I am pointing an alarming problem that is not getting alarm. From the CDC's own numbers: 1 in 88 children have autism as of last year. I just read moments ago that the number is now 1 in 50!! The rate is going up at an alarming rate.
These are our children. And if you don't care about children, how about caring about your money because these "special kids" will fall under various social programs. You think our "baby boomers" problem is bad, just wait until we start seeing millions of people starting into social programs from an early age for the rest of their lives. Tell me again that this is not a serious problem.
And I am saying that while other issues are getting ridiculous amounts of attention, this one is simply not being talked about while it is getting plenty of statistical data showing it's getting worse. The numbers 1 in 50 is not my reality, it's the CDCs. We need to address the problem. To compare with today's attention getting news? The murder rate by gun in the US is 3.21 in 100,000. That's 1 in 31,153. See the problem here?
A study on the subject has yet to be done. And we have GMO foods out there which have not had proper testing done.
Instead of saying "yup, you're a loon" how about showing me where I'm wrong. I started out on this issue trying to prove someone else was a loon. It's getting pretty hard to ignore.
First off, let's get this out of the way. "Conspiracy Theory" is ultmately a mistrust in the systems we are required to live in. Especially lately, many of the things people have been label "conspiracy nut" over have come to light as either likely or simply the truth. This can be especially marked by the general non-acceptance of the Boston Bombing story. People just aren't believing any longer.
Now, the thing about vaccines is that it's supposed to be an inert version of a virus which is introduced to the body giving the person's immune system a chance to develop and immune response to the 'real' disease. This immunity response does vary from person to person and from disease to disease. But this is the first time I've heard a variation based on the "quality" of the innoculation. Think back to the first innoculations. They had to have been of crude quality and yet were highly effective to the point that it eradicated smallpox.
If you ask me, I would be more concerned about other factors which may lead to such problems and there could be MANY.
But the thing I'm getting at is now they are going to start recommending even more and frequent innoculations. Now under the current state of general government mistrust, I have to worry about what other things they might pull. I know the suspected links to autism and vaccinations are extremely unpopular discussion, but I have to wonder why, with all of our other redundant and seemingly useless studies why everyone seems so unwilling to allow any sort of studies over the links between autism and vaccinations? (For that matter, I'd like to see a study on autism and GMO foods.)
And before anyone starts into it. I want you to think about what 1 in 88 children means. And the numbers are worse for boys 1 in 53 boys is the current rate of autism. That's beyond what would normally be considered an emergency epidemic and yet it's not being treated as if it were any sort f emergency. Instead they are lowering the criteria for what is considered "autism" and are redefining it to change the numbers. If ever there was something that needs to be looked at, it's this. A significant portion of the human gene pool is being affected by this. This is serious. And yet no studies on the subject are allowed and any attempt will result in the end of a career.
I'm sorry... but "pay-walled"? I think I know what you're meaning to say, but pay-wall...? I think it doesn't mean what you think it means.
As far as "just works" goes, I understand what you mean, but Ubuntu "just works" often as well. So it has come down to this for my son: (Not an IT guy of any sort or by any means)
For anything chat/Internet, he uses his Ubuntu netbook. For games or anything else (non-internet) he uses his Windows machine. You somehow catch almost 0 malware when not using your machine over the internet. Games (over the internet) is still being done, but real/casual internet usage is limited to the tasks needed and only those tasks needed. Since he started operating that way, I haven't needed to reload any of his machines for well over a year now.
The point here is to use Windows only in the areas needed and only where it can be trusted. As soon as certain games become the point of vulnerability and malware infection, that will have to change... at which point I'm thinking the use of removable HDDs will be in order.
Don't you love your grandma? The woman who is partially responsible for your existence? Why are grandparents always painted as if they are stupid? (while the rest of everyone else is painted as if they aren't?) Got some news for you sonny. People who were smart when they were younger don't lose all that much when they get older -- unless outside forces take some toll along the way. And a 9 year old? Really? The things I did when I was 9? The things my sons did when they were 9? Geez. Let's stop thinking it's all about age.
I limit my use of Windows. I don't spend my life looking after it. For example, if a thing doesn't require Windows, I will not use Windows at all. Most often, when it does, I virtualize it where possible. It's hardly a lifestyle or hobby. I just don't like to walk on rickety bridges.
