Hep B can be contracted in many ways. The hepatitis virus is extremely hardy as compared to other similar systemic diseases' virii, for example, HIV is far more delicate and cannot survive outside the body for long. Hep B hangs around on surfaces for much longer; if someone with Hep B bleeds on something and then a kid touches it, they can contract Hep B.
It's not always unprotected sex and illegal drug use. Sometimes it's a kid touching something.
... Seriously? If a cabbage picked its major right, it could get a B.A. at a lot of schools. How do you think all those frat boys that drank their way through college managed to graduate? Communications, English, Art History, Marketing... Most schools are more concerned about your student loan check clearing the bank than they are about quality of education. As long as your money's good, here, have a degree.
I don't know where you are, but where I am, if you're not in the trades and you don't get a four-year degree, your job options are pretty limited to jobs where you have to wear a name tag and/or a paper hat. Bachelors' degrees are so common that HR departments use the lack thereof to cull out resumes from the flood that they receive, and still manage to hire people, so it can't shrink the candidate pool TOO much. The result is that getting a job running Excel and going to useless meetings (which a high school junior is usually qualified for, skills-wise) requires a four-year degree.
Employers like degrees for a couple of reasons: 1) It shows that you can do mindless irrelevant busy work that accomplishes nothing without going insane, and 2) you most likely have a mountain of student loan debt, which makes you more unlikely to quit once they start and find out they're doing three jobs and getting paid for 2/3rds of one. Notice that neither of those reasons is related to the actual education.
I have a degree in this (exercise/nutrition) field. I work as a programmer now. Why? 1) because my degree qualifies me to hand out towels at a health club (a BS and good test scores will get you into grad school, but nothing that pays a living wage) and 2) the industry is all scams and diet pills.
The reason that people don't trust the science around fitness is because 1) scammers have been presenting pseudoscience as fact for years, and 2) they don't like what the actual science tells them. The actualscience around health and fitness is problematic because it tells us that the way to lose weight is to burn more calories than you take in. This requires modifying your behavior, and as we all know, at least as far as Americans are concerned, if it requires effort, it's not worth doing. Telling someone that to lose weight they need to cut their caloric intake by eating less, and increase their caloric consumption by exercising more, gets you "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" from the average person. They want a pill/drink/whatever they can pop and remain lazy slobs. (Berke Breathed had it right years ago: http://www.sumitsays.com/publi...)
Until failing to follow them costs the company millions due to $problem. Then, they'll fire half of IT, make the other half do two jobs in addition to demanding the highest standards while giving no budgetary or political support.
If the manufactures made upgrades and released then to all the phones that were unlocked at carriers that would allow a upgrade.
There is an upgrade. Go to Kit Kat.
Then the carriers that would not allow upgrades would get angry customers. And a chance to loss them if they had a choice to pick someone that would allow upgrades/updates.
I don't think you really understand the mobile market in the USA. One of the carriers fucks the customer in a new and interesting way, the others follow. Switching mobile carriers is 1) a huge inconvenience and 2) not going to improve your situation, because they're pretty much all equally awful. The carriers don't want to support more than one version of Android on a given handset, because then they might have to spend money to support them. Obviously they can't do that, since it eats into the profits. And as long as nobody goes off the reservation, the situation will not improve. Yes, collusion is illegal. Their lawyers can beat up your lawyers.
Because the carriers signed a deal saying they wouldn't prevent Apple from controlling OS upgrades. The Android folks didn't require that. So, since a big for-profit corporation will do anything that it CAN do unless you tell them specifically not to, especially when it fucks its paying customers over, we get what we have here.
Perhaps, but it DOES fix the problem. Don't like it? Go buy a different phone. Yes, it sucks if you can't upgrade. But the chances are that even if there WERE a patch that didn't require a whole new version, your carrier wouldn't let you install it anyway.
Does the carrier allow you to upgrade to the fixed version? If the answer isn't "yes", then it's not Google's responsibility, as they have done their part by fixing the problem.
You could shorten that to "Buy unlocked". I am not aware of any major carrier in the USA that does not lock down their Android phones. There is no incentive to fix bad behavior when everyone else is doing it as well. See: car sales.
You ARE a crackpot. By that definition, no, I am not a statist. I'm not in favor of government ownership of industry. I AM in favor of useful regulation on those industries.
Never, anywhere, did I say that I agreed with anything you just attributed to me. I do not believe that the central state should have unlimited authority, nor do I think the state should control 100% of your time. I have no idea where you got that from, unless you're building a straw man.
The USA is not North Korea. I have no idea why you think I'd be in favor of that sort of totalitarian regime. I think that there is a role for the state, not that the state should fill all roles. I am not a totalitarian. If thinking I am makes you feel better, then have at it. But I am not.
