But it was a Nigerian prince! Really. No one expects a Nigerian prince to be dishonest. Just like no one expects a Spanish inquisition... Sorry, off topic.
Next time we'll wait with article until there is adequate follow-up, and then we'll have comments who sound like this: "Why is it posted now, this was first posted months ago on site ***. Bad not-uptodate/."
People were quick to mod you Troll, but you have a point. Assuming all they do is legal - the company is supposed to try and raise profits, and if they dominate a market, we expect them to try and expand to other markets. Just yesterday there was a story about HP's shopping spree and one of the commenters wrote that it is a good thing on HP's behalf that they are not stagnating, like Dell, but try to move to new markets. Wal-Mart is doing what is expected from every company: They try to maximize their profits. What do you expect them to do, to not enter an area because there is a nice mom-and-pop store in the area that they don't want to disturb? I feel sorry for those stores and I wish there was a way around it, but Wal-Mart is doing what is needed. You could also rant against big-bad-Google for driving AltaVista out of business or Apple for driving some no-name music player maker out of business, what's the difference? If you show me an instance when Wal-Mart is doing something against the law - not giving min-wage, trampling employee's rights, doing something that is anti-competitive - then we'll have something to talk about.
Actually it is a top priority, but they are going at it the wrong way. I always just love it when the IT do everything they can to keep you from using the Internet, for fear of viruses, but then they make you use IE 6 and they don't allow you to install other browsers. Stupid people!
Of course, if there are specific rules against doing what he did, then there is no questions about him not doing this. I was talking more about the "moral" question, assuming there are no guidelines/rules.
I spent thousands of dollars on my guitars, effects and amp (VOX AC30, gotta love it). Does this make me fiscally irresponsible? Everyone has things he likes to spend money on, we usually call them "hobbies" (and they sometimes entail leaving the basement ). I also buy CDs, although I can download them for free. Does this make me fiscally irresponsible? Maybe I just like the feel of a real CD with the packaging and all? I found out over the years that music that I download I appreciate less than music I bought. No big "save the starving artist" morals, just me listening and appreciating the music more. Maybe he prefers to pay for his porn? Maybe because that's his hobby, maybe because he wants to support the fine actors and actresses or maybe just because he has the money and would like to spend it this way. It's his goddamn money and he can do whatever he wants with it. It reminds me when people were talking about the cost of Schwarzenegger's cigars. What the fuck do people care? He made his money fair and square and he can do with it whatever he wants. Stopping looking for bullshit reasons to throw politicians from office and focus on real reasons.
If he was caught updating his personal Facebook account during work, would you be upset? And if he checked his personal mail? Or maybe just browsed a shopping site for half an hour, looking for a new oven (because his wife was pestering about her wanting a new one)? Actually, for people who are not paid by the hour, this is less of an issue. If I pay you X$ (AU$) an hour to do a job, I want you to be working during that hour. If I pay you Y$ a month/year to do a job, I don't care how long you are in the office. Do whatever you want, just get the job done. If you don't have a problem with the above scenarios, but you have a problem with him watching porn in his office, then we have a different discussion. I myself think porn is perfectly OK, and if no one is around while you do it, I don't care (If other people are around, they might be offended because of their personal beliefs, so I wouldn't open a porn flick near them). Of course, this is my opinion, and everyone is free to have his own opinion... although I am sure that I am correct and you are not!:)
I am on this page for about 5 minutes, and only now I'm beginning to get my breath back. I mean, people - the earth is the center of the universe? Of course, you can make a coordinate substitution so that earth is actually in the center and everything revolves around it, but somehow I don't think this is what they meant. I think I need my remote control anesthesia now, if you don't mind...
I recommend you read this post. It has a link to a NEJM article about the case. It specifically talks about the antigenic load in current vaccines relative to the first vaccines made (smallpox) and to a regular childhood infection.
I think what he meant is that because disease such as pneumonia, flu, etc. seem so benign nowadays (because of effective treatment), the anti-vaccination people perceive the relative risk from vaccination to be much larger than it really is and as such are more afraid of it than from the diseases they are trying to prevent. In the end, because they want a risk-free world, they avoid the thing that they believe is much riskier - vaccines. It is much easier to be afraid of adverse reaction to vaccines you get than to appreciate the diseases you don't get due to the same vaccines. This is always the problem with medications given as preventative medicine. A person who bleeds because of Aspirin will be angry at the doctor for causing him harm. He does not know whether the same Aspirin also prevented a heart attack.
