Well... it's either that or you are retarded as shit. Not even realizing when you contradict yourself and all that.
Matriarchal cultures and "cultures ruled by women" ( which are the same thing, women ruling the state != women ruling the culture
In fact, the culture of the British Empire was heavily misogynistic.
So what are you trying to prove there? That it WAS a "misogynistic culture" BECAUSE it was ruled by women, i.e. because it was MATRIARCHAL?
Or that you are a retard who does not understand a CONCEPT of difference between a single attribute of a culture AND its primary descriptive attributes. I'm guessing it's the later... or you would realize that your generalizations lead into cognitive dissonance.
I.e. Not only can your hasty generalizations of "history and cultures" be brought down with a single example of a matriarch ruler or culture (thus "proving" matriarchy across the board regardless of the presence or EVEN roles of males or females in a culture - which you promptly proceed to do yourself in the comment above) - but that your "presence or absence of X makes everything X because X does not correlate with Y" is a HILARIOUSLY, MINDBOGGLINGLY, JAWDROPPINGLY STUPID CLAIM.
Or simpler... There IS cake everywhere BECAUSE, presence of cake or absence of cake is unrelated to presence of diabetics. Z is omnipresent because Z or NOT Z are NOT something else.
Which works. You just have to be really dumb or really insane for that to work for you.
As for the "education" ad hominem... It's hilariously pathetic and snobbish. And as usual, tells more about you and your values of "education" over logic or sanity than about me. Sorta like when 15-year-old trolls try to insult by using racial, ethnic or sexual slurs - showing their own set of values. What's next? Putting value on the "brand" of your education? Wearing shirts with little coat of arms patches? Singing school anthems? Waving little flags? My school was more expensive than your school?
But it's nice, cause it allows me to call you a retard without feeling any guilt or remorse about it.
By that same logic gaming culture is Jewish. Or gay. Or blonde. Or old. Or female. Or is made out of people called Jimbo. Or any other attribute anyone could name as present in the culture.
If any attribute "even if they don't map to all(or even most) members of that culture" could be used to label any culture as such.
In other words, you belong to a Nazi culture. Whichever culture you may consider yourself belonging to. Hey... it doesn't have to map to you for me to call you a filthy Nazi. Your rules.
Cause clearly, there is no such thing as PRIMARY attributes.
About half of all humans are female... and misogyny is widely documented across history and across cultures. The presence or absence of misogyny is thus not correlated with the percentage of females in the population. Not to mention the multiple incidents that have come to light recently should provide further clue that there's far more than 'one bad apple'.
The mere "presence" of X does not describe sample or population as X. A certain concentration/percentage of X is needed to make X typical.
The presence of radioactive material on planet Earth does not mean that entire planet is radioactive. The presence of sociopathic murderers in human population does not mean that the entire human population IS or that it SHOULD BE labeled as sociopathic murderers.
So, besides the fact of apparent absence of correlation of misogyny with the percentage of females in the population (as you state), the "multiple incidents" are NOT proof of pervasive misogyny. They are what is called "anecdotal evidence" - i.e. not evidence but amusing stories. Compare the number of "multiple incidents" with number of... say... diabetics, Jews, Chinese, guitar players, smokers... Would you label the entire gaming culture as "Jewish" or "diabetic"? Would it make any sense to do that?
On top of that... you are comparing apples and oranges AND working from a foregone conclusion of misogyny, despite evidence to contrary. For one, historical cultures are NOT related in any way to gaming culture other than both being HUMAN cultures. Same way most of those cultures are not related to each other. I.e. Gamers are not ancient Egyptians same way neither of those groups are 19th century France.
Secondly, that's a generalization which ignores matriarchal cultures, and cultures ruled by women. I.e. Entire British Empire (which basically ruled the world) for quite a while, even having entire eras named after their queens and not their family names, which should be assumed practice if those cultures were inherently misogynistic. In fact... Such assumption of misogyny as historical and cultural default "because it's there" is not just implicitly misogynistic on its own - it is WRONG.
Because... The mere "presence" of X does not describe sample or population as X. Assuming that it does is a hasty generalization. Assuming that, based on anecdotal cases, entire culture is the same as those singular cases is an entire other kind of fallacy of its own.
...both parties being on equal footing, so that the solicited side can refuse the offer without suffering any consequence. "Pay me and I'll eat your vegetables and you can tell our mother you ate them." "Pay me, stranger, and I'll give you sexual favors."
In the context of the discussion about BRIBES, there is an implied imbalance of power. You don't pay a bribe to a prostitute to HAVE SEX (same footing), you pay it LATER so said prostitute KEEPS QUIET (imbalance of power).
Due to the same kind of imbalance of power, a politician coming to your workplace and offering his/her favors in exchange for money is not soliciting but extorting a bribe. The siblings metaphor gets an added "...and if you talk about it, just wait until mom and dad go to work and we're alone." Politician does not even have to imply a possible setback for your business or an unexpected windfall for your competition.
