Well, you bring up an interesting point which is separate from the numbers game we just played. I heard a medical doctor say it best a few years back, and I wish I could remember his name. I have a good enough memory to paraphrase, but I'll warn you that this is again not "pro vaccine" territory. Then again, it's not anti-vaccine. I consider it to be a piece of sanity in the world of two extremes.
Vaccines are a medical procedure. Like all medical procedures nothing can ever be guaranteed and no two procedures will be identical because no two bodies are identical. No body is the same before a vaccine, and all bodies will react and heal at different rates after receiving a vaccine. A body having an illness prior to getting a vaccine, even if minor, may cause the recipient to have a different experience to the vaccination of a 'healthy' body. Sometimes these reactions are extremely violent, and other times they are mere nuisances and discomfort. Every time we get a vaccine, our bodies have to react to the vaccine. This is in essence what the vaccine is supposed to do, to teach the body to react to invaders and kill them. It is frightening that we are often giving children so many vaccines, because we can't know if the body has recovered from the previous vaccine yet. Giving multiple vaccines at once, such as the MMR vaccine means a normal body is healing three different exposures to a disease simultaneously. Then we give them Chicken Pox or Polio at the same time? That is insanity.
This goes back to another of my original points. Vaccines are not necessarily bad, but are not necessarily good. Again, I don't believe my position changes any because I'm not arguing either side in the extreme games. I don't believe we need people crying wolf about vaccines, but I don't believe it any benefit to ignore problems and potential problems due to vaccines either. Some are good and important, like Polio. Others, like flue, are not very important and extremely questionable to be forcing on people.
Like you say, falsifying information on your resume or application is a terminable offense at most businesses. This means that it is often illegal, just not in the State of Federal jurisdiction for Law. This means that lying on a resume may not get you put in jail or cost you a hefty fine, but being unemployed is almost as bad (especially when you can't use the former employer as a reference).
Do you omit the degrees from your resume, or do you have an education section on your resume which says you have them? Using them may be subtle, but if you keep it on your resume then you do use it. Not to be confused with flaunting it or waving it in people's faces. I use my degrees on my resume, and don't flaunt them. I will answer people when they ask, but to me experience has been more valuable to my career than my degree. My degree is Math, yet I work in CS. That used to the the way of things long ago but today CS is it's own degree.
I think we are close to an agreement. How about this: I'll agree that someone has additional risk due to someone refusing the vaccine, considering that the risk is so small it's irrelevant to debate. This would only be the true for only one type of vaccine against one disease or virus however, because they are all vastly different with different risks and different results for each vaccine.
This is very much where I started the debate from, but it does concede an risk so small that it could not be measured.
Would you agree to this arrangement? If not, I really need to see where there is any risk increase due to a person refusing a vaccine. Please show me where my logic is wrong. While you have raised some very interesting arguments, my arguments have not been befuddled or changed by them.
Furthermore I suspect there are other notable people who'd like to follow suit but didn't want to be the first one to do so. 'Bout damned time, I say.
Like Rand and Ron Paul have been doing? or more like Ex Presidents? A few in politics really have been yelling about this for a while, you just need to go find information because our media in the US works for the few running our government and not the people.
There has to be a flood to have that point of view. We currently lack a pandemic style plague for that viewpoint to be realistic. The common flu virus is not a pandemic, and this happens to be the most commonly refused vaccine.
Even if we had such a black plague style pandemic, claiming every other vaccine relates is not true. Especially with viruses like common influenza.
Making such claims are generalization fallacies, and bad logic.
Look: suppose I am vaccinated, but the vaccine didn't work for me, because I'm one of the unfortunate 10% for whom it isn't effective. Suppose also that although the vaccine would have worked for you (not that there'd be any way to know this, of course, but no matter), you chose not to get it. You then get infected, and then infect me. Had you taken the vaccination, neither of us would have become infected.
Glad we could reduce the debate down to this.
What if I am also one of the 10%? The point I have been trying to make is that the very few refusing vaccines don't make any difference in the equation! This would only make a difference if a large percentage of the population was refusing vaccines. There is no large percentage, so me refusing does not change your risk.
Given your 90% effective number, this is the equivalent to 10% of the population not being immunized even if 100% received the vaccine. With ~350 million people in the US do the math and calculate the percentage of people refusing vaccines. It won't make a dent in your risk!
Apologist? I don't believe so, but I'll contemplate that a bit. Do I believe the US is some great virtuous beast? Nope, those delusions have been gone for a very long time, because I read a whole lot of history. There are certainly cases where I would back US actions, and certainly cases where I would denounce Russian actions. Crimea does not fall into this case, and the massive amount of distortion does not change my opinion.
If Crimea was not going to be autonomous in 2 months whether or not there was a coup in the Ukraine, I would agree that "Russian's invaded". That condition is not true.
If Russia had raced in shooting like they did in Georgia, I would probably again denounce the Russian's actions. That condition never happened either.
There are many conditions that we could present showing the same change in opinion, but none of those happened.
