Anti-vaxxers are all the same. I'm sure you don't believe that the reduction in communicable diseases like polio, smallpox, measles, mumps, diptheria, etc is an accident. Or do you? Some anti-vaxxers are that looney.
There is no evidence of harm due to HPV vaccines, and the VAERS reports of gardasil problems increased following bogus media reports of problems caused by gardasil. Real problems would have increased if the innoculation rate increased. Bad things happen, and it's great to have a vaccination to blame them on, even when they are unrelated.
Your stuff about "if you are found to have it later, then... guess what? You MUST have already had the virus before vaccination" is just a lie. And it's proof you have no understanding of how science or medicine work. Whoever told you that was lying, and you believed them because you wanted to. No vaccination is 100% effective. No doctor with a brain has ever said they were. But you can measure is the infection rate in the vaccinated and vaccinated populations to find the difference even if you did not test before the vaccine was administered. Statistics are what's important.
I have no idea what the B53 bomb is -- if it is a BIG bomb and it DOES have Uranium in it it might not be a Pu implosion core.
Its a two stage thermonuclear using an implosion primary fueled by highly enriched uranium. The secondary uses the standard magic for implosion with lithium-6 deuteride fuel. The HE initiator is sensitive to shocks, so if someone were to shoot at the warhead, the HE could go off, but the primary probably wouldn't achieve criticality due to asymmetrical compression. If you're close enough for it to be a problem, you probably won't even notice the uranium. The secondary has probably long since been removed, since (what's left of) that stuff can be useful.
There is no way to determine that these reactions are not linked to the vaccine without much more study.
There's also no way to determine that these reactions are linked to the vaccine without much more study. The rate of serious reaction for this vaccine is not significantly larger than for any other vaccine (or the rate of serious reaction to no vaccine). Yes "verified deaths" sounds scary, but that means that it's been verified that someone died. It hasn't been verified that the vaccine is the cause. If you get 40 million people between the ages of 9 and 26 together and give them an injection of saline solution, within 24 hours, more than 100 of them will be dead. Of course that would have happened without the injection, too.
The CDC window for serious vaccine reactions is 72 hours for onset of symptoms with death potentially being weeks later. In 72 hours, you've got more than 300 kids in body bags. Most will be accidents. Did he fall off the ladder because the shot made him dizzy? Did he lose consciousness while driving? Better submit a VAERS report so his Mom can ask for compensation. But some will just be asthma attacks. Or wasp stings. Or auto-erotic asphyxiation. Sudden cardiac arrest. Heart attack. Aneurism. Some will be pneumonia. Some will be other infections. Unidentified viral and bacterial infections aren't all that uncommon. And autopsies are typically not done unless foul play is suspected. Vaccine related? There's no way to tell. If the rate of reported deaths is about the same as the rate of unexpected death for the same population in the same window (as it is in this case) there's a good chance it's not the vaccine.
And even if it were the vaccine, you're trading a 71 in 40 million (0.0002%) change of dying from the vaccine with a 0.2% chance of dying from the disease. That is, of course, assuming the prevalence of HPV doesn't change. Chances are it will, and children of whiners like yourself will get the benefit of the immunity that the children of people who don't fear shadows will acquire.
Right now, 1 in 140 women will get cervical cancer due to HPV. Lets see which makes "Big Pharma" more money, 140 HPV vaccinations (3 doses each), or chemotherapy medicines for one person with cervical cancer (one round of 6 cycles)? Well, based on cost alone 420 doses of HPV vaccine is $163,800. One round of six cycles of chemo (meds alone) is about $150,000. So Pharma might make a small amount of money by preventing cervical cancer. That's only a real problem if you think that the value of a human life is less than about $13,800 (and if you don't count the cost of pap smears.)
13,000 women a year get cervical cancer in the US, nearly all from HPV. And for all the men here snickering and saying that it's not our problem. There were about 1200 cases of penile cancer last year and about 300 of them were due to HPV infection.
Why don't you do like we did in olden-days? Discourage sexual activity until they're more likely to be an adult about things, hm?
It didn't work then. (Your grandma is such a liar.) It doesn't work now. The diseases prevalent in the real (pre-antibiotic) "olden-days" tended to be diseases that killed quickly or marked the infected in more obvious ways than modern retroviral diseases, so they were somewhat easier to avoid. Of course herpes was still around, but I'm not sure it had even been identified as an STD at that point.
But as far as being a bad deal, an injection at age 12 with a very remote chance of side effects versus the possibility that you will eventually find a woman to love only to give her a disease that kills her. I would have gotten in line for that shot. I somehow managed to negotiate the maze of adolescent and young adult sex without contracting HPV, but it certainly could have been a different story.
I remember colleges and universities explaining that tuition costs were rising because, with fewer students, the cost per student to deliver a college education was higher.
