When people say "I don't believe in coincidence," they are saying there is some sort of universal queue, where only one event can happen at any given time. And the communication with the queue has to be instantaneous, across billions of light years. It's just completely nutty!
Feel free to hate Martin Shkreli, but realize that the drug in question has been around for more than 60 years, and the reason he could charge what he was charging for it is because the government makes it very difficult for competitors to make generic versions of the same drug (in this case, the patent expired, but Shkreli was attempting to use other government regulations to prevent competitors from doing what was necessary to get FDA approval for generic versions).
This drug is so common and cheap that it costs less than $1 US in most countries, but Shkreli was charging $750. Reportedly some hospitals just make the drug in-house, on-demand.
Apparently, there now is a generic equivalent in the U.S. But the only reason why the price could be so high is because there wasn't any other option. And yes, the reasons why there was only one option wasn't entirely caused by government -- it was a low-demand and low-margin product -- but the reason why Shkreli could raise the price without worrying about competition undercutting him is mostly due to government regulation.
So another businessman is evil greedy and the US government is working against the good of its own people. Sounds a bit like everyday life in the USA to me. We love it, we leave it or we fight to change it.
Assuming the results hold up through the Iowa state convention, the difference between Trump's and Rubio's finish is zero. They both get seven delegates. And Cruz gets eight.
It's similar for the Democrats: Clinbton gets 22 and Sanders gets 21. Or maybe vice versa.
One delegate wil not make the difference in the end. All of this energy and posturing about the difference between first and second/third place, who "won" and "lost," is all about marketing, not about one delegate.
Last night’s Republican debate on Fox News offered a brief glimpse at a race without Donald Trump. And what that glimpse showed us was a race that is smarter, more substantive, and better at revealing the spirited differences of policy, personality, and ideology in the Republican primary field.
+Peter Thoenen I think I see what you're getting at (there's a lot of focus on personal attacks etc.) but I don't think -- for example -- the Democratic debate would be significantly less substantive without Clinton, nor would the debates in 2008 and 2012 been more substantive without McCain and Romney.
I like Perl, work, politics, guns, music (writing, playing, and listening), movies, video games. I love my friends and family.
I love arguing, but I don't like fighting ... but I will fight you if you want me to. Your call. :-)
I ran use.perl.org, wrote much of Slashdot's code, and have written tons of code, books, and articles about Perl. I wrote and performed a song that opened the YouTube/CNN GOP Debate in November 2007. An episode of "Sports Night" was based on me. I have had the same beard for more than 20 years.