In Sweden you aren't likely to die because someone else knew what your genetic codes were. In the US...well, it's illegal to discriminate because of a person's genetic variants, but it could be quite profitable if you're a health insurance company. Of course nobody worries about that because we all know that the health insurance companies are all ethical and law abiding.
So you aren't hearing any worries or complaints. You aren't. You aren't. You aren't hearing any worries or complaints.
Calling "health insurance" an insurance is a misnomer and has been all my life. Certainly since the rise of the HMOs. Possibly before that you would have grounds to call it an insurance in the classic form. I don't really remember.
If you're going to pretend that now, all of a sudden, it should change to actually be an insurance plan... Well, ok, but you need to get rid of the HMOs first.
Remember how the Kaiser health plan started. An employer wanted to ensure that his trained workers stayed with him and got treated after injuries on the job (so they'd get back to work). He may also have had charitable idea, but he was an independent owner of a business, not a corporation, so he was allowed to. The reasons I gave were his official ones. (Not the PR ones, which leaned towards charitable...which may have been true also.)
Kaiser never intended his health plan to be a health insurance in any normal sense of the term insurance. He wanted it as a way to retain the services of skilled workers, and to get them back to work quickly after an accident. That's a "sort of" insurance, but it's not health insurance, except from the employer's point of view. It's definitely, however, a health plan, and that's what he called it.
Blue Shield was, I believe, actually a health insurance company before the rise of the HMOs. But when it started being sold as an employee benefit by employers it stopped being insurance in any normal sense of the term.
When people buy their own health plan on their of their own choice (with or without employer subsidy, but their choice and the person directly chosing the plan and dealing with it) then it's more like insurance. I.e., gambling (which is what insurance is). That, however, does not describe how most people acquire health coverage. Calling it insurance is just "tradition", because that was how it was once done.
He didn't say "All people". That was your addition. He said, as you quoted, "People will take on...", which I tend to parse as "People will typically take on..." or "People will frequently take on...".
You can argue as to whether his assertion was correct, but there are a large number of examples that indicate he may be. Putting your own reading of his words into his mouth, however, is an illegitimate form or arguing.
I'm running Debian testing. And it's *still* reduced in features. (I could probably tweak it if I put in the time, but there's a reason I don't run Gentoo. I don't *want* to spend my time that way.) (Yeah, I *could* run stable, and keep KDE3, but there are good reasons not related to the desktop why I should run testing.)
And Konqueror isn't the only misfeature of KDE4. It's just one of the outstanding ones, that really impinge on daily actions. Their stupid menu change is another one. (And, no, classic menus doesn't solve the problem. It only brings back SOME of the usefulness of the prior menuing system. And their default is just stupid. It can take four times as long to select something as it did. [Actually longer, as the flashy graphics seem to have time delays built in so that you'll notice them.])
I don't just want the KDE3 file manager. I want KDE3. And the Konqueror that ships with KDE4 is reduced in functionality compared to the one that ships with KDE3. Intentionally.
I'm not complaining about bugs, I'm complaining about design decisions. From my point of view they're stupid misfeatures. I acknowledge that others don't find them as appalling as I do. Most "good things" I've heard about KDE4 have been that it has cool eye-candy. Frankly, that means very little to me.
(When using Gnome I use a combination of the "File Browser"[I'd have to dig to find out what program that is] and Konqueror. The combination does most of what the KDE3 Konqueror did. I'm severely unimpressed. But it's better than the combination of Dolphin and Konqueror. And both combinations are a clumsy substitute for what Konqueror was. Now about the menuing system...)
It'll be a long time before I think the KDE4 desktop is as good as the KDE3.x was. I'll tell you how good *I* think it is. I switched to Gnome. (I considered a bunch of other choices, because I don't like Gnome, not compared to KDE3. But I like it compared to KDE4.)
It could well be quite reasonable and still be illegal.
In many states in a primary election you show the voters only the candidates of their own party + non-partisan offices. That's one valid reason. Doesn't mean that doing it that way is legal.
An interesting question might be "How easy is it to replace those stored procedures with others on election day?". This is the kind of question that has frequently been raised and which I have never heard satisfactory answer to. Only answers that apply to some particular precinct. And I've heard allegations about other precincts that are very different, but not, of course, from anyone who was directly involved.
