It's like a 10 mile run and the instructions saying you can use a bicycle. Yes, but that's no challenge. So maybe it took it for the challenge? The bicycle ride would have been a waste of time, and protecting the ego (abeit VERY small, it is vs running because I don't risk failing). But I don't care one shit about impressing a professor, and my ego is better knowing that running is the best choice. This is a spirit I learned when I no longer cared about others opinions, scores, or even my own fears. Who cares? I like doing it mentally because it's the right challenge, and I learn something that way. Of course, if the exercise said answer the following 12 questions in 100 seconds, or from the analogy, it said 100 mile run (you can use a bicycle)...I would have picked the bicycle.
The challenge in the USA is that the scores are used to determine which university you can go to, and which job you can get. So pleasing the processor, hijacking tests with logic, etc, becomes a survival skill that, as everyone plays it, just makes the tests more important that education itself. That's why I like old classical books such as Plato's dialogs (and these guys where great at *reasoning* math), because they explain several different trains of thoughts, and what are the flaws, etc. They train the patterns and though processes, and then you have a universal tool instead of one more formula to forget forever right after the next test is passed with perfect score.
He completely changed how video rentals work with by-mail Netlifx. Never a late fee, no need to go anywhere, not traveling to a store to find the movie you want is not there and you need something else. Now they are changing how TV and shows are distributed, altering how we consume content instantly. You sound to me like the people that wanted Steve Jobs to go in the 90s. Obviously, you don't understand that Netflix is his creation, and that it's the most successful video rental company in the world worth about $4,000 million dollars today.
I haven't verified your claims, but for me Dora is important because it's my son's favorite and I need all individual chapters. He likes the variety, and I like that program for him as well vs watching TV that include all kind of dangerous programs and dangerous advertisements, including supposedly dying babies, services for people on debt or charged and many other worrying stuff.
It only means a little more capital for Netflix (buy more movies), and to change everyone with 2 at a time to three at a time. And three for four. That will compensate the lower frequency with the only impact being a slightly lower wait, but the same movies per month than what you have today. They could even alter the DVD envelope to allow more than 1 DVD in a single envelope, and do 4 deliveries per month. That would lover costs of shipping significantly. I would keep BD delivery for sure, the streaming version is nice, but some movies must be seen in BD.
You don't understand. The reason Cable companies make billions and why Netflix has gone down to about $70 from $300 is that the content is the bait, not the product. Cable companies are good at selling YOU to advertisers, not selling content to YOU. It's so much profitable to to sell you, and share a part of that with content creators, that trying to make you the customer. If you are the customer, they can get $20-100 from you. If you are the product, they can sell your attention to offer crap for an unlimited amount, be it a mortgage, loan, school, product, etc.
>actually this describes the state of the internet too
I couldn't disagree more. What content is missing from internet? Movies? No Newspapers? No. Personal opinions/blogs? No. Social reactions? No. Journals of any kind? No TV? No. Research? No. technical articles? No. Documentation? Dictionaries? No? Images? No. Photography? No. Just about anything you can think of can be assessable in a myriad of ways, from paid content that's just "buy and access", to 100% free, to high quality but with ads, to just about any other possible method. There are even full university courses by prestigious universities. I don't know why I felt like explaining this, it's just self evident.
What evidence do you have? I know I tried to not have Chrome, and had to be vigilant about it. It will self install if you update Flash (or would do that, if that is no longer so). Same with other apps. It's also advertized by the largest advertising agency in the world, namely, Google itself. If Firefox had all that exposure, and bundling deals (a la Flash) I guess we'll be seeing the opposite than today.
I also don't trust Google for everything, and the browser is not something I would like to give to Google. They already have my email, search history and what not. The browser is better of with someone not vested in how to browse the web, what info to collect, what functionality to expose to plugins, etc.
