Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:freedoms f----d (Score 1) 130

...and we clearly have a minimal number of such sources in the US.

Don't be so hard on the US. They really do provide a lot of funding compared to many countries. Sure it is distributed in perhaps not the best way (few very large grants), but its pretty substantial. For example my PhD was 100% funded under a NSF grant despite the fact that i was not in the US. We also had the requirement that we had to make all findings and contributions reasonable public.

That has nothing to do with patents per-se though, it has to do with the perverse incentives in a profit-driven medical research.

I can't quite see how non profit driven medical research would need patents?

Comment: Re:The one area where patents have reasonable term (Score 1) 130

For profit is never right. And it should be noted that this "massive funding" is not as massive as you think. Not to mention that many of these companies still get grants and "collaborations" with uni. The are often recouping costs from their patents that the state paid for. There is a reason why treatments cost more in the US by a large margin that anywhere else. Because its not about health. Its about profit.

Comment: Re:freedoms f----d (Score 4, Interesting) 130

Patents in pharmacuticals work well.

I have worked for pharmaceutical companies. They work well if you want these companies to make a lot of money. If general health of your population is the goal, then they are a total disaster. You don't work on cures, you work on treatments, for example. Why sell someone a week of pills, when you could sell them pills for a lifetime? Even worse is that a lot of money for these treatments is not invested by the company that holds the patent. But often heavily supported by the state through universities and grants.

The free market, capitalism, fails with health care at every level.

Comment: Re:Article ignores variability (Score 1) 608

by delt0r (#48138957) Attached to: Wind Power Is Cheaper Than Coal, Leaked Report Shows
These days HVDC is getting quite popular. There are good reasons for it too. The insulation requirements are far less demanding and this makes the cables cheaper for a given power level. The ACDC/DCAC converters are getting cheap enough and reliable enough that total costs are lower.

Comment: Re:Hoax? Or not? (Score 1) 975

It is really obvious that this is fraud. Its not even done particularly well. Not one but 2 black boxes, not allowed to touch anything, not allowed to measure anything properly. Total interference with the inventor. Oh and these guys have been working with him for more than 2 years. Not so independent. This report is to do nothing more that fleece more cash out of suckers.

Comment: Re:Hoax (Score 1) 975

The paper itself describes, quite credibly, exactly why they did not do that. Did you read it?

No it doesn't, and you can absolutely blame them for that. If you are not even allowed to measure the very thing that its claimed to do, you tell the guy to stick it where the sun don't shine.

It is pretty clear you have no idea about a really simple experiment i would expect anyone in high school science to manage.

Comment: Re:Does not follow scientific protocol (Score 1) 975

I did read it. It is even written very poorly. They make up error intervals, and well you could do somethings with a black box. But they don't even get to touch the black boxes! And they have to ask the inventor to turn it on and off and stuff. Even worse this does not have continues measurement. The last "report" had pulses of power going in!

I think its pretty clear. These scientists are either very senile, or in on the scam. I suspect the later.

"We are on the verge: Today our program proved Fermat's next-to-last theorem." -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982