According to NPR, Kalydeco, "works by helping to fix one defect in the protein that causes the disease." Unfortunately the way the drug works is also very specific, and won't work for all sufferers NPR also reports that it will "only work for about 1,200 patients in the U.S.". Now, being that a cursory Internet search says that there are about 30,000 sufferers in the USA, it's pretty clear that Kalydeco is just a step in the right direction, at least from a medical and research perspective.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/02/01/146166743/cystic-fibrosis-drug-wins-fda-approval?ps=sh_sthdl

This is a short-sighted comment. Most employees happen to be shareholders, even if it is an infinitesimal amount. Furthermore, most employees want the company to succeed because they either 1) would like to continue gainful employment (which is a distinct possibility in this market) or 2) do not want the stigma of working for a company that failed. The gentleman that posed the question believes that there is value in commercial support for a product, I happen to agree to a certain point. The reason is pretty simple: commercial support is an insurance plan. If you are going to build a product that makes use of code that may be unstable, then it's not a bad idea to have an expert on call "just in case".

For example a while back I worked at a company that routed wireless E-911 calls to the appropriate public safety answering point. In this case, we decided that commercial support was A Good Thing. A little while later I worked at a company that provided Short Messaging services and those with the purse-strings thought that the risk of running without support was worth it. The former company is still in business, the latter... not so much.

The only way you'll possibly sway the CIO is to change his mind about "not wanting" support via probabilistic risk assessment that shows that the "Red Hat Tax" is good insurance. If it really isn't then I wouldn't bother.

-b

Huh? What? Did I wake up someplace with a very different history?

No, AT&T is a HEAVILY regulated company, it always has been and probably always will be.

Uh, that's not what I said..

While it is true that monopolies can be brought into existence through a governmental apparatus, it is also equally true that a single company (and/or individual) that somehow is capable controlling and securing influence on a particular good or service.

However, in the case of telecommunications, the AT&T / Bell System was "a legally sanctioned, regulated monopoly". Thus, in this case, of AT&T it is not Conservative nonsense to say that "AT&T had a monopoly only because the government assisted them"; rather it is a simple matter of fact. Thus, I hope not to inconvenience you too terribly if I repeat it as oft as I wish.

No offense, but you've clearly never worked in the telecommunications industry. It's been heavily regulated since before I was even born. Even when AT&T had a monopoly it only did so because the US Government let it.

From: http://www.corp.att.com/history/history3.html

For much of its history, AT&T and its Bell System functioned as a legally sanctioned, regulated monopoly.

in other words, telecommunications has never been a free market.

"Competition is dead in the ISP Market?" Says who? At my house I can get service from a bunch of different carriers, let alone Internet service providers that use these carriers, for example:

Qwest DSL / Fiber to Neighborhood
Comcast Cable / Fiber to Neighborhood
Frontier Fiber to Home
Clearwire WiMAX
Covad DSL
Cortland Wireless

Now, the argument may is often made "yes, but these carriers are ex-definitionae a monopoly", and I agree. However it must be noted that these monopolies are, in no small part, a product of regulation by the FCC and far less a product of the free market. Thus, to my way of thinking, the best way to actually implement the principles of Net Neutrality is to remove barriers of entry to the market and make the market more free rather than less.

I wonder if the film about Confucius will have any mention of his teaching on The Mandate of Heaven. Perhaps I'm just a Westerner, but it seems toe like Chinese government failed to fulfill this mandate long ago.

There are apparently more videos on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DoWdHOtlrk&feature=player_embedded#

Seems like a pretty shaky foundation to draw up public policy on (i.e. H.R. 2454)

I guess you don't read/watch/listen to much news do you :)

Why not set up 802.11 in east Iraq?

Agreed.

And therein lies the rub. Dawkins is not making a case of mere ideas, opinions, or the evidence of hypothesis and testing. On the contrary, he states that unless you agree with his narrow understanding of reality and truth itself your must be both a deluded and unintelligent individual.

In other words, we're not talking about science vs. religion, but two competing religions.