Yes, and if a better potential wife comes along and shows interest, ditch your wife. I am exaggerating on purpose. You can't know how things will play out in the long term. I adopted Firefox when it was worst than IE, but much more "right" than IE. Now, I want ditch it for Chrome just because the other browser is 5% faster, or invented the quick sprints and fast paced release cycles. Why should I? Obviously, Chrome grows faster because it's advertised by the largest advertising agency in the world - namely Google. And because that network uses their funding of Firefox to advertise their product directly within the Firefox and other competing communities.
I Firefox loses funding, well then, I am going to stick to it until it's clearly inferior in a significant way. Right now, i couldn't acre less about Chrome. I go to great length to revert back to Firefox when the ugly flash or other bundled software "gets into Google's pockets" and install their crap on my hardware.
I started doing IM in 1996 with the first ICQ. It worked great for a while, especially the first versions. The status was respected. People knew a BRB or Away. I was kind of like email, but you could switch to real-time chat anytime. You could easily be invisible to people of your choice. The next logical group was being invisible to groups. Eg. When working, you could be invisible to family. That's the same as turning it into email.
Then MSN appeared, and the market was fragmented. Status was not codified, but more like text message. No more invisible. I typically opened messages all over the place instead of marking it in the ICQ bar. Much less selective invisibility. Then they added the functioality to write to people that wheren't online. Huge mistake: like an additional channel for email. They should have kept routing the conversation to email as ICQ did at some point (or maby integrate the funcionality in a meaningful way separating Presence vs Batch). I used MSN for a while and then deemed it a complete waste of time with some benefits but huge drawbacks and a general time waster. Then MSN evolved a bit, but adding so many things I didn't need (same with ICQ), not all people would be in the same net. For a "Presence" app, ICQ was fantastic. That's what it was, a Presence app (when and how you are present at what times). It complemented email as I needed it. ICQ even had a corporate version that was amazingly easy to install, you could have just your coworkers, managed centrally. There sure are this things now, but in such a way (from what I've seen) that I just wish MSN never appeared in the first place.
With that said, I fell back to mostly email for most anything, phone for urgent things (I cannot cancel my voicemail, which is why it's always "Full", I don't want a Voice Recorder to replace email) and selective MSN when talking isn't an option (eg. you are in a conference, or you are using it as a backchannel in a phone conference with many people, to interact with your team in realtime over the backchannel).
Anything else doesn't get my attention. Gmail is for personal stuff and eventually the large attach or even YouSend it (with password protected.zip) for still larger stuff. Anything that isn't communications can be done over a proper platform (CRM, collab tool, etc).
Try instantwatcher.com It uses NYC Times Picks, RottenTomatoes and Popularity. Has many other filters. A godsend to me, found great things that way. By Actor is also great. Sometimes Actors can spot good movies, and while some aren't great, some ended up being great movies that for some reason many people unlike myself didn't like.
My kid watches Dora now. He will move to something else in a year. I only need one hour a day of content I want to carefully feed to my children. I don't like the TV. Just the commercials are a risk, and not being available exactly were I want the content (tablet? phone?), and when I want it, is also a downside for the cable companies. For me the comparison is more like:
Cable: - Pay $50 or more in cash - Bundle with Internet and phone so switching cost is higher - Try to lock me into something that will pike next year - Make $20 more on ads that cost me $300 for what my time is worth (if i where a coach potato)
Netflix - Pay $22 (2+Streaming) - Get 10-12 movies a month blu ray to watch on 120" screen/projector - Get enough good content for kids / 1 hour a day at most - Instant Play lesser know movies that I would have never bought, experience on cinema or rented (and that in many cases where great finds) - Instant Play movies I wanted to watch, maybe 15% of what I would like but for $8 a month who cares (I would pay more for better movies, even if no blockbusters are to be found, just get the underdogs in) - Avoid buying DRMs movies locked to 1 software (like Vudu)
Now, I do see problems because there's no throttle like the mail service has. There should be. people consuming more, contribute less per movie or show. And the studios do not like the prospect of a Netflix that is growing and cannot command more rates per view. I say By Mail worked because (among other things) it had a limit. If I could have 5,000,000 at a time at $8 a month (say having all movies released on DVD/BR that Netflix has by Mail), as a studio, I would say this is not sutainable and Netflix is a dead end for me content creator. But at options like 8, 15, 22 and 30 a month for $8, $15, $22 and $30 a month, then as a studio, I would say then maybe this model is viable. And if Netflix shares a % of that, some studios will see more value, and more content avaiable. After all, it's better to have 5x the sales at 50% the price to the user, than 1x at 100%.
