g not to die. Well, when we are moving at all. I miss having a car for the weekends, but the daily commute was a complete waste of time... nothing freeing about it.
Also, cause automated driving is a really BORING idea?!
We spend tens of thousands of dollars on cars to feel comfortable, secure, and IN CONTROL. There are few experiences left in our lives, that can compare to flying down the highway, hearing the soft thump of your suspension, and the low hiss of the road under your tires. It's a feeling of freedom... something we seldom experience in our daily lives. But once we allow automated driving, it's only a matter of time before we are FORCED to use it, by law. And that would just be too bad.
For the vast majority of children, vaccines do not cause autism. For a tiny number of children, autistic symptoms emerged shortly following vaccination.
Correlation =/= causation
Remember, establishing causation statistically is VERY hard. Establishing a lack thereof, is MUCH easier.
...our aggressive vaccination schedule is a likely suspect...
It is not.
There is no evidence to show it, and I have yet to meet a medical scientists that even entertains that idea.
This very well illustrates the issue I have with the statements you're making. It is obvious from this statement that you don't believe in the condition.
Umm... OK.
Let me explain to you what you did there:
-------------- Me: It's not that billions of stars have appeared over the past few centuries, it's just that we got better tools for looking at the sky, and can now see stars we were unable to see before.
I am sorry you feel the way you do... really... because you're being destructive towards yourself, your child, and our very society. Please seek professional treatment for your anxiety.
Because this hasn't had an impact on your life, you have had no motivation to get educated.
I happen to hold multiple degrees in biology.
In fact, please stop speaking about autism at all. You lack standing, and are failing to educate yourself.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. It certainly does not mean reading blogs on the internet.
I prefer properly controlled, peer-reviewed studies. Here's a review of such: Vaccines and autism: evidence does not support a causal association. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Dec;82(6):756-9. Epub 2007 Oct
If the traits exist genetically, and are passed from generation to generation, why did this condition rapidly advance in the past few decades?
The only conclusion that supports the rapid increase in the number of diagnosable cases of autism is that 'something new' is causing it. Something changed and now we're seeing more of it.
I am not sure it has advanced. It's quite likely that it has become diagnosed more often due to a better understanding of diagnostic criteria and the accompanying campaign of educating physicians.
Unless you fiddle with the data, this is absolutely the conclusion that needs to be drawn first.
Actually, you yourself said what kind of a conclusion can be drawn given the current data:
There is no known cause for autism.
Period.
Again, there is no known cause for autism.
I assume, though, that you're going to say the diagnosis rates aren't real because the diagnosis is over-used. Next you'll say my son isn't autistic - he's just a brat.
You're defensive because you're clinging to a comfortable idea. I'll let you reply to you:
Again, this doesn't withstand logical scrutiny.
Exactly.
SOMETHING changed, sir. And until you're ready to accept, at minimum, the possibility please do the world a favor and shut the hell up.
This is a perfect example of the kind of attitude that has become so prevalent recently (hey, maybe that's what the vaccines cause). I feel no obligation to accept the possibility of something that has been repeatedly shown to be false.
...so completely insensitive...
Insensitive? The only thing I am insensitive to, is your own ignorance.
I'm sorry your child has autism. It must be harder than I can imagine. And I know that you're looking to blame an external force for this condition. But you're looking in the wrong place.
Vaccines didn't give your child autism, and they're not going to make him worse. YOU gave your child autism... or the other parent did... or probably both.
This terrible condition has NOTHING to do with vaccines, as has been shown DOZENS of times now, to the tune of countless millions of dollars that could've been spent trying to actually fix the problem, as opposed to trying to prove something that was already known to the people who won't believe the studies anyway.
By denying basic healthcare to your child, you're in no way protecting him, but rather endangering him, as well as the other children he comes in contact with. That is both selfish, and stupid.
And if you think the entire medical and scientific community is trying to force you to do something, and is concealing "the truth (tm)" from you, then why seek any professional medical care at all. After all, I am sure you can find a site on the internet that will tell you that antibiotics cause autism. Think about that, next time you're dealing with pneumonia.
It's a reply that WILL get you karma from "fight-the-machine", "vaccines-cause-autism", and "they're-hiding-cures" crowd... but one that has no bearing at all on reality, and only reflects your ignorant disdain for the healthcare system.
The reason why they can't operate without the electronic system likely has to do with the mountains of required documentation that needs to be filled out for every patient, and the fear that without the electronic system they may miss a counter-indication and kill a patient, whose family will then proceed to sue the hospital, the software company, and the universe for three thousand gazillion dollars. If the patient is stable and there is another hospital nearby, why risk it?
