Sadly, I don't think a software release will result in a democratic Iran. But it would be nice.
Probably not directly, but if you recall the protests following the last Iranian election, hopefully you remember the behavior of the Iranian government and how vital the Internet, cell phones, and software for publishing and sharing content were in getting information in the hands of the Iranian people, and giving the rest of the world news about what was happening inside Iran. Software is a critical part of communication when traditional means of doing so are heavily controlled by the government.
You're misunderstanding what happened here and completely missing the point.
The IP blocking isn't Google's clever solution to circumvent US export controls. The sanctions in question here were lifted by the US government, and the new export controls require this IP blocking. Please read at least something beyond the summary.
Second, the goal here is to get tools for sharing and communication in the hands of the Iranian people, to give them more options the next time their government decides to restrict access to information. Who the fuck cares that the government can find a way to use these apps too? That's not the point.
Just because it was an accident doesn't mean it's wrong for compensation to be warranted. If you accidentally rear-end another car at a stop light, should you be able to walk away without compensating the other party? It was an accident, right? If they weren't OK with the risk of being rear-ended, they'd have stayed at home, right? If my kids, regardless of how old they were, caused someone to break their hip, absolutely we'd be paying their medical bills. That's just the way things work. I should have watched and/or raised my kids better.
You don't have to understand the consequences of your actions for your actions to harm someone else. And if your actions harm someone else, then you should have to compensate that person for the harm you caused them. This is civil law, not criminal law. People accidentally hurt each other all the time (think car accidents). If you're out biking and you hit someone, and cause them to break their hip, you pay their medical costs. It doesn't matter how old you are, if you're mentally retarded, or sleepwalking when you do it.
And to drill down a little bit from your statement, how could the kids have possibly known their actions would lead to the death of the elderly woman.
It doesn't matter. This isn't a criminal case. You don't have to have done anything wrong to cause harm to another. Civil cases are about compensation, not punishment. If you ran someone over, completely on accident and despite doing everything the way you were supposed to have done it, the fact is that you still ran someone over and that person (according to our system of civil justice) deserves to be compensated for that harm.
With that in mind, the young age of the defendants isn't really a problem. Just because you're young doesn't mean you can't cause quite a lot of harm.
That being said, if a broken hip was enough to kill the woman, I don't wish to sound disrespectful, but it's likely that something else would have taken her out in relatively short order as well.
Agreed. In the US, though, we have this whole eggshell skull rule. But that doesn't mean the old lady wasn't negligent being out and about, knowing that she could have been knocked over by a 4-year-old and killed.
This is not a zero-sum game. Government spending is not tied to tax revenues. Increasing corporate taxes does not automatically decrease personal taxes. It is more likely that increasing corporate taxes just means more government spending. They probably won't even pretend to reduce the deficit with it.
These "loopholes" can be completely legitimate ambiguities, sometimes intentionally added to the law (i.e. relying on something subjective involving a "reasonable person"). The courts resolve those ambiguities.
But you're right: Simply reading the statutory law is completely insufficient, since, despite the work of the court system, the statutory law remains the same. You just end up with a mountain of case law layered on top of the statutory law that the lawyer then has to navigate. You have to separate out what's applicable in this case, find out what the appellate courts have had to say in this jurisdiction (and sometimes push for a different jurisdiction based upon that research), and find a way that you can argue the facts of the case away to make this case like some other case, or try to find an ambiguity of your own that you can try to bend to your favor.
I don't trust myself to do a good job wading through all of that, so I have no problem whatsoever hiring someone that's an expert in these things.
There is no inconsistency in wanting robot cars and wanting to drive. Maybe I want the car to drive me to work, but I might prefer to be in control for that windy mountain road. One should not preclude the other. Plus, I get safety benefits from having all of the cars around me be autonomous, even if I prefer to be in control, so hell yes, even as someone that likes to drive, I want robot cars.
People get convicted of crimes because they knowingly did something that was against the law: they chose to take a risk, or did something that they knew was wrong. Take a look at your local traffic laws and see how your community divides them into infractions/violations, versus misdemeanors/felonies. The former are things that could easily apply to an autonomous car, but never involve jail sentences (just fines that the owner of the car would logically be responsible for). The latter are things that require poor (human) judgment, and would never apply to an autonomous car.