Will the 22 million users that Netflix has buy that model? I would if they have a very generous selection to pick from. Many would not. But it would be the equivalent of the Mail service that I like so much. They could charge me more for HD streaming as well (like Blu ray costs a bit more). Some people do not use it, so why charge them more? All in all, I hope Netflix does well AND does the right thing. The alternative is the "good" old $3 per movie rental, $12-25 per movie (with incompatible DRM systems that may disappear tomorrow) or the proven "channel" approach full of ads by the cable companies. If would prefer the Netflix 2.0 I described.
Anyway, for now, Netflix is the best option for me and...Verizon, I am sending the DVR back in about a month and may look at switching internet provider if not offered something reasonable.
Not true, roads have tolls, and school quality depends on income of nearby neighborhoods (and thus funding). But that's not the aspect I was using for the metaphor. Maybe abetter methafor is airplanes. Like paying for a flight at 4:00pm but if oversold, you can pay extra to get on the plane. The ones that don't pony up, sorry you'll be late. What is fair is that if there is a bottleneck/oversold, they should compensate those that accept to be delayed, just like airlines do. Verizon is telling that your packets will have to wait for another flight, in spite of you having bought sufficient bandwidth per second, and charging someone else for the service of not being late vs you.
You are a genius. Let's also solve the traffic as well and reduce taxes: reserve one lane on every highway, and if you want to to avoid a 5 hour trip to work, you just pay a little more than your friend directly in front. If everyone pays, then it's not working. Wait, just raise the toll until many can't pay. Now that's life....arriving at work on time in 20 min. Isn't it worth the $500 per monthyou can afford to pay?
Let's also solve water scarcity, crowded public parks, access to beaches, electricity scarcity, crowded metros and many other problems. Lack of funds in your public school? No problem, when teachers become scarce, just bid to enter that math class that is at full capacity. I have many other great ideas. Thanks
For the very reason that it's not upgrading your bandwith. You already had it. I didn't RTFA but from summary, you are prileging your traffic AGAINST others that paid for a given bandwith. Their skype wont run unless they pay, and the price will be exactly that amount that maximizes profit for the carrier, creating infinite incentive for bottlenecks so that my service is usable. Those that apologized are mistaken. This is a horrible precedent. Starting with this API, network congestion is an asset to the carriers. Prepare your wallets if you play online games, use VOIP or anything that requires quality of service.
Maybe it's the children exposure, not the parents, what counts.People with more education get paid better and have more toys, gadgets, etc. But anyway, since Mattress have been loaded with Bromium (or something that sounds like that), Boric Acid and what not, and since you can't have one organic without a medical prescription, maybe that's why the difference is not so big IF there's any correlation with current lifestyle and this disorders. Then again, today 1% off all children are diagnosed autism, and we don't know what it is.
But we know how we lived in past, and how we live now, and the likelihood of a connection is close to 100% in my unscientific book or things that make obvious sense.
Look for the author of the report. He wrote a book. I haven't found any huge missdoing in his report, and all the claims against, to me, seem fabricated. Now, the reality is that today, in the USA, 1 out of 96 child have Autism (or 110 if you ask CDC). This is a huge number. It's 1% of all children born. The author claimed that all the chemicals, including vaccines, that we take for harmless, add up, and that brings all kind of problems, one of which is finding ourselves with 1% of all children in the country, with Autism. I made my comment more casually, and wanted it to be broader: we don't know what is causing so much allergies, cancer, autism and all the other illnesses. But certainly, injecting Mercury compounds when alternatives are available, isn't our best choice.