Or simpler... A cop who pulls you over offers to waive the $200 fine for X if you make a $100 or higher donation to Retired Policemen Fund. Solicitation implies that you have a choice in the matter. Imbalance of power in the situation assures that you don't.
A "topical painkiller for the throat" in on itself makes it NOT a placebo but a painkiller for symptomatic relief. And syrups which require prescription (not over the counter) tend to be based on some form of an antibiotic.
The main issue is the kind of antibiotic in the syrup and the dosage. Followed closely by the method of administration. Dosage is usually 2-3 times lower when the antibiotic is taken orally instead of via an intramuscular or intravenous injection.
Ampicillin: Dosing:
Infants and Children: Mild-to-moderate infections: I.M., I.V.: 100-150 mg/kg/day in divided doses every 6 hours (maximum: 2-4 g/day) . Oral: 50-100 mg/kg/day in doses divided every 6 hours (maximum: 2-4 g/day) . Severe infections/meningitis: I.M., I.V.: 200-400 mg/kg/day in divided doses every 6 hours (maximum: 6-12 g/day)
On top of that, a teaspoon of antibiotic suspension tends to contain about 250 mg of actual medicine. They are prescribing these to both babies and to kids in puberty, like I was back then. So, better safe than overdose policy from a young MD ensured I got a baby dose instead of an adult one as I was almost 18 and weighed about 62-63 kg. Not that I looked like an adult. Apart from the beard. Which I've probably shaven off before going to a doctor.
I.e. I got a 25-35 times lower dose than it was safe and about 5-6 times lower than needed.
A person who offers a bribe is just as culpable as the person who takes the bribe.
If I ask for money or something else from YOU, as a payment for some favor, that's extortion and the burden of guilt is on ME.
If YOU offer me money or something else, ASKING for a favor in return, that's a BRIBE and the burden of guilt is on YOU. Up to that point, I am free and clear.
If I do decide to ACCEPT the bribe, then there is a burden of OFFERING a bribe on you, and a separate burden of ACCEPTING a bribe on me. If I give you favors in return for the bribe there is ADDITIONAL burden on me for abuse of position/authority. Neither of which exculpates you for your crime. You still carry the burden of offering the bribe.
There is an another scenario where one person offers a favor or money or something else of value as a gift, but later demands favors in return on account of that gift. Maybe threatening to reveal the "gift" to a third party as something other than just a gift, or demanding to have it returned or paid for. That's blackmail, and the burden is entirely on the gift-giver/blackmailer.
No, every number except for the world population and the final calculated number for mortality rate is from that WHO report.
About the same way that every letter is in the alphabet.
I used the numbers most favorable to producing a high mortality rate
No you didn't.
If we go with the lowest number of infected, 5%, and multiple it by the 7 billion on this planet, we have 350 million.
You used imaginary numbers for determining your supposed population, and you purposefully used lowest numbers which you've also imagined. Those numbers are nowhere to be found in the WHO report.
THIS is what the report says. Again...
Influenza occurs globally with an annual attack rate estimated at 5% - 10% in adults and 20% - 30% in children.
NOT 5% of 7.2 billion. 5-10% of adults (so "most favorable to producing a high mortality rate" would be 10% based on adults alone) and 20-30% of children (where "most favorable to producing a high mortality rate" would be 30%).
Have fun figuring out how many "children" that is as not only do they NOT provide such numbers, but they don't even define "children". Prepubescent? Everyone under 18? 16? Babies?
ON THE OTHER HAND... 8-10% is the number you get when comparing lowest number of deaths to lowest numbers of severe illness, while comparing highest numbers of deaths to highest numbers of severe illness. It is a moderate guesstimate value based on known relations between known facts.
Just taking 5% out of 7.2 billion is practically the same as taking any random number. 8%. 19%. 56% 807%. Pumpkin %. I.e. Completely unrelated to given facts.
The flu virus changes in ways that require us to update our vaccines practically every year. That makes a complete cure for the flu virtually impossible.
Again, that is not the issue. Vaccines are kept up to date.
From the same WHO report.
For many years WHO has updated its recommendation on vaccine composition biannually that targets the 3 (trivalent) most representative virus types in circulation (two subtypes of influenza A viruses and one B virus). Starting with the 2013-2014 northern hemisphere influenza season, quadrivalent vaccine composition has been recommended with a second influenza B virus in addition to the viruses in the conventional trivalent vaccines. Quadrivalent influenza vaccines are expected to provide wider protection against influenza B virus infections.
The issue is the unavailability of vaccines everywhere and the disregard of the disease as people "don't die of influenza very often". With a dose of that general trend of fear of vaccination on top of it all.
Meanwhile, a couple of thousand dead, ONLY in Africa, over several decades, is a cause of panic because that disease is much more sexy. Cause everyone dies from ebola. Almost nobody gets it but everyone DIES. Clearly, we should all panic and duct-tape our doors and windows to stop the virus from coming in.
So I guess we shouldn't worry about Ebola either coz you don't think you'll ever get it either? Check your hipster-holier-then-thou-attitude at the door mate.
How about you check your words at your mouth and refrain from putting it into other people's mouths? Mate. We should not panic about ebola. We SHOULD worry more about the flu, as it clearly kills hundreds of thousands each year.