People repeating propaganda that I heard on Fox news, like comparing this to Sudeten, won't change that opinion either. Hitler claimed that Germans in Sudeten were being tortured, abused, and killed by the Czech government. I have heard no such rhetoric from Russia regarding Russians in Crimea. Hitler said that turning over Sudeten would prevent war. Again, I have heard no such threatening rhetoric from Russia so the comparison is simply not true.
It's clear that the US and EU does not like the vote in Crimea. I don't have any insight into the election process, but the voting numbers are consistent with past voting in Crimea. Crimea has been pro-Russian since long before Nikita Khruschev gave the land to the Ukraine.
As stated before, when democracy does not work the way the administration wants it to work, they attempt to change the outcome. That is not being pro-democracy.
Lastly, there is a difference between being against certain US activities and being pro anyone else. The US has done a lot of wrong, and questionable things. The wars in the middle east are a few of them, but these fabrications as a method of starting wars goes back quite a ways. At least to Vietnam. If the US is dishonest about the start of the conflicts why would you trust their motives?
Thats going to be the sock puppet war option, do big powers in the US and EU go in to undo a vote in a region?
Depending on who you believe, it just happened in the Ukraine. Considering that the US paid for their Orange revolution I don't think they were happy with the Ukraine voting to stay out of EU economics.
The EU votes to allow your region in, you don't get to vote to stay out?
Eastern nations have wanted little to do with the EU and seem to be able to stay out, so I'd need some better basis for this statement. Seems like you are saying "EU" but meaning "NATO", can you clarify?
Some 'declaration of independence" by locals voting is then lost on the wider community?
I'll ask for clarification here also, Crimea was slated to be autonomous in May. The coup expedited the process, but is not really a surprise to anyone that spends a few minutes studying the region.
Interesting how people will falsify information to suite their needs. I believe you meant to say "Crimea", which is not the Ukraine and who was going to be autonomous in May by democratic process. This vote was scheduled long before the coup in Kiev, and was scheduled for the same reasons that the coup expedited. They were not pro-western, and were pro-Russian.
This is the same Crimea that asked the Russians to protect them from the Euromaidens on the same day the coup happened in Kiev, and the same Crimea that just voted to leave the Ukraine and join the EU.
If you claim to be pro-democracy but only if the democracy does what you want it to do, it is not a democracy.
I do realize that you don't let "facts" get into the way of your opinion, but that just means you should not be spreading your opinion. You have a history of repeating false information so this today is no big shock.
Google "Ukraine crisis timeline" you inconsiderate prick. A failure on your part to use a courteous level of communications skills is because you are a liar and nothing type is truthful. See, two can play toddler games and since I'm not a toddler I'll win.
Further, it's hilarious that you call me names and invent things never said and then attribute them to me. Go back and read my post again you illiterate sod! I never said any party was right or wrong, I said that the comparison someone was making was wrong. I further stated that the US has made some horrible decisions and many people in the world no longer see the US as a magical cowboy rushing in to save them from the evils of the world, they see the US as the biggest evil in the world that they need to be saved from.
Try to read and comprehend what I wrote instead of inventing your own material. I do realize that reading something other than porno and comic books does require a smidgen of thought, so maybe you should not volunteer for such a task.
Shrug, I'm more making a statement that the "good" guys is an extremely subjective view. How much of Momar Ghadaffi and Libya had to do with him trying to get rid of US currency vs. him being such a "bad guy" for example. Sure, he was bad but we tolerated him pretty well until he decided to do away with global bankers. We can say a similar thing for Sadam and Iraq. None of them were good guys, but when the evil that gets ignored for decades (and even aided) gets played up you should start looking for other motives.
that was not a vote in crimea. invaded by a foreign army, which operates without insignia and is denied by russia itself. active terror against tatars. it has been a terrible, terrible lie that seems to be promoted by rt, mostly (well, and the mass media in russia, of course).
So Crimea did not ask for Russian protection on the first day of the uprising in Kiev? You are denying very recent history, or choosing to ignore events, to come to your conclusion.
it was not a coup. the current rada is the same one for the most part. claiming anything else is a lie from the cremlin media.
Wow, just wow. Armed gangs take over a government and it's not a coup to you, nothing like changing a word to fit your means I guess. Do I need to give a LMGTFY link so you can find the definition of "coup"? Say so if you can't find the definition of the word.
Interestingly what is lost by you, and US media, is that on when the protests started even US media said the uprising started not because of an evil tyranny, but because the Government of the Ukraine didn't want to become a member of the EU. Considering how every country that has joined has gotten butfucked by global bankers, I am not sure that decision was wrong. It had nothing to do with Russia, until someone needed a villain. Wholly shit this is still in Google, go figure out how to use "Search".
compared to ukraine ? haha
Ahh, selective thinking. No, not compared to the Ukraine but compared to the US and EU allies of the US.
Learn to spell and use your caps key, I refuse to respond further to a person that lacks common courtesy with communication in addition to a critical lack of facts..