Even considering things like speeding, where it starts off as an infraction, but once you exceed some threshold, it becomes something more serious that might merit jail time, the threshold amounts to a line, past which a driver is assumed to know that they're speeding, and know that they're driving recklessly. If the person making the map simply made an error in noting the speed limit for that stretch of road, you can't reasonably put them in jail for that, nor can you do the same for the owner of the car. I think laws that make presumptions like this would necessarily be invalidated in the case of autonomous driving. The judicial branch would "fix" the legal system as the need arose, even if the legislature did not.
Based on what's in the article and blog post, it sounds like the cars are normal cars that have been modified to allow the computer to control them (in addition to a human driver). So, they're street-legal. There's still a safety driver sitting at the wheel that's capable of taking control in an instant. Unless Google has gotten some special permissions here (and something I read said the police is "aware" of Google's experiments, which makes it sound like they don't have a special permit), it seems most likely that the safety driver is still considered the driver for legal purposes, and is ultimately (probably personally) responsible for everything that car does.
I agree. Even if autonomous cars reduce the accident rate by 50% (eliminating 100% of driver-caused accidents, but introducing half-as-many accidents caused by software bugs), that huge net win to society won't matter: victims will still target the manufacturers mercilessly. Some will have legitimate claims, but others will just see dollar signs.
However, I suspect that once the US realizes that this technology works everywhere else in the world and it's saving thousands of lives, someone will step up and fix the legal framework.
Another thing to think about is that due to the enormous data collection requirements of autonomous driving, there should be an extremely precise record of the car's journey right up to the point of the collision. I imagine that would be useful data to have in court and should either reduce the number of claims that make it to trial, or make it easier to dispose of them when they do. Even if you don't trust that one car's record of the event, with enough of these cars on the road, it should be possible to correlate record from other cars as well. (Maybe upon sensing an accident, a car could broadcast a request for records from other nearby cars...)
The car probably just yields in all cases (or swerves to avoid). This is actually a bit interesting. When you encounter a bad or asshole driver, what happens? Your adrenaline spikes up. You might tailgate him to communicate how pissed off you are. You might speed up to prevent the other driver from being able to maneuver. All of these things can be "justified" emotionally, but they still multiply and perpetuate the unsafe situation that the asshole driver originally started, right? A car that "reacts" to these things by ignoring intent could effectively solve many cases of road rage.
What part of "to map the route and road conditions" leads you to conclude that they're recording the behavior of the human driving the route? They're creating a detailed map of the road, lanes, and traffic signs/lights. The car is using that map to drive.
If the car were simply replaying a recording, how would it handle a different number of cars waiting at a traffic light? Pedestrians crossing the crosswalk while you're trying to make a left turn? The car in front of you decides to stop and parallel park? A bicyclist in your lane? There are many fairly obvious problems that would need solutions in order for them to do the things that they claim they did, so maybe there's a chance they've solved those problems? If only there was something you could read that would answer this question!
Though I do agree that the map-making phase should be cut out somehow, where the car discovers routes, lanes, traffic signs and traffic lights autonomously as well.
Oh, kid, I got the grey hair to remember what it was like before we started whoring ourselves out to the Chinese government. I can remember when a blue-collar job could buy a house and put your kids through college. Meat-packers and construction workers used to make comfortable livings. Now airline pilots in charge of hundreds of lives have to apply for food stamps.
What does China have to do with American airline pilots? It sounds to me like the market is working as intended. You would prefer that the government plan the economy and artificially keep these jobs where they are, at salaries that increase with inflation? Airlines were a huge growth industry a generation ago. Since being a pilot requires some degree of skill and training, there were few pilots available to grow with the industry, so of course salaries were high. This attracted a generation of pilots. With no shortage anymore, salaries fell. Would you interfere here and artificially prop up salaries? With artificially high salaries, you're inadvertently attracting more and more people to become pilots. Are you going to guarantee jobs for these newly trained pilots too?
Salaries for jobs are no different than prices for products. They're intended to rise and fall as the market changes. If you find you're in a job that doesn't pay as well as it once did, that's a sign that you and your colleagues need to start thinking about training for a different job.
You and I don't benefit from it because prices are already set as high as the market will bear.
If this is true, it's only true because nobody else has chosen to enter the market and undercut the incumbents. You could start a manufacturing company tomorrow making extensive use of China to produce your products cheaply. Set your prices under what your competitors are charging and you will still make money, because a huge profit margin exists, right? When enough people do this, prices start to fall generally.
