Leprosy isn't nearly the problem it was in Biblical times. It is hard to catch and easy to cure. Some even question if what we now call leprosy is even the same disease.
She came out and said she supports vaccination. She just believes (correctly, IMHO) that the FDA has fallen into disrepute and so is contributing to the anti-vaxer problem.
And even that is not quite right. She is on record as supporting vaccines. She is simply questioning the FDA in general (honestly, it's track record in recent years gives her very good reason for that). Mostly from the standpoint that it's crappy track record for objectivity in recent years is being used as an excuse by the anti-vaxers.
Actually, characterizing Stein as anti-vax or pandering to the anti-vaxers is over the top. There is a HUGE difference between questioning the FDA's effectiveness and being anti-vax, particularly when it comes to the old and well proven vaccines. She is on record as supporting vaccination.
Since the Salon article only pointed to Snopes' home page rather than providing a useful link, I'll supply it here.
Johnson predictably says no to any government mandatory anything. That's not a proper anti-vax stance since he isn't basing his position on paranoid pseudo-science. It says nothing about if he would personally recommend vaccination or not.
Trump looks to be all in on the crazy pseudo-science and hysteria.
He may be talking about Varicella. IIRC, the immunity from the vaccine doesn't last as long as the immunity conferred by actually having the disease. Wouldn't that potentially protect from the disease in the very young where it is rarely a problem and then leave you vulnerable just when it starts to become more risky (potentially a net harm)? Meanwhile, (also IIRC), occasional exposure as a naturally immune adult is thought to act as a sort of booster to prevent shingles later in life.
The case is pretty strong for MMR and DTaP, but not so much for Varicella vaccine.
As for the flu, I recall some recent research that shows that people who have been immunized for flu the previous year are less likely to be effectively immunized by a new flu vaccine. Meanwhile, since (as you said) the available flu shot is based on a guess at which strains will become prevalent, there is a good chance that the guess will be wrong and so the shot will have very limited effectiveness. It may actually be better to confine flu shots to the most vulnerable populations where the flu itself is most dangerous.
Add to that the media blitz over H1N1 a few years ago where we were told with a strait face that we should all run out and get the flu shot that didn't cover H1N1 because H1N1 was going to kill us all but that there was no need to avoid crowded malls. Then, by the time the H1N1 vaccine came out, it was clear that it had already gone past it's peak and would be all but gone by the time the immunization would become effective (and it proved to be far less dangerous than initially thought) we were supposed to run out and get that too. It's hard to not think we are being lead down the garden path on that one.
That sort of thing is extremely unfortunate and even dangerous since it leads people to question the well proven and greatly beneficial MMR and DTP.
I'm not so sure. Measles free would suggest that there is no point in getting the vaccine at all, but with active cases still showing up and threatening to spread among the unvaccinated population (such as the case a few years ago at Disneyland), that seems a little premature.
It could be argued that you've reached that point once the risk of vaccination exceeds the risk of the disease when you stay within the zone declared 'free'. We're not there yet either. It still makes sense to get the vaccine.
I can see how they define it, but given the crazy anti-vaxxers, I don't think declaring the region 'free' of measles is such a great idea.
You did if the punishment was excessive. It hardly matters if it's racism, sexism, or classism, it's still an injustice if one definable group is inevitably punished more severely than another for the same crime unless membership in that group can be rationally shown to be an aggravating circumstance (for example, a cop convicted of burglary or a banker kiting checks).
It's simple algorithmic caching. You request a URL. It looks to see if it has a copy AND that the copy is recent enough (I don't know how long is enough but it's on the order of an hour). If so, it serves it to you itself. Otherwise it fetches it from the actual host and passes it on (retaining a copy for the cache).
I did a bit of looking and the DMCA explicitly calls out a difference. It also states that the cache must expire the content in a reasonable time after the HOST takes the material down.
Actually, the DMCA simply limits the amount of time a cache of content identified to be infringing may be held (that is, says they cannot become a de-facto host of the material). It defines the notification to be served when the host of the data takes it down. CloudFlare and other CDNs expire cache well wityhin that time.
In other words, the claimant must notify the HOST who then must take the data down. Any CDN must then let the cache expire.
So it's fairly exllicit who must be notified and who must do the take-down and it's not CloudFlare.