The problem today is that we want to detect the individual contribution of each thing to something very narrow. And we find everything is safe. And then, well, something is wrong and nobody knows what causes it. Yet, 1 out of every 96 of all Children have to fight really hard to live a normal life, and most fail (Autism).
There are other studies that show in animals that this Mercury compound seriously affects the brain. There are studies that state that while the half life may be relatively short, the compound isn't 100% stable and tends to change to not so safe forms. There are more things we don't know, than the things we know. Also, people point out that fish has more mercury. This makes the case stronger: if there are more ways to get it, then reduce the number of sources to a minimum. That argument, to me, is like saying that it's ok for interior lamps to have a lot of UV...the sun is already producing vasts amounts. No, that's not a good reason. Protect while in the sun, and don't make it even worst by creating artificial sources for trouble. Especially in vaccines.
But anyway....I should have made my comment more general. Mercury compounds aren't needed, and I personally would avoid it if I have kids. I don't see a reason not to use the other preservatives - in my case.
Not deceptive....becase of my sister reaction, she measured her metals levels. That river is within acceptbale alu dose. But made my sister red spots. After she analyzed her blood, metals in the blood where too high. Same with my parents. Did you analyze yours?
Anyway, I thank you for posting. Some others just decided my post was flamebait or troll. Guess This is ine of the few occasions my opinion is unpopular. I don't care. I post when i think i't worth saying.
Ok, that is the consensus. Point taken. I believe otherwise. The earth was flat for 3 millenia or more. I believe this mercury preservative isn't safe.
Feed your kids mercury or mercury compounds. I prefer not and do not like this preservative. I do not like boric acid or bromium as my or my kids beds flame retardant. I don't want it in my TV. I don't want added toxic fluoride in my tap water and I don't want systemic pesticides in my food. I choose with my wallet as much as I can. But sometimes I don't even have an option.
You science is wrong. First, you control the experiment, not the things around. Suppose there is a correlation, that after X dose you get a higher rate. Now suppose that it has been linked, but that people habits changed, an now they eat more tuna. Your study will mean that it is contributing, but that Tuna in both populations now players a mayor role, so both are unaffected. So you may end up assuming that it's perfectly fine, while it's largely toxic and dangerous. Yet, you make it appear innocent. Could this be the case? Pretty much yes, regardless how how many Phds you and your sources may have, they can be absolutely wrong and be contributing to many known and unknown conditions just because Mercury is easy for vaccines. Also, tests in animals have shown that it's very dangerous. We don't test that with humans, because they die.
Nobody wins. it's not about winning. It's about freedom. You can prevent me for going to a pub you own if I am not vaccinated. But you cannot forcibly vaccinate others. You are actually injecting something into their bodies. The best way is a healthy environment, and well nourished people with strong immune systems. People with AIDS are also a risk. You need to accept them. Same with anything you perceive a risk. Else, the country will seem more like a Communist/Authoritarian. Capitalism base is the belief that individuals, when free, will create a better world for others. We are going the opposite way.
I propose a different model. Measure mercury levels. Today, many many things contain mor mercury than before, like the tuna you advocate you pregnant woman. Maybe vaccines are not just a 1% of all the mercury being absorbed by kids through tuna and other foods. Would high doses of this mercury have adverse effects? Yes. So why add even more? Get rd of Tuna also, and buy fish that doesn't live several years. That more practical than pointing the vaccines with mercury have no correlation. They still many have, if the other kids are also absorbing mercury in some other ways. The claim isn't so much about vaccines, but about mercury (and vaccines is just one distribution channels).
As I said, you may be right. I still don't like Mercury in my bloodstream, if it can be avoided. Call this an opinion and let it live as such. Tobbaco was super safe for years. I trust science in the long run (100 years), not 20 years timeframe when a lot of money is still in the table.