My points with the 100% is that you keep using it like it's either achievable or important. It's not, so it should be dropped as a measure of anything.
Assuming that I refers to has been vaccinated (and not the body has successfully developed immunity), this is false: you have assumed a 100% effective vaccine.
You are trying to rewrite an issue I presented a couple of times with bad logic. No, I don't assume 100% effective vaccines. Read what I presented again, since this was very clearly written on multiple occasions. The same statement can be used to discount your final sentence. Namely that if a vaccine is not effective then vaccination will not matter for either the vaccinated or not vaccinated. Neither person is protected by the vaccine so the same exact end result occurs. (I ~ D). If a person is exposed to the disease there is a chance for them to get the disease. Please save the easily proved arguments of a bigger pool of D since most diseases are not carried by humans, the pool of potential D does not change very much by a single human choosing not to get a vaccine.
This is all very straight forward logic, I gave the math and it should be simple for you to confirm the math. If you try and assign variables by appeal to either I or E you will end up with faulty logic. Why? Because a person that can NOT get vaccines is exactly the same as a person that chooses not to be vaccinated. Neither person increases _your_ risk to getting a disease that _you_ have been immunized for.
Obviously there is a hint above at a scale, and I believe I mentioned this earlier. If the pool of population choosing not to vaccinate reaches a measurable percentage the potential carriers for D increases. This still does not give a person with (I ! D) any greater risk, it only impacts the people with (I ~ D) risk.
Maybe all the history books are wrong, either that or you are trying to rewrite a hell of a lot of history in a small little post. No "real" similarities exist between Hitler's Germany and Putin's Russia, nor do they exist between Sudeten and Crimea, nor do they exist between the actions of Hitler and Sudeten and Russia and Crimea.
Sudeten never voted to become part of Germany as Crimea did Russia. Crimea as a region has been pro Russia since long before the coup in the Ukraine, so the vote was not Russia "taking territory" like you are trying to frame it. Hitler was building the most modern military at the time, Russia has been playing catch up since the disbanding of the old USSR.
Be very careful with how you are trying to frame things. According to a very large number of Middle Eastern people, the US has been mass murdering Arabic speaking people for over a decade. "Yellow Cake" is pretty damning proof that the US is not above lying to pursue their own political goals, and numerous wars in the Middle East show that the US is not above killing innocents in furthering their goals. It also shows you that the media in the US is not really looking out for _your_ best interests, but the interest of politicians who are not necessarily telling _you_ why they are doing things.
Who's side is right in most conflicts are a matter of opinion backed by the winner. Are you going to suit up and go fight the Russians in the Ukraine? Send your kids over? Is it worth you or yours dying for, especially if you don't have all the facts?
I've been a KDE user for a very long time, hated Gnome. Frankly I hate Unity even more Gnome (which is a lot). I've seen KDE do things that Microsoft can't, using less CPU and overall better performance, and it's always been compatible with X. So now we have a nextgen X and Canonical want's to disperse the market. Nothing new there, they did it with Unity. Fragmentation is good for some people, and I have to wonder if Canonical gets paid to cause fragmentation? Sure, they have a product that is "theirs" too, but who really likes "theirs" and why is theirs better for consumers?
Look, if you happen to love Gnome you should have the same issues with this fragmentation as me being pro-KDE does. Years of getting Gnome X.X working properly and enough traction from users, and then a company creates a rift. Ubuntu makes some things easier for people not experienced with Linux, but they don't do UIs as Unity clearly demonstrates.
If they are unhappy with Gnome or KDE why not put devs on the project instead of back door'ing their own?
You keep throwing that 100% thing out there, and it's absolutely meaningless. Certainly there are a few vaccines that have very high rates of effectiveness, but I don't believe any of them are 100% (show me one). People getting a flu vaccine are not immune to the Flu, often not even immune to the strain they have been immunized for.
Then to the other way you could be using the 100%, that is in people receiving the vaccines. Again, this is impossible due to many medical conditions preventing people from ever getting a vaccine. I'm pretty sure you agreed to this, but still continue to toss the number out as if it has meaning.
The document linked "herd immunity" shows my argument pretty clearly, even though you assumed it backed the post I responded to.
You getting a vaccine, have no increased risk to that disease if I do not get a vaccine. It is impossible for that to be true unless the vaccine fails, in which case whether I had the vaccine or not makes no difference. We would still both get the disease after we both got the vaccine.
You are imagining a scenario that can not exist! Re-read the above paragraph if you are still confused, and keep reading it over and over again until you get it. As I said, put it in math terms. (I ! D) and (~ D). There is no way for me to give you D if you have I. (I=Immunization and D=Disease, I was going to use V for vaccine but that would look horrible.)
Where there is an increased risk is with the people not vaccinated. Herd immunity reduces their risks, and causes no harm to vaccinated people. The more people with vaccines, the LESS the risk of a person WITHOUT immunization to get a disease. It can not work in the other direction because (I ! D) people with vaccines are immune to the disease.
