You are correct. I was not specific enough. Since the context was vaccines I was assuming that context on my statement. Scientific evidence thus far indicates the amounts common to vaccines are no threat to human health or development.
Enough water will put baby at the bottom of the bathwater, what's your point? Too much oxygen will kill you, too. You want we should start removing it from the air?
Given that thimerosal (thiomersal) vaccine formulations are time-tested and, by now, relatively affordable to produce, a ban on thimerosal would probably most hurt poor nations. Here in the US we don't use it much, despite the fact that it has been demonstrated time and again to be relatively safe, but in poorer nations thimerosal formulations may be able to be produced more cheaply than alternatives and can be stored and distributed more easily, especially in/to more remote areas. The US and Europe will likely be unaffected, but if vaccines become more expensive or harder to get or simply less stable in poorer storage conditions in poorer nations, we could see increases in diseases which might otherwise be at least partially under control. If the UN is to include any conditions or exclusions for medical purposes, they should favor improving health in the poorer nations and not putting ideology above the needs of the citizenry.
Thimerosal is used in such low doses that it won't make any difference, really. That and thimerosal is a pretty safe form of mercury, as far as the human body is concerned. As long as there are safe and effective alternatives I support, generally speaking, reductions in use of thimerosal, but if the replacements are less effective and harm the efficacy and affordability of vaccines I say don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
Thimerosal use in vaccines is already down quite a bit and yet autism cases have not dropped correspondingly. Autism diagnoses continue to increase, even as we use less mercury and fewer heavy metals in products aimed at sensitive populations (at least here in the US and other developed nations).
Is it commonly called thimerosal in the US, FYI. I think in many cases it is being phased out (though not because there is any scientific evidence that it is harmful), but there are some vaccines for which thimerosal is simply better suited. A blanket ban which prohibits use of thimerosal could slow or halt production of some vaccines until an alternative is found, and the alternative may be less efficacious or less safe, and if it raises the costs in the process it could slow critical vaccinations, especially in developing nations where young populations are most sensitive and access is already tenuous.
No, the author of the video is doing no such thing. The article author was adding unnecessary spin. The video author was pointing out that many "action" shots are posed (not necessarily by the photographer). Because there are photographers there the individuals involved put on a show, even when not much was going on. The video author/photographer's point was that photographers in many conflict areas sometimes are in the middle of legitimate moments of high drama, but often there is also low drama staged for their benefit. The mere presence of a cadre of professional-looking photographers causes the observed to undertake a behavioral change which can, in many cases, result in photos that look like they (the photographed) are engaged in some confrontational situation, when really they are just waiting around and chest thumping, hoping for something to happen. Thus, unsuccessful riots by a very few individuals result in stunning pictures that suggest much more in the minds of readers and viewers. The photographers and rioters both must have something to do in the down time between the moments of high drama, I suppose.
Further, he states in the video quite clearly that he wants people to realize that these photographs are taken by people with agendas, participating in a process, taking pictures of people with agendas, and that sometimes those agendas come together in ways that create images of action and conflict which don't really exist in that moment and in that time, and the public need to be aware that photographers influence situations by their presence and that things occur off-frame; that photo framing may radically alter a photo's context thus altering the images as conveyed.
In the photo journalism industry this is not news, but for the public who often take images at face value this rare glimpse of things can offer quite a disconnect. It can be shocking to be reminded to view things with an overly critical eye, and I think the photo journalism industry would have to tighten things up a bit if the public at large paid more attention to and was, on the whole, more critical of these kinds of issues.
Most rare earth minerals are actually not that valuable. They're necessary and quite abundant. The reason China controls the trade is that they have been willing thus far to run operations which mine at great cost for minimal profit. They've been buying operations in Africa and on other continents where large stores are found. In order for a US company to want to mine these minerals there will have to be a critical uptick in price, and that will raise prices on a number of important manufactured goods.
For state elections this is fine, but for presidential elections I find it unsuitable. Presidential elections should follow federal election guidelines. As in, there should be federal election guidelines to help ensure election of the president is somewhat uniform. Any election other than presidential is a different game.
So long as each state is wholly responsible for their own election standards and processes, even for presidential elections, there will be no way to address problems centrally in an organized fashion.
I am replying to myself because it seems that Apple's speedy JS is indeed getting fed back to WebKit and Google's fast JS code is also open source. Hooray for a little research!
