The big difference is that by not getting a colonoscopy a patient isn't endangering everyone around them who has a compromised immune system or legitimate reason for not being vaccinated (like, maybe, being an infant?).
We also seem to have lost mens rea. Where's the "guilty mind" when a farmer's crops are cross-pollinated by his neighbors', the same as every other year since the dawn of time?
It is true that there are a very small few who shouldn't be vaccinated, for whatever reason. They don't prove vaccines are dangerous though, they're actually precisely the reason the rest of us should get vaccinated, to keep the herd immunity strong enough to protect them.
That said: egg allergies in particular are increasingly not a legitimate reason to skip being vaccinated. Manufacturers are making great strides in reducing the egg protein levels in their product (1-2 orders of magnitude in the last couple years alone). Doctors are also developing procedures for safely determining whether patients can handle them, and even when they determine they can it's standard to administer it within spitting distance of all the care needed in case of a reaction -- just to be safe.
It's important that the rest of us who can tolerate vaccinations keep the bigger picture in mind, because what's good for public health is good for all of us. Nobody will have a good time in an epidemic of some deadly disease, and knowing that disease is preventable would only add insult to injury.
Why bother with all the difficulty of real live things?
Just write poem, then a computer virus that places a copy of said poem onto the victim's hard drive and emails you their personal information.
Sue them for copyright infringement.
Profit.
PS: What the hell happened to mens rea? I was under the impression it was a necessary component for a great many crimes. Wouldn't this sort of copyright interpretation have some nasty side effects? Like you could be held accountable if you buy a book from the Kindle store and it turns out the person who uploaded it doesn't actually hold the copyright?
I suppose things like law and precedent (both past and future) go right out the window when the plaintiff has enough money.
His "hundreds" is a bit hyperbolic, but basically the point stands. YES.
The science is basically in on vaccines, and they're likely safer than your average lead-soaked Chinese made action figure. They're certainly fucking safer than a Mountain Dew or a Snickers bar, or eating out at a restaurant (where you might get food poisoning, after all!). Hell, they're probably safer than commercial baby food or infant formula.
They're SCORES safer than the fucking drive home after they're administered.
BTW, some of these diseases really are quite extinct in the US. Getting infected is about as likely as getting hit by lightening. It's not unreasonable to decide that the vaccine risk (yes, there is risk) isn't worthwhile. It's not unreasonable to notice the political aspects of vaccines, with all the industry lobbying, and decide that the pro-vaccine messages are inherently untrustworthy.
And just how long do you think those diseases will stay "extinct" once enough people stop getting vaccinations? It'll only take one idiot missionary taking their unvaccinated kids to a country where measles is still very much alive, then bringing them home before they're showing symptoms.
Then you're extra-fucked, because there's a nasty epidemic wearing at the fabric of society...AND your family is personally highly susceptible to it because you're a moron who didn't get vaccinated. At that point even some of us non-retards might get it thanks to your stupidity, because vaccines aren't quite 100% effective at immunizing people.
Your thinking is selfish, stupid and short sighted in the extreme.
(apologies if you're not actually an antivaxxer, I couldn't let even a hint of that kind of thinking slide)
It's also arguable that the antivaxxers are goddamn assholes, and I believe it's perfectly acceptable to refuse service to those you find to be goddamn assholes.
The doctor is a highly trained expert providing a service. When faced with people who refuse to acknowledge that expertise (whether it's refusing vaccines or blood transfusions or whatever) I think they're perfectly within their rights to say "you're a pushy asshole, and if you won't let me do my job properly then GTFO."
Who said anything ideological? I was simply questioning if that particular data point is actually useful, or if it's had important context stripped away.
Maybe that loss of context was intentional? Cato aren't exactly ideologically neutral, and cherry picking that particular statistic out of context paints a pretty rosy anarcho-capitalist libertarian talking point.
Oh dear. I guess I'm a troll for challenging the fact that Ron Paul is anything less that a God-King.
