I have no doubt that some smart people 1,500 years ago knew these things... and even 500 years ago... but the masses? The people who couldn't read and write and simply existed?
I suspect there was a wide gap between those two groups... heck, there is such a gap today, is there not?
The Sun is far more beautiful than I imagined... I had some idea from drawings and older pictures that the sun was active, but I had no idea it was THAT active... so much that we don't know...
To quote Agent K:
"1,500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
You're an anti-vaxer, what makes you so sure you're the arbiter of what is worth listening to?
You might be shocked to learn that I'm not an anti-vaxer, rather I'm concerned about it...
I do believe they work, the facts of the lower rates of various things like polio and smallpox really can't be disputed... my concern is over the side effects and the long term effects, neither of which seems to be very well understood or agreed on...
If the entire argument is, "well, the experts said so...", then my reply would be, "well, the experts have been wrong before, I'll take it all with a grain of salt". That doesn't mean I reject it outright, but it does mean that I give it a cautious view.
As I said, the experts once said DDT should be sprayed on children:
Why would I be? Like the other poster, you're speaking as if your position is absolutely correct and without question.
You aren't going to convince me, or the millions of parents like me, with that attitude.
Am I willing to vaccinate some day? Yes, I have no problem with the concept, I just have a problem with the system as it stands.
The system has no obligation to change for me of course, but then I have no obligation to partake in it either. So the door swings both ways.
Given the nature of injecting something into everyone, I think it needs to be subject to the most strictest of testing, including a fresh review every 20 years as if it was a "new" drug. It also needs to be subject to the same FDA rules as new drugs, not the ones in place when they were created.
You speak as if your point of view is absolutely correct and without question.
I don't agree, and you won't convince me by talking to me that way.
I have no doubt that vaccines have done a lot of good, but I question at what cost. DDT was very effective as well, but at what cost? We have banned it, along with a lot of other very helpful things, like lead in paint and fuel.
Except of course the lead in aviation gas, which even being called 100LL (low lead), it still has 8 times the lead in it that old car gas used to have. No suitable replacement for that has been found yet, hopefully sooner rather than later that is addressed.
Because there are a small number of children and adults who have medical problems that prevent them from getting the vaccines. These people are put at real risk when other individuals don't vaccinate.
That may well be true, but injecting something into my kids to protect other people's kids is not my job and not the job of my kids.
The odds of a reaction might be low, but they aren't zero. No amount of compensation will undo such a reaction.
Quite a trick considering the broken social contract. No employer will employ anyone for the long term or take the risk to train someone for a particular job anymore. YOU take the long term risk. Your house payments are a liability.
Then why do you work for someone else?
I started my first business when I was 19 years old... other than a few bits here and there, I've worked for myself for over 20 years...
If you do want to work for someone else, if you live in a decent sized city, there is always work to be found...
Stop paying your property taxes if you believe that. We'll see how long that delusion persists.
Yea, and if I don't mow the lawn, the city will come do it and bill me a lot of money. I'll own the house free and clear from a mortgage payment, that should have been obvious... taxes are still a social obligation, but my taxes are about $500 a month, you can't rent a 5 bedroom house for $500 a month.
Time travel having yet to be perfected, that's as much a lottery as any ticket...
We'll need engineers in 20 years, that would be a fairly safe bet... Probably lawyers too... And doctors...
And in the meantime you are shelling out for taxes, maintenance, and being rooted in one area.
Those are included in rent as well, just not broken out as line items, but they are there.
So, for a single family home that you live in, it is an expense. Yes, I know everyone in the media and our politicians calls home ownership an investment, but they are wrong. 2008 proved that.
It is both actually... the trick is not to move every 5-7 years...
I've been in my home for 10 years, at my current rate of payments, my mortgage will be paid off in the next 6 years. I'm not paying anything more per month than local rents for the same size house would cost, yet in 6 years, I'll own a $400k house free and clear.