Who pays for the up front investment for the fire department to get more trucks and more firefighters to accommodate the sudden increase in demand for their services? The county? What happens when the county can't recover enough of their expenses (bills paid to the city for this service) from actions against the individuals that required the response in the first place? I guess you'd have to start levying a tax? It sounds like the county (its citizens) have long ago considered and rejected this option.
The firefighters (like "wilderness rescue") almost certainly have a moral, if not legal, obligation to try to save a life, and to ensure the fire wasn't putting anyone in danger. No such obligation exists (nor should exist) when you're just talking about property damage.
When you walk into your grocery store, how apparent is it that the meat on sale was bought from a ranch that met your personal standards of animal treatment?
Maybe you live somewhere where labeling like that already happens, or you live someplace where you know where the meat came from, and know how that ranch is run. This is not generally the case.
Do you actually think this is a practical suggestion? Let's just evacuate the cities and force everyone to revert to an agrarian society? How do you propose to accomplish this, and to prevent people from trying to specialize? As soon as everyone recovers from whatever catastrophe you'd have to create to make this happen, people are going to start trying to trade for goods and services, and competition will start weeding out inefficient business models again.
I don't understand what this has to do with Capitalism. Can you describe some other type of economy that would not result in the same outcome? The real problem is that efficiency in cattle ranching is at odds with your sense of decent living conditions for these animals. Any system that rewards efficiency and does not adequately protect the animals will have this outcome. The solution is to regulate how animals are treated and their living conditions. Or, at the very least, have a certification and labeling program to allow consumers the option of only purchasing from ranches that meet their personal standards.
I'm a little surprised by the visceral reactions in nearly every comment on this article, so much that I feel compelled to play devil's advocate. I suspect people are picturing a mindless twit, cruising down the highway with both hands on a messaging device and eyes down, slowly drifting out of his or her lane. But I doubt most people engaging in "texting" in some form fit this stereotype. Many people are just sending or receiving one or two messages. "Pick up milk on the way home." "Which exit do I need to take?" "Something's happened, meet me at the hospital."
The danger posed by this type of distraction is completely dependent upon the situation. Are you on a rural highway with excellent visibility and no traffic for miles? Are you just glancing down to read a single message? Are you replying with a simple "ok" acknowledgement? It is possible to use a device like this with less distraction than changing a radio station. Not all "texters" are engaging in truly risky behavior.
But beyond that, if this is something you want to stop, you need to consider the psychology of the texter. Sending or receiving a message can take all of two seconds. It's hard enough convincing people that they need to pull over to take a phone call. For the maneuvers needed to actually take your car off of the highway and pull over to send or receive a text message, you've probably spent just as much time with your eyes not on the road in front of you than you would have spent just taking/sending the message on the highway, and you've lost 2 minutes to save yourself 2 seconds of distraction. And you're surprised that people don't do this?
(Note that I'm not going to touch the class of texter that's just driving around exchanging 50 banal texts with their boyfriend/girlfriend. I'm more concerned with someone that needs to take/send one or two text messages that may be relatively important to them.)
Penalizing something that people perceive to be so trivial isn't going to work. I can glance down at my radio for 2 seconds and achieve the same distraction as I'd get glancing down at my phone for 2 seconds, yet the law (and many of the commenters here) would punish me for the latter and not the former. What we need to do is make communication safer while driving. Why isn't my messaging device integrated with my car? My car knows when it's driving, and I can identify myself to my car. This would allow a "Do Not Disturb" setting, or automatic filtering of unimportant messages until I'm done driving. A heads-up display would be another great way to bring up urgent messages with a minimum of distraction. Android phones already have voice recognition, so there's a great way to respond too without needing to take your eyes and your hands away from the task of driving.
All kinds of bizarre, dangerous substances have been found in vaccines, including monkey and chicken DNA, viruses... nevermind the Thimerosal!
You had me until 'Thimerosal'. I thought we'd had enough studies that demonstrate Thimerosal isn't the problem. Now you just sound like another anti-vaxxer and I'll need to ask to see citations for the rest of your assertions.:/
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, I don't think a software release will result in a democratic Iran. But it would be nice.
