If Obamacare isn't overturned (at least, this component), you should probably be pushed into a new insurance plan. Zero-dollar coverage of preventative care, which includes vaccinations, is required.
That's kind of a weird schedule for well-child visits, but it's not actually mandatory to reschedule (or add more) visits to fit the vaccination schedule. They might try to suggest that you do so, in order to match the recommended schedule, but you can get vaccinations just fine on your schedule. It's better than none at all.
Your cost-benefit is predicated on the fact that everyone else is vaccinating. That's why the pertussis numbers are so low. You're benefiting from the herd immunity granted by the fact that everyone else is vaccinating but not contributing. It's a decision that can be beneficially locally (that is, to you) but causes collapse of the system if applied by everyone. That's what makes it evil. It's like using the take-a-penny bin as a revenue source.
What makes you evil? Predicating your cost-benefit analysis on pertussis statistics that assume that everyone else is vaccinated.
Incidentally, if you're in the US and have health insurance, the cost of vaccines for children should be zero and the time should be about two minutes tacked on to a pediatrician visit you're already making.
You're probably thinking of thimerosal, which is a organic mercury compound. Not actually the same as mercury, although also potentially harmful.
Of course they include toxic compounds. They use antibacterial and antiseptic agents in the production of vaccines to inhibit the growth of undesirable bacteria. One of the commonly-used compounds is formaldehyde.
A few useful things to remember: One, almost everything is toxic above some level and harmless below some other level. Two, you are exposed, passively, to close to every chemical compound out there at some level on a daily basis. It's just that that level may be very, very low.
So complaining about the "toxic" compounds in a vaccine is meaningless without quantifying how much is in them and how it relates to daily exposure levels and toxicity levels. You're exposed to these compounds constantly anyway. There's mercury in the air and water. There's formaldehyde in your blood. There's methanol in your beer. There's ammonia in your food. How much is important.
Because how well someone can manage a national vaccination program has very little to do with their opinions on unrelated matters.
You don't have to trust him personally with injections, anyway. What are the chances that the head of the Department of Health is going to give you a shot?
The reason slippery slope is a fallacy is that most problems involve a tradeoff between two conflicting goals. It's common for picking an extreme end of this tradeoff to be something wholly undesireable. Defining an appropriate balance between, say, public health and safety and personal freedom, is a key component of the solution.
Yes, forced sterilization does sound like a terrible idea. So does roving bands of lawless warlords. Good thing neither of them are relevant to whether or not people should be required to get vaccinations.
Maybe. It seems fairly common for darker-skinned mixed-race people to identify as black and lighter-skinned as mixed-race. Modern forms rarely try to shoehorn you into one particular category, though, and let you pick whatever you want. In general, any answer but white is more beneficial to you.
I must know too many people from Florida. Zimmerman clearly looks like he could be part-Latino, and lo and behold, he is. (It also looks like he "could be" a number of other ethnicities that are less common in Florida.)
Pursuit falls under the category of legal principles that nerds generally don't understand: those involving intent.
Walking down a street that another person also happens to be walking down is not pursuit. Walking down the same street because that other person is walking down it is pursuit.
That's an overly simplistic and wildly inaccurate summary, but the more important point is that it isn't evolution. What you're describing is abiogenesis.
They asked me details about the security vulnerability I found, gave me status updates on their patching efforts, and credited me in the resulting patch. Seemed pretty legit.
The ionizing events may be linear, but the body's ability to deal with damage will be non-linear
That's making a lot of assumptions about how damage is dealt with. Any information to support this?
Approximating everything to linear relationships doesn't work.
Often it does, which is why studies are so useful.
It is also now known that the probability of mutation events in DNA differs substantially along its length - two or three orders of magnitude isn't unusual.
Yes, but you'd need the probability that the more-sensitive part is ionized to change as a function of radiation concentration (dose per unit time per unit volume). Is there a mechanism you have in mind that would do that?
Also, the vast majority of what we know about radiation and cancer comes from Nagasaki and Hiroshima, those being the longest-term studies ever performed on significant populations. That simply isn't enough data points to work with.
How do you figure? A fairly large population was exposed over a wide degree of well-characterized levels of exposure. That's a lot of data points. Never fear, though. There are quite a lot of studies of chronic exposure to entirely different populations (such as radiation workers).
Even studies of radon exposure (which result in large, very localized radiation doses) suggest that dose linearity is a pretty accurate model.