How easy/hard to die from a disease is not an issue - it's how easily it spreads and IS it deadly. Ebola is not airborne, it happens only in certain parts of Africa, it requires direct contact for transfer, and it is deadly. Flu on the other hand, IS airborne, does NOT require direct contact, happens EVERYWHERE, and it is also deadly.
One of those two is a clear and present danger to EVERYONE. One is an imaginary threat for the most of the planet, on the level of a terrorist attack with a dirty bomb. I.e. It never happened. There was never an ebola pandemic.
Once an epidemic starts anywhere outside of Africa or some other tropical country with free roaming apes/monkeys - that's when the world needs to panic. Until then... any panic outside of Africa is based on fantasy and delusion.
Meanwhile, due exactly to writing off of flu as "not scary" people forgo on vaccination - and we bury another 0.2-0.5 million. While diligently panicking about ebola, sky falling down, terrorists, bronies and drinking from plastic cups.
Like with any disease, further research should be done to create a cure. Meanwhile, 85% of the world can chill and relax and stop worrying about Dustin Hoffman possibly being infectious.
Yet, there was never a case of ebola in humans which originated outside of Africa and the total number of deaths EVER is counted in thousands FOR ALL THIS TIME and not in hundreds of thousands EACH YEAR. There's a clue there regarding the nature of the disease. I.e. It's quick and deadly - it does not get to spread far.
And African nations which are currently dealing with, and which have historically had to deal with ebola outbreaks don't have "infrastructure that permits long term quarantine of all but a small handful of individuals" either. Often, they don't have running water. Yet... It's mere thousands of cases. Ever. Again, quick and deadly - it does not get to spread far.
Nobody is arguing that it is not dangerous. Just that as far as the number of fatalities and global issues go - it's trivial compared to influenza which kills a whole city of people and severely affects a small country of people. Each year. But since it's not sexy and it's kinda like the common cold so many people confuse the two... meh... fuck those hundreds of thousands dead.
But let's all panic about a disease which has killed couple of thousand people who lived near a jungle in Africa, practically at their doorstep.
As for the penicillin, I already answered that couple of times in other posts and my reasoning there is quite similar to yours.
Probably. It probably took out a bacterial infection for which the influenza opened the doors. It was the only thing other than the glucose I was given intravenously, just in case.
And it started working from the first shot I received in the morning at the doctor's office (now my doctor WAS on duty) as I was already feeling well enough to walk on my own around the hospital, following the doctors and nurses from examination room to examination room while being examined there later that day.
Had they said "Go home, you're fine." I would have. But, the EKG said differently so I was provided with couple of nights in the intensive care, listening to delirious old men on the other side of the ward yelling and screaming all night. Fun times.
Same reason they later kept me on glucose for several days while allowing me to eat solid food - just in case and cause it fit the symptoms of an infection. In this case, it took out the bacterial infection of the heart muscle for which the influenza opened up the doors. Cough syrup on the other hand did diddly squat.
It was effective against a bacterial inflammation of the heart muscle, for which influenza "opened the door". Like I said, they never figured out what exactly was the cause, they just settled for viral once they ran out of congenital and parasitic causes.
Penicillin (probably a streptomycin combo) was administered "just in case". Same as the glucose I was receiving intravenously for several days more, despite being quite able to eat and digest solid food - which I did as I was allowed to.
You are working with rather imaginary numbers there.
For one, 5 percent of adults and whatever-percent of children won't give you that 5% number to multiply it with 7 billion. And second, death tends to be a severe case. A VERY severe case. Does WHO discount those deaths from severe cases? I don't know. They didn't say.
But it is a much more accurate shorthand to assume a correlation between the number of severe cases and the number of deaths and compare those numbers as percentages of the same population than what you did there.
Precise numbers are not an issue here anyway. The fact that flu is a much more serious global problem than ebola is the issue.
Dying the flu generally requires complicating conditions. Most people survive it just fine. Ebola is scary because most people don't survive it.
Following that logic, ebola is not scary simply because most people don't ever catch it.
Or are you arguing that since it's not your ass, you not being elderly, pregnant or a small child - fuck those weaklings dying in hundreds of thousands each year from a disease "Most people survive it just fine".
And again... Most people DO NOT GET THE FLU each year but simple common cold. "3 to 5 million cases of severe illness, and about 250 000 to 500 000 deaths" comes to 8-10% fatalities. That's about 3 kids dead in a class of 30 children. Every year. But it's spread out across the globe and it happens mostly in "third world" countries so - fuck those weaklings.
Back in winter of '96 I had a case of actual flu. As a teenager, wasn't really in an "at risk group", other than maybe having my immunity lowered. Unfortunately, my doctor wasn't in that day and I was sent home (by a rather young doctor, rather fresh from the med school) with a prescription for cough syrup instead of a penicillin shot.
That night I had a fever of +40C, and ended up barely breathing by the morning. Had to sit in a semi-reclined position to be able to breathe as it was difficult for me to do that while sitting or lying down. Had to lean on my mother's arm to be able to walk to the doctor's office in the morning, about 200-300 meters downhill (mostly) from where I live.
