Actually, proponents of ID don't tend to say "Anything that evolution doesn't cover was God." Instead, they say "All that evidence you claim to have for evolution? It's bunk. Throw it all out because obviously everything was too complicated to 'evolve' so God must have done it." In addition, they envision evolution as involving parts of the final structure appearing for no good reason instead of a "versioning system."
This is why they will frequently use the eye as a "counter-evolution" example. Clearly, the eye is complex so it must have just been designed. You wouldn't have a pupil just appear on a creature for no reason, right? And what's the chance that a no-eyed creature would suddenly have a baby with eyes? Zero! So God did it! (For clarification, this is their argument, not mine.)
Of course, the answer to this is that the eye is complex because it evolved the complexity over millions of years. It began as light-sensitive spots. Creatures who could sense light had a survival advantage so they had more offspring. The "light spots" got more and more complex - with each boost in light sensing meaning more chance of offspring and thus more chance of passing on the "light spot" genes. Over the generations, the light spot turned into a proto-eye and finally an eye. It didn't just pop into existence fully formed one day
When my father was working, he used to bring tons of work home with him every night to do after dinner. Then, he would bring more work home to do every weekend. Once, I asked him why he brought so much work home. He answered "My boss expects a certain level of output from me and I can only keep that up by working nights and weekends." I pointed out that he wasn't being compensated for this and by giving his boss this level of output, he was setting those expectations himself. Still, my father kept working this hard. In the end, all it got him was fired when they decided to give the job to someone else (even though that person likely didn't work as hard) to save money.
When I began my current job, I made it clear that I wouldn't be bringing work home with me. I was fine with the occasional after-hours emergency work. If a critical system failed and I needed to fix it, that's fine. But I wasn't going to bring coding work home with me so that we could finish the project a week or two early. There was occasional pressure to do more work at home, but I stood firm and made it clear that this was non-negotiable. When I'm home, I'm spending the time with my family or working on my own projects. Just because the company pays me a salary, doesn't mean they own all of my time.
I love the terminology used. You are an "exempt" employee. Usually, when you are exempted from something, it's a good thing. "Everyone needs to go to this boring conference. Bob is exempt, though." "Everyone run three miles today, except Jill who is exempt due to a medical condition." The very definition of exempt is "free from an obligation or liability imposed on others."
So when you are salaried and not paid by the hour, you are "free from the obligation of collecting overtime pay that is imposed on others." How wonderful of the company to free you from that obligation. You should feel like working another 20 hours this week out of pure gratitude.
This attitude also comes into play when you start a family. It is thought of as natural for women to want to take some time off after the baby is born. (Though, maternity leave isn't guaranteed in the US. Some companies still expect you to push out the baby and get back to work.) However, if a man wants to take some time off to help out his wife (exhausted from the birth) and new baby, many people will think of him as neglecting his "duties" to waste time with his family.
Example: The case of ballplayer Daniel Murphy who missed opening day when his son was born. Some radio hosts said that he should have been at opening day and not with his family. The hosts even went to far as to claim that his wife should have scheduled a C-Section before the season began so that he wouldn't miss any games. Yup, let's put his wife through an invasive, likely-unnecessary surgical procedure just so he doesn't stop hitting a ball with a stick. Where are some people's priorities?
I was lucky that my company let me take time off, though it was pulling time from my vacation/sick days. My company could just as easily have said "No time off for you. Get back to work now!"
It doesn't need to be the ISP owning the server. It could be an ISP adding data to webpages being transferred to their users. So a user requests the Slashdot home page using $SOME_ISP. $SOME_ISP pulls the page from Slashdot's servers but adds some JavaScript code to it before transferring it to the user. The user sees Slashdot plus the JavaScript code that $SOME_ISP added. Slashdot's servers haven't been compromised at all, but the transmission has been.
If an individual did this, we might call it a man in the middle attack. The ISP, for some reason, thinks they have the right to conduct man in the middle attacks to benefit themselves financially.
I will agree that publishing on the Internet doesn't remove copyright. (Sorry to all those who think they can just use anything they find in a Google Images search.) However, in this case, it looks like part of the complaint is that publishing this damages the company's "name and reputation." They are claiming that calling them out on scummy things that they do is illegal.