No, you suggested that they "may be emitted" but won't penetrate far enough to matter. They won't be emitted at all, which is why they don't matter.
The accepted usage in cases where the source can be determined is that gamma ray/radiation is produced in the nucleus, x-rays are produced by electrons (outside the nucleus), regardless of energy.
Even that is anachronistic, particularly if you're not talking specifically about how the photons are produced. Regardless, "Gamma (and the x-rays themselves)" suggests a distinction that doesn't exist, and under no definition does an X-ray transmission imager emit gamma radiation. Your entire deviation into alpha, beta, and gamma radiation is neither accurate nor relevant to X-ray imaging.
Apple already works with security researchers on a regular basis. (Also, there have been Mac viruses and antivirus software for ages. I think I had antivirus software for System 6.)
Not surprisingly, the summary is not as accurate as the article.
Sharov may describe this as "a symptom of a company that has never before had to work closely with the security industry", but the article correctly points out that it's more a symptom of having "little experience working with the community of security researchers who aim to dissect and shut down botnets." The botnet security community is different from the general security community. As far as I know, Apple has a decent working relationship with the latter. It's no real surprise they have limited experience working with the anti-botnet community, since until now they haven't really had botnet problems.
The article also notes that Dr. Web is relatively unknown and that in the opinion of Kaspersky (which is at least more well-known), Apple is taking the usual appropriate steps.
As far as them not getting a contact back, that disagrees with my experience in reporting a security vulnerability to Apple. You send a message to their easily-found, catch-all "security" address. In relatively short order, a security engineer gets in touch with you, and you communicate with that person from that point on. It seemed to work just fine, unless, I suppose, you're egotistical enough to think that you should be able to pick up the phone and talk to someone at Apple immediately -- which is a common-enough problem in security.
X-Rays and other forms of ionizing radiation don't "bounce off" surfaces, it will either pass through, be absorbed, or trigger another particle to be emitted.
I assure you that all kinds of ionizing radiation can reflect. X-rays can reflect -- they make X-ray mirrors, usually out of highly-polished beryllium. It's more effective at small reflection angles (glancing reflection). You can even make X-ray fiber optics (glass light pipes), which is a decent way of focusing an X-ray beam. These again are only really effective for glancing reflections. Alpha particles and electrons also reflect.
Triggering another particle to be emitted is actually a subset of "be absorbed", although this isn't obvious. Photons aborbed by atoms regularly kick an electron into an excited state (or ionize it, the highest-energy excited state, in a sense). Electrons falling back into their ground states cause the emission of new photons with well-defined energies. I suppose you could also have a photon kick an electron into motion, producing a beta ray, but I don't think that occurs much in nonconductive bulk materials. (Usually you go the other way: electron beam to X-ray beam through brehmsstralung.)
There are 3 types of radiation that may be emitted, alpha, beta, and gamma.
Sort of. From nuclear sources. There are actually many more particles that can be emitted from particle decays, but those are the most common. More to the point, though, radiation sources used for X-rays generally don't emit alpha or beta particles. In fact, the term "X-ray" refers to a particular part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation. (They conventionally referred to electromagnetic radiation within the energy range commonly emitted by radioactive materials. It's really preferable these days to call all such things "photons" regardless of their energy.) So, X-rays and gamma radiation are the same thing. Alpha and beta radiation are in no way relevant here.
However, putting a shield over the patient's head would only protect other people in the room, not the patient, because any such radiation would coming OUT of the patient's head.
That's only really true if the X-rays are well-collimated. Since they point the X-ray beam so that it goes horizontally through your head (more or less) and then give you a lead shield for your chest, it stands to reason that either the X-ray beam is not well-collimated or the lead shield isn't there to serve a functional purpose.
"Keep it in" only happens if the material reflects X-rays. Most materials don't reflect X-rays; it's a pain to make an X-ray mirror. They use lead, which absorbs X-rays. A lead apron (or hat) always "keeps it in" in the sense that the X-rays are converted into heat inside the lead apron.
Slashdot Mirror
All of the signal sources connected to my TV are computers, and one of them is just a regular desktop.
Why is allowing people to decide what they will and will not put into their bodies akin to anarchy?
For the same reason that mandatory vaccinations are akin to forced sterilization: they aren't.
If Obamacare isn't overturned (at least, this component), you should probably be pushed into a new insurance plan. Zero-dollar coverage of preventative care, which includes vaccinations, is required.
