all vaccines the other children took suddenly become ineffective?
There are several problems with your argument. First and foremost, you're assuming that "all the other kids were vaccinated" while presenting the argument that people shouldn't vaccinate their children. It's true that the risks posed to any single child are small if you assume that everyone else is vaccinated, if everyone thinks that way and refused vaccinations, your protections go out the window.
Second, as many other people have pointed out, not everyone can get vaccinated. Some children are too young, some adults too old. Some people have some kind of illness or allergy that prevents them from being able to handle vaccinations.
Finally, vaccinations are not 100% effective. In order to talk about why vaccinations work, you don't look at them on an individual level, but on a societal level. Let's make up some numbers: If a school of 500 children all get vaccinated, it may be that in 20 of the kids, the vaccination is ineffective. However, because the vaccination is effective in 480 of the students, they don't get sick, or at least don't get very sick. Please note here that vaccinations are sometimes effective in reducing the severity or duration of an illness without preventing it entirely.
So let's say you're a parent, and you did the responsible thing and got your kid vaccinated, but it turns out the vaccination isn't effective. You have no way of knowing, since the only way to tell is to infect the child and find out. If you're going to a school with 500 students and none of them are vaccinated, and then 1 kid gets the virus, then the virus will spread like wildfire and there's a good chance your child will get infected.
However, let's say you're going to the same school of 500 kids and they're all vaccinated, but one of the 20 for whom the vaccination was not effective gets sick. The virus won't spread very well in that situation, and there's a very good chance your child will not get infected because the vaccine prevented the spread of the virus.
I'm not sure criminal charges are in order, but I would be open to some kind of legal compulsion to get vaccinations. It's not just a personal decision, it's a health and public safety issue. However, if you did try to pass such a law, you'd have all kinds of people coming out of the woodwork saying, "It's my body! You can't tell me what do to with my body! I believe in personal freedom!" Of course, those are probably the same people who want abortion to be illegal, and are fine with the TSA's invasive searches.
I don't have a helpful answer, but are you sure you're looking for a book? There might be a website or application that is aimed at teaching programming in a way that's a little more interactive-- like your changes become apparent without recompiling or anything.
With that in mind, I would wonder if the best place to start would be web development. HTML and CSS are relatively simple and can give instant feedback. He can make a change, reload the browser, and see how the change affected the outcome. He can figure out concepts like grouping information to use the same tags and classes, and inheritance of formatting. It's a pretty good introduction into the idea of data structures and strict logical rules. As he gets to be comfortable with making static pages look the way he wants, you can help him throw in some Javascript, and eventually PHP and MySQL databases.
You're forgetting that the "page" for an iOS app is produced by Apple, contains reviews from Apple, etc. It's not something that can exist on a website in somebody else's domain. I'm assuming Google has similar functionality in its marketplace.
You can make a website for an iOS app and link that page to the Apple iTunes store page for that app.
Also, the point of a domain name, to some extent, is guessability. If every app from Google's store, for example, could easily be found by typing its name dot android, it would be a win.
So you can guess the TLD, but so what? "angrybirds.apple" is no easier to guess than "angrybirds.com".
They may be used for their original purpose, but they're not used exclusively for that purpose. With the.com,.net, and.org suffixes being overcrowded, people have gone to country specific TLDs to find other options. A few years ago, websites started using the Western Samoan TLD (.ws) to mean "website". People have been using the Montenegro TLD (.me) as a vanity suffix. And this is in addition to the more clever uses that people have used, like the GP post mentioned with "tw.it".
So yes, it may be that people in Western Samoa use the.ws TLD, but still, when you see a domain ending in.ws, you don't have any real reason to assume there's any connection to Western Samoa. It could just be that someone thought it looked nice, or someone couldn't find an available.com address that they liked. In light of that, we it makes sense to look at TLDs as somewhat arbitrary and meaningless.
For example, at my previous company, inside the local intranet I could type 'bugzilla' in the URL bar and it would resolve to the bugzilla of our company
I'm not sure you understood what was going on there. The internal network of your previous company had a domain, let's say it was "company.local". Your DHCP server on that network was configured to give you "company.local" as one of your default domain suffixes. This means that when your computer tried to look up something like "bugzilla" and fails because it's not a FQDN, your computer automatically tries appending all of your default domain suffixes in order until it finds a match. So it actually looks up "bugzilla.company.local" with the DNS server and finds your bugzilla server that way.
If you already knew all that, apologies for explaining the obvious, but I didn't understand how your post related to the topic.
