Those links or searches are enough to prove the point, at least if one doesn't want to actively block the conclusions for one reason or another. But you even want to see things which aren't there - nothing specifically about immunity of patients in this success story.
What you're saying is largery true of course (and if you'd take a look at my neighbouring posts I'm actually sort of also saying it), hovewer you omit that this, as you yourself said, small section of religions managed to be in such state, of enabling scientific progress, in large part by...accident. Which of course worked fine for it, allowed it to outcompete other cultures and spread that approach throughout the world...in the past. One of them all, basically. While lamenting ignorance of history, you do something much worse - paint it like what worked in the past can work in the same way for us now. When the beliefs itself are so vastly different that virtually anybody living today would be a heretic for somebody from few centuries ago.
Why would it translate to modern times? (especially since, say, having large arsenal of nukes doesn't go nowadays against being a deeply religious place...but complicates things for humanity) In fact it doesn't; just look at the stats of "nice societal factors" and "level of secularism"
Of course, faith was an useful adaptation (or maybe just a byproduct of oversensitive alertness; doesn't matter either way) of our minds for a long, long time; certainly can be now.
But when you add societal constructs commonly known as religions, things get more complicated. Those constructs, contrary to common belief, don't have well-being of their members as a goal. Their goal is survival in a quite competitive arena - most religions that ever existed didn't survive to our times. Those that don't, as far as their mechanisms go, strive to survive are simply the first to go. That can, under some circumstances, lead to greater appretiation of science (and did, "even" during so called Dark Ages which actually were also a time of notable progress) or increasing positive societal factors; generally well being of its members. But when you look at our present times (just compare countries by level of secularisation and positive societal factors), it seems that from certain point (certain level of scientific advance and/or of living standards?) that ceases to be the case.
Partially correctOf course, advances in science sometimes brought it in direct "conflict" with faith - and only if the latter was, in one way or another, adapting, changing, the situation didn't result in hiccups. Thing is, too large number of people tends to define themselves by their faith (hence also less willing to "compromise"). That can work decently fine - during Cold War it probably was also, in some notable part, "to create a weapon to defeat the enemy" (on various levels, also national pride). So nothing new / might again work. Not very optimal though...
IC. Oh well, many people throw pretty much everything (and anytime) behind Iron Curtain into "totalitarian"; might as well treat it as the accepted term, applied on equal terms...
Because BTW, I wouldn't be too surprised if my place was "better" during most of the '70s than South Korea, and that might largely include also perceptions among populations / in individuals. Well, except taking on huge national debt that we pay to this day, but this was invisible to people... (and still sort of is, among those missing the '70s...) Hell, I wouldn't be too surprised if it compared rather well also during thaw of '50s/'60s.
The saddest, in a way, part is - if quite large portion of those fundamentalists that you mention actually followed the basics of what they themselves claim is their idol...they would be perhaps only half as bad. Perhaps even less.
The distinction might be more subtle than you make it to be...
Not only a less than stellar start (Jeju Uprising or Bodo League massacre; both easily exceeding the total number of victims of regime from my place (*) ), what about 1967 "spy ring"? Or generally imprisonments, tortures, protests beeing risky. Or Gwangju Massacre, as late as in 1980? That's not shooting citizens or throwing them to jails? Were you under (mistaken, I assure you) impression that those weren't happening in waves also in "communist" regimes? (with times inbetween being relatively calm)
(*) I live in a place which, while now in the EU, was behind the Iron Curtain (a situation mostly forced upon us, but of course practically entirety of the regime was "local"). And I really don't see that much of a difference between the situation at my place and what seemed to be the case in South Korea; apart from official ideology / camp affiliation / economic path. Where it matters it seems to be at most a case of scope, without changing the essence much.
There is a standard for videocalling through mobile phones (with hundreds of millions phones already in the wild supporting it) - it's part of UMTS 3G (the type of cellular network nominally used by iPhone)
There is also an open standard for "normal" (just via IP) videocalling - Jingle part of XMPP.
Apple chose to support neither, opting instead to create what they say will become open, and supported by one device; a device which is not yet available.
(they will give access to the front camera for apps "duplicating functionality"? Are you sure about that?...)
OTOH there's perhaps some, slight chance that such things might contribute to normalisation of N. Korea, eventually (not the only possible path, of course)
People forget that S. Korea was also a bit totalitarian for few decades after the war. But from the start on "our side" and open to business.
Thins is - a) there is a correlation with children of immigrants (really, do a Google search, there's plenty of links to choose from; might explain US a bit, too - with it being to probably one of the largest extents a "country of immigrants"?)
And I'm not sure what you're trying to say exactly with twins and siblings. Anyway, add b) from this news about slightly different gut flora in many people with autism. And we do know that people from various regions do have different ones, a difference which gets largely washed out after a generation or two. Seems possible it might be one of the factors... Or just accidental correlation (immigrants?) which isn't a factor actually causing anything.
PS. Aren't chidlren born from caesarian section of much higher risk of autism? Their bacterial flora also develops in a different way than in those after natural delivery.