What's wrong with NEdit? It's true I also use gedit, kedit, and medit, but sometimes nedit is the right tool. (I also use kate, and various other editors. Even vi(m). Not EMACS because I dislike their file handling system, but that's a purely personal taste.
When you're doing pattern matching in an editor (well, certain kinds of pattern matchin) NEdit is the right choice. The others will allow to to eventually craft grammars to handle the patterns, but NEdit lets you build them en-passant.
Bad idea? What, making it so that those who paid them money to vote the way they wanted could ensure that they continued to be elected was a bad idea?
I haven't been able to make myself believe that this choice was made in innocence. Fixing elections has happened on a small scale for a long time. This is merely the modernizing of that "fine old tradition".
But how much biodiesel is there? Enough for a few cars to run on it, sure. Especially if they're friends with a local restaurant that does a lot of deep frying. Nothing yet in any quantity, though.
Doesn't mean it won't show up some time. Possibly as soon as three or four years. But you can't sell things now based on the fuel might be available in four years.
You probably don't even need it for every stop. It could likely get by with one charging station every couple of miles, except in very hilly terrain. I suppose it depends on how expensive the capacitors are.
I suspect that people don't really think about what conspiracy means. If they did, they would realize that conspiracies are quite common. Certain conspiracies get denounced by public authorities, and everyone believes that "these are the conspirators", but that's only a very small subset of the conspiracies that exist. Some conspiracies plot to subvert legislation. (Define subvert how you will.) Usually those conspiracies don't use force or threat, but instead greed, or some such. Occasionally they use "patriotism" (under one definition or another) as a tool. They are goups of people who organize together (i.e. conspiracy from con spiro, Latin, breathe together) to accomplish a goal. In common speech this is restricted to groups who are secretive and act in defiance of the existing law. Bribing politicians is such an act. So is organizing a Ponzi scheme. But the requirement that it be illegal is a recent addition.
Did you realize that in many state conspiracy to jaywalk is a felony? This makes any kid who's ever played Chicken a felon (probably uncharged and unconvicted, but a felon, nonetheless).
Note that any kids club where they hide what they're doing from the adults is, by any reasonable reading of the term, a conspiracy. Don't say that they are uncommon.
Some of his points sound like they could be reasonable. Others sound like he's just dismissed the concept is is coming up with justifiers. (I.e., I think that *I* can see ways to answer his objections.) This makes me skeptical about the rest of his answers.
To be explicit, consider the claim that you now need two to four inverters. There exist such things as DC electric motors, and they are no heavier or more expensive than AC motors. That gets rid of the need for ANY inverters except to use with attached gadgets. And I think that in cars those are already designed to operate on DC. So no inverters needed at all.
Sure there can. Not saying it applies in this case, but one can have a monopoly in one district while someone else has a monopoly in the same area next district over. See how the phone company does it.
Here I think it's just being used as a scare word, and because oligopoly doesn't sound quite as evil. (And it usually isn't quite as evil...because someone's likely to break ranks if it will help their business.)
No, I don't think so. At mid-point slowing down is what the rest of the trip is about.
If would be interesting to know whether a Vasimir rocket could use boiling rock as an ion source, though. (But perhaps one should use a comet instead. Sounds much more practical.)
Note that for voyages of this length, a small improvement in ISP could produce extreme benefits. And remember that for a Vasimir engine the default assumption is that the acceleration is continually increasing. (Because the impulse is constant, and the mass being accelerated is continually decreasing.)
That's not the point. The point is to prevent (delay really) the cross from happening. The only way to do that is to decrease the prevalence of flu in the population. The way to do that is to have fewer carriers. Vaccination, if it's effective, decreases the percentage of carriers. If it's less than 50% effective, then it's not as good as if it were more effective, but if it's effective at all, it will decrease the percentage of carriers.
It's unfortunate that this can't necessarily be translated into a decrease in fatalities. (It almost always it, but that's not guaranteed, and this report seems to assert that in this case it isn't among people older than 65. I don't think it talks about their tendency to be carriers. [I'm relying on secondary sources, so if you're really interested, check the original paper.])
Each individual is safer if they don't get vaccinated, and everyone else does. But if few people are vaccinated, nobody is very safe, though the vaccinated are safer than those who aren't. (I feel that those who refuse to get vaccinated because it's safer for them are selfish bastards who I wouldn't choose to have as friends.)
