You get a payout from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and then either part of the settlement is that you agree not to tell the media, or you tell the media and are thought of as a loon to suggest it was the vaccine's fault (despite the fact that doctors agree it was the vaccine's fault).
There are babies who are too young to be vaccinated
Am I the only one that sees the problem, then, is that babies are being so exposed to carriers of the illnesses?
Keep the baby at home for the first few weeks/months of life, and breastfeed (which means he'll be immune to what mom is immune to for awhile).
(And yes, I'm aware that our current society prevents that a lot of the time. The problem is a society that prevents this, not the lack of vaccinated babies.)
And let's think about the fact that, the majority of the time, babies too young to get vaccinated are getting illnesses where the vaccines don't last for life. For example, an adult with whooping cough works at their daycare. So why aren't we giving older kids/adults the vaccines instead of the babies?
My panties aren't in a knot. I was curious. I was wondering if this was the type of hospital that served mostly people from the same area (who would have then been consuming the same water, food, etc. and would be going to the same doctors, who would prescribe the same things for a lot of their patients). I'm in between Chicago and Indianapolis, so there's some hospitals that pretty much only serve people in the area, and some hospitals where people come from all around the country for service. I would think that everyone working at the hospital would have an idea of which is more common, and nurses would probably know what medications the girls were taking and would notice severe overlap.
On a side note, though cellphone usage has gone up in the past 10 years, I would think the amount that teenage girls keep the phones up to their heads has gone way down (as they now focus on texting and online messaging rather than talking). It would be interesting to see if brain tumor rates in teenage girls has changed in relation to this.
Even though it is ridiculous that other first-world countries pay $20 for 150mbps and I pay $72 for 25mbps from Comcast, I would pay more to actually guarantee I could use that 25mbps.
I'd bet these girls were drinking the same water, eating much of the same food, and breathing in much of the same pollution. as well right?
They may have even been taking the same birth control or anti-depressants. Was your wife in a position to find out that information?
Yet the anti-vax movement continues to believe in the connection regardless.
No they don't. The majority of the anti-vax movement is not anti-vax because of autism anymore. They are anti-vax because of other things - things vaccines actually do cause.
The autism thing has now become an excuse by the anti-anti-vax movement. "Don't listen to those bozos, they still think vaccines cause autism!" *puts fingers in ears* "Lalalala, I can't hear you because you're stupid. Come on everybody, do it!"
Now try that same thing but with enough food for 6 people.
I would love to walk or bike to the grocery store, but with a family it becomes impossible; not only to get the groceries home, but to afford the real (junk "food" is cheap and usually easy to carry) food prices in the US (I have to buy a lot in bulk, making it even more difficult to get things home...).
The part I just can't understand, is that car accidents are the #1 killer of kids... and yet, for some reason, parents feel it is so much safer to drive their kid to/from school than to let the kid walk...
It gives the kid a general time to come home (to eat dinner and such) without them needing a watch.
Unfortunately a lot of people subconsciously interpreted that as "Being out after dark is dangerous". This creates an issue in the winter months, when kids often aren't home from school or done with homework until after dark.
I think it also has to do with seeming unrelated societal shifts. For example, confirming that someone is going to take out the trash is important, at least in my neighborhood - we'd get a hefty fine if we left out a full can anytime other than between 6pm the day before trash pickup - 6pm the day of trash pickup. So if no one takes out the trash, we pretty much have to live with a week's worth of old trash in our kitchen.
In the days before cellphones, this would have either been discussed the night before at the dinner table, or there would have been an established chore list/timetable. But as society has shifted, family dinners have become rare, and the idea of giving your offspring a list of established chores sometimes appals parents (I have actually had other parents say to me that I am abusing my children, treating them like servants, because they have set chores; and if I can't do everything myself, I need to hire a maid). So when can this be discussed, if one does not call a parent at work?
If I need to meet up with someone who does not use cellphones (they are usually older people), we discuss that we'll meet at x at 3:00, and then we meet there. If I need to meet up with someone that DOES use a cellphone, it's not uncommon for them to call or text and say "I decided to stop somewhere- let's meet up at 4 instead" or "I'm hungry, let's meet at y instead." I don't know if this is a shift (where rudeness in this fashion has become acceptable) or if the timeframe for this to be acceptable has become much smaller due to cellphones giving people the ability to notify people of changes like this at the last minute (because before cellphones it wouldn't be too rude to call, say, the day before and say let's meet at y instead so we can eat")...