That strikes me as an investment. Per month, I'm paying $3,000 including PITI and some extra towards principle. That $3K is about what the same house rents for.
Now it is true that I have to do repairs, replace the HVAC and water heaters, both of which I've done... but those rather pay for themselves when you're willing to buy the good units. My HVAC replacement was just over $17K for a pair of units (3,800sqft, so a 5 ton and a 3 ton unit). However they replaced a 15 year old 13 SEER single stage unit with a 16 SEER dual stage, dual speed unit. The savings in my electric and gas bills over 10 years makes the replacement free, vs. keeping the older units. Had a landlord done it, do you really think he would have put in such nice units into a rental house that he isn't paying the bills on?
Your equity? Let's put it this way, if Congress ever removes the mortgage interest deduction, attitude about homes being an investment will change. The people making money or I should say, making the decent returns, on your house are the banks.
Meh, at current rates, it isn't that big a deal... it is mostly in people's heads...
My current mortgage is 3.5%. The annual interest is less than $10K. It is a deduction, not a tax credit, so my actual savings from it is about $2,500 in taxes, give or take a few hundred. It is nice, but not the reason to own a home.
We have been programmed in our society to take on debt: cars, houses, education, etc... And our tax system has also distorted how we "invest" our money.
Cars and education I agree with you, to a point... A car can be an investment if it lets you get to work. Leather seats and a V8 are not required for that however, those are luxuries.
Education? That can be an investment, if you pick the right major and go to cheaper schools and don't rack up stupid loan amounts.
Both can also be bad... it just depends...
Debt is a wonderful thing, if it makes you money, which it can... I've financed equipment and inventory purchases before and earned back many times the cost of debt. That is "good debt".
Putting a trip to Europe on the Visa that you can't pay at the end of the month? That is "bad debt".
It isn't complex, but debt can be both good and bad, depending on what it is used for.
And watch my rent go up, or watch the landlord sell the place out from under me, or get foreclosed on, or decide to move in themselves? No thanks. I'm also paying a premium for stability. Yes it's dependent on keeping a stable job, but it really cuts down on the number of things that could force me to move. Peace of mind is invaluable.
^ This... while you can't control everything, for example, Eminent Domain... owning does give you a lot of power...
So long as you pay your mortgage/taxes and don't do anything totally stupid, you can live there as long as you like and no one will bother you.
"Linux is not really meant to be a desktop OS."....tell that to Valve. They only "relatively recently" releases Steam, 'Counter Strike' and 'Left 4 Dead 2'.
Valve has business reasons for tossing token support to Linux, to keep the fire under Microsoft's seat, since the new Windows Store competes directly with Steam.
Despite that "Linux is not really meant to be a desktop OS.",(in my highly unscientific test of 3 computers) the few games that are made for Linux all work MUCH better in Linux(on the computers I tested) than their Windows counterparts.
As you say, "unscientific", since I could report the reverse and our anecdotal evidence just counters each other.
Windows has more than 90% of the desktop OS market, OS X has about 6%, Linux has between 1% and 3% depending on the source, and the rest is other.
That speaks for itself, IMHO... Windows works fine, I keep hearing all these wonderful things about Linux, I've used Linux as a server OS for many years, but it is a pretty crappy desktop OS when it comes to desktop applications.
The primary point put forward by most of the Linux on the desktop people is, "it isn't Windows". That is not a good enough reason, just hating on Windows is not going to get any traction, it has to do something better.
Except now that siucidal gay teen or the boy who thinks he is a girl doesn't have to kill themselves when they are tormented for not fitting into society- they can get a doctor to do it for them.
The part you're missing is that when that person goes to the doctor, they may find their first friendly voice they have ever heard.
"When Josh Alcorn voiced a desire to live as a girl, the Ohio teenager's parents said they wouldn't stand for that.
"We don't support that, religiously," Alcorn's mother told CNN on Wednesday, her voice breaking."