In that case I apologize and extend my hand in friendship (no sarcasm). I understood that most of your post was of the same opinion as mine, but I guess I misunderstood the first part. Again, apologies. Well... At least it got me +3 Insightful:)
After reading the whole thread again, which started with someone blaming government experimentation for his son's autism and ending with the post I replied to, I think they were talking about autism.
mod +5 informative. Everyone in this thread is encouraged to read the first link as it clearly states what happened in the case and why we are actually not talking about autism, but encephalitis. Although the writer is related to the vaccine industry, since it is appearing on NEJM, you can be sure it is not just a collection of some random thoughts As a bonus, they have a good example for the use of "irony".:)
I try to listen to her, but everytime she starts talking I recall her photo shoots and my mind just wanders. Maybe it also happens to her, but on a more chronic basis.
Just because we are talking about a large population, does not mean that anythingcan happen. This is not the improbability drive. Yes, many children get vaccines, and as such, rare reactions may occur. But Autism is not a rare reaction to vaccines that with a big enough sample size you might find some that are affected. Autism is not caused by vaccines. Your line of thinking in the first two sentences is what caused this stupid decision: "Oh, well, there's always the chance that this poor little girl is the 1 in gazillion to have autism due to vaccines". Well, then, I'm sorry but there is not one shred of (credible) evidence linking vaccines to autism. And until there is, I will continue saying that the chance that a vaccine will cause autism is like the chance that a vaccine will make the child grow a third arm (almost said "third leg", but it would have proved fertile ground for many a pun).
I would have to agree that you should be pro-active in the management of your health, and that sadly there are mediocre doctors out there (well, random distribution insists that we have below average doctors). However, my post was in response to a general comment that said that with a few minutes of research you can be "smarter than your doctor" - which I take it as meaning "knowing more than your doctor". As a doctor, I was offended at making my whole education and experience summed up into "a few minutes of research".
On the other hand, when you have a rare disease, it is recommended that you research about it as much as possible, since you have a greater chance of encountering a doctor who does not know/remember that illness, and in that case you might know more than him.
If you don't like SK, then fine, what is your point? I don't like many authors, but I don't think it interests anyone (except maybe the women I date) what authors I like and dislike.
Maybe I should also copy paste all the comments into my post, including my own, thus earning a +1 Recursive, which is way more honorable than +1 Redundant.
Well, you got my +1 funny mod. I enjoyed your post (again and again). Actually, it might be that our/. overlords have seen this thread and do not want to change the main post so as to not make this thread irrelevant to future generations.
Slashdot Mirror
But it was a Nigerian prince! Really. No one expects a Nigerian prince to be dishonest. Just like no one expects a Spanish inquisition... Sorry, off topic.
Damn, I was saving it for the next Google story. Bastard!
Next time we'll wait with article until there is adequate follow-up, and then we'll have comments who sound like this: "Why is it posted now, this was first posted months ago on site ***. Bad not-uptodate /."
My kingdom for a mod point. +1 funny... and redundant :)
People were quick to mod you Troll, but you have a point. Assuming all they do is legal - the company is supposed to try and raise profits, and if they dominate a market, we expect them to try and expand to other markets. Just yesterday there was a story about HP's shopping spree and one of the commenters wrote that it is a good thing on HP's behalf that they are not stagnating, like Dell, but try to move to new markets.
Wal-Mart is doing what is expected from every company: They try to maximize their profits. What do you expect them to do, to not enter an area because there is a nice mom-and-pop store in the area that they don't want to disturb? I feel sorry for those stores and I wish there was a way around it, but Wal-Mart is doing what is needed. You could also rant against big-bad-Google for driving AltaVista out of business or Apple for driving some no-name music player maker out of business, what's the difference?
If you show me an instance when Wal-Mart is doing something against the law - not giving min-wage, trampling employee's rights, doing something that is anti-competitive - then we'll have something to talk about.
Actually it is a top priority, but they are going at it the wrong way. I always just love it when the IT do everything they can to keep you from using the Internet, for fear of viruses, but then they make you use IE 6 and they don't allow you to install other browsers. Stupid people!
Of course, if there are specific rules against doing what he did, then there is no questions about him not doing this. I was talking more about the "moral" question, assuming there are no guidelines/rules.
Didn't mean to sound so serious. Just used your post a starting point for my thoughts on the manner.
I spent thousands of dollars on my guitars, effects and amp (VOX AC30, gotta love it). Does this make me fiscally irresponsible? Everyone has things he likes to spend money on, we usually call them "hobbies" (and they sometimes entail leaving the basement ). I also buy CDs, although I can download them for free. Does this make me fiscally irresponsible? Maybe I just like the feel of a real CD with the packaging and all? I found out over the years that music that I download I appreciate less than music I bought. No big "save the starving artist" morals, just me listening and appreciating the music more. Maybe he prefers to pay for his porn? Maybe because that's his hobby, maybe because he wants to support the fine actors and actresses or maybe just because he has the money and would like to spend it this way. It's his goddamn money and he can do whatever he wants with it.
It reminds me when people were talking about the cost of Schwarzenegger's cigars. What the fuck do people care? He made his money fair and square and he can do with it whatever he wants.