There it turned out that I practically had a heart attack - an inflammation of the myocardium. Ended up staying over at the hospital for couple of weeks and having tests and booster shots for next half a year - though I was "fixed" after couple of shots of penicillin, getting out of the bed and walking to the bathroom by myself that very night with no difficulty at all. By tomorrow I felt ready to go home. Still had to stay though.
Funny thing is, during all my stay at the hospital doctors never figured out what was wrong with me. They were looking for congenital heart conditions, trichinosis... only much later as I kept being fine did they take a look back at the original symptoms and figured out that it was all a viral inflammation of the heart muscle.
THAT'S influenza! "Most people" catch a cold and call that "the flu".
Great, you DON'T get to run the country, because you are obviously smarter than 80% of the population. Or better yet, you DON'T get to be the editor for every technical article ever.
Bubonic, Septicemic, Pneumonic, Pharyngeal, Meningeal and Cellulocutaneous plague are the SAME DISEASE. Only distinction is the main area of infection and the vector which got it there. It will shift from one form to the other as the disease progresses.
You're basically trying to be a smartass by saying something like "Ha! You fool! It's not a pastry. It's a croissant."
Influenza occurs globally with an annual attack rate estimated at 5% - 10% in adults and 20% - 30% in children. Illnesses can result in hospitalization and death mainly among high-risk groups (the very young, elderly or chronically ill). Worldwide, these annual epidemics are estimated to result in about 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness, and about 250 000 to 500 000 deaths.
It's just not that sexy to make a movie about it with Morgan Freeman, Dustin Hoffman and a monkey. Plus people ignorant of distinction between common cold and influenza don't perceive it as a threat. Which is a further reason why there is no movie with a monkey about it.
The main topic is memes, not the Federal deficit. "TLDR", being a meme, many of which were quoted here, is actually ON TOPIC.
Which is funny all on its own, being that it is probably one of the few times that a reply such as TLDR is actually ON TOPIC, and it is funny as a reply to trolls who are trolling the topic with idiotic insinuations of "useless research causes Federal budget to collapse".
And it's triple funny cause though THEY are aware of being off-topic, moderators are not. There...
Now... Place your right forefinger on your right cheek, just above the right corner of your mouth, and your left forefinger at your left cheek, just above the left corner of your mouth. With fingers in that position push the cheeks of your face gently upward. While holding your cheeks in that position, open your mouth slightly, take a deep breath, and say "Ha!" rapidly three times while breading out with each "Ha!" It may take a little practice to get it right first couple of years. Observing how other humanoids perform the laughing ritual may help.
The question, rather, is how many of those registered are actually drafted.
No.
Replace "conscription law" with "death sentence" and see if "how many of those are actually carried out" and see if that makes sense. A law is a law is a law.
Government MAY not enforce every single law fully as it lacks the capacity or willingness to enforce 100% of laws on the books, but the fact of an existence of such a law shows CLEAR INTENT TO ENFORCE IT. They reformed the laws several times, yet they kept all elements needed for unforced conscription.
The paper that you cite does not necessarily support the notion of compulsory conscription.
You are missing the point of that citation. Reread my comment above again.
The paper lists MANY examples of circumstantial evidence of an existing and ongoing conscription. What it DOES NOT DO is prove a "de facto" non-existence of conscription and an existence volunteer service in its stead. BUT, it tries to argue such a position, despite the COMPLETE LACK of any evidence for its thesis.
I.e. It's bullshit. And I'm not citing it as a proof of existence of conscription or volunteer service or non-existence of either, but as a source of that unsourced and unsubstantiated bullshit claim.
I'm not sure what your link to the Taiwanese kid story is supposed to prove
Again, reread my comment. It is there as an example of tactics and means for deferment available to the urban population, and NOT available to the rural kids.
Taiwanese kid could afford such a stunt at 24 - i.e. 6 years after he became eligible. For 6 years he dodged the service in the country you define as "one where conscription definitely does exist, and people are drafted against their will."
A rural kid of 18, trying the same dieting technique, would just be written off as underfed because he's from a poor village. Older than average, emaciated kid among the group of well fed city kids 6 years younger... clearly he's sickly and incapable of service. He probably even looked at least 30% older than all the other recruits.
And a city kid gets that 6 year buffer cause he has a high school right across the street and a college two blocks away. Unlike the rural kid who probably walked couple of hours to and from school IF there was one that near, and who could never afford to go to a college unless he was exceptionally intelligent and studious so that he would get a scholarship to a college somewhere in the city.
Slashdot Mirror
Space space wanna go to space yes please space. Space space. Go to space.
It means that inhabitat and gizmodo are not what one might call "reliable" or "fact checked" sources of information.
Well... it's either that or you are retarded as shit.
Not even realizing when you contradict yourself and all that.
Matriarchal cultures and "cultures ruled by women" ( which are the same thing, women ruling the state != women ruling the culture
In fact, the culture of the British Empire was heavily misogynistic.
