"This guy was talking about one year, there was an old boy who was sitting outside the main gate with a cane pole with a watermelon on the end of the line, and he had a big sign that said "Fishing for Niggers""
As an Indiana native* and 500 connoisseur myself, I sincerely apologize on behalf of the reasonable fans out there. I'm afraid that one byproduct of having over a quarter-million people from Indiana and beyond getting together is that you do get some idiots in the bunch. I regret that this reflected poorly on the 500 and the Hoosier State as a whole. For what it's worth, the last time I was there, sitting out under the gorgeous son, drinking cheap beer with friends of mine from, literally, all over the globe, I had a guy from South Dakota complement me on the magnificent display IMS puts on each year for the 500, and made a point of observing how helpful and pleasant everyone was. It made me proud to be a Hoosier.
* - I now live in San Francisco and find it altogether more desirable:)
Ubuntu has been the flavor of the month for like two and a half years now. I'd say they're safely past the initial buzz and into something more durable.
"enforceable trademark on their logo for 300 years"
Apologies. I should say their logo dates back 300 years -- they do still have a trademark on it, although I do not know when the trademark was acquired by them. Suffice it to say that having a trademark on such things in perpetuity (at least as long as you have the wherewithal to fight for it in court) seems not too far off base. At least within reason, and yes, I think you're fine to doubt the enforceability of a AIM trademark on another similar product whose name happens to involve the a-i-m string. Though the Lindows-Windows fiasco seems to back up the idea that rhyming with a trademark may be a bad deal.
But they're not talking about copyrights. They're talking about trademarks. You think any company with an enforceable brand should be forced to abandon that brand on account of arbitrary expiration dates? Twinings, the British tea company, has had an enforceable trademark on their logo for 300 years. Nobody really has legitimate grounds to suggest that's not an appropriate thing.
(FWIW, I wholeheartedly agree with you on the issue of copyright... but let's not go getting ourselves confused).
You're trying to emulate a creole in your comment, not a pidgin.
Pidgins are languages of necessity, created out of a population of native speakers of two languages in close contact trying to, or being forced to, interact with one another. Over time, if children subsume this pidgin through native language acquisition processes and start speaking it among themselves, it can become a creole, like what you're emulating in your comment above.
Pidgin is a particularly appropriate renaming for this project, because it does take several mutually unintelligible "languages" (i.e., IM protocols) and gives them a common interface through which to work. Really, I think it's a pretty stellar choice for the name.
In most European countries the comma is used as the decimal separator. Three thousand dollar and twenty-five cents would be $3.000,25 (not $3,000.25 you might be used to). In a locale that does this Excel uses the semi-colon too.
That's it. I'm not using Open Office until someone in their organization can explain to me why they hate America.
Hell, Vista has all those incompatibilities? I remember when we made a fair amount of cash off selling scanners to people whose pre-XP scanners ran just fine, but once they wanted to catch the new wave, they were screwed.
I can say this much about the Linux kernel -- I've never had a piece of hardware I was currently using deprecated by a new revision of the kernel. That said, fuck ATI, because they straight deprecated my Radeon 9000, which is why Nvidia gets my business till they screw me likewise because no one cares about their Linux driver support anyway. *sigh*
"In short, it will go to the US Supreme Court to decide... "
Maybe -- but my guess is that the Court would just say "Well, Congress, you have the power to hold people in contempt, so until you employ your remedy to the situation, you really have no business asking us to do anything." And I think they'd be just in that. If Congress has good reason to issue the subpoenas they recently approved, then issue those subpoenas. Let the White House refuse. And then start with the lowest-hanging apple, and find them to be in contempt. And go right on up the chain as far as you have to until the White House refuses. It will probably be hellaciously ugly, but my God, what fun for political junkies:)
But Diane Rehm is a miserable interviewer. She sounds brain damaged.
I assume you're referring to her voice as an interviewer, which you call "miserable"? That's because she has a condition called spasmodic dysphonia, in which involuntary spasms of the musculature around the larynx cause abnormal fluctuations in, e.g., pitch when speaking.
If you don't like her SD, that's fine; I hope it never happens to you. But if you listen to what she says instead of getting hung up on how her voice sounds (and she does receive treatments for this, so it comes and goes in intensity), you'll find that the way she runs her show is more civil and informed than perhaps any broadcast in the country.