I still don't get it. What evidence do you have that willow bark powder is superior to the aspirin in my medicine cabinet? I really doubt people using that did proper clinical studies and kept decent records.
I think you missed a huge set of statements, so let put those in Q&A form.
Has the low cost and ease of distribution lead to abuses in antibiotics which have reduced their effectiveness? Has the abuse of antibiotics further helped to breed viruses that are immune to those same very cheap and common antibiotics?
Those are two very simple yes/no questions, and you can verify factually that the answer to both of these is "yes". If you answer "yes" to either of these questions, then you should have no problem also agreeing that mass production of medicines is not "better" in all view points.
Antibiotics are just one example, but we could also get into pain relievers and narcotics also being "not better in all cases". We could further use aspirin and similar non narcotic pain relievers. "Better" is subjective, is it not?
Now back on your first point, willow bark is exactly what aspirin mimics. Compare the two molecular structures and you will see that aspirin was made to be similar to salicin, mimicking it's behavior in the body.
This goes to your last point, and I'll say you need to study. I have yet to see a person OD on marijuana, because there are limits on the natural product that do not exist with a man made synthetic compound. Willow bark would be similar, because it would be impossible for me to eat enough willow bark to OD on salicin, but yet I could take enough Bayer aspirin to kill myself.
Man made pain relievers and antibiotics are nearly all made as synthetic compounds mimicking a naturally occurring molecule. This is a fact, read up on how these things are made. Mass production has some benefits, but is not always beneficial. You are choosing to ignore the negative impact of mass production and cheap. Ask someone with permanent damage to their liver from Tylenol how beneficial it was for them to take Tylenol "as recommended". It happens, and can happen, because it's so easy to access and cheap. Often it's cheaper to mask a problem with aspirin than it is to fix the root problem, which leads to further medical problems and deterioration of health.
So in the case of Aspirin, I would claim it's "better" than man made for several reasons. First, it is the molecule that synthetic compounds attempt to mimic. Second, natural limitations reduce the chances for over use. Third, the human body tends to handle natural products much better than synthetics (I.E. reduced chances of allergic reactions). Third, mass production of this 'natural' remedy would be ecologically sound. While it would increase the cost of aspirin the amount of increase would be difficult to guess, but trees tend to be 100% usable with very little ecological damage (ecological damage occurs in processing in almost all cases).
The person I replied to said that the only way he would accept a non compliance is by guaranteeing 100% vaccination which we can not achieve. He did not demolish anything, he created an impossible criteria to be correct. A base rate fallacy does not win, it's bad logic.
What you are trying to claim is that there is no way a person can memorize 7x7=49 after coming up with that answer a few times on their own, which is bullshit! There are way better methods of learning and exercising concepts than memorizing a table, and they work well beyond 9x9.
How the fuck did you, as an AC, get modded when you are provably wrong on a nerd site where people could and should have read about how Albert Einstein learned math... or Aristotle, or countless other biographies and autobiographies that describe no such table memorization method of learning math.
Mostly this, but a bit more since you are missing something I feel is a much larger issue. Common core is the latest example of people not learning concepts so that they can understand the world, but making students memorize and "come close" to answers that someone feeds them.
Case and point. My son in Elementary school was forced to memorize multiplication tables because it was required (in a bit more than a decade that may have changed, but it was required from the 1950s). The kids were not taught the fundamental concept of what multiplication is, or how it worked. I sat him down and showed him the concept and told him to not use "times" or "multiply" when doing his homework. Instead, I told him to use "groups of" which made perfect sense to a 7 year old. He never had to memorize the table and aced math, but not because government mandated materials and methods worked, but because I taught him what the concepts the school didn't.
Those types of lessons occurred constantly. Many teachers know the forced methods are broken and fight against it. Teachers often ignore the forced work and methods and their kids get smarter, though in certain areas of the required tests scores can drop.
It's not simply a matter of having people with real world knowledge teaching. There is very much an issue of the curriculum and required methods being wrong.
TFA makes me very concerned, because talking to friends I'm not the only one that has taught my kid concepts that schools do not. This seems to be very common, and sending a message out to people to stop teaching their kids is questionable at best. I have a feeling that the statistics were not so much related to parents helping with homework as much as parents doing the homework for the kid (which we know happens) and of course those types of questions would easily skew results.
Nothing. I agree that financial institutions have made some blundering mistakes, but really.. How hard is it to run applications without a login shell and without root privileges?
When the point hurts your head, just attack the person instead of the point. Got it! I enjoy it so much when people with such immature points make such obvious errors in spelling and grammar. Please tell me more about my "inanity" and "muppetude" man, you are like a rocket scientist with your magical cognitive abilities. Really, because you have to believe in fairies and magic to have such poor skills with rational thought and dialogue. Go back to the TV, Honey Boo Boo misses you!
