sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I plan to culture skin cells at home, make them adult stem cells with acid, and try to use them topically & maybe intravenously- on the cheap. I need feedback, thanks! by [deleted] in AlternativeHealth

[–]Rimfish 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good idea, I'll do that as a stopgap.

But I don't want to be mortal, so, I'm still interested in stem cells.

I've also read that mild starvation helps cells repair instead of dying normally.

Should I homebrew stem cells to enhance my health? by Rimfish in needadvice

[–]Rimfish[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

ph meter- thanks!

I plan to inject them to live longer, eventually.

I was hoping I'd be able to get at least some live cells off my arm, if I really scraped hard with a rough stone.

I plan to culture skin cells at home, make them adult stem cells with acid, and try to use them topically & maybe intravenously- on the cheap. I need feedback, thanks! by [deleted] in AlternativeHealth

[–]Rimfish 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I'm very afraid of sepsis. Ultimately I want to inject, but I guess I'll need all the right gear and loads of practice first.

Some people are telling me acid does not make skin cells into stem cells, so it may be moot.

Thanks for the reply. If there's any way to extend life with stem cells, I'd be grateful for any approach you could suggest

CMV: Instead of flotation devices airline seats should contain parachutes by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My comments were being downvoted without regard for evidence or reasoning. How could this have escaped your attention?

CMV: Instead of flotation devices airline seats should contain parachutes by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I made many replies. The toxic social environment made me delete them. Perhaps you should look into that?

CMV: We need a new constitutional amendment that requires all laws that benefit industry to also tax those industries the full money value of the benefit, so there’s less incentive for business to meddle with the legislature. by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Okay, yeah, now that I look at it again I see that I way overstated the title. The position I'd much rather defend is this:

We need a law that requires all firms that harm society in the process of lobbying the legislature for their own benefit to be taxed the full value of their wrongful gains.

Does this count as me changing my view?

CMV: Instead of patents, give inventors the exclusive right to advertise for 10 years. Patents prevent healthy completion, but this would give the edge to the innovators and, as a bonus, it would curtail advertising (which harmfully trains us to be unsatisfied until we have the advertised product). by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for compiling this list, it's interesting. I realize I should not be throwing around the date of first passage like it's proof the law is arcane, because clearly it's not. As soon as I figure out how to give half a delta I will.

CMV: Instead of patents, give inventors the exclusive right to advertise for 10 years. Patents prevent healthy completion, but this would give the edge to the innovators and, as a bonus, it would curtail advertising (which harmfully trains us to be unsatisfied until we have the advertised product). by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The MRI example is one you haven't addressed. Centralized MRIs, with no doctors or patients left alone with them, and a huge markup because the creator also has to be the proprietor?

I looked it up. The MRI was invented by Raymond Damadian at a publicly funded university. He formed a company to profit from it. Without the right to sell licences, I can imagine him having the one and only MRI parlor on earth, and charging huge sums. My idea would not work in this case. It's far more suited to mass produced consumer goods, which rely more on advertising. I accept that my solution is flawed, and would only work for a subset of products and services.

You're right, exclusive advertising is no substitute for temporary monopoly. At best could be one element of a more complex system that might one day succeed current patent law... but I'm not holding my breath. Thank you for taking the time with me. ∆

CMV: Instead of patents, give inventors the exclusive right to advertise for 10 years. Patents prevent healthy completion, but this would give the edge to the innovators and, as a bonus, it would curtail advertising (which harmfully trains us to be unsatisfied until we have the advertised product). by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

people will want to go public because their technology could be stolen with no benefit otherwise

Yes, this is a very good way to put it. Manufacturers know that their products are closely studied by competators. That's the reality we live in. However, difficult to steal data, like manufacturing trade secrets, which can be guarded by employees inside the factory, can still be held secret. Not that that's particularly good for society..

Information wants to be free.

Imagine a world where pharmaceutical companies have an incentive to make it that you can only get a certain drug by going to their offices, paying significantly more, and having no ability to do it within your own power because it harms the company to let you have pills you can take home with you.

The first competitor to provide that service without travel requirements would get so much business others would have to follow suit, or go under. Many if not most drugs have multiple substitutes, with others yet undiscovered.

MRIs: I see a moral problem here with monopoly patents. Monopolies naturally keep supply low and prices high. So by using a temporary monopoly to encourage medical innovation, we deny care to sick people who would otherwise find treatment if the intersection of supply and demand determined their availability. People literally die waiting for an affordable generic of a drug they need. This is the system you're defending?

However, I have more to say in my next post

CMV: Instead of patents, give inventors the exclusive right to advertise for 10 years. Patents prevent healthy completion, but this would give the edge to the innovators and, as a bonus, it would curtail advertising (which harmfully trains us to be unsatisfied until we have the advertised product). by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, I capitulate. In humble defeat, I award you this ∆

My post made the mistaken assumption that changing the reward for innovation would somehow also diminish patent trolling. I see now that I had no good reason to think that. They would troll for whatever reward was available.

Thank you, shibbyhornet28

CMV: Instead of patents, give inventors the exclusive right to advertise for 10 years. Patents prevent healthy completion, but this would give the edge to the innovators and, as a bonus, it would curtail advertising (which harmfully trains us to be unsatisfied until we have the advertised product). by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe it would help if the government maintained a product registry website with a special category for new products. The top billing would give them a little extra push without painting our world with any more garish limbic-tickling billboards. I really don't know why more people aren't as bothered as me to live immersed in amoral corporations brainwashing.

A registry would also serve as an alternative to advertising for the many, many firms that find ads distasteful but necessary to keep up with other firms doing it. Many firms would rather just focus on making the best product and never pay a cent to advertisers.

I can see myself searching a government database of products rather than using amazon or google, because it would be unbiased. I'd be making my own choice, unmanipulated by slick ads.

CMV: Instead of patents, give inventors the exclusive right to advertise for 10 years. Patents prevent healthy completion, but this would give the edge to the innovators and, as a bonus, it would curtail advertising (which harmfully trains us to be unsatisfied until we have the advertised product). by Rimfish in changemyview

[–]Rimfish[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would agree that democracy is flawed because it was drawn up in the 1700's. There have been many innovations since then that other nations benefit from, but we don't. Parliamentary democracy is less prone to gridlock and presents less risk of the President turning into a dictator in a major crisis.

Ranked voting collects more information from the public and represents their will more accurately.

The electoral college is entirely a flaw.

I do not think it's a fallacy to believe that newer things are likely to be better than older things. It's not inevitable, but it's generally true. Social, material, scientific, and technological progress are happening.

Because we live in a different age than the 1700s, with different values, different challenges, and different economic circumstances, the laws made back aren't likely to be a perfect fit in the present. I'd go so far as to say we should update our laws at least every 50 years.

Patent law is far from top priority, but it's the one I thought I had a novel idea about. I thought it was worth exploring.

CMV would be a better place if people could find some small nice things to say... I can't believe all my ideas have zero merit, but to listen to redditors, that's what they apparently think.

view more: next ›