The numbers don't lie. Trying to pretend teenagers will not have sex does not have sex. Teaching abstinence only and restricting access to birth control methods such as is often seen in fundamentally religious communities leads to more teenage pregnancies, abortions and STD's transmitted, not less.
Show me those numbers! Everything that I've seen contradicts your assumptions.
But such statements are common amongst those who haven't done the research. Drawing from ones own life experience is not a substitute for statistics.
NO religion teaches abstinence as an ideal circumstance. Religions teach abstinence until the person meets another person, and then makes a permanent commitment to that person. Then religions say Go for it!
Many people have major misconceptions about religion and sex, and then make strong statements rooted in ignorance.
Sex is an addiction to anyone who has done it. Once you start, you don't stop. Religions know this, and that's why they say to wait until you found the right person, to not only have sex with, but to also have a family with.
Last time I checked, most people do want to get married someday, and do want a family someday.
For most of human history teenagers were already adults. Many 12 year olds are capable of having kids. That's how it has been for thousands and hundreds of thousands of years. That's how it will be for thousands of years to come.
It's just our society that puts 'artificial' boundaries on behavior, sometimes resulting in people in their 20's still behaving like kids. As our society became more complex, and our roles in it required more skill, people became more dependent on their parents while being educated into becoming a 'contributing' part of society.
For most of human history, that was not the case.
Then there are those sick f@ckers who 'like' looking at pictures of naked kids. There must be laws against that.
Yes, I'm making the obvious distinction that someone harmed by the "disease" is harmed from getting it in the wild, while someone harmed by the "vaccine" is harmed by something related to receiving it, whether an infection from those given by shot, or the disease itself from those vaccines where that's possible.
And that's where I think you're wrong. If someone acquires polio "in the wild" it's exactly the same as if someone acquired polio from someone who got OVP. Here's an interesting link: Nigeria Sees Polio Outbreak from Mutated Vaccine Virus . In this case if everyone was vaccinated with OVP in the immediate area - it wouldn't have happened.
We have proof that people with it come to the US.
No we don't. If I'm wrong, please provide a link that 'people with it come to the US', (the 8 cases that I told you about-last century excluded).
You seemed to only support my statement, and said nothing that contradicted it at all, but did so as if you were correcting me.
So when I said "No it won't come back" you must have missed that. BTW The first part of my last post was copied and pasted from the cdc site. That's why I provided the link.
OPV has not been used in the United States since 2000. From 1980 through 1999, there were 152 confirmed cases of paralytic polio cases reported. Eight cases were acquired outside the United States. The remaining 144 cases were vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) caused by live oral polio vaccine (OPV). From here. I fail to see why you would view it as tautology, but I admit that my statement should have been phrased in the past-tense. Nevertheless, for those 144 cases, the cure was worse than the disease.
And that's why I don't want a nutcase like you making decisions that affect others.
Thank you:)
We tried "don't get vaccinations" back before we had vaccinations, and guess what? People died. Lots of them. And people were crippled. Lots of them. And you are advocating that.
And you are advocating that. ??? If you are making such strong and false statements about what I am advocating then you should read my post again.
Sure, it may not happen for a generation, but in two generations, when polio was "hiding" in remote locations for 30 years, it'll come back as bad as it was in the early 1900s. There can't be any other option. Unless you eradicate it from the surface of the planet, someone, sometime, will manage to make it to contact an American without immunization who will be in the US or bring it home, and we'll be back where we were.
Are you joking? No it won't come back as in 1900's, Polio wasn't hiding and only 8 'wild' cases have come to the US in 30 years(reported cases), all of them in the last century. I look forward to this disease being eradicated within my lifetime. But I'm sure the pharmaceutical companies do not.
Scary ignorance? The other replies had a few good points(yes polio vaccine can eliminate polio, and VAPP disappears when a country switches from OVP to IVP). But your reply... doesn't.
Scientific method: testing a hypothesis. And retesting, and making perturbations and retesting more. Mistakes are made and assumptions are disproved; it is part of the learning process.
No. I'm not talking about testing hypotheses. I'm talking about pens and pizza and doctors washing their hands.(quote:"Despite special education and monitored observation, hand-washing rates were as low as 30% and never went above 48%")
The chemicals prevent secondary infections and are medically proven to not harm the patient.