Except that would require disgruntledpenguins to register both with Google (who I assume would own the "android" TLD) and Apple to set up two entirely separate domains, which would then need to be administered separately. It's easier and more sensible to create subdomains (apple.disgruntledpenguins.com and android.disgruntledpenguins.com).
Nope, because immunizations aren't perfect. They *greatly* reduce the likelihood and severity of infection which stops contagious diseases from spreading, but it's not impossible for an immunized child to become infected and die. When you don't immunize your child, you are not just gambling with your child's life. You're gambling with the lives of the people your child comes in contact with.
Also-- and this can't be stressed enough-- autism is not contagious. If vaccines did cause autism (which they do not), getting a vaccine would only put your child at risk. Not getting vaccines puts other people's children at risk too. Your kid might not die from whooping cough, but the fact that your kid gets sick means that he's exposing other children to the disease, and they might die.
So are we just talking about clicking the "Like" button on Facebook? That doesn't sound terrifically evil. It's not unusual for people to "like" something they don't like, and so I wouldn't even really consider it dishonest. Like I "like" one of my friend's websites, but... you know, it's just because it's my friend's site. My work has asked me to make use my LinkedIn Profile shows that I work where I do, in case the company gets looked up.
Also, are they simply asking you to do it, or are they somehow monitoring everyone's accounts to make sure they do it, and then threatening some kind of response if you don't "like" their product? If they're just asking, and you don't want to do it, then don't do it.
I agree, and nothing *always* works. There is no sure-fire route to success. Direct investments with iron-clad contracts does not guarantee that you'll get your money's worth.
If you're willing to take the risk of donating some money to a project that you'd really like to see get off the ground, then Kickstarter seems to be a way to do that. It's not a good idea to donate to Kickstarter funds of total strangers without any track-record of completing projects, but there are real professionals who have used Kickstarter to get funding for sensible projects with feasible goals.
If you want to be extremely cautious, only put your money into extremely safe investments. Still, don't assume that it's impossible to get ripped off that way too. There have been plenty of people who have been scammed by reputable investment firms. Hell, the whole world has been scammed by Goldman Sachs.
"Someone who is averse to giving their money to scam artists" shouldn't be giving their money to random people on Kickstarter without some sort of contract or reputation. Full stop.
You're exaggerating.
I'm averse to giving my money to scam artists, but I'm willing to donate to people I know (either personally or because of reputation and past work) without a guarantee of success. I've given money to the Wasteland 2 kickstarter, for example, because it's being headed by Brian Fargo, who was involved in making the original Wasteland and Fallout games. They've gotten Obsidian to sign on to the development team, which means they're putting together a bunch of old Black Isle people together to make a 3rd-person top-down turn-based post-apocalyptic RPG. That's a game I would buy sight unseen.
Now I understand that there's a risk I might get nothing of value for my donation, and I'm averse to giving my money to scam artists. However, the risk seems low, the amount of money I'm donating is low, and I would really like to see this game get made.
Personally, I think it makes sens for distributions to begin going their own way. I don't think it's a bad idea of Ubuntu wants to say, "We're developing a Unity-based desktop OS. If you want to install KDE, be our guests. If you want to create a whole KDE-based fork, we have no objections. However, we're just going to focus on making a consistent and coherent desktop environment using Unity."
Different distributions can make different choices. Fedora might make a Gnome distribution and SUSE might make one with KDE. It might be a mistake to think that every distribution has to be all things to all people.
There's practically zero chance of them finding out. They would need to somehow know that the IP address of the VPN server is illegitimate (that's pretty unlikely already), and then convince that VPN service to hand over your personally identifiable information.
And if they do catch you, what crime do they have you for? Violation of the terms of service?
The word "pet project" has the negative connotation of illegitimacy. One could rephrase what you said as, "Kickstarter lets game developers who have a proven track-record get funding for projects without needing to go to an outside publisher."
We'll see how these projects turn out, but I've read developer complaints about publishers encouraging them to make safe, cookie-cutter, mediocre games; pushing the games out too early; and having a bad influence on creative decisions. Maybe the developers are just being brats, or maybe there's some truth to the complaints.
I'm pretty sure the ~$600 number they quote includes the hardware purchase, which is subsidized by the purchase of a 2 year contract, so the consumer only pays $0-$300 up-front, depending on the model.
The same is probably true of your $150 Android phone, which means it also cost somewhere around $500. It's just that Google doesn't make that money, since they're not the phone manufacturer. I didn't RTFA, so it's hard to know exactly what that $2 represents.
This is the point that I wanted to make. They're not offering a greater reward for failure than what they're offering for success. They're not rewarding failure, they're rewarding employees who make worthwhile attempts, even I father fail. There's a big difference.