They CACHE the data. That is, if they don't have an in-date cache of the requested resource, they fetch it from your actual hosting provider. Lawyers, judges, and congressmen can argue it out and decide if they are LEGALLY equivalent to a hosting provider but thus far, no such determination has been made.
Let's say I have a bunch of HTML and images I want to put on the web. So I call CloudFlare and ask them where do I upload them. They tell me I need to get a hosting provider first...
Or they don't want to be judge, jury, and executioner. Remember, they have not been told by a judge that the customer is infringing, it has simply been alleged. Since they are not the hosting provider, it is far from clear that they are at all responsible for following a DMCA notice.
Walking across the floor is a lot different from jumping up and punching a hole in the wall and doing itself structural damage.
The old washers had a 'tilt switch' that would stop them if the load wasn't well balanced. The '80s and '90s models had motors too wimpy to get dangerous. The newest ones spin much faster and must take imbalances into account.
Sure, but when they can make a change that big and still be profitable, it does say a lot about how much economic rent they have been collecting all these years. (The word rapacious comes to mind).
It also reveals that everything they ever said about needing the caps to manage network load was just a pack of lies. It lends a lot of credence to the theory that the caps were more about leveraging a monopoly to keep the likes of Hulu and Netflix out than they were about network management.
Compared to what they have been charging, bandwidth must be damned close to free.
Funny then how at the first hint of Google moving in, my ISP managed to triple the cap without upgrading the last mile or raising the price. Either the laws of physics changed or...
But since they have 100 people sharing that 100Mbps line, they should be charging $1,200/100 = $1.20.
Note that a T is going to include better than fine nines uptime in the SLA. A careful reading of the TOS in residential cable internet shows no uptime guarantees.
Slashdot Mirror
Leprosy isn't nearly the problem it was in Biblical times. It is hard to catch and easy to cure. Some even question if what we now call leprosy is even the same disease.
She came out and said she supports vaccination. She just believes (correctly, IMHO) that the FDA has fallen into disrepute and so is contributing to the anti-vaxer problem.
And even that is not quite right. She is on record as supporting vaccines. She is simply questioning the FDA in general (honestly, it's track record in recent years gives her very good reason for that). Mostly from the standpoint that it's crappy track record for objectivity in recent years is being used as an excuse by the anti-vaxers.
Actually, characterizing Stein as anti-vax or pandering to the anti-vaxers is over the top. There is a HUGE difference between questioning the FDA's effectiveness and being anti-vax, particularly when it comes to the old and well proven vaccines. She is on record as supporting vaccination.
Since the Salon article only pointed to Snopes' home page rather than providing a useful link, I'll supply it here.
Johnson predictably says no to any government mandatory anything. That's not a proper anti-vax stance since he isn't basing his position on paranoid pseudo-science. It says nothing about if he would personally recommend vaccination or not.
Trump looks to be all in on the crazy pseudo-science and hysteria.
He may be talking about Varicella. IIRC, the immunity from the vaccine doesn't last as long as the immunity conferred by actually having the disease. Wouldn't that potentially protect from the disease in the very young where it is rarely a problem and then leave you vulnerable just when it starts to become more risky (potentially a net harm)? Meanwhile, (also IIRC), occasional exposure as a naturally immune adult is thought to act as a sort of booster to prevent shingles later in life.
The case is pretty strong for MMR and DTaP, but not so much for Varicella vaccine.
As for the flu, I recall some recent research that shows that people who have been immunized for flu the previous year are less likely to be effectively immunized by a new flu vaccine. Meanwhile, since (as you said) the available flu shot is based on a guess at which strains will become prevalent, there is a good chance that the guess will be wrong and so the shot will have very limited effectiveness. It may actually be better to confine flu shots to the most vulnerable populations where the flu itself is most dangerous.
Add to that the media blitz over H1N1 a few years ago where we were told with a strait face that we should all run out and get the flu shot that didn't cover H1N1 because H1N1 was going to kill us all but that there was no need to avoid crowded malls. Then, by the time the H1N1 vaccine came out, it was clear that it had already gone past it's peak and would be all but gone by the time the immunization would become effective (and it proved to be far less dangerous than initially thought) we were supposed to run out and get that too. It's hard to not think we are being lead down the garden path on that one.
That sort of thing is extremely unfortunate and even dangerous since it leads people to question the well proven and greatly beneficial MMR and DTP.