Are you more interested in the HTML/CSS rendering engine or in the JavaScript engine? That may determine whether you want to use something like Prism or Chromeless vs WebKit. My gut tells me you might find WebKit easier to embed and work with, but I don't know if Google or Apple are sharing their fantastic JavaScript engines, and your needs for speedy JavaScript will definitely play a role in your choice.
I don't know of any libraries which actually house pornography. I think what the library has that titillates falls under the heading of art and photography books, medical/anatomical references (hard to see how these might titillate), and written sex scenes in books, all items which I think the law would not recognize as pornography.
At most good libraries, the children's section is in its own area so that the kids don't bother the older patrons. At the same time, the exits are clearly marked and a librarian is not going to turn a 6-year-old around just because he or she wants to wander into the rest of the library. If this hypothetical YouTube Kids lacks any links to regular YouTube (short of hitting up the URL bar in your browser) then it is, in fact, not much like a good library at all.
The OP wrote "Think back to when you were a kid and your parents dropped you off at the library." My parents visited the library with me until I was in 5th or 6th grade and was old enough to bicycle to the local branch on my own, and by that time I was no longer reading books in the children's section. I was reading young adult and regular books freely. You are right that there is an issue of trust, and of course there's also the importance of exploration of new territory, even if it does sometimes fall outside the bounds of that routine trust.
I'm certainly not suggesting that children need parents holding their hands all through their childhood, but the language used by the OP suggested to me that the OP basically wants a virtual babysitter/guardian, or at least a fenced-in yard. The way I interpreted the OP's post suggested to ME that their use of the library was a poor analogy. The way you seem to read it, it is a good analogy. OK, fine, you have a very valid point, and I prefer what I get from your interpretation to my own interpretation, but I still think the OP's wording suggests something more in line with what I took away.
According to the ALA's Freedom to Read statement, librarians should not be censoring what children read, either. If a child you've dropped off at the library wants to wander into young adult or the regular adult stacks and start paging through books, the librarians should only be stepping in if the book is being mishandled. So while children's content is collected together in the children's area, the child is not prevented from accessing adult materials. You know, because the librarians aren't babysitters and are also not meant to be filters for your children the way you are, being their legal guardian and all.
Small non-profits fall into this category all the time. I worked at one for a time. Sometimes there really just isn't money to keep up with this stuff, or to pay people enough to keep up with this stuff.
The OP has noted that this is not his personal computer. Wholesale OS and hardware upgrades are rather inappropriate if they circumvent whatever IT structure there is, however limited it may be.
I admit that I don't completely understand the point you are trying to make. Your post seems a little contradictory in places. Again, I support WebM. It's a Good Thing. But the way to support free and open development is not to exclude more restrictive solutions. It's to embrace multiple solutions, so that the best solution may ultimately prevail, by whatever metrics the best solution is determined.
And no, VP8 is not truly Free as in Freedom. If there are indeed patent problems that will hamstring the codec. Further, while the source may be available, Google is going to keep a tight rein on the official WebM development track. I don't see many forks of WebM really seeing any success.
I have to agree with Peter on this. I certainly don't begrudge Google creating and supporting the WebM standard. I think WebM is a good thing, and will foster further open source video codec advancements. But h264 is a solid video standard. I don't like the royalty/patent burden, but that it has already been embraced by many browsers makes it the incumbent codec. I support choice for video encoders and viewers alike, and that means more options rather than fewer. In cutting out the largest codec Google will be limiting choice and eliminating the only standardized codec. Google controls WebM development, whereas h264 is controlled by a standards body, not by any one technology patent holder.
Under the DMCA, they would have to prove that HE hacked a unit to get at that information. The information on the glitch itself isn't protected by law.
If he hacked a machine he owned or had access to, what does it matter if the manufacturer intended him to be aware of the glitches or not? As far as I know it's not illegal to have insider knowledge unless the law expressly forbids it, and in this case I'm not sure the law does. The glitch in the slot machine software/firmware was certainly not a way the mfg or casino intended for users to interact with their machines, but so what? I think proving fraud may be difficult for federal authorities unless the men had a number of other actions to pursue. Taking advantage of a slot machine glitch alone is, or at least should be, insufficient in and of itself.
Oddly, I'm fine facing down that one. No, the one that gets me is a combination banner and sidebar ad from IBM that shows up on Ars Technica. And it only gets me at a particular point.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct. I was not specific enough. Since the context was vaccines I was assuming that context on my statement. Scientific evidence thus far indicates the amounts common to vaccines are no threat to human health or development.
