I seem to remember some evidence that having children later in life can increase the autism rate. In that case, the actions of the parents might have caused the autism.
Thing is, they don't have to be 100% effective to eliminate disease. Most diseases infect a person and either they kill the person or the person gets well and usually can't transmit it. This means that diseases need new infections to exist. Reduce the number of people who can catch the disease to the point where each new case causes an average of, say, one-tenth of a case, and the disease will die out fast. Do it over the entire world, and unless the disease has non-human reservoirs (malaria, to name one) it goes the way of smallpox.
However, if someone was not vaccinated because a doctor said not to without valid medical reasons (some people can't be vaccinated, which is why herd immunity is important) and did contract a disease and died, a malpractice suit would be in order.
Nothing is perfectly safe. The current vaccination schedule is as safe as we can make it, balancing rare or minimal vaccine effects against the chance of getting a dangerous disease.
Influenza and plague have killed a great many people, but I think smallpox still wins. Ebola has not killed many people at all, and is unlikely to develop into much of a killer. HIV hasn't been around for very long, although it's racking up reasonable numbers.
It's not vaccines because we've studied vaccines and autism enough to know. At one time, it would have been understandable to suspect a link, although if there were one it wouldn't take a fraudulent study to find it. Currently, while we don't know all possible causes of autism or consequences of vaccination, we know that, to a very high degree of accuracy, vaccinations don't cause autism.
To provide a medically uninformed speculation, I know an ASD person whose head was normal-sized at birth, whereas in other ways he was larger than normal. His head eventually did match his body, which means that his head had to grow more than normal. Since the brain is making connections in this period, I wondered if the additional growth might mess up brain development at an important time.
If the standard vaccine schedule caused serious problems, we'd know about them by now. People look at these things. Not to mention that autism tends to show up early, and the lack of relationship between vaccination and autism has been extensively studied.
How are you so sure that both the Russians and Assange aren't doctoring the documents? The problem with getting political information at an interesting time in the campaign in an illegal way is that you know it passed through criminals who probably have a political agenda. Remember what Ambrose Bierce said: from murder, it's just a short step to robbery and assault, and if this goes unchecked it may result in telling lies and cheating at cards.
And Assange is SO believable and truthful, and would never tell a lie, let alone a ridiculous one about the US being after him (now that he's much less relevant and it would be significantly harder to get an extradition through) without providing any evidence.
I'm not about to defend what the media runs with, but I'm going to suggest that that footage would have been much less significant if Trump had repudiated what he said, or even showed understanding what was wrong with it, or if a lot of people who didn't like Trump anyway hadn't used it as a convenient excuse to distance themselves from him. How Republicans react to stuff about Trump is not Clinton's responsibility, and is not really the media's responsibility.
Are you a lawyer practicing Swedish law, or are you just saying what someone else who isn't told you? Personally, I'm trusting the Swedes to figure that out.
The Fifth Amendment applies in the US, but that doesn't mean police and other authorities can't interview people. It means the people don't have to say anything, generally a good idea in a police or judicial system interview. It also doesn't apply to Australians in Ecuadorian embassies in the UK being charged by Swedish authorities. There are probably similar provisions in Swedish law, although they may not be as strong (I've read that English law against self-incrimination is the US law).
Bingo. That's why the US had not charged Assange with a crime. There's no evidence that he committed one. It is possible for a foreigner to commit a crime against the US without setting foot on US soil, but there's no particular evidence for that.
Typically, the executive branch arrests people and prosecutes crimes. The judicial branch determines things like probable cause and whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty.
The problem I have with Trump's saying he'd put Clinton in prison, aside from lack of evidence, is that he's threatening a political opponent during a campaign in a way that seems intended to intimidate her from opposing him, and we can't have that in a democracy.
I'm even less happy about Trump saying he might not accept the result of the election if he loses. We REALLY can't have that in a democracy. Props to Pence for saying very definitely that he will accept the election results.
The risk is a man-in-the-middle attack. If he knows that he's using the certificate of his VPN provider and that nobody else has that certificate, he's fine. If he connects to "Really Not MI6" and winds up using their certificate, either because they faked one that looks like his VPN's or because they got hold of that certificate (and most net software I use doesn't have good tools to tell if a certificate is good), that access point will communicate securely with both Assange and Assange's VPN provider, reading everything both ways.
Was the 2005 Trump tape leaked by a foreign national? There's plenty of domestic dirty politics going on, and that's our business We don't want Assange (and likely Putin) doing things to influence our election process.
Are you kidding? Ecuador has an agenda, and that's to look like they're standing up to the US. Harboring Assange gets them political points. Helping interfere in another country's elections is probably not part of their agenda, so Ecuador has an interest in shutting Assange up for another two and a half weeks.
