It seems that the idea is to use messenger RNA to get some cells to start producing signature protiens (e.g. the "N1" and "H1" parts of, say N1H1) so that the immune system will remain primed to combat whichever protiens those are.
The dangers I see are:
How will these protiens exit those cells?
How will the selection of cells be controlled and moderated?
Will this "burn up" white blood cells, causing them to wear out faster than normal. I know that one of the current anti-aging things being investigated is a way to purge the body of these used-up cells via complex filtration. So we "know", for small values of knowing, that the accumulation of these used-up cells is bad for us. I think increased arterial plaque is one of the direct results. (this is not my area).
We know that citokine (spelling?) storms can cause some diseases to harm the "healthy", which is part of why the spanish flu really tagged fit men in their twenties. So would such a self-continuing response to some protien make such storms more likely?
What if the cell that starts spewing this protien becomes cancerous?
In short, the doability isn't that remote, but the potential badness isn't that constrained. So the "should we" conversation is kind of more important than the "can we".
But in no case is the eternal vaccination "contageous" or "shedable".../sigh.
I used 90% as a stable (oversimplified) value. The actual numbers depend on real math I didn't present (and I don't even know how to format in a slashdot posting) and in which I am not going to claim any expertese at all. The real numbers are like 1-(1/R0) where R0 is the number of people one person is likely to be able to infect. The real numbers for any disease get all differential and such once you bring in efficacy and real immunity. The real numbers are up there in the ninety-or-so for most every well understood disease to date for which we have a vaccine if I understand all that I have read.
In the century plus sinc vaccination was discoverd -- you do know vaccination is a natural process that was discoverd not invented right -- there have easily been FIBE BILLION vaccinations administered world wide.
I'd say that there are hundreds of times _less_ active component protiens in the modern vaccination schedule as compared to the bulk of those done when I was getting those scheduled vaccinations back in the sixties.
I'd say that there is a negative correlation between autism and the contents of vaccines since autism rates are on the rise while vaccinations are getting milder and weaker in content and are being spread out over a longer period of time.
I would strongly suggest that someone with an agenda and a book to seel you, or a set of homeopathic remedies to bring to market, tossed together the phrase "neuroimmune disfunction" to lend an air of credibility to their fear mongering and general scam.
I'd assay that you are more likely to actuall get cash from that Nigerian Prince In Exile than to suffer "neuroimmune disfunction".
I'd wager you, for presenting this idea, have no idea what the study if immunology is about, nor the first bit of what this medical discipline has taught us in the fist-full of decades it has been studied as a separate discipline.
I'd also bet that you are immune to any argument that doesn't support the piss-poor health care discisions you have made for yourself and family.
And I go so far as to posit that you don't know the difference between anecdote and evidence.
So take your pusdo-scientific meta-jargon and go away before you get someone killed.
Citing "Natrual News", which also carries bigfoot sightings and the most cracked-of-pot theories as fact is the Goodwin of health arguments. Nothing on that site is true or accurate as near as I can figure. You might as well cite something you heard in the girl's locker room in junior high as "peer reviewed".
That you beleive or agree with anything on "natural news" is proof that you have disavowed all of science in favor of the four humors and blood-letting.
Since I am _not_ in the studied and approved demographic, I would require you fund my injection as part of a rational and scientific study with control group(s) and proper blinds. But if you got the cash, I am down for participation.
Meanwhile I would not hesitate a heartbeat in recommending the vaccine for the young females, or even the young males, in my life.
I've had HPV and it sucks donkey balls. I've had family members die of cancer. I've read the risk papers enought to know which is the best risk.
Please tell me where to have Johns Hopkins or a similar medical institution capable of proper scientific research send the paperwork for the study grant you propose.
Oh, you were proposing it be done "off lable"... e.g. as an uncontrolled sample trial of one? What would that prove beyond your complete failure to understand the first principles of science?
Since vaccines don't conferr "immunity" they conferr "resistance", herd immunity is actually more than just about Fred.
If you are vaccintated against Anthrax, the white powder doesn't flee the room when you enter, nor does it bounce off your skin. The Anthrax enters your system and your system fights with it. In effective vaccination you are pre-armed to fight the disease off before it becomes fully contageous and, more importantly, before it can become fully harmful and do significant damage to your body and its subsystems.
So lets say there is this disease and everone in a classroom is vaccinated against it, but a substitute teacher brings it into the classroom by teaching a single day durring the communicable phase. All the kids get "a little sick" after suffering one exposure. In effect none of the kids get meaningfully sick, their exposure results in a "sub clinical" illness.
Now lets say that the vaccine is 95% effective. So in a class of twenty kids, one has received no real benefit of from the vaccination. The susbstitute provides one exposure. The one child gets sick and, for ease of numbers, is contageous for three days before being weithdrawn from school. Now each of the ninteen other students was exposed to the disease four times.
Remember that each exposure is a strain on the immune system. There is a small chance that a second child will get sick.
Now lets add one completely unvaccinated child. There is now the substitute and two children who get sick. This is a total of seven exposures to the disease. There each of the vaccinated children is now seven times more likely for their exposure to become intense enough for the disease to become symptomatic and contageous.