Enough water will put baby at the bottom of the bathwater, what's your point? Too much oxygen will kill you, too. You want we should start removing it from the air?
I do, but I wanted to qualify your comment with a little detail on the off chance someone else doesn't. Didn't mean to offend, sir.
Given that thimerosal (thiomersal) vaccine formulations are time-tested and, by now, relatively affordable to produce, a ban on thimerosal would probably most hurt poor nations. Here in the US we don't use it much, despite the fact that it has been demonstrated time and again to be relatively safe, but in poorer nations thimerosal formulations may be able to be produced more cheaply than alternatives and can be stored and distributed more easily, especially in/to more remote areas. The US and Europe will likely be unaffected, but if vaccines become more expensive or harder to get or simply less stable in poorer storage conditions in poorer nations, we could see increases in diseases which might otherwise be at least partially under control. If the UN is to include any conditions or exclusions for medical purposes, they should favor improving health in the poorer nations and not putting ideology above the needs of the citizenry.
Thimerosal is used in such low doses that it won't make any difference, really. That and thimerosal is a pretty safe form of mercury, as far as the human body is concerned. As long as there are safe and effective alternatives I support, generally speaking, reductions in use of thimerosal, but if the replacements are less effective and harm the efficacy and affordability of vaccines I say don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
Thimerosal use in vaccines is already down quite a bit and yet autism cases have not dropped correspondingly. Autism diagnoses continue to increase, even as we use less mercury and fewer heavy metals in products aimed at sensitive populations (at least here in the US and other developed nations).
Is it commonly called thimerosal in the US, FYI. I think in many cases it is being phased out (though not because there is any scientific evidence that it is harmful), but there are some vaccines for which thimerosal is simply better suited. A blanket ban which prohibits use of thimerosal could slow or halt production of some vaccines until an alternative is found, and the alternative may be less efficacious or less safe, and if it raises the costs in the process it could slow critical vaccinations, especially in developing nations where young populations are most sensitive and access is already tenuous.
No, the author of the video is doing no such thing. The article author was adding unnecessary spin. The video author was pointing out that many "action" shots are posed (not necessarily by the photographer). Because there are photographers there the individuals involved put on a show, even when not much was going on. The video author/photographer's point was that photographers in many conflict areas sometimes are in the middle of legitimate moments of high drama, but often there is also low drama staged for their benefit. The mere presence of a cadre of professional-looking photographers causes the observed to undertake a behavioral change which can, in many cases, result in photos that look like they (the photographed) are engaged in some confrontational situation, when really they are just waiting around and chest thumping, hoping for something to happen. Thus, unsuccessful riots by a very few individuals result in stunning pictures that suggest much more in the minds of readers and viewers. The photographers and rioters both must have something to do in the down time between the moments of high drama, I suppose.
Further, he states in the video quite clearly that he wants people to realize that these photographs are taken by people with agendas, participating in a process, taking pictures of people with agendas, and that sometimes those agendas come together in ways that create images of action and conflict which don't really exist in that moment and in that time, and the public need to be aware that photographers influence situations by their presence and that things occur off-frame; that photo framing may radically alter a photo's context thus altering the images as conveyed.
In the photo journalism industry this is not news, but for the public who often take images at face value this rare glimpse of things can offer quite a disconnect. It can be shocking to be reminded to view things with an overly critical eye, and I think the photo journalism industry would have to tighten things up a bit if the public at large paid more attention to and was, on the whole, more critical of these kinds of issues.
Jobs and Co. at Apple DID introduce a touch-pad mouse, y'know... That's not too far off from a touch screen.
Most rare earth minerals are actually not that valuable. They're necessary and quite abundant. The reason China controls the trade is that they have been willing thus far to run operations which mine at great cost for minimal profit. They've been buying operations in Africa and on other continents where large stores are found. In order for a US company to want to mine these minerals there will have to be a critical uptick in price, and that will raise prices on a number of important manufactured goods.
For state elections this is fine, but for presidential elections I find it unsuitable. Presidential elections should follow federal election guidelines. As in, there should be federal election guidelines to help ensure election of the president is somewhat uniform. Any election other than presidential is a different game.
So long as each state is wholly responsible for their own election standards and processes, even for presidential elections, there will be no way to address problems centrally in an organized fashion.
I am replying to myself because it seems that Apple's speedy JS is indeed getting fed back to WebKit and Google's fast JS code is also open source. Hooray for a little research!