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you bring up an interesting point which is separate from the numbers game we just played. I heard a medical doctor say it best a few years back, and I wish I could remember his name. I have a good enough memory to paraphrase, but I'll warn you that this is again not "pro vaccine" territory. Then again, it's not anti-vaccine. I consider it to be a piece of sanity in the world of two extremes.
Vaccines are a medical procedure. Like all medical procedures nothing can ever be guaranteed and no two procedures will be identical because no two bodies are identical. No body is the same before a vaccine, and all bodies will react and heal at different rates after receiving a vaccine. A body having an illness prior to getting a vaccine, even if minor, may cause the recipient to have a different experience to the vaccination of a 'healthy' body. Sometimes these reactions are extremely violent, and other times they are mere nuisances and discomfort. Every time we get a vaccine, our bodies have to react to the vaccine. This is in essence what the vaccine is supposed to do, to teach the body to react to invaders and kill them. It is frightening that we are often giving children so many vaccines, because we can't know if the body has recovered from the previous vaccine yet. Giving multiple vaccines at once, such as the MMR vaccine means a normal body is healing three different exposures to a disease simultaneously. Then we give them Chicken Pox or Polio at the same time? That is insanity.
This goes back to another of my original points. Vaccines are not necessarily bad, but are not necessarily good. Again, I don't believe my position changes any because I'm not arguing either side in the extreme games. I don't believe we need people crying wolf about vaccines, but I don't believe it any benefit to ignore problems and potential problems due to vaccines either. Some are good and important, like Polio. Others, like flue, are not very important and extremely questionable to be forcing on people.
Like you say, falsifying information on your resume or application is a terminable offense at most businesses. This means that it is often illegal, just not in the State of Federal jurisdiction for Law. This means that lying on a resume may not get you put in jail or cost you a hefty fine, but being unemployed is almost as bad (especially when you can't use the former employer as a reference).
Do you omit the degrees from your resume, or do you have an education section on your resume which says you have them? Using them may be subtle, but if you keep it on your resume then you do use it. Not to be confused with flaunting it or waving it in people's faces. I use my degrees on my resume, and don't flaunt them. I will answer people when they ask, but to me experience has been more valuable to my career than my degree. My degree is Math, yet I work in CS. That used to the the way of things long ago but today CS is it's own degree.
I think we are close to an agreement. How about this: I'll agree that someone has additional risk due to someone refusing the vaccine, considering that the risk is so small it's irrelevant to debate. This would only be the true for only one type of vaccine against one disease or virus however, because they are all vastly different with different risks and different results for each vaccine.
This is very much where I started the debate from, but it does concede an risk so small that it could not be measured.
Would you agree to this arrangement? If not, I really need to see where there is any risk increase due to a person refusing a vaccine. Please show me where my logic is wrong. While you have raised some very interesting arguments, my arguments have not been befuddled or changed by them.
Furthermore I suspect there are other notable people who'd like to follow suit but didn't want to be the first one to do so. 'Bout damned time, I say.
Like Rand and Ron Paul have been doing? or more like Ex Presidents? A few in politics really have been yelling about this for a while, you just need to go find information because our media in the US works for the few running our government and not the people.
There has to be a flood to have that point of view. We currently lack a pandemic style plague for that viewpoint to be realistic. The common flu virus is not a pandemic, and this happens to be the most commonly refused vaccine.
Even if we had such a black plague style pandemic, claiming every other vaccine relates is not true. Especially with viruses like common influenza.
Making such claims are generalization fallacies, and bad logic.
I think your analogy at the end is a bit wrong. Having a draindrop does not make a flood, does it?
Thanks for the further points, it clarified your earlier statements. I agree that the people that tend to get screwed in any deal are the locals.
Look: suppose I am vaccinated, but the vaccine didn't work for me, because I'm one of the unfortunate 10% for whom it isn't effective. Suppose also that although the vaccine would have worked for you (not that there'd be any way to know this, of course, but no matter), you chose not to get it. You then get infected, and then infect me. Had you taken the vaccination, neither of us would have become infected.
Glad we could reduce the debate down to this.
What if I am also one of the 10%? The point I have been trying to make is that the very few refusing vaccines don't make any difference in the equation! This would only make a difference if a large percentage of the population was refusing vaccines. There is no large percentage, so me refusing does not change your risk.
Given your 90% effective number, this is the equivalent to 10% of the population not being immunized even if 100% received the vaccine. With ~350 million people in the US do the math and calculate the percentage of people refusing vaccines. It won't make a dent in your risk!
Apologist? I don't believe so, but I'll contemplate that a bit. Do I believe the US is some great virtuous beast? Nope, those delusions have been gone for a very long time, because I read a whole lot of history. There are certainly cases where I would back US actions, and certainly cases where I would denounce Russian actions. Crimea does not fall into this case, and the massive amount of distortion does not change my opinion.
If Crimea was not going to be autonomous in 2 months whether or not there was a coup in the Ukraine, I would agree that "Russian's invaded". That condition is not true.