A teen with a small house (where you can hear any movement made) and a light sleeper for a mom and/or a night-owl dad. My kids are very lucky they don't have to sneak out - i.e. that we'll just let them go (because sneaking out would be damn near impossible), but any conversation that anyone wants to keep private in this house must be done in text form (because we can all hear each other from anywhere in the house).
They go out of their way to NOT interact, let alone socialize, with anyone.
Then what exactly is it that they are doing on their phones? Why do you think your son plays League of Legends and DOTA2 rather than a single player game? He, and those teens, ARE interacting and socializing - just in a different way than you do. In a way you don't understand.
It takes only seconds to say "No little Jimmy, you can not go outside and play without adult supervision. it's not safe." and then watch as Jimmy goes safely to his room to use facebook. It takes quite a bit more time and actual involvement to get little Jimmy to the point where he can play outside without adult supervision and be safe.
Overprotective parents give the ILLUSION that they are spending a lot of time on their kids, but I rarely see that actually being the case. What they are actually spending a lot of time on is worry. For example, they will go sit in front of the school for half an hour to pick up their kid because they don't feel the kid is safe walking home; that's not 30 minutes spend on the kid, that's 30 minutes wasted to placate their unreasonable worry. If someone spends 30 minutes walking with their child once to teach them the route, and then allows them to walk home; that would be 30 minutes spend on the child.
They wake up at 6 to get ready for school, and are driven to school. They are in the school from about 8 - 3, with the doors locked. The "leash" is then handed back to their parents at 3, and they are driven to some sort of after school activity which has its own chain, then home to do an hour or two of homework. By the time that's done, it's either dark or otherwise deemed too late to be let off the chain to run around for awhile.
It's not difficult to keep a child on these chains because they don't know any different. All the children around them are on chains too. A dog that has never in its life been let off the chain, will not try to escape from the chain, because he has no concept of there being anything to escape TO. It is only the dogs that have been let off the chain sometimes that try to escape.
The parents are part of the village. It takes ALL of the village to raise a child. The problem comes when just 1 or two of the village tries to raise a child in near-seclusion, as is common today - it doesn't matter if that one or two people are parents, teachers, or daycare workers.
Well it doesn't really make much sense to walk out of my neighborhood - getting into a car would be the preferable method for traveling any further than that. I've taught her to look in the car to see if anyone is hiding inside before entering, not so much for rape evasion but more for mugger evasion as I grew up in a neighborhood where that was common.
Perhaps in your neighborhood people are raped in their houses. In mine people have the courtesy to call the cops when someone breaks into a neighbor's house. I've lived in neighborhoods where they don't, and I sympathize with you. If things change for us then we'll think up a new method for rape evasion. Not being hot isn't really an option and obviously, laws against rape don't work.
Also I'm not really sure what your point is; rape still happens despite the fact that there are laws against it. So rape kind of backs up my point that women need to stop being stupid, and not rely on laws to protect them.
Laws are there to keep us acting civilized, in theory. In practice they keep most people acting civilized only when they fear being caught. Trust can't be based on the idea that the other person fears being caught. If the only motivation is fear of being caught, then as soon as they are sure they won't be caught, or as soon as they don't fear the consequences (or the result is greater than the consequence), they will do the action they wish to do.
So even though laws exist against carpenters stealing from me, I wouldn't trust anything other than Amish carpenters alone working on my house. Because the carpenters would have to be caught stealing for the law to work - and they would likely steal something I wouldn't immediately realize was gone, and/or have the item away from them quickly so there is no proving who stole it. The very existence of the law does not reassure me that they won't steal from me, and it would be naive to be reassured by that.
The point? Revenge feels good. Looking at porn feels good. People are always going to do what feels good, especially after something that makes them feel bad (like being dumped). So don't take nude pics if you don't want people seeing nude pics of you.
Fine; then allow the site to continue on the condition that the operator removes any pictures at the direct request of any person in the pictures
If you shoot me for running a website with pictures of you, then the website will still be up and I won't be in jail, but you will. Not exactly the smartest of strategies for dealing with that imo.
I don't have a wife, as gay marriage and polygamy aren't legal in my state. But I teach my daughter to not be so stupid as to put herself into situations where she can be raped and there is no one around to help her. It has worked so far.
Slashdot Mirror
You get a payout from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and then either part of the settlement is that you agree not to tell the media, or you tell the media and are thought of as a loon to suggest it was the vaccine's fault (despite the fact that doctors agree it was the vaccine's fault).