That's kind of a weird schedule for well-child visits, but it's not actually mandatory to reschedule (or add more) visits to fit the vaccination schedule. They might try to suggest that you do so, in order to match the recommended schedule, but you can get vaccinations just fine on your schedule. It's better than none at all.
Your cost-benefit is predicated on the fact that everyone else is vaccinating. That's why the pertussis numbers are so low. You're benefiting from the herd immunity granted by the fact that everyone else is vaccinating but not contributing. It's a decision that can be beneficially locally (that is, to you) but causes collapse of the system if applied by everyone. That's what makes it evil. It's like using the take-a-penny bin as a revenue source.
What makes you evil? Predicating your cost-benefit analysis on pertussis statistics that assume that everyone else is vaccinated.
Incidentally, if you're in the US and have health insurance, the cost of vaccines for children should be zero and the time should be about two minutes tacked on to a pediatrician visit you're already making.
You're probably thinking of thimerosal, which is a organic mercury compound. Not actually the same as mercury, although also potentially harmful.
Of course they include toxic compounds. They use antibacterial and antiseptic agents in the production of vaccines to inhibit the growth of undesirable bacteria. One of the commonly-used compounds is formaldehyde.
A few useful things to remember: One, almost everything is toxic above some level and harmless below some other level. Two, you are exposed, passively, to close to every chemical compound out there at some level on a daily basis. It's just that that level may be very, very low.
So complaining about the "toxic" compounds in a vaccine is meaningless without quantifying how much is in them and how it relates to daily exposure levels and toxicity levels. You're exposed to these compounds constantly anyway. There's mercury in the air and water. There's formaldehyde in your blood. There's methanol in your beer. There's ammonia in your food. How much is important.
In vaccines, there's very little.
Because how well someone can manage a national vaccination program has very little to do with their opinions on unrelated matters.
You don't have to trust him personally with injections, anyway. What are the chances that the head of the Department of Health is going to give you a shot?
The reason slippery slope is a fallacy is that most problems involve a tradeoff between two conflicting goals. It's common for picking an extreme end of this tradeoff to be something wholly undesireable. Defining an appropriate balance between, say, public health and safety and personal freedom, is a key component of the solution.
Yes, forced sterilization does sound like a terrible idea. So does roving bands of lawless warlords. Good thing neither of them are relevant to whether or not people should be required to get vaccinations.
Evolution isn't an origin-of-life theory. You're thinking of abiogenesis.
Is that you, Ron?
Maybe. It seems fairly common for darker-skinned mixed-race people to identify as black and lighter-skinned as mixed-race. Modern forms rarely try to shoehorn you into one particular category, though, and let you pick whatever you want. In general, any answer but white is more beneficial to you.
I must know too many people from Florida. Zimmerman clearly looks like he could be part-Latino, and lo and behold, he is. (It also looks like he "could be" a number of other ethnicities that are less common in Florida.)
Pursuit falls under the category of legal principles that nerds generally don't understand: those involving intent.
Walking down a street that another person also happens to be walking down is not pursuit. Walking down the same street because that other person is walking down it is pursuit.
It is dishonest to present these theories as fact
No, it's dishonest to deliberately equivocate on the terms "theory" and "fact".
That's an overly simplistic and wildly inaccurate summary, but the more important point is that it isn't evolution. What you're describing is abiogenesis.
What you're going to want to look at is the results, not the instructions on how to do statistics.
I'm not an Apple fan. I'm in computer security. There are a lot of egos.
They asked me details about the security vulnerability I found, gave me status updates on their patching efforts, and credited me in the resulting patch. Seemed pretty legit.
This sounds like argument by assertion.
The ionizing events may be linear, but the body's ability to deal with damage will be non-linear
That's making a lot of assumptions about how damage is dealt with. Any information to support this?
Approximating everything to linear relationships doesn't work.
Often it does, which is why studies are so useful.
It is also now known that the probability of mutation events in DNA differs substantially along its length - two or three orders of magnitude isn't unusual.
Yes, but you'd need the probability that the more-sensitive part is ionized to change as a function of radiation concentration (dose per unit time per unit volume). Is there a mechanism you have in mind that would do that?
Also, the vast majority of what we know about radiation and cancer comes from Nagasaki and Hiroshima, those being the longest-term studies ever performed on significant populations. That simply isn't enough data points to work with.
