Mo' Gov't!

[JackANSI]

Sounds eerily familiar to other commercials dont it? Thats the sad truth though...

Or the inference that you've got an unsatisfied wife and you need drugs to solve it.

[joltinjeff]

I've found that most handicapped people, and people that are disabled work hard to try and do something with their lives. They don't want their handicap to be all they are. It's the lazy fuckers that like free money that I have the problem with. I know a few, as I'm sure a lot of us do.

[lonewolf]

Why would a drug company want to spend billions of dollars to develop a cure whose patent will run out in a few years when treatments generate a much better cash flow?

Change the pharmaceutical patent laws so that there are 2 basic kinds of patents with a huge difference in length of patent:

Treatments -- 5 years
Cures -- 95 years

This would encourage development of cures rather than treatments and lead to a significant decrease in script demand, not to mention a lot of happy, cured people.

Only moron politicians could come up with a "cost-savings" plan that involved spending a lot more money.

I was thinking about this one on the way to work today.

Let me pitch this commercial after the "Lonewolf: The path to a cure" prescription drug laws take effect.

*Start of commercial*

(a black screen, with the sound of a heartbeat and heart monitor fading in, a few seconds later the beat falters, the heart monitor goes full tone with people crying and a child saying "daddy?..." in the background)

Narrator: Here at A1 Drug Company, we don't believe this should happen to anyone. We've developed a cure for the YYZ-2112 virus that kills hundreds of thousands of people a year.

(fade in the product box photo)

Narrator: For the low price of every-penny-you-got-and-ever-will-have, you can enjoy the rest of your life knowing you won't die from YYZ-2112. Face it, you're going to die either way before the patent expires and when your child gets the virus too, we'll still own it...

(dramatic pause)

Narrator: Whats your life worth to you? We know you can afford it.

*End of commercial*

I changed my stance on this slightly:
To existing patent laws: Add a provision for a 50 year patent extension for bonafide cures.

Don't quit your day job for Madison Avenue. What don't you understand about drug companies needing to make a return on their $multi-billion$ research programs? May I suggest that you watch the fiscal cheerleaders on CNBC so that you can understand some of the concepts of free-market capitalism.

With an extended patent period for a bonafide cure, companies would have enough time to recoup expenses and finally make profits without having to price it out of reach. Without an extension, any cures would have to be recouped in a much shorter period, so the cost would be proportionally higher. Its very simple: no profits, no cures.

A high-priced cure is better than what we have now:

High-priced lifelong treatments (this is what is sucking us dry)
No cure at all

There are anti-trust laws to keep prices from getting out of hand.

For decades, I have heard about the "wonders of modern medicine", yet I don't recall one single important cure that has been developed. There is no incentive to invent cures, so we will not have any new ones until there is.

[JackANSI]

Why would a drug company want to spend billions of dollars to develop a cure whose patent will run out in a few years when treatments generate a much better cash flow?

Change the pharmaceutical patent laws so that there are 2 basic kinds of patents with a huge difference in length of patent:

Treatments -- 5 years
Cures -- 95 years

This would encourage development of cures rather than treatments and lead to a significant decrease in script demand, not to mention a lot of happy, cured people.

Only moron politicians could come up with a "cost-savings" plan that involved spending a lot more money.

I was thinking about this one on the way to work today.

Let me pitch this commercial after the "Lonewolf: The path to a cure" prescription drug laws take effect.

*Start of commercial*

(a black screen, with the sound of a heartbeat and heart monitor fading in, a few seconds later the beat falters, the heart monitor goes full tone with people crying and a child saying "daddy?..." in the background)

Narrator: Here at A1 Drug Company, we don't believe this should happen to anyone. We've developed a cure for the YYZ-2112 virus that kills hundreds of thousands of people a year.

(fade in the product box photo)

Narrator: For the low price of every-penny-you-got-and-ever-will-have, you can enjoy the rest of your life knowing you won't die from YYZ-2112. Face it, you're going to die either way before the patent expires and when your child gets the virus too, we'll still own it...

(dramatic pause)

Narrator: Whats your life worth to you? We know you can afford it.

*End of commercial*

I changed my stance on this slightly:
To existing patent laws: Add a provision for a 50 year patent extension for bonafide cures.

Don't quit your day job for Madison Avenue. What don't you understand about drug companies needing to make a return on their $multi-billion$ research programs? May I suggest that you watch the fiscal cheerleaders on CNBC so that you can understand some of the concepts of free-market capitalism.