Hell, even "wild" relatives, surviving here and there, don't behave like that. I have quite large population of wisents at my place; but there's not that much of a difference in behavior from cattle by now, just mostly them being not accustomed to humans so much. But since all few thousands are descended from dozen captive individuals... (the wild population became extinct at one point)
And then you have metropolitan areas relativelly nearby you that show it is in fact quite feasible to minimise the domination of cars in the cities (Amsterdam, for example).
And hell, many capacity problems are specifically because mass transit has to give away space / roads to less efficient car transport. Sure, it might not be as sweet and beautiful as we'd like, but it's the best solution we've found; it scales better, that's enough. And hey, if one Brazilian city can do it... (accidentally, one with quite a lot of people of German descent, it would seem)
Still, that strikes me as a bit poor justification; especially since there's no technical reason to not preload maps, at the least, in Google nav - so one wonders why they don't do it? Similarly with "HD" video content for example - at least some families of devices could easily cache most video streams in free space available on memory card; from what I see people watch the same yt videos, over and over, often enough for caching to be worthwhile.
That doesn't mean of course that I'm for low limits, oh no. It's just that many of the ways in which we use data connections are needlessly wasteful; if that wasn't the case, then optimally carriers perhaps wouldn't even need to put limits (yeah, I wouldn't really count on it in many cases, but...)
Who knows, on the iPad the balance might work out decently enough - a device which can be reasonably used while placed in front of you; and generally used in controlled / private / comfortable place more often than not.
But then, it would be not that different or easier from Skype on a laptop. Or on TV
And hell, there was hue and cry for a front facing camera on the iPhone, too. Now, if it only was made in a standards compatible way...
Actually, Skype has over a dozen users logged in at any given time. But I don't think its decent success can be easily translated to mobile devices - there's controlled environment, privacy, comfort, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Those links or searches are enough to prove the point, at least if one doesn't want to actively block the conclusions for one reason or another.
But you even want to see things which aren't there - nothing specifically about immunity of patients in this success story.
What you're saying is largery true of course (and if you'd take a look at my neighbouring posts I'm actually sort of also saying it), hovewer you omit that this, as you yourself said, small section of religions managed to be in such state, of enabling scientific progress, in large part by...accident.
Which of course worked fine for it, allowed it to outcompete other cultures and spread that approach throughout the world...in the past. One of them all, basically.
While lamenting ignorance of history, you do something much worse - paint it like what worked in the past can work in the same way for us now. When the beliefs itself are so vastly different that virtually anybody living today would be a heretic for somebody from few centuries ago.
Why would it translate to modern times? (especially since, say, having large arsenal of nukes doesn't go nowadays against being a deeply religious place...but complicates things for humanity)
In fact it doesn't; just look at the stats of "nice societal factors" and "level of secularism"
He said medicine, as an area of activity, not only "medicines" - not limiting myself the way you'd want is actually useful, because there's one striking example which can be brought up even by those who don't follow development of "medicines" /. story IIRC; or really, just google "Norway antibiotics", "Norway MRSA", etc.)
http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/medicine/how-norway-beat-a-bad-bug/1062228
http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2010/01/03/norway-prevents-resistant-infections-by-reducing-antibiotic-use/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3818277.stm
(there was also a
Of course, faith was an useful adaptation (or maybe just a byproduct of oversensitive alertness; doesn't matter either way) of our minds for a long, long time; certainly can be now.
But when you add societal constructs commonly known as religions, things get more complicated. Those constructs, contrary to common belief, don't have well-being of their members as a goal. Their goal is survival in a quite competitive arena - most religions that ever existed didn't survive to our times. Those that don't, as far as their mechanisms go, strive to survive are simply the first to go.
That can, under some circumstances, lead to greater appretiation of science (and did, "even" during so called Dark Ages which actually were also a time of notable progress) or increasing positive societal factors; generally well being of its members. But when you look at our present times (just compare countries by level of secularisation and positive societal factors), it seems that from certain point (certain level of scientific advance and/or of living standards?) that ceases to be the case.
Partially correctOf course, advances in science sometimes brought it in direct "conflict" with faith - and only if the latter was, in one way or another, adapting, changing, the situation didn't result in hiccups.
Thing is, too large number of people tends to define themselves by their faith (hence also less willing to "compromise"). That can work decently fine - during Cold War it probably was also, in some notable part, "to create a weapon to defeat the enemy" (on various levels, also national pride). So nothing new / might again work. Not very optimal though...
Optimally...maybe...here and there. but look at the latter in folk version, the actually "living" version.
Faith works much better.
Or you might just set up autonegotiating higher bitrate of video than the one seen in, say, the lowest end 3G "featurephones"...
And you know, Jingle (or Skype) works via 3G just fine; it's not any true technical reason that blocked Facetime.
IC. Oh well, many people throw pretty much everything (and anytime) behind Iron Curtain into "totalitarian"; might as well treat it as the accepted term, applied on equal terms...
