Only if the risk posed by a vaccine is independent and random. Do you have evidence that this is the case, rather than, say, "double the vaccinations = the same level of risk" or "double the vaccinations = more than double the risk"?
People who are the victims of misfortune don't beg to be left to fend for themselves; it's only those who are fortunate who beg for the less fortunate to be left to fend for themselves. (After all, the fortunate fending for themselves is hardly impressive.)
Actually, since it's communicated between people, and with a respectably low success rate, even a moderate increase in an individual's resistance to infection can have an enormous effect on the epidemiological behavior of the disease. The herd immunity effect, even if at the individual level it's hardly immunity, is very strong.
Yeah -- one's a safe, effective method for preventing the communication of non-flu diseases, and the other's a safe, effective method of preventing the communication of flu diseases.
The average consumer doesn't give a shit what commodore64_love on Slashdot is interested in buying -- that he already has 5 monitors, that he doesn't care about Bluetooth or built-in webcams. That's what the comparison was -- product A is $X and has features such that I want to buy it, wheras product B is $Y and has features I'm not interested in. It's a meaningless comparison.
So, your claim is not actually that "a Windows 7 machine at Staples is $300, and an equivalent machine from Apple is $1500", it's "Staples has a product I'd be interested in purchasing that comes with Windows 7 and costs $300, and Apple has a different product I'm not interested in purchasing that costs $1500". That's really a much weaker comparison.
Fortunately, medical studies have shown that people only die from the top three causes in their age group. For all other causes, the mortality rate is zero.
I have a friend that didn't get their kid circumsized (which is usually done in the first when the boy is only a few days old) because they wanted to leave this decision up to the child. Note that the boy has already had quite a few urinary infections due to this.
Then he's doing something wrong. There's no modern hygenic benefit.
All said that the bad loans (people not paying the mortgages) were underlying cause of the housing market bust.
You're making serious logical errors. It's well-known that mortgages defaulting were a necessary component of the banking failure. (There are other necessary factors, such as large quantities of mortgaged-based derivatives.)
The point of the study, and the logical problem faced by you and others mentioning the CRA, is that banks making loans that end up defaulting and the government encouraging banks to make loans to high-risk communities does not mean that the government action led to the banks making the loans that would default. The loans that are defaulting are not necessarily those that the government is encouraging.
In fact, this turns out to be the case -- the loans made by CRA-covered institutions, including those encouraged by the CRA, are less problematic than those loans made by institutions not covered by the CRA (who have no motivation to make CRA-encouraged high-risk loans). The problematic loans, it turns out, are high-risk loans that banks are pursuing for profit, not because the CRA makes them.
There are a lot of things that are problematic: rapidly inflating home prices, too-readily-available credit, predatory lending practices, and large quantities of mortgage-backed derivatives (based on, I might add, an imperfect statistical model).
What "unregulated banks"? The ones not making the loans?
Independent mortgage agencies, bank subsidiaries, bank affiliates, and mortgage brokers that are not covered by the CRA. The study on the failure rate of mortgages, by design, did not include any statistics about the banks not issuing the mortgages.
Studies have found that there is no statistical difference in forclosure rate between CRA-regulated banks and unregulated banks. Notably, the investment banks that sell credit-default swaps are not covered by the CRA. Banks were making many subprime loans, including ones with predatory terms (which increases forclosure rate), for profit, not because of the CRA.
If you read the article, you'll note the problem is that they don't know whether it will interfere with cell transmissions or not.
It certainly won't interfere with radio, as the radio antenna is typically placed outside the car.
You'll note also that the one test the article does mention is that GPS signals were "degraded". GPS is a rather weak signal, requires unobstructed line of sight (to an extent), and typically sits on the car's dashboard -- so, the line of sight to the satellites is through the car's windshield. If GPS is only affected enough to call the signal "degraded", the influence on cell transmission is likely to be small.
You'd need to be an idiot to roll down your window for better radio or GPS reception. GPS reception would only be improved if you stuck the unit out the now-open window.
My applied E&M is a little rusty, but I recall that a material needs to be a conductor on the same spatial scale as the signal wavelength in order to reflect it. As this technology is small metal particles and the wavelength of a cell signal is about 1 foot, it seems unlikely the glass can cause significant signal dampening.
INDIVIDUALS making FREE-AS-IN-SPEECH decisions on THEIR OWN health care
For one, "free as in speech decisions" is a terrible phrase. Decisions don't have much to do with speech at all, health care has nothing to do with the first amendment, and nobody is going to confuse a decision with "free as in beer".
For another, very few people are able to make unrestricted decisions about their own health care. The insurance market is laughably non-free. You are simply subjected to corporate rationing instead of government rationing, which is no better.
A grain of sand is pretty big. If a single bit was the size of a grain of sand, then by conservative estimates, 4 GB of memory would weigh about 40 kilos.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who tries to forcefully inject a bunch of heavy metal Mg
I take it you don't eat green vegetables, then. (Also, magnesium isn't a heavy metal.)
Somehow I doubt they didn't think of this. Somehow I doubt there were no exceptions.
When you start telling people that they must put something foreign into their bodies at what point exactly does it stop?
Well, in this case, it stops right around the point where the state requires that health care workers receive the flu vaccine.
There's a reason slippery slope is a logical fallacy, rather than a legitimate logical argument.
They are even offering versions without the normal preservative (which contains a mercury adduct that has concerned some people).
What mercury-based preservative are they using now?
On an unrelated note, I've stopped eating plants out of a concern for magnesium poisoning and meat out of a concern for iron poisoning.
Double the vaccinations = double the risk.