With an extended patent period for a bonafide cure, companies would have enough time to recoup expenses and finally make profits without having to price it out of reach. Without an extension, any cures would have to be recouped in a much shorter period, so the cost would be proportionally higher. Its very simple: no profits, no cures.

A high-priced cure is better than what we have now:

High-priced lifelong treatments (this is what is sucking us dry)
No cure at all

There are anti-trust laws to keep prices from getting out of hand.

For decades, I have heard about the "wonders of modern medicine", yet I don't recall one single important cure that has been developed. There is no incentive to invent cures, so we will not have any new ones until there is.

Never said they're not allowed to make money on a cure.. In fact I'm suggesting that depending on what the cure is for, they could make much more than the cost was, quite easily

You assume too much.

They have no motivation to keep prices low. How much is your life worth? Thats what they'll charge for a complete cure for a deadly disease.

[RobTheDrummer]

You wanna see where this spending and more government will get us?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comm ... ckons.html

[Naga]

I've found that most handicapped people, and people that are disabled work hard to try and do something with their lives. They don't want their handicap to be all they are. It's the lazy fuckers that like free money that I have the problem with. I know a few, as I'm sure a lot of us do.

First let me say this ... I live in government housing out of fuckin necessity not by choice. My wife works full time as an LPN and I only work part time. We have three kids, to rent a house with $500-$600 in rent alone, plus water/sewage; heating; groceries; clothes; car insurance; car payments; cable; phone and electric. It's hard.

There are ppl who live in the same housing project as I do who dont do shit. I umpire Little League baseball, announce basketball games plus cover sports and news for a local paper. My youngest son is mildly mentally handicapped and gets SSI. We take that money to pay our rent with which is based on our income.

I am sorry if I seem a little testy, but I hate to be bunched with ppl who live in government housing nearly for free while I pay over $500 in rent. Just because I live in government housing doesnt mean that I am a fat lazy bastard!!!!

I'd just consider yourself an example of a human being doing all he can to survive, tooth and nail. There's a difference between someone who's not doing anything and not making anything, just wasting everything, and someone who HAS to use a system for what it was DESIGNED for... To help people in YOUR situation. These systems weren't designed for a woman to lay on her back while her 3 (perfectly healthy) kids make her money through her lies and her b/f, who also doesn't have a job, sells drugs... These systems were designed in the case of someone who CAN'T afford to survive, paying for all these medications their child NEEDS to be considered "normal"

As pessimistic as I am about practically EVERYTHING the government does, I do hope that they get it right, FINALLY!

[Naga]

BTW, did anyone see the latest setback in the whole thing? They're now holding it back, because it doesn't define ABORTION in the entire thing!!!

[JackANSI]

Everything you need to know about american politics:

Guide to American Politics

edit: wow the BBCode on rockpage is full of bugs

[Ron]

Everything you need to know about american politics:

Guide to American Politics

edit: wow the BBCode on rockpage is full of bugs

It's not the bbcode it's wikipedia's idiotic practice of allowing parentheses in urls. Hackers frequently use parens in SQL injection hacks, so any decent parser won't allow it.

[RobTheDrummer]

BTW, did anyone see the latest setback in the whole thing? They're now holding it back, because it doesn't define ABORTION in the entire thing!!!

Yea, that's only one setback. The whole thing is stupid.

[JackANSI]

Everything you need to know about american politics:

Guide to American Politics

edit: wow the BBCode on rockpage is full of bugs

It's not the bbcode it's wikipedia's idiotic practice of allowing parentheses in urls. Hackers frequently use parens in SQL injection hacks, so any decent parser won't allow it.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt

They are allowed via the URI generic syntax. Its not wikipedia's practice that is idiotic. It is code and parsers that ignore standards that are idiotic.

[songsmith]

Its very simple: no profits, no cures.

A high-priced cure is better than what we have now:

.

Why are drugs cheaper in Canada? People were going there and ordering from the internet until the pro-pharmaceutical folks had it outlawed... they said it wasn't safe to buy drugs from other countries, but Canadian drugs would probably be made right here.
I should note that, yes, I've been listening to all the anecdotal horror stories on the radio from the UK and Canada, so I know where this conversation is going, but I thought I'd point out something they don't mention. Also, the hospital people and Big Pharmacol have agreed to huge pay cuts... why hasn't the insurance industry?--->JMS

[lonewolf]

Its very simple: no profits, no cures.

A high-priced cure is better than what we have now:

.