If Russia had raced in shooting like they did in Georgia, I would probably again denounce the Russian's actions. That condition never happened either.
There are many conditions that we could present showing the same change in opinion, but none of those happened.
People repeating propaganda that I heard on Fox news, like comparing this to Sudeten, won't change that opinion either. Hitler claimed that Germans in Sudeten were being tortured, abused, and killed by the Czech government. I have heard no such rhetoric from Russia regarding Russians in Crimea. Hitler said that turning over Sudeten would prevent war. Again, I have heard no such threatening rhetoric from Russia so the comparison is simply not true.
It's clear that the US and EU does not like the vote in Crimea. I don't have any insight into the election process, but the voting numbers are consistent with past voting in Crimea. Crimea has been pro-Russian since long before Nikita Khruschev gave the land to the Ukraine.
As stated before, when democracy does not work the way the administration wants it to work, they attempt to change the outcome. That is not being pro-democracy.
Lastly, there is a difference between being against certain US activities and being pro anyone else. The US has done a lot of wrong, and questionable things. The wars in the middle east are a few of them, but these fabrications as a method of starting wars goes back quite a ways. At least to Vietnam. If the US is dishonest about the start of the conflicts why would you trust their motives?
Thats going to be the sock puppet war option, do big powers in the US and EU go in to undo a vote in a region?
Depending on who you believe, it just happened in the Ukraine. Considering that the US paid for their Orange revolution I don't think they were happy with the Ukraine voting to stay out of EU economics.
The EU votes to allow your region in, you don't get to vote to stay out?
Eastern nations have wanted little to do with the EU and seem to be able to stay out, so I'd need some better basis for this statement. Seems like you are saying "EU" but meaning "NATO", can you clarify?
Some 'declaration of independence" by locals voting is then lost on the wider community?
I'll ask for clarification here also, Crimea was slated to be autonomous in May. The coup expedited the process, but is not really a surprise to anyone that spends a few minutes studying the region.
Interesting how people will falsify information to suite their needs. I believe you meant to say "Crimea", which is not the Ukraine and who was going to be autonomous in May by democratic process. This vote was scheduled long before the coup in Kiev, and was scheduled for the same reasons that the coup expedited. They were not pro-western, and were pro-Russian.
This is the same Crimea that asked the Russians to protect them from the Euromaidens on the same day the coup happened in Kiev, and the same Crimea that just voted to leave the Ukraine and join the EU.
If you claim to be pro-democracy but only if the democracy does what you want it to do, it is not a democracy.
I do realize that you don't let "facts" get into the way of your opinion, but that just means you should not be spreading your opinion. You have a history of repeating false information so this today is no big shock.
Google "Ukraine crisis timeline" you inconsiderate prick. A failure on your part to use a courteous level of communications skills is because you are a liar and nothing type is truthful. See, two can play toddler games and since I'm not a toddler I'll win.
Further, it's hilarious that you call me names and invent things never said and then attribute them to me. Go back and read my post again you illiterate sod! I never said any party was right or wrong, I said that the comparison someone was making was wrong. I further stated that the US has made some horrible decisions and many people in the world no longer see the US as a magical cowboy rushing in to save them from the evils of the world, they see the US as the biggest evil in the world that they need to be saved from.
Try to read and comprehend what I wrote instead of inventing your own material. I do realize that reading something other than porno and comic books does require a smidgen of thought, so maybe you should not volunteer for such a task.
Shrug, I'm more making a statement that the "good" guys is an extremely subjective view. How much of Momar Ghadaffi and Libya had to do with him trying to get rid of US currency vs. him being such a "bad guy" for example. Sure, he was bad but we tolerated him pretty well until he decided to do away with global bankers. We can say a similar thing for Sadam and Iraq. None of them were good guys, but when the evil that gets ignored for decades (and even aided) gets played up you should start looking for other motives.
that was not a vote in crimea. invaded by a foreign army, which operates without insignia and is denied by russia itself. active terror against tatars. it has been a terrible, terrible lie that seems to be promoted by rt, mostly (well, and the mass media in russia, of course).
So Crimea did not ask for Russian protection on the first day of the uprising in Kiev? You are denying very recent history, or choosing to ignore events, to come to your conclusion.
it was not a coup. the current rada is the same one for the most part. claiming anything else is a lie from the cremlin media.
Wow, just wow. Armed gangs take over a government and it's not a coup to you, nothing like changing a word to fit your means I guess. Do I need to give a LMGTFY link so you can find the definition of "coup"? Say so if you can't find the definition of the word.
Interestingly what is lost by you, and US media, is that on when the protests started even US media said the uprising started not because of an evil tyranny, but because the Government of the Ukraine didn't want to become a member of the EU. Considering how every country that has joined has gotten butfucked by global bankers, I am not sure that decision was wrong. It had nothing to do with Russia, until someone needed a villain. Wholly shit this is still in Google, go figure out how to use "Search".
compared to ukraine ? haha
Ahh, selective thinking. No, not compared to the Ukraine but compared to the US and EU allies of the US.
