This rant was namely proxy rage on behalf of my wife, who has been awaiting the conclusion of this series for a decade now.
I'm only on book 10 myself, and it will probably take me a year to get through 11 and 12, so the timeline actually works out well for me (sorry, sweetie).
I am glad to see at least a couple of people got that the rant was supposed to be comical.
It sounds like they are accused of a third possibility; there was no way to know whether a larger event was coming or not, but they reassured the public that there was nothing to worry about. Actually from reading the article, it sounds like the former Director of Public Safety is the one that said that; the guilt or innocence of the scientists depends (or should depend, at any rate) on whether that was their advice to him.
Agreed.
The only reassurance the scientists should have offered is that the string of minor earthquakes did not necessarily mean a larger event was on the way, which I realize isn't very reassuring. They had absolutely no way of knowing whether something larger was coming, or whether the string of minor earthquakes was it. If they actually claimed otherwise, then they are guilty.
First it was supposed to be one book; then Tor realized they could go the Harry Pothead/Twitlight direction and 'enhance their revenue' by splitting it into three. OK, whatever.
Then, they push the publish date of the second book back to coincide with the Christmas holiday (because, you know, the people who haven't read the other 11 books at this point are TOTALLY going to buy this one for Christmas anyway!), even though Sanderson had the book finished and edited by the end of July. Oh yea, and no eBook; 'fuck you, Jordan fans!' Well, shit. Whatever.
Finally, they tell us the final book, which some people (my wife) have been waiting over a decade for, will come out in Summer 2011... no, Fall 2011... wait, make that Holiday 2011... just kidding, really it will be spring 2012... OK, Fall 2012... now Spring 20-fucking-13??? Fuck you to, Tor. Fuck you right up your greedy goatse asses.
I swear, if Tor published anything else actually worth reading, I'd be seriously considering a boycott at this point.
"1) You can't be put in jail for losing a civil case. Ask O.J."
In countries with English-style law. In others, not necessarily.
Considering the nation we're discussing is Spain, I think my point is still valid.
I have an in-law who lives in a South American country. He and his wife are facing (entirely bogus) criminal penalties from a private contract lawsuit. It's been dismissed and laughtd out of court every time it comes up before a non-crony-of-plaintiff judge but it gets revived and reallocated. The system is so corrupt that being sentenced to hard time is a possibility from a business collaboration gone bad.
Which nation, if you don't mind? I've been considering visiting (and possibly expatriating to) various South American nations, and I would like to avoid all but the least corrupt of them.
Ecuador seems nice, save their nationalized persecution of homosexuals.
I blame the constant inundation of media. Ironically, back in the day when I was but a simple farm-kid growing up in the boonies with no TV, no Internet, etc., I never got bored. My imagination was all I needed to stay occupied.
Where I live (the Midwest), it's hard to take meteorologists seriously; the weather is just too damn unpredictable.
So really, I guess it all comes down to the specific situation; if the seismologists had data that, as experts, they should have known was indicating that a major event was forthcoming, but decided to withhold said data from the public (or outright lie about it), then they should be held liable. If they had no such data and were caught as unawares as the rest of the populace, then they should be exonerated. Now if only there were some sort of legal setting in which guilt and innocence could be proven through the presentation of supporting evidence.../sarc
My problem is with the folks who claim these men should remain blameless without even going over the evidence.
I surmise those are the same people who vote along party lines.
If they did "properly" assure them, they would have been called quacks, or they would have been sued for causing a hype if nothing happened and still could have faced fines or jail time.
1) You can't be put in jail for losing a civil case. Ask O.J.
2) I would rather risk frivolous lawsuits by warning people that Event X may be deadly even though it is not, than for people to die because I was a negligent chicken-shit.
People died because of a natural disaster, which cannot be predicted or foretold.
Then the entire field of seismology is a fraud and they should be indicted anyway.
Some would say if you can concentrate enough to play XBox all weekend, that perhaps Adderall is not necessary...
To which you responded
Xbox doesnt require concentration. Its an escape for most, not work.
concentration is defined as
1. the act of concentrating; the state of being concentrated. 2. exclusive attention to one object; close mental application.
3. something concentrated: a concentration of stars.
So when you say
Playing video games does not REQUIRE concentration.
you are, by definition, incorrect, thereby only serving to reinforce OP's contention that if you can play a video game, you have no medical need for drugs such as Adderall.
You took my statement as an affront to gamers, when instead i was pointing out there are levels to immersion.
