People say that you get the "flu" from the flu vaccine because "flu" has become such a generic term for being ill. People say they have the "stomach flu" when they have norovirus or food poisoning of some kind. They say they have a "touch of the flu" when they have a cold. They don't realize that influenza is a specific illness that has a very specific set of symptoms. This is a pet peeve of mine.
That being said, many of the symptoms of the flu or a cold are caused by your immune system's own response to the virus rather than the virus itself. A vaccine causes an immune response too. Some people really do feel slightly unwell after getting a flu vaccine or any other vaccine. This is why they say it gives them the flu: because they don't define the flu properly, and because the vaccine really does make them feel under the weather. If you look at the side effects of the vaccine, they do somewhat resemble the flu (although they're much milder):
I don't personally get the flu shot because I don't get the flu that often anyway, and I figure I'll just take my chances. But it's completely reasonable to expect healthcare workers to be vaccinated when they're dealing with some groups of people who are particularly susceptible to the flu.
Technically, if you sell your physical media, you probably also have to delete the digital copies that you created from that media. Realistically, no one will ever come after you unless you're sharing them online, so you probably don't have to worry about this.
I'm not sure what they're hoping to do other than to harass law-abiding gun owners, but this is a bad idea regardless. It will give criminals a list of people who have guns at their houses. It may make them safer from break-ins by criminals looking for some easy cash and no trouble, but it could make them targets for criminals who are specifically trying to get a hold of guns.
Different types of guns have different uses. The people I know that have multiple guns tend to be outdoorsmen or collectors. They use them to hunt, shoot targets, shoot pest animals, and for personal protection. The people I know of who have used guns recklessly more often than not just own a single handgun.
It looks like the first few comments have already been about guns and the second amendment, so I want to throw this out there. There have been spree killings all over the world, even in countries with more restrictive gun laws than the USA. Most of these killings were done with firearms, but many were done with other weapons.
I think that rather than arguing about gun-rights in general, we would be better served by working to identify the kind of people that feel they need to resort to this type of violence and getting them the help they need before they snap.
The map rates how many entities control external connections. China is heavy handed with how they control the internet internally, but they probably have many entities controlling different external connections to the wider internet. The map is showing the danger of how easy it would be for a country to sever its connection to the outside world, not control it.
The only moral thing to do would be to program the car to protect its passengers at all costs. IMO it would be immoral for a car to make the "decision" to sacrifice its passenger when the passenger is unwilling no matter how altruistic it seems.
Apple made their tablet at a time when there was a void in the market that it could fill. They made it at a time when the appropriate technology had (relatively) recently become available at a low enough price to make a tablet with a good mix of functionality and affordability (basically they beat everyone else to the punch.) Then they tied it to a line of already-successful products (iPod and iPhone) and marketed the hell out of it. It was business genius, but the tablet concept was not new.
I'm concerned that Facebook could end up flagging something as illegal that is really an inside joke between friends. I make lots of jokes about illegal activities with friends. They're usually about violent crimes or hard drugs rather than sex crimes, but still... We know each other well enough to catch the sarcasm. But sarcasm doesn't always show through very well in text when being read by strangers.
The whole argument about "gateway" drugs is pointless. People are going to try what's available and what they're comfortable with (what their friends use) first and move on from there. There is no "gateway" as much as a natural progression.
But they were also lucky enough to have been gifted with exceptional intelligence and raised in situations that allowed them access to computer hardware, software, and similarly gifted peers. They were/are all exceptional people. I think that the point of the article is that the vast majority of us aren't going to be able to accomplish what they did in the same way that they did.
The scenario mentioned above isn't as much a myth as it is an oversimplification. None of the people who accomplished this were average college students who simply had a good idea. They all had some sort of foundation for success started before they ever entered college.
I worry that they're going a little too far in trying to deal with "cyber" bullying. IMO, bullying online is mostly the same as it is in person. It doesn't always involve violence or threats of violence. It's usually just verbal harassment which is, by definition, repetitive. My main concern is that they're going to end up passing a law that treats a one-time thing, like an argument or a heat-of-the-moment insult, as the same thing as bullying.
This would be ideal for certain situations where you need to contact the police but where it would be ill-advised to draw attention to yourself by making a phone call.
All of these subsidies may cost the carriers some money, but they are costing you money as well. The carriers pay for smart phone subsidies with the price of their plans. Rather than laugh at the carriers' misfortune, you should consider this article to be an insight into why your bill is so high. People love Apple for the iPhone and hate the carriers for their ridiculous fees which is exactly how Apple planned it when they required the carriers to subsidize $450 of the iPhone 4S in order to sell it.