Rather than engaging your turd-mined example of untruth from an unrelated portion of my source, let's find sources for the on-topic claims I actually made about Ron Paul's political positions:
Would allow prayer in schools: "The federal government has no authority to tell your public schools whether you have a prayer in school or not"
Church and state: "But, as far as church and state goes, the first amendment gives us a pretty hint: the Congress shall write no law, there are no prohibitions." Personally I find that interpretation naive to the point of idiocy -- or possibly one taken with full knowledge that it closes the door on explicit theocracy while opening one to a much more dangerous implicit one.
Sexual harassment: He wrote this in a book: "Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."
Non-acknowledgement of the right to privacy in the bedroom: He wrote this on the website of Lew Rockwell: "there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution."
DADT: He voted to repeal it, but has now taken up the stance that it should be repealed...because he's so consistent and courageous, right?http://www.dailypaul.com/136125/patriot-ron-paul-changes-stance-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-votes-for-repeal
Seriously, he's not the savior you people think he is.
You mean more who would allow prayer in schools, reject the notion of seperation of church and state, sees no need for sexual harassment laws, finds a marriage to be "between one man and one woman," supported Don't Ask Don't Tell, is a fan of privacy (except in the bedroom, because he's OK with sodomy laws), is strongly pro-life, etc. Oh wait...I've just described most GOP members. He's not really that different, guys.
He may sound *great* to young male nerds, but beyond our demographic's pet issues of drugs, the internet and foreign policy he's just as much a racist, sexist, homophobic rights-stomping religious loon as the rest of them. Maybe more.
Is that increased payment to lower earners a product of getting more actual value in the form of better health care and benefits? Or is it just from the rising cost of those benefits -- as their actual usable return value stagnates or even drops?
The poor having more and more of their economic gains eaten up by the rising cost of benefits -- while what they actually get from those benefits stagnates -- is *not* something to brag about. That's just more money creeping from the powerless to the powerful.
Actually, it's a little more complicated than that...what with mechanized farming driving down the price of food, and modern manufacturing driving down the price of handicrafts such that traditional lifestyles are increasingly impossible, economically speaking.
I suppose you read The Grapes of Wrath in high school and thought it sounded just peachy?
Rights become crimes, making more criminals out of thin air. Suddenly there's a lot of crime going on, so we strip more rights, to deal with all the crimes. It's pretty damn circular.
PS: Quickly, before it happens: nobody better make mention of "reducing incentives" or "going Galt." That's absolute bullshit and if you don't know it you're a moron.
If I were guaranteed food and shelter and medical care I certainly would not stop working. I would have my needs covered, but I still want a smartphone, and a new computer, and a nice car, and fancy food for special meals, and a million other fucking things that are not the bare necessities of life.
I've also never once in my life heard an average person say "I'm barely making enough to live, this isn't worthy my time. I think I'll solve all my problems by pulling back, so I'll have even LESS money." That's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard.
The myth of the great economic leader who holds himself up and the entire economy together by his bootstraps is equally retarded. There isn't a CEO on the planet who couldn't quit tomorrow and not be replaced immediately by some other equally talented person who has been waiting in the wings for their shot at the big chair.
I only throw all this out because I expect argument from people who have read too much Ayn Rand.
I think it's worth pointing something out: it's obviously not that we're incapable of harnessing the resources to generate the necessary research and manufacturing to produce new drugs in quantities to help everybody. We've done the research, and we've got the industrial capacity to do absolutely incredible things.
It's the same with food and shelter. Our planet and the industries we've built on it are perfectly capable of providing every last one of us with a roof over our head and enough food to keep us from starving. Instead farms sell grain to big beef farms while their neighbors are hungry. It's absolutely insane.
If, as a species, we are capable of healing all the sick, housing all the homeless and feeding all the hungry...why don't we just fucking do it? It's because we're bogged down in the game of tending to our whole contrived economic machine, instead of the game of tending to our real standards of living.
