The Second isn't open to debate? Empirically, that's very definitely not the case. As far as I can tell, it was gutted in 1986, when it became illegal to go out and buy a new infantry rifle.
Based on my experience with fingerprint sensors, I'd imagine a much higher failure rate than 1%. I've managed to fingerprint-start my iPhone 5S about once a year since I got it, and I have a lot of difficulty with the snack machine at work (better to need to use the fingerprint sensor ten times than to try to log in on that miserable on-screen keyboard). Also, I like wearing gloves when it's cool outside. It may be that my fingerprints are unusually hard to recognize, but I tend to think fingerprint sensors are unreliable.
If you're using the weapon for self-defense, then if things get bad enough that you have to shoot you have to shoot NOW. If the gun doesn't fire, you've just identified yourself as an imminent threat who's likely to be vulnerable for a few seconds. That can easily be fatal.
Speaking as a liberal who isn't that fond of widespread gun ownership, the "safe gun" idea, as currently implemented, is stupid. If you've got a gun just for target shooting, having to reboot it while swearing at Microsoft is an annoyance. If you're carrying it for self-defense, and you actually have to fire it, you need it to shoot NOW, not in five seconds. If it doesn't go off when you fire it, the bad guy will have time to close and deal with you while you're trying to get the fingerprint sensor to work.
So get out and vote. The US government is not some sort of malign extradimensional entity. It's what people vote in. The government is much more interested in who you vote for than who you shoot.
The Viet Cong were ineffective in stopping US troops. They were much better at fading into the scenery and coming out later. Eventually, they did get into serious battles with US troops, and were wiped out. The conflicts in the 1970s were basically invasions from North Vietnam with a little local cover.
If you are shooting at authorities, you're a rebellion and fair targets for the Army, and nobody's going to break any oath. The Army trains soldiers well, and they're unlikely to refuse to fight rebels. If you're threatening the lives of families of soldiers, they're going to get more determined to stop you and less fussy about collateral damage. Even if you do get a lot of them to desert, what's left is a modern mechanized army that will smash any citizen resistance it finds. Not only because of weaponry, but because regular troops are far more effective in combat than brave armed civilians.
There is no way in the world private gun ownership would stop the US government.
As a liberal, I support people's right to kill themselves if they want to, but suicide attempts are very often impulsive acts, and many attempted suicides regret the attempt immediately after. Many suicide impulses are temporary insanity, and it's good if that isn't too fatal.
Seems to me that the judges are doing their job by tossing these charges as soon as they look at them, so juries aren't involved. The abuse is from the cops and DAs.
You're saying it was OK to take land as long as you kill the occupants first, as long as it's your doings that killed them but it's not really your fault.
The natives were here first. Sure, their ancestors came from East Africa like all the rest of us, but centuries or millenia of one group occupying land does qualify them as natives, if the word has any meaning. US settlers didn't seem to care much about the diverse political and social systems, as long as they could get rid of them and take their land.
Do you really mean to say that it's OK to take land provided the people who were alive when you came are now dead? Are you advocating a 100% inheritance tax or something? The Native Americans there can trace their ancestry back a long ways, and are the heirs of the people the land was stolen from.
We have no right to see Trump's tax returns. However, it's traditional for Presidential candidates to release them, and it's reasonable to suspect that there's things in there Trump doesn't want us seeing.
And, in your opinion, Clinton is a bad person since she said something immediately after some serious incidents that we now know was false? Ever heard of people making mistakes when they have insufficient information?
Let's see. Assange has been known to leak genuine materials, and so he's reliable? That's pretty darn thin. Clinton doesn't make a statement so the material is genuine? Suppose Clinton had made a statement; what then? If she'd said the information was bad, would you have more doubt, or would you just conclude that Clinton was lying? It's perfectly reasonable to doubt the authenticity.
You also seem awfully sure it was an inside job, while everything I've seen says there was an external attack.
Assange's story about why he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy makes no sense, so he's flagrantly lying and is anti-US. Further, there's evidence that the Russians broke in, and I trust them about as far as I can throw Kamchatka.
Clinton's been accused of a whole lot of things for decades now, whether she was guilty of them or not (usually not). There's no new dirt for Republicans to throw. Sanders was getting the kid glove treatment from the GOP during the nomination. Had he been the candidate, they would have immediately started going after the Socialist who wants to raise your taxes and spend them on lazy bums and other causes you're against. It would not have been pretty.
Despite what the polls said, I think Sanders would have been a lot more vulnerable. Much as I admire the man and agree with his policies, he had a pretty good chance of being the next McGovern if nominated.