Only if the risk posed by a vaccine is independent and random. Do you have evidence that this is the case, rather than, say, "double the vaccinations = the same level of risk" or "double the vaccinations = more than double the risk"?
People who are the victims of misfortune don't beg to be left to fend for themselves; it's only those who are fortunate who beg for the less fortunate to be left to fend for themselves. (After all, the fortunate fending for themselves is hardly impressive.)
Actually, since it's communicated between people, and with a respectably low success rate, even a moderate increase in an individual's resistance to infection can have an enormous effect on the epidemiological behavior of the disease. The herd immunity effect, even if at the individual level it's hardly immunity, is very strong.
Yeah -- one's a safe, effective method for preventing the communication of non-flu diseases, and the other's a safe, effective method of preventing the communication of flu diseases.
Nation gets immunized, people stop dying and being crippled by polio.
Actual headlines:
"Salk's vaccine works"
"Polio routed"
"Polio vaccine is 'safe, effective, and potent'"
The average consumer doesn't give a shit what commodore64_love on Slashdot is interested in buying -- that he already has 5 monitors, that he doesn't care about Bluetooth or built-in webcams. That's what the comparison was -- product A is $X and has features such that I want to buy it, wheras product B is $Y and has features I'm not interested in. It's a meaningless comparison.
So, your claim is not actually that "a Windows 7 machine at Staples is $300, and an equivalent machine from Apple is $1500", it's "Staples has a product I'd be interested in purchasing that comes with Windows 7 and costs $300, and Apple has a different product I'm not interested in purchasing that costs $1500". That's really a much weaker comparison.
No true Irishman would call them libertarians.
the spin of an electron is quantized and cannot change
Except for the two states, spin up and spin down, as you mention below (though real systems are not necessarily that simple).
However, it's strictly impossible for an information-processing machine to produce no heat, as information processing is an entropy-reducing process.
Fortunately, medical studies have shown that people only die from the top three causes in their age group. For all other causes, the mortality rate is zero.
I have a friend that didn't get their kid circumsized (which is usually done in the first when the boy is only a few days old) because they wanted to leave this decision up to the child. Note that the boy has already had quite a few urinary infections due to this.
Then he's doing something wrong. There's no modern hygenic benefit.
The loss of liberty is worse than any disease.
Except for all the fatal diseases, which, by taking your life, also take your liberty.
All said that the bad loans (people not paying the mortgages) were underlying cause of the housing market bust.
You're making serious logical errors. It's well-known that mortgages defaulting were a necessary component of the banking failure. (There are other necessary factors, such as large quantities of mortgaged-based derivatives.)
The point of the study, and the logical problem faced by you and others mentioning the CRA, is that banks making loans that end up defaulting and the government encouraging banks to make loans to high-risk communities does not mean that the government action led to the banks making the loans that would default. The loans that are defaulting are not necessarily those that the government is encouraging.
In fact, this turns out to be the case -- the loans made by CRA-covered institutions, including those encouraged by the CRA, are less problematic than those loans made by institutions not covered by the CRA (who have no motivation to make CRA-encouraged high-risk loans). The problematic loans, it turns out, are high-risk loans that banks are pursuing for profit, not because the CRA makes them.
There are a lot of things that are problematic: rapidly inflating home prices, too-readily-available credit, predatory lending practices, and large quantities of mortgage-backed derivatives (based on, I might add, an imperfect statistical model).
What "unregulated banks"? The ones not making the loans?
Independent mortgage agencies, bank subsidiaries, bank affiliates, and mortgage brokers that are not covered by the CRA. The study on the failure rate of mortgages, by design, did not include any statistics about the banks not issuing the mortgages.
cheering measures that effectively jam all cell phones
Is there evidence of this? If so, certainly not in the linked article. I suspect you're just practicing your hyperbole.
Studies have found that there is no statistical difference in forclosure rate between CRA-regulated banks and unregulated banks. Notably, the investment banks that sell credit-default swaps are not covered by the CRA. Banks were making many subprime loans, including ones with predatory terms (which increases forclosure rate), for profit, not because of the CRA.
If you read the article, you'll note the problem is that they don't know whether it will interfere with cell transmissions or not.
It certainly won't interfere with radio, as the radio antenna is typically placed outside the car.
You'll note also that the one test the article does mention is that GPS signals were "degraded". GPS is a rather weak signal, requires unobstructed line of sight (to an extent), and typically sits on the car's dashboard -- so, the line of sight to the satellites is through the car's windshield. If GPS is only affected enough to call the signal "degraded", the influence on cell transmission is likely to be small.
You'd need to be an idiot to roll down your window for better radio or GPS reception. GPS reception would only be improved if you stuck the unit out the now-open window.
My applied E&M is a little rusty, but I recall that a material needs to be a conductor on the same spatial scale as the signal wavelength in order to reflect it. As this technology is small metal particles and the wavelength of a cell signal is about 1 foot, it seems unlikely the glass can cause significant signal dampening.
In the vicinity of 60 mph, depending on the car.
INDIVIDUALS making FREE-AS-IN-SPEECH decisions on THEIR OWN health care
For one, "free as in speech decisions" is a terrible phrase. Decisions don't have much to do with speech at all, health care has nothing to do with the first amendment, and nobody is going to confuse a decision with "free as in beer".
For another, very few people are able to make unrestricted decisions about their own health care. The insurance market is laughably non-free. You are simply subjected to corporate rationing instead of government rationing, which is no better.
You must've missed the bit about the promotion of the general welfare.
A grain of sand is pretty big. If a single bit was the size of a grain of sand, then by conservative estimates, 4 GB of memory would weigh about 40 kilos.