The purpose of the vaccine isn't to protect the individual, though it does to an extent. It's purpose is to prevent the spread of the disease by interposing people who won't get sick. If there are enough people who won't get sick, then the epidemic will die out. This doesn't require 100% effectiveness. How much it requires depends on the nature of the disease. For the flu it's probably around 70-80%, given the dense packing that people frequently engage in (buses, movie theaters, staff meeting, school rooms, cafeterias, etc.).
N.B.: The purpose of a mask is to prevent you from spreading the flu, not to prevent you from catching it. Gloves, OTOH, are to prevent you from catching it. (Neither is 100% effective, but they don't need to be to impede the spread of the epidemic.)
What they're claiming is even narrower than that. Their sample was basically people 65+ year old, and such people generally have weaker immune systems. So it's quite possible that in some population groups the effectiveness is 50%, or even better than 50%. Possibly different age groups should have differently designed vaccines. But we're already having trouble getting enough vaccine with only one design for each of two flu strains.
It's a reasonable point, and clearly the most effective vaccine would be custom designed for each person....also clearly there's no way that we could afford that in this decade. (Nanotech labs are getting cheaper, but they're not that cheap yet.)
I don't know that I trust that site. It looks good, but the results appear flaky. I do know that vaccination has had a profound effect on the prevalence of polio. I'm old enough to have had a sister who caught the disease.
I don't trust their other statistics. I can't prove them wrong, because I'm not about to plow through the original papers (and my German [Swiss?] isn't all that hot). But I do know that many people were using vaccinations long before they were legally mandated, so even given that their statistics were honest, they don't prove what they claim to prove.
P.S.: When is the last time you encountered someone who had smallpox? That's been eradicated from the world (except biological warfare labs) in your lifetime. And vaccination played THE major role in it's eradication. (Yes, I saw their chart. That made me doubt ALL of their charts.)
... But the issue of not knowing is problematic. Take the economic crisis for example : the basis of the problem is that nobody expected the cascade effect that failing mortgages would have....
That's actually incorrect. Several economists did make that exact prediction. The people in charge refused to change their policies. And the structure of the system was such that you couldn't predict when the collapse would happen, merely that it would happen soon. And right up until the collapse it was more profitable to continue to play this lottery than to do something safer. (Actually, as government bailouts proved, for many it was more profitable to continue playing the game well into the collapse.)
Don't mistake the structure of the problem. That's primal and typical. People dismiss the Luddites as anti-technology. What they were really opposed to is losing their jobs and being thrown our of the homes. They EXPRESSED their disapproval of this by breaking the machines that were bought to replace them, but their grievance wasn't with the machines, it was with the social mechanisms that dictated that *they* would pay the costs of installing the machines and receive none of the benefits.
This current economic crisis was a bit sneakier, but I see no reason to believe that the people in charge didn't see it coming. Their plans to escape any ill-effects from it were too soundly in place. And the economists who did predict it were so thoroughly ignored. (You can't say it was because they were bearing bad news when the folk who were running the scheme were so thoroughly protected against all bad effects of the collapse. Instead you need to ask yourself if the level of protection didn't imply that they also saw it coming. It *might* have been protection against some other calamity that "just happened" to be repurposable, so the case isn't proven. But I know which way I'd bet.)
*If* you believe the article. But since the article apparently significantly changes the results of the article that it's "based" on in reporting them... well, I doubt that it's any more accurate on the results that aren't attributable.
E.g.: The original article was about people 65 years and older. The article reported that as a statement about all people. This is a very significant difference that's just ignored over. One may guess whether it's intentional deception or not, but it remains deceptive. I don't trust articles that are obviously deceptive.
N.B.: This isn't to question the research results, and it's call for further investigation. That seems like a very good idea. But don't believe this article. It's written by somebody who is either ignorant or has an axe to grind, and edited by another.
Yes, if you get it multiple times it's unlikely to be flu... unless there are lots of strains floating around that year. This year I know of 3, fortunately the only serious one is still unable to spread easily between people.
P.S.: I *suspect* that I've already had a mild case of one flu or another. I'm getting flu shots anyway. It's really important this year that the flu strains not hybridize.
Slashdot Mirror
In Sweden you aren't likely to die because someone else knew what your genetic codes were. In the US...well, it's illegal to discriminate because of a person's genetic variants, but it could be quite profitable if you're a health insurance company. Of course nobody worries about that because we all know that the health insurance companies are all ethical and law abiding.
