You are painting with too broad a brush. All anti-vaccine people do not have autism fears. Some people just don't want the government to dictate the shots that go into their children. The government isn't always right. Be thankful that people are fighting for right to choose what you do with your children.
That said, the fact that science cannot find a cause for the incredibly rapid increase of autism in industrialized nations isn't helping matters. People are looking for a common link and keep coming to a solution that is common to these nations and immunization stands out. It may not be true, but it isn't that irrational.
I don't think taking them down will solve the problem. They are there for safety reasons as well and I think this is a good thing. What I don't understand is that since the public is paying for these cameras then why can't the public see through them on a government website?
It would almost guarantee that someone would be looking through the cameras at any point in time. This could lead to a faster arrest rate if any crimes occurred within view and someone were watching live. Also, the public wouldn't have to go beg for video for a car breakin (for example) if it just existed online and they could check.
Read the fine print. You may also be charged an annual fee on top of your initial investment and there may be no guarantee that your infant's cord blood will be used.
Yes, in the future they *may* use the cord blood of an infant. And they *may* use something else. The fact that the cord blood will likely be unused is conspicuously absent from their literature. Odds are, it will be something else.
I spent quite some time waiting for my wife for appointments for our first child and came to the conclusion that this was a medical industry version of FUD.
Everyone wants their child to have the best care and is willing to spend money to get it. Cord blood advertising is based on fear and that fear motivates. Of course, there is always an element of truth to their advertisements (relying on "statistics"), but it is up to the consumer to judge how relevant it is.
There is a broader trend of oversafety for children that you will encounter further down the road where companies will convince you that you *need* their product to protect your child. All these companies will happily take your money.
Remember, even though you want to you can't protect your child 100% from everything. It's one of those parental calls you have to make.
However, I don't see the benefit. If everybody is responsible for the access point then nobody is. If there is no ultimate responsibility, the finger pointing would be staggering.
Oh, they have the authority to pass it. They can pass any law they want...that's why it's a law. Whether it's enforceable or will stand the test of the courts is the only question.
Lucky we have commentary Academe to put us people that actually work in IT onto the proper path. Possibly he would be equally open to our suggestions on how universities should operate.
"'You can't sit a child in front of a computer and expect him to learn things he needs to succeed in society,' said unimpressed Chicago Teachers Union president Marilyn Stewart of the Chicago Virtual Charter School..."
What I would like to know is what you need to learn in order to succeed in society? What exactly *is* success in society? And does the Chicago Teachers Union have a monopoly on the secret?!
Because laws come with other laws guaranteeing you due process. 'Self-policing' means a corporate does whatever they feel like to you. This GoDaddy nonsense is a classic example: $200, pay-or-be-damned, no evidence, no appeals, no way to argue your case.
I think you are confused. When it is a corporate ruling you can appeal to laws to correct it, when it is a law you cannot do anything but fight an apathetic, nontechnical government. At least with a corporation you can shop around and cut into their profits. With a government...well...ever try not paying your taxes?
The best thing of all is neither laws nor self-policing, but rather a common carrier. That's an entity which moves data for everybody and every purpose without limits, and in exchance is not responsible for any of the data they move. Sure the terrorists can use it, but that's better than government or corporate intervention. Whenever this is reasonably practical, it's better than all the alternatives. It may not be practical for the sale of firearms, but it's definitely practical for the sale of DNS names.
And here I thought communism was dying with Castro. What century do you live in? Surely you didn't just write that terrorists are better than governments or corporations and follow up with a smooth segue into firearms?? Who is moderating today?
Possible but not plausible. The complexity of what you are suggesting introduces major problems. Imagine your phone intelligently signal hopping from car to car to slow node to nonstandard node to broken node. These could be overcome in theory, but why? Why not simply encrypt your VOIP packets and keep the same system?
Have you been to Europe? It is not paved over. Most Europeans live in large cities with public transportation, agreggation of resources, etc. This is more environmentally friendly than living in suburbs like most Americans.
I have been to the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Switzerland and Turkey. Thanks for asking so I could list them.;-)
Public transportation (and electric vehicles) do not necessarily equate to being more environment friendly. It simply makes it more possible.