Say what?
This is the worst post I've ever read on slashdot; what happened to the moderators?
While I can't comment on what you would view as a good post, I hope that those that mod will view my posts in a positive manner.
Could you imagine another outbreak of polio, or mumps, or any other disease that has virtually been stamped out
You do realize that in the US more children get sick from the polio vaccine than from the actual disease.
If suddenly there was an outbreak of polio, I support vaccinating children who have come into contact with that child. But there has been NO naturally ocuring polio in the US for decades. All cases were acquired from the vaccine itself. There is no need for it unless you actually travel to an affected country and meet some of the couple thousand of people still having this disease.
parents that understand the dangers of not immunizing
I find most people to be completely ignorant about immunizations. Many of them just have a religious zeal that if you don't immunize, you must be a 'bad' and 'evil' parent.
medically unproven opinion about immunization
It's proven - immunizations can stop diseases from spreading. It's proven - immunizations can cause disease. Is it proven that cigarettes cause cancer? A few decades ago even doctors were in cigarette ads.
Medical history is filled with cases where the treatment actually caused harm, and those who proposed alternate research and treatment were shunned and laughed at while a few decades later being vindicated as everyone adopted their procedures.
What if I decided that taking the driver license test would give me cancer, and I decided I could just start driving without ever taking the test. It would be ridiculous, and I would be putting others at risk through my behavior.
Why would you think that? You're ability to drive does not change with a piece of paper in you wallet. The driver's test is there to weed out those who can not drive safely. It does not make you a better driver.
There are people out there without a drivers license who can drive better than most other people. It's just illegal to do so. There are also bad drivers with a license who passed the test because the dmv employee was incompetent. Those people can be a far greater danger than an unlicensed - good driver who drives illegally.
It's misinformed opinions about the reasons behind vaccinations that keep the drug companies happy. If you want to think that it's "for everybody's safety" - go ahead, but this statement, which is more often than not a "blind faith" statement is the cause that those anti-vaccine zealots (who believe that all vaccines are bad) don't get along with the pro-vaccine zealots (who think that vaccines are the best thing in the world and you are evil if you don't give them to your kids).
Vaccines work. They have stuff in them that is bad. They are overused. They make their companies alot of money. But they have saved many lives. And hurt others.
I am pro-safe vaccines that are necessary. Polio is not necessary. But we should have localized supplies just in case, and we should eradicate polio like we did smallpox. And get those damn chemicals out of vaccines so that I don't have to worry about 'non-medically-proven' side-effects.
Why would MS even care? In fact if Novell fails, along with what recently happened with MySQL and Open Solaris, MS can brag about how proprietary software is the way to go.
Call my cynical, but any inroads into open source software by MS have been either because they had to, or because they had a direct benefit from the public image attained by playing nice with open source software.
At the end of the day, the fact remains. MS would like everyone to use their proprietary software. MS would like everyone to forget about open source.
The only way this will ever change is if open source becomes more profitable to them than proprietary software. Then MS would transform into the #1 proponent of open source.
Why would we be taxed for other people's mistakes?
This would just lead to people not caring and increase the amount of malware out there. If it doesn't cost you anything to clean it up, then why would you worry about making a mess?
Slashdot Mirror
The numbers don't lie. Trying to pretend teenagers will not have sex does not have sex. Teaching abstinence only and restricting access to birth control methods such as is often seen in fundamentally religious communities leads to more teenage pregnancies, abortions and STD's transmitted, not less.
Show me those numbers!
Everything that I've seen contradicts your assumptions.
But such statements are common amongst those who haven't done the research.
Drawing from ones own life experience is not a substitute for statistics.
NO religion teaches abstinence as an ideal circumstance.
Religions teach abstinence until the person meets another person, and then makes a permanent commitment to that person.
Then religions say Go for it!
Many people have major misconceptions about religion and sex, and then make strong statements rooted in ignorance.
Sex is an addiction to anyone who has done it. Once you start, you don't stop.
Religions know this, and that's why they say to wait until you found the right person, to not only have sex with, but to also have a family with.
Last time I checked, most people do want to get married someday, and do want a family someday.
I want software that was correctly written and had no exploits to begin with
And I want world peace.
Now which is more attainable? It all comes down to us-meatbags.
Sprinkler test in 3..2..1...