Learn to spell and use your caps key, I refuse to respond further to a person that lacks common courtesy with communication in addition to a critical lack of facts..
My points with the 100% is that you keep using it like it's either achievable or important. It's not, so it should be dropped as a measure of anything.
Assuming that I refers to has been vaccinated (and not the body has successfully developed immunity), this is false: you have assumed a 100% effective vaccine.
You are trying to rewrite an issue I presented a couple of times with bad logic. No, I don't assume 100% effective vaccines. Read what I presented again, since this was very clearly written on multiple occasions. The same statement can be used to discount your final sentence. Namely that if a vaccine is not effective then vaccination will not matter for either the vaccinated or not vaccinated. Neither person is protected by the vaccine so the same exact end result occurs. (I ~ D). If a person is exposed to the disease there is a chance for them to get the disease. Please save the easily proved arguments of a bigger pool of D since most diseases are not carried by humans, the pool of potential D does not change very much by a single human choosing not to get a vaccine.
This is all very straight forward logic, I gave the math and it should be simple for you to confirm the math. If you try and assign variables by appeal to either I or E you will end up with faulty logic. Why? Because a person that can NOT get vaccines is exactly the same as a person that chooses not to be vaccinated. Neither person increases _your_ risk to getting a disease that _you_ have been immunized for.
Obviously there is a hint above at a scale, and I believe I mentioned this earlier. If the pool of population choosing not to vaccinate reaches a measurable percentage the potential carriers for D increases. This still does not give a person with (I ! D) any greater risk, it only impacts the people with (I ~ D) risk.
Maybe all the history books are wrong, either that or you are trying to rewrite a hell of a lot of history in a small little post. No "real" similarities exist between Hitler's Germany and Putin's Russia, nor do they exist between Sudeten and Crimea, nor do they exist between the actions of Hitler and Sudeten and Russia and Crimea.
Sudeten never voted to become part of Germany as Crimea did Russia. Crimea as a region has been pro Russia since long before the coup in the Ukraine, so the vote was not Russia "taking territory" like you are trying to frame it. Hitler was building the most modern military at the time, Russia has been playing catch up since the disbanding of the old USSR.
Be very careful with how you are trying to frame things. According to a very large number of Middle Eastern people, the US has been mass murdering Arabic speaking people for over a decade. "Yellow Cake" is pretty damning proof that the US is not above lying to pursue their own political goals, and numerous wars in the Middle East show that the US is not above killing innocents in furthering their goals. It also shows you that the media in the US is not really looking out for _your_ best interests, but the interest of politicians who are not necessarily telling _you_ why they are doing things.
Who's side is right in most conflicts are a matter of opinion backed by the winner. Are you going to suit up and go fight the Russians in the Ukraine? Send your kids over? Is it worth you or yours dying for, especially if you don't have all the facts?
I've been a KDE user for a very long time, hated Gnome. Frankly I hate Unity even more Gnome (which is a lot). I've seen KDE do things that Microsoft can't, using less CPU and overall better performance, and it's always been compatible with X. So now we have a nextgen X and Canonical want's to disperse the market. Nothing new there, they did it with Unity. Fragmentation is good for some people, and I have to wonder if Canonical gets paid to cause fragmentation? Sure, they have a product that is "theirs" too, but who really likes "theirs" and why is theirs better for consumers?
Look, if you happen to love Gnome you should have the same issues with this fragmentation as me being pro-KDE does. Years of getting Gnome X.X working properly and enough traction from users, and then a company creates a rift. Ubuntu makes some things easier for people not experienced with Linux, but they don't do UIs as Unity clearly demonstrates.
If they are unhappy with Gnome or KDE why not put devs on the project instead of back door'ing their own?
You keep throwing that 100% thing out there, and it's absolutely meaningless. Certainly there are a few vaccines that have very high rates of effectiveness, but I don't believe any of them are 100% (show me one). People getting a flu vaccine are not immune to the Flu, often not even immune to the strain they have been immunized for.
Then to the other way you could be using the 100%, that is in people receiving the vaccines. Again, this is impossible due to many medical conditions preventing people from ever getting a vaccine. I'm pretty sure you agreed to this, but still continue to toss the number out as if it has meaning.
The document linked "herd immunity" shows my argument pretty clearly, even though you assumed it backed the post I responded to.
You getting a vaccine, have no increased risk to that disease if I do not get a vaccine. It is impossible for that to be true unless the vaccine fails, in which case whether I had the vaccine or not makes no difference. We would still both get the disease after we both got the vaccine.
You are imagining a scenario that can not exist! Re-read the above paragraph if you are still confused, and keep reading it over and over again until you get it. As I said, put it in math terms. (I ! D) and (~ D). There is no way for me to give you D if you have I. (I=Immunization and D=Disease, I was going to use V for vaccine but that would look horrible.)