You may have been using a 4G phone in an area without 4G coverage. I have a 4G phone in an area with 4G coverage. The difference is huge. In case anyone wants numbers, I'll run a speed test:
Speakeasy.net going from Indianapolis to the Chicago test location. Using a Droid Bionic phone through Verizon.
4G: 35Mbps down, 12Mbps up
3G: 0.48Mbps down, 0.47Mbps up
Without going into long lists of examples, I'll just say that I can envision some situations where this would be useful and others where it would be detrimental. I think that a "smart search"... one that uses data from browsing history, Google+, and maybe other places... would be a good optional filter. It should be something that's easily accessible from the main page, sort of like filtering by date. It should not be default though, and it really needs to be able to be toggled on/off easily.
I think that the problem is with WHEN people decide to use their phones while driving. It's not dangerous at all to glance at your phone at a stoplight, and I think that it's minimally dangerous to use your phone on a familiar road while driving straight in light traffic. The problem is with people who are talking on their phones while trying to aggressively change lanes in rush hour or with people who are looking at their phone to text or dial in stop-and-go traffic. I think that if you are reasonable about when you choose to use your phone, it negates most of the danger. The problem with the studies is that subjects are tested in situations where they shouldn't be using their phones anyway under normal circumstances. You don't have to worry about missing an exit or crashing into a car in front of you when you know the area and you aren't following closely to begin with... ie: situations where it's safe to use your phone.
So what if Siri is just now starting to collect speech recognition data for Apple? Google has been doing it for years with Google Voice. All of the calls that it handles and voicemails it transcribes give Google a huge amount of voice data. When you include that along with voice/context data that it may get from Google Voice Search and context data it gets from regular Google searches, I don't know that Apple really has a "two year" advantage.
You don't need to own what produces it, but there are risks. There are many situations that could cause France to ration or cut off your electricity supply leaving you SOL.
Slashdot Mirror
People say that you get the "flu" from the flu vaccine because "flu" has become such a generic term for being ill. People say they have the "stomach flu" when they have norovirus or food poisoning of some kind. They say they have a "touch of the flu" when they have a cold. They don't realize that influenza is a specific illness that has a very specific set of symptoms. This is a pet peeve of mine.
That being said, many of the symptoms of the flu or a cold are caused by your immune system's own response to the virus rather than the virus itself. A vaccine causes an immune response too. Some people really do feel slightly unwell after getting a flu vaccine or any other vaccine. This is why they say it gives them the flu: because they don't define the flu properly, and because the vaccine really does make them feel under the weather. If you look at the side effects of the vaccine, they do somewhat resemble the flu (although they're much milder):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flu_vaccine#Side_effects
I don't personally get the flu shot because I don't get the flu that often anyway, and I figure I'll just take my chances. But it's completely reasonable to expect healthcare workers to be vaccinated when they're dealing with some groups of people who are particularly susceptible to the flu.
Technically, if you sell your physical media, you probably also have to delete the digital copies that you created from that media. Realistically, no one will ever come after you unless you're sharing them online, so you probably don't have to worry about this.
I'm not sure what they're hoping to do other than to harass law-abiding gun owners, but this is a bad idea regardless. It will give criminals a list of people who have guns at their houses. It may make them safer from break-ins by criminals looking for some easy cash and no trouble, but it could make them targets for criminals who are specifically trying to get a hold of guns.
Different types of guns have different uses. The people I know that have multiple guns tend to be outdoorsmen or collectors. They use them to hunt, shoot targets, shoot pest animals, and for personal protection. The people I know of who have used guns recklessly more often than not just own a single handgun.
See the "W" column in each section. They legend is at the bottom under the Annotation section. There is also a special section for vehicular homicide.
It looks like the first few comments have already been about guns and the second amendment, so I want to throw this out there. There have been spree killings all over the world, even in countries with more restrictive gun laws than the USA. Most of these killings were done with firearms, but many were done with other weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers
I think that rather than arguing about gun-rights in general, we would be better served by working to identify the kind of people that feel they need to resort to this type of violence and getting them the help they need before they snap.
The map rates how many entities control external connections. China is heavy handed with how they control the internet internally, but they probably have many entities controlling different external connections to the wider internet. The map is showing the danger of how easy it would be for a country to sever its connection to the outside world, not control it.