Two Swedish women made allegations about him. One of them was counted as rape. If you have actual evidence that they weren't being truthful, I'd like to see it. I haven't so far, and suspect it's made up to confuse the issue. The Brits don't extradite people except for allegedly doing something that is against the appropriate British law, and Assange's case was very well reviewed. He had every chance to argue that he was a political refugee.
The idea of the US pressuring Sweden to extradite him for no particular reason is ludicrous. If we'd wanted him when he was vountarily in Sweden, we'd have acted then. Or we'd have waited until Assange voluntarily appeared in the UK; they've normally been very cooperative when we wanted someone. In short, if we'd wanted him, we would have taken action earlier, before he got tangled in this extradition matter.
Cold-weather clothing doesn't require advanced technology, and can be improvised if necessary. If there's a failure in the Antarctic base, there's time to repair it. Pressure suits and airtight shelters do require advance technology, are hard to improvise, and the results of any problem can be deadly very quickly.
I haven't examined things myself. I'm not a security guy. I understand there's some public evidence, and beyond that the CIA doubtless knows more. I don't trust them, but Obama is willing to create a diplomatic incident over the hacking, which suggests he has good reason to think it was a Russian action. I'm not saying it had to be a state actor (from what I've read, it wasn't that difficult), but that there is reason to believe that it was.
It's not the information. It's the interference. Assange and likely Russia released information alleging corruption on the part of the DNC, said corruption apparently including having political preference. That's foreign interference in a US election. Being biased, I find that more annoying than US interference in foreign elections.
The 2000 election was extremely close, and had numerous minor irregularities that could have made Gore President had they gone the other way. The 2016 election looks like it's not going to be close. Trump's been saying that the polls are rigged and the election will be, and that he may not accept the election results if he loses (and he will). If he and his followers just say a lot of things, that's OK, but it is worth noting that Gore accepted Bush as President. If he encourages violence, and I can't rule that out, it's a lot worse.
How many children do you want to die to make you believe in the facts?
A large randomized double-blind trial would result in lots of children getting a lot of preventable diseases, and will weaken herd immunity so that people who can't get vaccinated for certain reasons will be endangered. We know this.
And yes, I'm calling bullshit on your opinion. As long as you're not in the medical field, I just hope that people correctly classify you as an idiot and don't pay attention to you. If you are registered in that field, you need to lose your registration stat.
In the US, there is a program to compensate people who suffer from vaccines. It isn't that expensive since most vaccines are really safe.
I believe it is possible to get paralysis or brain damage from extremely rare side effects of some vaccines. We've studied the heck out of vaccinations and autism and found no link.
They are acting against professional standards, by promulgating dangerous nonsense related to their profession. I have no objection to nurses claiming that UFOs bring lizard people to run our governments. I do have objections to them deliberately trying to destroy people's health.
Peer-reviewed papers are not immune from judgment. Peer review is at best a defense against sloppy work, not fraud. When a paper seems sufficiently dubious, other people start examining everything about it carefully, finding (for example) lies about when autism started to make it look like vaccinations had something to do about it. In other words, Wakefield didn't present findings, he presented lies. Other scientists start running their own studies on the same subject, and find that there is no perceptible link between autism and vaccination. IIRC, Wakefield's co-authors didn't keep a careful eye on what he was doing, and disavowed his work.
You are therefore taking a very anti-scientific attitude by arguing in Wakefield's favor. You're showing a lot of bias by claiming that big pharma profits on vaccines (not very much, all things considered) and not looking into what Wakefield was trying to sell as a result of his faked results. I'm not accusing you of being a shill, I"m accusing you of being a "useful idiot" in the Leninist sense. You appear to be willfully ignorant.
As one on the autism spectrum, I object to you claiming that lives are thoroughly destroyed by ASD. I have a pretty good life. I have no way to compare it to the life I'd have without ASD, but I rather like how my life has turned out. (I will confess to jealousy of guys who knew how to get women to have sex with them, but I've been happily married for well over half my life now, so it all worked out.)
One thing I hate is people who, for whatever reason, spread dangerous misinformation that leads to children not only suffering needlessly but threatening the health of other children.
Hygiene played a very important part in health. It was what turned cities from population sinks to population sources. It only goes so far.
The effectiveness of vaccination has been demonstrated numerous times, both from epidemiological studies and just looking at who's been vaccinated and who gets something. Smallpox was eliminated by vaccination performed all over the world, in areas with wildly varying social, hygienic, medical, environmental, and nutritional conditions. Polio is either eliminated or confined to one small area in the world; I haven't been keeping track. Very simply, there's all sorts of evidence that vaccines work.