Where there is an increased risk is with the people not vaccinated. Herd immunity reduces their risks, and causes no harm to vaccinated people. The more people with vaccines, the LESS the risk of a person WITHOUT immunization to get a disease. It can not work in the other direction because (I ! D) people with vaccines are immune to the disease.
I still don't get it. What evidence do you have that willow bark powder is superior to the aspirin in my medicine cabinet? I really doubt people using that did proper clinical studies and kept decent records.
I think you missed a huge set of statements, so let put those in Q&A form.
Has the low cost and ease of distribution lead to abuses in antibiotics which have reduced their effectiveness? Has the abuse of antibiotics further helped to breed viruses that are immune to those same very cheap and common antibiotics?
Those are two very simple yes/no questions, and you can verify factually that the answer to both of these is "yes". If you answer "yes" to either of these questions, then you should have no problem also agreeing that mass production of medicines is not "better" in all view points.
Antibiotics are just one example, but we could also get into pain relievers and narcotics also being "not better in all cases". We could further use aspirin and similar non narcotic pain relievers. "Better" is subjective, is it not?
Now back on your first point, willow bark is exactly what aspirin mimics. Compare the two molecular structures and you will see that aspirin was made to be similar to salicin, mimicking it's behavior in the body.
This goes to your last point, and I'll say you need to study. I have yet to see a person OD on marijuana, because there are limits on the natural product that do not exist with a man made synthetic compound. Willow bark would be similar, because it would be impossible for me to eat enough willow bark to OD on salicin, but yet I could take enough Bayer aspirin to kill myself.
Man made pain relievers and antibiotics are nearly all made as synthetic compounds mimicking a naturally occurring molecule. This is a fact, read up on how these things are made. Mass production has some benefits, but is not always beneficial. You are choosing to ignore the negative impact of mass production and cheap. Ask someone with permanent damage to their liver from Tylenol how beneficial it was for them to take Tylenol "as recommended". It happens, and can happen, because it's so easy to access and cheap. Often it's cheaper to mask a problem with aspirin than it is to fix the root problem, which leads to further medical problems and deterioration of health.
So in the case of Aspirin, I would claim it's "better" than man made for several reasons. First, it is the molecule that synthetic compounds attempt to mimic. Second, natural limitations reduce the chances for over use. Third, the human body tends to handle natural products much better than synthetics (I.E. reduced chances of allergic reactions). Third, mass production of this 'natural' remedy would be ecologically sound. While it would increase the cost of aspirin the amount of increase would be difficult to guess, but trees tend to be 100% usable with very little ecological damage (ecological damage occurs in processing in almost all cases).
The person I replied to said that the only way he would accept a non compliance is by guaranteeing 100% vaccination which we can not achieve. He did not demolish anything, he created an impossible criteria to be correct. A base rate fallacy does not win, it's bad logic.
What you are trying to claim is that there is no way a person can memorize 7x7=49 after coming up with that answer a few times on their own, which is bullshit! There are way better methods of learning and exercising concepts than memorizing a table, and they work well beyond 9x9.
How the fuck did you, as an AC, get modded when you are provably wrong on a nerd site where people could and should have read about how Albert Einstein learned math... or Aristotle, or countless other biographies and autobiographies that describe no such table memorization method of learning math.
Mostly this, but a bit more since you are missing something I feel is a much larger issue. Common core is the latest example of people not learning concepts so that they can understand the world, but making students memorize and "come close" to answers that someone feeds them.
Case and point. My son in Elementary school was forced to memorize multiplication tables because it was required (in a bit more than a decade that may have changed, but it was required from the 1950s). The kids were not taught the fundamental concept of what multiplication is, or how it worked. I sat him down and showed him the concept and told him to not use "times" or "multiply" when doing his homework. Instead, I told him to use "groups of" which made perfect sense to a 7 year old. He never had to memorize the table and aced math, but not because government mandated materials and methods worked, but because I taught him what the concepts the school didn't.
Those types of lessons occurred constantly. Many teachers know the forced methods are broken and fight against it. Teachers often ignore the forced work and methods and their kids get smarter, though in certain areas of the required tests scores can drop.
It's not simply a matter of having people with real world knowledge teaching. There is very much an issue of the curriculum and required methods being wrong.
TFA makes me very concerned, because talking to friends I'm not the only one that has taught my kid concepts that schools do not. This seems to be very common, and sending a message out to people to stop teaching their kids is questionable at best. I have a feeling that the statistics were not so much related to parents helping with homework as much as parents doing the homework for the kid (which we know happens) and of course those types of questions would easily skew results.
Nothing. I agree that financial institutions have made some blundering mistakes, but really.. How hard is it to run applications without a login shell and without root privileges?
When the point hurts your head, just attack the person instead of the point. Got it! I enjoy it so much when people with such immature points make such obvious errors in spelling and grammar. Please tell me more about my "inanity" and "muppetude" man, you are like a rocket scientist with your magical cognitive abilities. Really, because you have to believe in fairies and magic to have such poor skills with rational thought and dialogue. Go back to the TV, Honey Boo Boo misses you!