I love The Diane Rehm Show for news and discussion of current events, especially on Fridays when they do a two-hour panel / call-in discussion of the week's current events.
Left, Right and Center is also a good, weekly discussion-style show over current events. Less listener interaction and too short, but still, generally good commentary.
And Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me is a hilarious weekly quiz / comedy show about current events and pop culture.
I catch all three of these, week-in, week-out. They're fantastic.
RIAA, I am very puzzled. I used to find out about new recordings that I might want to buy, by hearing them on the radio.
So it's extra delightful when you look into the history of radio broadcasting and learn that record companies wanted to ban radio stations from playing their songs at all when radio was an up-and-coming format, because, after all, if people can just hear the songs they want on the radio, why would they buy the album in the first place??
(most even go for the slowest speed available over the fibre: 6Mbps symetrical (i.e. 6mbps up and download))
To my knowledge, you can't get DSL even approaching that fast in the US. And moreover, if you can get cable that fast, you're talking hundreds of dollars / month -- hundreds. I agree the bandwidth is important, but your cheap connections over there are better than anything we see in the US.
I used to live in small metro pop. area and got 1.5 Mb/s down 384Kb/s up for $45 without cable service. Now I live in a major metropolitan area and pay $33 / mo. for 3 Mb/s down 768 Kb/s up, but that's only since we buy enhanced analog cable service. To increase uploads beyond 1.5 Mb/s is exhorbitant with any provider. And this is *in* Silicon Valley.
You do strongly bolster my criticism that lack of BB penetration in the US is perhaps a sign that free-market economics is more than willing to fail the population given the opportunity to profit from it.
Grow up and join the real world, asshole. Life isn't going to give you a free ride. Even with the help of municipal governments, you're still not going to get everything you want for free.
I've said it before in this thread, and I'll say it again. I don't want anything for free, I don't support free-riding, and (well, I haven't said this before), but I think calling someone an asshole isn't really a very good argument.
The point of that comment was the idea that "the market" furnishes him with stuff is absurd, and the anthropomorphizing of "the market" clouds one's ability to critique it, pro or con, in a rational way. And actors in the market is supposed to act rationally, right?
So maybe, just maybe, we should get those problems solved BEFORE passing out free wifi to middle class techies.
My comment was simply addressing the idea that the market provisioned great-grandparent with basic necessities. The anthropomorphization of 'the market' and the attribution of virtuous traits to it like 'benevolent' (i.e., 'benevolent hand') automatically predisposition the discourse toward giving the market the benefit of the doubt and not thinking critically about what it, and the actors within, are actually doing, how it actually affects people, etc. This is why I reacted with such stridency to the idea that the market had somehow given him clothes, housing and shelter. At the very least, the market provided him access to those because he was willing and able to pay. So let's be clear that, just like a cheap hooker, the benevolence of the market stops when the money and coke dry up.
These things are mostly beside the point, the GP post meant that the government did not do anything specific for any of these things, and for most people they have been provided better than any government plan has ever done.
Just as long as you recognize there are lots of people for whom 'the market' has done jack, left out in the cold, or even worse, downright exploited, in some of the most awful and unethical ways imaginable. Now, it's important to separate provisioning of necessities, which GGP was talking about, and luxuries which, for most people, net access, especially WiFi, still is one.
Govenrment is often the worst solution, can you prove that this is not the case for Wi-Fi?
Proof is beside the point. What you need is evidence in favor of or contradicting a falsifiable hypothesis. The hypothesis here is that municipalities are better suited to providing broadband internet access to citizens than utilities. The utilities necessarily enable wireless access, at this point, over more-or-less monopolized right-of-ways. This does not bode well for the market reaching optimal solutions.
Furthermore, national market penetration for broadband net access altogether, let alone WiFi, is abysmally low in the US. Given that billions of dollars in subsidies have been given to telecom companies with assurances that broadband penetration would reach levels substantially higher than we have seen as a result, it does not seem that a privatized system using 'public' utilities in this particular market segment is a beneficial one.
However, one solution for wider Wi-Fi broadband deployment may involve municipalities negotiating with backbone providers for bandwidth rates, to be distributed over the Wi-Fi grid in their cities which could be installed and maintained, again by private companies. The issue isn't necessarily that there needs to be a governmental solution, but that huge private companies are moving to protect their profits by stifling innovation. By further diversifying the internet architecture, and taking it off of the exclusive right-of-ways the federal government gave billions of dollars to have improved by private companies who screwed the pooch, those companies are actually risking real retribution.