Dr. Wakefield published a fraudulent paper linking autism to vaccinations, apparently to try to sell his thimerosal-free vaccines (thimerosal is not present any more in first-world vaccines, although it's necessary because of bad transportation and storage conditions in less developed areas). The paper was examined and found to base its conclusions on lies. Since then, there's been a lot of study on vaccinations and autism, finding no link.
I don't know why delaying the measles part would be a bad idea, but I bet the CDC could tell you, except that you don't appear to believe in scientific conclusions. Last time I wondered about a certain vaccination, I found the CDC site had reasons for the recommendation.
An experiment with the MMR vaccine such as you suggest would be highly unethical, and would land the experimenters in a great deal of legal trouble, because it would involve arbitrarily depriving children of safe and very beneficial treatment. Double-blind experiments cannot always be carried out on humans, so we have to study some things in more roundabout ways.
If you'd love to see it, you could go poking around. I'd suggest the CDC website as a possible place to start, or you could try googling "vaccine safety" and checking out the credible-looking sources for scientific evidence.
You don't become a board-certified physician or registered nurse on the way to work, and leave the certification or registration at work when you come home. You are a doctor or RN at all times. If you spout dangerous nonsense connected with your profession, you are likely to have your professional credentials removed as a safety measure.
In my experience, I am told the positive and negative possibilities when given drugs, including vaccines. Vaccinations typically come with a sheet of paper that lists them. Autism is not one of them, because there is no evidence that vaccination causes autism. If you want doctors to have to tell you that vaccination might cause it, you're demanding that they do something highly unprofessional and dangerous in the course of their duties. As far as painstaking research has shown, the vaccination schedule isn't going to raise or lower the autism rate, so you may as well get the vaccinations on schedule.
Anti-vax crackpots are peddling nonsense, particularly when they mention autism. Vaccines do have possible negative effects, and you'll easily find what they are if you care to look. Most of them are pretty darn safe, so you won't find much. I'm not offhand aware of vaccines against mild diseases that risk severe diseases, but I could be overlooking one where the probability of the severe disease is very very low.
Doing a double-blind study of the full schedule vs. no vaccination at all would be highly unethical. You're asking researchers to have people take considerable risks to prove something we're certain of anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
The Second isn't open to debate? Empirically, that's very definitely not the case. As far as I can tell, it was gutted in 1986, when it became illegal to go out and buy a new infantry rifle.
Based on my experience with fingerprint sensors, I'd imagine a much higher failure rate than 1%. I've managed to fingerprint-start my iPhone 5S about once a year since I got it, and I have a lot of difficulty with the snack machine at work (better to need to use the fingerprint sensor ten times than to try to log in on that miserable on-screen keyboard). Also, I like wearing gloves when it's cool outside. It may be that my fingerprints are unusually hard to recognize, but I tend to think fingerprint sensors are unreliable.
If you're using the weapon for self-defense, then if things get bad enough that you have to shoot you have to shoot NOW. If the gun doesn't fire, you've just identified yourself as an imminent threat who's likely to be vulnerable for a few seconds. That can easily be fatal.
Speaking as a liberal who isn't that fond of widespread gun ownership, the "safe gun" idea, as currently implemented, is stupid. If you've got a gun just for target shooting, having to reboot it while swearing at Microsoft is an annoyance. If you're carrying it for self-defense, and you actually have to fire it, you need it to shoot NOW, not in five seconds. If it doesn't go off when you fire it, the bad guy will have time to close and deal with you while you're trying to get the fingerprint sensor to work.
So get out and vote. The US government is not some sort of malign extradimensional entity. It's what people vote in. The government is much more interested in who you vote for than who you shoot.
The Viet Cong were ineffective in stopping US troops. They were much better at fading into the scenery and coming out later. Eventually, they did get into serious battles with US troops, and were wiped out. The conflicts in the 1970s were basically invasions from North Vietnam with a little local cover.
If you are shooting at authorities, you're a rebellion and fair targets for the Army, and nobody's going to break any oath. The Army trains soldiers well, and they're unlikely to refuse to fight rebels. If you're threatening the lives of families of soldiers, they're going to get more determined to stop you and less fussy about collateral damage. Even if you do get a lot of them to desert, what's left is a modern mechanized army that will smash any citizen resistance it finds. Not only because of weaponry, but because regular troops are far more effective in combat than brave armed civilians.
There is no way in the world private gun ownership would stop the US government.
As a liberal, I support people's right to kill themselves if they want to, but suicide attempts are very often impulsive acts, and many attempted suicides regret the attempt immediately after. Many suicide impulses are temporary insanity, and it's good if that isn't too fatal.