Not only that, but they made an unauthorized change to his code that displayed ads. If anyone else were to do this, it would be called "hacking his website" and the group responsible would (theoretically) be brought to justice. However, since it is an ISP, they get to call it "monetizing their service" (or some other weasel words) and the companies responsible for the ads get to sue for copyright infringement. Imagine if a group of hackers sued for copyright infringement because the code used in their hack was publicized. They would be laughed out of court.
the fact that it's being kept secret should be plenty of reason alone to vote it down.
This is one of the few instances where "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" actually applies. If the TPP is so great, why all the secrecy? If you've got to hide the details of a bill or treaty to get it passed, then maybe there's something wrong with your bill/treaty that means it shouldn't be passed!
And authority. Who is going to take seriously the idea that backdoored encryption will be be properly safeguarded by the government when just in the past week they just turned over 4 million federal personnel records and an army website over to "hackers"?
Government response: "But, TERRORISM!" *too many people nod their heads in agreement while the rest of us shake ours in dismay*
For me, it's the other way around. I won't want a flying car unless it's self-driven. Take the average red-light running, lane weaving, texting instead of looking at the road, talking on the phone, tail-gating driver. Now put that driver in charge of a vehicle that goes in 3 dimensions and that can collide with another vehicle above some houses, parks, etc.
Human driven flying cars would be a disaster. For any flying car to be reasonably safe, it would need to be piloted by computers.
no one will ever give you another credit-based loan again
This was the first thing I thought of. Ok. You graduated college and gave the loan companies a big ol' middle finger. Good for you. You even got a job with that degree of yours. Now you just need to get to it so you buy a car.... Oh, wait. They won't give you a car loan because your credit stinks. No problem, you'll take the bus, but you do need to buy some clothes. You'll just put the money on your credit card... Oh, wait. They won't give you a credit card (or will only give you one with a through-the-roof interest rate) because your credit stinks. Fine, so you pay with cash. Somehow, you wind up doing somewhat well and decide to settle down with a special someone in a nice house.... Oops. Sorry. No home loan for you.
Paying off your loans leads to good credit which leads to more credit opportunities. Defaulting on your credit leads to less credit opportunities in the future.
If paying student loans seems like a pain because "I could use that money for tons of other cool stuff instead", then I've got news for you (where "you" = the student-loan-defaulting author): Life is a series of "I would love to do X but need to spend money on Y instead." Very few of us wind up with enough money to do everything we've ever wanted. Most of us find joy in the things we can afford, pay off the things we need to pay off, and indulge in the occasional dream about what we would do if money were no object.
Twenty years from now we'll be looking back and wondering how we ever managed without autonomous transportation, just as we now wonder how we managed before the cell / smartphone era. People can kick and scream about the future all they want, but it's coming nonetheless.
It'll be one of the stories we tell to scare our grandkids.
Grandpa: "When I was your age, every person drove their own car down the street." Grandkids: "You mean, they told the car where to go and then sat back and let it take them there, right?" Grandpa: "No. I mean a human was completely in charge of the car, where it was on the road, and how fast it was going. If you were in a hurry, it was completely possible to weave in an out of traffic, cut people off and then jam on your brakes, and speed up way past the posted speed limit." *Grandkids run screaming from the room*
Even in daily activities, self-driving cars would be great. My morning routine is 1) drive my son to school, 2) drive into the office. During that time, I could talk to my son/listen to music, but most other activities are precluded by needing to focus on the road. With a self-driving car, I could rest my eyes (if I had been up too late the previous night), talk to my son (without needing to stop because I needed to focus on the road), or even safely use my smartphone to check on e-mails or play a quick game.
Obviously, a true self-driving car like this won't be around for quite some time, but a person can dream. (Preferably, not while driving, though.)
Movies ( and a bit of books) will increase - think of all the stuff kids do while you drive them around.
I want to see a self-driving car with swiveling seats (so Mom and Dad in the front seat can face the kids in the back seat) and some kind of table so families can play board games on long car trips. Who's up for a Settlers Of Catan road trip?
If I can pile into one drunk and it will drive me home, sign me up.
Too bad there's not some sort of existing service that has guys in cars waiting for drunk people to call, then the guys in the cars could go pick the drunks up and take them wherever...
I would even watch a TV series based upon such a service so long as it starred Danny DeVito and Tony Danza.
And even then, features tend to be available on more expensive model cars first before they work their way down to cheaper models. Let's say that all major self-driving car bugs are worked out in 5 years. In 2020, the first real commercially available self-driving car comes out - but costs $150,000 to purchase. Needless to say, most people aren't going to buy one, but enough richer people buy them to keep the technology progressing. After 5 years or so, the cost of a self-driving car might come down to where it's a premium add-on to a standard car. Then, it might become standard on the mid-range priced vehicles. Finally, the technology would become inexpensive enough that it would appear on all but the most basic of automobiles.