Now assume that the unvaccinated child has unvaccinated siblings. That family becomes a hotspot. All the kids get sick. Each kid returns to school and mabye one adds an exposure or three to just one more of the kids in that class. That child is now ten times more likely to become symptomatically sick. Which, should it happen, would cause another three exposures to the entire class.
So put two unvaccinated children in the class,and have a 95% efficacy there is a good chance that one more child will be unprotected and the class will end up with a mortality rate more than the 15% represented by the unprotected kids. 30%, 80% or even 100% normal morbidity (clinical infections with a typical spread for results of disease X) becomes the expected result set.
This is the kind of thing where the anti-vaxxers then see statistics (that they don't understand) that demonstrates that "during such-and-such outbreak most of the overcome were vaccinated" and then conclude that vaccination is unsafe because "most of those overcome were vaccinated." Sure. That is mathematically certian in any community where most people are vaccinated. This is because the distribution is over "most of the people". Doh.
The magic number for herd immunity is about 90 percent. Above ninety percent the herd is effectively immune, below ninety, well "not so much". So a community wide vaccination is only as good as its weakest local links. Given that vaccination is never 100% effective, you need to get nearly 100% vaccinated to become protected above the 90% needed for the herd.
Small, concentrated communities of unvacinated persons act as echo chambers, or detonation zones, so lets say a small community has ten anti-vaxx famlies that all like to get together at the same "health center" or church... Whoops...
Having unvaccinated people in your midst is like inviting suicide bombers to your market place. They are primed, ready to explode with some disease if they get exposed themselves, and they will take out the vaccinated as well. Most of the people killed by terrorists are not terrorists so it is unsafe to not be a terrorist! That's anti-vaxx logic turned into highest hyperbole. But its not terribly wrong.
This video below is narrated by a jackass, but it will give you a nice visual verson of this topic:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRclbfK5q08 Sorry for his tone, but the math is right, if super-simplified. The "non-classroom" version is kind of funny for its vitriol, but I didn't post that here.
That isn't even a citation. They have recently said that the Flu Vaccine (and only that one vaccine) is nowhere near as effective in the very young and very old as was originally thought. With those numbers ranging from only fifty-something (injected) to eight-nine percent (nasal spray) efficacy in those groups. This makes it _more_ important that the median age (not very young or very old) get the vaccine as that protects the young and old from initial exposure more effectively than the direct applicaiton to the extremes.
That doesn't change the theory of vaccination at all.
It also doesn't say "getting a flu shot is bad".
It just says "we need to do better", which is kind of the refrain of science. We always need to do better.
But anybody who takes one case, particularly as adjuged by an actor or public figure, as "credible science" is not qualified to judged the credibility of science.
So the problem is that, in the same way that I wouldn't buy meat from a butcher who took cleanleness advice from a twelth century book on procedures for health as published in paris of the time, I don't tend to beleive people who MISTtake ANECDOTES as SCIENCE.
If you are going to beleive McCarthy as a true case, but you aren't going to balance it against the TWO to FIVE BILLION CASES of complicaiton-free vaccination that have happened since the discovery of vaccination, then you are demonstrated to automatically be No Sane Judge Of Science.
In short, anybody who beleives Jenny DESPITE the Evidence that PROVES JENNY UTTERLY WRONG, is yes, automatically anti science.
Anti-Vaccination people are Medical Flat Earthers.
Think it through. (I am absolutely pro-vaccine BTW.) The Varicella Zoster lives in your body. You _must_ get chicken pox in order to later get shingles. you don't just "catch shingles". This means that a virus (like zoster) can hang out in your body while your body "forgets" its immune response.
So this theoretical self-recurring "vaccination" could easily have unintended consequences that wouldn't be knownt until the second or Nth recurrance.
And every viral recuuance destroys or damages tissue. The sucky thing about shingles is not that it happens, but that the nerve it errupts out of can become perminantly inflamed.
So the model virus for the idea is kind of a strong example of why the idea might just suck donkey balls. The only way to really test such a long-lasting recurrent phenomonia for a whole lifetime. Think of how long the average hip replacement or surgical mesh was in a body before they started to go bad and people discovered the unintended consequences. And those are just innert physical objects.
We should be _very_ suspicious of anything "active" that we intend to engineer and put into our bodies as effective viral symbiotes. We haven't even gotten "piece of steel", let along "heart valve", right yet. Self replicating virus is a little ambitious just now.
"Opinion" is not science. Period. Science is a process intended to discount opinion and selection bias as much as possible.
Treating a question of science as if it's a matter of opinon is the _definitoin_ of "anti scientific".
As far as a "more gradual vaccination schedule" there is no reason to beleive it woudl be any better. You would deliver the same atteunated pahtogens, you would deliver _more_ secondary material that people find so disturbing. More trips to the doctor. More injections. More trauma to the child for having to go to the doctor and get injected.
Meanwhile in my lifetime alone, the number of elements in the vaccination schedule (counting by number of protiens and adjunctavants) has _fallen_ by two full orders of magnitued. So there are more shots that contain fewer protiens by hundreds of times.