Why are drugs cheaper in Canada? People were going there and ordering from the internet until the pro-pharmaceutical folks had it outlawed... they said it wasn't safe to buy drugs from other countries, but Canadian drugs would probably be made right here.
I should note that, yes, I've been listening to all the anecdotal horror stories on the radio from the UK and Canada, so I know where this conversation is going, but I thought I'd point out something they don't mention. Also, the hospital people and Big Pharmacol have agreed to huge pay cuts... why hasn't the insurance industry?--->JMS

Sorry John, I don't know, but I'll bet it has something to do with one of the governments.

[Banned]

Its very simple: no profits, no cures.

A high-priced cure is better than what we have now:

.

Why are drugs cheaper in Canada? People were going there and ordering from the internet until the pro-pharmaceutical folks had it outlawed... they said it wasn't safe to buy drugs from other countries, but Canadian drugs would probably be made right here.
I should note that, yes, I've been listening to all the anecdotal horror stories on the radio from the UK and Canada, so I know where this conversation is going, but I thought I'd point out something they don't mention. Also, the hospital people and Big Pharmacol have agreed to huge pay cuts... why hasn't the insurance industry?--->JMS

Sorry John, I don't know, but I'll bet it has something to do with one of the governments.

You might have something there Wolfie. The Canadian Socialist government subsidizes the cost of medicine, so that is why the cost is lower. But for every busload of folks that go up to Canada to buy their medicine, 2 busloads of Canadian citizens come south to get medical treatment before they die waiting for care.

[songsmith]

But for every busload of folks that go up to Canada to buy their medicine, 2 busloads of Canadian citizens come south to get medical treatment before they die waiting for care.

...And the Canadian healthcare horror stories begin , on cue. So the neo media would report. The death rate is no higher in Canada than here, infant mortality is lower. There isn't much time left in Foxworld to report US healthcare horror stories, though they happen here as often as in CAN. Here, an insurance man makes the final decision on what they pay for, and many pre-existing health problems won't be covered. Medical malpractice is also a fairly common cause of death here.
Want to see the failure of the US healthcare system? Next time you see a change jar at a store, look to see the kid's name, and what he needs money for. Maybe write him a note, saying, "Tough sh*t, kid." The system is NOT some grand model that other countries look up to as a shining example. The Foxers never actually say that, because that's easy enough to disprove, but they phrase their reporting so that it's inferred. What do they call that again... Oh, yeah. Spin.--->JMS

[Ron]

Everything you need to know about american politics:

Guide to American Politics

edit: wow the BBCode on rockpage is full of bugs

It's not the bbcode it's wikipedia's idiotic practice of allowing parentheses in urls. Hackers frequently use parens in SQL injection hacks, so any decent parser won't allow it.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt

They are allowed via the URI generic syntax. Its not wikipedia's practice that is idiotic. It is code and parsers that ignore standards that are idiotic.

From the ietf link:
The mark characters that are typically unsafe to decode, including the exclamation mark ("!"), asterisk ("*"), single-quote ("'"), and open and close parentheses ("(" and ")"), have been moved to the reserved set in order to clarify the distinction between reserved and unreserved and, hopefully, to answer the most common question of scheme designers.

[JackANSI]

It's not the bbcode it's wikipedia's idiotic practice of allowing parentheses in urls. Hackers frequently use parens in SQL injection hacks, so any decent parser won't allow it.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt

They are allowed via the URI generic syntax. Its not wikipedia's practice that is idiotic. It is code and parsers that ignore standards that are idiotic.

From the ietf link:
The mark characters that are typically unsafe to decode, including the exclamation mark ("!"), asterisk ("*"), single-quote ("'"), and open and close parentheses ("(" and ")"), have been moved to the reserved set in order to clarify the distinction between reserved and unreserved and, hopefully, to answer the most common question of scheme designers.

reserved = gen-delims / sub-delims

gen-delims = ":" / "/" / "?" / "#" / "[" / "]" / "@"

sub-delims = "!" / "$" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")"
/ "*" / "+" / "," / ";" / "="

The purpose of reserved characters is to provide a set of delimiting
characters that are distinguishable from other data within a URI.
URIs that differ in the replacement of a reserved character with its
corresponding percent-encoded octet are not equivalent. Percent-
encoding a reserved character, or decoding a percent-encoded octet
that corresponds to a reserved character, will change how the URI is
interpreted by most applications. Thus, characters in the reserved
set are protected from normalization and are therefore safe to be
used by scheme-specific and producer-specific algorithms for
delimiting data subcomponents within a URI.