I've never heard that one, and I've been around the whole time.
1) we know all the little feedback mechanisms in our athmosphere (and yes - there are millions, if not billions of those) and so we can predict the consequences of geoengineering and we have reasonable evidence for global warming
We don't need to know what all the little feedback mechanisms are if 1) we can determine their combined effect or 2) we can determine what the large ones are. Your argument (again) amounts to "we don't know what all the mechanisms by which cells maintain homeostasis, therefore eating lots of salt can't raise your blood pressure. Similarly drinking gallons of water couldn't possibly kill you." But, of course, we do know that salt will raise your blood pressure and drinking too much water will kill you, because we know the dominant mechanisms involved.
So, no, bringing up feedback mechanisms didn't make you look smart. It made you look under-educated.
It was a guaranteed loan. The feds weren't paying any interest. The feds guaranteed the principle, which meant there was less risk for the bank than a car loan. The interest rate was set by Congress, and the Congress was hired by the banks, who were not required to participate. That didn't stop them from bitching about how unfair it was having to live with a measly 8% on a no risk investment.
We don't know the consequences of dumping billions of tonnes of carbon emissions into our atmosphere
I don't know where you've been hiding for the last 20 years, but yes, we do know. Unfortunately, there's no brick wall that will tell us "stop or die." If we do hit a brick wall, it will just tell us "die."
On the other hand we don't know much about chemically altering our upper atmosphere to reflect energy away.
Well, there we agree. It's stupid to do this unless the consequences of not doing it are horrific (as in several billion dead) and we're reasonably sure it will help. This wouldn't do anything for acidification of the oceans which is the effect of our carbon emissions that could potentially decimate us in the near term.
Although, if you will look, you will see that state subsidies for higher education have decreased drastically. You will also notice that while the demand for higher education has increased greatly, the supply has not gone up nearly as much, with the exception of for profit scam colleges.
But the Federally subsidized student loan is a subsidy: the interest rate is artificially low, it can go unpaid for decades.
Not always. My federally "subsidized" student loans were given to me at 8% at a time when the market rate for car loans was about half that. The only advantage was the deferred interest and payments. After I graduated, the thieves that purchased the loans tried to prevent me from consolidating the loans at a lower interest rate. I will be happy to see that bank go bust.
A lot of the money that comes in doesn't actually go to teaching, and the way to success in one's department is not to be a stellar teacher, it's to get published a lot.
If you're researching you get paid with grant money. If you're teaching, the university pays you. If you get a grant for $150,000. The university takes 20 to 40% off the top and uses it to pay for operation of the University and the department. It then uses your salary to hire a lecturer (usually much cheaper than a prof) and pockets the difference for University use.
The difference in tuition between the cheap public university and expensive private university I attended was that taxpayers payed most of my bill when I went to a cheap public university.
Maybe that was true a long time ago, but you'd be surprised how much the taxpayers don't contribute to public universities these days. Some are rebelling against legislative control. If the legislature is only providing 15% of the budget, why should it get 100% of the authority?
Traditional financing. You finance a car, a house, a TV, why not an education?
You obviously haven't tried to finance a car or house since 2008. Good luck. If you actually need the financing there's no chance in hell that you'll get it. Besides there's nothing for the banks to repossess when you finance an education, although the banks would be happy to repossess your labor if they could. How they long for the 1830s.
So does lack of supply, reduced state support and increased population. How many more students does Harvard admit than it did 30 years ago? How many more applications does it get? Same goes for just about every place else. University of Wisconsin, a moderately large midwestern public university, currently enrolls 42,000 (undergrad+grad). Thirty years ago it enrolled about 42,000. Today the state covers about 20% of the University's budget. Thirty years ago it covered about 80% of the University's budget.
A corporation has no power to dictate your life unless it coerces a government that is willing to do so.
That's hilarious and silly. Do you think your creditors need the government to help them wreck your life? Do you think the government controls the banks rather than the other way around? He who has the gold rules.
Corporations don't give a damn about the economy. They only give a damn about their profits. If they can make a bigger profit by causing economic chaos they will.
Do you really think this? Do you think that Bill Gates could say "so-and-so must no longer eat" and could pull it off?
Not Bill Gates. But VISA, Mastercard, the banks and PayPal are doing a pretty good job of starving Wikileaks while simultaneously depriving you of your economic and free speech rights. How long would you survive if they decided you needed to be economically isolated?
Slashdot Mirror
Anti-vaxxers are all the same. I'm sure you don't believe that the reduction in communicable diseases like polio, smallpox, measles, mumps, diptheria, etc is an accident. Or do you? Some anti-vaxxers are that looney.