I'm neither saying the government nor the market are the best solution, and I think it's silly to look at the two as a dichotomy.
yet the market manages to provide those necessities to me without the help of municipal government.
Well, I'll say it. Bullshit. The market only provides that to those who will pay -- sometimes pay exorbitant percentages of their income -- and if you don't or can't pay, fuck you.
The market didn't provide any of those necessities to you. You requisitioned them for yourself, deeming them to be fundamental to your well-being. Homelessness and below-living-wage jobs are a huge issue, even here in the US, where we're supposed to be a paragon of getting our free-market jollies off. Where's the benevolence of the invisible hand there?
FWIW -- I am a total emusic fanboy. And I would recommend taking advantage of their trial offers. You can sign up for their more-or-less genre based newsletters for whatever floats your boat. I receive their country/folk, electronica, jazz, and blues emailings.
The reviews and suggestions are driven equal parts by "professional" music fans and reviewers, as well as user-driven methodologies. The net result is that cream, from any genre, floats to the top. You bet, I've had some misses, but even $10 / month buys you so many tracks you can afford to have a miss here and there. The whole sense of the site is exactly what you talk about "Yes, we know you like X, Y, and Z, and there's a ton of other good stuff out there, too. Some of it's similar, but you might also want to look at this other stuff that's totally different."
I totally 3 it and would suggest you give it a shot. Start out month-to-month, I don't think there's any term obligation unless you want to do the year-length discount plan.
Speex is pretty weak for studio production quality audio. At least in my experience, it's most fantastic for, e.g., VoIP applications and the like. It's tremendous at reproducing identifiable and intelligible speech at extremely low bitrates (like 4 - 15 kbps, or their wideband that can go, I think to 32). See http://www.speex.org/samples/.
The fidelity is remarkable when your standards of comparison come from telephony. However, using Speex for studio-quality apps isn't ideal. You'd be better off, as grandparent pointed out, at a low-bitrate, mono, 22 - 33 kHz Vorbis file, which goes easier on the high- and low-pass filters.
CFL's light should appear about the same intensity and color temp as the incandescent bulbs they're designed to replace. The most popular variety I've seen out here involve a tube in sort of a corkscrew shape. If the bulbs are in an obscuring light fixture, you might not be able to tell unless you can see the end of the bulb, where there'll be two dark spots. (As soon as you see one, that will make sense, promise!)
If their advantage is supposed to be energy efficiency, what would work better is headlines saying "State of California saves $BIGNUM through CFLs". Better to point out the economic impact they already have than create a new artificial one.
Their money-saving nature is their selling point, and it's exactly what has brought CFLs to prominence at Wal-Mart and other stores. I agree more of a PR campaign would be appropriate. And the bulbs are pretty widely subsidized at the checkout (PG & E has a deal where they pay stores to mark the bulbs down $1).
My apologies if it felt like I was putting words into your mouth with my remark about liberalism. I find it's a term that's thrown into mainstream discourse to 'other' policies that people don't like, and your pointing out of your midwestern heritage raised a red flag:) Thank you for bringing up the two-axis diagram -- it's something more people could use to get a handle on. California def. has authoritarian leanings in its state policy, as far as I can tell. The sense seems to be "well, hell, we're big enough to be our own country, so we're going to act like it". And in a way, they're right: cf., California Emissions Standards for vehicles, which now set the standards, de facto, for the entire country. Hubris or not, that attitude seems to be fairly strong whatever your feelings on socioeconomic policy is.
Welcome to the area (though I may be newer here than you)... Maybe we'll run into each other. And if we do, we'll never even know:)
If the government itself uses only Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs (or whatever's trendy), the rest of us Californians will be exposed to them. If the new bulbs really are better, we'll all follow in time.
Where in California are you that you don't see CFLs everywhere? In the Bay Area you can't get away from them. Seriously, probably 90% of the bulbs I see are CFLs or other high-efficiency lights.
I come from Iowa. When I got here, people told me about the difference between midwestern liberals and Californian liberals. I'm starting to get it...I don't appreciate this nanny state "we will tell you what kind of light bulbs you must buy" thing.