Slashdot Mirror
It's like a 10 mile run and the instructions saying you can use a bicycle. Yes, but that's no challenge. So maybe it took it for the challenge? The bicycle ride would have been a waste of time, and protecting the ego (abeit VERY small, it is vs running because I don't risk failing). But I don't care one shit about impressing a professor, and my ego is better knowing that running is the best choice. This is a spirit I learned when I no longer cared about others opinions, scores, or even my own fears. Who cares? I like doing it mentally because it's the right challenge, and I learn something that way. Of course, if the exercise said answer the following 12 questions in 100 seconds, or from the analogy, it said 100 mile run (you can use a bicycle)...I would have picked the bicycle.
The challenge in the USA is that the scores are used to determine which university you can go to, and which job you can get. So pleasing the processor, hijacking tests with logic, etc, becomes a survival skill that, as everyone plays it, just makes the tests more important that education itself. That's why I like old classical books such as Plato's dialogs (and these guys where great at *reasoning* math), because they explain several different trains of thoughts, and what are the flaws, etc. They train the patterns and though processes, and then you have a universal tool instead of one more formula to forget forever right after the next test is passed with perfect score.
He completely changed how video rentals work with by-mail Netlifx. Never a late fee, no need to go anywhere, not traveling to a store to find the movie you want is not there and you need something else. Now they are changing how TV and shows are distributed, altering how we consume content instantly. You sound to me like the people that wanted Steve Jobs to go in the 90s. Obviously, you don't understand that Netflix is his creation, and that it's the most successful video rental company in the world worth about $4,000 million dollars today.
I haven't verified your claims, but for me Dora is important because it's my son's favorite and I need all individual chapters. He likes the variety, and I like that program for him as well vs watching TV that include all kind of dangerous programs and dangerous advertisements, including supposedly dying babies, services for people on debt or charged and many other worrying stuff.
>I'll be lucky to get one delivery per week.
It only means a little more capital for Netflix (buy more movies), and to change everyone with 2 at a time to three at a time. And three for four. That will compensate the lower frequency with the only impact being a slightly lower wait, but the same movies per month than what you have today. They could even alter the DVD envelope to allow more than 1 DVD in a single envelope, and do 4 deliveries per month. That would lover costs of shipping significantly. I would keep BD delivery for sure, the streaming version is nice, but some movies must be seen in BD.
You don't understand. The reason Cable companies make billions and why Netflix has gone down to about $70 from $300 is that the content is the bait, not the product. Cable companies are good at selling YOU to advertisers, not selling content to YOU. It's so much profitable to to sell you, and share a part of that with content creators, that trying to make you the customer. If you are the customer, they can get $20-100 from you. If you are the product, they can sell your attention to offer crap for an unlimited amount, be it a mortgage, loan, school, product, etc.
You were doing great until ...
>actually this describes the state of the internet too
I couldn't disagree more. What content is missing from internet? Movies? No Newspapers? No. Personal opinions/blogs? No. Social reactions? No. Journals of any kind? No TV? No. Research? No. technical articles? No. Documentation? Dictionaries? No? Images? No. Photography? No. Just about anything you can think of can be assessable in a myriad of ways, from paid content that's just "buy and access", to 100% free, to high quality but with ads, to just about any other possible method. There are even full university courses by prestigious universities. I don't know why I felt like explaining this, it's just self evident.
>It overtook because it is a better browser.
What evidence do you have? I know I tried to not have Chrome, and had to be vigilant about it. It will self install if you update Flash (or would do that, if that is no longer so). Same with other apps. It's also advertized by the largest advertising agency in the world, namely, Google itself. If Firefox had all that exposure, and bundling deals (a la Flash) I guess we'll be seeing the opposite than today.
I also don't trust Google for everything, and the browser is not something I would like to give to Google. They already have my email, search history and what not. The browser is better of with someone not vested in how to browse the web, what info to collect, what functionality to expose to plugins, etc.