The only moral thing to do would be to program the car to protect its passengers at all costs. IMO it would be immoral for a car to make the "decision" to sacrifice its passenger when the passenger is unwilling no matter how altruistic it seems.
How about this thing?
http://www.paleofuture.com/blog/2007/5/14/tablet-newspaper-1994.html
This is probably the best example that I have seen. Go to Amazon and search for "black lcd tv." They're all almost exactly the same.
Apple made their tablet at a time when there was a void in the market that it could fill. They made it at a time when the appropriate technology had (relatively) recently become available at a low enough price to make a tablet with a good mix of functionality and affordability (basically they beat everyone else to the punch.) Then they tied it to a line of already-successful products (iPod and iPhone) and marketed the hell out of it. It was business genius, but the tablet concept was not new.
I'm concerned that Facebook could end up flagging something as illegal that is really an inside joke between friends. I make lots of jokes about illegal activities with friends. They're usually about violent crimes or hard drugs rather than sex crimes, but still... We know each other well enough to catch the sarcasm. But sarcasm doesn't always show through very well in text when being read by strangers.
The whole argument about "gateway" drugs is pointless. People are going to try what's available and what they're comfortable with (what their friends use) first and move on from there. There is no "gateway" as much as a natural progression.
But they were also lucky enough to have been gifted with exceptional intelligence and raised in situations that allowed them access to computer hardware, software, and similarly gifted peers. They were/are all exceptional people. I think that the point of the article is that the vast majority of us aren't going to be able to accomplish what they did in the same way that they did.
The scenario mentioned above isn't as much a myth as it is an oversimplification. None of the people who accomplished this were average college students who simply had a good idea. They all had some sort of foundation for success started before they ever entered college.
I worry that they're going a little too far in trying to deal with "cyber" bullying. IMO, bullying online is mostly the same as it is in person. It doesn't always involve violence or threats of violence. It's usually just verbal harassment which is, by definition, repetitive. My main concern is that they're going to end up passing a law that treats a one-time thing, like an argument or a heat-of-the-moment insult, as the same thing as bullying.
This would be ideal for certain situations where you need to contact the police but where it would be ill-advised to draw attention to yourself by making a phone call.
I'm not sure the reason, but there's a golem near Morristown, IN.
All of these subsidies may cost the carriers some money, but they are costing you money as well. The carriers pay for smart phone subsidies with the price of their plans. Rather than laugh at the carriers' misfortune, you should consider this article to be an insight into why your bill is so high. People love Apple for the iPhone and hate the carriers for their ridiculous fees which is exactly how Apple planned it when they required the carriers to subsidize $450 of the iPhone 4S in order to sell it.
You may have been using a 4G phone in an area without 4G coverage. I have a 4G phone in an area with 4G coverage. The difference is huge. In case anyone wants numbers, I'll run a speed test:
Speakeasy.net going from Indianapolis to the Chicago test location. Using a Droid Bionic phone through Verizon.
4G: 35Mbps down, 12Mbps up
3G: 0.48Mbps down, 0.47Mbps up
Without going into long lists of examples, I'll just say that I can envision some situations where this would be useful and others where it would be detrimental. I think that a "smart search" ... one that uses data from browsing history, Google+, and maybe other places... would be a good optional filter. It should be something that's easily accessible from the main page, sort of like filtering by date. It should not be default though, and it really needs to be able to be toggled on/off easily.
I think that the problem is with WHEN people decide to use their phones while driving. It's not dangerous at all to glance at your phone at a stoplight, and I think that it's minimally dangerous to use your phone on a familiar road while driving straight in light traffic. The problem is with people who are talking on their phones while trying to aggressively change lanes in rush hour or with people who are looking at their phone to text or dial in stop-and-go traffic. I think that if you are reasonable about when you choose to use your phone, it negates most of the danger. The problem with the studies is that subjects are tested in situations where they shouldn't be using their phones anyway under normal circumstances. You don't have to worry about missing an exit or crashing into a car in front of you when you know the area and you aren't following closely to begin with... ie: situations where it's safe to use your phone.
It sounds like he's trying to market to hipsters.
So what if Siri is just now starting to collect speech recognition data for Apple? Google has been doing it for years with Google Voice. All of the calls that it handles and voicemails it transcribes give Google a huge amount of voice data. When you include that along with voice/context data that it may get from Google Voice Search and context data it gets from regular Google searches, I don't know that Apple really has a "two year" advantage.
You don't need to own what produces it, but there are risks. There are many situations that could cause France to ration or cut off your electricity supply leaving you SOL.