There are babies who are too young to be vaccinated
Am I the only one that sees the problem, then, is that babies are being so exposed to carriers of the illnesses?
Keep the baby at home for the first few weeks/months of life, and breastfeed (which means he'll be immune to what mom is immune to for awhile).
(And yes, I'm aware that our current society prevents that a lot of the time. The problem is a society that prevents this, not the lack of vaccinated babies.)
And let's think about the fact that, the majority of the time, babies too young to get vaccinated are getting illnesses where the vaccines don't last for life. For example, an adult with whooping cough works at their daycare. So why aren't we giving older kids/adults the vaccines instead of the babies?
Except, every multi-cup coffee maker I've ever had has burned out after a few months with the way I drink multiple cups throughout the day.
My single-cup coffee maker came with a reusable filter that you just dump the grounds out of for the next use.
Adopt.
My panties aren't in a knot. I was curious. I was wondering if this was the type of hospital that served mostly people from the same area (who would have then been consuming the same water, food, etc. and would be going to the same doctors, who would prescribe the same things for a lot of their patients). I'm in between Chicago and Indianapolis, so there's some hospitals that pretty much only serve people in the area, and some hospitals where people come from all around the country for service. I would think that everyone working at the hospital would have an idea of which is more common, and nurses would probably know what medications the girls were taking and would notice severe overlap.
On a side note, though cellphone usage has gone up in the past 10 years, I would think the amount that teenage girls keep the phones up to their heads has gone way down (as they now focus on texting and online messaging rather than talking). It would be interesting to see if brain tumor rates in teenage girls has changed in relation to this.
Then let me pay for a guaranteed one!
Even though it is ridiculous that other first-world countries pay $20 for 150mbps and I pay $72 for 25mbps from Comcast, I would pay more to actually guarantee I could use that 25mbps.
I'd bet these girls were drinking the same water, eating much of the same food, and breathing in much of the same pollution. as well right?
They may have even been taking the same birth control or anti-depressants. Was your wife in a position to find out that information?
Yet the anti-vax movement continues to believe in the connection regardless.
No they don't. The majority of the anti-vax movement is not anti-vax because of autism anymore. They are anti-vax because of other things - things vaccines actually do cause.
The autism thing has now become an excuse by the anti-anti-vax movement. "Don't listen to those bozos, they still think vaccines cause autism!" *puts fingers in ears* "Lalalala, I can't hear you because you're stupid. Come on everybody, do it!"
But I work from home...
Now try that same thing but with enough food for 6 people.
I would love to walk or bike to the grocery store, but with a family it becomes impossible; not only to get the groceries home, but to afford the real (junk "food" is cheap and usually easy to carry) food prices in the US (I have to buy a lot in bulk, making it even more difficult to get things home...).
The part I just can't understand, is that car accidents are the #1 killer of kids... and yet, for some reason, parents feel it is so much safer to drive their kid to/from school than to let the kid walk...
It gives the kid a general time to come home (to eat dinner and such) without them needing a watch.
Unfortunately a lot of people subconsciously interpreted that as "Being out after dark is dangerous". This creates an issue in the winter months, when kids often aren't home from school or done with homework until after dark.
I think it also has to do with seeming unrelated societal shifts. For example, confirming that someone is going to take out the trash is important, at least in my neighborhood - we'd get a hefty fine if we left out a full can anytime other than between 6pm the day before trash pickup - 6pm the day of trash pickup. So if no one takes out the trash, we pretty much have to live with a week's worth of old trash in our kitchen.
In the days before cellphones, this would have either been discussed the night before at the dinner table, or there would have been an established chore list/timetable. But as society has shifted, family dinners have become rare, and the idea of giving your offspring a list of established chores sometimes appals parents (I have actually had other parents say to me that I am abusing my children, treating them like servants, because they have set chores; and if I can't do everything myself, I need to hire a maid). So when can this be discussed, if one does not call a parent at work?
If I need to meet up with someone who does not use cellphones (they are usually older people), we discuss that we'll meet at x at 3:00, and then we meet there. If I need to meet up with someone that DOES use a cellphone, it's not uncommon for them to call or text and say "I decided to stop somewhere- let's meet up at 4 instead" or "I'm hungry, let's meet at y instead." I don't know if this is a shift (where rudeness in this fashion has become acceptable) or if the timeframe for this to be acceptable has become much smaller due to cellphones giving people the ability to notify people of changes like this at the last minute (because before cellphones it wouldn't be too rude to call, say, the day before and say let's meet at y instead so we can eat")...