Yes, and if a better potential wife comes along and shows interest, ditch your wife. I am exaggerating on purpose. You can't know how things will play out in the long term. I adopted Firefox when it was worst than IE, but much more "right" than IE. Now, I want ditch it for Chrome just because the other browser is 5% faster, or invented the quick sprints and fast paced release cycles. Why should I? Obviously, Chrome grows faster because it's advertised by the largest advertising agency in the world - namely Google. And because that network uses their funding of Firefox to advertise their product directly within the Firefox and other competing communities.
I Firefox loses funding, well then, I am going to stick to it until it's clearly inferior in a significant way. Right now, i couldn't acre less about Chrome. I go to great length to revert back to Firefox when the ugly flash or other bundled software "gets into Google's pockets" and install their crap on my hardware.
I started doing IM in 1996 with the first ICQ. It worked great for a while, especially the first versions. The status was respected. People knew a BRB or Away. I was kind of like email, but you could switch to real-time chat anytime. You could easily be invisible to people of your choice. The next logical group was being invisible to groups. Eg. When working, you could be invisible to family. That's the same as turning it into email.
Then MSN appeared, and the market was fragmented. Status was not codified, but more like text message. No more invisible. I typically opened messages all over the place instead of marking it in the ICQ bar. Much less selective invisibility. Then they added the functioality to write to people that wheren't online. Huge mistake: like an additional channel for email. They should have kept routing the conversation to email as ICQ did at some point (or maby integrate the funcionality in a meaningful way separating Presence vs Batch). I used MSN for a while and then deemed it a complete waste of time with some benefits but huge drawbacks and a general time waster. Then MSN evolved a bit, but adding so many things I didn't need (same with ICQ), not all people would be in the same net. For a "Presence" app, ICQ was fantastic. That's what it was, a Presence app (when and how you are present at what times). It complemented email as I needed it. ICQ even had a corporate version that was amazingly easy to install, you could have just your coworkers, managed centrally. There sure are this things now, but in such a way (from what I've seen) that I just wish MSN never appeared in the first place.
With that said, I fell back to mostly email for most anything, phone for urgent things (I cannot cancel my voicemail, which is why it's always "Full", I don't want a Voice Recorder to replace email) and selective MSN when talking isn't an option (eg. you are in a conference, or you are using it as a backchannel in a phone conference with many people, to interact with your team in realtime over the backchannel).
Anything else doesn't get my attention. Gmail is for personal stuff and eventually the large attach or even YouSend it (with password protected .zip) for still larger stuff. Anything that isn't communications can be done over a proper platform (CRM, collab tool, etc).
Try instantwatcher.com It uses NYC Times Picks, RottenTomatoes and Popularity. Has many other filters. A godsend to me, found great things that way. By Actor is also great. Sometimes Actors can spot good movies, and while some aren't great, some ended up being great movies that for some reason many people unlike myself didn't like.
Reminder to Myself: Mod Up if I get Mod Points Later On
My kid watches Dora now. He will move to something else in a year. I only need one hour a day of content I want to carefully feed to my children. I don't like the TV. Just the commercials are a risk, and not being available exactly were I want the content (tablet? phone?), and when I want it, is also a downside for the cable companies. For me the comparison is more like:
Cable:
- Pay $50 or more in cash
- Bundle with Internet and phone so switching cost is higher
- Try to lock me into something that will pike next year
- Make $20 more on ads that cost me $300 for what my time is worth (if i where a coach potato)
Netflix
- Pay $22 (2+Streaming)
- Get 10-12 movies a month blu ray to watch on 120" screen/projector
- Get enough good content for kids / 1 hour a day at most
- Instant Play lesser know movies that I would have never bought, experience on cinema or rented (and that in many cases where great finds)
- Instant Play movies I wanted to watch, maybe 15% of what I would like but for $8 a month who cares (I would pay more for better movies, even if no blockbusters are to be found, just get the underdogs in)
- Avoid buying DRMs movies locked to 1 software (like Vudu)
Now, I do see problems because there's no throttle like the mail service has. There should be. people consuming more, contribute less per movie or show. And the studios do not like the prospect of a Netflix that is growing and cannot command more rates per view. I say By Mail worked because (among other things) it had a limit. If I could have 5,000,000 at a time at $8 a month (say having all movies released on DVD/BR that Netflix has by Mail), as a studio, I would say this is not sutainable and Netflix is a dead end for me content creator. But at options like 8, 15, 22 and 30 a month for $8, $15, $22 and $30 a month, then as a studio, I would say then maybe this model is viable. And if Netflix shares a % of that, some studios will see more value, and more content avaiable. After all, it's better to have 5x the sales at 50% the price to the user, than 1x at 100%.