Deciding to take your child and make it an experimental subset of _one_ in an uncontrolled setting with no oversight is (wait for it) _unscientific_, again by defintion. It just makes you feel special because you bought into the bullshit. It makes you feel like you found "a middle ground"... But settling for a middle ground is not good nor scientific. It's blatant feel-good bull crap.
Calling "beleiving a hundred years of research" "blindly following" isn't intellectually honest.
What we are saying is that NO _SCIENTISTS_ SUPPORT B, and every SCIENTIFIC STUDY says B IS WRONG, which makes supporters of B fools if they think "science" is a good thing.
The burden of proof is on the descenters, and most desenters I have heard don't know the difference between "an adverse reaction" and "an adverse report", and will say that these three cases of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" ANECDOTES are "proof" that the fully natural process of vaccination (it was discovered not invented) that has been done _BILLIONS_ of times in the last fifty years, were all happy accidental success stories that these three actors can prove wrong because its what they truely feel AS ACTORS...
The entire "anti vaccinaion" movement is about as correct and responsive as the "pro annorexia" movement. It's based on misunderstandings _deliberately_ peddled to the ignorant by the evil. None of which is science.
The pivotal techniques are about as sane as Jan Brady yelling "Exact Words Marcia!!!"
The problme is tha the "anti-vaxx movement" doesn't want actual and reliable information, they want people who will tell them they are "just fine and smart for deciding against proof"
Put simply, you yourself know personally, or know of _billions_ _of_ _poeple_ who were vaccinated and sufferend no ill effects. If even a tiny fraction of what was said against vaccination were true, someone would have had to hide a chain of fifty million body bags and about 100 million "vaccine injuries" or whatever. It just _didn't_ happen.
The classic "I'll just go elsewhere for reliable informaton" is classic avoidance. You prove the "anti science" part true right there.
You don't have to be "unbiased" if the facts are already biased. You don't have to service the stupid, you just have to keep them and their kids away from yours so your's dont suffer from their stupidity. There is no honor or reason to treat one persons stupidity as "just as valid" as everbody elses' reasoned fact.
I've heard of all those "proud parents of unvaccinated children", well "pride goeth before distruction"... We are just trying to keep that distruciton at bey for as long as possible.
The novel snowcrash profides prior art to all the wearable computer glasses/goggles thing. I know I have read the same thing in other books too, they just don't come to mind.
The whole patent thing is just so screwed up. If the guy who developed the waterbed was denied patent because of Stanger in a Strange Land, then the system as written already disallowed all this crap.
I'm glad you can tell I am not a lawyer. I forgot to mention it./doh
Renumeration is not the be-all nor end-all of value.
I discuss the concept of value outside of monetary value. Again you miss the part where Value != Money, even though you leave it as the actual subject line.
I can tell you are not a laywer, but even you should know that "value" doesn't mean "money". For instance, everything that is valuable that is not money, such as the things one trades money for, are themselves valuable.
So too are intangables valuable. For instance, you pay for the right (within limits) to determin who is allowed to access the contents of your house, apartment, and/or other real property. This is the same as how one might buy a mambership to a club so that one receives the right to enter the premises of owned by that club.
So a copyright is "valuable" as it allows the owner of that right to say how many of that thing may be brought into existence and under what circumstances.
When someone brings more of those things into existence than the owner wishes to allow, or does so in a way the owner doesn't wish to allow, they owners valuable right is diminished by misuse.
Much the way I might diminsih the value of any of your properties by misuse (like by ruining your carpet or driving your car into a ravine).
These are not difficult concepts, and many times as you grew to this age, you experienced a diminishment of yoru intangibles. Every time you ever said "That's Not Fair" and no cash was involved, you experienced circumstantial devaluation enough to prompt outcry.
The U.S. ignored virtually all foreign copyrights and trademarks until it became in our best interests for other countries to honor ours.
Such is the way of development. One protects ones own and diminishes others until one is a large player that suddenly doesn't want ot be diminished by others.
Business and Economy are war, and all is fair in love and war.
So since the "root kit" involves some other vector letting the intruder append something to rc.local (or somehow pivot on whether rc.local ends with an "exit 0") the root kit ins't a root kit but a post-root-promotion exploit.
That's not the way it works, you have to do this instead.
No, you do this.
Yea, but that doesn't work because that's not how it works.
I read the manual, this is what you are supposed to do.
You are all so cute when you are young. That's not how it actually works, the manual is wrong. That's how it was intended to work and kind of how it worked at first, but it never worked well like that, so that's not how it works any more. It works like this.
*sad* *face* *of* *disillusionment*.
Sorry. I don't own the vendor, I can't make them fix the manual.
Moral: knowing _when_ to doubt is an important life skill. Some don't doubt soon enough, and many doubt way too soon especially face-to-face. Caveat: People often mistake "jaded" for "experienced". Becomming jaded is the death of learning.
Being "old" and being "experienced" are different things. And many old people who jump from job to job do so while adroitly avoiding gaining any experience. These are to be found littering "startups" full of inexperienced managers.
Some get old by never leaving a company because it's safe no matter how much they suck at their job. These are found at hide-bound institutions full of ossified management.