The first jobs impacted likely would be chauffeurs, not car insurance companies or taxis. Even if we assumed a rapid development and adoption of self-driving cars, they wouldn't become prevalent on the roads for over a decade - possibly two. More than enough time for the insurance companies to adapt. Insurance companies would see a slow decline in the number of person-driven cars and a slow rise in the number of self-driven cars. They might even encourage this trend with some token reduction in your insurance rate. (Big enough to encourage people to buy those cars, but small enough that profits aren't really impacted - especially because they would make more money off of people with self driving cars.)
The real reason he was arrested? A friend of his left a few Android devices for him to pick up. He found someone else's Android devices and took them instead
Applying it where it's useful is a good thing, but school districts shouldn't be wasting money on tech just for the sake of having it.
Exactly this. Technology enhance education wonderfully, but it isn't One Size Fits All. My son had issues writing due to muscular issues. He was given a Netbook to use and his writing improved dramatically. Give the same Netbook to another kid and their writing might not change at all. You can't just toss the same technology at every kid and expect miraculous improvements. Evaluate every situation, determine whether technology will help and, if so, which technology will work the best, and then give that child that technology. If no technology will help, use non-technological methods to assist the child.
Of course, nuance like this doesn't play well for politicians and businesses who want to proclaim "$TECHNOLOGY_X will drastically improve every childs' education!!!"
My wife was a teacher. Her three biggest complaints were:
1) Parents who just didn't care. The child could be failing and my wife could try contacting them multiple times to try to help the child out, but the parents just couldn't be bothered. The parent sends the signal (both to the teacher and to the child) that the child and the child's education isn't important. Of course, the kid is going to pick up on that. (Kids are often smarter than we give them credit for.)
2) Parents who cared too much. This might be more of an issue because she taught in a private school. The parents would think that because they paid tuition, their kid deserved an A no matter what the quality of the kid's work. They wouldn't even bother looking at the child's work, but would march into my wife's classroom to demand that C-level work be graded as an A because "she works for them."
3) Administration that gets in the way. Sometimes the administration can help teachers out. They can assist in the previous 2 cases to back the teacher up and let the teacher do his/her job more effectively. All too often, though, administration comes up with "ideas" on how to improve teaching without consulting the teachers. This is analogous to a PHB deciding on a new coding strategy without consulting the programmers. When this happens, the teachers find themselves trying to be effective teachers while jumping through more and more useless hoops.
After my wife left the profession, a fourth obstacle really kicked into high gear as well:
4) Politicians/Private Companies. These people come in - either with a desire for profits or to draw in votes - with big ideas for how to improve education. They don't consult with teachers - and often will vilify them to silence any teacher objections - and will push their plans through. Like #3 above, teachers find themselves having to jump through increasingly complex hoops which render them incapable of teaching effectively. This, then, "proves" that teachers are no-good so that politicians and private companies can fire them to make way for more profitable employees who will stick to the private company provided teaching scripts.
At least corporations care about the people unlike the government.
Wow. You were able to say that with a straight face? Corporations only "care" about people insofar as those people are handing them money. If you stop handing them money, they stop caring about you. This care is entirely limited to the handing over of money. If the product/service causes you a lot of problems, the corporation doesn't care - until it becomes a threat to them getting money and then they care a lot.
Actually, come to think of it, corporations are just like politicians. Just replace "money" with "votes". (Well, more accurately, "votes and money.") Politicians care deeply about you when your vote is at stake, but when they don't need to worry about votes they couldn't care less. Then, when the votes are at stake again, they miraculously care about you again.
There is no mercury in US vaccines except for very few such as the flu vaccine. And the mercury that is in those is different than the kind of mercury that injures people. The mercury that goes into vaccines (again, a very small group) gets processed by a person's body and removed in a matter of days. It is such a small amount and leaves so fast that it doesn't have time to accumulate.
As for the hazmat suit claim: One year, while getting our flu vaccines, my son flinched, the needle came out of his arm, and the vaccine squirted across the office instead of into my son. There were no hazmat suits. No special calls to people to clean it up. They just moved on to try again with him.