Are you more interested in the HTML/CSS rendering engine or in the JavaScript engine? That may determine whether you want to use something like Prism or Chromeless vs WebKit. My gut tells me you might find WebKit easier to embed and work with, but I don't know if Google or Apple are sharing their fantastic JavaScript engines, and your needs for speedy JavaScript will definitely play a role in your choice.
I don't know of any libraries which actually house pornography. I think what the library has that titillates falls under the heading of art and photography books, medical/anatomical references (hard to see how these might titillate), and written sex scenes in books, all items which I think the law would not recognize as pornography.
At most good libraries, the children's section is in its own area so that the kids don't bother the older patrons. At the same time, the exits are clearly marked and a librarian is not going to turn a 6-year-old around just because he or she wants to wander into the rest of the library. If this hypothetical YouTube Kids lacks any links to regular YouTube (short of hitting up the URL bar in your browser) then it is, in fact, not much like a good library at all.
The OP wrote "Think back to when you were a kid and your parents dropped you off at the library." My parents visited the library with me until I was in 5th or 6th grade and was old enough to bicycle to the local branch on my own, and by that time I was no longer reading books in the children's section. I was reading young adult and regular books freely. You are right that there is an issue of trust, and of course there's also the importance of exploration of new territory, even if it does sometimes fall outside the bounds of that routine trust.
I'm certainly not suggesting that children need parents holding their hands all through their childhood, but the language used by the OP suggested to me that the OP basically wants a virtual babysitter/guardian, or at least a fenced-in yard. The way I interpreted the OP's post suggested to ME that their use of the library was a poor analogy. The way you seem to read it, it is a good analogy. OK, fine, you have a very valid point, and I prefer what I get from your interpretation to my own interpretation, but I still think the OP's wording suggests something more in line with what I took away.
According to the ALA's Freedom to Read statement, librarians should not be censoring what children read, either. If a child you've dropped off at the library wants to wander into young adult or the regular adult stacks and start paging through books, the librarians should only be stepping in if the book is being mishandled. So while children's content is collected together in the children's area, the child is not prevented from accessing adult materials. You know, because the librarians aren't babysitters and are also not meant to be filters for your children the way you are, being their legal guardian and all.
Small non-profits fall into this category all the time. I worked at one for a time. Sometimes there really just isn't money to keep up with this stuff, or to pay people enough to keep up with this stuff.
The OP has noted that this is not his personal computer. Wholesale OS and hardware upgrades are rather inappropriate if they circumvent whatever IT structure there is, however limited it may be.
I admit that I don't completely understand the point you are trying to make. Your post seems a little contradictory in places. Again, I support WebM. It's a Good Thing. But the way to support free and open development is not to exclude more restrictive solutions. It's to embrace multiple solutions, so that the best solution may ultimately prevail, by whatever metrics the best solution is determined.
And no, VP8 is not truly Free as in Freedom. If there are indeed patent problems that will hamstring the codec. Further, while the source may be available, Google is going to keep a tight rein on the official WebM development track. I don't see many forks of WebM really seeing any success.
I have to agree with Peter on this. I certainly don't begrudge Google creating and supporting the WebM standard. I think WebM is a good thing, and will foster further open source video codec advancements. But h264 is a solid video standard. I don't like the royalty/patent burden, but that it has already been embraced by many browsers makes it the incumbent codec. I support choice for video encoders and viewers alike, and that means more options rather than fewer. In cutting out the largest codec Google will be limiting choice and eliminating the only standardized codec. Google controls WebM development, whereas h264 is controlled by a standards body, not by any one technology patent holder.
Under the DMCA, they would have to prove that HE hacked a unit to get at that information. The information on the glitch itself isn't protected by law.
If he hacked a machine he owned or had access to, what does it matter if the manufacturer intended him to be aware of the glitches or not? As far as I know it's not illegal to have insider knowledge unless the law expressly forbids it, and in this case I'm not sure the law does. The glitch in the slot machine software/firmware was certainly not a way the mfg or casino intended for users to interact with their machines, but so what? I think proving fraud may be difficult for federal authorities unless the men had a number of other actions to pursue. Taking advantage of a slot machine glitch alone is, or at least should be, insufficient in and of itself.
Oddly, I'm fine facing down that one. No, the one that gets me is a combination banner and sidebar ad from IBM that shows up on Ars Technica. And it only gets me at a particular point.