Lots of us old fogies know both institutions for what they are and woudln't take the job. For instance if we say "MixedCase Literal".toLower() guy during our interview we would find a better offer.
Every job interview I go to wants me to harken back to comp-sci 099 and code a linked list. I learned long ago that linked lists are to be retrieved from libraries unless there is a serious and overwhelming need for something that is "very like a linked list but isn't one exactly".
They also want you to write it out on a white board, which is like attempting to sautee with screwdrivers on tinfoil over open flme.
Job interviews select against experience.
If you hire a 40+ year old based on his instant ability to scale back to 101 level programming, you likely didn't get a well-experienced programmer, you got a "good interviewee".
Low quality capacitors are known to go to crap rather quickly. As the capacitors die the filter circuits will "spread" the range of frequencies that will be accepted as valid signal. Timers dependent on capacitive charge will also get "slower" (e.g. take longer to reach the charging threshold and rigger the time event).
The sad truth is that modern electronics, particularly those built on the cheap or with poorly sourced components, just go stale on the shelf, and go stale faster when in use.
Since its a patent, then most printer manufactures are now incentivized _NOT_ to use this kind of scheme since it would cost them licensing money.
So this is actually probably a good thing.
Seriously, think about it, a printer maker now has to pay someone else if they want to keep you from printing a car or whatnot. But a printer that is _not_ so encumbered is not participating with the "patented invention".
So this is actually a tax on the printer maker for keeping you from printing whatever the heck you want. Those who just give you the printer and say "do as thou will" are not affected by this tax at all.
Once they "dual license" their shim then they are required under that licence to supply the source code for the blob otherwise the dual licence doesn't exist. If you say "I hearby license you this car but you can't have it" the license wouldn't really exist.
The _technical_ depth of the license enforcement mechanism is a single #define that triggers an #if in the header files. That is an easy enough thing to "circumvent" since it isn't exactlhy DRM.
Once they invoke the code, however, the cat is legally out of the bag.
This isn't about dirrivative code either. Don't think of the kernel using the driver here. This is a case of the driver wanting to use the kernel. In normal cases there is no distinction, but since NVidia has chosen to be all pick-and-chose about the relationship, the authors of the GPL only code have said "if you want to pick and chose this part, you have to play fair."
This entire thing could indeed be solved if NVidia fixed the license on their shit. But shoudl they do so, their most precious and holy IP would be disclosed the way it should always have been from the beginning.
IANAL and I suspect neither are you... By my understanding _none_ of this piviots on the dirrivitave work requirement.
The blob isn't really in questions so much, in and of itself it is fine. It isn't allowed to link with the kernel without being compatabily licensed. Think if it as "the blob isn't allowd to include the kernel" rather than "the kerne; isn't allowed to include the blob". The grey area comes because this is something the end user(s) do post distribution and the license only imposes duties on the distributor.
Because of the above loophole in the grey areas of the license (among others) the kernel creators "reserved" APIs for people who are not cheating via such means. Note that NVidia wants to let their "shim" have access to (e.g. use) the API code that is flagged "play nice or fark off" (e.g. GPL code only).
So having gotten by on a technicality, they want to have a larger, newly developed subset of the kernel included under the aegis of their technicality. The blob may stay as it is but it may not encroach beyond its little hole unless it comes clean.
Note that the new feature system (general use or GPL only designations) were added because of this sort of nonsense. So it's not like NVidia shouldn't have seen this comming. There is little point of them acting all surprised about it at this late date. They have been assuming that they woudl get a pass because "Linux needs them" but Linux doesn't _need_ anybody... Pride and the fall as it were.
That word "fork", it doesn't mean what you think it means...
This fork and forget behavior is allowed for BSD licensed bits, but not the GPL bits because the GPL doesn't let someone just make off with the goods like the BSD license does. So no, the Android peopld "can't fork and forget" the GPL.
The GPL _requires_ fair play. Thats why it is "better" in this case than BSD, because even after a fork you still have to play by the rules and the rules here are "you want DMA-BUF, you need to be GPL compliant." You have failed "forking 101". Your assertion is wrong.
"they have done it before"? Not wiht GPL ware they havn't, at least not where it involved the GPL'd bits like those at issue here.
NVidia has bad-citizen'd themselves into a corner here. Too bad. So sad. Bye bye.
no, you are exactly wrong. The linux community isn't asking Nvidia for anthing here.
To use your party analogy, Nvidia is Al Bundy trying to get invited back to the frat party but then trying to insist that if they wan't his old-man ass there the party better be Al Bundy theemed because Al Bundy is the popular kid in Al Bundy's mind. But the frat knows that he isn't all that, he's no fun at the party, he's a shoe salesman demanding extra access and free booze on the self-serving assumption that he'll be the life of the party.
There are a bunch of people who wan't him at the party maybe, but none of them are paying for the party nor do they own the house. The Frat has said "no special treatment for you" and this wierd fan base is yelling that without Al they won't come to the party.
The frat doesn't care and the whining Al Fans can go bite themselves. IF they wan't an Al party, they shoudl just go make their own.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that the idea is to use messenger RNA to get some cells to start producing signature protiens (e.g. the "N1" and "H1" parts of, say N1H1) so that the immune system will remain primed to combat whichever protiens those are.