I come from Indiana. The difference between midwestern liberals and Californian liberals is that midwestern liberals don't exist. And I know it's hard (again, coming from Indiana) to realize bad != liberal != bad, but don't forget that for the last three and a half years, all this "nanny state" legislation you talk about has been autographed by the Republican governor.
Only usually the "thinkofthechildren" BS is used to deny rights and privileges to groups of people who would not be affected by the policy being discussed (e.g., sex offender scarlet-lettering, gay rights, etc.; cf. banning trans fats and advising against high-density lipoproteins, which are ostensibly nothing but good for children but the same people raise a stink, go fig.). In this particular case, "thinkofthechildren" actually fucking helps the children. And it helps the children whether they choose to have premarital sex or not. Or whether they "choose" (mocking quotes) to be gay or not.
I, as any sensible person would, have problems with mandating people providing profits to massive corporations whose activities I'm not sure I agree with. But in this case, there doesn't seem to be any other sensible option than highly suggesting, and making publically-funded efforts towards, making sure young ladies can get this vaccine. Cancer isn't something I'd wish on my worst enemies, and it's heartless and viciously cruel to suggest that this vaccine should be withheld from girls for whom there is no evidence of ill side-effect.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a totally legitimate construction. What's your problem? "The US group has agreed..." it's totally fine.
"This guy was talking about one year, there was an old boy who was sitting outside the main gate with a cane pole with a watermelon on the end of the line, and he had a big sign that said "Fishing for Niggers""
:)
As an Indiana native* and 500 connoisseur myself, I sincerely apologize on behalf of the reasonable fans out there. I'm afraid that one byproduct of having over a quarter-million people from Indiana and beyond getting together is that you do get some idiots in the bunch. I regret that this reflected poorly on the 500 and the Hoosier State as a whole. For what it's worth, the last time I was there, sitting out under the gorgeous son, drinking cheap beer with friends of mine from, literally, all over the globe, I had a guy from South Dakota complement me on the magnificent display IMS puts on each year for the 500, and made a point of observing how helpful and pleasant everyone was. It made me proud to be a Hoosier.
* - I now live in San Francisco and find it altogether more desirable
Ubuntu has been the flavor of the month for like two and a half years now. I'd say they're safely past the initial buzz and into something more durable.
Agreed, and sadly, that seems to be the nature of the beast.
"enforceable trademark on their logo for 300 years"
Apologies. I should say their logo dates back 300 years -- they do still have a trademark on it, although I do not know when the trademark was acquired by them. Suffice it to say that having a trademark on such things in perpetuity (at least as long as you have the wherewithal to fight for it in court) seems not too far off base. At least within reason, and yes, I think you're fine to doubt the enforceability of a AIM trademark on another similar product whose name happens to involve the a-i-m string. Though the Lindows-Windows fiasco seems to back up the idea that rhyming with a trademark may be a bad deal.
Anyway, it's a trademark, not a copyright.
But they're not talking about copyrights. They're talking about trademarks. You think any company with an enforceable brand should be forced to abandon that brand on account of arbitrary expiration dates? Twinings, the British tea company, has had an enforceable trademark on their logo for 300 years. Nobody really has legitimate grounds to suggest that's not an appropriate thing.
(FWIW, I wholeheartedly agree with you on the issue of copyright... but let's not go getting ourselves confused).
And lookie there -- you got +5 AND Insightful. You lucky dog you
Having it called "gaim" was also pretty stupid because for just a split-second I thought it was a chat program exclusive to gay people.
You're trying to emulate a creole in your comment, not a pidgin.
Pidgins are languages of necessity, created out of a population of native speakers of two languages in close contact trying to, or being forced to, interact with one another. Over time, if children subsume this pidgin through native language acquisition processes and start speaking it among themselves, it can become a creole, like what you're emulating in your comment above.
Pidgin is a particularly appropriate renaming for this project, because it does take several mutually unintelligible "languages" (i.e., IM protocols) and gives them a common interface through which to work. Really, I think it's a pretty stellar choice for the name.
That's it. I'm not using Open Office until someone in their organization can explain to me why they hate America.
Ballots in the US have to be anonymous. Your unique ID thing would provide a way to connect a voter to a vote, and that's a strict no-no.
Hell, Vista has all those incompatibilities? I remember when we made a fair amount of cash off selling scanners to people whose pre-XP scanners ran just fine, but once they wanted to catch the new wave, they were screwed.
