The consequences of not having children vaccinated are only realised if the children catch the diseases. Do you vaccinate your children against all diseases for which vaccines are available? The reality is there is insufficient verifiably independent information available publicly for people to make informed decisions. When we were looking for information to support our intention to vaccinate our children we found lots of hyperbole and graphic images of the effects of disease from our public health system while there was an endless supply of "information", some credible and some not, from those against vaccination. Our children are vaccinated against some diseases but we do not vaccinate just because of "death rates from the diseases".
You don't need first hand knowledge. You need to trust the experts whom you charge with helping you make informed decisions.
I'll see your experts and raise you my experts. Which experts do you trust implicitly? Maybe the experts in the oil companies who knew about climate change and didn't inform us? Maybe the doctors who promoted smoking back in the day? The doctors who prescribe opioids for minor pain despite the epidemic of opioid abuse? What about Bayer which says Roundup doesn't cause cancer, despite two current cases where the jury found that it does? Perhaps the experts that said Sadam had WOMD resulting in a war we are still feeling the effects of today. Your informed decisions are only informed if you have all the information. I try to avoid letting "experts" make my decisions for me unless I'm confident in their expertise.
How many pro-vaxxers have done anything to inform themselves about the choices they are making on behalf of their children, that doesn't include parroting their doctors/nurses/medical professional of choice? Well have you? What did you discover?
Societies have always had problems with people who are all too willing to believe what they want to believe regardless of evidence to the contrary, and others willing to exploit those people for money.
When your mirror shows you something that upsets you, the correct solution is not to try to bend the mirror.
This applies equally to those in favour of vaccination and it might be worth considering the difference in scale of those organisations making hay out of the increasing number of vaccinations on the schedule versus those making money from selling their books.
Why do you continue to suggest I'm in possession of evidence - that is not a claim I have made. The nature of the vaccination argument is that one side has expended some effort to try to make an informed decision and the other side just parrots the establishment.
At no point in this conversation have I claimed to be anti-vaccination or have evidence. What steps have you taken to feel confident about your position on vaccination?
Yeah you want me to do the research for you just so you can use your superior intellect and apply your bias without actually putting in any effort yourself. Thanks for being so up-front about that.
There's this thing called google, you may have heard of it? I'm not going to get into debate - clearly that's a pointless waste of time. If you're interested in trying to make an informed decision about vaccination rather than just swallow the coolaid then I wish you luck. The fact to hyperbole ratio on both sides of the debate is high.
Most pro-vaxxers have never considered that the anti-vaxxers might be correct. The anti-vaxxers have plenty of evidence because they have to in order to back their position. The pro-vaxxers are all parroting the medical establishment which is just saying "do what we tell you and because science". It's sad and disturbing and so stupid.
Just a reminder https://science.slashdot.org/c.... There's not one in ten posters here that have done any research into vaccination, they've all just swallowed the coolaid.
NeXTSTEP was probably the revolutionary there... The mac just brought those concepts to a wider audience really.
NeXTSTEP wasn't released until 1989 so no, the Mac was revolutionary in its own right. Yes it aggregated existing tech but delivered it in a polished package and made it accessible to a wider audience. NeXT was what happened after Steve Jobs was sacked from Apple in 1985.
Society is only the sum of what each of us are, individually
That argument is simplistic. When the values of the individuals conflict with the values of society the outcome isn't as straight forward as society changing its values. Some individuals have greater power by virtue of wealth and/or position to define society values so summing the individuals' values does not equate to what is of value to society.
You make a good point but I'm not dictating terms or giving anyone a moral education. What each of us values individually isn't necessarily what is valuable to society. You would have to be blind not to see the wealth gap in developed nations contributing to an underclass that lives hand to mouth and/or depends on social services. And right now I'm making nothing but I'm working on something that does make a difference. 10% to charity? For the last two years I've "donated" my energy and skills to helping people who are being left behind by a cashless society. I don't need your kudos thanks.
Huge societal value is the organisations that look after the unlucky ones, the less privileged. Huge societal value is the volunteers (fire brigade, sports, education). Huge societal value is not the top 1% dictating terms to the other 99% and telling them what is valuable. Healthcare in the US is kind of an aberration and something of an oxymoron.
You're doing it wrong. Only in the minds of venture capitalists is there correlation or causation between "Lucrative" and societal value. There is huge societal value in for example the humble work of care organisations, many of which employ people with college degrees, but as a rule there is little lucre.