There is no evidence of harm due to HPV vaccines, and the VAERS reports of gardasil problems increased following bogus media reports of problems caused by gardasil. Real problems would have increased if the innoculation rate increased. Bad things happen, and it's great to have a vaccination to blame them on, even when they are unrelated.
Your stuff about "if you are found to have it later, then ... guess what? You MUST have already had the virus before vaccination" is just a lie. And it's proof you have no understanding of how science or medicine work. Whoever told you that was lying, and you believed them because you wanted to. No vaccination is 100% effective. No doctor with a brain has ever said they were. But you can measure is the infection rate in the vaccinated and vaccinated populations to find the difference even if you did not test before the vaccine was administered. Statistics are what's important.
Never expect Human Resources to be human or resourceful.
I have no idea what the B53 bomb is -- if it is a BIG bomb and it DOES have Uranium in it it might not be a Pu implosion core.
Its a two stage thermonuclear using an implosion primary fueled by highly enriched uranium. The secondary uses the standard magic for implosion with lithium-6 deuteride fuel. The HE initiator is sensitive to shocks, so if someone were to shoot at the warhead, the HE could go off, but the primary probably wouldn't achieve criticality due to asymmetrical compression. If you're close enough for it to be a problem, you probably won't even notice the uranium. The secondary has probably long since been removed, since (what's left of) that stuff can be useful.
LOL! I had somehow missed that one.
There is no way to determine that these reactions are not linked to the vaccine without much more study.
There's also no way to determine that these reactions are linked to the vaccine without much more study. The rate of serious reaction for this vaccine is not significantly larger than for any other vaccine (or the rate of serious reaction to no vaccine). Yes "verified deaths" sounds scary, but that means that it's been verified that someone died. It hasn't been verified that the vaccine is the cause. If you get 40 million people between the ages of 9 and 26 together and give them an injection of saline solution, within 24 hours, more than 100 of them will be dead. Of course that would have happened without the injection, too.
The CDC window for serious vaccine reactions is 72 hours for onset of symptoms with death potentially being weeks later. In 72 hours, you've got more than 300 kids in body bags. Most will be accidents. Did he fall off the ladder because the shot made him dizzy? Did he lose consciousness while driving? Better submit a VAERS report so his Mom can ask for compensation. But some will just be asthma attacks. Or wasp stings. Or auto-erotic asphyxiation. Sudden cardiac arrest. Heart attack. Aneurism. Some will be pneumonia. Some will be other infections. Unidentified viral and bacterial infections aren't all that uncommon. And autopsies are typically not done unless foul play is suspected. Vaccine related? There's no way to tell. If the rate of reported deaths is about the same as the rate of unexpected death for the same population in the same window (as it is in this case) there's a good chance it's not the vaccine.
And even if it were the vaccine, you're trading a 71 in 40 million (0.0002%) change of dying from the vaccine with a 0.2% chance of dying from the disease. That is, of course, assuming the prevalence of HPV doesn't change. Chances are it will, and children of whiners like yourself will get the benefit of the immunity that the children of people who don't fear shadows will acquire.
Right now, 1 in 140 women will get cervical cancer due to HPV. Lets see which makes "Big Pharma" more money, 140 HPV vaccinations (3 doses each), or chemotherapy medicines for one person with cervical cancer (one round of 6 cycles)? Well, based on cost alone 420 doses of HPV vaccine is $163,800. One round of six cycles of chemo (meds alone) is about $150,000. So Pharma might make a small amount of money by preventing cervical cancer. That's only a real problem if you think that the value of a human life is less than about $13,800 (and if you don't count the cost of pap smears.)
13,000 women a year get cervical cancer in the US, nearly all from HPV. And for all the men here snickering and saying that it's not our problem. There were about 1200 cases of penile cancer last year and about 300 of them were due to HPV infection.
Why don't you do like we did in olden-days? Discourage sexual activity until they're more likely to be an adult about things, hm?
It didn't work then. (Your grandma is such a liar.) It doesn't work now. The diseases prevalent in the real (pre-antibiotic) "olden-days" tended to be diseases that killed quickly or marked the infected in more obvious ways than modern retroviral diseases, so they were somewhat easier to avoid. Of course herpes was still around, but I'm not sure it had even been identified as an STD at that point.
But as far as being a bad deal, an injection at age 12 with a very remote chance of side effects versus the possibility that you will eventually find a woman to love only to give her a disease that kills her. I would have gotten in line for that shot. I somehow managed to negotiate the maze of adolescent and young adult sex without contracting HPV, but it certainly could have been a different story.
I remember colleges and universities explaining that tuition costs were rising because, with fewer students, the cost per student to deliver a college education was higher.
I've never heard that one, and I've been around the whole time.