I'm not so sure. Measles free would suggest that there is no point in getting the vaccine at all, but with active cases still showing up and threatening to spread among the unvaccinated population (such as the case a few years ago at Disneyland), that seems a little premature.
It could be argued that you've reached that point once the risk of vaccination exceeds the risk of the disease when you stay within the zone declared 'free'. We're not there yet either. It still makes sense to get the vaccine.
I can see how they define it, but given the crazy anti-vaxxers, I don't think declaring the region 'free' of measles is such a great idea.
If you want to make up pretend versions of the law, fine. I'll go with the one that actually matters.
Read 512(b). I presume copyright.gov is reasonably authoritative?
Why don't you go read the law like I did.
You did if the punishment was excessive. It hardly matters if it's racism, sexism, or classism, it's still an injustice if one definable group is inevitably punished more severely than another for the same crime unless membership in that group can be rationally shown to be an aggravating circumstance (for example, a cop convicted of burglary or a banker kiting checks).
It's simple algorithmic caching. You request a URL. It looks to see if it has a copy AND that the copy is recent enough (I don't know how long is enough but it's on the order of an hour). If so, it serves it to you itself. Otherwise it fetches it from the actual host and passes it on (retaining a copy for the cache).
I did a bit of looking and the DMCA explicitly calls out a difference. It also states that the cache must expire the content in a reasonable time after the HOST takes the material down.
Actually, the DMCA simply limits the amount of time a cache of content identified to be infringing may be held (that is, says they cannot become a de-facto host of the material). It defines the notification to be served when the host of the data takes it down. CloudFlare and other CDNs expire cache well wityhin that time.
In other words, the claimant must notify the HOST who then must take the data down. Any CDN must then let the cache expire.
So it's fairly exllicit who must be notified and who must do the take-down and it's not CloudFlare.
They CACHE the data. That is, if they don't have an in-date cache of the requested resource, they fetch it from your actual hosting provider. Lawyers, judges, and congressmen can argue it out and decide if they are LEGALLY equivalent to a hosting provider but thus far, no such determination has been made.
Let's say I have a bunch of HTML and images I want to put on the web. So I call CloudFlare and ask them where do I upload them. They tell me I need to get a hosting provider first...
Actually, they are a cache. It actually does matter. If a hotel uses a web cache on it's network, is the hotel a hosting provider?
Or they don't want to be judge, jury, and executioner. Remember, they have not been told by a judge that the customer is infringing, it has simply been alleged. Since they are not the hosting provider, it is far from clear that they are at all responsible for following a DMCA notice.
They are not a publisher nor do they host content. The DMCA is properly sent to the actual hosting provider or the publisher.
Not to mention that a centrifuge is not a household appliance and so can demand a bit more from the user.
Walking across the floor is a lot different from jumping up and punching a hole in the wall and doing itself structural damage.
The old washers had a 'tilt switch' that would stop them if the load wasn't well balanced. The '80s and '90s models had motors too wimpy to get dangerous. The newest ones spin much faster and must take imbalances into account.
How about if it jumps up and puts a hole in the wall? That's what the washer did.
I have seen imbalanced centrifuges walk on the table before, but I've never seen one go airborne.
If it only affected the top 1%, they would keep the caps the same and happily let the 'hogs' go plague Google.
In fact, they were set just low enough to discourage cutting the cord and streaming instead.
As far as actual network management, fair queues with borrowing would be the ideal approach.
Sure, but when they can make a change that big and still be profitable, it does say a lot about how much economic rent they have been collecting all these years. (The word rapacious comes to mind).
It also reveals that everything they ever said about needing the caps to manage network load was just a pack of lies. It lends a lot of credence to the theory that the caps were more about leveraging a monopoly to keep the likes of Hulu and Netflix out than they were about network management.
Compared to what they have been charging, bandwidth must be damned close to free.
Granted, off by one. Too bad they charge $75-100.
Funny then how at the first hint of Google moving in, my ISP managed to triple the cap without upgrading the last mile or raising the price. Either the laws of physics changed or...
Given what we know now, the lard was a good choice. If anything there is a problem, it's the sugar.
But since they have 100 people sharing that 100Mbps line, they should be charging $1,200/100 = $1.20.
Note that a T is going to include better than fine nines uptime in the SLA. A careful reading of the TOS in residential cable internet shows no uptime guarantees.