The title is written from the perspective of the original problem, not from the solution. It then leads the user through the process of discovering why the bytes were 'disappearing.' From the perspective of the original users the bytes were disappearing.
and just conveniently, X has some features that the owning company doesn't like as it is antithesis to their business model. Therefore, by replacing X with Y, and touting some performance improvements (which is real, but marginal), they get to remove X with plausible deniability.
> Very few people walk around with that amount of cash today.
... because the cops would stop him, insinuate that the money probably had something to do with crime, and then seize it to line their own pockets coughcough I mean "bolster their budgets."
It's tragic that the unbanked (unable to get credit, often paid in cash, just don't have bank accounts) are the ones most likely stop be stopped by police and subject to unjust forfeiture. (With the exception of the Amish.)
Marie Curie was also fine with working with Radium... until we found out that it wasn't good for you. The thing about stuff like cancers is that it's really difficult to say "this person's cancer was caused by X." The best we can do are wide spectrum studies about cancer rates, and try to use statistics to limit the variables.
You know that saying controversial things about Apple has basically always been his schtick. It drives pages views when people get all upset and flood into the site to read the article so that can go back to Hacker News/SlashDot/Reddit/Digg/Fark/Facebook/Twitter/whatever to argue about it.
We're sort of focusing on digital here, but some of the IP rights stuff in the agreement would make certain generic drugs available in Canada illegal... so the prices of medication would go up since you could no long buy the generic brand. I would not say that's a win for Canadians.
The flip side would be more money available for the institutions that actually create new medicines. I'm not saying it's a better tradeoff, just that it's not so single dimensional.
I do not believe those institutions are lacking in funds for research. Even if they get more funds, they will still be incentivized to do R&D only on high-potential opportunities with high probability of product development success. Shareholders wouldn't care to let them just spend money just anywhere and waste it.
Right, and such a concession to be agreed on by Canada would require an equally beneficial concession made by the U.S. no?
I guess I only see 3 scenarios for such a trade agreement.
1) Both parties try to predict future economic growth. So maybe US believes IP protection for drugs would have a huge impact on their economy. But Canada thinks they're wrong, and that they'll make more gains from tax free dairy exports to the US that it will trump the loses from drug IPs. This is what I hope is happening. In which case, whoever can predict best wins.
2) This whole thing is driven by corruption. And the deals are not beneficial to Canada at large, but to special interests within it to which the deal is beneficial, even though it won't be for the average tax payer.
3) The US is using military threat or similar kind of forceful threat in order for Canada to just adopt laws that benefit the US only.
> Right, and such a concession to be agreed on by Canada would require an equally beneficial concession made by the U.S. no?
The way that Trump likes to negotiate that's not necessarily the case. He may think that he can get huge concessions without giving anything in return by just "playing hardball" and issuing threats to terminate negotiations if they don't go his way.
> High prices isn't a signal that we have run out, it is a signal that more mines are needed. It is likely the market will heed the signal.
It is a signal that there is a high demand, and not enough supply (whether naturally or artificially -- e.g. diamonds) to meet that demand. That's it.
Building more mines can only happen if the resources exist to mine. This idea that "the market" is a magic wand to wave at problems really needs to stop. As far as "the market" is concerned, the electric car industry could collapse because it failed to innovate past resource shortages.
In a very real sense, we don't know how many undiscovered resources are out there, we can only estimate them. And the estimates move over time with technological improvement.