Failure is generally a precursor to success. You try, you fail, and you try again. Eventually you succeed. Unfortunately, our culture has such a stigma around failure that we don't understand this. We think it's appropriate to punish a person for failing because we think that discouraging failure is the same as encouraging success. It's not.
Growing up, I had teachers and family members trying to discourage failure, and I'm sure they meant well. The actual result is that I spent years of my life afraid to try at anything unless I was sure I'd succeed. I missed out on a lot, and the damage is irreparable.
We should be encouraging people to be interested and curious, to be willing to take a shot even if they don't quite know what they're doing. There are many consequences that *should* dissuade you from trying something, but embarrassment is not one of them.
Yes, but the guard at the entrance knowing me as nine-times really comes down to some way of measuring me as nine-times. If he just knows me on sight, then someone with a sufficient physical resemblence may be able to walk straight past. So it's stretching the concept of "have", but it's still "something you have". You have a face that looks like mine.
That's nice in theory and all, but it depends on what that "something you are" is. Essentially we're talking about biometrics, so what are we measuring? Is it a thumbprint scan? Those have been defeated in the past by taking a thumbprint and replicating it by some means. Is it a DNA scan? Then they might just need to get ahold of your DNA.
Really, the "something you are" is still "something you have", but you "have" it attached to your body. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't be stolen or replicated somehow. Similarly, the "something you know" can also be considered to be "something you have", but you "have" it in your mind. In some circumstances, it can still be figured out or retrieved, or you might be tricked into providing it.
Real security isn't quite as simple as you make it sound.
Yes, essentially I agree. It's easy to imagine a situation where you have a 10 year-old die from an easily treatable condition due to lack of cheap antibiotics. It's easy to children not receiving inoculations, and having that turn into a public health crisis. Failing to provide that level of basic healthcare because the children's parents lack money seems crazy to me. It might not even save our society money in the end, because disease causes economic damage due to things as abstract as lost productivity.
So I've said this before (and it matches your sentiment): Once you admit that we, as a society, should make sure that poor children have access to that level of healthcare, we should stop asking, "Do we want to socialize healthcare costs?" and start asking, "How do we want to socialize healthcare costs?"
Once someone has your key, it's no more secure than your password.
Whether the token is something you know, something you are, or something you have, it *all* becomes useless once someone else has it. That's not really the issue here. The issue is brute-force attacks on SSH, and using a key makes them significantly more difficult than passwords.
Stealing someone's key/password is not a brute-force attack.
Personally, if you were to ask me, I would guess that the single-payer system would be better. I do think that free markets are appropriate for many things, but I'm not sure healthcare is one of them. I have too many reasons for thinking this and I won't go into them all, but to me, being able to see a doctor should be like being able to go to the police-- for reasons both pertaining to humanitarian concerns and preventing perverse incentives, money should not be the issue. However, it's very difficult to determine which would be better in a strictly scientific manner. Economics is a soft science.
However, I still believe that we do not now have a "free market" for healthcare, and our current system doesn't allow for even the theoretical benefits of a free market. You essentially have a bunch of government-funded monopolies, so you already have all the problems that come along with a socialized system, but also all of the dehumanizing cut-throat greed of a capitalistic venture. This is the worst of both worlds.
Slashdot Mirror
all vaccines the other children took suddenly become ineffective?
There are several problems with your argument. First and foremost, you're assuming that "all the other kids were vaccinated" while presenting the argument that people shouldn't vaccinate their children. It's true that the risks posed to any single child are small if you assume that everyone else is vaccinated, if everyone thinks that way and refused vaccinations, your protections go out the window.
Second, as many other people have pointed out, not everyone can get vaccinated. Some children are too young, some adults too old. Some people have some kind of illness or allergy that prevents them from being able to handle vaccinations.
Finally, vaccinations are not 100% effective. In order to talk about why vaccinations work, you don't look at them on an individual level, but on a societal level. Let's make up some numbers: If a school of 500 children all get vaccinated, it may be that in 20 of the kids, the vaccination is ineffective. However, because the vaccination is effective in 480 of the students, they don't get sick, or at least don't get very sick. Please note here that vaccinations are sometimes effective in reducing the severity or duration of an illness without preventing it entirely.
So let's say you're a parent, and you did the responsible thing and got your kid vaccinated, but it turns out the vaccination isn't effective. You have no way of knowing, since the only way to tell is to infect the child and find out. If you're going to a school with 500 students and none of them are vaccinated, and then 1 kid gets the virus, then the virus will spread like wildfire and there's a good chance your child will get infected.
However, let's say you're going to the same school of 500 kids and they're all vaccinated, but one of the 20 for whom the vaccination was not effective gets sick. The virus won't spread very well in that situation, and there's a very good chance your child will not get infected because the vaccine prevented the spread of the virus.