At some point though you do have to ignore the side of an argument you find to be patently false. For example, I no longer listen to any argument that is based on religious beliefs. Life is too short.
Unfortunately, you live in a world where most of the population thinks that is the most important argument of all.
As I replied to the other similar comment, I don't want to discuss those kind of red herrings. I want to discuss the issue, and I am (as stated) completely open to all sides of it.
Fair enough with this clarification. Pardon my assumptions.
There is still just as much carbon being dumped into the environment, and there is a net increase, so, less carbon still could mean less warming...[SNIP]... Not according to our leaders...
The evidence has proven that the planet is warming and it's obvious. Everyone knows the end result. However, countries take action in response to crises. There is not a current crisis, therefore there is no operation. Nothing else will matter until a catastrophe occurs or a less expensive breakthrough option is made available.
This whole issue might as well be on the backburner for the same reasons of less Stress, more time for there will be no result. The current posturing out there right now is only a tool for political machination because until "the environment" wins votes it's a complete deadend.
So, please, certain fellow folks in the US, bring the arguments. Tell me how it's OK for a country with 4 percent of the world's population to produce the most emissions, because we don't want to "slow" our economy.
How about because the US is a net carbon sink? Because the US has large protected forested areas we absorb more carbon emissions than we put out. This while paved over Europe expects us to pick up their tab.
This is fair since we can do it, but I think that Europeans should pay us a tax to cover our expenses.
Despite the misinformation campaign from a particular political agenda, this is NOT a political issue, and it IS something to be concerned about.
I think you meant agendas. This is not a dichotomy, things to be concerned about can also be politically driven. People are economically motivated in every direction in this issue as well as scientists who get funded from simple publicity. Attempting to make it so black and white only makes the issue more gray.
And, please send all these arguments to/dev/null. Because it's time for the rest of us to talk seriously about what is going on.
Excellent argument, "I'm right and won't listen to anybody else who differs". How could you have started such an intelligent post and then self-destruct in such a manner?
What are you talking about? You entirely miss the point of why companies issue equity. Now that Google is flush with cash, they could care less what the stock does. The price of the stock is now only relevant for taking over other companies (eg. AOL) and enriching the internal executives. If they don't pander to analysts, so much the better.
What analysts and investors think or project is not only meaningless but harmful. If they were good at running companies, they'd open their own Google.
Google is correct in not getting into the short term thinking game. Try checking Warren Buffet's negligent record in cowtowing to analyst's with Berkshire Hathaway and tell me his track record is poor.
Why the focus on games? Why can't they study if there is a positive correlation of gun ownership and violence? Martial arts and violence may be possible....just maybe. I bet you can even find a positive correlation between Greenpeace and violence.
So games have violence, big deal, it's virtual. There are many more imminent real world examples to address. Is it really the governments' job to parent children? If so, they have many more laws to pass and better get busy...
"This is why vulnerabilities are so important," said Kaspersky. "We are against anyone who publishes vulnerabilities because it gives hackers a tool."
And this is why most people are against security by obscurity. Kaspersky is confused. The tired phrase of "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." applies even more pertinently to software vulnerabilities.
By the time someone with enough motivation (read funding) to write an article on a vulnerability does so, the bad guys have already written exploits. Why? For the same reason...they get paid!
The published articles allow the moderately tech savvy user to protect themself. Additionally, it forces the software makers' hand to close the vulnerability faster than if they had no pressure at all. Ultimately, this is our only way of shaming large companies into creating proper software and delaying the releases until they've created a more hardened product.
Yes, hanging out the dirty laundry of vulnerabilities makes it easy for the junior hackers to create something out of nothing, but I'd rather we all know about the problems at the same time than a few sophisticated spam hackers knowing about the problems for an indefinite amount of time.
You had me on the first half of your argument since the person isn't proven guilty. However, there is some merit in hunting down *convicted* child molesters.
And don't forget that in Stalin's era there were only ~150million people. A much higher percentage of the population. This article also points out that he would likely have had more people in jail if he didn't kill them all...
Slashdot Mirror
Well said. I agree, even to the point of objection but not disallowing.