When it comes to computer systems, there are two camps -- freedom and not-freedom. The not-freedom camp, just as here in the good old USA, believes that we must remove freedom to remain safe. The freedom camp says life without freedom is slavery.
Both sides suffer from some common problems. Among these is that people are curious and want things. The more they want things, the more stupid they become when they want to have it. A lock on a door doesn't stop a criminal and doesn't stop a curious person. And in either camp, there are curious, stupid people who are willing to put aside good sense and caution to get what they want. It happens in every walk of life and in every environment.
Regardless of which camp you live, in the end, caution, care and restraint does the most to keep one's self safe but one always has to acknowledge there is no 100% safe if something is to be useful. Anything useful can be dangerous or safe depending on how it's used. (INB4 some jackass creates a list of 'safe things that cannot possibly be dangerous.')
I'm not denying that the AV people are intentionally stirring up fears in order to further their business models. Of that I have no doubt. And I think it is unquestionably true that more modern OS implementations are written with security in mind unlike Windows. Neither of these facts mean as much as knowledge and good practice. And isn't that what AV software is supposed to be a substitute for?
"Anti-virus software -- it's so you don't have to learn to take care of yourself!"
I run without AV 24/7 on all of my devices and some occasionally run Windows!! Shocked?! Well, I'm smart enough to run something other than MSIE and I don't run Javascript on every page from every source, I block ads and I don't run software (especially on Windows) that I don't know about. ALSO, I mitigate the possible damage which could be done in the event of compromise.
Why do people constantly tell you how important education is while at the same time avoid knowledge and wisdom at every possible opportunity? I get it -- for an advanced culture, we have to specialize. That's great. I don't make my own automobiles. But I do know how they work and have been known to fix them from time to time, just as I do computers of all sorts (laptops, desktops, servers, tablets, phones, video players, gaming consoles).
Nothing I say here or anywhere will convince people that their thinking is wrong though -- being wrong is not something easy for most people to admit -- it's their identity being called into question after all. So am I wasting my time here with this comment? I don't know... once in a while someone will read something I write and think about it.
Anti-malware -- so you don't have to take care of yourself.
I don't think I can distill that notion any further.
This represents a serious change in Apple's direction. They have avoided the business/enterprise market because they haven't been interested in competing in other, existing markets and certainly never wanted to be held to the same standards as the likes of Dell. But now the government/military market? This is a long way from trying to tie everything together with iTunes.
The cost of medical services is not merely out of control. It's beyond comprehension.
Let's look at this from a consumer standpoint. Let's imagine you're a rich person and do not need insurance and will pay for everything in cash. You bought your last car with pocket change. In every case (with a minor exception of the mobile phone bill) you know exactly what you will be paying and why. It seems only the medical industry never tells you exactly how much everything costs along the way.
No one [normal] would go to a restaurant and order off the menu without knowing what the prices were, so imagine being unable to know what you will spend the next time you go to McDonald's... or the grocery store... or anywhere.
There is no negotiation and no fore knowledge of what the bill will cost. It's insanity. And the industry says "it's okay... don't worry about it... let the insurance company worry about that, you just pay the co-pay." Meanwhile, the insurance industry loves this because they get more and more customers. These two sytems are designed to abuse the ignorance of the consumer and to keep them blind. When you think about how unacceptable this would be anywhere else, you have to wonder how this insane system came to be as it is.
If that were correct, that might seem reasonable if only highly dishonest. Part of the problem is waste, fraud and abuse, but that alone does not explain the extreme greed we see in government. There are personal interests for the decision makers I am quite sure. Some discovery and investigation would go a long way to expose it.
On a "from state to state" basis, there is no reasonable expecation that driving conditions will vary at the border. The roads are all made to certain standards as are the automobiles. The humans are all basically the same as well. So to have different rules in different states when it has been shown that all other things are generally equal speaks to other motives.
1. I believe many, many criminals wouldn't be criminals if there weren't so many crimes which shouldn't be crimes. (war on drugs) 2. I believe when people faced with the decision of doing a crime or not, they weigh in many factors such as what one has to lose if they are caught. And while many factors are at play, the one of "what do I have to lose?" is answered with "nothing." But there are other factors such as how the individuals are raised and what their expectations of life are at play. And if you want to go there, you could even suggest physical and genetic differences as well. [read: Kennedy risk-taking gene]
Yes... or to say it another way, if humans weren't so human, we wouldn't need laws.