If there's a problem with an old (10+ years) version of something, and the solution the vendor makes available is to upgrade to the newer version (as you've had 10 years to do so), I fail to see how that's unfair. Blaming Microsoft for that situation IS unfair. They made a perfectly viable solution available; if you don't like it, go to the competition. Oh, wait... you bought Microsoft, so you're completely locked-in. Ha ha.
Organizations that refuse to upgrade from XP can pay a great deal of money for support. Money that would be better spent upgrading their systems and patching their business apps to work with a version from this decade.
The difference is, unlocked/no-contract phones can have their OS upgraded. Under-contract phones in the USA can only be upgraded if the carrier allows it.
So in Europe it's possible, and in the USA it is not.
So because Google didn't specifically forbid something, and the carriers went ahead and did it not because it was a good idea, but because fuck the customer, that's Google's fault? If I don't specifically tell someone to look both ways before crossing the street, is it my fault when they don't and get hit by a bus?
The carriers are the bad actors here. Google had a bug in their product, and they have fixed it. The carriers are the ones not allowing their customers to install the fixed version.
They're not "responsible" for updating the OS on their customers' phones. The customer can update the OS... IF the carrier will let them. OS changes are locked out on most under-contract Android phones.
Clearly Google has decided that the solution for this problem is to update Android. This is not an unreasonable solution. The problem is fixed, and how you get the fix is well documented.
The problem is when your carrier prevents you from upgrading. Blame for this issue lies soley at the feet of Verizon, At&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc.
I said nothing about banning home schooling or private schools. Don't put words in my mouth. You want to send your kid to private school or homeschool them, go for it. Currently SOME form of education is required, and public schools aren't the only option.
I also do not reject the notion of individual rights. If anything, I'm defending them by saying they should be protected by the state.
I'm willing to compromise if it makes sense. I think you individualists are the ones that don't want compromise, because in your arrogance you think your vision of the world is the only correct one and anyone that disagrees with you is evil.
Am I supposed to be offended that you call me a "statist"? I think you need to define the term, because what I'm seeing there is "someone who thinks there's a role for the state in protecting an individual's rights". In which case, you are right.
No, it's a question of degrees. If you think people are stupid now, do away with education and see how bad it gets. I guarantee you that eventually the population will make Honey Boo Boo look like a PhD.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the argument for separating? Is it a concern that the immune system may not deal as well with multiple vaccines at once?
Why do you hate America? /s
Hep B can be contracted in many ways. The hepatitis virus is extremely hardy as compared to other similar systemic diseases' virii, for example, HIV is far more delicate and cannot survive outside the body for long. Hep B hangs around on surfaces for much longer; if someone with Hep B bleeds on something and then a kid touches it, they can contract Hep B.
It's not always unprotected sex and illegal drug use. Sometimes it's a kid touching something.
I think GP means the 'conscientious objection' that would basically allow any parent to refuse the vaccinations for any reason they see fit.
Grind your axe somewhere else. You don't like the ACA? Write your congressman. Fuck off.
The hell you say! I'm sure all that money they saved not building an adequate infrastructure is much more than this breach will cost them. Oh, wait...
... Seriously? If a cabbage picked its major right, it could get a B.A. at a lot of schools. How do you think all those frat boys that drank their way through college managed to graduate? Communications, English, Art History, Marketing... Most schools are more concerned about your student loan check clearing the bank than they are about quality of education. As long as your money's good, here, have a degree.
I don't know where you are, but where I am, if you're not in the trades and you don't get a four-year degree, your job options are pretty limited to jobs where you have to wear a name tag and/or a paper hat. Bachelors' degrees are so common that HR departments use the lack thereof to cull out resumes from the flood that they receive, and still manage to hire people, so it can't shrink the candidate pool TOO much. The result is that getting a job running Excel and going to useless meetings (which a high school junior is usually qualified for, skills-wise) requires a four-year degree.
Employers like degrees for a couple of reasons: 1) It shows that you can do mindless irrelevant busy work that accomplishes nothing without going insane, and 2) you most likely have a mountain of student loan debt, which makes you more unlikely to quit once they start and find out they're doing three jobs and getting paid for 2/3rds of one. Notice that neither of those reasons is related to the actual education.
I have a degree in this (exercise/nutrition) field. I work as a programmer now. Why? 1) because my degree qualifies me to hand out towels at a health club (a BS and good test scores will get you into grad school, but nothing that pays a living wage) and 2) the industry is all scams and diet pills.
The reason that people don't trust the science around fitness is because 1) scammers have been presenting pseudoscience as fact for years, and 2) they don't like what the actual science tells them. The actualscience around health and fitness is problematic because it tells us that the way to lose weight is to burn more calories than you take in. This requires modifying your behavior, and as we all know, at least as far as Americans are concerned, if it requires effort, it's not worth doing. Telling someone that to lose weight they need to cut their caloric intake by eating less, and increase their caloric consumption by exercising more, gets you "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" from the average person. They want a pill/drink/whatever they can pop and remain lazy slobs. (Berke Breathed had it right years ago: http://www.sumitsays.com/publi...)