It would probably even be more productive in the long run, because the economic contribution of a person who is healthy, housed and fed is 9 times out of 10 going to be significantly higher than a starving homeless person dying in the street of a treatable disease.
We pay a lot of lip service to "freedom." We even spend an ungodly amount of money already, through our military, to fight for a few particular types of freedom. But what about the freedom to buy food at a price you can afford? Or the freedom to have a roof over your head at a price you can afford? Or the freedom to buy medicine at a price you can afford? If the freedom our military fights for is worth the fortunes we spend on it, aren't those simpler freedoms worth a little something too?
It's hard for me to imagine that, mostly because criminals aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are. Why on earth would anyone committing the crimes of (off the top of my head) jury tampering, intimidation and obstruction of justice do so in a medium that is both public and preserved for posterity by the web server? Even if it's a veiled threat, that's treading on pretty freakin' thin ice.
Actually, people do that sort of thing *all the time*.
I have a coworker who can't have wheat or dairy, and it takes a lot of questioning for her to get a meal at a restaurant. My mom is allergic to soy (including soybean oil), and since soy pops up in the darndest places that means it also takes a lot of questioning for her to get a meal at a restaurant. No, they don't audit the cooks, but they do demand information about what they're about to put in their body, up to a point required to ensure their own health to the best of their own knowledge and abilities.
What were you saying about fantasies? I think you have a few.
Not exactly. Those researchers say 240ppm or more averts an ice age. Maybe so. We're well beyond that now, so their conclusion is academic, and not mutually exclusive with the conclusion of other climate researchers that even higher concentrations could produce an irreversible greenhouse tipping point.
Knowing that a certain amount of emissions might have been beneficial doesn't even remotely lead to the conclusion that unchecked, unlimited emissions are therefore always going to be beneficial.
Your logic is like dodging a bullet to the left, then concluding that going left kicks ass, and continuing to run left until you fall off a cliff. Or taking some vitamin C when you have a cold, and then feeling better, then cramming yourself full of C supplements until you're hospitalized for vitamin C toxicity.
Do you have any facts to back that theory up? Maybe some statistics on how the remaining samples were placed less usefully or in generally warmer areas? Maybe some explanation for the fact that the trend line curves nicely, rather than sharply spiking up, as a sudden change in the quality of data would cause?
There were also giant forests and jungles and ocean ecosystems supported by that carbon. That meant a lot of it was in the midst of the metabolisms of plants and algae and stuff, not floating free in the atmosphere. It was a generally thicker atmosphere, making more OXYGEN available, that let the world grow ____ing great lizards (also, they weren't lizards).
We, on the other hand, have increasingly small jungles and forests, and increasingly puny ocean ecosystems, which means that carbon doesn't spend much time trapped in living things. It stays in the atmosphere, which leads to something beyond "warm and cozy."
That answer doesn't work for a forum like XDA-Developers. They can't exactly back up the URLs that all their links point to. If a service like this goes down backups do nothing to alleviate the painful process of updating all their gazillion links to point wherever they move the new copies from their backups to.
I thought old people knew the saying "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." Where was that kind of reasoning here?
I just bought Arkham City on Steam, and it took me nearly 45 minutes and no less than three reboots to get GFWL installed, signed in and patched, so that I could play the damn game.
I should have pirated it...it would have been much more user friendly.
I had the same experience with Arkham Asylum, and after Arkham City putting me through it again I've resolved to NEVER, EVER buy another game that relies on GFWL.
Slashdot Mirror
The big difference is that by not getting a colonoscopy a patient isn't endangering everyone around them who has a compromised immune system or legitimate reason for not being vaccinated (like, maybe, being an infant?).
We also seem to have lost mens rea. Where's the "guilty mind" when a farmer's crops are cross-pollinated by his neighbors', the same as every other year since the dawn of time?