Gee, would I want an unfriendly government hacking into US organizations to pass information through someone with an axe to grind in order to interfere with US elections if it favored my side? You Putin/Assange followers have to be out of your mind to think I'd approve of that no matter what.
Assange published information somebody else leaked (and Manning is convicted of the big leaks). That's legal in the US.
There's public evidence pointing to Russia for the Clinton leaks, and the Obama administration, which knows more than we do, seems pretty certain it was the Russians. So, you're relying for your prosecution on information likely provided by an unfriendly government with no reputation for honesty and passed through a middleman also not known for honesty, and as far as I can tell not pointing to any significant Clinton illegality.
Sweden can't get him extradited from the UK and then let the US extradite him without permission from the UK. If the US had wanted him, back when he was relevant, we'd have filed the request when only one country would have to agree.
What do you think we want to try him for? He's never been charged in the US. There's no particular evidence that he violated US law (publishing classified information is legal here). The person who leaked the information is put away for a LONG time. If we wanted him, we'd have filed an extradition request and figured the UK would hand him over like they usually do. Moreover, he's been getting less and less relevant over time, so if we had wanted him when he arrived in the UK (which we apparently didn't) we would probably have dropped the idea.
If he went to Sweden to face the music, both Sweden and the UK would have to agree to extradite him to the US, and Sweden isn't a US lapdog. He'd have been safer from extradition than when he voluntarily went to Sweden (stupid if he thinks he's going to get extradited to the US) and the UK (incredibly stupid if he thinks there's a possibility of a US extradition request).
Assange doesn't want to face the rape charge, and has made a bunch of crap up to make him look like something other than a criminal fleeing justice. The unfortunate thing is people who actually believe him.
Really? The US Armed Forces just blew through Iraq despite anything the Iraqis could do to stop us. Then the Bush administration found out that what comes after the war is over is much more complicated than they'd anticipated.
In Antarctica, you can do something you can't do on Mars: breathe! You've got the standard Earth radiation protection package (an optional extra on Mars), and the gravity is guaranteed to be strong enough for human health. (I don't know about Mars gravity: we know that 1G is enough, and 0G is way too little. Anybody know of research on this?) It's possible to get there with an ordinary aircraft or ship in a relatively short time, with gravity, air, and radiation shielding provided.
I think the biggest attraction is human-breathable air at human-friendly pressure, but there are others.
Slashdot Mirror
I seem to remember some evidence that having children later in life can increase the autism rate. In that case, the actions of the parents might have caused the autism.
Vaccines aren't 100% effective.
Thing is, they don't have to be 100% effective to eliminate disease. Most diseases infect a person and either they kill the person or the person gets well and usually can't transmit it. This means that diseases need new infections to exist. Reduce the number of people who can catch the disease to the point where each new case causes an average of, say, one-tenth of a case, and the disease will die out fast. Do it over the entire world, and unless the disease has non-human reservoirs (malaria, to name one) it goes the way of smallpox.
However, if someone was not vaccinated because a doctor said not to without valid medical reasons (some people can't be vaccinated, which is why herd immunity is important) and did contract a disease and died, a malpractice suit would be in order.
Nothing is perfectly safe. The current vaccination schedule is as safe as we can make it, balancing rare or minimal vaccine effects against the chance of getting a dangerous disease.
Influenza and plague have killed a great many people, but I think smallpox still wins. Ebola has not killed many people at all, and is unlikely to develop into much of a killer. HIV hasn't been around for very long, although it's racking up reasonable numbers.
It's not vaccines because we've studied vaccines and autism enough to know. At one time, it would have been understandable to suspect a link, although if there were one it wouldn't take a fraudulent study to find it. Currently, while we don't know all possible causes of autism or consequences of vaccination, we know that, to a very high degree of accuracy, vaccinations don't cause autism.
To provide a medically uninformed speculation, I know an ASD person whose head was normal-sized at birth, whereas in other ways he was larger than normal. His head eventually did match his body, which means that his head had to grow more than normal. Since the brain is making connections in this period, I wondered if the additional growth might mess up brain development at an important time.
If the standard vaccine schedule caused serious problems, we'd know about them by now. People look at these things. Not to mention that autism tends to show up early, and the lack of relationship between vaccination and autism has been extensively studied.
How are you so sure that both the Russians and Assange aren't doctoring the documents? The problem with getting political information at an interesting time in the campaign in an illegal way is that you know it passed through criminals who probably have a political agenda. Remember what Ambrose Bierce said: from murder, it's just a short step to robbery and assault, and if this goes unchecked it may result in telling lies and cheating at cards.
When America is great again, we'll have the craziest and most retarded people around! Number one!
And Assange is SO believable and truthful, and would never tell a lie, let alone a ridiculous one about the US being after him (now that he's much less relevant and it would be significantly harder to get an extradition through) without providing any evidence.
I assume that you take whatever Michael Moore produces at face value, also.