It doesn't help society.
For most of human history teenagers were already adults.
Many 12 year olds are capable of having kids. That's how it has been for thousands and hundreds of thousands of years.
That's how it will be for thousands of years to come.
It's just our society that puts 'artificial' boundaries on behavior, sometimes resulting in people in their 20's still behaving like kids.
As our society became more complex, and our roles in it required more skill, people became more dependent on their parents while being educated into becoming a 'contributing' part of society.
For most of human history, that was not the case.
Then there are those sick f@ckers who 'like' looking at pictures of naked kids. There must be laws against that.
Yeah?
good luck making the 'non-virgin' part
This approach would be great in other courses.
Anatomy class, for example.
Play doctor and get credit.
Yes, I'm making the obvious distinction that someone harmed by the "disease" is harmed from getting it in the wild, while someone harmed by the "vaccine" is harmed by something related to receiving it, whether an infection from those given by shot, or the disease itself from those vaccines where that's possible.
And that's where I think you're wrong.
If someone acquires polio "in the wild" it's exactly the same as if someone acquired polio from someone who got OVP.
Here's an interesting link: Nigeria Sees Polio Outbreak from Mutated Vaccine Virus .
In this case if everyone was vaccinated with OVP in the immediate area - it wouldn't have happened.
We have proof that people with it come to the US.
No we don't.
If I'm wrong, please provide a link that 'people with it come to the US', (the 8 cases that I told you about-last century excluded).
You seemed to only support my statement, and said nothing that contradicted it at all, but did so as if you were correcting me.
So when I said "No it won't come back" you must have missed that.
BTW The first part of my last post was copied and pasted from the cdc site. That's why I provided the link.
OPV has not been used in the United States since 2000. From 1980 through 1999, there were 152 confirmed cases of paralytic polio cases reported. Eight cases were acquired outside the United States. The remaining 144 cases were vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) caused by live oral polio vaccine (OPV).
From here.
I fail to see why you would view it as tautology, but I admit that my statement should have been phrased in the past-tense. Nevertheless, for those 144 cases, the cure was worse than the disease.
And that's why I don't want a nutcase like you making decisions that affect others.
Thank you :)
We tried "don't get vaccinations" back before we had vaccinations, and guess what? People died. Lots of them. And people were crippled. Lots of them. And you are advocating that.
And you are advocating that. ??? If you are making such strong and false statements about what I am advocating then you should read my post again.
Sure, it may not happen for a generation, but in two generations, when polio was "hiding" in remote locations for 30 years, it'll come back as bad as it was in the early 1900s. There can't be any other option. Unless you eradicate it from the surface of the planet, someone, sometime, will manage to make it to contact an American without immunization who will be in the US or bring it home, and we'll be back where we were.
Are you joking?
No it won't come back as in 1900's, Polio wasn't hiding and only 8 'wild' cases have come to the US in 30 years(reported cases), all of them in the last century.
I look forward to this disease being eradicated within my lifetime. But I'm sure the pharmaceutical companies do not.
That's a meaningless statement.
I see how you can view it as such.
Learn to love Alaska
Oh I would love it there :)
Scary ignorance?
The other replies had a few good points(yes polio vaccine can eliminate polio, and VAPP disappears when a country switches from OVP to IVP). But your reply... doesn't.
Scientific method: testing a hypothesis. And retesting, and making perturbations and retesting more. Mistakes are made and assumptions are disproved; it is part of the learning process.
No. I'm not talking about testing hypotheses. I'm talking about pens and pizza and doctors washing their hands.(quote:"Despite special education and monitored observation, hand-washing rates were as low as 30% and never went above 48%")
The chemicals prevent secondary infections and are medically proven to not harm the patient.
Say what?
This is the worst post I've ever read on slashdot; what happened to the moderators?
While I can't comment on what you would view as a good post, I hope that those that mod will view my posts in a positive manner.
Could you imagine another outbreak of polio, or mumps, or any other disease that has virtually been stamped out
You do realize that in the US more children get sick from the polio vaccine than from the actual disease.