P.S. If you think that a hospital would have trouble billing people without the electronic records, and that they'd turn away the ($1000 minimum) ER patients because of that, you're delusional.
Against humans, those who aren't killed in the blasts, most will die of thirst and hunger within a month without the current infrastructure supporting them.
That may be true for large cities (which may be destroyed at that point anyway)... but people are remarkably resilient as a species. I would imagine that local groups with access to food-generating resources (land and animals) would rapidly band together and form self-sustaining communities.
In countries that heavily discourage self-reliance and prohibit owning weapons, we would have a much longer-lasting chaos, due to roving bands of robbers who are armed, being able to plunder the survivors at will.
I am willing to take a little bit of risk for a little bit of freedom... or even a feeling of freedom.
How nice of you to make that decision on behalf of society. A selfish attitude like that should be reason to keep you off the road.
Actually, I find your attitude far more terrifying, especially given your last sentence that speaks volume as to your level of respect for other people. YOU aren't any more a representative of the "society" you mention than I.
There is a preponderance of evidence to show that lowering highway speed limits does not affect the number of accidents... and only serves to increase police revenue.
There are natural speed limits on the roads, which are very easy to ascertain, since people will usually gravitate towards these speeds regardless of the posted limits. In most places, this is between 65 and 80 mph. If speed limits were designed to actually serve the public, they would be set based on average traffic speed and there would be a lot less people speeding. You can go even further. Take German's autobahn, for instance. The limits are flexible, depending on density of traffic and road conditions. Now THAT makes sense.
Let me get this straight, you think that the speed limit for a road should be determined by fast a good driver in peak health in a well maintained car go?
Yes, actually.
Not everything needs to be reduced to the most marginal safety gain possible. I am willing to take a little bit of risk for a little bit of freedom... or even a feeling of freedom.
90%+ of the time I drive at or even under the speed limit (I NEVER speed on local roads where people can stop suddenly, or where someone can run into the street)... but it feels good just to let go once in a while. Since there are no controlled environments where this can be done (no ultra-high-speed roads), I am forced to go faster than the state limit (marginally so, usually)... because where I live, the limits are set just under the speed where most drivers feel comfortable driving on that particular stretch of road.
Speeding is one of the most preventable causes of accidents, though, up there with drink driving.
Bullshit. It's not the speeding that causes accidents, but careless/incompetent/aggressive driving while speeding. Look at Germany's accident rates for a quick demonstration.
but a stone-cold-sober human being can still get in the car and decide to pump their speed up by a sixth and their car's kinetic energy by a third.
Yes, and..?
I actually LIKE a spirited ride. I paid for my Acura... and I want to enjoy driving it. And occasionally I'd like to go faster than 55mph... just because I can. But I leave 50 meters+ in front and behind me, to account for the possible need to slow down rapidly... and I only do it when I am rested, and in peak form. Oh yeah, and I'm a good driver who's taken a number of advanced driving courses.
The HIGHWAY speed limits in the UK and US, as it stands, have little to do with safety, and much more to do with revenue generation. Sorry, but on a 5-lane road of new black asphalt that's 20cm deep, having a 55mph speed limit is simply stupid.
Just like a large number of people from the UK that I've encountered, you seem to have utterly no regard for any freedoms that you are currently not using. Moreover, these people seem to be relentlessly bent on curbing whatever freedoms they personally find "excessive" or "unnecessary". Well... I find English tea drinking unnecessary, and I think we need to install a cutoff switch in all milk cartons, to prevent milk from being poured into the tea.
Of course people get in trouble when they drive 100mph 20 feet behind another car, in a winding 2-lane road, while darting back and forth between the lanes. But it's ALREADY a crime to drive that way. There's no need to prevent you from BEING ABLE TO commit it. If you're going to go down that road, then why not just lock people in their houses. They'll be safe there.
I've just finished re-reading "Brave New World", and I have to tell you - I think it is already required reading for the UK government - they seem to be using it for 5-year plans...
Hamas and Hizballah have been using this technology for years. They've successfully made troop carriers look like ambulances, and armories look like hospitals, for many years now.
This trick works especially well if the reflected light passes through a BBC lens.
May I be the first one to suggest that this is not news?
Most viruses combat the immune system... especially the innate immune system, which is largely responsible for the cytokine response. They have to, or the infection would never progress to clinical stages.
Influenza is not an exception, and there is a mountain of literature about flu's ability to suppress innate immunity. There's hundreds of papers about influenza's ability to supress NF-kappaB, type I interferon, etc...