So what are you trying to prove there?
That it WAS a "misogynistic culture" BECAUSE it was ruled by women, i.e. because it was MATRIARCHAL?
Or that you are a retard who does not understand a CONCEPT of difference between a single attribute of a culture AND its primary descriptive attributes.
I'm guessing it's the later... or you would realize that your generalizations lead into cognitive dissonance.
I.e. Not only can your hasty generalizations of "history and cultures" be brought down with a single example of a matriarch ruler or culture (thus "proving" matriarchy across the board regardless of the presence or EVEN roles of males or females in a culture - which you promptly proceed to do yourself in the comment above) - but that your "presence or absence of X makes everything X because X does not correlate with Y" is a HILARIOUSLY, MINDBOGGLINGLY, JAWDROPPINGLY STUPID CLAIM.
Or simpler...
There IS cake everywhere BECAUSE, presence of cake or absence of cake is unrelated to presence of diabetics.
Z is omnipresent because Z or NOT Z are NOT something else.
Which works.
You just have to be really dumb or really insane for that to work for you.
As for the "education" ad hominem... It's hilariously pathetic and snobbish.
And as usual, tells more about you and your values of "education" over logic or sanity than about me.
Sorta like when 15-year-old trolls try to insult by using racial, ethnic or sexual slurs - showing their own set of values.
What's next? Putting value on the "brand" of your education? Wearing shirts with little coat of arms patches? Singing school anthems? Waving little flags? My school was more expensive than your school?
But it's nice, cause it allows me to call you a retard without feeling any guilt or remorse about it.
By that same logic gaming culture is Jewish. Or gay. Or blonde. Or old. Or female. Or is made out of people called Jimbo.
Or any other attribute anyone could name as present in the culture.
If any attribute "even if they don't map to all(or even most) members of that culture" could be used to label any culture as such.
In other words, you belong to a Nazi culture. Whichever culture you may consider yourself belonging to.
Hey... it doesn't have to map to you for me to call you a filthy Nazi.
Your rules.
Cause clearly, there is no such thing as PRIMARY attributes.
About half of all humans are female... and misogyny is widely documented across history and across cultures. The presence or absence of misogyny is thus not correlated with the percentage of females in the population. Not to mention the multiple incidents that have come to light recently should provide further clue that there's far more than 'one bad apple'.
The mere "presence" of X does not describe sample or population as X.
A certain concentration/percentage of X is needed to make X typical.
The presence of radioactive material on planet Earth does not mean that entire planet is radioactive.
The presence of sociopathic murderers in human population does not mean that the entire human population IS or that it SHOULD BE labeled as sociopathic murderers.
So, besides the fact of apparent absence of correlation of misogyny with the percentage of females in the population (as you state), the "multiple incidents" are NOT proof of pervasive misogyny.
They are what is called "anecdotal evidence" - i.e. not evidence but amusing stories.
Compare the number of "multiple incidents" with number of... say... diabetics, Jews, Chinese, guitar players, smokers...
Would you label the entire gaming culture as "Jewish" or "diabetic"? Would it make any sense to do that?
On top of that... you are comparing apples and oranges AND working from a foregone conclusion of misogyny, despite evidence to contrary.
For one, historical cultures are NOT related in any way to gaming culture other than both being HUMAN cultures.
Same way most of those cultures are not related to each other.
I.e. Gamers are not ancient Egyptians same way neither of those groups are 19th century France.
Secondly, that's a generalization which ignores matriarchal cultures, and cultures ruled by women.
I.e. Entire British Empire (which basically ruled the world) for quite a while, even having entire eras named after their queens and not their family names, which should be assumed practice if those cultures were inherently misogynistic.
In fact... Such assumption of misogyny as historical and cultural default "because it's there" is not just implicitly misogynistic on its own - it is WRONG.
Because... The mere "presence" of X does not describe sample or population as X.
Assuming that it does is a hasty generalization.
Assuming that, based on anecdotal cases, entire culture is the same as those singular cases is an entire other kind of fallacy of its own.
...both parties being on equal footing, so that the solicited side can refuse the offer without suffering any consequence.
"Pay me and I'll eat your vegetables and you can tell our mother you ate them."
"Pay me, stranger, and I'll give you sexual favors."
In the context of the discussion about BRIBES, there is an implied imbalance of power.
You don't pay a bribe to a prostitute to HAVE SEX (same footing), you pay it LATER so said prostitute KEEPS QUIET (imbalance of power).
Due to the same kind of imbalance of power, a politician coming to your workplace and offering his/her favors in exchange for money is not soliciting but extorting a bribe.
The siblings metaphor gets an added "...and if you talk about it, just wait until mom and dad go to work and we're alone."
Politician does not even have to imply a possible setback for your business or an unexpected windfall for your competition.
Or simpler...
A cop who pulls you over offers to waive the $200 fine for X if you make a $100 or higher donation to Retired Policemen Fund.
Solicitation implies that you have a choice in the matter.
Imbalance of power in the situation assures that you don't.
Ergo, you are being extorted.