I'm not sure criminal charges are in order, but I would be open to some kind of legal compulsion to get vaccinations. It's not just a personal decision, it's a health and public safety issue. However, if you did try to pass such a law, you'd have all kinds of people coming out of the woodwork saying, "It's my body! You can't tell me what do to with my body! I believe in personal freedom!" Of course, those are probably the same people who want abortion to be illegal, and are fine with the TSA's invasive searches.
I don't have a helpful answer, but are you sure you're looking for a book? There might be a website or application that is aimed at teaching programming in a way that's a little more interactive-- like your changes become apparent without recompiling or anything.
With that in mind, I would wonder if the best place to start would be web development. HTML and CSS are relatively simple and can give instant feedback. He can make a change, reload the browser, and see how the change affected the outcome. He can figure out concepts like grouping information to use the same tags and classes, and inheritance of formatting. It's a pretty good introduction into the idea of data structures and strict logical rules. As he gets to be comfortable with making static pages look the way he wants, you can help him throw in some Javascript, and eventually PHP and MySQL databases.
You're forgetting that the "page" for an iOS app is produced by Apple, contains reviews from Apple, etc. It's not something that can exist on a website in somebody else's domain. I'm assuming Google has similar functionality in its marketplace.
You can make a website for an iOS app and link that page to the Apple iTunes store page for that app.
Also, the point of a domain name, to some extent, is guessability. If every app from Google's store, for example, could easily be found by typing its name dot android, it would be a win.
So you can guess the TLD, but so what? "angrybirds.apple" is no easier to guess than "angrybirds.com".
They may be used for their original purpose, but they're not used exclusively for that purpose. With the .com, .net, and .org suffixes being overcrowded, people have gone to country specific TLDs to find other options. A few years ago, websites started using the Western Samoan TLD (.ws) to mean "website". People have been using the Montenegro TLD (.me) as a vanity suffix. And this is in addition to the more clever uses that people have used, like the GP post mentioned with "tw.it".
So yes, it may be that people in Western Samoa use the .ws TLD, but still, when you see a domain ending in .ws, you don't have any real reason to assume there's any connection to Western Samoa. It could just be that someone thought it looked nice, or someone couldn't find an available .com address that they liked. In light of that, we it makes sense to look at TLDs as somewhat arbitrary and meaningless.
For example, at my previous company, inside the local intranet I could type 'bugzilla' in the URL bar and it would resolve to the bugzilla of our company
I'm not sure you understood what was going on there. The internal network of your previous company had a domain, let's say it was "company.local". Your DHCP server on that network was configured to give you "company.local" as one of your default domain suffixes. This means that when your computer tried to look up something like "bugzilla" and fails because it's not a FQDN, your computer automatically tries appending all of your default domain suffixes in order until it finds a match. So it actually looks up "bugzilla.company.local" with the DNS server and finds your bugzilla server that way.
If you already knew all that, apologies for explaining the obvious, but I didn't understand how your post related to the topic.
One possible "option C" would be to find a way to kill domain squatting. A lot of the good unavailable domains aren't actually in use.
Except that would require disgruntledpenguins to register both with Google (who I assume would own the "android" TLD) and Apple to set up two entirely separate domains, which would then need to be administered separately. It's easier and more sensible to create subdomains (apple.disgruntledpenguins.com and android.disgruntledpenguins.com).
Nope, because immunizations aren't perfect. They *greatly* reduce the likelihood and severity of infection which stops contagious diseases from spreading, but it's not impossible for an immunized child to become infected and die. When you don't immunize your child, you are not just gambling with your child's life. You're gambling with the lives of the people your child comes in contact with.
Also-- and this can't be stressed enough-- autism is not contagious. If vaccines did cause autism (which they do not), getting a vaccine would only put your child at risk. Not getting vaccines puts other people's children at risk too. Your kid might not die from whooping cough, but the fact that your kid gets sick means that he's exposing other children to the disease, and they might die.
There are some other options, one of them being that diets fail to address the real problems that lead to weight gain.
However, it seems this book is not about actual dieting, but about information processing.
So are we just talking about clicking the "Like" button on Facebook? That doesn't sound terrifically evil. It's not unusual for people to "like" something they don't like, and so I wouldn't even really consider it dishonest. Like I "like" one of my friend's websites, but... you know, it's just because it's my friend's site. My work has asked me to make use my LinkedIn Profile shows that I work where I do, in case the company gets looked up.