A teen with a small house (where you can hear any movement made) and a light sleeper for a mom and/or a night-owl dad. My kids are very lucky they don't have to sneak out - i.e. that we'll just let them go (because sneaking out would be damn near impossible), but any conversation that anyone wants to keep private in this house must be done in text form (because we can all hear each other from anywhere in the house).
They go out of their way to NOT interact, let alone socialize, with anyone.
Then what exactly is it that they are doing on their phones? Why do you think your son plays League of Legends and DOTA2 rather than a single player game? He, and those teens, ARE interacting and socializing - just in a different way than you do. In a way you don't understand.
It takes only seconds to say "No little Jimmy, you can not go outside and play without adult supervision. it's not safe." and then watch as Jimmy goes safely to his room to use facebook. It takes quite a bit more time and actual involvement to get little Jimmy to the point where he can play outside without adult supervision and be safe.
Overprotective parents give the ILLUSION that they are spending a lot of time on their kids, but I rarely see that actually being the case. What they are actually spending a lot of time on is worry. For example, they will go sit in front of the school for half an hour to pick up their kid because they don't feel the kid is safe walking home; that's not 30 minutes spend on the kid, that's 30 minutes wasted to placate their unreasonable worry. If someone spends 30 minutes walking with their child once to teach them the route, and then allows them to walk home; that would be 30 minutes spend on the child.
They wake up at 6 to get ready for school, and are driven to school. They are in the school from about 8 - 3, with the doors locked. The "leash" is then handed back to their parents at 3, and they are driven to some sort of after school activity which has its own chain, then home to do an hour or two of homework. By the time that's done, it's either dark or otherwise deemed too late to be let off the chain to run around for awhile.
It's not difficult to keep a child on these chains because they don't know any different. All the children around them are on chains too. A dog that has never in its life been let off the chain, will not try to escape from the chain, because he has no concept of there being anything to escape TO. It is only the dogs that have been let off the chain sometimes that try to escape.
The parents are part of the village. It takes ALL of the village to raise a child. The problem comes when just 1 or two of the village tries to raise a child in near-seclusion, as is common today - it doesn't matter if that one or two people are parents, teachers, or daycare workers.
Well it doesn't really make much sense to walk out of my neighborhood - getting into a car would be the preferable method for traveling any further than that. I've taught her to look in the car to see if anyone is hiding inside before entering, not so much for rape evasion but more for mugger evasion as I grew up in a neighborhood where that was common.
Perhaps in your neighborhood people are raped in their houses. In mine people have the courtesy to call the cops when someone breaks into a neighbor's house. I've lived in neighborhoods where they don't, and I sympathize with you. If things change for us then we'll think up a new method for rape evasion. Not being hot isn't really an option and obviously, laws against rape don't work.
Also I'm not really sure what your point is; rape still happens despite the fact that there are laws against it. So rape kind of backs up my point that women need to stop being stupid, and not rely on laws to protect them.
No, we actually talk to our neighbors, and they would offer help if she were raped or grabbed on the street.
Laws are there to keep us acting civilized, in theory. In practice they keep most people acting civilized only when they fear being caught. Trust can't be based on the idea that the other person fears being caught. If the only motivation is fear of being caught, then as soon as they are sure they won't be caught, or as soon as they don't fear the consequences (or the result is greater than the consequence), they will do the action they wish to do.
So even though laws exist against carpenters stealing from me, I wouldn't trust anything other than Amish carpenters alone working on my house. Because the carpenters would have to be caught stealing for the law to work - and they would likely steal something I wouldn't immediately realize was gone, and/or have the item away from them quickly so there is no proving who stole it. The very existence of the law does not reassure me that they won't steal from me, and it would be naive to be reassured by that.
The point? Revenge feels good. Looking at porn feels good. People are always going to do what feels good, especially after something that makes them feel bad (like being dumped). So don't take nude pics if you don't want people seeing nude pics of you.
Fine; then allow the site to continue on the condition that the operator removes any pictures at the direct request of any person in the pictures
If you shoot me for running a website with pictures of you, then the website will still be up and I won't be in jail, but you will. Not exactly the smartest of strategies for dealing with that imo.
I don't have a wife, as gay marriage and polygamy aren't legal in my state. But I teach my daughter to not be so stupid as to put herself into situations where she can be raped and there is no one around to help her. It has worked so far.