There have been tons of studies looking into an autism-vaccine link and they all have shown that there is none. The people that claim there are tend to be clinging to the discredited and disproven Wakefield study. I know I'm not going to convince you (just like you won't convince me). You've probably made up your mind because you read a few blogs touting the "evils" of vaccines. Hard science shows that vaccines don't cause autism, though, and their risks are much smaller than the risks of the diseases they prevent.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, proponents of ID don't tend to say "Anything that evolution doesn't cover was God." Instead, they say "All that evidence you claim to have for evolution? It's bunk. Throw it all out because obviously everything was too complicated to 'evolve' so God must have done it." In addition, they envision evolution as involving parts of the final structure appearing for no good reason instead of a "versioning system."
This is why they will frequently use the eye as a "counter-evolution" example. Clearly, the eye is complex so it must have just been designed. You wouldn't have a pupil just appear on a creature for no reason, right? And what's the chance that a no-eyed creature would suddenly have a baby with eyes? Zero! So God did it! (For clarification, this is their argument, not mine.)
Of course, the answer to this is that the eye is complex because it evolved the complexity over millions of years. It began as light-sensitive spots. Creatures who could sense light had a survival advantage so they had more offspring. The "light spots" got more and more complex - with each boost in light sensing meaning more chance of offspring and thus more chance of passing on the "light spot" genes. Over the generations, the light spot turned into a proto-eye and finally an eye. It didn't just pop into existence fully formed one day
When my father was working, he used to bring tons of work home with him every night to do after dinner. Then, he would bring more work home to do every weekend. Once, I asked him why he brought so much work home. He answered "My boss expects a certain level of output from me and I can only keep that up by working nights and weekends." I pointed out that he wasn't being compensated for this and by giving his boss this level of output, he was setting those expectations himself. Still, my father kept working this hard. In the end, all it got him was fired when they decided to give the job to someone else (even though that person likely didn't work as hard) to save money.
When I began my current job, I made it clear that I wouldn't be bringing work home with me. I was fine with the occasional after-hours emergency work. If a critical system failed and I needed to fix it, that's fine. But I wasn't going to bring coding work home with me so that we could finish the project a week or two early. There was occasional pressure to do more work at home, but I stood firm and made it clear that this was non-negotiable. When I'm home, I'm spending the time with my family or working on my own projects. Just because the company pays me a salary, doesn't mean they own all of my time.
I love the terminology used. You are an "exempt" employee. Usually, when you are exempted from something, it's a good thing. "Everyone needs to go to this boring conference. Bob is exempt, though." "Everyone run three miles today, except Jill who is exempt due to a medical condition." The very definition of exempt is "free from an obligation or liability imposed on others."
So when you are salaried and not paid by the hour, you are "free from the obligation of collecting overtime pay that is imposed on others." How wonderful of the company to free you from that obligation. You should feel like working another 20 hours this week out of pure gratitude.
This attitude also comes into play when you start a family. It is thought of as natural for women to want to take some time off after the baby is born. (Though, maternity leave isn't guaranteed in the US. Some companies still expect you to push out the baby and get back to work.) However, if a man wants to take some time off to help out his wife (exhausted from the birth) and new baby, many people will think of him as neglecting his "duties" to waste time with his family.
Example: The case of ballplayer Daniel Murphy who missed opening day when his son was born. Some radio hosts said that he should have been at opening day and not with his family. The hosts even went to far as to claim that his wife should have scheduled a C-Section before the season began so that he wouldn't miss any games. Yup, let's put his wife through an invasive, likely-unnecessary surgical procedure just so he doesn't stop hitting a ball with a stick. Where are some people's priorities?
I was lucky that my company let me take time off, though it was pulling time from my vacation/sick days. My company could just as easily have said "No time off for you. Get back to work now!"
It doesn't need to be the ISP owning the server. It could be an ISP adding data to webpages being transferred to their users. So a user requests the Slashdot home page using $SOME_ISP. $SOME_ISP pulls the page from Slashdot's servers but adds some JavaScript code to it before transferring it to the user. The user sees Slashdot plus the JavaScript code that $SOME_ISP added. Slashdot's servers haven't been compromised at all, but the transmission has been.
If an individual did this, we might call it a man in the middle attack. The ISP, for some reason, thinks they have the right to conduct man in the middle attacks to benefit themselves financially.
I will agree that publishing on the Internet doesn't remove copyright. (Sorry to all those who think they can just use anything they find in a Google Images search.) However, in this case, it looks like part of the complaint is that publishing this damages the company's "name and reputation." They are claiming that calling them out on scummy things that they do is illegal.