A "topical painkiller for the throat" in on itself makes it NOT a placebo but a painkiller for symptomatic relief.
And syrups which require prescription (not over the counter) tend to be based on some form of an antibiotic.
The main issue is the kind of antibiotic in the syrup and the dosage. Followed closely by the method of administration.
Dosage is usually 2-3 times lower when the antibiotic is taken orally instead of via an intramuscular or intravenous injection.
http://www.globalrph.com/penic...
Ampicillin:
Dosing:
Infants and Children:
Mild-to-moderate infections:
I.M., I.V.: 100-150 mg/kg/day in divided doses every 6 hours (maximum: 2-4 g/day) .
Oral: 50-100 mg/kg/day in doses divided every 6 hours (maximum: 2-4 g/day) .
Severe infections/meningitis: I.M., I.V.: 200-400 mg/kg/day in divided doses every 6 hours (maximum: 6-12 g/day)
On top of that, a teaspoon of antibiotic suspension tends to contain about 250 mg of actual medicine.
They are prescribing these to both babies and to kids in puberty, like I was back then.
So, better safe than overdose policy from a young MD ensured I got a baby dose instead of an adult one as I was almost 18 and weighed about 62-63 kg.
Not that I looked like an adult. Apart from the beard. Which I've probably shaven off before going to a doctor.
I.e. I got a 25-35 times lower dose than it was safe and about 5-6 times lower than needed.
A person who offers a bribe is just as culpable as the person who takes the bribe.
If I ask for money or something else from YOU, as a payment for some favor, that's extortion and the burden of guilt is on ME.
If YOU offer me money or something else, ASKING for a favor in return, that's a BRIBE and the burden of guilt is on YOU.
Up to that point, I am free and clear.
If I do decide to ACCEPT the bribe, then there is a burden of OFFERING a bribe on you, and a separate burden of ACCEPTING a bribe on me.
If I give you favors in return for the bribe there is ADDITIONAL burden on me for abuse of position/authority.
Neither of which exculpates you for your crime. You still carry the burden of offering the bribe.
There is an another scenario where one person offers a favor or money or something else of value as a gift, but later demands favors in return on account of that gift.
Maybe threatening to reveal the "gift" to a third party as something other than just a gift, or demanding to have it returned or paid for.
That's blackmail, and the burden is entirely on the gift-giver/blackmailer.
I know of a whole social network of people communicating in these # neanderthal signs.
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
No, every number except for the world population and the final calculated number for mortality rate is from that WHO report.
About the same way that every letter is in the alphabet.
I used the numbers most favorable to producing a high mortality rate
No you didn't.
If we go with the lowest number of infected, 5%, and multiple it by the 7 billion on this planet, we have 350 million.
You used imaginary numbers for determining your supposed population, and you purposefully used lowest numbers which you've also imagined.
Those numbers are nowhere to be found in the WHO report.
THIS is what the report says. Again...
Influenza occurs globally with an annual attack rate estimated at 5% - 10% in adults and 20% - 30% in children.
NOT 5% of 7.2 billion.
5-10% of adults (so "most favorable to producing a high mortality rate" would be 10% based on adults alone) and 20-30% of children (where "most favorable to producing a high mortality rate" would be 30%).
Have fun figuring out how many "children" that is as not only do they NOT provide such numbers, but they don't even define "children".
Prepubescent? Everyone under 18? 16? Babies?
ON THE OTHER HAND...
8-10% is the number you get when comparing lowest number of deaths to lowest numbers of severe illness, while comparing highest numbers of deaths to highest numbers of severe illness.
It is a moderate guesstimate value based on known relations between known facts.
Just taking 5% out of 7.2 billion is practically the same as taking any random number.
8%. 19%. 56% 807%. Pumpkin %.
I.e. Completely unrelated to given facts.
The flu virus changes in ways that require us to update our vaccines practically every year. That makes a complete cure for the flu virtually impossible.
Again, that is not the issue. Vaccines are kept up to date.
From the same WHO report.
For many years WHO has updated its recommendation on vaccine composition biannually that targets the 3 (trivalent) most representative virus types in circulation (two subtypes of influenza A viruses and one B virus). Starting with the 2013-2014 northern hemisphere influenza season, quadrivalent vaccine composition has been recommended with a second influenza B virus in addition to the viruses in the conventional trivalent vaccines. Quadrivalent influenza vaccines are expected to provide wider protection against influenza B virus infections.
The issue is the unavailability of vaccines everywhere and the disregard of the disease as people "don't die of influenza very often".
With a dose of that general trend of fear of vaccination on top of it all.
Meanwhile, a couple of thousand dead, ONLY in Africa, over several decades, is a cause of panic because that disease is much more sexy.
Cause everyone dies from ebola. Almost nobody gets it but everyone DIES.
Clearly, we should all panic and duct-tape our doors and windows to stop the virus from coming in.
Polluting Americans' precious bodily fluids.
http://ncse.com/news/2010/06/c...
So I guess we shouldn't worry about Ebola either coz you don't think you'll ever get it either? Check your hipster-holier-then-thou-attitude at the door mate.