The dangers I see are:
How will these protiens exit those cells?
How will the selection of cells be controlled and moderated?
Will this "burn up" white blood cells, causing them to wear out faster than normal. I know that one of the current anti-aging things being investigated is a way to purge the body of these used-up cells via complex filtration. So we "know", for small values of knowing, that the accumulation of these used-up cells is bad for us. I think increased arterial plaque is one of the direct results. (this is not my area).
We know that citokine (spelling?) storms can cause some diseases to harm the "healthy", which is part of why the spanish flu really tagged fit men in their twenties. So would such a self-continuing response to some protien make such storms more likely?
What if the cell that starts spewing this protien becomes cancerous?
In short, the doability isn't that remote, but the potential badness isn't that constrained. So the "should we" conversation is kind of more important than the "can we".
But in no case is the eternal vaccination "contageous" or "shedable"... /sigh.
I used 90% as a stable (oversimplified) value. The actual numbers depend on real math I didn't present (and I don't even know how to format in a slashdot posting) and in which I am not going to claim any expertese at all. The real numbers are like 1-(1/R0) where R0 is the number of people one person is likely to be able to infect. The real numbers for any disease get all differential and such once you bring in efficacy and real immunity. The real numbers are up there in the ninety-or-so for most every well understood disease to date for which we have a vaccine if I understand all that I have read.
In the century plus sinc vaccination was discoverd -- you do know vaccination is a natural process that was discoverd not invented right -- there have easily been FIBE BILLION vaccinations administered world wide.
I'd say that there are hundreds of times _less_ active component protiens in the modern vaccination schedule as compared to the bulk of those done when I was getting those scheduled vaccinations back in the sixties.
I'd say that there is a negative correlation between autism and the contents of vaccines since autism rates are on the rise while vaccinations are getting milder and weaker in content and are being spread out over a longer period of time.
I would strongly suggest that someone with an agenda and a book to seel you, or a set of homeopathic remedies to bring to market, tossed together the phrase "neuroimmune disfunction" to lend an air of credibility to their fear mongering and general scam.
I'd assay that you are more likely to actuall get cash from that Nigerian Prince In Exile than to suffer "neuroimmune disfunction".
I'd wager you, for presenting this idea, have no idea what the study if immunology is about, nor the first bit of what this medical discipline has taught us in the fist-full of decades it has been studied as a separate discipline.
I'd also bet that you are immune to any argument that doesn't support the piss-poor health care discisions you have made for yourself and family.
And I go so far as to posit that you don't know the difference between anecdote and evidence.
So take your pusdo-scientific meta-jargon and go away before you get someone killed.
Citing "Natrual News", which also carries bigfoot sightings and the most cracked-of-pot theories as fact is the Goodwin of health arguments. Nothing on that site is true or accurate as near as I can figure. You might as well cite something you heard in the girl's locker room in junior high as "peer reviewed".
That you beleive or agree with anything on "natural news" is proof that you have disavowed all of science in favor of the four humors and blood-letting.
Since I am _not_ in the studied and approved demographic, I would require you fund my injection as part of a rational and scientific study with control group(s) and proper blinds. But if you got the cash, I am down for participation.
Meanwhile I would not hesitate a heartbeat in recommending the vaccine for the young females, or even the young males, in my life.
I've had HPV and it sucks donkey balls. I've had family members die of cancer. I've read the risk papers enought to know which is the best risk.
Please tell me where to have Johns Hopkins or a similar medical institution capable of proper scientific research send the paperwork for the study grant you propose.
Oh, you were proposing it be done "off lable"... e.g. as an uncontrolled sample trial of one? What would that prove beyond your complete failure to understand the first principles of science?
Since vaccines don't conferr "immunity" they conferr "resistance", herd immunity is actually more than just about Fred.
If you are vaccintated against Anthrax, the white powder doesn't flee the room when you enter, nor does it bounce off your skin. The Anthrax enters your system and your system fights with it. In effective vaccination you are pre-armed to fight the disease off before it becomes fully contageous and, more importantly, before it can become fully harmful and do significant damage to your body and its subsystems.
So lets say there is this disease and everone in a classroom is vaccinated against it, but a substitute teacher brings it into the classroom by teaching a single day durring the communicable phase. All the kids get "a little sick" after suffering one exposure. In effect none of the kids get meaningfully sick, their exposure results in a "sub clinical" illness.
Now lets say that the vaccine is 95% effective. So in a class of twenty kids, one has received no real benefit of from the vaccination. The susbstitute provides one exposure. The one child gets sick and, for ease of numbers, is contageous for three days before being weithdrawn from school. Now each of the ninteen other students was exposed to the disease four times.
Remember that each exposure is a strain on the immune system. There is a small chance that a second child will get sick.
Now lets add one completely unvaccinated child. There is now the substitute and two children who get sick. This is a total of seven exposures to the disease. There each of the vaccinated children is now seven times more likely for their exposure to become intense enough for the disease to become symptomatic and contageous.