You are painting with too broad a brush. All anti-vaccine people do not have autism fears. Some people just don't want the government to dictate the shots that go into their children. The government isn't always right. Be thankful that people are fighting for right to choose what you do with your children.
That said, the fact that science cannot find a cause for the incredibly rapid increase of autism in industrialized nations isn't helping matters. People are looking for a common link and keep coming to a solution that is common to these nations and immunization stands out. It may not be true, but it isn't that irrational.
I don't think taking them down will solve the problem. They are there for safety reasons as well and I think this is a good thing. What I don't understand is that since the public is paying for these cameras then why can't the public see through them on a government website?
It would almost guarantee that someone would be looking through the cameras at any point in time. This could lead to a faster arrest rate if any crimes occurred within view and someone were watching live. Also, the public wouldn't have to go beg for video for a car breakin (for example) if it just existed online and they could check.
Read the fine print. You may also be charged an annual fee on top of your initial investment and there may be no guarantee that your infant's cord blood will be used.
Yes, in the future they *may* use the cord blood of an infant. And they *may* use something else. The fact that the cord blood will likely be unused is conspicuously absent from their literature. Odds are, it will be something else.
I spent quite some time waiting for my wife for appointments for our first child and came to the conclusion that this was a medical industry version of FUD.
Everyone wants their child to have the best care and is willing to spend money to get it. Cord blood advertising is based on fear and that fear motivates. Of course, there is always an element of truth to their advertisements (relying on "statistics"), but it is up to the consumer to judge how relevant it is.
There is a broader trend of oversafety for children that you will encounter further down the road where companies will convince you that you *need* their product to protect your child. All these companies will happily take your money.
Remember, even though you want to you can't protect your child 100% from everything. It's one of those parental calls you have to make.
However, I don't see the benefit. If everybody is responsible for the access point then nobody is. If there is no ultimate responsibility, the finger pointing would be staggering.
Here goes a massive transfer of wealth to the politically connected. I bet Clearwire's name is going to come up....
In order to defeat the facial recognition software, criminals now just need to smile while committing crimes!
Oh, they have the authority to pass it. They can pass any law they want...that's why it's a law. Whether it's enforceable or will stand the test of the courts is the only question.
Lucky we have commentary Academe to put us people that actually work in IT onto the proper path. Possibly he would be equally open to our suggestions on how universities should operate.
There was never rage before the web was invented! What other base emotions will this new fangled technology reveal?!
Stay tuned, possibly we will see things like Web-Lust and Web-Sloth in the future. Protect the children!
...but can someone explain why the stock price is going up based upon this news? MFE
Sometimes bad news really is bad news.
What I would like to know is what you need to learn in order to succeed in society? What exactly *is* success in society? And does the Chicago Teachers Union have a monopoly on the secret?!
Because laws come with other laws guaranteeing you due process. 'Self-policing' means a corporate does whatever they feel like to you. This GoDaddy nonsense is a classic example: $200, pay-or-be-damned, no evidence, no appeals, no way to argue your case.
I think you are confused. When it is a corporate ruling you can appeal to laws to correct it, when it is a law you cannot do anything but fight an apathetic, nontechnical government. At least with a corporation you can shop around and cut into their profits. With a government...well...ever try not paying your taxes?
The best thing of all is neither laws nor self-policing, but rather a common carrier. That's an entity which moves data for everybody and every purpose without limits, and in exchance is not responsible for any of the data they move. Sure the terrorists can use it, but that's better than government or corporate intervention. Whenever this is reasonably practical, it's better than all the alternatives. It may not be practical for the sale of firearms, but it's definitely practical for the sale of DNS names.
And here I thought communism was dying with Castro. What century do you live in? Surely you didn't just write that terrorists are better than governments or corporations and follow up with a smooth segue into firearms?? Who is moderating today?
Possible but not plausible. The complexity of what you are suggesting introduces major problems. Imagine your phone intelligently signal hopping from car to car to slow node to nonstandard node to broken node. These could be overcome in theory, but why? Why not simply encrypt your VOIP packets and keep the same system?
Sun today announced that they are putting their weight behind Ubuntu Linux.
Was that the weight would take the form of an anchor.
More demand for me! I'm raising my rates!