Stopping looking for bullshit reasons to throw politicians from office and focus on real reasons.
If he was caught updating his personal Facebook account during work, would you be upset? And if he checked his personal mail? Or maybe just browsed a shopping site for half an hour, looking for a new oven (because his wife was pestering about her wanting a new one)? :)
Actually, for people who are not paid by the hour, this is less of an issue. If I pay you X$ (AU$) an hour to do a job, I want you to be working during that hour. If I pay you Y$ a month/year to do a job, I don't care how long you are in the office. Do whatever you want, just get the job done.
If you don't have a problem with the above scenarios, but you have a problem with him watching porn in his office, then we have a different discussion. I myself think porn is perfectly OK, and if no one is around while you do it, I don't care (If other people are around, they might be offended because of their personal beliefs, so I wouldn't open a porn flick near them). Of course, this is my opinion, and everyone is free to have his own opinion... although I am sure that I am correct and you are not!
I am on this page for about 5 minutes, and only now I'm beginning to get my breath back. I mean, people - the earth is the center of the universe?
Of course, you can make a coordinate substitution so that earth is actually in the center and everything revolves around it, but somehow I don't think this is what they meant.
I think I need my remote control anesthesia now, if you don't mind...
I recommend you read this post. It has a link to a NEJM article about the case. It specifically talks about the antigenic load in current vaccines relative to the first vaccines made (smallpox) and to a regular childhood infection.
I think what he meant is that because disease such as pneumonia, flu, etc. seem so benign nowadays (because of effective treatment), the anti-vaccination people perceive the relative risk from vaccination to be much larger than it really is and as such are more afraid of it than from the diseases they are trying to prevent. In the end, because they want a risk-free world, they avoid the thing that they believe is much riskier - vaccines.
It is much easier to be afraid of adverse reaction to vaccines you get than to appreciate the diseases you don't get due to the same vaccines. This is always the problem with medications given as preventative medicine. A person who bleeds because of Aspirin will be angry at the doctor for causing him harm. He does not know whether the same Aspirin also prevented a heart attack.
Well, if that is the case then I am relieved.
In that case I apologize and extend my hand in friendship (no sarcasm). I understood that most of your post was of the same opinion as mine, but I guess I misunderstood the first part. Again, apologies. :)
Well... At least it got me +3 Insightful
After reading the whole thread again, which started with someone blaming government experimentation for his son's autism and ending with the post I replied to, I think they were talking about autism.
mod +5 informative. :)
Everyone in this thread is encouraged to read the first link as it clearly states what happened in the case and why we are actually not talking about autism, but encephalitis. Although the writer is related to the vaccine industry, since it is appearing on NEJM, you can be sure it is not just a collection of some random thoughts
As a bonus, they have a good example for the use of "irony".
I try to listen to her, but everytime she starts talking I recall her photo shoots and my mind just wanders. Maybe it also happens to her, but on a more chronic basis.
Just because we are talking about a large population, does not mean that anythingcan happen. This is not the improbability drive.
Yes, many children get vaccines, and as such, rare reactions may occur. But Autism is not a rare reaction to vaccines that with a big enough sample size you might find some that are affected. Autism is not caused by vaccines. Your line of thinking in the first two sentences is what caused this stupid decision: "Oh, well, there's always the chance that this poor little girl is the 1 in gazillion to have autism due to vaccines".
Well, then, I'm sorry but there is not one shred of (credible) evidence linking vaccines to autism. And until there is, I will continue saying that the chance that a vaccine will cause autism is like the chance that a vaccine will make the child grow a third arm (almost said "third leg", but it would have proved fertile ground for many a pun).
I would have to agree that you should be pro-active in the management of your health, and that sadly there are mediocre doctors out there (well, random distribution insists that we have below average doctors). However, my post was in response to a general comment that said that with a few minutes of research you can be "smarter than your doctor" - which I take it as meaning "knowing more than your doctor". As a doctor, I was offended at making my whole education and experience summed up into "a few minutes of research".
On the other hand, when you have a rare disease, it is recommended that you research about it as much as possible, since you have a greater chance of encountering a doctor who does not know/remember that illness, and in that case you might know more than him.
Yes, there is. Troll gets modded -1 Troll for a good reason, while sarcasm gets modded -1 Troll without one.
If you don't like SK, then fine, what is your point? I don't like many authors, but I don't think it interests anyone (except maybe the women I date) what authors I like and dislike.
Maybe I should also copy paste all the comments into my post, including my own, thus earning a +1 Recursive, which is way more honorable than +1 Redundant.
But since they have some problems with social skills from the get go, I do not think that autism is such a problem for them.
Well, you got my +1 funny mod. I enjoyed your post (again and again). /. overlords have seen this thread and do not want to change the main post so as to not make this thread irrelevant to future generations.
Actually, it might be that our