Probably not directly, but if you recall the protests following the last Iranian election, hopefully you remember the behavior of the Iranian government and how vital the Internet, cell phones, and software for publishing and sharing content were in getting information in the hands of the Iranian people, and giving the rest of the world news about what was happening inside Iran. Software is a critical part of communication when traditional means of doing so are heavily controlled by the government.
You're misunderstanding what happened here and completely missing the point.
The IP blocking isn't Google's clever solution to circumvent US export controls. The sanctions in question here were lifted by the US government, and the new export controls require this IP blocking. Please read at least something beyond the summary.
Second, the goal here is to get tools for sharing and communication in the hands of the Iranian people, to give them more options the next time their government decides to restrict access to information. Who the fuck cares that the government can find a way to use these apps too? That's not the point.
Just because it was an accident doesn't mean it's wrong for compensation to be warranted. If you accidentally rear-end another car at a stop light, should you be able to walk away without compensating the other party? It was an accident, right? If they weren't OK with the risk of being rear-ended, they'd have stayed at home, right? If my kids, regardless of how old they were, caused someone to break their hip, absolutely we'd be paying their medical bills. That's just the way things work. I should have watched and/or raised my kids better.
You don't have to understand the consequences of your actions for your actions to harm someone else. And if your actions harm someone else, then you should have to compensate that person for the harm you caused them. This is civil law, not criminal law. People accidentally hurt each other all the time (think car accidents). If you're out biking and you hit someone, and cause them to break their hip, you pay their medical costs. It doesn't matter how old you are, if you're mentally retarded, or sleepwalking when you do it.
And to drill down a little bit from your statement, how could the kids have possibly known their actions would lead to the death of the elderly woman.
It doesn't matter. This isn't a criminal case. You don't have to have done anything wrong to cause harm to another. Civil cases are about compensation, not punishment. If you ran someone over, completely on accident and despite doing everything the way you were supposed to have done it, the fact is that you still ran someone over and that person (according to our system of civil justice) deserves to be compensated for that harm.
With that in mind, the young age of the defendants isn't really a problem. Just because you're young doesn't mean you can't cause quite a lot of harm.
That being said, if a broken hip was enough to kill the woman, I don't wish to sound disrespectful, but it's likely that something else would have taken her out in relatively short order as well.
Agreed. In the US, though, we have this whole eggshell skull rule. But that doesn't mean the old lady wasn't negligent being out and about, knowing that she could have been knocked over by a 4-year-old and killed.
They also assume every black person they meet is African-American, even when they're not in the US.
Unless the award requires that they sell their assets in order to pay, at which point the investor gets exactly what he wanted.
This is not the same as Google's community fiber program.
Maybe I'm being cynical, but I see more articles about Google doing things to improve the world than I do our own governments.
This is not a zero-sum game. Government spending is not tied to tax revenues. Increasing corporate taxes does not automatically decrease personal taxes. It is more likely that increasing corporate taxes just means more government spending. They probably won't even pretend to reduce the deficit with it.
These "loopholes" can be completely legitimate ambiguities, sometimes intentionally added to the law (i.e. relying on something subjective involving a "reasonable person"). The courts resolve those ambiguities.
But you're right: Simply reading the statutory law is completely insufficient, since, despite the work of the court system, the statutory law remains the same. You just end up with a mountain of case law layered on top of the statutory law that the lawyer then has to navigate. You have to separate out what's applicable in this case, find out what the appellate courts have had to say in this jurisdiction (and sometimes push for a different jurisdiction based upon that research), and find a way that you can argue the facts of the case away to make this case like some other case, or try to find an ambiguity of your own that you can try to bend to your favor.
I don't trust myself to do a good job wading through all of that, so I have no problem whatsoever hiring someone that's an expert in these things.
There is no inconsistency in wanting robot cars and wanting to drive. Maybe I want the car to drive me to work, but I might prefer to be in control for that windy mountain road. One should not preclude the other. Plus, I get safety benefits from having all of the cars around me be autonomous, even if I prefer to be in control, so hell yes, even as someone that likes to drive, I want robot cars.
People get convicted of crimes because they knowingly did something that was against the law: they chose to take a risk, or did something that they knew was wrong. Take a look at your local traffic laws and see how your community divides them into infractions/violations, versus misdemeanors/felonies. The former are things that could easily apply to an autonomous car, but never involve jail sentences (just fines that the owner of the car would logically be responsible for). The latter are things that require poor (human) judgment, and would never apply to an autonomous car.