Please. Reality. Okay? I really hope you know what's what and why. Blaming the masses of humans for acting the way they do fails to appreciate what people are. That some societies are more lawful than others speaks more to the level of development of that society than it does of the individuals which make up that society. Humans are humans, but when they are a part of a civilized society, only the threat of not being able to benefit from society can be effective.
(Hey, I just realized why there are so many black criminals... they don't believe they are part of society and therefore have nothing to lose... disenfranchisement.)
Anyway. Humans require laws to be more than they are, but they are still humans when they think no one is looking.
You don't sue "for" discovery and to have things like testimony entered into the public record. You can sue for all manner of things including "a cut of the profits." After all, if a government starts to make money, it needs to be shared with its investors -- the tax payers. The reality of "greedy government" is that tax money is given to favorite friends and business partners through no-bid contracts and things like that.
Discovery is a great way to expose corruption in government. It's hard to argue "national security" at a state level isn't it?
Of course they are ALLOWED. However, when government can be shown to be acting against the health and safety of the people? They are in violation of the constitution. And by making intersections less safe, they are unquestionably acting against the health and safety of the people.
Also, it brings attention to the problem and makes all manner of things a matter of public record... especially DISCOVERY of facts such as learning how they justify their decisions and who was involved in the process.
Conclusion after conclusion, study after study has shown that messing with traffic [especially to generate more ticket revenue] puts the public at additional risk which is direct vioation of the preamble of the constitution of the united states. In this case, the government is acting against the general welfare of the people.
When it has been demonstrated so many times in so many ways that these practices are bad for the public whose welfare they are charged, there is no reasonable excuse for that decision. In the past, this would be forgivable. Presently, it is abuse.
This has been proven to put the public at risk of property damage, of injury and of loss of life.
The people who made this decision need to be removed from office at the very least and potentially criminally prosecuted for endangerment [of a child].
They can't stop the internet without hurting themselves and a lot of other legitimate business. And continuing to sue customers? Is it really working out for them? Perhaps all the settlements which never reach the news does make it all worthwhile.
What little [music downloading/sharing] there is going on now can't really be worth the effort in my opinion. There are lots and lots of paying customers out there. I seriously doubt the "bad guys" even come close to the numbers of legitimate customers. They should be paying marketers to improve the number of customers instead of lawyers to leech off of people who don't have money to spend.
This software dependency/addiction thing really gets to the heart of what makes people do the things they do. It's "backwards" to me, but forwards for everyone else. (Makes me backwards, I know... don't have to tell me) But things rule the lives of so many others. "I won't stop using Windows because I play games!" Now it's "I won't stop using iTunes because I use an iPhone."
There seems to be no limit of stupid when it comes to supporting a bad habit.
Yes, something like that. The Europeans [Spanish] brought with them the destruction of the local religion, culture AND technology and was replaced with something else... different and, in some ways inferior. It's damned sad, but "god" can't handle competition and requires man to do God's work for him. (I don't think I'll ever get that... God is all-powerful and yet requires help from people?) And let's not candy-coat the fact that European religion (Catholic and Protestant) all but require participants to leave their brains at the door when worshiping.
Anyway, this is as disturbing to me as when I first heard of Muslims destroying ancient Buddhist structures in Afghanistan.
Monsanto's monoculture crop is a global disaster waiting to happen. The first disease that comes along which has evolved to target Monsanto's GM plants will wipe out a HUGE portion of the world's food supply.
But what if some human disease was engineered and passed around the globe in an epidemic which rendered people allergic to Monsanto's GM crops? Now we've got a world of useless and even dangerous plants which are essentially out of control.
And to top it all off? You might be able to sue all the sick people who contract the disease!:) Did you forget to patent the genetic material of your new disease?
That's an awesome reality. "Socialism for the rich, but not for us." There's quite a bit of truth to that when you realize how much tax money and public debt goes into subsidies for business.
Slashdot Mirror
I am pointing an alarming problem that is not getting alarm. From the CDC's own numbers: 1 in 88 children have autism as of last year. I just read moments ago that the number is now 1 in 50!! The rate is going up at an alarming rate.