Now assume that the unvaccinated child has unvaccinated siblings. That family becomes a hotspot. All the kids get sick. Each kid returns to school and mabye one adds an exposure or three to just one more of the kids in that class. That child is now ten times more likely to become symptomatically sick. Which, should it happen, would cause another three exposures to the entire class.
So put two unvaccinated children in the class,and have a 95% efficacy there is a good chance that one more child will be unprotected and the class will end up with a mortality rate more than the 15% represented by the unprotected kids. 30%, 80% or even 100% normal morbidity (clinical infections with a typical spread for results of disease X) becomes the expected result set.
This is the kind of thing where the anti-vaxxers then see statistics (that they don't understand) that demonstrates that "during such-and-such outbreak most of the overcome were vaccinated" and then conclude that vaccination is unsafe because "most of those overcome were vaccinated." Sure. That is mathematically certian in any community where most people are vaccinated. This is because the distribution is over "most of the people". Doh.
The magic number for herd immunity is about 90 percent. Above ninety percent the herd is effectively immune, below ninety, well "not so much". So a community wide vaccination is only as good as its weakest local links. Given that vaccination is never 100% effective, you need to get nearly 100% vaccinated to become protected above the 90% needed for the herd.
Small, concentrated communities of unvacinated persons act as echo chambers, or detonation zones, so lets say a small community has ten anti-vaxx famlies that all like to get together at the same "health center" or church... Whoops...
Having unvaccinated people in your midst is like inviting suicide bombers to your market place. They are primed, ready to explode with some disease if they get exposed themselves, and they will take out the vaccinated as well. Most of the people killed by terrorists are not terrorists so it is unsafe to not be a terrorist! That's anti-vaxx logic turned into highest hyperbole. But its not terribly wrong.
This video below is narrated by a jackass, but it will give you a nice visual verson of this topic:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRclbfK5q08
Sorry for his tone, but the math is right, if super-simplified. The "non-classroom" version is kind of funny for its vitriol, but I didn't post that here.
That isn't even a citation. They have recently said that the Flu Vaccine (and only that one vaccine) is nowhere near as effective in the very young and very old as was originally thought. With those numbers ranging from only fifty-something (injected) to eight-nine percent (nasal spray) efficacy in those groups. This makes it _more_ important that the median age (not very young or very old) get the vaccine as that protects the young and old from initial exposure more effectively than the direct applicaiton to the extremes.
That doesn't change the theory of vaccination at all.
It also doesn't say "getting a flu shot is bad".
It just says "we need to do better", which is kind of the refrain of science. We always need to do better.
But anybody who takes one case, particularly as adjuged by an actor or public figure, as "credible science" is not qualified to judged the credibility of science.
So the problem is that, in the same way that I wouldn't buy meat from a butcher who took cleanleness advice from a twelth century book on procedures for health as published in paris of the time, I don't tend to beleive people who MISTtake ANECDOTES as SCIENCE.
If you are going to beleive McCarthy as a true case, but you aren't going to balance it against the TWO to FIVE BILLION CASES of complicaiton-free vaccination that have happened since the discovery of vaccination, then you are demonstrated to automatically be No Sane Judge Of Science.
In short, anybody who beleives Jenny DESPITE the Evidence that PROVES JENNY UTTERLY WRONG, is yes, automatically anti science.
Anti-Vaccination people are Medical Flat Earthers.
Think it through. (I am absolutely pro-vaccine BTW.) The Varicella Zoster lives in your body. You _must_ get chicken pox in order to later get shingles. you don't just "catch shingles". This means that a virus (like zoster) can hang out in your body while your body "forgets" its immune response.
So this theoretical self-recurring "vaccination" could easily have unintended consequences that wouldn't be knownt until the second or Nth recurrance.
And every viral recuuance destroys or damages tissue. The sucky thing about shingles is not that it happens, but that the nerve it errupts out of can become perminantly inflamed.
So the model virus for the idea is kind of a strong example of why the idea might just suck donkey balls. The only way to really test such a long-lasting recurrent phenomonia for a whole lifetime. Think of how long the average hip replacement or surgical mesh was in a body before they started to go bad and people discovered the unintended consequences. And those are just innert physical objects.
We should be _very_ suspicious of anything "active" that we intend to engineer and put into our bodies as effective viral symbiotes. We haven't even gotten "piece of steel", let along "heart valve", right yet. Self replicating virus is a little ambitious just now.
"Opinion" is not science. Period. Science is a process intended to discount opinion and selection bias as much as possible.
Treating a question of science as if it's a matter of opinon is the _definitoin_ of "anti scientific".
As far as a "more gradual vaccination schedule" there is no reason to beleive it woudl be any better. You would deliver the same atteunated pahtogens, you would deliver _more_ secondary material that people find so disturbing. More trips to the doctor. More injections. More trauma to the child for having to go to the doctor and get injected.
Meanwhile in my lifetime alone, the number of elements in the vaccination schedule (counting by number of protiens and adjunctavants) has _fallen_ by two full orders of magnitued. So there are more shots that contain fewer protiens by hundreds of times.