Not at all, merely pointing out the fact that, regardless of the "level of immersion," all video games require a level of focal acuity that people who truly suffer from ADD/ADHD do not possess. If I take affront to anything, it's the fact that real ADD/ADHD sufferers are having a hard time accessing their much needed medication because unscrupulous doctors and pharmaceutical reps are so willing to make drug addicts out of a population of people who are, for lack of a better term, lazy whinebags who hate their jobs.
Xbox doesnt require concentration. Its an escape for most, not work.
You've either never played a video game, or you're mistaken on what the definition of "concentration" is.
Just because playing video games is not what one would traditionally call "work," doesn't mean it does not require any sort of concentration. You still have to pay detailed attention to the gameplay, the dialog, the controls, et. al., which falls under the definition of "concentration" and/or "focus." You can't even play a game as simple as Pong without some level of focused concentration.
At one point in my youth, I was concerned about possibly suffering from ADD, so I asked my doctor about it; he asked me one simple question:
"Can you focus on anything for more than five minutes or so?" "Well, yea, I play an hour or so of Halo most nights." "Then you don't have ADD."
Perhaps the shortage of ADD drugs wouldn't exist if we didn't have so many docs giving in to pressure from drug addicts (and pushers, er, I mean pharmaceutical reps) to prescribe people narcotics they don't actually need to function.
You are the one claiming there's some hidden number of vaccine deaths based on faulty correlation/causation claims. The burden is on you to prove it; rather than on me to try to prove a negative.
I made no such claim. I believe you are engaging in what psychologists refer to as "transferrence."
Your original post to which I replied:
Which of these can you blame on vaccines? None.
Looks like I'm not the one making claims, and thus have nothing that requires supporting documentation. I've merely been calling you out on your lack thereof, which you obviously have no intention of settling.
I will no longer be responding to your posts on this thread. To quote W.C. Fields,
If you bothered to look, below the picture is a citation to CDC data, including a breakdown of infant mortality rate in the published peer-reviewed data.
And nowhere in the CDC page is it specified which maladies "all other causes" applies to.
I'm basing this off of my Masters Degree in Public Health and epidemiology classes.
What does that have to do with the fact you're presenting an assumption as fact, without empirical data to back it? As an academic, I would think you would know better than to make claims without having the dataset to back them. Guess there's more to education than the piece of paper you get at the end, eh?
it's standard convention to add uncommon diseases to the catch-all "All Other Causes" heading defined as:
Defined as all causes of death other than all vascular disease, all cancer, all respiratory disease, all infectious disease, all conditions arising near the start of life, and all injury. Includes pneumonia, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, peptic ulcer, intestinal obstruction, hernia, liver cirrhosis, gallbladder disease, malnutrition, anaemia, obstetric (ie, maternal) causes of death, and all causes of death that are ill-defined.
WHO codes: ICD-10 AAA less all of: D00-D489, J03-J069, I00-I99, C00-C97, J40-J989, V01-Y899, A00-A99, B00-B99, J00-J029, J10-J118, J20-J22, L00-L089 or P00-Q999; ICD-7, ICD-8 and ICD-9 codes defined similarly.
"all causes of death that are ill-defined."
Such as... vaccine related deaths, perhaps? You're not doing yourself any favors by continuing to argue your point with vagaries, you know.
Back to the original topic, you think that somewhere buried in this heading is a pile of dead babies from vaccines, that somehow the entire health community has missed?
Unlike some people, I prefer to avoid making assumption; much to the contrary, I like to base my opinion and decisions off facts and logic. The fact is, you've yet to provide a single piece of evidence that actually supports your claim that there is no such thing as vaccination-related death, so logically, I have no cause to believe a word you say.
Just because I think you're full of it does not imply or infer any other opinion on any other topic; it just means I think you're full of it.
But hey, don't let that keep you from having a great day!
It should be assumed that farmers did not illicitly buy Monsanto seed - as we have an assumption of innocence.
Haven't been involved in the American legal system much of late, I take it?
The presumption of innocence went away some time ago... right about the same era in which the SCOTUS decided corporations (like Monsanto) are "people," and money = speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Government Organization Declares Self Sole Proprietor of Bio-Terrorism
And as we all know, government officials never use such exclusivity of information for their own personal profit.
Nothing to worry about here, Citizen, now move along...
Actually, I already knew that.
This rant was namely proxy rage on behalf of my wife, who has been awaiting the conclusion of this series for a decade now.
I'm only on book 10 myself, and it will probably take me a year to get through 11 and 12, so the timeline actually works out well for me (sorry, sweetie).
I am glad to see at least a couple of people got that the rant was supposed to be comical.
Oh, yea; Samuel Clemens FTW.
Damn Ohio Valley carpetbaggers, tryin' to jack our terminology...