No - she's a "non-techie". Don't just ask her to do it herself - if you've got a budget and there's some hardware you like then suggest that's what you're considering and ask for her feedback/confirmation. As a new employee out of college, you will gain a lot of kudos as an employer by buying her a decent laptop. How would you feel if your new employer bunged you a second-hand laptop or a chromebook? I'd be checking the job boards. When we hired we used to buy refurb Apple laptops until we needed more current hardware so shelled out for new MacBook Pro's. The employee we wanted to keep has been with us now for 8 years and we are stoked.
So close to having a reasonable discussion. The answer is "it depends". It depends on the purpose of the software. Something like monument is a great game but a big bet for the developers involving many hours of effort by a team. How do you bankroll something like that, who would back something that carries so much risk?
If the sole purpose of your software is to extract money from your customers, then in-app purchases are perfect and there is plenty of background material on how to make apps addictive.
If you have an itch that needs scratching then open source is a good option.
Back in the day I worked for Unisys and they had a software switch in their mainframes (I assume they're not the only ones) that when flipped gave the machine more horsepower. But you had to pay them to flip the switch - not a model I subscribe to.
There is no single right answer but as a professional developer who isn't working for a corporate, who isn't contracting, who is trying to build something of value while raising a family, there are no obvious good choices. I take the approach that whatever I do, there needs to be a fair exchange of value. That means I don't take your email address and sell it, I don't make your browsing history available to Facebook, I don't clip the ticket on payments. And virtue signalling doesn't make you an authority.
Right. So how many bugs do you think the purchase price should cover and for how long? Does it cover just the current product or does it include any new bugs introduced as new features are added to the product? Would you be upset if I introduced a new version of the product that included new features but you had to purchase the new version? Or would you prefer to get the product free but pay a subscription in order to access the new features as they're released? And maybe you could ask your mom for some extra pocket money to cover the cost of the subscription so you wouldn't even be out of pocket.
Programmers now also work on new features on the same product. To offset the cost of development and derive some income from it they can either call it a new 2.0 product and sell it to offset the cost of development, or they can ask for a subscription to help pay for ongoing development and release of new functionality. If your software right out of the box *gets* constant updates that means someone is committed to ongoing development and support. If you think there is any developer on this planet who has released a bug-free product then you are dialed in from somewhere else and you are clearly not a "programmer".
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot article causes spontaneous abortion, in mice.
The consequences of not having children vaccinated are only realised if the children catch the diseases. Do you vaccinate your children against all diseases for which vaccines are available? The reality is there is insufficient verifiably independent information available publicly for people to make informed decisions. When we were looking for information to support our intention to vaccinate our children we found lots of hyperbole and graphic images of the effects of disease from our public health system while there was an endless supply of "information", some credible and some not, from those against vaccination. Our children are vaccinated against some diseases but we do not vaccinate just because of "death rates from the diseases".
You don't need first hand knowledge. You need to trust the experts whom you charge with helping you make informed decisions.
I'll see your experts and raise you my experts. Which experts do you trust implicitly? Maybe the experts in the oil companies who knew about climate change and didn't inform us? Maybe the doctors who promoted smoking back in the day? The doctors who prescribe opioids for minor pain despite the epidemic of opioid abuse? What about Bayer which says Roundup doesn't cause cancer, despite two current cases where the jury found that it does? Perhaps the experts that said Sadam had WOMD resulting in a war we are still feeling the effects of today. Your informed decisions are only informed if you have all the information. I try to avoid letting "experts" make my decisions for me unless I'm confident in their expertise.
I've discovered that vaccines saves hundreds of thousands of lives, and billions of dollars in medical costs annually.
Nice deflection
How many pro-vaxxers have done anything to inform themselves about the choices they are making on behalf of their children, that doesn't include parroting their doctors/nurses/medical professional of choice? Well have you? What did you discover?
Societies have always had problems with people who are all too willing to believe what they want to believe regardless of evidence to the contrary, and others willing to exploit those people for money.
When your mirror shows you something that upsets you, the correct solution is not to try to bend the mirror.
This applies equally to those in favour of vaccination and it might be worth considering the difference in scale of those organisations making hay out of the increasing number of vaccinations on the schedule versus those making money from selling their books.
http://bfy.tw/M9UA
Why do you continue to suggest I'm in possession of evidence - that is not a claim I have made. The nature of the vaccination argument is that one side has expended some effort to try to make an informed decision and the other side just parrots the establishment.
At no point in this conversation have I claimed to be anti-vaccination or have evidence. What steps have you taken to feel confident about your position on vaccination?
Yeah you want me to do the research for you just so you can use your superior intellect and apply your bias without actually putting in any effort yourself. Thanks for being so up-front about that.
There's this thing called google, you may have heard of it? I'm not going to get into debate - clearly that's a pointless waste of time. If you're interested in trying to make an informed decision about vaccination rather than just swallow the coolaid then I wish you luck. The fact to hyperbole ratio on both sides of the debate is high.