It is true that there are a very small few who shouldn't be vaccinated, for whatever reason. They don't prove vaccines are dangerous though, they're actually precisely the reason the rest of us should get vaccinated, to keep the herd immunity strong enough to protect them.
That said: egg allergies in particular are increasingly not a legitimate reason to skip being vaccinated. Manufacturers are making great strides in reducing the egg protein levels in their product (1-2 orders of magnitude in the last couple years alone). Doctors are also developing procedures for safely determining whether patients can handle them, and even when they determine they can it's standard to administer it within spitting distance of all the care needed in case of a reaction -- just to be safe.
It's important that the rest of us who can tolerate vaccinations keep the bigger picture in mind, because what's good for public health is good for all of us. Nobody will have a good time in an epidemic of some deadly disease, and knowing that disease is preventable would only add insult to injury.
Why bother with all the difficulty of real live things?
Just write poem, then a computer virus that places a copy of said poem onto the victim's hard drive and emails you their personal information.
Sue them for copyright infringement.
Profit.
PS: What the hell happened to mens rea? I was under the impression it was a necessary component for a great many crimes. Wouldn't this sort of copyright interpretation have some nasty side effects? Like you could be held accountable if you buy a book from the Kindle store and it turns out the person who uploaded it doesn't actually hold the copyright?
I suppose things like law and precedent (both past and future) go right out the window when the plaintiff has enough money.
His "hundreds" is a bit hyperbolic, but basically the point stands. YES.
The science is basically in on vaccines, and they're likely safer than your average lead-soaked Chinese made action figure. They're certainly fucking safer than a Mountain Dew or a Snickers bar, or eating out at a restaurant (where you might get food poisoning, after all!). Hell, they're probably safer than commercial baby food or infant formula.
They're SCORES safer than the fucking drive home after they're administered.
BTW, some of these diseases really are quite extinct in the US. Getting infected is about as likely as getting hit by lightening. It's not unreasonable to decide that the vaccine risk (yes, there is risk) isn't worthwhile. It's not unreasonable to notice the political aspects of vaccines, with all the industry lobbying, and decide that the pro-vaccine messages are inherently untrustworthy.
And just how long do you think those diseases will stay "extinct" once enough people stop getting vaccinations? It'll only take one idiot missionary taking their unvaccinated kids to a country where measles is still very much alive, then bringing them home before they're showing symptoms.
Then you're extra-fucked, because there's a nasty epidemic wearing at the fabric of society...AND your family is personally highly susceptible to it because you're a moron who didn't get vaccinated. At that point even some of us non-retards might get it thanks to your stupidity, because vaccines aren't quite 100% effective at immunizing people.
Your thinking is selfish, stupid and short sighted in the extreme.
(apologies if you're not actually an antivaxxer, I couldn't let even a hint of that kind of thinking slide)
It's also arguable that the antivaxxers are goddamn assholes, and I believe it's perfectly acceptable to refuse service to those you find to be goddamn assholes.
The doctor is a highly trained expert providing a service. When faced with people who refuse to acknowledge that expertise (whether it's refusing vaccines or blood transfusions or whatever) I think they're perfectly within their rights to say "you're a pushy asshole, and if you won't let me do my job properly then GTFO."
Who said anything ideological? I was simply questioning if that particular data point is actually useful, or if it's had important context stripped away.
Maybe that loss of context was intentional? Cato aren't exactly ideologically neutral, and cherry picking that particular statistic out of context paints a pretty rosy anarcho-capitalist libertarian talking point.
Oh dear. I guess I'm a troll for challenging the fact that Ron Paul is anything less that a God-King.
Rather than engaging your turd-mined example of untruth from an unrelated portion of my source, let's find sources for the on-topic claims I actually made about Ron Paul's political positions:
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-18/ron-paul-limit-military-to-national-defense/
Would allow prayer in schools: "The federal government has no authority to tell your public schools whether you have a prayer in school or not"
Church and state: "But, as far as church and state goes, the first amendment gives us a pretty hint: the Congress shall write no law, there are no prohibitions." Personally I find that interpretation naive to the point of idiocy -- or possibly one taken with full knowledge that it closes the door on explicit theocracy while opening one to a much more dangerous implicit one.