---
That boy had no one to provide a friendly voice, his parents took him to a christian therapist:
"My mom started taking me to a therapist, but would only take me to christian therapists, (who were all very biased) so I never actually got the therapy I needed to cure me of my depression. I only got more christians telling me that I was selfish and wrong and that I should look to God for help."
---
Instead of walking in front of a truck to take his own life, had he been able to go talk to a doctor, someone that his parents didn't pick, he might have found a sympathetic voice.
Regardless if you think LGBT is "right" or "wrong", a 16 year old boy has to be in a LOT of pain to think that death is their only escape.
Slashdot Mirror
Columbus was probably much smarter than your average lad, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to undertake such a voyage.
You of course might be right in your comments about 19th century re-invention of history, but do you have any sources for that?
I have no doubt that some smart people 1,500 years ago knew these things... and even 500 years ago... but the masses? The people who couldn't read and write and simply existed?
I suspect there was a wide gap between those two groups... heck, there is such a gap today, is there not?
Wow, I'm simply speechless... (but I'll try anyway)
The Sun is far more beautiful than I imagined... I had some idea from drawings and older pictures that the sun was active, but I had no idea it was THAT active... so much that we don't know...
To quote Agent K:
"1,500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
It is your job to protect your kids and vaccination is part of doing that.
In your opinion... Have you stopped to consider that other points of view might exist besides your own?
You're an anti-vaxer, what makes you so sure you're the arbiter of what is worth listening to?
You might be shocked to learn that I'm not an anti-vaxer, rather I'm concerned about it...
I do believe they work, the facts of the lower rates of various things like polio and smallpox really can't be disputed... my concern is over the side effects and the long term effects, neither of which seems to be very well understood or agreed on...
If the entire argument is, "well, the experts said so...", then my reply would be, "well, the experts have been wrong before, I'll take it all with a grain of salt". That doesn't mean I reject it outright, but it does mean that I give it a cautious view.
As I said, the experts once said DDT should be sprayed on children:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It looks almost comical today, but it really happened...
It is your, not you're. When you learn to use the English language, perhaps someone will take you seriously.
Your comment regarding the electric chair make you far more of a mouth breather than it does me.
Why would I be? Like the other poster, you're speaking as if your position is absolutely correct and without question.
You aren't going to convince me, or the millions of parents like me, with that attitude.
Am I willing to vaccinate some day? Yes, I have no problem with the concept, I just have a problem with the system as it stands.
The system has no obligation to change for me of course, but then I have no obligation to partake in it either. So the door swings both ways.
Given the nature of injecting something into everyone, I think it needs to be subject to the most strictest of testing, including a fresh review every 20 years as if it was a "new" drug. It also needs to be subject to the same FDA rules as new drugs, not the ones in place when they were created.
Replies like that just make you look silly and don't add anything to the conversation.
Anyone who puts someone who kills with intent and someone who chooses to not take medication in the same sentence isn't worth listening to.
You speak as if your point of view is absolutely correct and without question.
I don't agree, and you won't convince me by talking to me that way.
I have no doubt that vaccines have done a lot of good, but I question at what cost. DDT was very effective as well, but at what cost? We have banned it, along with a lot of other very helpful things, like lead in paint and fuel.
Except of course the lead in aviation gas, which even being called 100LL (low lead), it still has 8 times the lead in it that old car gas used to have. No suitable replacement for that has been found yet, hopefully sooner rather than later that is addressed.
Yes, but I live in Texas, and those records can be as simple as "I don't want to vaccinate my kids for personal belief reasons".
I know, my three kids are in school, none have been vaccinated.
No one, stuff happens, it is life...
I suppose you could look for financial compensation, but would that bring back your child?
Just like financial compensation doesn't fix an injured child who had a bad reaction.
Because there are a small number of children and adults who have medical problems that prevent them from getting the vaccines. These people are put at real risk when other individuals don't vaccinate.