Not only that, but they made an unauthorized change to his code that displayed ads. If anyone else were to do this, it would be called "hacking his website" and the group responsible would (theoretically) be brought to justice. However, since it is an ISP, they get to call it "monetizing their service" (or some other weasel words) and the companies responsible for the ads get to sue for copyright infringement. Imagine if a group of hackers sued for copyright infringement because the code used in their hack was publicized. They would be laughed out of court.
This is one of the few instances where "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear" actually applies. If the TPP is so great, why all the secrecy? If you've got to hide the details of a bill or treaty to get it passed, then maybe there's something wrong with your bill/treaty that means it shouldn't be passed!
Government response: "But, TERRORISM!"
*too many people nod their heads in agreement while the rest of us shake ours in dismay*
For me, it's the other way around. I won't want a flying car unless it's self-driven. Take the average red-light running, lane weaving, texting instead of looking at the road, talking on the phone, tail-gating driver. Now put that driver in charge of a vehicle that goes in 3 dimensions and that can collide with another vehicle above some houses, parks, etc.
Human driven flying cars would be a disaster. For any flying car to be reasonably safe, it would need to be piloted by computers.
This was the first thing I thought of. Ok. You graduated college and gave the loan companies a big ol' middle finger. Good for you. You even got a job with that degree of yours. Now you just need to get to it so you buy a car.... Oh, wait. They won't give you a car loan because your credit stinks. No problem, you'll take the bus, but you do need to buy some clothes. You'll just put the money on your credit card... Oh, wait. They won't give you a credit card (or will only give you one with a through-the-roof interest rate) because your credit stinks. Fine, so you pay with cash. Somehow, you wind up doing somewhat well and decide to settle down with a special someone in a nice house.... Oops. Sorry. No home loan for you.
Paying off your loans leads to good credit which leads to more credit opportunities. Defaulting on your credit leads to less credit opportunities in the future.
If paying student loans seems like a pain because "I could use that money for tons of other cool stuff instead", then I've got news for you (where "you" = the student-loan-defaulting author): Life is a series of "I would love to do X but need to spend money on Y instead." Very few of us wind up with enough money to do everything we've ever wanted. Most of us find joy in the things we can afford, pay off the things we need to pay off, and indulge in the occasional dream about what we would do if money were no object.
He seems to be very useful as an example of what NOT to do.
It'll be one of the stories we tell to scare our grandkids.
Grandpa: "When I was your age, every person drove their own car down the street."
Grandkids: "You mean, they told the car where to go and then sat back and let it take them there, right?"
Grandpa: "No. I mean a human was completely in charge of the car, where it was on the road, and how fast it was going. If you were in a hurry, it was completely possible to weave in an out of traffic, cut people off and then jam on your brakes, and speed up way past the posted speed limit."
*Grandkids run screaming from the room*
Even in daily activities, self-driving cars would be great. My morning routine is 1) drive my son to school, 2) drive into the office. During that time, I could talk to my son/listen to music, but most other activities are precluded by needing to focus on the road. With a self-driving car, I could rest my eyes (if I had been up too late the previous night), talk to my son (without needing to stop because I needed to focus on the road), or even safely use my smartphone to check on e-mails or play a quick game.
Obviously, a true self-driving car like this won't be around for quite some time, but a person can dream. (Preferably, not while driving, though.)
I want to see a self-driving car with swiveling seats (so Mom and Dad in the front seat can face the kids in the back seat) and some kind of table so families can play board games on long car trips. Who's up for a Settlers Of Catan road trip?
I would even watch a TV series based upon such a service so long as it starred Danny DeVito and Tony Danza.
And even then, features tend to be available on more expensive model cars first before they work their way down to cheaper models. Let's say that all major self-driving car bugs are worked out in 5 years. In 2020, the first real commercially available self-driving car comes out - but costs $150,000 to purchase. Needless to say, most people aren't going to buy one, but enough richer people buy them to keep the technology progressing. After 5 years or so, the cost of a self-driving car might come down to where it's a premium add-on to a standard car. Then, it might become standard on the mid-range priced vehicles. Finally, the technology would become inexpensive enough that it would appear on all but the most basic of automobiles.
