The reason that drug companies charge so much for medicine in the US, is because nobody seems to want to stop them doing so. They like doing it, because they like getting rich. It is basically, in the case of many medications, a licensed monopoly. The case of insulin is an interesting one. For a person with Type 1 diabetes, insulin is literally a life saving medication. Yet, the price is massive. On diabetic forums, there are reports of examples of people who die, because they cannot afford their insulin. Eventually, the few insulin manufacturers will get hit with a huge wrongful death suit. Hopefully, it will be soon. The drug company claims about research are factually bullshit. If one looks closely at their accounts, it is common for the funds dedicated to research to be a third, or less of what they spend on marketing. Also, as has already been noted, the bulk of the real research is done by academics. There is then the issue of licensing. This is an involved and expensive process. However, the drug companies game the system. They pay researchers to do the work -- this taints the objectivity of the research. The goal of big Pharma is to get a new product to market, with a high profit margin. Actual, effectiveness of the medicine is a secondary goal, as it is all about the bottom line. Hopefully, someone will take steps to reign in these criminal enterprises. After all, a new 'war on drugs' could be a popular campaign slogan and it might actually do some good.

In the 1980s, I interviewed for an entry level graduate position with BA, to work with their IT systems. Their people were arrogant and ignorant. When I asked them what languages their systems were written in, the HR droids had no clue. I never got a call back and I am very glad about that. Although the corporate culture has probably changed many times since then, it seems that their attitudes have not improved any. The fact that the head honcho will not take responsibility now is no surprise. I bet he will keep on taking his over-inflated salary and bonuses though.

The claims about so-called 'mentalese' and Fodor here are pretty transparently bogus. Why is it that people so often like to talk about philosophy, which they clearly do not understand? So, this is yet another case of 'nothing to see here, please move along'.

Although this study is good for grabbing headlines, the analysis seems a little bit shallow. For one thing, the focus is on STEM (Science, Technology, Mathematics and Engineering) disciplines, As someone who teaches at the college level in both a STEM field and a traditional humanities field, I am well aware that different areas require different methods. For instance, if one is teaching the basics of computational cognitive modeling, then some interactive segments are necessary. However, things work entriely differently if one is teaching, for instance, the history of the philosophy of mind. Another issue I have with the study is (as best I can tell -- I cannot access the original paper) that they do not control for lecturer effectiveness. To put it simply, we all know that some people are better at lecturing than others. That being said, even when teaching say, Cartesian Dualism, there are steps that can be taken to make lecture classes better. For instance, it is widely known that most humans have an attention span of between 10 to 20 minutes. So, it is simple enough to give everyone a break every twelve minutes, or so and tell a story, or some historical anecdote. Similarly, the Socratic approach, asking for input from students throughout the class and then encouraging discussion, can also make lectures much more effective and enjoyable. These are some of the things I do. That being said, I have known people who just drone on in a monotone, in lecture classes. Folks such as that can be utterly tedious. My point here is that unless the effectiveness of the teachers is taken into account, this study cannot be trusted.

This is all disinformation. I read on the Internet that it was going to be a zombie apocalypse. Hell, even the government has plans preparing for it!

If they are a publicly listed company, then they will probably have 'Investor Relations' information posted somewhere. This is often the fast route to the top of the corporate ladder. Look at the Board members and VPs and determine who would be most likely responsible. Then try and send them an e-mail. Many e-mail addresses are not posted, but are easy to guess. Try the obvious ones systematically (e.g. joeblow@megacorp.com, joe.blow@megacorp.com, etc, until one does not generate an e-mail bounce. I have had good luck with this method with major corporations, as a mere customer. It has even worked with senior political figures in the US government. If this does not work, then try sending an e-mail to the generic 'Investor Relations' e-mail, do not say too much, but ask to be passed on to the relevant person. Using this method, I was able to get to the top of the BP ladder during the Gulf Oil Spill. Needless to say, I was unable to persuade BP to stop acting like jackasses, but at least I got my concerns heard. A final strategy is to file against them in small claims court. This is often cheap and easy to do and does not require a lawyer. There are usually limits to the amount you can claim, so just file for a portion of the bill. No matter how many lawyers they have, they hate to have to have them show up (usually at US$250+ per hour) and argue the case. Good luck!

While there have been advances since the 1980s, as best I can tell most of this report is yet more A.I. vaporware. It is easy to put out a press release. It is much harder to do the science to back it up. How did this even get posted on the/. front page? If this stuff was true, I'd be happy, as most of my career has been working with so-called 'neural nets'. However, they are not neural, that is just a terminological ploy to get grants (anyone ever heard of the credit assignment problem with bp?) Also, there have been some compelling proofs that most neural networks are just statistical machines. So, move on. Nothing to see here folks, etc.

Hi all, This should be an informal gathering of local Slashdot fans. However, please do not forget to say that you will be attending. This will be needed so that we can claim our free t-shirts. Also, do not forget to spread the word! However, time is getting short. Everyone who wants to get a shirt needs to be signed up by the 29th of Sepr.

When I upgraded from Ubuntu 10.04 to 12.04 I ran into exactly this problem. It was a total pain. I looked around the Ubuntu forums, but found very little of anything helpful. I also looked at the Dell Mini 10v forums (as this is the affected computer), but again found nothing. While doing this though, I got increasingly annoyed with both the freezes and the Unity desk top. So, I installed KDE. What do you know, I no longer see the damn bug and I have a desktop that is much more suited to my needs. If you are having this problem, it might be worth giving it a try. Easy to follow instruction can be found at http://blog.sudobits.com/2012/04/14/how-to-install-kde-desktop-on-ubuntu-12-04/.

This seems typical of the world of publishing today. Many publishers are merely money making machines, with little regard for either students, or knowledge. Unfortunately, as publishers adopt more and more predatory practices, they end up pissing off both students and professors. There is one major academic publisher in my field Cengage (who operate under many other names), whose books I now refuse to use. They update editions every three years, doing little more than changing page numbers and changing the order of exercises. Each new edition comes with a substantial price hike and force me to rework sections of my classes. The result of this? I now have the equivalent of an on-line text I have developed myself over the years. So, they have lost the business.

It is the very same publishing houses who are mean about sending us desk copies and charge us for them, if we do not adopt their texts. Again, they end up as losers, as there is no incentive to use their texts. They also get pissy when we sell the books that they send to us, without our asking. This again is silly. In the State in which I teach, professors have not had a pay rise in four years, so a few bucks to buy lunch was a welcome perk. Stopping this perk does not make us like them any more.

That being said, not all publishers are like this. Some keep their editions for a long time and do not change much when they bring out new editions. A good example of this is Oxford University Press. So, when I need to use a text for a class, all the business goes to OUP. This is the correct way to do business in publishing. It should not be about quarterly results, but rather about building and maintaining long term relationships. The technological innovation described in the post is just yet another step in the wrong direction. Eventually though, publishers will have to work out the errors of their ways, or perish./p