The problem is that the drugs aren't affordable at all, and Bayer has a monopoly on this drug. What alternative is there when no one else is allowed to make the drug?
Bayer more than made their money back already, and will continue making money off this drug for some time. I'd say the risk is gone at this point. Now they're just required to accept competition. Competition is good, it forces prices down and quality up.
The whole point of the patent granting a monopoly is to mitigate risk. When you've turned a profit, there's no longer risk. The point of the monopoly is gone once the risk is gone. A monopoly is generally harmful to an economy as well as to the public. The moment the monopoly is no longer needed, it should be removed to lessen the harm caused by the monopoly as much as possible.
The fact that Bayer is resorting to flat out lying to try to maintain its monopoly, even after making a profit on this drug, says all I need to know about them and their motives.
Interesting fact, he's not signed onto either of them. Here's his list of record labels internationally: Bidman, LNLT Entertainment, YG Entertainment, YGEX, Avex Trax, Republic, and Schoolboy. Unless one of those is an alias used by Universal or Sony (I'm not aware of that being the case) then they don't have authority to claim copyright. Further more, he became incredibly popular before signing on to some of these, so he may have been able to negotiate a contract in which he keeps his own copyright, and the label's just have to settle for a license to sell his work.
The big thing that draws people to Facebook is often its games, sad as that is. Those games usually operate like a Skinner Box. Small rewards constantly (xp and currency), random larger rewards (new pony or something), and of course, electric shocks if you don't continue (crops withering). The idea is to keep you hooked. You want to play because of the rewards, and you feel compelled to play because of your friends playing, and the game's systematic punishments inflicted upon your "farm" if you don't continue to maintain it. This is why there's that 4th step.
If the building is on fire, just how are you going to be verifying if the user is out of the building? Generally, in the event of a fire, there's a specific plan people follow, and everyone gathers together into the same place to ensure that everyone is accounted for, and everyone made it out. Anyone not there is probably still in the building. Where is intense heat can damage the chip if the kid was caught in the fire, the sensors can also be damaged, making the RFID system unreliable at best, assuming you can even get to the system to make the check in the first place.
Here's another thought, what if the chip shows as active, and being in the school, because the owner gave it to a friend, who hid it in their bag, then left the bag in the school? Now you've got a false report of some one in the building who really isn't.
In regards to the comment about knowing what classes she was in, that's a simple solution. Traditional roll call already does that. RFID does not add some sort of magic new functionality, and in fact, is easier to abuse. Want to appear in school, but not actually be there? Give your card to a friend to carry with them along with their own. Traditional roll call involves the teacher actually verifying with their own eyes the presence of the student. Even using cards that you swipe, it can be fooled. In the aforementioned friend helping you appear present, simply carry the badge with their own, scan both, then enter.
Actually, it does. It only works from distance measured in feet, so you have to have multiple detectors scattered through the school. You can tell where they are based on which detector is scanning them.
It's not responsible for tracking, because in order to do their jobs, they need only make sure the student is in class. Making sure they are in the building, but not in class, doesn't make sense, taking credit for the student being present in the school but "playing hooky" is the opposite of what it should be doing.
Want to verify the student is in the building? Give them a scannable badge, not RFID, then have them scan to enter, and to leave. Problem solved. This with out going overboard on monitoring that tells the exact location of each and every student, where they go, and at what time of day.
That would be fine. The problem with RFID is the degree to which it enables you to be tracked, such as seeing when you go to the bathroom, as well as other safety concerns regarding the personal data stored on those cards in an unencrypted format. Simply having an accurate means of verifying you went to class is not such a big deal. Stick a QR code that represents your student ID number on a card, scan it as you enter class, and they know you are there, they know if you're on time or tardy, and they don't see what you do, or where you go, when you aren't in your classroom.
Truth is, we don't really even need a change to the traditional system, roll call is effective for this, and takes only a minute or two. The whole thing is just a ploy for more money from the district.