How about you check your words at your mouth and refrain from putting it into other people's mouths? Mate.
We should not panic about ebola. We SHOULD worry more about the flu, as it clearly kills hundreds of thousands each year.
How easy/hard to die from a disease is not an issue - it's how easily it spreads and IS it deadly.
Ebola is not airborne, it happens only in certain parts of Africa, it requires direct contact for transfer, and it is deadly.
Flu on the other hand, IS airborne, does NOT require direct contact, happens EVERYWHERE, and it is also deadly.
One of those two is a clear and present danger to EVERYONE.
One is an imaginary threat for the most of the planet, on the level of a terrorist attack with a dirty bomb.
I.e. It never happened. There was never an ebola pandemic.
Once an epidemic starts anywhere outside of Africa or some other tropical country with free roaming apes/monkeys - that's when the world needs to panic.
Until then... any panic outside of Africa is based on fantasy and delusion.
Meanwhile, due exactly to writing off of flu as "not scary" people forgo on vaccination - and we bury another 0.2-0.5 million.
While diligently panicking about ebola, sky falling down, terrorists, bronies and drinking from plastic cups.
Like with any disease, further research should be done to create a cure.
Meanwhile, 85% of the world can chill and relax and stop worrying about Dustin Hoffman possibly being infectious.
Yet, there was never a case of ebola in humans which originated outside of Africa and the total number of deaths EVER is counted in thousands FOR ALL THIS TIME and not in hundreds of thousands EACH YEAR.
There's a clue there regarding the nature of the disease. I.e. It's quick and deadly - it does not get to spread far.
And African nations which are currently dealing with, and which have historically had to deal with ebola outbreaks don't have "infrastructure that permits long term quarantine of all but a small handful of individuals" either.
Often, they don't have running water.
Yet... It's mere thousands of cases. Ever.
Again, quick and deadly - it does not get to spread far.
Nobody is arguing that it is not dangerous.
Just that as far as the number of fatalities and global issues go - it's trivial compared to influenza which kills a whole city of people and severely affects a small country of people. Each year.
But since it's not sexy and it's kinda like the common cold so many people confuse the two... meh... fuck those hundreds of thousands dead.
But let's all panic about a disease which has killed couple of thousand people who lived near a jungle in Africa, practically at their doorstep.
As for the penicillin, I already answered that couple of times in other posts and my reasoning there is quite similar to yours.
Probably.
It probably took out a bacterial infection for which the influenza opened the doors.
It was the only thing other than the glucose I was given intravenously, just in case.
And it started working from the first shot I received in the morning at the doctor's office (now my doctor WAS on duty) as I was already feeling well enough to walk on my own around the hospital, following the doctors and nurses from examination room to examination room while being examined there later that day.
Had they said "Go home, you're fine." I would have.
But, the EKG said differently so I was provided with couple of nights in the intensive care, listening to delirious old men on the other side of the ward yelling and screaming all night.
Fun times.
Same reason they later kept me on glucose for several days while allowing me to eat solid food - just in case and cause it fit the symptoms of an infection.
In this case, it took out the bacterial infection of the heart muscle for which the influenza opened up the doors.
Cough syrup on the other hand did diddly squat.
It was effective against a bacterial inflammation of the heart muscle, for which influenza "opened the door".
Like I said, they never figured out what exactly was the cause, they just settled for viral once they ran out of congenital and parasitic causes.
Penicillin (probably a streptomycin combo) was administered "just in case".
Same as the glucose I was receiving intravenously for several days more, despite being quite able to eat and digest solid food - which I did as I was allowed to.
You are working with rather imaginary numbers there.
For one, 5 percent of adults and whatever-percent of children won't give you that 5% number to multiply it with 7 billion.
And second, death tends to be a severe case. A VERY severe case.
Does WHO discount those deaths from severe cases? I don't know. They didn't say.
But it is a much more accurate shorthand to assume a correlation between the number of severe cases and the number of deaths and compare those numbers as percentages of the same population than what you did there.
Precise numbers are not an issue here anyway.
The fact that flu is a much more serious global problem than ebola is the issue.
Dying the flu generally requires complicating conditions. Most people survive it just fine. Ebola is scary because most people don't survive it.
Following that logic, ebola is not scary simply because most people don't ever catch it.
Or are you arguing that since it's not your ass, you not being elderly, pregnant or a small child - fuck those weaklings dying in hundreds of thousands each year from a disease "Most people survive it just fine".
And again... Most people DO NOT GET THE FLU each year but simple common cold.
"3 to 5 million cases of severe illness, and about 250 000 to 500 000 deaths" comes to 8-10% fatalities.
That's about 3 kids dead in a class of 30 children. Every year.
But it's spread out across the globe and it happens mostly in "third world" countries so - fuck those weaklings.
Back in winter of '96 I had a case of actual flu.
As a teenager, wasn't really in an "at risk group", other than maybe having my immunity lowered.
Unfortunately, my doctor wasn't in that day and I was sent home (by a rather young doctor, rather fresh from the med school) with a prescription for cough syrup instead of a penicillin shot.