That may well be true, but injecting something into my kids to protect other people's kids is not my job and not the job of my kids.
The odds of a reaction might be low, but they aren't zero. No amount of compensation will undo such a reaction.
Yes, true... But what is really useless is a liberal arts degree that puts you $150k in debt. Can we agree on that? :)
There is that too... And that can make for a profitable long term rental base...
Quite a trick considering the broken social contract. No employer will employ anyone for the long term or take the risk to train someone for a particular job anymore. YOU take the long term risk. Your house payments are a liability.
Then why do you work for someone else?
I started my first business when I was 19 years old... other than a few bits here and there, I've worked for myself for over 20 years...
If you do want to work for someone else, if you live in a decent sized city, there is always work to be found...
Stop paying your property taxes if you believe that. We'll see how long that delusion persists.
Yea, and if I don't mow the lawn, the city will come do it and bill me a lot of money. I'll own the house free and clear from a mortgage payment, that should have been obvious... taxes are still a social obligation, but my taxes are about $500 a month, you can't rent a 5 bedroom house for $500 a month.
Time travel having yet to be perfected, that's as much a lottery as any ticket...
We'll need engineers in 20 years, that would be a fairly safe bet... Probably lawyers too... And doctors...
And in the meantime you are shelling out for taxes, maintenance, and being rooted in one area.
Those are included in rent as well, just not broken out as line items, but they are there.
So, for a single family home that you live in, it is an expense. Yes, I know everyone in the media and our politicians calls home ownership an investment, but they are wrong. 2008 proved that.
It is both actually... the trick is not to move every 5-7 years...
I've been in my home for 10 years, at my current rate of payments, my mortgage will be paid off in the next 6 years. I'm not paying anything more per month than local rents for the same size house would cost, yet in 6 years, I'll own a $400k house free and clear.
That strikes me as an investment. Per month, I'm paying $3,000 including PITI and some extra towards principle. That $3K is about what the same house rents for.
Now it is true that I have to do repairs, replace the HVAC and water heaters, both of which I've done... but those rather pay for themselves when you're willing to buy the good units. My HVAC replacement was just over $17K for a pair of units (3,800sqft, so a 5 ton and a 3 ton unit). However they replaced a 15 year old 13 SEER single stage unit with a 16 SEER dual stage, dual speed unit. The savings in my electric and gas bills over 10 years makes the replacement free, vs. keeping the older units. Had a landlord done it, do you really think he would have put in such nice units into a rental house that he isn't paying the bills on?
Your equity? Let's put it this way, if Congress ever removes the mortgage interest deduction, attitude about homes being an investment will change. The people making money or I should say, making the decent returns, on your house are the banks.
Meh, at current rates, it isn't that big a deal... it is mostly in people's heads...
My current mortgage is 3.5%. The annual interest is less than $10K. It is a deduction, not a tax credit, so my actual savings from it is about $2,500 in taxes, give or take a few hundred. It is nice, but not the reason to own a home.
We have been programmed in our society to take on debt: cars, houses, education, etc ... And our tax system has also distorted how we "invest" our money.
Cars and education I agree with you, to a point... A car can be an investment if it lets you get to work. Leather seats and a V8 are not required for that however, those are luxuries.
Education? That can be an investment, if you pick the right major and go to cheaper schools and don't rack up stupid loan amounts.
Both can also be bad... it just depends...
Debt is a wonderful thing, if it makes you money, which it can... I've financed equipment and inventory purchases before and earned back many times the cost of debt. That is "good debt".
Putting a trip to Europe on the Visa that you can't pay at the end of the month? That is "bad debt".
It isn't complex, but debt can be both good and bad, depending on what it is used for.
And watch my rent go up, or watch the landlord sell the place out from under me, or get foreclosed on, or decide to move in themselves? No thanks. I'm also paying a premium for stability. Yes it's dependent on keeping a stable job, but it really cuts down on the number of things that could force me to move. Peace of mind is invaluable.