Most pro-vaxxers have never considered that the anti-vaxxers might be correct. The anti-vaxxers have plenty of evidence because they have to in order to back their position. The pro-vaxxers are all parroting the medical establishment which is just saying "do what we tell you and because science". It's sad and disturbing and so stupid.
Yeah sadly the "authorities" are also recipients of funding. You really nailed the premise but your conclusion is rubbish.
Just a reminder https://science.slashdot.org/c.... There's not one in ten posters here that have done any research into vaccination, they've all just swallowed the coolaid.
NeXTSTEP was probably the revolutionary there... The mac just brought those concepts to a wider audience really.
NeXTSTEP wasn't released until 1989 so no, the Mac was revolutionary in its own right. Yes it aggregated existing tech but delivered it in a polished package and made it accessible to a wider audience. NeXT was what happened after Steve Jobs was sacked from Apple in 1985.
Society is only the sum of what each of us are, individually
That argument is simplistic. When the values of the individuals conflict with the values of society the outcome isn't as straight forward as society changing its values. Some individuals have greater power by virtue of wealth and/or position to define society values so summing the individuals' values does not equate to what is of value to society.
You make a good point but I'm not dictating terms or giving anyone a moral education. What each of us values individually isn't necessarily what is valuable to society. You would have to be blind not to see the wealth gap in developed nations contributing to an underclass that lives hand to mouth and/or depends on social services. And right now I'm making nothing but I'm working on something that does make a difference. 10% to charity? For the last two years I've "donated" my energy and skills to helping people who are being left behind by a cashless society. I don't need your kudos thanks.
Huge societal value is the organisations that look after the unlucky ones, the less privileged. Huge societal value is the volunteers (fire brigade, sports, education). Huge societal value is not the top 1% dictating terms to the other 99% and telling them what is valuable. Healthcare in the US is kind of an aberration and something of an oxymoron.
You're doing it wrong. Only in the minds of venture capitalists is there correlation or causation between "Lucrative" and societal value. There is huge societal value in for example the humble work of care organisations, many of which employ people with college degrees, but as a rule there is little lucre.
No - she's a "non-techie". Don't just ask her to do it herself - if you've got a budget and there's some hardware you like then suggest that's what you're considering and ask for her feedback/confirmation. As a new employee out of college, you will gain a lot of kudos as an employer by buying her a decent laptop. How would you feel if your new employer bunged you a second-hand laptop or a chromebook? I'd be checking the job boards. When we hired we used to buy refurb Apple laptops until we needed more current hardware so shelled out for new MacBook Pro's. The employee we wanted to keep has been with us now for 8 years and we are stoked.
So close to having a reasonable discussion. The answer is "it depends". It depends on the purpose of the software. Something like monument is a great game but a big bet for the developers involving many hours of effort by a team. How do you bankroll something like that, who would back something that carries so much risk?
If the sole purpose of your software is to extract money from your customers, then in-app purchases are perfect and there is plenty of background material on how to make apps addictive.
If you have an itch that needs scratching then open source is a good option.
Back in the day I worked for Unisys and they had a software switch in their mainframes (I assume they're not the only ones) that when flipped gave the machine more horsepower. But you had to pay them to flip the switch - not a model I subscribe to.
There is no single right answer but as a professional developer who isn't working for a corporate, who isn't contracting, who is trying to build something of value while raising a family, there are no obvious good choices. I take the approach that whatever I do, there needs to be a fair exchange of value. That means I don't take your email address and sell it, I don't make your browsing history available to Facebook, I don't clip the ticket on payments. And virtue signalling doesn't make you an authority.
Oh, funny.
Right. So how many bugs do you think the purchase price should cover and for how long? Does it cover just the current product or does it include any new bugs introduced as new features are added to the product? Would you be upset if I introduced a new version of the product that included new features but you had to purchase the new version? Or would you prefer to get the product free but pay a subscription in order to access the new features as they're released? And maybe you could ask your mom for some extra pocket money to cover the cost of the subscription so you wouldn't even be out of pocket.
Yeah a Hello World program is not a product but if you were dialing in from another world then I guess it would be in context.
Programmers now also work on new features on the same product. To offset the cost of development and derive some income from it they can either call it a new 2.0 product and sell it to offset the cost of development, or they can ask for a subscription to help pay for ongoing development and release of new functionality. If your software right out of the box *gets* constant updates that means someone is committed to ongoing development and support. If you think there is any developer on this planet who has released a bug-free product then you are dialed in from somewhere else and you are clearly not a "programmer".