Will the 22 million users that Netflix has buy that model? I would if they have a very generous selection to pick from. Many would not. But it would be the equivalent of the Mail service that I like so much. They could charge me more for HD streaming as well (like Blu ray costs a bit more). Some people do not use it, so why charge them more? All in all, I hope Netflix does well AND does the right thing. The alternative is the "good" old $3 per movie rental, $12-25 per movie (with incompatible DRM systems that may disappear tomorrow) or the proven "channel" approach full of ads by the cable companies. If would prefer the Netflix 2.0 I described.
Anyway, for now, Netflix is the best option for me and ...Verizon, I am sending the DVR back in about a month and may look at switching internet provider if not offered something reasonable.
Not true, roads have tolls, and school quality depends on income of nearby neighborhoods (and thus funding). But that's not the aspect I was using for the metaphor. Maybe abetter methafor is airplanes. Like paying for a flight at 4:00pm but if oversold, you can pay extra to get on the plane. The ones that don't pony up, sorry you'll be late. What is fair is that if there is a bottleneck/oversold, they should compensate those that accept to be delayed, just like airlines do. Verizon is telling that your packets will have to wait for another flight, in spite of you having bought sufficient bandwidth per second, and charging someone else for the service of not being late vs you.
One now
You are a genius. Let's also solve the traffic as well and reduce taxes: reserve one lane on every highway, and if you want to to avoid a 5 hour trip to work, you just pay a little more than your friend directly in front. If everyone pays, then it's not working. Wait, just raise the toll until many can't pay. Now that's life....arriving at work on time in 20 min. Isn't it worth the $500 per monthyou can afford to pay?
Let's also solve water scarcity, crowded public parks, access to beaches, electricity scarcity, crowded metros and many other problems. Lack of funds in your public school? No problem, when teachers become scarce, just bid to enter that math class that is at full capacity. I have many other great ideas. Thanks
For the very reason that it's not upgrading your bandwith. You already had it. I didn't RTFA but from summary, you are prileging your traffic AGAINST others that paid for a given bandwith. Their skype wont run unless they pay, and the price will be exactly that amount that maximizes profit for the carrier, creating infinite incentive for bottlenecks so that my service is usable. Those that apologized are mistaken. This is a horrible precedent. Starting with this API, network congestion is an asset to the carriers. Prepare your wallets if you play online games, use VOIP or anything that requires quality of service.
Maybe it's the children exposure, not the parents, what counts.People with more education get paid better and have more toys, gadgets, etc. But anyway, since Mattress have been loaded with Bromium (or something that sounds like that), Boric Acid and what not, and since you can't have one organic without a medical prescription, maybe that's why the difference is not so big IF there's any correlation with current lifestyle and this disorders. Then again, today 1% off all children are diagnosed autism, and we don't know what it is.
But we know how we lived in past, and how we live now, and the likelihood of a connection is close to 100% in my unscientific book or things that make obvious sense.
Look for the author of the report. He wrote a book. I haven't found any huge missdoing in his report, and all the claims against, to me, seem fabricated. Now, the reality is that today, in the USA, 1 out of 96 child have Autism (or 110 if you ask CDC). This is a huge number. It's 1% of all children born. The author claimed that all the chemicals, including vaccines, that we take for harmless, add up, and that brings all kind of problems, one of which is finding ourselves with 1% of all children in the country, with Autism. I made my comment more casually, and wanted it to be broader: we don't know what is causing so much allergies, cancer, autism and all the other illnesses. But certainly, injecting Mercury compounds when alternatives are available, isn't our best choice.