I can say this much about the Linux kernel -- I've never had a piece of hardware I was currently using deprecated by a new revision of the kernel. That said, fuck ATI, because they straight deprecated my Radeon 9000, which is why Nvidia gets my business till they screw me likewise because no one cares about their Linux driver support anyway. *sigh*
"In short, it will go to the US Supreme Court to decide... "
:)
Maybe -- but my guess is that the Court would just say "Well, Congress, you have the power to hold people in contempt, so until you employ your remedy to the situation, you really have no business asking us to do anything." And I think they'd be just in that. If Congress has good reason to issue the subpoenas they recently approved, then issue those subpoenas. Let the White House refuse. And then start with the lowest-hanging apple, and find them to be in contempt. And go right on up the chain as far as you have to until the White House refuses. It will probably be hellaciously ugly, but my God, what fun for political junkies
I assume you're referring to her voice as an interviewer, which you call "miserable"? That's because she has a condition called spasmodic dysphonia, in which involuntary spasms of the musculature around the larynx cause abnormal fluctuations in, e.g., pitch when speaking.
If you don't like her SD, that's fine; I hope it never happens to you. But if you listen to what she says instead of getting hung up on how her voice sounds (and she does receive treatments for this, so it comes and goes in intensity), you'll find that the way she runs her show is more civil and informed than perhaps any broadcast in the country.
I love The Diane Rehm Show for news and discussion of current events, especially on Fridays when they do a two-hour panel / call-in discussion of the week's current events.
Left, Right and Center is also a good, weekly discussion-style show over current events. Less listener interaction and too short, but still, generally good commentary.
And Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me is a hilarious weekly quiz / comedy show about current events and pop culture.
I catch all three of these, week-in, week-out. They're fantastic.
So it's extra delightful when you look into the history of radio broadcasting and learn that record companies wanted to ban radio stations from playing their songs at all when radio was an up-and-coming format, because, after all, if people can just hear the songs they want on the radio, why would they buy the album in the first place??
How slowly we learn.
To my knowledge, you can't get DSL even approaching that fast in the US. And moreover, if you can get cable that fast, you're talking hundreds of dollars / month -- hundreds. I agree the bandwidth is important, but your cheap connections over there are better than anything we see in the US.
I used to live in small metro pop. area and got 1.5 Mb/s down 384Kb/s up for $45 without cable service. Now I live in a major metropolitan area and pay $33 / mo. for 3 Mb/s down 768 Kb/s up, but that's only since we buy enhanced analog cable service. To increase uploads beyond 1.5 Mb/s is exhorbitant with any provider. And this is *in* Silicon Valley.
You do strongly bolster my criticism that lack of BB penetration in the US is perhaps a sign that free-market economics is more than willing to fail the population given the opportunity to profit from it.
I've said it before in this thread, and I'll say it again. I don't want anything for free, I don't support free-riding, and (well, I haven't said this before), but I think calling someone an asshole isn't really a very good argument.
The point of that comment was the idea that "the market" furnishes him with stuff is absurd, and the anthropomorphizing of "the market" clouds one's ability to critique it, pro or con, in a rational way. And actors in the market is supposed to act rationally, right?
I agree, asshole.
Just as long as you recognize there are lots of people for whom 'the market' has done jack, left out in the cold, or even worse, downright exploited, in some of the most awful and unethical ways imaginable. Now, it's important to separate provisioning of necessities, which GGP was talking about, and luxuries which, for most people, net access, especially WiFi, still is one.
Proof is beside the point. What you need is evidence in favor of or contradicting a falsifiable hypothesis. The hypothesis here is that municipalities are better suited to providing broadband internet access to citizens than utilities. The utilities necessarily enable wireless access, at this point, over more-or-less monopolized right-of-ways. This does not bode well for the market reaching optimal solutions.
Furthermore, national market penetration for broadband net access altogether, let alone WiFi, is abysmally low in the US. Given that billions of dollars in subsidies have been given to telecom companies with assurances that broadband penetration would reach levels substantially higher than we have seen as a result, it does not seem that a privatized system using 'public' utilities in this particular market segment is a beneficial one.