So you aren't hearing any worries or complaints. You aren't. You aren't. You aren't hearing any worries or complaints.
Calling "health insurance" an insurance is a misnomer and has been all my life. Certainly since the rise of the HMOs. Possibly before that you would have grounds to call it an insurance in the classic form. I don't really remember.
If you're going to pretend that now, all of a sudden, it should change to actually be an insurance plan... Well, ok, but you need to get rid of the HMOs first.
Remember how the Kaiser health plan started. An employer wanted to ensure that his trained workers stayed with him and got treated after injuries on the job (so they'd get back to work). He may also have had charitable idea, but he was an independent owner of a business, not a corporation, so he was allowed to. The reasons I gave were his official ones. (Not the PR ones, which leaned towards charitable...which may have been true also.)
Kaiser never intended his health plan to be a health insurance in any normal sense of the term insurance. He wanted it as a way to retain the services of skilled workers, and to get them back to work quickly after an accident. That's a "sort of" insurance, but it's not health insurance, except from the employer's point of view. It's definitely, however, a health plan, and that's what he called it.
Blue Shield was, I believe, actually a health insurance company before the rise of the HMOs. But when it started being sold as an employee benefit by employers it stopped being insurance in any normal sense of the term.
When people buy their own health plan on their of their own choice (with or without employer subsidy, but their choice and the person directly chosing the plan and dealing with it) then it's more like insurance. I.e., gambling (which is what insurance is). That, however, does not describe how most people acquire health coverage. Calling it insurance is just "tradition", because that was how it was once done.
He didn't say "All people". That was your addition. He said, as you quoted, "People will take on...", which I tend to parse as "People will typically take on..." or "People will frequently take on...".
You can argue as to whether his assertion was correct, but there are a large number of examples that indicate he may be. Putting your own reading of his words into his mouth, however, is an illegitimate form or arguing.
And no company would ever break a law to increase it's profits.
Well there are still accidents and other environmental hazards. There will be SOME utility in health insurance. Just not as much.
<humor>So of course they'll reduce their rates because their expenses have gone down. </humor>
I'm running Debian testing. And it's *still* reduced in features. (I could probably tweak it if I put in the time, but there's a reason I don't run Gentoo. I don't *want* to spend my time that way.) (Yeah, I *could* run stable, and keep KDE3, but there are good reasons not related to the desktop why I should run testing.)
And Konqueror isn't the only misfeature of KDE4. It's just one of the outstanding ones, that really impinge on daily actions. Their stupid menu change is another one. (And, no, classic menus doesn't solve the problem. It only brings back SOME of the usefulness of the prior menuing system. And their default is just stupid. It can take four times as long to select something as it did. [Actually longer, as the flashy graphics seem to have time delays built in so that you'll notice them.])
KDE4 is a perfect storm of bad design decisions.
I don't just want the KDE3 file manager. I want KDE3. And the Konqueror that ships with KDE4 is reduced in functionality compared to the one that ships with KDE3. Intentionally.
I'm not complaining about bugs, I'm complaining about design decisions. From my point of view they're stupid misfeatures. I acknowledge that others don't find them as appalling as I do. Most "good things" I've heard about KDE4 have been that it has cool eye-candy. Frankly, that means very little to me.
(When using Gnome I use a combination of the "File Browser"[I'd have to dig to find out what program that is] and Konqueror. The combination does most of what the KDE3 Konqueror did. I'm severely unimpressed. But it's better than the combination of Dolphin and Konqueror. And both combinations are a clumsy substitute for what Konqueror was. Now about the menuing system...)
It'll be a long time before I think the KDE4 desktop is as good as the KDE3.x was. I'll tell you how good *I* think it is. I switched to Gnome. (I considered a bunch of other choices, because I don't like Gnome, not compared to KDE3. But I like it compared to KDE4.)
Eye candy isn't what desktops are about.
It could well be quite reasonable and still be illegal.
In many states in a primary election you show the voters only the candidates of their own party + non-partisan offices. That's one valid reason. Doesn't mean that doing it that way is legal.
An interesting question might be "How easy is it to replace those stored procedures with others on election day?". This is the kind of question that has frequently been raised and which I have never heard satisfactory answer to. Only answers that apply to some particular precinct. And I've heard allegations about other precincts that are very different, but not, of course, from anyone who was directly involved.