^ This... while you can't control everything, for example, Eminent Domain... owning does give you a lot of power...
So long as you pay your mortgage/taxes and don't do anything totally stupid, you can live there as long as you like and no one will bother you.
Fair enough...
I suppose another way to look at it would be... assuming they aren't balanced for a One vs. One game of course...
If they each fought one on one, who would win?
I can't see Spider-Man winning against the Hulk, Iron Man, or Thor personally... He might against Captain America... depends on the situation...
What about Iron Man vs. Hulk? That would be a matchup! :)
The only problem I see is that Spider-Man, as cool as he is, isn't in the same league as Iron Man, Thor, or even Captain America...
You're talking about a kid bitten by a spider who can sling webs...
Iron Man has... well, the suit, and Tony Stark's brains...
Thor is a god...
And Captain America is a super soldier...
In some ways, Hawkeye and Black Widow don't belong, they aren't super... but still...
And of course... As Tony Stark says in The Avengers so well... "We have a Hulk!"
:) Oh, someone already modded me down, but it really wasn't meant to be flamebait.
It was said with a straight face...
I'm not knocking Linux, I'm glad it exists, it makes for a great server OS... It just isn't going to displace Windows anytime... well, ever...
"Linux is not really meant to be a desktop OS."....tell that to Valve. They only "relatively recently" releases Steam, 'Counter Strike' and 'Left 4 Dead 2'.
Valve has business reasons for tossing token support to Linux, to keep the fire under Microsoft's seat, since the new Windows Store competes directly with Steam.
Despite that "Linux is not really meant to be a desktop OS.",(in my highly unscientific test of 3 computers) the few games that are made for Linux all work MUCH better in Linux(on the computers I tested) than their Windows counterparts.
As you say, "unscientific", since I could report the reverse and our anecdotal evidence just counters each other.
Windows has more than 90% of the desktop OS market, OS X has about 6%, Linux has between 1% and 3% depending on the source, and the rest is other.
That speaks for itself, IMHO... Windows works fine, I keep hearing all these wonderful things about Linux, I've used Linux as a server OS for many years, but it is a pretty crappy desktop OS when it comes to desktop applications.
The primary point put forward by most of the Linux on the desktop people is, "it isn't Windows". That is not a good enough reason, just hating on Windows is not going to get any traction, it has to do something better.
Why make a Linux version when Linux is simply not enough of a market to be worth serving?
Yes, they use Linux to run their servers, it is a great server OS. It sucks as a desktop OS.
Linux is not really meant to be a desktop OS. Yes, yes, you can use it as such, just as you can use Windows Server as a desktop OS.
But... you shouldn't...
Don't like Windows? Fine, run OS X on a Mac, those are really the only two desktop OS on the market...
If their product wasn't crushing you at $400, it won't crush you at free.
$400 is not a lot of money for the enterprise market, I'm shocked it was so cheap.
Except now that siucidal gay teen or the boy who thinks he is a girl doesn't have to kill themselves when they are tormented for not fitting into society- they can get a doctor to do it for them.
The part you're missing is that when that person goes to the doctor, they may find their first friendly voice they have ever heard.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/...
"When Josh Alcorn voiced a desire to live as a girl, the Ohio teenager's parents said they wouldn't stand for that.
"We don't support that, religiously," Alcorn's mother told CNN on Wednesday, her voice breaking."
---
That boy had no one to provide a friendly voice, his parents took him to a christian therapist:
"My mom started taking me to a therapist, but would only take me to christian therapists, (who were all very biased) so I never actually got the therapy I needed to cure me of my depression. I only got more christians telling me that I was selfish and wrong and that I should look to God for help."
---
Instead of walking in front of a truck to take his own life, had he been able to go talk to a doctor, someone that his parents didn't pick, he might have found a sympathetic voice.
Regardless if you think LGBT is "right" or "wrong", a 16 year old boy has to be in a LOT of pain to think that death is their only escape.