Seems to me that the judges are doing their job by tossing these charges as soon as they look at them, so juries aren't involved. The abuse is from the cops and DAs.
You're saying it was OK to take land as long as you kill the occupants first, as long as it's your doings that killed them but it's not really your fault.
The natives were here first. Sure, their ancestors came from East Africa like all the rest of us, but centuries or millenia of one group occupying land does qualify them as natives, if the word has any meaning. US settlers didn't seem to care much about the diverse political and social systems, as long as they could get rid of them and take their land.
Do you really mean to say that it's OK to take land provided the people who were alive when you came are now dead? Are you advocating a 100% inheritance tax or something? The Native Americans there can trace their ancestry back a long ways, and are the heirs of the people the land was stolen from.
We have no right to see Trump's tax returns. However, it's traditional for Presidential candidates to release them, and it's reasonable to suspect that there's things in there Trump doesn't want us seeing.
And, in your opinion, Clinton is a bad person since she said something immediately after some serious incidents that we now know was false? Ever heard of people making mistakes when they have insufficient information?
Let's see. Assange has been known to leak genuine materials, and so he's reliable? That's pretty darn thin. Clinton doesn't make a statement so the material is genuine? Suppose Clinton had made a statement; what then? If she'd said the information was bad, would you have more doubt, or would you just conclude that Clinton was lying? It's perfectly reasonable to doubt the authenticity.
You also seem awfully sure it was an inside job, while everything I've seen says there was an external attack.
Assange's story about why he's hiding in the Ecuadorian embassy makes no sense, so he's flagrantly lying and is anti-US. Further, there's evidence that the Russians broke in, and I trust them about as far as I can throw Kamchatka.
Clinton's been accused of a whole lot of things for decades now, whether she was guilty of them or not (usually not). There's no new dirt for Republicans to throw. Sanders was getting the kid glove treatment from the GOP during the nomination. Had he been the candidate, they would have immediately started going after the Socialist who wants to raise your taxes and spend them on lazy bums and other causes you're against. It would not have been pretty.
Despite what the polls said, I think Sanders would have been a lot more vulnerable. Much as I admire the man and agree with his policies, he had a pretty good chance of being the next McGovern if nominated.
Two Swedish women made allegations about him. One of them was counted as rape. If you have actual evidence that they weren't being truthful, I'd like to see it. I haven't so far, and suspect it's made up to confuse the issue. The Brits don't extradite people except for allegedly doing something that is against the appropriate British law, and Assange's case was very well reviewed. He had every chance to argue that he was a political refugee.
The idea of the US pressuring Sweden to extradite him for no particular reason is ludicrous. If we'd wanted him when he was vountarily in Sweden, we'd have acted then. Or we'd have waited until Assange voluntarily appeared in the UK; they've normally been very cooperative when we wanted someone. In short, if we'd wanted him, we would have taken action earlier, before he got tangled in this extradition matter.
If there were rigging, yes. Nobody's shown me evidence that the debate was rigged.
Cold-weather clothing doesn't require advanced technology, and can be improvised if necessary. If there's a failure in the Antarctic base, there's time to repair it. Pressure suits and airtight shelters do require advance technology, are hard to improvise, and the results of any problem can be deadly very quickly.
I haven't examined things myself. I'm not a security guy. I understand there's some public evidence, and beyond that the CIA doubtless knows more. I don't trust them, but Obama is willing to create a diplomatic incident over the hacking, which suggests he has good reason to think it was a Russian action. I'm not saying it had to be a state actor (from what I've read, it wasn't that difficult), but that there is reason to believe that it was.
It's not the information. It's the interference. Assange and likely Russia released information alleging corruption on the part of the DNC, said corruption apparently including having political preference. That's foreign interference in a US election. Being biased, I find that more annoying than US interference in foreign elections.
The 2000 election was extremely close, and had numerous minor irregularities that could have made Gore President had they gone the other way. The 2016 election looks like it's not going to be close. Trump's been saying that the polls are rigged and the election will be, and that he may not accept the election results if he loses (and he will). If he and his followers just say a lot of things, that's OK, but it is worth noting that Gore accepted Bush as President. If he encourages violence, and I can't rule that out, it's a lot worse.
How many children do you want to die to make you believe in the facts?
A large randomized double-blind trial would result in lots of children getting a lot of preventable diseases, and will weaken herd immunity so that people who can't get vaccinated for certain reasons will be endangered. We know this.
And yes, I'm calling bullshit on your opinion. As long as you're not in the medical field, I just hope that people correctly classify you as an idiot and don't pay attention to you. If you are registered in that field, you need to lose your registration stat.