We are now at the "to bake a cake from scratch, one first invent the universe" stage of the argument.
OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor...
stupid git...
italy, not spain. where did you get spain from?
... not re-reading the summary before clicking 'Post'.
:D
same thing anyway, right?
It sounds like they are accused of a third possibility; there was no way to know whether a larger event was coming or not, but they reassured the public that there was nothing to worry about. Actually from reading the article, it sounds like the former Director of Public Safety is the one that said that; the guilt or innocence of the scientists depends (or should depend, at any rate) on whether that was their advice to him.
Agreed.
The only reassurance the scientists should have offered is that the string of minor earthquakes did not necessarily mean a larger event was on the way, which I realize isn't very reassuring. They had absolutely no way of knowing whether something larger was coming, or whether the string of minor earthquakes was it. If they actually claimed otherwise, then they are guilty.
Precisely.
When in doubt, keep your trap shut.
First it was supposed to be one book; then Tor realized they could go the Harry Pothead/Twitlight direction and 'enhance their revenue' by splitting it into three. OK, whatever.
Then, they push the publish date of the second book back to coincide with the Christmas holiday (because, you know, the people who haven't read the other 11 books at this point are TOTALLY going to buy this one for Christmas anyway!), even though Sanderson had the book finished and edited by the end of July. Oh yea, and no eBook; 'fuck you, Jordan fans!' Well, shit. Whatever.
Finally, they tell us the final book, which some people (my wife) have been waiting over a decade for, will come out in Summer 2011... no, Fall 2011... wait, make that Holiday 2011... just kidding, really it will be spring 2012... OK, Fall 2012... now Spring 20-fucking-13??? Fuck you to, Tor. Fuck you right up your greedy goatse asses.
I swear, if Tor published anything else actually worth reading, I'd be seriously considering a boycott at this point.
Fucking Epic.
"1) You can't be put in jail for losing a civil case. Ask O.J."
In countries with English-style law. In others, not necessarily.
Considering the nation we're discussing is Spain, I think my point is still valid.
I have an in-law who lives in a South American country. He and his wife are facing (entirely bogus) criminal penalties from a private contract lawsuit. It's been dismissed and laughtd out of court every time it comes up before a non-crony-of-plaintiff judge but it gets revived and reallocated. The system is so corrupt that being sentenced to hard time is a possibility from a business collaboration gone bad.
Which nation, if you don't mind? I've been considering visiting (and possibly expatriating to) various South American nations, and I would like to avoid all but the least corrupt of them.
Ecuador seems nice, save their nationalized persecution of homosexuals.
Same here.
I blame the constant inundation of media. Ironically, back in the day when I was but a simple farm-kid growing up in the boonies with no TV, no Internet, etc., I never got bored. My imagination was all I needed to stay occupied.
Perhaps there's a parallel here...
Where I live (the Midwest), it's hard to take meteorologists seriously; the weather is just too damn unpredictable.
/sarc
So really, I guess it all comes down to the specific situation; if the seismologists had data that, as experts, they should have known was indicating that a major event was forthcoming, but decided to withhold said data from the public (or outright lie about it), then they should be held liable. If they had no such data and were caught as unawares as the rest of the populace, then they should be exonerated. Now if only there were some sort of legal setting in which guilt and innocence could be proven through the presentation of supporting evidence...
My problem is with the folks who claim these men should remain blameless without even going over the evidence.
I surmise those are the same people who vote along party lines.
Granted during load screens, I'll often switch to TV and forget to turn back to the game...
I do that myself, and I have been definitively diagnosed as not having ADD.
I just get bored quite easily.
My issue is with people like OP, and the statement
I end up playing xbox all weekend
If OP was truly an ADD/ADHD sufferer, their statement would likely have been closer to yours.
Nobody has even been tried for involvement in the 2008 crash.
Only because they're still in power.
Think about it; if Hitler had won WWII, would there have been Nuremberg Trials?
If they did "properly" assure them, they would have been called quacks, or they would have been sued for causing a hype if nothing happened and still could have faced fines or jail time.
1) You can't be put in jail for losing a civil case. Ask O.J.
2) I would rather risk frivolous lawsuits by warning people that Event X may be deadly even though it is not, than for people to die because I was a negligent chicken-shit.
People died because of a natural disaster, which cannot be predicted or foretold.
Then the entire field of seismology is a fraud and they should be indicted anyway.
So the mechanic should go to jail because they made a mistake?
If a court can prove that the mechanic was negligent in their actions, then Yes, he should and will
Amazing that some folks think certain groups are exempt from certain laws...