Even considering things like speeding, where it starts off as an infraction, but once you exceed some threshold, it becomes something more serious that might merit jail time, the threshold amounts to a line, past which a driver is assumed to know that they're speeding, and know that they're driving recklessly. If the person making the map simply made an error in noting the speed limit for that stretch of road, you can't reasonably put them in jail for that, nor can you do the same for the owner of the car. I think laws that make presumptions like this would necessarily be invalidated in the case of autonomous driving. The judicial branch would "fix" the legal system as the need arose, even if the legislature did not.
Based on what's in the article and blog post, it sounds like the cars are normal cars that have been modified to allow the computer to control them (in addition to a human driver). So, they're street-legal. There's still a safety driver sitting at the wheel that's capable of taking control in an instant. Unless Google has gotten some special permissions here (and something I read said the police is "aware" of Google's experiments, which makes it sound like they don't have a special permit), it seems most likely that the safety driver is still considered the driver for legal purposes, and is ultimately (probably personally) responsible for everything that car does.
I agree. Even if autonomous cars reduce the accident rate by 50% (eliminating 100% of driver-caused accidents, but introducing half-as-many accidents caused by software bugs), that huge net win to society won't matter: victims will still target the manufacturers mercilessly. Some will have legitimate claims, but others will just see dollar signs.
However, I suspect that once the US realizes that this technology works everywhere else in the world and it's saving thousands of lives, someone will step up and fix the legal framework.
Another thing to think about is that due to the enormous data collection requirements of autonomous driving, there should be an extremely precise record of the car's journey right up to the point of the collision. I imagine that would be useful data to have in court and should either reduce the number of claims that make it to trial, or make it easier to dispose of them when they do. Even if you don't trust that one car's record of the event, with enough of these cars on the road, it should be possible to correlate record from other cars as well. (Maybe upon sensing an accident, a car could broadcast a request for records from other nearby cars...)
The car probably just yields in all cases (or swerves to avoid). This is actually a bit interesting. When you encounter a bad or asshole driver, what happens? Your adrenaline spikes up. You might tailgate him to communicate how pissed off you are. You might speed up to prevent the other driver from being able to maneuver. All of these things can be "justified" emotionally, but they still multiply and perpetuate the unsafe situation that the asshole driver originally started, right? A car that "reacts" to these things by ignoring intent could effectively solve many cases of road rage.
What part of "to map the route and road conditions" leads you to conclude that they're recording the behavior of the human driving the route? They're creating a detailed map of the road, lanes, and traffic signs/lights. The car is using that map to drive.
If the car were simply replaying a recording, how would it handle a different number of cars waiting at a traffic light? Pedestrians crossing the crosswalk while you're trying to make a left turn? The car in front of you decides to stop and parallel park? A bicyclist in your lane? There are many fairly obvious problems that would need solutions in order for them to do the things that they claim they did, so maybe there's a chance they've solved those problems? If only there was something you could read that would answer this question!
Though I do agree that the map-making phase should be cut out somehow, where the car discovers routes, lanes, traffic signs and traffic lights autonomously as well.
I think you're over-generalizing/exaggerating.
Oh, kid, I got the grey hair to remember what it was like before we started whoring ourselves out to the Chinese government. I can remember when a blue-collar job could buy a house and put your kids through college. Meat-packers and construction workers used to make comfortable livings. Now airline pilots in charge of hundreds of lives have to apply for food stamps.
What does China have to do with American airline pilots? It sounds to me like the market is working as intended. You would prefer that the government plan the economy and artificially keep these jobs where they are, at salaries that increase with inflation? Airlines were a huge growth industry a generation ago. Since being a pilot requires some degree of skill and training, there were few pilots available to grow with the industry, so of course salaries were high. This attracted a generation of pilots. With no shortage anymore, salaries fell. Would you interfere here and artificially prop up salaries? With artificially high salaries, you're inadvertently attracting more and more people to become pilots. Are you going to guarantee jobs for these newly trained pilots too?
Salaries for jobs are no different than prices for products. They're intended to rise and fall as the market changes. If you find you're in a job that doesn't pay as well as it once did, that's a sign that you and your colleagues need to start thinking about training for a different job.
You and I don't benefit from it because prices are already set as high as the market will bear.