What's wrong with NEdit? It's true I also use gedit, kedit, and medit, but sometimes nedit is the right tool. (I also use kate, and various other editors. Even vi(m). Not EMACS because I dislike their file handling system, but that's a purely personal taste.
When you're doing pattern matching in an editor (well, certain kinds of pattern matchin) NEdit is the right choice. The others will allow to to eventually craft grammars to handle the patterns, but NEdit lets you build them en-passant.
Bad idea? What, making it so that those who paid them money to vote the way they wanted could ensure that they continued to be elected was a bad idea?
I haven't been able to make myself believe that this choice was made in innocence. Fixing elections has happened on a small scale for a long time. This is merely the modernizing of that "fine old tradition".
You do remember that the guy with bionic feet was forbidden to compete in the Olympics, don't you?
Also, it's still early in the century. By the time we get to the end of it, well ... you wouldn't recognize the world.
But how much biodiesel is there? Enough for a few cars to run on it, sure. Especially if they're friends with a local restaurant that does a lot of deep frying. Nothing yet in any quantity, though.
Doesn't mean it won't show up some time. Possibly as soon as three or four years. But you can't sell things now based on the fuel might be available in four years.
You probably don't even need it for every stop. It could likely get by with one charging station every couple of miles, except in very hilly terrain. I suppose it depends on how expensive the capacitors are.
How do you know?
I suspect that people don't really think about what conspiracy means. If they did, they would realize that conspiracies are quite common. Certain conspiracies get denounced by public authorities, and everyone believes that "these are the conspirators", but that's only a very small subset of the conspiracies that exist. Some conspiracies plot to subvert legislation. (Define subvert how you will.) Usually those conspiracies don't use force or threat, but instead greed, or some such. Occasionally they use "patriotism" (under one definition or another) as a tool. They are goups of people who organize together (i.e. conspiracy from con spiro, Latin, breathe together) to accomplish a goal. In common speech this is restricted to groups who are secretive and act in defiance of the existing law. Bribing politicians is such an act. So is organizing a Ponzi scheme. But the requirement that it be illegal is a recent addition.
Did you realize that in many state conspiracy to jaywalk is a felony? This makes any kid who's ever played Chicken a felon (probably uncharged and unconvicted, but a felon, nonetheless).
Note that any kids club where they hide what they're doing from the adults is, by any reasonable reading of the term, a conspiracy. Don't say that they are uncommon.
Some of his points sound like they could be reasonable. Others sound like he's just dismissed the concept is is coming up with justifiers. (I.e., I think that *I* can see ways to answer his objections.) This makes me skeptical about the rest of his answers.
To be explicit, consider the claim that you now need two to four inverters. There exist such things as DC electric motors, and they are no heavier or more expensive than AC motors. That gets rid of the need for ANY inverters except to use with attached gadgets. And I think that in cars those are already designed to operate on DC. So no inverters needed at all.
Sure there can. Not saying it applies in this case, but one can have a monopoly in one district while someone else has a monopoly in the same area next district over. See how the phone company does it.
Here I think it's just being used as a scare word, and because oligopoly doesn't sound quite as evil. (And it usually isn't quite as evil...because someone's likely to break ranks if it will help their business.)
No, I don't think so. At mid-point slowing down is what the rest of the trip is about.
If would be interesting to know whether a Vasimir rocket could use boiling rock as an ion source, though. (But perhaps one should use a comet instead. Sounds much more practical.)
Note that for voyages of this length, a small improvement in ISP could produce extreme benefits. And remember that for a Vasimir engine the default assumption is that the acceleration is continually increasing. (Because the impulse is constant, and the mass being accelerated is continually decreasing.)
That's not the point. The point is to prevent (delay really) the cross from happening. The only way to do that is to decrease the prevalence of flu in the population. The way to do that is to have fewer carriers. Vaccination, if it's effective, decreases the percentage of carriers. If it's less than 50% effective, then it's not as good as if it were more effective, but if it's effective at all, it will decrease the percentage of carriers.
It's unfortunate that this can't necessarily be translated into a decrease in fatalities. (It almost always it, but that's not guaranteed, and this report seems to assert that in this case it isn't among people older than 65. I don't think it talks about their tendency to be carriers. [I'm relying on secondary sources, so if you're really interested, check the original paper.])