However, one solution for wider Wi-Fi broadband deployment may involve municipalities negotiating with backbone providers for bandwidth rates, to be distributed over the Wi-Fi grid in their cities which could be installed and maintained, again by private companies. The issue isn't necessarily that there needs to be a governmental solution, but that huge private companies are moving to protect their profits by stifling innovation. By further diversifying the internet architecture, and taking it off of the exclusive right-of-ways the federal government gave billions of dollars to have improved by private companies who screwed the pooch, those companies are actually risking real retribution.
I'm neither saying the government nor the market are the best solution, and I think it's silly to look at the two as a dichotomy.
Well, I'll say it. Bullshit. The market only provides that to those who will pay -- sometimes pay exorbitant percentages of their income -- and if you don't or can't pay, fuck you.
The market didn't provide any of those necessities to you. You requisitioned them for yourself, deeming them to be fundamental to your well-being. Homelessness and below-living-wage jobs are a huge issue, even here in the US, where we're supposed to be a paragon of getting our free-market jollies off. Where's the benevolence of the invisible hand there?
FWIW -- I am a total emusic fanboy. And I would recommend taking advantage of their trial offers. You can sign up for their more-or-less genre based newsletters for whatever floats your boat. I receive their country/folk, electronica, jazz, and blues emailings.
The reviews and suggestions are driven equal parts by "professional" music fans and reviewers, as well as user-driven methodologies. The net result is that cream, from any genre, floats to the top. You bet, I've had some misses, but even $10 / month buys you so many tracks you can afford to have a miss here and there. The whole sense of the site is exactly what you talk about "Yes, we know you like X, Y, and Z, and there's a ton of other good stuff out there, too. Some of it's similar, but you might also want to look at this other stuff that's totally different."
I totally 3 it and would suggest you give it a shot. Start out month-to-month, I don't think there's any term obligation unless you want to do the year-length discount plan.
Speex is pretty weak for studio production quality audio. At least in my experience, it's most fantastic for, e.g., VoIP applications and the like. It's tremendous at reproducing identifiable and intelligible speech at extremely low bitrates (like 4 - 15 kbps, or their wideband that can go, I think to 32). See http://www.speex.org/samples/.
The fidelity is remarkable when your standards of comparison come from telephony. However, using Speex for studio-quality apps isn't ideal. You'd be better off, as grandparent pointed out, at a low-bitrate, mono, 22 - 33 kHz Vorbis file, which goes easier on the high- and low-pass filters.
Their money-saving nature is their selling point, and it's exactly what has brought CFLs to prominence at Wal-Mart and other stores. I agree more of a PR campaign would be appropriate. And the bulbs are pretty widely subsidized at the checkout (PG & E has a deal where they pay stores to mark the bulbs down $1).
My apologies if it felt like I was putting words into your mouth with my remark about liberalism. I find it's a term that's thrown into mainstream discourse to 'other' policies that people don't like, and your pointing out of your midwestern heritage raised a red flag
Welcome to the area (though I may be newer here than you)... Maybe we'll run into each other. And if we do, we'll never even know
Where in California are you that you don't see CFLs everywhere? In the Bay Area you can't get away from them. Seriously, probably 90% of the bulbs I see are CFLs or other high-efficiency lights.
I come from Indiana. The difference between midwestern liberals and Californian liberals is that midwestern liberals don't exist. And I know it's hard (again, coming from Indiana) to realize bad != liberal != bad, but don't forget that for the last three and a half years, all this "nanny state" legislation you talk about has been autographed by the Republican governor.
Only usually the "thinkofthechildren" BS is used to deny rights and privileges to groups of people who would not be affected by the policy being discussed (e.g., sex offender scarlet-lettering, gay rights, etc.; cf. banning trans fats and advising against high-density lipoproteins, which are ostensibly nothing but good for children but the same people raise a stink, go fig.). In this particular case, "thinkofthechildren" actually fucking helps the children. And it helps the children whether they choose to have premarital sex or not. Or whether they "choose" (mocking quotes) to be gay or not.
I, as any sensible person would, have problems with mandating people providing profits to massive corporations whose activities I'm not sure I agree with. But in this case, there doesn't seem to be any other sensible option than highly suggesting, and making publically-funded efforts towards, making sure young ladies can get this vaccine. Cancer isn't something I'd wish on my worst enemies, and it's heartless and viciously cruel to suggest that this vaccine should be withheld from girls for whom there is no evidence of ill side-effect.