Again, unless they're giving these chips away, what's the problem? I'd be inclined to do the same thing, and I'd be shocked and amazed if the OEMs didn't suggest it and perhaps even push the idea themselves. (But honestly, both sides stand to profit from the arrangement. Follow the money...)
Well... this is the Wallmart Syndrome at its finest. Sell at or below cost until your competitors are bankrupt.
Just because Intel has money to burn, doesn't make it right. I don't see why anyone would encourage these practices, because they lead artificially deflated market prices for goods, coupled with monopolization, and sandwiched on top of a liquidity crisis. Does that sound familiar?
Because it should.
The consumers lose... the stockholders lose... Nobody wins here, except whoever got rich in the meanwhile.
Because geographically it's impossible to fly a plane and land at LaGuardia, Kennedy or Newark airport, without passing over some part of NYC... when coming from a variety of headings.
Furthermore, if we start prohibiting certain things, just because they disturb some part of the population, we're going to wind up banning sexual intercourse rather quickly.
It's not "amazing" that people live in fear. It's REQUIRED. Anyone not living in fear is being thoroughly unpatriotic.
Remember, if you've checked the "Democrat" box, you must fear Conservatives, Pedophiles, Rednecks, and Terrorists. If you've checked the "Republican" box, you have to fear Liberals, Gays, Foreigners, and Terrorists. Either way you have to support more surveillance and less individual rights.
Face it - rational risk assessment is unAmerican in the 21st century. If you're not afraid, then you can't be bullied and herded efficiently... and we can't have that.
"We're getting boarded... must not have sprayed the pirate repellent last night..."
The best pirate repellent is two squads of armed marines. Just have the ships pick them up in the port before the gulf of Aden... and drop them off in the port after, where they can board the ship going the other way.
Much cheaper than flooding the area with warships... and more effective to boot.
Slashdot Mirror
g not to die. Well, when we are moving at all. I miss having a car for the weekends, but the daily commute was a complete waste of time... nothing freeing about it.
That's why I take the bus to work.
Also, cause automated driving is a really BORING idea?!
We spend tens of thousands of dollars on cars to feel comfortable, secure, and IN CONTROL. There are few experiences left in our lives, that can compare to flying down the highway, hearing the soft thump of your suspension, and the low hiss of the road under your tires. It's a feeling of freedom... something we seldom experience in our daily lives. But once we allow automated driving, it's only a matter of time before we are FORCED to use it, by law. And that would just be too bad.
For the vast majority of children, vaccines do not cause autism. For a tiny number of children, autistic symptoms emerged shortly following vaccination.
Correlation =/= causation
Remember, establishing causation statistically is VERY hard. Establishing a lack thereof, is MUCH easier.
...our aggressive vaccination schedule is a likely suspect...
It is not.
There is no evidence to show it, and I have yet to meet a medical scientists that even entertains that idea.
Oh, brother, why am I wading into this?
Clearly, you shouldn't.
Speaking with you, sir, is akin to addressing a wall.
1. The cause of autism is unknown.
2. We do, however, know that vaccines ARE NOT the cause.
The two concepts are only contradictory in your mind.
That's pretty much as far as I am willing to go in conversing with you. As R. A. Heinlein wrote:
Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.
This very well illustrates the issue I have with the statements you're making. It is obvious from this statement that you don't believe in the condition.
Umm... OK.
Let me explain to you what you did there:
--------------
Me: It's not that billions of stars have appeared over the past few centuries, it's just that we got better tools for looking at the sky, and can now see stars we were unable to see before.
You: You don't believe in stars!
--------------
Talk about a non-sequitur...
If you're so sorry, why not try to actually represent your interests to me.
I am not trying to sell you anything.
I have provided you with a TINY fraction of the available peer-reviewed literature on the subject.
If you continue to ignore overwhelming evidence because it contradicts your world view, there is really very little I can do to help you.
Addendum:
Here's a link to an exhaustive (n=>100'000) study that shows no link between vaccines and autism.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14519711
Association between thimerosal-containing vaccine and autism.
JAMA. 2003 Oct 1;290(13):1763-6.
I am sorry you feel the way you do... really... because you're being destructive towards yourself, your child, and our very society. Please seek professional treatment for your anxiety.
Because this hasn't had an impact on your life, you have had no motivation to get educated.
I happen to hold multiple degrees in biology.
In fact, please stop speaking about autism at all. You lack standing, and are failing to educate yourself.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. It certainly does not mean reading blogs on the internet.
I prefer properly controlled, peer-reviewed studies. Here's a review of such:
Vaccines and autism: evidence does not support a causal association.
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Dec;82(6):756-9. Epub 2007 Oct
If the traits exist genetically, and are passed from generation to generation, why did this condition rapidly advance in the past few decades?