Some would say if you can concentrate enough to play XBox all weekend, that perhaps Adderall is not necessary...
To which you responded
Xbox doesnt require concentration. Its an escape for most, not work.
concentration is defined as
1. the act of concentrating; the state of being concentrated.
2. exclusive attention to one object; close mental application.
3. something concentrated: a concentration of stars.
So when you say
Playing video games does not REQUIRE concentration.
you are, by definition, incorrect, thereby only serving to reinforce OP's contention that if you can play a video game, you have no medical need for drugs such as Adderall.
You took my statement as an affront to gamers, when instead i was pointing out there are levels to immersion.
Not at all, merely pointing out the fact that, regardless of the "level of immersion," all video games require a level of focal acuity that people who truly suffer from ADD/ADHD do not possess. If I take affront to anything, it's the fact that real ADD/ADHD sufferers are having a hard time accessing their much needed medication because unscrupulous doctors and pharmaceutical reps are so willing to make drug addicts out of a population of people who are, for lack of a better term, lazy whinebags who hate their jobs.
I wonder what would the chances of a DRM-free release have been if funding had come from a traditional publisher?
The same chance you have getting laid by something other than your left hand. Can we leave out the shitty editorials.
You must be new here...
Welcome to the internet!
When did the DEA get into the chemical production business?
If accurate, I would wager right about the time they made it illegal for anyone else to do so.
Xbox doesnt require concentration. Its an escape for most, not work.
You've either never played a video game, or you're mistaken on what the definition of "concentration" is.
Just because playing video games is not what one would traditionally call "work," doesn't mean it does not require any sort of concentration. You still have to pay detailed attention to the gameplay, the dialog, the controls, et. al., which falls under the definition of "concentration" and/or "focus." You can't even play a game as simple as Pong without some level of focused concentration.
At one point in my youth, I was concerned about possibly suffering from ADD, so I asked my doctor about it; he asked me one simple question:
"Can you focus on anything for more than five minutes or so?"
"Well, yea, I play an hour or so of Halo most nights."
"Then you don't have ADD."
Perhaps the shortage of ADD drugs wouldn't exist if we didn't have so many docs giving in to pressure from drug addicts (and pushers, er, I mean pharmaceutical reps) to prescribe people narcotics they don't actually need to function.
Man, I do not envy the person who has to clean up that mess...
(Yes that was a sex joke)
Uh, OK. You may not be aware of this, but when a person donates a book, he no longer has the book!
You sure about that?
You are the one claiming there's some hidden number of vaccine deaths based on faulty correlation/causation claims. The burden is on you to prove it; rather than on me to try to prove a negative.
I made no such claim. I believe you are engaging in what psychologists refer to as "transferrence."
Your original post to which I replied:
Which of these can you blame on vaccines? None.
Looks like I'm not the one making claims, and thus have nothing that requires supporting documentation. I've merely been calling you out on your lack thereof, which you obviously have no intention of settling.
I will no longer be responding to your posts on this thread. To quote W.C. Fields,
Go away, kid, ya bother me.
If you bothered to look, below the picture is a citation to CDC data, including a breakdown of infant mortality rate in the published peer-reviewed data.
And nowhere in the CDC page is it specified which maladies "all other causes" applies to.
I'm basing this off of my Masters Degree in Public Health and epidemiology classes.
What does that have to do with the fact you're presenting an assumption as fact, without empirical data to back it? As an academic, I would think you would know better than to make claims without having the dataset to back them. Guess there's more to education than the piece of paper you get at the end, eh?
it's standard convention to add uncommon diseases to the catch-all "All Other Causes" heading defined as :
"all causes of death that are ill-defined."
Such as... vaccine related deaths, perhaps? You're not doing yourself any favors by continuing to argue your point with vagaries, you know.
Back to the original topic, you think that somewhere buried in this heading is a pile of dead babies from vaccines, that somehow the entire health community has missed?
Unlike some people, I prefer to avoid making assumption; much to the contrary, I like to base my opinion and decisions off facts and logic. The fact is, you've yet to provide a single piece of evidence that actually supports your claim that there is no such thing as vaccination-related death, so logically, I have no cause to believe a word you say.
Just because I think you're full of it does not imply or infer any other opinion on any other topic; it just means I think you're full of it.
But hey, don't let that keep you from having a great day!
It should be assumed that farmers did not illicitly buy Monsanto seed - as we have an assumption of innocence.
Haven't been involved in the American legal system much of late, I take it?
The presumption of innocence went away some time ago... right about the same era in which the SCOTUS decided corporations (like Monsanto) are "people," and money = speech.