The first jobs impacted likely would be chauffeurs, not car insurance companies or taxis. Even if we assumed a rapid development and adoption of self-driving cars, they wouldn't become prevalent on the roads for over a decade - possibly two. More than enough time for the insurance companies to adapt. Insurance companies would see a slow decline in the number of person-driven cars and a slow rise in the number of self-driven cars. They might even encourage this trend with some token reduction in your insurance rate. (Big enough to encourage people to buy those cars, but small enough that profits aren't really impacted - especially because they would make more money off of people with self driving cars.)
The real reason he was arrested? A friend of his left a few Android devices for him to pick up. He found someone else's Android devices and took them instead
Those weren't the droids he was looking for.
*ducks the rotten tomatoes thrown at me*
But what would have happened if a guy dressed as a red shirt met up with the Stormtrooper?
In suburban areas, perhaps. In more urban areas, they can be right on the main road.
Exactly this. Technology enhance education wonderfully, but it isn't One Size Fits All. My son had issues writing due to muscular issues. He was given a Netbook to use and his writing improved dramatically. Give the same Netbook to another kid and their writing might not change at all. You can't just toss the same technology at every kid and expect miraculous improvements. Evaluate every situation, determine whether technology will help and, if so, which technology will work the best, and then give that child that technology. If no technology will help, use non-technological methods to assist the child.
Of course, nuance like this doesn't play well for politicians and businesses who want to proclaim "$TECHNOLOGY_X will drastically improve every childs' education!!!"
My wife was a teacher. Her three biggest complaints were:
1) Parents who just didn't care. The child could be failing and my wife could try contacting them multiple times to try to help the child out, but the parents just couldn't be bothered. The parent sends the signal (both to the teacher and to the child) that the child and the child's education isn't important. Of course, the kid is going to pick up on that. (Kids are often smarter than we give them credit for.)
2) Parents who cared too much. This might be more of an issue because she taught in a private school. The parents would think that because they paid tuition, their kid deserved an A no matter what the quality of the kid's work. They wouldn't even bother looking at the child's work, but would march into my wife's classroom to demand that C-level work be graded as an A because "she works for them."
3) Administration that gets in the way. Sometimes the administration can help teachers out. They can assist in the previous 2 cases to back the teacher up and let the teacher do his/her job more effectively. All too often, though, administration comes up with "ideas" on how to improve teaching without consulting the teachers. This is analogous to a PHB deciding on a new coding strategy without consulting the programmers. When this happens, the teachers find themselves trying to be effective teachers while jumping through more and more useless hoops.
After my wife left the profession, a fourth obstacle really kicked into high gear as well:
4) Politicians/Private Companies. These people come in - either with a desire for profits or to draw in votes - with big ideas for how to improve education. They don't consult with teachers - and often will vilify them to silence any teacher objections - and will push their plans through. Like #3 above, teachers find themselves having to jump through increasingly complex hoops which render them incapable of teaching effectively. This, then, "proves" that teachers are no-good so that politicians and private companies can fire them to make way for more profitable employees who will stick to the private company provided teaching scripts.
Jura rapelcgvba vf onaarq, bayl pevzvanyf jvyy unir rapelcgvba.
Wow. You were able to say that with a straight face? Corporations only "care" about people insofar as those people are handing them money. If you stop handing them money, they stop caring about you. This care is entirely limited to the handing over of money. If the product/service causes you a lot of problems, the corporation doesn't care - until it becomes a threat to them getting money and then they care a lot.
Actually, come to think of it, corporations are just like politicians. Just replace "money" with "votes". (Well, more accurately, "votes and money.") Politicians care deeply about you when your vote is at stake, but when they don't need to worry about votes they couldn't care less. Then, when the votes are at stake again, they miraculously care about you again.
There is no mercury in US vaccines except for very few such as the flu vaccine. And the mercury that is in those is different than the kind of mercury that injures people. The mercury that goes into vaccines (again, a very small group) gets processed by a person's body and removed in a matter of days. It is such a small amount and leaves so fast that it doesn't have time to accumulate.
As for the hazmat suit claim: One year, while getting our flu vaccines, my son flinched, the needle came out of his arm, and the vaccine squirted across the office instead of into my son. There were no hazmat suits. No special calls to people to clean it up. They just moved on to try again with him.
There have been tons of studies looking into an autism-vaccine link and they all have shown that there is none. The people that claim there are tend to be clinging to the discredited and disproven Wakefield study. I know I'm not going to convince you (just like you won't convince me). You've probably made up your mind because you read a few blogs touting the "evils" of vaccines. Hard science shows that vaccines don't cause autism, though, and their risks are much smaller than the risks of the diseases they prevent.