I doubt it.

This is getting quite a lot of publicity and Telkom won't like the implications.

I suspect that they are already hatching (sorry) schemes of which Terry Thomas would be proud.

Yes, I understand that.

However this model is often trotted out as a reason why Windows would have a superior security record to linux had linux similar desktop saturation levels. In other words, if linux was as popular as Windows then, because the source is freely available for any hacker to study, it stands to reason that linux would be far easier to design malware for.

I have honestly heard this argument put forward on a number of occasions but until now I had not been aware that the Windows source was, in all probability, not quite as safely under lock and key as I have been led to believe.

Are you sure?

If this is true then it rather drives a coach and horses through the security-through-obscurity closed source security model.

Lack of education is one of the main hindrances to combating HIV and poverty for the population at large.

However the ruling party is less interested in helping it's population at large than it is about maintaining control over that population.

The ANC have seen the result of the raising of education standards in Zimbabwe and the subsequent loss of control by the ZANU-PF ruling party

ZANU-PF have managed to regain that control, largely by brutal oppression coupled with the dismantling of the education system and what should have been the cornerstone of Mugabe's legacy.

In an attempt to bring this post back On Topic, let me just conclude by saying that the Biometric data included in the new passports is more an attempt to appease the British so that they might relax current visa requirements on South African citizens rather than any significant action in the war against terror.

I once went to a job interview (it was in the eighties, please be gentle...) where the suit interviewing me said:

"Basic programming, huh? Well we're far more advanced than that here."

I didn't get the job.

Good Grief!

I suppose the saying is: "Just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean that they *aren't* out to get you".

What about those of us who don't use Windows as an operating system? I suppose we are doomed to stay out of the loop?

I agree.

If this is the cutting edge of cyber-warfare, then it's quite frankly piss-poor.

And if the DoD defences against this attack are weak enough to be breached then the last thing they should be doing is bleating on about it and drawing attention to the fact.

Yes, but is it not the case that the name-brand has to compete against the generics? Outside of the US, I mean.

I am just saying that I am far from convinced that the US drug customers subsidize drugs in any other part of the World.

I feel that the price differential between what customers might pay in the US and what they might pay in the rest of the World is better explained by the drug companies in the US having successfully lobbied to keep out competitors.

I'm sorry, it just seems very unlikely that US drug companies are seeking to subsidize operations in other parts of the world by inflating prices in the US.

;)

Selling their drugs cheap in price-controlled countries while charging us to keep up profits is a subsidy. We pay to keep their drug prices low.

Are you SURE Germany runs such a price control?

I feel a far more likely explanation is that the US prevents the sale of generic drugs thus allowing the drug companies to charge what they want in the US.

It would seem to me that this would account for disparity in pricing that you speak of rather than a cap being placed on the sale of the drugs per se.

Better to get little money than none at all, especially if that foreign country decides to manufacture your drug itself despite your patents.

But if the foreign drug companies are prevented from selling their products in the US, wouldn't the converse apply?

You rightly say that patents are the issue behind this but that's another argument!

I still don't believe you.

Yes, I can believe that the drug companies have managed to get the Bush Government to outlaw cut-price drugs.

I just don't believe that the drug companies are subsidizing drugs sold elsewhere in the world as you claim.

I mean, they are being granted the privilege of being able to charge what they like in a market which is prohibited to their competitors, why should they feel the need to take a hit when they sell outside of the US? Surely it make sense if you were making a loss in a particular market (which is what you imply), then it would be pointless to try to compete in that market.

Alright, if you are not making a loss, but are just not making the complete skinning which you could make in a protected market, then that's a different matter.

This sounds a little far-fetched to me.

I think that a more believable scenario is that generic medicines may be legal in some countries but are illegal in the US, which, of course means that there is no competing product and therefore the drug companies have a free reign to charge what they want in the US.