How do you figure? A fairly large population was exposed over a wide degree of well-characterized levels of exposure. That's a lot of data points. Never fear, though. There are quite a lot of studies of chronic exposure to entirely different populations (such as radiation workers).
Even studies of radon exposure (which result in large, very localized radiation doses) suggest that dose linearity is a pretty accurate model.
Which is clearly indicated in my post.
No, you suggested that they "may be emitted" but won't penetrate far enough to matter. They won't be emitted at all, which is why they don't matter.
The accepted usage in cases where the source can be determined is that gamma ray/radiation is produced in the nucleus, x-rays are produced by electrons (outside the nucleus), regardless of energy.
Even that is anachronistic, particularly if you're not talking specifically about how the photons are produced. Regardless, "Gamma (and the x-rays themselves)" suggests a distinction that doesn't exist, and under no definition does an X-ray transmission imager emit gamma radiation. Your entire deviation into alpha, beta, and gamma radiation is neither accurate nor relevant to X-ray imaging.
The Apple Security address isn't for customers, it's for security researchers.
I e-mailed that address and got a response from a security engineer. Perhaps Dr. Web is holding it wrong.
Apple already works with security researchers on a regular basis. (Also, there have been Mac viruses and antivirus software for ages. I think I had antivirus software for System 6.)
Not surprisingly, the summary is not as accurate as the article.
Sharov may describe this as "a symptom of a company that has never before had to work closely with the security industry", but the article correctly points out that it's more a symptom of having "little experience working with the community of security researchers who aim to dissect and shut down botnets." The botnet security community is different from the general security community. As far as I know, Apple has a decent working relationship with the latter. It's no real surprise they have limited experience working with the anti-botnet community, since until now they haven't really had botnet problems.
The article also notes that Dr. Web is relatively unknown and that in the opinion of Kaspersky (which is at least more well-known), Apple is taking the usual appropriate steps.
As far as them not getting a contact back, that disagrees with my experience in reporting a security vulnerability to Apple. You send a message to their easily-found, catch-all "security" address. In relatively short order, a security engineer gets in touch with you, and you communicate with that person from that point on. It seemed to work just fine, unless, I suppose, you're egotistical enough to think that you should be able to pick up the phone and talk to someone at Apple immediately -- which is a common-enough problem in security.
X-Rays and other forms of ionizing radiation don't "bounce off" surfaces, it will either pass through, be absorbed, or trigger another particle to be emitted.
I assure you that all kinds of ionizing radiation can reflect. X-rays can reflect -- they make X-ray mirrors, usually out of highly-polished beryllium. It's more effective at small reflection angles (glancing reflection). You can even make X-ray fiber optics (glass light pipes), which is a decent way of focusing an X-ray beam. These again are only really effective for glancing reflections. Alpha particles and electrons also reflect.
Triggering another particle to be emitted is actually a subset of "be absorbed", although this isn't obvious. Photons aborbed by atoms regularly kick an electron into an excited state (or ionize it, the highest-energy excited state, in a sense). Electrons falling back into their ground states cause the emission of new photons with well-defined energies. I suppose you could also have a photon kick an electron into motion, producing a beta ray, but I don't think that occurs much in nonconductive bulk materials. (Usually you go the other way: electron beam to X-ray beam through brehmsstralung.)
There are 3 types of radiation that may be emitted, alpha, beta, and gamma.
Sort of. From nuclear sources. There are actually many more particles that can be emitted from particle decays, but those are the most common. More to the point, though, radiation sources used for X-rays generally don't emit alpha or beta particles. In fact, the term "X-ray" refers to a particular part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation. (They conventionally referred to electromagnetic radiation within the energy range commonly emitted by radioactive materials. It's really preferable these days to call all such things "photons" regardless of their energy.) So, X-rays and gamma radiation are the same thing. Alpha and beta radiation are in no way relevant here.
However, putting a shield over the patient's head would only protect other people in the room, not the patient, because any such radiation would coming OUT of the patient's head.
That's only really true if the X-rays are well-collimated. Since they point the X-ray beam so that it goes horizontally through your head (more or less) and then give you a lead shield for your chest, it stands to reason that either the X-ray beam is not well-collimated or the lead shield isn't there to serve a functional purpose.
"Keep it in" only happens if the material reflects X-rays. Most materials don't reflect X-rays; it's a pain to make an X-ray mirror. They use lead, which absorbs X-rays. A lead apron (or hat) always "keeps it in" in the sense that the X-rays are converted into heat inside the lead apron.