Deciding to take your child and make it an experimental subset of _one_ in an uncontrolled setting with no oversight is (wait for it) _unscientific_, again by defintion. It just makes you feel special because you bought into the bullshit. It makes you feel like you found "a middle ground"... But settling for a middle ground is not good nor scientific. It's blatant feel-good bull crap.
Calling "beleiving a hundred years of research" "blindly following" isn't intellectually honest.
What we are saying is that NO _SCIENTISTS_ SUPPORT B, and every SCIENTIFIC STUDY says B IS WRONG, which makes supporters of B fools if they think "science" is a good thing.
The burden of proof is on the descenters, and most desenters I have heard don't know the difference between "an adverse reaction" and "an adverse report", and will say that these three cases of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" ANECDOTES are "proof" that the fully natural process of vaccination (it was discovered not invented) that has been done _BILLIONS_ of times in the last fifty years, were all happy accidental success stories that these three actors can prove wrong because its what they truely feel AS ACTORS...
The entire "anti vaccinaion" movement is about as correct and responsive as the "pro annorexia" movement. It's based on misunderstandings _deliberately_ peddled to the ignorant by the evil. None of which is science.
The pivotal techniques are about as sane as Jan Brady yelling "Exact Words Marcia!!!"
The problme is tha the "anti-vaxx movement" doesn't want actual and reliable information, they want people who will tell them they are "just fine and smart for deciding against proof"
Put simply, you yourself know personally, or know of _billions_ _of_ _poeple_ who were vaccinated and sufferend no ill effects. If even a tiny fraction of what was said against vaccination were true, someone would have had to hide a chain of fifty million body bags and about 100 million "vaccine injuries" or whatever. It just _didn't_ happen.
The classic "I'll just go elsewhere for reliable informaton" is classic avoidance. You prove the "anti science" part true right there.
You don't have to be "unbiased" if the facts are already biased. You don't have to service the stupid, you just have to keep them and their kids away from yours so your's dont suffer from their stupidity. There is no honor or reason to treat one persons stupidity as "just as valid" as everbody elses' reasoned fact.
I've heard of all those "proud parents of unvaccinated children", well "pride goeth before distruction"... We are just trying to keep that distruciton at bey for as long as possible.
The novel snowcrash profides prior art to all the wearable computer glasses/goggles thing. I know I have read the same thing in other books too, they just don't come to mind.
The whole patent thing is just so screwed up. If the guy who developed the waterbed was denied patent because of Stanger in a Strange Land, then the system as written already disallowed all this crap.
But that's just reason and logic.
I'm glad you can tell I am not a lawyer. I forgot to mention it. /doh
Renumeration is not the be-all nor end-all of value.
I discuss the concept of value outside of monetary value. Again you miss the part where Value != Money, even though you leave it as the actual subject line.
I can tell you are not a laywer, but even you should know that "value" doesn't mean "money". For instance, everything that is valuable that is not money, such as the things one trades money for, are themselves valuable.
So too are intangables valuable. For instance, you pay for the right (within limits) to determin who is allowed to access the contents of your house, apartment, and/or other real property. This is the same as how one might buy a mambership to a club so that one receives the right to enter the premises of owned by that club.
So a copyright is "valuable" as it allows the owner of that right to say how many of that thing may be brought into existence and under what circumstances.
When someone brings more of those things into existence than the owner wishes to allow, or does so in a way the owner doesn't wish to allow, they owners valuable right is diminished by misuse.
Much the way I might diminsih the value of any of your properties by misuse (like by ruining your carpet or driving your car into a ravine).
These are not difficult concepts, and many times as you grew to this age, you experienced a diminishment of yoru intangibles. Every time you ever said "That's Not Fair" and no cash was involved, you experienced circumstantial devaluation enough to prompt outcry.
The U.S. ignored virtually all foreign copyrights and trademarks until it became in our best interests for other countries to honor ours.
Such is the way of development. One protects ones own and diminishes others until one is a large player that suddenly doesn't want ot be diminished by others.
Business and Economy are war, and all is fair in love and war.
So since the "root kit" involves some other vector letting the intruder append something to rc.local (or somehow pivot on whether rc.local ends with an "exit 0") the root kit ins't a root kit but a post-root-promotion exploit.
This doesn't work.
That's not the way it works, you have to do this instead.
No, you do this.
Yea, but that doesn't work because that's not how it works.
I read the manual, this is what you are supposed to do.
You are all so cute when you are young. That's not how it actually works, the manual is wrong. That's how it was intended to work and kind of how it worked at first, but it never worked well like that, so that's not how it works any more. It works like this.
*sad* *face* *of* *disillusionment*.
Sorry. I don't own the vendor, I can't make them fix the manual.
Moral: knowing _when_ to doubt is an important life skill. Some don't doubt soon enough, and many doubt way too soon especially face-to-face.
Caveat: People often mistake "jaded" for "experienced". Becomming jaded is the death of learning.
See my post below by two or so.
Being "old" and being "experienced" are different things. And many old people who jump from job to job do so while adroitly avoiding gaining any experience. These are to be found littering "startups" full of inexperienced managers.
Some get old by never leaving a company because it's safe no matter how much they suck at their job. These are found at hide-bound institutions full of ossified management.