Have you been to Europe? It is not paved over. Most Europeans live in large cities with public transportation, agreggation of resources, etc. This is more environmentally friendly than living in suburbs like most Americans.
;-)
I have been to the UK, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Spain, Greece, Switzerland and Turkey. Thanks for asking so I could list them.
Public transportation (and electric vehicles) do not necessarily equate to being more environment friendly. It simply makes it more possible.
At some point though you do have to ignore the side of an argument you find to be patently false. For example, I no longer listen to any argument that is based on religious beliefs. Life is too short.
Unfortunately, you live in a world where most of the population thinks that is the most important argument of all.
As I replied to the other similar comment, I don't want to discuss those kind of red herrings. I want to discuss the issue, and I am (as stated) completely open to all sides of it.
Fair enough with this clarification. Pardon my assumptions.
There is still just as much carbon being dumped into the environment, and there is a net increase, so, less carbon still could mean less warming...[SNIP]... Not according to our leaders...
The evidence has proven that the planet is warming and it's obvious. Everyone knows the end result. However, countries take action in response to crises. There is not a current crisis, therefore there is no operation. Nothing else will matter until a catastrophe occurs or a less expensive breakthrough option is made available.
This whole issue might as well be on the backburner for the same reasons of less Stress, more time for there will be no result. The current posturing out there right now is only a tool for political machination because until "the environment" wins votes it's a complete deadend.
So, please, certain fellow folks in the US, bring the arguments. Tell me how it's OK for a country with 4 percent of the world's population to produce the most emissions, because we don't want to "slow" our economy.
/dev/null. Because it's time for the rest of us to talk seriously about what is going on.
How about because the US is a net carbon sink? Because the US has large protected forested areas we absorb more carbon emissions than we put out. This while paved over Europe expects us to pick up their tab.
This is fair since we can do it, but I think that Europeans should pay us a tax to cover our expenses.
Despite the misinformation campaign from a particular political agenda, this is NOT a political issue, and it IS something to be concerned about.
I think you meant agendas. This is not a dichotomy, things to be concerned about can also be politically driven. People are economically motivated in every direction in this issue as well as scientists who get funded from simple publicity. Attempting to make it so black and white only makes the issue more gray.
And, please send all these arguments to
Excellent argument, "I'm right and won't listen to anybody else who differs". How could you have started such an intelligent post and then self-destruct in such a manner?
Polls? Who conducts polls? The massively over-represented media...?
What are you talking about? You entirely miss the point of why companies issue equity. Now that Google is flush with cash, they could care less what the stock does. The price of the stock is now only relevant for taking over other companies (eg. AOL) and enriching the internal executives. If they don't pander to analysts, so much the better.
What analysts and investors think or project is not only meaningless but harmful. If they were good at running companies, they'd open their own Google.
Google is correct in not getting into the short term thinking game. Try checking Warren Buffet's negligent record in cowtowing to analyst's with Berkshire Hathaway and tell me his track record is poor.
Why the focus on games? Why can't they study if there is a positive correlation of gun ownership and violence? Martial arts and violence may be possible....just maybe. I bet you can even find a positive correlation between Greenpeace and violence.
So games have violence, big deal, it's virtual. There are many more imminent real world examples to address. Is it really the governments' job to parent children? If so, they have many more laws to pass and better get busy...
By the time someone with enough motivation (read funding) to write an article on a vulnerability does so, the bad guys have already written exploits. Why? For the same reason...they get paid!
The published articles allow the moderately tech savvy user to protect themself. Additionally, it forces the software makers' hand to close the vulnerability faster than if they had no pressure at all. Ultimately, this is our only way of shaming large companies into creating proper software and delaying the releases until they've created a more hardened product.
Yes, hanging out the dirty laundry of vulnerabilities makes it easy for the junior hackers to create something out of nothing, but I'd rather we all know about the problems at the same time than a few sophisticated spam hackers knowing about the problems for an indefinite amount of time.
You had me on the first half of your argument since the person isn't proven guilty. However, there is some merit in hunting down *convicted* child molesters.
And don't forget that in Stalin's era there were only ~150million people. A much higher percentage of the population. This article also points out that he would likely have had more people in jail if he didn't kill them all...