This. If you want to be a whistle blower, there are already avenues that are perfectly legal, up to and including finding a friendly senator or congressperson, who are charged with oversight of the rest of the government, and passing one (or the entire legislature) the information. They can then make public with immunity and/or take action against others inside the government. Leaking directly to the press is a last resort because it is both illegal and potentially life threatening to covert operatives.
A great idea -- until the first senator you go to turns out to be not so supportive and turns you in. So much for getting the data out at all.
The next thing to look at is whether or not this is just a dress rehearsal for a real attack. My guess is that this is just a test... They want to know what it takes to shut down a chunk of the internet. Next time will be the real act of 'terrorism'.
So when every yahoo on your segment fires up BitTorrent your VoIP stops working? No thank you.
1. Realtime Communications Traffic (VoIP)
2. Remote interactive sessions (RDP/SSH/Games/etc..)
With the patent system as it is, where genetic codes and proteins can be patented, and where protection for drug profits is long and deep, there are situations like this that come up that allow unscrupulous companies to hike drug costs ridiculously like these clowns at Mylan.
Yes, many drug research efforts don't pan out. But Epinephrine has been out for a long time. Is anyone seriously going to try to tell me that $50 in 2007 became $304 in 2017? Even given the bogusly low inflation rates that are officially reported, that's insane.
This is profiteering. If the company didn't need to profiteer in 2007, why do they in 2017? No good reason methinks.
How about the definition of sole source is 'no equivalent product available at present'?
And how about you cap the rates at which drug costs can increase unless the providers can show material evidence that their costs have escalated so much?
I don't have $608 to shell out (US) for something I have to replace every 1-2 years. I'm carrying an old epi-pen that's probably not as efficacious now, but it's likely still better than no pen. I just can't afford the money to get a new one (let alone two, since protocol says you hit yourself with the first and about 30 minutes later the second if you haven't reached emergency medical care).
This should be a true generic. There should be equipment whose patents have an earlier mandatory expiry because they exist in the space called 'in the interest of public health'. I'm not suggesting these guys shouldn't have got their money back, but seems to me they are well beyond that point now.
On the other hand, this is exactly why the government or NGOs should be investing in some sorts of medical research in the public interest and making the product patents entirely open and available.
Epinephrine isn't patented. Its the injector. This seems like the kind of thing a Gates Foundation or even the Government could underwrite the development of (and may have already for Atropine and the like in prior days, if we call those syrettes an early version). Make the injector patent available and then it truly is generic because epinephrine is not patented.
The reality is that big Pharma has great lobbyists, political connections, and lawyers and the whole US patent system around biomedical issues defies any sort of common sense or rational thinking.
I hear rumours of alternatives, but I'm not sure they are available beyond the US borders. The Epipen fiasco and the price rise has hit many of us living in other countries too, but I'm not sure any alternatives exist where I live. I am going to look into that now though.
Patents should help protect innovation, but not form monopolies artificially (well, that may be other legislation that does that but that also needs looked at), should not have extensive duration, and should have clauses surrounding medical equipment that if the equipment price rises too quickly or if the provider becomes sole source, that the patent becomes licenseable by other companies for a very modest fee. At some point, the public interest has merit at least as great as profits for corporations.
Executives and senior managers got their bonuses, and the line staff ultimately got the shaft.
That having been said, for this election, Trump is probably the worst 'worst case' I've seen in the US in a long, long time. as much as I'd like to see someone like the Greens gain stature, The risk of trump getting in is (IMHO), too disturbing to advocate a third party vote in this election (at least, not for president. For congress is an entirely different matter).
In this case, doing harm was the intent of the machine and/or it's programming. As such, the maker is clearly responsible. If the harm was unintended/unexpected and there were no clear negligence, then I'd have a completely different conversation on this.
Things get more difficult as you get further away from the original source, but -- generally speaking -- if the result is generally what you intended from an action (or series of actions), then it's pretty clear that you're responsible. This is even true where there is a human intermediary. If I pay a hitman to kill my ex wife, I can still be arrested for first degree murder -- even if he kills the wrong person by mistake.
The privacy of private information that Google has access to needs to remain sacrosanct or there will be a huge pile of people walking away from Google.
Maybe Computer Science should be in the College of Theology. -- R. S. Barton