Sexual harassment: He wrote this in a book: "Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."
Non-acknowledgement of the right to privacy in the bedroom: He wrote this on the website of Lew Rockwell: "there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution."
Gay marriage: He sells cards of talking points in favor of DOMA on his website.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/slim-jim-4x9-issue-card-packs/protect-marriage-issue-cards-pack-of-100/
Abortion: He sells similar talking point cards that dismiss even the possibility of a medically necessary abortion.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/store/slim-jim-4x9-issue-card-packs/a-pro-life-champion-issue-cards-pack-of-100/
DADT: He voted to repeal it, but has now taken up the stance that it should be repealed...because he's so consistent and courageous, right?http://www.dailypaul.com/136125/patriot-ron-paul-changes-stance-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-votes-for-repeal
Seriously, he's not the savior you people think he is.
Really, mods? Troll?
More Ron Paul-style GOP members?
You mean more who would allow prayer in schools, reject the notion of seperation of church and state, sees no need for sexual harassment laws, finds a marriage to be "between one man and one woman," supported Don't Ask Don't Tell, is a fan of privacy (except in the bedroom, because he's OK with sodomy laws), is strongly pro-life, etc. Oh wait...I've just described most GOP members. He's not really that different, guys.
He may sound *great* to young male nerds, but beyond our demographic's pet issues of drugs, the internet and foreign policy he's just as much a racist, sexist, homophobic rights-stomping religious loon as the rest of them. Maybe more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
Todays Democrat party is very much like the Republican party of 30 years ago.
And today's Republican party is much like the paranoid gun-stockpiling hill people of 30 years ago.
Is that increased payment to lower earners a product of getting more actual value in the form of better health care and benefits? Or is it just from the rising cost of those benefits -- as their actual usable return value stagnates or even drops?
The poor having more and more of their economic gains eaten up by the rising cost of benefits -- while what they actually get from those benefits stagnates -- is *not* something to brag about. That's just more money creeping from the powerless to the powerful.
Actually, it's a little more complicated than that...what with mechanized farming driving down the price of food, and modern manufacturing driving down the price of handicrafts such that traditional lifestyles are increasingly impossible, economically speaking.
I suppose you read The Grapes of Wrath in high school and thought it sounded just peachy?
Rights become crimes, making more criminals out of thin air. Suddenly there's a lot of crime going on, so we strip more rights, to deal with all the crimes. It's pretty damn circular.
PS: Quickly, before it happens: nobody better make mention of "reducing incentives" or "going Galt." That's absolute bullshit and if you don't know it you're a moron.
If I were guaranteed food and shelter and medical care I certainly would not stop working. I would have my needs covered, but I still want a smartphone, and a new computer, and a nice car, and fancy food for special meals, and a million other fucking things that are not the bare necessities of life.
I've also never once in my life heard an average person say "I'm barely making enough to live, this isn't worthy my time. I think I'll solve all my problems by pulling back, so I'll have even LESS money." That's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard.
The myth of the great economic leader who holds himself up and the entire economy together by his bootstraps is equally retarded. There isn't a CEO on the planet who couldn't quit tomorrow and not be replaced immediately by some other equally talented person who has been waiting in the wings for their shot at the big chair.
I only throw all this out because I expect argument from people who have read too much Ayn Rand.
I think it's worth pointing something out: it's obviously not that we're incapable of harnessing the resources to generate the necessary research and manufacturing to produce new drugs in quantities to help everybody. We've done the research, and we've got the industrial capacity to do absolutely incredible things.
It's the same with food and shelter. Our planet and the industries we've built on it are perfectly capable of providing every last one of us with a roof over our head and enough food to keep us from starving. Instead farms sell grain to big beef farms while their neighbors are hungry. It's absolutely insane.