I'm not about to defend what the media runs with, but I'm going to suggest that that footage would have been much less significant if Trump had repudiated what he said, or even showed understanding what was wrong with it, or if a lot of people who didn't like Trump anyway hadn't used it as a convenient excuse to distance themselves from him. How Republicans react to stuff about Trump is not Clinton's responsibility, and is not really the media's responsibility.
Are you a lawyer practicing Swedish law, or are you just saying what someone else who isn't told you? Personally, I'm trusting the Swedes to figure that out.
The Fifth Amendment applies in the US, but that doesn't mean police and other authorities can't interview people. It means the people don't have to say anything, generally a good idea in a police or judicial system interview. It also doesn't apply to Australians in Ecuadorian embassies in the UK being charged by Swedish authorities. There are probably similar provisions in Swedish law, although they may not be as strong (I've read that English law against self-incrimination is the US law).
Bingo. That's why the US had not charged Assange with a crime. There's no evidence that he committed one. It is possible for a foreigner to commit a crime against the US without setting foot on US soil, but there's no particular evidence for that.
Typically, the executive branch arrests people and prosecutes crimes. The judicial branch determines things like probable cause and whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty.
The problem I have with Trump's saying he'd put Clinton in prison, aside from lack of evidence, is that he's threatening a political opponent during a campaign in a way that seems intended to intimidate her from opposing him, and we can't have that in a democracy.
I'm even less happy about Trump saying he might not accept the result of the election if he loses. We REALLY can't have that in a democracy. Props to Pence for saying very definitely that he will accept the election results.
The risk is a man-in-the-middle attack. If he knows that he's using the certificate of his VPN provider and that nobody else has that certificate, he's fine. If he connects to "Really Not MI6" and winds up using their certificate, either because they faked one that looks like his VPN's or because they got hold of that certificate (and most net software I use doesn't have good tools to tell if a certificate is good), that access point will communicate securely with both Assange and Assange's VPN provider, reading everything both ways.
Was the 2005 Trump tape leaked by a foreign national? There's plenty of domestic dirty politics going on, and that's our business We don't want Assange (and likely Putin) doing things to influence our election process.
Are you kidding? Ecuador has an agenda, and that's to look like they're standing up to the US. Harboring Assange gets them political points. Helping interfere in another country's elections is probably not part of their agenda, so Ecuador has an interest in shutting Assange up for another two and a half weeks.
Gee, would I want an unfriendly government hacking into US organizations to pass information through someone with an axe to grind in order to interfere with US elections if it favored my side? You Putin/Assange followers have to be out of your mind to think I'd approve of that no matter what.
Assange published information somebody else leaked (and Manning is convicted of the big leaks). That's legal in the US.
There's public evidence pointing to Russia for the Clinton leaks, and the Obama administration, which knows more than we do, seems pretty certain it was the Russians. So, you're relying for your prosecution on information likely provided by an unfriendly government with no reputation for honesty and passed through a middleman also not known for honesty, and as far as I can tell not pointing to any significant Clinton illegality.
Sweden can't get him extradited from the UK and then let the US extradite him without permission from the UK. If the US had wanted him, back when he was relevant, we'd have filed the request when only one country would have to agree.
What do you think we want to try him for? He's never been charged in the US. There's no particular evidence that he violated US law (publishing classified information is legal here). The person who leaked the information is put away for a LONG time. If we wanted him, we'd have filed an extradition request and figured the UK would hand him over like they usually do. Moreover, he's been getting less and less relevant over time, so if we had wanted him when he arrived in the UK (which we apparently didn't) we would probably have dropped the idea.
If he went to Sweden to face the music, both Sweden and the UK would have to agree to extradite him to the US, and Sweden isn't a US lapdog. He'd have been safer from extradition than when he voluntarily went to Sweden (stupid if he thinks he's going to get extradited to the US) and the UK (incredibly stupid if he thinks there's a possibility of a US extradition request).
Assange doesn't want to face the rape charge, and has made a bunch of crap up to make him look like something other than a criminal fleeing justice. The unfortunate thing is people who actually believe him.
There were WMDs left from when we cooperated with Saddam. There were no functioning WMD programs or new or safe to use WMDs.
Really? The US Armed Forces just blew through Iraq despite anything the Iraqis could do to stop us. Then the Bush administration found out that what comes after the war is over is much more complicated than they'd anticipated.
In Antarctica, you can do something you can't do on Mars: breathe! You've got the standard Earth radiation protection package (an optional extra on Mars), and the gravity is guaranteed to be strong enough for human health. (I don't know about Mars gravity: we know that 1G is enough, and 0G is way too little. Anybody know of research on this?) It's possible to get there with an ordinary aircraft or ship in a relatively short time, with gravity, air, and radiation shielding provided.
I think the biggest attraction is human-breathable air at human-friendly pressure, but there are others.