1) we know all the little feedback mechanisms in our athmosphere (and yes - there are millions, if not billions of those) and so we can predict the consequences of geoengineering and we have reasonable evidence for global warming
We don't need to know what all the little feedback mechanisms are if 1) we can determine their combined effect or 2) we can determine what the large ones are. Your argument (again) amounts to "we don't know what all the mechanisms by which cells maintain homeostasis, therefore eating lots of salt can't raise your blood pressure. Similarly drinking gallons of water couldn't possibly kill you." But, of course, we do know that salt will raise your blood pressure and drinking too much water will kill you, because we know the dominant mechanisms involved.
So, no, bringing up feedback mechanisms didn't make you look smart. It made you look under-educated.
It was a guaranteed loan. The feds weren't paying any interest. The feds guaranteed the principle, which meant there was less risk for the bank than a car loan. The interest rate was set by Congress, and the Congress was hired by the banks, who were not required to participate. That didn't stop them from bitching about how unfair it was having to live with a measly 8% on a no risk investment.
Anytime man messes with this stuff you can bet there will un-intended consequences.
You mean messes with climate by doing things like this? Or messing with climate like we do every day?
Nope, it's just 1.7C cooler.
I'm heading down to the party supply store to buy 20 balloons so I can try it out.
Is anyone else having "Highlander II" flashbacks?
Unfortunately, in every model I've run, temperatures continue to rise well after all the people are dead.
We don't know the consequences of dumping billions of tonnes of carbon emissions into our atmosphere
I don't know where you've been hiding for the last 20 years, but yes, we do know. Unfortunately, there's no brick wall that will tell us "stop or die." If we do hit a brick wall, it will just tell us "die."
On the other hand we don't know much about chemically altering our upper atmosphere to reflect energy away.
Well, there we agree. It's stupid to do this unless the consequences of not doing it are horrific (as in several billion dead) and we're reasonably sure it will help. This wouldn't do anything for acidification of the oceans which is the effect of our carbon emissions that could potentially decimate us in the near term.
Although, if you will look, you will see that state subsidies for higher education have decreased drastically. You will also notice that while the demand for higher education has increased greatly, the supply has not gone up nearly as much, with the exception of for profit scam colleges.
But the Federally subsidized student loan is a subsidy: the interest rate is artificially low, it can go unpaid for decades.
Not always. My federally "subsidized" student loans were given to me at 8% at a time when the market rate for car loans was about half that. The only advantage was the deferred interest and payments. After I graduated, the thieves that purchased the loans tried to prevent me from consolidating the loans at a lower interest rate. I will be happy to see that bank go bust.
A lot of the money that comes in doesn't actually go to teaching, and the way to success in one's department is not to be a stellar teacher, it's to get published a lot.
If you're researching you get paid with grant money. If you're teaching, the university pays you. If you get a grant for $150,000. The university takes 20 to 40% off the top and uses it to pay for operation of the University and the department. It then uses your salary to hire a lecturer (usually much cheaper than a prof) and pockets the difference for University use.
The difference in tuition between the cheap public university and expensive private university I attended was that taxpayers payed most of my bill when I went to a cheap public university.
Maybe that was true a long time ago, but you'd be surprised how much the taxpayers don't contribute to public universities these days. Some are rebelling against legislative control. If the legislature is only providing 15% of the budget, why should it get 100% of the authority?
Traditional financing. You finance a car, a house, a TV, why not an education?
You obviously haven't tried to finance a car or house since 2008. Good luck. If you actually need the financing there's no chance in hell that you'll get it. Besides there's nothing for the banks to repossess when you finance an education, although the banks would be happy to repossess your labor if they could. How they long for the 1830s.
Subsidies inflate pricing.
So does lack of supply, reduced state support and increased population. How many more students does Harvard admit than it did 30 years ago? How many more applications does it get? Same goes for just about every place else. University of Wisconsin, a moderately large midwestern public university, currently enrolls 42,000 (undergrad+grad). Thirty years ago it enrolled about 42,000. Today the state covers about 20% of the University's budget. Thirty years ago it covered about 80% of the University's budget.
So why are tuitions rising?
A corporation has no power to dictate your life unless it coerces a government that is willing to do so.
That's hilarious and silly. Do you think your creditors need the government to help them wreck your life? Do you think the government controls the banks rather than the other way around? He who has the gold rules.
Corporations don't give a damn about the economy. They only give a damn about their profits. If they can make a bigger profit by causing economic chaos they will.
Do you really think this? Do you think that Bill Gates could say "so-and-so must no longer eat" and could pull it off?
Not Bill Gates. But VISA, Mastercard, the banks and PayPal are doing a pretty good job of starving Wikileaks while simultaneously depriving you of your economic and free speech rights. How long would you survive if they decided you needed to be economically isolated?
They exist, impervious in our society, simply because we lack the money to oppose them.
FTFY.