These are our children. And if you don't care about children, how about caring about your money because these "special kids" will fall under various social programs. You think our "baby boomers" problem is bad, just wait until we start seeing millions of people starting into social programs from an early age for the rest of their lives. Tell me again that this is not a serious problem.
And I am saying that while other issues are getting ridiculous amounts of attention, this one is simply not being talked about while it is getting plenty of statistical data showing it's getting worse. The numbers 1 in 50 is not my reality, it's the CDCs. We need to address the problem. To compare with today's attention getting news? The murder rate by gun in the US is 3.21 in 100,000. That's 1 in 31,153. See the problem here?
A study on the subject has yet to be done. And we have GMO foods out there which have not had proper testing done.
Instead of saying "yup, you're a loon" how about showing me where I'm wrong. I started out on this issue trying to prove someone else was a loon. It's getting pretty hard to ignore.
First off, let's get this out of the way. "Conspiracy Theory" is ultmately a mistrust in the systems we are required to live in. Especially lately, many of the things people have been label "conspiracy nut" over have come to light as either likely or simply the truth. This can be especially marked by the general non-acceptance of the Boston Bombing story. People just aren't believing any longer.
Now, the thing about vaccines is that it's supposed to be an inert version of a virus which is introduced to the body giving the person's immune system a chance to develop and immune response to the 'real' disease. This immunity response does vary from person to person and from disease to disease. But this is the first time I've heard a variation based on the "quality" of the innoculation. Think back to the first innoculations. They had to have been of crude quality and yet were highly effective to the point that it eradicated smallpox.
If you ask me, I would be more concerned about other factors which may lead to such problems and there could be MANY.
But the thing I'm getting at is now they are going to start recommending even more and frequent innoculations. Now under the current state of general government mistrust, I have to worry about what other things they might pull. I know the suspected links to autism and vaccinations are extremely unpopular discussion, but I have to wonder why, with all of our other redundant and seemingly useless studies why everyone seems so unwilling to allow any sort of studies over the links between autism and vaccinations? (For that matter, I'd like to see a study on autism and GMO foods.)
And before anyone starts into it. I want you to think about what 1 in 88 children means. And the numbers are worse for boys 1 in 53 boys is the current rate of autism. That's beyond what would normally be considered an emergency epidemic and yet it's not being treated as if it were any sort f emergency. Instead they are lowering the criteria for what is considered "autism" and are redefining it to change the numbers. If ever there was something that needs to be looked at, it's this. A significant portion of the human gene pool is being affected by this. This is serious. And yet no studies on the subject are allowed and any attempt will result in the end of a career.
I'm sorry... but "pay-walled"? I think I know what you're meaning to say, but pay-wall...? I think it doesn't mean what you think it means.
As far as "just works" goes, I understand what you mean, but Ubuntu "just works" often as well. So it has come down to this for my son: (Not an IT guy of any sort or by any means)
For anything chat/Internet, he uses his Ubuntu netbook. For games or anything else (non-internet) he uses his Windows machine. You somehow catch almost 0 malware when not using your machine over the internet. Games (over the internet) is still being done, but real/casual internet usage is limited to the tasks needed and only those tasks needed. Since he started operating that way, I haven't needed to reload any of his machines for well over a year now.
The point here is to use Windows only in the areas needed and only where it can be trusted. As soon as certain games become the point of vulnerability and malware infection, that will have to change... at which point I'm thinking the use of removable HDDs will be in order.
Don't you love your grandma? The woman who is partially responsible for your existence? Why are grandparents always painted as if they are stupid? (while the rest of everyone else is painted as if they aren't?) Got some news for you sonny. People who were smart when they were younger don't lose all that much when they get older -- unless outside forces take some toll along the way. And a 9 year old? Really? The things I did when I was 9? The things my sons did when they were 9? Geez. Let's stop thinking it's all about age.
I limit my use of Windows. I don't spend my life looking after it. For example, if a thing doesn't require Windows, I will not use Windows at all. Most often, when it does, I virtualize it where possible. It's hardly a lifestyle or hobby. I just don't like to walk on rickety bridges.
When it comes to computer systems, there are two camps -- freedom and not-freedom. The not-freedom camp, just as here in the good old USA, believes that we must remove freedom to remain safe. The freedom camp says life without freedom is slavery.