1) To protect both the driver as well as pedestrians and other drivers, people need to be fully trained in the use of a motor vehicle. A Driver's license is proof of having completed the training, and that you know and are capable of employing the methods needed to keep yourself and others safe. It does not emit a signal for law enforcement to track your whereabouts.
2) The school is not responsible for tracking her. It is responsible for teaching her, and maintaining a safe environment through out the school.
3) There isn't a difference just in the terminology. The problem is in what the tracking system is designed to do, the whole "big brother" aspect, where you are practically followed and stalked as you go through the school, as opposed to merely carrying a non-tracking license.
In response to earlier criticisms regarding religious persecution (not yours), it isn't merely a claim if you are the only one of that religion who refused to use wear the tracker, and the only one who is suspended, while others not of your religion also refuse to wear it, and are not punished. It could be that it was some one randomly chosen, but the details aren't sufficient to determine if that's the case
Actually, a fact of english. When you pluralize something that isn't a word, the only time you don't use the apostrophe is when there's no letters. 7s, 9s, 28s, etc. When letters are involved, you use apostrophes. A5's, DJ's, etc. This is done intentionally, so that you don't mistake the 's' as being part of the collection of letters/numbers, a part of the abbreviation or initialization.
Keep in mind that the others get to hear the remarks by this minority. With them showing significant understanding of the effects of this ruling the others may not have realized, they can still be persuaded that the minority is right, and ruling for Wiley is bad.
Sadly, I can see this decision possibly destroying what's left of the economy, if they rule in favor of Wiley. Every one will start moving all their business overseas, along with all the jobs it entails.
Having worked for a couple credit card companies, I can tell you this much. That won't work for certain monthly recurring transactions that are preauthorized from a previous month. I used to get angry calls quite frequently when I worked Capital One's Investigative Solutions department (Disputes, before it got outsourced to India). People demanding to know why we were letting the merchant charge their accounts despite them having cancelled and replaced the card. The reason is that due to federal regulations, we were not legally allowed to block those transactions and had to let them follow to the new card, despite only the old card number being used for the charge. As such, this strategy might not work. Of course, it depends on how the transaction is done.
Secondly, actor salaries are more grossly inflated that even those of athletes. This is where the majority of the money is going
This is only true if you go for the major celebrity actors. If you aren't one of them, those movie studios feel perfectly free to rip you off. An example is My Big Fat Greek Wedding, which cost $5 million to make, grossed $368 million, a 6150% return, and yet the film "lost" money thanks to studio accounting methods, and the entire cast had to sue in order to get their share of the money, and get paid. It's not the paychecks of the stars that uses up all the money, it's the labels finding any method they can in order to claim more than their share, the same as with major record labels.
Correct. The Judge won't read those rights, because it's not his job or responsibility. The arresting officer is the one who is required to read those rights. The accused can bring this up to the judge how ever, at which point the judge can decide what the correct course of action would be. Generally speaking, if this can be proven, or at least, you can convince the judge this is the case, this can mean throwing out evidence obtained as a result of you not knowing your rights. If there's not enough evidence left to prosecute, you will likely be released, though not necessarily immediately.
The officer's claim was that the man tried to ram his way out of being pulled over, crashing into the officer's car to force his way out. Had this been correct, there could be legitimate reason to believe his life was in danger, and shooting could have been legitimate. But this was far too excessive for something like that, and the lie was exposed, there's no excuse for opening fire at all.
There are other reasons that lethal force can be the best choice that do not involve a firearm. A man charging a cop with a knife is such an example. Police are trained to "shoot to stop" in such a situation. That means take aim and hit something that is easy to hit, namely, the largest part of the body. This can be lethal, but it's a shot that can be made more easily during a time of high stress that would occur in such a situation.
Any situation in which a cop honestly believes some one is going to kill him, either intentionally or not, can make a shooting justified, regardless of whether a firearm is involved.