In the US, there is a program to compensate people who suffer from vaccines. It isn't that expensive since most vaccines are really safe.
I believe it is possible to get paralysis or brain damage from extremely rare side effects of some vaccines. We've studied the heck out of vaccinations and autism and found no link.
They are acting against professional standards, by promulgating dangerous nonsense related to their profession. I have no objection to nurses claiming that UFOs bring lizard people to run our governments. I do have objections to them deliberately trying to destroy people's health.
Peer-reviewed papers are not immune from judgment. Peer review is at best a defense against sloppy work, not fraud. When a paper seems sufficiently dubious, other people start examining everything about it carefully, finding (for example) lies about when autism started to make it look like vaccinations had something to do about it. In other words, Wakefield didn't present findings, he presented lies. Other scientists start running their own studies on the same subject, and find that there is no perceptible link between autism and vaccination. IIRC, Wakefield's co-authors didn't keep a careful eye on what he was doing, and disavowed his work.
You are therefore taking a very anti-scientific attitude by arguing in Wakefield's favor. You're showing a lot of bias by claiming that big pharma profits on vaccines (not very much, all things considered) and not looking into what Wakefield was trying to sell as a result of his faked results. I'm not accusing you of being a shill, I"m accusing you of being a "useful idiot" in the Leninist sense. You appear to be willfully ignorant.
As one on the autism spectrum, I object to you claiming that lives are thoroughly destroyed by ASD. I have a pretty good life. I have no way to compare it to the life I'd have without ASD, but I rather like how my life has turned out. (I will confess to jealousy of guys who knew how to get women to have sex with them, but I've been happily married for well over half my life now, so it all worked out.)
One thing I hate is people who, for whatever reason, spread dangerous misinformation that leads to children not only suffering needlessly but threatening the health of other children.
Hygiene played a very important part in health. It was what turned cities from population sinks to population sources. It only goes so far.
The effectiveness of vaccination has been demonstrated numerous times, both from epidemiological studies and just looking at who's been vaccinated and who gets something. Smallpox was eliminated by vaccination performed all over the world, in areas with wildly varying social, hygienic, medical, environmental, and nutritional conditions. Polio is either eliminated or confined to one small area in the world; I haven't been keeping track. Very simply, there's all sorts of evidence that vaccines work.
Dr. Wakefield published a fraudulent paper linking autism to vaccinations, apparently to try to sell his thimerosal-free vaccines (thimerosal is not present any more in first-world vaccines, although it's necessary because of bad transportation and storage conditions in less developed areas). The paper was examined and found to base its conclusions on lies. Since then, there's been a lot of study on vaccinations and autism, finding no link.
I don't know why delaying the measles part would be a bad idea, but I bet the CDC could tell you, except that you don't appear to believe in scientific conclusions. Last time I wondered about a certain vaccination, I found the CDC site had reasons for the recommendation.
An experiment with the MMR vaccine such as you suggest would be highly unethical, and would land the experimenters in a great deal of legal trouble, because it would involve arbitrarily depriving children of safe and very beneficial treatment. Double-blind experiments cannot always be carried out on humans, so we have to study some things in more roundabout ways.
If you'd love to see it, you could go poking around. I'd suggest the CDC website as a possible place to start, or you could try googling "vaccine safety" and checking out the credible-looking sources for scientific evidence.
You don't become a board-certified physician or registered nurse on the way to work, and leave the certification or registration at work when you come home. You are a doctor or RN at all times. If you spout dangerous nonsense connected with your profession, you are likely to have your professional credentials removed as a safety measure.
In my experience, I am told the positive and negative possibilities when given drugs, including vaccines. Vaccinations typically come with a sheet of paper that lists them. Autism is not one of them, because there is no evidence that vaccination causes autism. If you want doctors to have to tell you that vaccination might cause it, you're demanding that they do something highly unprofessional and dangerous in the course of their duties. As far as painstaking research has shown, the vaccination schedule isn't going to raise or lower the autism rate, so you may as well get the vaccinations on schedule.
Anti-vax crackpots are peddling nonsense, particularly when they mention autism. Vaccines do have possible negative effects, and you'll easily find what they are if you care to look. Most of them are pretty darn safe, so you won't find much. I'm not offhand aware of vaccines against mild diseases that risk severe diseases, but I could be overlooking one where the probability of the severe disease is very very low.
Doing a double-blind study of the full schedule vs. no vaccination at all would be highly unethical. You're asking researchers to have people take considerable risks to prove something we're certain of anyway.