Roughly meaning that wikipedia's use of the () to define the sub-context of their article with (game) in their URI is valid.



If injection attacks are so important to defend against, then I suggest a query trap that pre-screens your queries, rather than reduced functionality or compatibility. Besides, phpbb3 doesn't have a problem with them at all; phpbb2 is EoL as of Jan 1, 2009.

If you need a hand updating to 3, let me know.

[DirtySanchez]

Just because I live in government housing doesnt mean that I am a fat lazy bastard!!!!

And Just because I'm a fat lazy bastard doesn't mean I live in Govt. Housing!!!!!


this thread is the lolingest fucking thing I've ever read on here, and that's really saying something.

Someone plz argue with me about it.

[DirtySanchez]

If you work 34 hours a week and are not given health benefits and contract a terminal disease, it's your own doing. Even if you work two 25 hour jobs a week and die due to inadequate health care, you brought that on yourself. You're too lazy to get a full-time job and pay for your own health care. The Constitution states that we have the right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Nowhere does it say that we have the right to life, just that we have the right to the pursuit of life. The American health care system is the best in the world. Why? Because it's capitalism at its best. If there were not government bureaucracy, the market would bring health care costs down to a premium everyone could afford. The market solves everything. That's why we need to implement an anarcho-capitalistic system and get rid of that socialist, B Hussein.

Why can't you write more songs like "Free for All"?

[witchhunt]

I'd love to see Ted accidently blow his own head off. Now that would be fucking funny.

[DirtySanchez]

You are my new favorite poster.

[lonewolf]

The Constitution states that we have the right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Nowhere does it say that we have the right to life, just that we have the right to the pursuit of life.

Actually the Constitution doesn't state this. You must be thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which is not an active legal document.

Your phrase is also incorrect. The sentence reads:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The nearest references to this phrase in the Constitution are in Amendments 5 & 14 which states that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

[Ron]

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt

They are allowed via the URI generic syntax. Its not wikipedia's practice that is idiotic. It is code and parsers that ignore standards that are idiotic.

From the ietf link:
The mark characters that are typically unsafe to decode, including the exclamation mark ("!"), asterisk ("*"), single-quote ("'"), and open and close parentheses ("(" and ")"), have been moved to the reserved set in order to clarify the distinction between reserved and unreserved and, hopefully, to answer the most common question of scheme designers.

reserved = gen-delims / sub-delims

gen-delims = ":" / "/" / "?" / "#" / "[" / "]" / "@"

sub-delims = "!" / "$" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")"
/ "*" / "+" / "," / ";" / "="

The purpose of reserved characters is to provide a set of delimiting
characters that are distinguishable from other data within a URI.
URIs that differ in the replacement of a reserved character with its
corresponding percent-encoded octet are not equivalent. Percent-
encoding a reserved character, or decoding a percent-encoded octet
that corresponds to a reserved character, will change how the URI is
interpreted by most applications. Thus, characters in the reserved
set are protected from normalization and are therefore safe to be
used by scheme-specific and producer-specific algorithms for
delimiting data subcomponents within a URI.

Roughly meaning that wikipedia's use of the () to define the sub-context of their article with (game) in their URI is valid.



If injection attacks are so important to defend against, then I suggest a query trap that pre-screens your queries, rather than reduced functionality or compatibility. Besides, phpbb3 doesn't have a problem with them at all; phpbb2 is EoL as of Jan 1, 2009.

If you need a hand updating to 3, let me know.

Thanks Rob, but this isn't really phpbb2, haha. I do have a query trap and it rejects anything unsafe coming into here. I'm safe, I just don't want unsafe links to be used as an attack on other sites, and the parens can allow that.

This is a sticky point for many developers right now and the popularity of wikipedia is turning up the heat. A software developer has to make a choice with parens in a URL, either allow them or disallow them, because the developer can't predict what a user is going to type into a text box. Is the paren part of a URL or is it just a paren? Should I percent encode it or not? Is it being used as a delimiter or part of a smiley face?

I've already researched this whenever the first wikipedia link with a paren was posted here. The general consensus I've found is that most developers are just saying "No" when allowing parens in URL's because they are generally unsafe, and I agree.

To allow parens like wikipedia does is a safe practice for them because they are parsing the URI in the end. But it has an impact on any software that tries to work with their seemingly malformed links. It's just bad practice.