If, as a species, we are capable of healing all the sick, housing all the homeless and feeding all the hungry...why don't we just fucking do it? It's because we're bogged down in the game of tending to our whole contrived economic machine, instead of the game of tending to our real standards of living.
It would probably even be more productive in the long run, because the economic contribution of a person who is healthy, housed and fed is 9 times out of 10 going to be significantly higher than a starving homeless person dying in the street of a treatable disease.
We pay a lot of lip service to "freedom." We even spend an ungodly amount of money already, through our military, to fight for a few particular types of freedom. But what about the freedom to buy food at a price you can afford? Or the freedom to have a roof over your head at a price you can afford? Or the freedom to buy medicine at a price you can afford? If the freedom our military fights for is worth the fortunes we spend on it, aren't those simpler freedoms worth a little something too?
It's hard for me to imagine that, mostly because criminals aren't as stupid as you seem to think they are. Why on earth would anyone committing the crimes of (off the top of my head) jury tampering, intimidation and obstruction of justice do so in a medium that is both public and preserved for posterity by the web server? Even if it's a veiled threat, that's treading on pretty freakin' thin ice.
Actually, people do that sort of thing *all the time*.
I have a coworker who can't have wheat or dairy, and it takes a lot of questioning for her to get a meal at a restaurant. My mom is allergic to soy (including soybean oil), and since soy pops up in the darndest places that means it also takes a lot of questioning for her to get a meal at a restaurant. No, they don't audit the cooks, but they do demand information about what they're about to put in their body, up to a point required to ensure their own health to the best of their own knowledge and abilities.
What were you saying about fantasies? I think you have a few.
Not exactly. Those researchers say 240ppm or more averts an ice age. Maybe so. We're well beyond that now, so their conclusion is academic, and not mutually exclusive with the conclusion of other climate researchers that even higher concentrations could produce an irreversible greenhouse tipping point.
Knowing that a certain amount of emissions might have been beneficial doesn't even remotely lead to the conclusion that unchecked, unlimited emissions are therefore always going to be beneficial.
Your logic is like dodging a bullet to the left, then concluding that going left kicks ass, and continuing to run left until you fall off a cliff. Or taking some vitamin C when you have a cold, and then feeling better, then cramming yourself full of C supplements until you're hospitalized for vitamin C toxicity.
Farmers, maybe? Their profession is only...you know...the foundation of modern civilization and intimately tied to climate conditions.
Do you have any facts to back that theory up? Maybe some statistics on how the remaining samples were placed less usefully or in generally warmer areas? Maybe some explanation for the fact that the trend line curves nicely, rather than sharply spiking up, as a sudden change in the quality of data would cause?
There were also giant forests and jungles and ocean ecosystems supported by that carbon. That meant a lot of it was in the midst of the metabolisms of plants and algae and stuff, not floating free in the atmosphere. It was a generally thicker atmosphere, making more OXYGEN available, that let the world grow ____ing great lizards (also, they weren't lizards).
We, on the other hand, have increasingly small jungles and forests, and increasingly puny ocean ecosystems, which means that carbon doesn't spend much time trapped in living things. It stays in the atmosphere, which leads to something beyond "warm and cozy."
That answer doesn't work for a forum like XDA-Developers. They can't exactly back up the URLs that all their links point to. If a service like this goes down backups do nothing to alleviate the painful process of updating all their gazillion links to point wherever they move the new copies from their backups to.
I thought old people knew the saying "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." Where was that kind of reasoning here?
I just bought Arkham City on Steam, and it took me nearly 45 minutes and no less than three reboots to get GFWL installed, signed in and patched, so that I could play the damn game.
I should have pirated it...it would have been much more user friendly.
I had the same experience with Arkham Asylum, and after Arkham City putting me through it again I've resolved to NEVER, EVER buy another game that relies on GFWL.