Until failing to follow them costs the company millions due to $problem. Then, they'll fire half of IT, make the other half do two jobs in addition to demanding the highest standards while giving no budgetary or political support.
lather.. rinse.. repeat..
There is an upgrade. Go to Kit Kat.
I don't think you really understand the mobile market in the USA. One of the carriers fucks the customer in a new and interesting way, the others follow. Switching mobile carriers is 1) a huge inconvenience and 2) not going to improve your situation, because they're pretty much all equally awful. The carriers don't want to support more than one version of Android on a given handset, because then they might have to spend money to support them. Obviously they can't do that, since it eats into the profits. And as long as nobody goes off the reservation, the situation will not improve. Yes, collusion is illegal. Their lawyers can beat up your lawyers.
Obvious troll is obvious. Grind your axe somewhere else.
Because the carriers signed a deal saying they wouldn't prevent Apple from controlling OS upgrades. The Android folks didn't require that. So, since a big for-profit corporation will do anything that it CAN do unless you tell them specifically not to, especially when it fucks its paying customers over, we get what we have here.
Perhaps, but it DOES fix the problem. Don't like it? Go buy a different phone. Yes, it sucks if you can't upgrade. But the chances are that even if there WERE a patch that didn't require a whole new version, your carrier wouldn't let you install it anyway.
Does the carrier allow you to upgrade to the fixed version? If the answer isn't "yes", then it's not Google's responsibility, as they have done their part by fixing the problem.
You could shorten that to "Buy unlocked". I am not aware of any major carrier in the USA that does not lock down their Android phones. There is no incentive to fix bad behavior when everyone else is doing it as well. See: car sales.
You ARE a crackpot. By that definition, no, I am not a statist. I'm not in favor of government ownership of industry. I AM in favor of useful regulation on those industries.
Never, anywhere, did I say that I agreed with anything you just attributed to me. I do not believe that the central state should have unlimited authority, nor do I think the state should control 100% of your time. I have no idea where you got that from, unless you're building a straw man.
The USA is not North Korea. I have no idea why you think I'd be in favor of that sort of totalitarian regime. I think that there is a role for the state, not that the state should fill all roles. I am not a totalitarian. If thinking I am makes you feel better, then have at it. But I am not.
If there's a problem with an old (10+ years) version of something, and the solution the vendor makes available is to upgrade to the newer version (as you've had 10 years to do so), I fail to see how that's unfair. Blaming Microsoft for that situation IS unfair. They made a perfectly viable solution available; if you don't like it, go to the competition. Oh, wait... you bought Microsoft, so you're completely locked-in. Ha ha.
Organizations that refuse to upgrade from XP can pay a great deal of money for support. Money that would be better spent upgrading their systems and patching their business apps to work with a version from this decade.
The difference is, unlocked/no-contract phones can have their OS upgraded. Under-contract phones in the USA can only be upgraded if the carrier allows it.
So in Europe it's possible, and in the USA it is not.
So because Google didn't specifically forbid something, and the carriers went ahead and did it not because it was a good idea, but because fuck the customer, that's Google's fault? If I don't specifically tell someone to look both ways before crossing the street, is it my fault when they don't and get hit by a bus?
The carriers are the bad actors here. Google had a bug in their product, and they have fixed it. The carriers are the ones not allowing their customers to install the fixed version.
They're not "responsible" for updating the OS on their customers' phones. The customer can update the OS... IF the carrier will let them. OS changes are locked out on most under-contract Android phones.
How do you figure?
Clearly Google has decided that the solution for this problem is to update Android. This is not an unreasonable solution. The problem is fixed, and how you get the fix is well documented.
The problem is when your carrier prevents you from upgrading. Blame for this issue lies soley at the feet of Verizon, At&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc.
I said nothing about banning home schooling or private schools. Don't put words in my mouth. You want to send your kid to private school or homeschool them, go for it. Currently SOME form of education is required, and public schools aren't the only option.
I also do not reject the notion of individual rights. If anything, I'm defending them by saying they should be protected by the state.
I'm willing to compromise if it makes sense. I think you individualists are the ones that don't want compromise, because in your arrogance you think your vision of the world is the only correct one and anyone that disagrees with you is evil.
Am I supposed to be offended that you call me a "statist"? I think you need to define the term, because what I'm seeing there is "someone who thinks there's a role for the state in protecting an individual's rights". In which case, you are right.
No, it's a question of degrees. If you think people are stupid now, do away with education and see how bad it gets. I guarantee you that eventually the population will make Honey Boo Boo look like a PhD.
Or they can go and get their fucking flu shot like everyone else.