If suddenly there was an outbreak of polio, I support vaccinating children who have come into contact with that child. But there has been NO naturally ocuring polio in the US for decades. All cases were acquired from the vaccine itself. There is no need for it unless you actually travel to an affected country and meet some of the couple thousand of people still having this disease.
parents that understand the dangers of not immunizing
I find most people to be completely ignorant about immunizations. Many of them just have a religious zeal that if you don't immunize, you must be a 'bad' and 'evil' parent.
medically unproven opinion about immunization
It's proven - immunizations can stop diseases from spreading.
It's proven - immunizations can cause disease.
Is it proven that cigarettes cause cancer?
A few decades ago even doctors were in cigarette ads.
Medical history is filled with cases where the treatment actually caused harm, and those who proposed alternate research and treatment were shunned and laughed at while a few decades later being vindicated as everyone adopted their procedures.
What if I decided that taking the driver license test would give me cancer, and I decided I could just start driving without ever taking the test. It would be ridiculous, and I would be putting others at risk through my behavior.
Why would you think that?
You're ability to drive does not change with a piece of paper in you wallet. The driver's test is there to weed out those who can not drive safely. It does not make you a better driver.
There are people out there without a drivers license who can drive better than most other people. It's just illegal to do so. There are also bad drivers with a license who passed the test because the dmv employee was incompetent. Those people can be a far greater danger than an unlicensed - good driver who drives illegally.
It's misinformed opinions about the reasons behind vaccinations that keep the drug companies happy.
If you want to think that it's "for everybody's safety" - go ahead, but this statement, which is more often than not a "blind faith" statement is the cause that those anti-vaccine zealots (who believe that all vaccines are bad) don't get along with the pro-vaccine zealots (who think that vaccines are the best thing in the world and you are evil if you don't give them to your kids).
Vaccines work. They have stuff in them that is bad. They are overused. They make their companies alot of money.
But they have saved many lives. And hurt others.
I am pro-safe vaccines that are necessary.
Polio is not necessary. But we should have localized supplies just in case, and we should eradicate polio like we did smallpox.
And get those damn chemicals out of vaccines so that I don't have to worry about 'non-medically-proven' side-effects.
The year is 2045 and "tek," a highly addictive computer-based reality drug takes the users of the drug into a fantasy world.
Oh, I see where you're going here, Shatner!
To all you slashdot readers, please heed my words...
"JUST SAY NO!"
That website has been known to be wrong on a regular basis.
(or someone fount /usr/bin/yes)
no offense to sushi connoisseurs
but preceding the activation of image block
a feeling of illness ensued
just great, more sushi, I should block images from that site
I started with Apple BASIC, and I was playing around with peek and poke before the other students even knew how to properly misuse goto.
But that was when I was 13. The first year of college should not teach BASIC.
But why are we not introducing BASIC or the very beginner friendly 'Ruby' to students when they're 13 anymore?
The point of the joke went so far over your head all you saw was a contrail.
I saw no such thing!
(I was looking down)
Be sure to drink your Ovaltine.
No, it was
"and don't forget the coffee!"
We do not publish what we research
And they also do not publish what they don't research.
Or if and when they suffer or do not suffer defeat.
Why would MS even care?
In fact if Novell fails, along with what recently happened with MySQL and Open Solaris, MS can brag about how proprietary software is the way to go.
Call my cynical, but any inroads into open source software by MS have been either because they had to, or because they had a direct benefit from the public image attained by playing nice with open source software.
At the end of the day, the fact remains. MS would like everyone to use their proprietary software. MS would like everyone to forget about open source.
The only way this will ever change is if open source becomes more profitable to them than proprietary software.
Then MS would transform into the #1 proponent of open source.
Think of the shareholders!
7 out of the first 8 posts agree that this is Windows only.
Platform. Microsoft Windows
But is this the final nail in the Apache 1.3 coffin?
Now the boss is going to be upset even when you tell them your version is not vulnerable.
And of course, (just like the app-store) if you are wearing just a bikini, or have a 'hot babe' on your arm, the doors just won't open.
their first line of defense is security by obscurity
I think their first line of defense is knaji, hiragana, and katakana.
That leaves over 97% of the world out of the loop.
Just let it be inserted into the left buttock. Just where my wallet is.
Cashier: "how do you want to pay for this". ...
Customer:
you get the idea
Why would we be taxed for other people's mistakes?
This would just lead to people not caring and increase the amount of malware out there.
If it doesn't cost you anything to clean it up, then why would you worry about making a mess?