The only conclusion that supports the rapid increase in the number of diagnosable cases of autism is that 'something new' is causing it. Something changed and now we're seeing more of it.
I am not sure it has advanced. It's quite likely that it has become diagnosed more often due to a better understanding of diagnostic criteria and the accompanying campaign of educating physicians.
Unless you fiddle with the data, this is absolutely the conclusion that needs to be drawn first.
Actually, you yourself said what kind of a conclusion can be drawn given the current data:
There is no known cause for autism.
Period.
Again, there is no known cause for autism.
I assume, though, that you're going to say the diagnosis rates aren't real because the diagnosis is over-used. Next you'll say my son isn't autistic - he's just a brat.
You're defensive because you're clinging to a comfortable idea. I'll let you reply to you:
Again, this doesn't withstand logical scrutiny.
Exactly.
SOMETHING changed, sir. And until you're ready to accept, at minimum, the possibility please do the world a favor and shut the hell up.
This is a perfect example of the kind of attitude that has become so prevalent recently (hey, maybe that's what the vaccines cause). I feel no obligation to accept the possibility of something that has been repeatedly shown to be false.
Insensitive? The only thing I am insensitive to, is your own ignorance.
Ok.
I'm sorry your child has autism. It must be harder than I can imagine. And I know that you're looking to blame an external force for this condition. But you're looking in the wrong place.
Vaccines didn't give your child autism, and they're not going to make him worse. YOU gave your child autism... or the other parent did... or probably both.
This terrible condition has NOTHING to do with vaccines, as has been shown DOZENS of times now, to the tune of countless millions of dollars that could've been spent trying to actually fix the problem, as opposed to trying to prove something that was already known to the people who won't believe the studies anyway.
By denying basic healthcare to your child, you're in no way protecting him, but rather endangering him, as well as the other children he comes in contact with. That is both selfish, and stupid.
And if you think the entire medical and scientific community is trying to force you to do something, and is concealing "the truth (tm)" from you, then why seek any professional medical care at all. After all, I am sure you can find a site on the internet that will tell you that antibiotics cause autism. Think about that, next time you're dealing with pneumonia.
And electronic records going down are important here why? Did the hospitals not bill their ER visits 5 years ago?
It's a reply that WILL get you karma from "fight-the-machine", "vaccines-cause-autism", and "they're-hiding-cures" crowd... but one that has no bearing at all on reality, and only reflects your ignorant disdain for the healthcare system.
The reason why they can't operate without the electronic system likely has to do with the mountains of required documentation that needs to be filled out for every patient, and the fear that without the electronic system they may miss a counter-indication and kill a patient, whose family will then proceed to sue the hospital, the software company, and the universe for three thousand gazillion dollars. If the patient is stable and there is another hospital nearby, why risk it?
P.S. If you think that a hospital would have trouble billing people without the electronic records, and that they'd turn away the ($1000 minimum) ER patients because of that, you're delusional.
That may be true for large cities (which may be destroyed at that point anyway)... but people are remarkably resilient as a species. I would imagine that local groups with access to food-generating resources (land and animals) would rapidly band together and form self-sustaining communities.
In countries that heavily discourage self-reliance and prohibit owning weapons, we would have a much longer-lasting chaos, due to roving bands of robbers who are armed, being able to plunder the survivors at will.
I like cars and guns. Bubba - I think it's far more my country than yours.
How nice of you to make that decision on behalf of society. A selfish attitude like that should be reason to keep you off the road.
Actually, I find your attitude far more terrifying, especially given your last sentence that speaks volume as to your level of respect for other people. YOU aren't any more a representative of the "society" you mention than I.
There is a preponderance of evidence to show that lowering highway speed limits does not affect the number of accidents... and only serves to increase police revenue.
There are natural speed limits on the roads, which are very easy to ascertain, since people will usually gravitate towards these speeds regardless of the posted limits. In most places, this is between 65 and 80 mph. If speed limits were designed to actually serve the public, they would be set based on average traffic speed and there would be a lot less people speeding. You can go even further. Take German's autobahn, for instance. The limits are flexible, depending on density of traffic and road conditions. Now THAT makes sense.
Let me guess, you don't have a car... or do you have something that shakes itself apart at 70?
I also carry a pocketknife and like shooting guns. Want to comment on that as well?
Let me get this straight, you think that the speed limit for a road should be determined by fast a good driver in peak health in a well maintained car go?
Yes, actually.
Not everything needs to be reduced to the most marginal safety gain possible. I am willing to take a little bit of risk for a little bit of freedom... or even a feeling of freedom.