Because BTW, I wouldn't be too surprised if my place was "better" during most of the '70s than South Korea, and that might largely include also perceptions among populations / in individuals.
Well, except taking on huge national debt that we pay to this day, but this was invisible to people... (and still sort of is, among those missing the '70s...)
Hell, I wouldn't be too surprised if it compared rather well also during thaw of '50s/'60s.
The saddest, in a way, part is - if quite large portion of those fundamentalists that you mention actually followed the basics of what they themselves claim is their idol...they would be perhaps only half as bad. Perhaps even less.
Question is, how to avoid levelling the Seoul in all of those scenarios...
The distinction might be more subtle than you make it to be...
Not only a less than stellar start (Jeju Uprising or Bodo League massacre; both easily exceeding the total number of victims of regime from my place (*) ), what about 1967 "spy ring"? Or generally imprisonments, tortures, protests beeing risky. Or Gwangju Massacre, as late as in 1980?
That's not shooting citizens or throwing them to jails? Were you under (mistaken, I assure you) impression that those weren't happening in waves also in "communist" regimes? (with times inbetween being relatively calm)
(*) I live in a place which, while now in the EU, was behind the Iron Curtain (a situation mostly forced upon us, but of course practically entirety of the regime was "local"). And I really don't see that much of a difference between the situation at my place and what seemed to be the case in South Korea; apart from official ideology / camp affiliation / economic path. Where it matters it seems to be at most a case of scope, without changing the essence much.
There is a standard for videocalling through mobile phones (with hundreds of millions phones already in the wild supporting it) - it's part of UMTS 3G (the type of cellular network nominally used by iPhone)
There is also an open standard for "normal" (just via IP) videocalling - Jingle part of XMPP.
Apple chose to support neither, opting instead to create what they say will become open, and supported by one device; a device which is not yet available.
(they will give access to the front camera for apps "duplicating functionality"? Are you sure about that?...)
A bit more generally: virtually any pure idealogy, promising to be our savior, is incompatible with reality.
(well, at least if we're discussing nation-level issues; because, say, communism can, did and does work in reasonably small communities)
OTOH there's perhaps some, slight chance that such things might contribute to normalisation of N. Korea, eventually (not the only possible path, of course)
People forget that S. Korea was also a bit totalitarian for few decades after the war. But from the start on "our side" and open to business.
Flash games are EVIL!!!
Oh, of only Kim Jong-il would adhere to communist ideology...
Things are cheap there because of totalitarian oligarchy.
Thins is - a) there is a correlation with children of immigrants (really, do a Google search, there's plenty of links to choose from; might explain US a bit, too - with it being to probably one of the largest extents a "country of immigrants"?)
And I'm not sure what you're trying to say exactly with twins and siblings. Anyway, add b) from this news about slightly different gut flora in many people with autism.
And we do know that people from various regions do have different ones, a difference which gets largely washed out after a generation or two. Seems possible it might be one of the factors...
Or just accidental correlation (immigrants?) which isn't a factor actually causing anything.
PS. Aren't chidlren born from caesarian section of much higher risk of autism? Their bacterial flora also develops in a different way than in those after natural delivery.
Hell, even "wild" relatives, surviving here and there, don't behave like that. I have quite large population of wisents at my place; but there's not that much of a difference in behavior from cattle by now, just mostly them being not accustomed to humans so much. But since all few thousands are descended from dozen captive individuals... (the wild population became extinct at one point)
High quality like Mozilla Firefox?
Why would they even care about what iPad has, considering Apple surely tries to prevent tempering also with this product?
And then you have metropolitan areas relativelly nearby you that show it is in fact quite feasible to minimise the domination of cars in the cities (Amsterdam, for example).
And hell, many capacity problems are specifically because mass transit has to give away space / roads to less efficient car transport. Sure, it might not be as sweet and beautiful as we'd like, but it's the best solution we've found; it scales better, that's enough. And hey, if one Brazilian city can do it... (accidentally, one with quite a lot of people of German descent, it would seem)
Still, that strikes me as a bit poor justification; especially since there's no technical reason to not preload maps, at the least, in Google nav - so one wonders why they don't do it?
Similarly with "HD" video content for example - at least some families of devices could easily cache most video streams in free space available on memory card; from what I see people watch the same yt videos, over and over, often enough for caching to be worthwhile.
That doesn't mean of course that I'm for low limits, oh no. It's just that many of the ways in which we use data connections are needlessly wasteful; if that wasn't the case, then optimally carriers perhaps wouldn't even need to put limits (yeah, I wouldn't really count on it in many cases, but...)
Who knows, on the iPad the balance might work out decently enough - a device which can be reasonably used while placed in front of you; and generally used in controlled / private / comfortable place more often than not.
But then, it would be not that different or easier from Skype on a laptop. Or on TV
And hell, there was hue and cry for a front facing camera on the iPhone, too. Now, if it only was made in a standards compatible way...
Actually, Skype has over a dozen users logged in at any given time. But I don't think its decent success can be easily translated to mobile devices - there's controlled environment, privacy, comfort, etc.