Both sides suffer from some common problems. Among these is that people are curious and want things. The more they want things, the more stupid they become when they want to have it. A lock on a door doesn't stop a criminal and doesn't stop a curious person. And in either camp, there are curious, stupid people who are willing to put aside good sense and caution to get what they want. It happens in every walk of life and in every environment.
Regardless of which camp you live, in the end, caution, care and restraint does the most to keep one's self safe but one always has to acknowledge there is no 100% safe if something is to be useful. Anything useful can be dangerous or safe depending on how it's used. (INB4 some jackass creates a list of 'safe things that cannot possibly be dangerous.')
I'm not denying that the AV people are intentionally stirring up fears in order to further their business models. Of that I have no doubt. And I think it is unquestionably true that more modern OS implementations are written with security in mind unlike Windows. Neither of these facts mean as much as knowledge and good practice. And isn't that what AV software is supposed to be a substitute for?
"Anti-virus software -- it's so you don't have to learn to take care of yourself!"
I run without AV 24/7 on all of my devices and some occasionally run Windows!! Shocked?! Well, I'm smart enough to run something other than MSIE and I don't run Javascript on every page from every source, I block ads and I don't run software (especially on Windows) that I don't know about. ALSO, I mitigate the possible damage which could be done in the event of compromise.
Why do people constantly tell you how important education is while at the same time avoid knowledge and wisdom at every possible opportunity? I get it -- for an advanced culture, we have to specialize. That's great. I don't make my own automobiles. But I do know how they work and have been known to fix them from time to time, just as I do computers of all sorts (laptops, desktops, servers, tablets, phones, video players, gaming consoles).
Nothing I say here or anywhere will convince people that their thinking is wrong though -- being wrong is not something easy for most people to admit -- it's their identity being called into question after all. So am I wasting my time here with this comment? I don't know... once in a while someone will read something I write and think about it.
Anti-malware -- so you don't have to take care of yourself.
I don't think I can distill that notion any further.
This represents a serious change in Apple's direction. They have avoided the business/enterprise market because they haven't been interested in competing in other, existing markets and certainly never wanted to be held to the same standards as the likes of Dell. But now the government/military market? This is a long way from trying to tie everything together with iTunes.
That is very interesting.
Now tell us about the isolation zones where your police are too scared to do their jobs for fear of immigrants killing them?
The cost of medical services is not merely out of control. It's beyond comprehension.
Let's look at this from a consumer standpoint. Let's imagine you're a rich person and do not need insurance and will pay for everything in cash. You bought your last car with pocket change. In every case (with a minor exception of the mobile phone bill) you know exactly what you will be paying and why. It seems only the medical industry never tells you exactly how much everything costs along the way.
No one [normal] would go to a restaurant and order off the menu without knowing what the prices were, so imagine being unable to know what you will spend the next time you go to McDonald's... or the grocery store... or anywhere.
There is no negotiation and no fore knowledge of what the bill will cost. It's insanity. And the industry says "it's okay... don't worry about it... let the insurance company worry about that, you just pay the co-pay." Meanwhile, the insurance industry loves this because they get more and more customers. These two sytems are designed to abuse the ignorance of the consumer and to keep them blind. When you think about how unacceptable this would be anywhere else, you have to wonder how this insane system came to be as it is.
If that were correct, that might seem reasonable if only highly dishonest. Part of the problem is waste, fraud and abuse, but that alone does not explain the extreme greed we see in government. There are personal interests for the decision makers I am quite sure. Some discovery and investigation would go a long way to expose it.
On a "from state to state" basis, there is no reasonable expecation that driving conditions will vary at the border. The roads are all made to certain standards as are the automobiles. The humans are all basically the same as well. So to have different rules in different states when it has been shown that all other things are generally equal speaks to other motives.
1. I believe many, many criminals wouldn't be criminals if there weren't so many crimes which shouldn't be crimes. (war on drugs)
2. I believe when people faced with the decision of doing a crime or not, they weigh in many factors such as what one has to lose if they are caught. And while many factors are at play, the one of "what do I have to lose?" is answered with "nothing." But there are other factors such as how the individuals are raised and what their expectations of life are at play. And if you want to go there, you could even suggest physical and genetic differences as well. [read: Kennedy risk-taking gene]
Yes... or to say it another way, if humans weren't so human, we wouldn't need laws.
