. but I already said that when I went into the difference between regulative and normative.

Maybe you are an ends justifies the means kind of person.. I am a deontologist.

Comment: Re:does it mean anything though? (Score 1) 123

by Hungus (#47396445) Attached to: FDA: We Can't Scale To Regulate Mobile Health Apps

If that phraseology works for you .. fine. I tried to make it as generic as possible and actually just grabbed the Wikipedia summary and the begthequestion.info tail.

If you really want to understand it then go look at J Woods / D Walton article which is a nice basic intro to the subject.

Comment: Re:Charge what it costs to certify (Score 3, Insightful) 123

by Hungus (#47396393) Attached to: FDA: We Can't Scale To Regulate Mobile Health Apps

In other words, provide no oversight at all while an "independent" firm rubber stamps all the industry's apps for a completely legal fee which ends up going to the executives of the fake company via bonuses, then let it fold and start up a new one.

Privatized enforcement is no enforcement. If it can't be overseen by the government it needs to either be banned. You can open up the question of if it needs to be regulated at all, but providing the illusion of safety and regulation when there is none is far worse.

Nowhere does the OP say that, you are jumping way down an argument and not providing your work in between. How I read the OP is that private contractors do the heavy lifting and then the FDA comes back in and audits the results. If you audit one in 3, then see a group fails to catch something so you audit their entire batch, that is still substantial oversight.

I also would be willing to jump in and say the FDA is overstepping what little role it should have and might be provided by the ICC (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) and would even be willing to say that it may only regulate the actual commerce and not the actual products, however I think the OP is a step in the right direction.

Comment: Free Market at Work (Score 3, Insightful) 435

by Hungus (#38513982) Attached to: Prospects Darken For Solar Energy Companies

How is this a long term bad thing? Either the industry will come up with an idea that will allow a marketable solar power system sans subsidies and thus thrive, or it will die and we can move on to the next idea instead of wasting engineering hours on a failed/NRFPT energy source. In either case we win.

Comment: Re:And Lemme Guess... (Score 1) 197

by Hungus (#36836354) Attached to: Police To Begin iPhone Iris Scans

Obtaining an iris scan is probably invasive enough to require a compelling reason to perform it, and my guess is that under most circumstances that means that one is either 1) already being arrested, or 2) being served a warrant for the collection of it.

Sorry but you would be incorrect.

The Supreme Court has said that individuals do not possess an expectation of privacy in their personal characteristics (see United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 [1973]). Thus, the police may require individuals to give handwriting and voice exemplars, as well as hair, blood, DNA, and fingerprint samples, without complying with the Fourth Amendment's requirements.

Iris Scans fall into the same category.

egrep -n '^[a-z].*\(' $ | sort -t':' +2.0

Working...