Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • If you put your tin foil hat on just right, you may think that stem cell research could be the biggest area of financial gain in the field of medicine.

    And, you wouldn't want to spoil that by mixing in federal funds and possibly having to put the findings into the public domain.

    Taking the federal money out of the picture makes it a nice... um... "investment opportunity".
    • Backing up in general and ignoring the ethical issues ... that's the way I think it should be, anyway. The government should never fund stuff like this, because then it sets itself up in competition with private business. We should let private investment drive the space program, the educational system, disease research, etc. And I promise you that things would continue to be funded ... witness all the breast cancer marathons and such. In fact, I'm personally pledged that if the government quits taxing m

      --
      J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
      • That is a nice theory, and it would most likely be better than what we have going on right now... if it worked.

        I'm not sure it would... here is why:

        As an investor, I would not want a cure for Aids... or a cure for Cancer. (for example)

        Instead, I would want a drug that allowed you to live a somewhat "normal" life (and in the casee of Aids, I would want you spreading the disease) for as long as you bought and paid for my "cure". This solution would bring a much higher rate of return than a solution that ac
        • Here's why I don't agree with you:

          As an investor, I would not want a cure for Aids... or a cure for Cancer. (for example)

          As an investor WITH AIDS, I would want a cure for AIDS.

          As an investor with relatives WITH AIDS, I would want a cure for AIDS.

          As a member of the public with some money that can be pooled in various charitable uses, I would want a cure for AIDS.

          I think if the public cares enough to vote dollars out of people's pockets for a given cause, then they care enough that they would dona

          --
          J. David works really hard, has a passion for writing good software, and knows many of the world's best Perl programmers
          • Did you or did you not see in my first post where I talked about breast cancer charities?

            Yes. And, I'm not trying to do a point-counter point discussion. I think that there is too much overlap for that... and, I'm not up to it.

            I do see merit in your ideas, I also see merit in my own. I don't think either would work. Mainly because they aren't flexible enough. I tried to allude to that with my last paragraph.

            Is it moral for you to insist that your way is the only way and use the threat of force to take people's money away to do things your way?

            Certainly not. Hopefully I didn't come across as saying that.

            I do believe I should be able to suggest how things be done tho.

            Is it moral for you to take money which does not belong to you if you do something good with it?

            I'm not Robin Hood.

            I believe in the "Golden Rule"... So, I would not do that.

            (To answer your question. I don't believe it is right, and I'll use "right" to mean "moral" in this case. So, no, I don't think it is moral.)

            But... I suspect that you may really be asking about the government doing it on my behalf.

            I like to use thought experiments for situations like this one. Kind of like testing my programs... which means checking the boundary conditions.

            I don't think it would be right (moral) for the government (or anyone else) to take all of my money. That is one boundary.

            I also don't think it is right to get something for nothing. So, I surely can't expect that a person or the government provide me with a product or service with no cost to me. That is the other extreme.

            So that we don't make this a false dichotomy, another option would be no government. That sounds nice. But, I'm not sure it really is... many people believe that if it came down to "survival of the fitest" that they would survice.

            Yet, very few people believe it so much that they would actually put their life on the line. Especially if they don't have to.

            I'm not an anarchist... so, I think that some form of government is needed. And that the government must have some way to provide the "services" that demand it's existence.

            So, in the end, I think that if done PROPERLY money could flow from a citizen to government... and be moral.

            I don't think that happens right now.

            for example, I'd like to see the federal budget set by the taxpayers when they complete their tax forms. Even if it was just broad categories.

            Give me the option of saying I want 50 percent going to education, 20 percent going to highway safety, and 30 percent going to food safety.

            Hopefully you get the idea...