Each individual is safer if they don't get vaccinated, and everyone else does. But if few people are vaccinated, nobody is very safe, though the vaccinated are safer than those who aren't. (I feel that those who refuse to get vaccinated because it's safer for them are selfish bastards who I wouldn't choose to have as friends.)
The purpose of the vaccine isn't to protect the individual, though it does to an extent. It's purpose is to prevent the spread of the disease by interposing people who won't get sick. If there are enough people who won't get sick, then the epidemic will die out. This doesn't require 100% effectiveness. How much it requires depends on the nature of the disease. For the flu it's probably around 70-80%, given the dense packing that people frequently engage in (buses, movie theaters, staff meeting, school rooms, cafeterias, etc.).
N.B.: The purpose of a mask is to prevent you from spreading the flu, not to prevent you from catching it. Gloves, OTOH, are to prevent you from catching it. (Neither is 100% effective, but they don't need to be to impede the spread of the epidemic.)
What they're claiming is even narrower than that. Their sample was basically people 65+ year old, and such people generally have weaker immune systems. So it's quite possible that in some population groups the effectiveness is 50%, or even better than 50%. Possibly different age groups should have differently designed vaccines. But we're already having trouble getting enough vaccine with only one design for each of two flu strains.
It's a reasonable point, and clearly the most effective vaccine would be custom designed for each person....also clearly there's no way that we could afford that in this decade. (Nanotech labs are getting cheaper, but they're not that cheap yet.)
I don't know that I trust that site. It looks good, but the results appear flaky. I do know that vaccination has had a profound effect on the prevalence of polio. I'm old enough to have had a sister who caught the disease.
I don't trust their other statistics. I can't prove them wrong, because I'm not about to plow through the original papers (and my German [Swiss?] isn't all that hot). But I do know that many people were using vaccinations long before they were legally mandated, so even given that their statistics were honest, they don't prove what they claim to prove.
P.S.: When is the last time you encountered someone who had smallpox? That's been eradicated from the world (except biological warfare labs) in your lifetime. And vaccination played THE major role in it's eradication. (Yes, I saw their chart. That made me doubt ALL of their charts.)
... But the issue of not knowing is problematic. Take the economic crisis for example : the basis of the problem is that nobody expected the cascade effect that failing mortgages would have. ...
That's actually incorrect. Several economists did make that exact prediction. The people in charge refused to change their policies. And the structure of the system was such that you couldn't predict when the collapse would happen, merely that it would happen soon. And right up until the collapse it was more profitable to continue to play this lottery than to do something safer. (Actually, as government bailouts proved, for many it was more profitable to continue playing the game well into the collapse.)
Don't mistake the structure of the problem. That's primal and typical. People dismiss the Luddites as anti-technology. What they were really opposed to is losing their jobs and being thrown our of the homes. They EXPRESSED their disapproval of this by breaking the machines that were bought to replace them, but their grievance wasn't with the machines, it was with the social mechanisms that dictated that *they* would pay the costs of installing the machines and receive none of the benefits.
This current economic crisis was a bit sneakier, but I see no reason to believe that the people in charge didn't see it coming. Their plans to escape any ill-effects from it were too soundly in place. And the economists who did predict it were so thoroughly ignored. (You can't say it was because they were bearing bad news when the folk who were running the scheme were so thoroughly protected against all bad effects of the collapse. Instead you need to ask yourself if the level of protection didn't imply that they also saw it coming. It *might* have been protection against some other calamity that "just happened" to be repurposable, so the case isn't proven. But I know which way I'd bet.)
*If* you believe the article. But since the article apparently significantly changes the results of the article that it's "based" on in reporting them... well, I doubt that it's any more accurate on the results that aren't attributable.
E.g.: The original article was about people 65 years and older. The article reported that as a statement about all people. This is a very significant difference that's just ignored over. One may guess whether it's intentional deception or not, but it remains deceptive. I don't trust articles that are obviously deceptive.
N.B.: This isn't to question the research results, and it's call for further investigation. That seems like a very good idea. But don't believe this article. It's written by somebody who is either ignorant or has an axe to grind, and edited by another.
Yes, if you get it multiple times it's unlikely to be flu ... unless there are lots of strains floating around that year. This year I know of 3, fortunately the only serious one is still unable to spread easily between people.
P.S.: I *suspect* that I've already had a mild case of one flu or another. I'm getting flu shots anyway. It's really important this year that the flu strains not hybridize.