Please. Reality. Okay? I really hope you know what's what and why. Blaming the masses of humans for acting the way they do fails to appreciate what people are. That some societies are more lawful than others speaks more to the level of development of that society than it does of the individuals which make up that society. Humans are humans, but when they are a part of a civilized society, only the threat of not being able to benefit from society can be effective.
(Hey, I just realized why there are so many black criminals... they don't believe they are part of society and therefore have nothing to lose... disenfranchisement.)
Anyway. Humans require laws to be more than they are, but they are still humans when they think no one is looking.
You don't sue "for" discovery and to have things like testimony entered into the public record. You can sue for all manner of things including "a cut of the profits." After all, if a government starts to make money, it needs to be shared with its investors -- the tax payers. The reality of "greedy government" is that tax money is given to favorite friends and business partners through no-bid contracts and things like that.
Discovery is a great way to expose corruption in government. It's hard to argue "national security" at a state level isn't it?
Of course they are ALLOWED. However, when government can be shown to be acting against the health and safety of the people? They are in violation of the constitution. And by making intersections less safe, they are unquestionably acting against the health and safety of the people.
You can sue for more than a monetary remedy.
Also, it brings attention to the problem and makes all manner of things a matter of public record... especially DISCOVERY of facts such as learning how they justify their decisions and who was involved in the process.
Please think more.
A 24 year old thinks he's an old timer on the internet because he likes text-based tech? Moronic.
However, the bigger question of "fear of technological change?" That's one for business everywhere -- Especially the media industries.
Conclusion after conclusion, study after study has shown that messing with traffic [especially to generate more ticket revenue] puts the public at additional risk which is direct vioation of the preamble of the constitution of the united states. In this case, the government is acting against the general welfare of the people.
When it has been demonstrated so many times in so many ways that these practices are bad for the public whose welfare they are charged, there is no reasonable excuse for that decision. In the past, this would be forgivable. Presently, it is abuse.
This has been proven to put the public at risk of property damage, of injury and of loss of life.
The people who made this decision need to be removed from office at the very least and potentially criminally prosecuted for endangerment [of a child].
They can't stop the internet without hurting themselves and a lot of other legitimate business. And continuing to sue customers? Is it really working out for them? Perhaps all the settlements which never reach the news does make it all worthwhile.
What little [music downloading/sharing] there is going on now can't really be worth the effort in my opinion. There are lots and lots of paying customers out there. I seriously doubt the "bad guys" even come close to the numbers of legitimate customers. They should be paying marketers to improve the number of customers instead of lawyers to leech off of people who don't have money to spend.
This software dependency/addiction thing really gets to the heart of what makes people do the things they do. It's "backwards" to me, but forwards for everyone else. (Makes me backwards, I know... don't have to tell me) But things rule the lives of so many others. "I won't stop using Windows because I play games!" Now it's "I won't stop using iTunes because I use an iPhone."
There seems to be no limit of stupid when it comes to supporting a bad habit.
I'm still trying not to read "wolf gene."
Yes, something like that. The Europeans [Spanish] brought with them the destruction of the local religion, culture AND technology and was replaced with something else... different and, in some ways inferior. It's damned sad, but "god" can't handle competition and requires man to do God's work for him. (I don't think I'll ever get that... God is all-powerful and yet requires help from people?) And let's not candy-coat the fact that European religion (Catholic and Protestant) all but require participants to leave their brains at the door when worshiping.
Anyway, this is as disturbing to me as when I first heard of Muslims destroying ancient Buddhist structures in Afghanistan.
Monsanto's monoculture crop is a global disaster waiting to happen. The first disease that comes along which has evolved to target Monsanto's GM plants will wipe out a HUGE portion of the world's food supply.
But what if some human disease was engineered and passed around the globe in an epidemic which rendered people allergic to Monsanto's GM crops? Now we've got a world of useless and even dangerous plants which are essentially out of control.
And to top it all off? You might be able to sue all the sick people who contract the disease! :) Did you forget to patent the genetic material of your new disease?
I can't believe those forking bastiges. What will they do with the 7.x users? Just leaving them to dongle like that?
(I'm going to sexist hell)
That's an awesome reality. "Socialism for the rich, but not for us." There's quite a bit of truth to that when you realize how much tax money and public debt goes into subsidies for business.