Lots of us old fogies know both institutions for what they are and woudln't take the job. For instance if we say "MixedCase Literal".toLower() guy during our interview we would find a better offer.
Every job interview I go to wants me to harken back to comp-sci 099 and code a linked list. I learned long ago that linked lists are to be retrieved from libraries unless there is a serious and overwhelming need for something that is "very like a linked list but isn't one exactly".
They also want you to write it out on a white board, which is like attempting to sautee with screwdrivers on tinfoil over open flme.
Job interviews select against experience.
If you hire a 40+ year old based on his instant ability to scale back to 101 level programming, you likely didn't get a well-experienced programmer, you got a "good interviewee".
Low quality capacitors are known to go to crap rather quickly. As the capacitors die the filter circuits will "spread" the range of frequencies that will be accepted as valid signal. Timers dependent on capacitive charge will also get "slower" (e.g. take longer to reach the charging threshold and rigger the time event).
The sad truth is that modern electronics, particularly those built on the cheap or with poorly sourced components, just go stale on the shelf, and go stale faster when in use.
Since its a patent, then most printer manufactures are now incentivized _NOT_ to use this kind of scheme since it would cost them licensing money.
So this is actually probably a good thing.
Seriously, think about it, a printer maker now has to pay someone else if they want to keep you from printing a car or whatnot. But a printer that is _not_ so encumbered is not participating with the "patented invention".
So this is actually a tax on the printer maker for keeping you from printing whatever the heck you want. Those who just give you the printer and say "do as thou will" are not affected by this tax at all.
Go Us!
Once they "dual license" their shim then they are required under that licence to supply the source code for the blob otherwise the dual licence doesn't exist. If you say "I hearby license you this car but you can't have it" the license wouldn't really exist.
The _technical_ depth of the license enforcement mechanism is a single #define that triggers an #if in the header files. That is an easy enough thing to "circumvent" since it isn't exactlhy DRM.
Once they invoke the code, however, the cat is legally out of the bag.
This isn't about dirrivative code either. Don't think of the kernel using the driver here. This is a case of the driver wanting to use the kernel. In normal cases there is no distinction, but since NVidia has chosen to be all pick-and-chose about the relationship, the authors of the GPL only code have said "if you want to pick and chose this part, you have to play fair."
This entire thing could indeed be solved if NVidia fixed the license on their shit. But shoudl they do so, their most precious and holy IP would be disclosed the way it should always have been from the beginning.
IANAL and I suspect neither are you... By my understanding _none_ of this piviots on the dirrivitave work requirement.
The blob isn't really in questions so much, in and of itself it is fine. It isn't allowed to link with the kernel without being compatabily licensed. Think if it as "the blob isn't allowd to include the kernel" rather than "the kerne; isn't allowed to include the blob". The grey area comes because this is something the end user(s) do post distribution and the license only imposes duties on the distributor.
Because of the above loophole in the grey areas of the license (among others) the kernel creators "reserved" APIs for people who are not cheating via such means. Note that NVidia wants to let their "shim" have access to (e.g. use) the API code that is flagged "play nice or fark off" (e.g. GPL code only).
So having gotten by on a technicality, they want to have a larger, newly developed subset of the kernel included under the aegis of their technicality. The blob may stay as it is but it may not encroach beyond its little hole unless it comes clean.
Note that the new feature system (general use or GPL only designations) were added because of this sort of nonsense. So it's not like NVidia shouldn't have seen this comming. There is little point of them acting all surprised about it at this late date. They have been assuming that they woudl get a pass because "Linux needs them" but Linux doesn't _need_ anybody... Pride and the fall as it were.
That word "fork", it doesn't mean what you think it means...
This fork and forget behavior is allowed for BSD licensed bits, but not the GPL bits because the GPL doesn't let someone just make off with the goods like the BSD license does. So no, the Android peopld "can't fork and forget" the GPL.
The GPL _requires_ fair play. Thats why it is "better" in this case than BSD, because even after a fork you still have to play by the rules and the rules here are "you want DMA-BUF, you need to be GPL compliant." You have failed "forking 101". Your assertion is wrong.
"they have done it before"? Not wiht GPL ware they havn't, at least not where it involved the GPL'd bits like those at issue here.
NVidia has bad-citizen'd themselves into a corner here. Too bad. So sad. Bye bye.
no, you are exactly wrong. The linux community isn't asking Nvidia for anthing here.
To use your party analogy, Nvidia is Al Bundy trying to get invited back to the frat party but then trying to insist that if they wan't his old-man ass there the party better be Al Bundy theemed because Al Bundy is the popular kid in Al Bundy's mind. But the frat knows that he isn't all that, he's no fun at the party, he's a shoe salesman demanding extra access and free booze on the self-serving assumption that he'll be the life of the party.
There are a bunch of people who wan't him at the party maybe, but none of them are paying for the party nor do they own the house. The Frat has said "no special treatment for you" and this wierd fan base is yelling that without Al they won't come to the party.
The frat doesn't care and the whining Al Fans can go bite themselves. IF they wan't an Al party, they shoudl just go make their own.