The problem today is that we want to detect the individual contribution of each thing to something very narrow. And we find everything is safe. And then, well, something is wrong and nobody knows what causes it. Yet, 1 out of every 96 of all Children have to fight really hard to live a normal life, and most fail (Autism).
There are other studies that show in animals that this Mercury compound seriously affects the brain. There are studies that state that while the half life may be relatively short, the compound isn't 100% stable and tends to change to not so safe forms. There are more things we don't know, than the things we know. Also, people point out that fish has more mercury. This makes the case stronger: if there are more ways to get it, then reduce the number of sources to a minimum. That argument, to me, is like saying that it's ok for interior lamps to have a lot of UV...the sun is already producing vasts amounts. No, that's not a good reason. Protect while in the sun, and don't make it even worst by creating artificial sources for trouble. Especially in vaccines.
But anyway....I should have made my comment more general. Mercury compounds aren't needed, and I personally would avoid it if I have kids. I don't see a reason not to use the other preservatives - in my case.
Not deceptive....becase of my sister reaction, she measured her metals levels. That river is within acceptbale alu dose. But made my sister red spots. After she analyzed her blood, metals in the blood where too high. Same with my parents. Did you analyze yours?
Anyway, I thank you for posting. Some others just decided my post was flamebait or troll. Guess This is ine of the few occasions my opinion is unpopular. I don't care. I post when i think i't worth saying.
Ok, that is the consensus. Point taken. I believe otherwise. The earth was flat for 3 millenia or more. I believe this mercury preservative isn't safe.
Feed your kids mercury or mercury compounds. I prefer not and do not like this preservative. I do not like boric acid or bromium as my or my kids beds flame retardant. I don't want it in my TV. I don't want added toxic fluoride in my tap water and I don't want systemic pesticides in my food. I choose with my wallet as much as I can. But sometimes I don't even have an option.
The alternative are vaccines than use other preservatives. Re-read the hole thread. Also, the flu doesn't kill 2%.
You science is wrong. First, you control the experiment, not the things around. Suppose there is a correlation, that after X dose you get a higher rate. Now suppose that it has been linked, but that people habits changed, an now they eat more tuna. Your study will mean that it is contributing, but that Tuna in both populations now players a mayor role, so both are unaffected. So you may end up assuming that it's perfectly fine, while it's largely toxic and dangerous. Yet, you make it appear innocent. Could this be the case? Pretty much yes, regardless how how many Phds you and your sources may have, they can be absolutely wrong and be contributing to many known and unknown conditions just because Mercury is easy for vaccines. Also, tests in animals have shown that it's very dangerous. We don't test that with humans, because they die.
Nobody wins. it's not about winning. It's about freedom. You can prevent me for going to a pub you own if I am not vaccinated. But you cannot forcibly vaccinate others. You are actually injecting something into their bodies. The best way is a healthy environment, and well nourished people with strong immune systems. People with AIDS are also a risk. You need to accept them. Same with anything you perceive a risk. Else, the country will seem more like a Communist/Authoritarian. Capitalism base is the belief that individuals, when free, will create a better world for others. We are going the opposite way.
I propose a different model. Measure mercury levels. Today, many many things contain mor mercury than before, like the tuna you advocate you pregnant woman. Maybe vaccines are not just a 1% of all the mercury being absorbed by kids through tuna and other foods. Would high doses of this mercury have adverse effects? Yes. So why add even more? Get rd of Tuna also, and buy fish that doesn't live several years. That more practical than pointing the vaccines with mercury have no correlation. They still many have, if the other kids are also absorbing mercury in some other ways. The claim isn't so much about vaccines, but about mercury (and vaccines is just one distribution channels).
As I said, you may be right. I still don't like Mercury in my bloodstream, if it can be avoided. Call this an opinion and let it live as such. Tobbaco was super safe for years. I trust science in the long run (100 years), not 20 years timeframe when a lot of money is still in the table.