That night I had a fever of +40C, and ended up barely breathing by the morning.
Had to sit in a semi-reclined position to be able to breathe as it was difficult for me to do that while sitting or lying down.
Had to lean on my mother's arm to be able to walk to the doctor's office in the morning, about 200-300 meters downhill (mostly) from where I live.
There it turned out that I practically had a heart attack - an inflammation of the myocardium.
Ended up staying over at the hospital for couple of weeks and having tests and booster shots for next half a year - though I was "fixed" after couple of shots of penicillin, getting out of the bed and walking to the bathroom by myself that very night with no difficulty at all.
By tomorrow I felt ready to go home. Still had to stay though.
Funny thing is, during all my stay at the hospital doctors never figured out what was wrong with me. They were looking for congenital heart conditions, trichinosis... only much later as I kept being fine did they take a look back at the original symptoms and figured out that it was all a viral inflammation of the heart muscle.
THAT'S influenza!
"Most people" catch a cold and call that "the flu".
Great, you DON'T get to run the country, because you are obviously smarter than 80% of the population.
Or better yet, you DON'T get to be the editor for every technical article ever.
That will be $29.95.
Bubonic, Septicemic, Pneumonic, Pharyngeal, Meningeal and Cellulocutaneous plague are the SAME DISEASE.
Only distinction is the main area of infection and the vector which got it there.
It will shift from one form to the other as the disease progresses.
You're basically trying to be a smartass by saying something like "Ha! You fool! It's not a pastry. It's a croissant."
despite the fact flu is a much more common (and less "scary") disease.
Flu is killing 200.000 to 500.000 people globally every year.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre...
Influenza occurs globally with an annual attack rate estimated at 5% - 10% in adults and 20% - 30% in children.
Illnesses can result in hospitalization and death mainly among high-risk groups (the very young, elderly or chronically ill).
Worldwide, these annual epidemics are estimated to result in about 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness, and about 250 000 to 500 000 deaths.
It's just not that sexy to make a movie about it with Morgan Freeman, Dustin Hoffman and a monkey.
Plus people ignorant of distinction between common cold and influenza don't perceive it as a threat.
Which is a further reason why there is no movie with a monkey about it.
The main topic is memes, not the Federal deficit.
"TLDR", being a meme, many of which were quoted here, is actually ON TOPIC.
Which is funny all on its own, being that it is probably one of the few times that a reply such as TLDR is actually ON TOPIC, and it is funny as a reply to trolls who are trolling the topic with idiotic insinuations of "useless research causes Federal budget to collapse".
And it's triple funny cause though THEY are aware of being off-topic, moderators are not.
There...
Now...
Place your right forefinger on your right cheek, just above the right corner of your mouth, and your left forefinger at your left cheek, just above the left corner of your mouth.
With fingers in that position push the cheeks of your face gently upward.
While holding your cheeks in that position, open your mouth slightly, take a deep breath, and say "Ha!" rapidly three times while breading out with each "Ha!"
It may take a little practice to get it right first couple of years.
Observing how other humanoids perform the laughing ritual may help.
TLDR.
The question, rather, is how many of those registered are actually drafted.
No.
Replace "conscription law" with "death sentence" and see if "how many of those are actually carried out" and see if that makes sense.
A law is a law is a law.
Government MAY not enforce every single law fully as it lacks the capacity or willingness to enforce 100% of laws on the books, but the fact of an existence of such a law shows CLEAR INTENT TO ENFORCE IT.
They reformed the laws several times, yet they kept all elements needed for unforced conscription.
The paper that you cite does not necessarily support the notion of compulsory conscription.
You are missing the point of that citation. Reread my comment above again.
The paper lists MANY examples of circumstantial evidence of an existing and ongoing conscription.
What it DOES NOT DO is prove a "de facto" non-existence of conscription and an existence volunteer service in its stead.
BUT, it tries to argue such a position, despite the COMPLETE LACK of any evidence for its thesis.
I.e. It's bullshit.
And I'm not citing it as a proof of existence of conscription or volunteer service or non-existence of either, but as a source of that unsourced and unsubstantiated bullshit claim.
I'm not sure what your link to the Taiwanese kid story is supposed to prove
Again, reread my comment.
It is there as an example of tactics and means for deferment available to the urban population, and NOT available to the rural kids.
Taiwanese kid could afford such a stunt at 24 - i.e. 6 years after he became eligible.
For 6 years he dodged the service in the country you define as "one where conscription definitely does exist, and people are drafted against their will."
A rural kid of 18, trying the same dieting technique, would just be written off as underfed because he's from a poor village.
Older than average, emaciated kid among the group of well fed city kids 6 years younger... clearly he's sickly and incapable of service.
He probably even looked at least 30% older than all the other recruits.
And a city kid gets that 6 year buffer cause he has a high school right across the street and a college two blocks away.
Unlike the rural kid who probably walked couple of hours to and from school IF there was one that near, and who could never afford to go to a college unless he was exceptionally intelligent and studious so that he would get a scholarship to a college somewhere in the city.
While the rest of his class went off to serve.