If this is true, it's only true because nobody else has chosen to enter the market and undercut the incumbents. You could start a manufacturing company tomorrow making extensive use of China to produce your products cheaply. Set your prices under what your competitors are charging and you will still make money, because a huge profit margin exists, right? When enough people do this, prices start to fall generally.
Who pays for the up front investment for the fire department to get more trucks and more firefighters to accommodate the sudden increase in demand for their services? The county? What happens when the county can't recover enough of their expenses (bills paid to the city for this service) from actions against the individuals that required the response in the first place? I guess you'd have to start levying a tax? It sounds like the county (its citizens) have long ago considered and rejected this option.
The firefighters (like "wilderness rescue") almost certainly have a moral, if not legal, obligation to try to save a life, and to ensure the fire wasn't putting anyone in danger. No such obligation exists (nor should exist) when you're just talking about property damage.
When you walk into your grocery store, how apparent is it that the meat on sale was bought from a ranch that met your personal standards of animal treatment?
Maybe you live somewhere where labeling like that already happens, or you live someplace where you know where the meat came from, and know how that ranch is run. This is not generally the case.
Do you actually think this is a practical suggestion? Let's just evacuate the cities and force everyone to revert to an agrarian society? How do you propose to accomplish this, and to prevent people from trying to specialize? As soon as everyone recovers from whatever catastrophe you'd have to create to make this happen, people are going to start trying to trade for goods and services, and competition will start weeding out inefficient business models again.
I don't understand what this has to do with Capitalism. Can you describe some other type of economy that would not result in the same outcome? The real problem is that efficiency in cattle ranching is at odds with your sense of decent living conditions for these animals. Any system that rewards efficiency and does not adequately protect the animals will have this outcome. The solution is to regulate how animals are treated and their living conditions. Or, at the very least, have a certification and labeling program to allow consumers the option of only purchasing from ranches that meet their personal standards.
I'm a little surprised by the visceral reactions in nearly every comment on this article, so much that I feel compelled to play devil's advocate. I suspect people are picturing a mindless twit, cruising down the highway with both hands on a messaging device and eyes down, slowly drifting out of his or her lane. But I doubt most people engaging in "texting" in some form fit this stereotype. Many people are just sending or receiving one or two messages. "Pick up milk on the way home." "Which exit do I need to take?" "Something's happened, meet me at the hospital."
The danger posed by this type of distraction is completely dependent upon the situation. Are you on a rural highway with excellent visibility and no traffic for miles? Are you just glancing down to read a single message? Are you replying with a simple "ok" acknowledgement? It is possible to use a device like this with less distraction than changing a radio station. Not all "texters" are engaging in truly risky behavior.
But beyond that, if this is something you want to stop, you need to consider the psychology of the texter. Sending or receiving a message can take all of two seconds. It's hard enough convincing people that they need to pull over to take a phone call. For the maneuvers needed to actually take your car off of the highway and pull over to send or receive a text message, you've probably spent just as much time with your eyes not on the road in front of you than you would have spent just taking/sending the message on the highway, and you've lost 2 minutes to save yourself 2 seconds of distraction. And you're surprised that people don't do this?
(Note that I'm not going to touch the class of texter that's just driving around exchanging 50 banal texts with their boyfriend/girlfriend. I'm more concerned with someone that needs to take/send one or two text messages that may be relatively important to them.)
Penalizing something that people perceive to be so trivial isn't going to work. I can glance down at my radio for 2 seconds and achieve the same distraction as I'd get glancing down at my phone for 2 seconds, yet the law (and many of the commenters here) would punish me for the latter and not the former. What we need to do is make communication safer while driving. Why isn't my messaging device integrated with my car? My car knows when it's driving, and I can identify myself to my car. This would allow a "Do Not Disturb" setting, or automatic filtering of unimportant messages until I'm done driving. A heads-up display would be another great way to bring up urgent messages with a minimum of distraction. Android phones already have voice recognition, so there's a great way to respond too without needing to take your eyes and your hands away from the task of driving.
All kinds of bizarre, dangerous substances have been found in vaccines, including monkey and chicken DNA, viruses... nevermind the Thimerosal!
You had me until 'Thimerosal'. I thought we'd had enough studies that demonstrate Thimerosal isn't the problem. Now you just sound like another anti-vaxxer and I'll need to ask to see citations for the rest of your assertions. :/