90%+ of the time I drive at or even under the speed limit (I NEVER speed on local roads where people can stop suddenly, or where someone can run into the street)... but it feels good just to let go once in a while. Since there are no controlled environments where this can be done (no ultra-high-speed roads), I am forced to go faster than the state limit (marginally so, usually)... because where I live, the limits are set just under the speed where most drivers feel comfortable driving on that particular stretch of road.
Mod parent up. No truer words have been spoken in this thread.
Speeding is one of the most preventable causes of accidents, though, up there with drink driving.
Bullshit. It's not the speeding that causes accidents, but careless/incompetent/aggressive driving while speeding. Look at Germany's accident rates for a quick demonstration.
but a stone-cold-sober human being can still get in the car and decide to pump their speed up by a sixth and their car's kinetic energy by a third.
Yes, and..?
I actually LIKE a spirited ride. I paid for my Acura... and I want to enjoy driving it. And occasionally I'd like to go faster than 55mph... just because I can. But I leave 50 meters+ in front and behind me, to account for the possible need to slow down rapidly... and I only do it when I am rested, and in peak form. Oh yeah, and I'm a good driver who's taken a number of advanced driving courses.
The HIGHWAY speed limits in the UK and US, as it stands, have little to do with safety, and much more to do with revenue generation. Sorry, but on a 5-lane road of new black asphalt that's 20cm deep, having a 55mph speed limit is simply stupid.
Just like a large number of people from the UK that I've encountered, you seem to have utterly no regard for any freedoms that you are currently not using. Moreover, these people seem to be relentlessly bent on curbing whatever freedoms they personally find "excessive" or "unnecessary". Well... I find English tea drinking unnecessary, and I think we need to install a cutoff switch in all milk cartons, to prevent milk from being poured into the tea.
Of course people get in trouble when they drive 100mph 20 feet behind another car, in a winding 2-lane road, while darting back and forth between the lanes. But it's ALREADY a crime to drive that way. There's no need to prevent you from BEING ABLE TO commit it. If you're going to go down that road, then why not just lock people in their houses. They'll be safe there.
I've just finished re-reading "Brave New World", and I have to tell you - I think it is already required reading for the UK government - they seem to be using it for 5-year plans...
Hamas and Hizballah have been using this technology for years. They've successfully made troop carriers look like ambulances, and armories look like hospitals, for many years now.
This trick works especially well if the reflected light passes through a BBC lens.
May I be the first one to suggest that this is not news?
Most viruses combat the immune system... especially the innate immune system, which is largely responsible for the cytokine response. They have to, or the infection would never progress to clinical stages.
Influenza is not an exception, and there is a mountain of literature about flu's ability to suppress innate immunity. There's hundreds of papers about influenza's ability to supress NF-kappaB, type I interferon, etc...
Fuck off and die, motherfucker. Thanks.
Again, unless they're giving these chips away, what's the problem? I'd be inclined to do the same thing, and I'd be shocked and amazed if the OEMs didn't suggest it and perhaps even push the idea themselves. (But honestly, both sides stand to profit from the arrangement. Follow the money...)
Well... this is the Wallmart Syndrome at its finest. Sell at or below cost until your competitors are bankrupt.
Just because Intel has money to burn, doesn't make it right. I don't see why anyone would encourage these practices, because they lead artificially deflated market prices for goods, coupled with monopolization, and sandwiched on top of a liquidity crisis. Does that sound familiar?
Because it should.
The consumers lose... the stockholders lose... Nobody wins here, except whoever got rich in the meanwhile.
Because geographically it's impossible to fly a plane and land at LaGuardia, Kennedy or Newark airport, without passing over some part of NYC... when coming from a variety of headings.
Furthermore, if we start prohibiting certain things, just because they disturb some part of the population, we're going to wind up banning sexual intercourse rather quickly.
It's not "amazing" that people live in fear. It's REQUIRED. Anyone not living in fear is being thoroughly unpatriotic.
Remember, if you've checked the "Democrat" box, you must fear Conservatives, Pedophiles, Rednecks, and Terrorists. If you've checked the "Republican" box, you have to fear Liberals, Gays, Foreigners, and Terrorists. Either way you have to support more surveillance and less individual rights.
Face it - rational risk assessment is unAmerican in the 21st century. If you're not afraid, then you can't be bullied and herded efficiently... and we can't have that.
"pirate repellents"
WTF are we talking about... TICKS???
"We're getting boarded... must not have sprayed the pirate repellent last night..."
The best pirate repellent is two squads of armed marines. Just have the ships pick them up in the port before the gulf of Aden... and drop them off in the port after, where they can board the ship going the other way.
Much cheaper than flooding the area with warships... and more effective to boot.