Also, are they simply asking you to do it, or are they somehow monitoring everyone's accounts to make sure they do it, and then threatening some kind of response if you don't "like" their product? If they're just asking, and you don't want to do it, then don't do it.
This doesn't seem like a serious problem.
It will work, it just won't always work.
I agree, and nothing *always* works. There is no sure-fire route to success. Direct investments with iron-clad contracts does not guarantee that you'll get your money's worth.
If you're willing to take the risk of donating some money to a project that you'd really like to see get off the ground, then Kickstarter seems to be a way to do that. It's not a good idea to donate to Kickstarter funds of total strangers without any track-record of completing projects, but there are real professionals who have used Kickstarter to get funding for sensible projects with feasible goals.
If you want to be extremely cautious, only put your money into extremely safe investments. Still, don't assume that it's impossible to get ripped off that way too. There have been plenty of people who have been scammed by reputable investment firms. Hell, the whole world has been scammed by Goldman Sachs.
"Someone who is averse to giving their money to scam artists" shouldn't be giving their money to random people on Kickstarter without some sort of contract or reputation. Full stop.
You're exaggerating.
I'm averse to giving my money to scam artists, but I'm willing to donate to people I know (either personally or because of reputation and past work) without a guarantee of success. I've given money to the Wasteland 2 kickstarter, for example, because it's being headed by Brian Fargo, who was involved in making the original Wasteland and Fallout games. They've gotten Obsidian to sign on to the development team, which means they're putting together a bunch of old Black Isle people together to make a 3rd-person top-down turn-based post-apocalyptic RPG. That's a game I would buy sight unseen.
Now I understand that there's a risk I might get nothing of value for my donation, and I'm averse to giving my money to scam artists. However, the risk seems low, the amount of money I'm donating is low, and I would really like to see this game get made.
Personally, I think it makes sens for distributions to begin going their own way. I don't think it's a bad idea of Ubuntu wants to say, "We're developing a Unity-based desktop OS. If you want to install KDE, be our guests. If you want to create a whole KDE-based fork, we have no objections. However, we're just going to focus on making a consistent and coherent desktop environment using Unity."
Different distributions can make different choices. Fedora might make a Gnome distribution and SUSE might make one with KDE. It might be a mistake to think that every distribution has to be all things to all people.
There's practically zero chance of them finding out. They would need to somehow know that the IP address of the VPN server is illegitimate (that's pretty unlikely already), and then convince that VPN service to hand over your personally identifiable information.
And if they do catch you, what crime do they have you for? Violation of the terms of service?
The word "pet project" has the negative connotation of illegitimacy. One could rephrase what you said as, "Kickstarter lets game developers who have a proven track-record get funding for projects without needing to go to an outside publisher."
We'll see how these projects turn out, but I've read developer complaints about publishers encouraging them to make safe, cookie-cutter, mediocre games; pushing the games out too early; and having a bad influence on creative decisions. Maybe the developers are just being brats, or maybe there's some truth to the complaints.
I'm pretty sure the ~$600 number they quote includes the hardware purchase, which is subsidized by the purchase of a 2 year contract, so the consumer only pays $0-$300 up-front, depending on the model.
The same is probably true of your $150 Android phone, which means it also cost somewhere around $500. It's just that Google doesn't make that money, since they're not the phone manufacturer. I didn't RTFA, so it's hard to know exactly what that $2 represents.
This is the point that I wanted to make. They're not offering a greater reward for failure than what they're offering for success. They're not rewarding failure, they're rewarding employees who make worthwhile attempts, even I father fail. There's a big difference.
Failure is generally a precursor to success. You try, you fail, and you try again. Eventually you succeed. Unfortunately, our culture has such a stigma around failure that we don't understand this. We think it's appropriate to punish a person for failing because we think that discouraging failure is the same as encouraging success. It's not.
Growing up, I had teachers and family members trying to discourage failure, and I'm sure they meant well. The actual result is that I spent years of my life afraid to try at anything unless I was sure I'd succeed. I missed out on a lot, and the damage is irreparable.
We should be encouraging people to be interested and curious, to be willing to take a shot even if they don't quite know what they're doing. There are many consequences that *should* dissuade you from trying something, but embarrassment is not one of them.
Yes, but the guard at the entrance knowing me as nine-times really comes down to some way of measuring me as nine-times. If he just knows me on sight, then someone with a sufficient physical resemblence may be able to walk straight past. So it's stretching the concept of "have", but it's still "something you have". You have a face that looks like mine.
That's nice in theory and all, but it depends on what that "something you are" is. Essentially we're talking about biometrics, so what are we measuring? Is it a thumbprint scan? Those have been defeated in the past by taking a thumbprint and replicating it by some means. Is it a DNA scan? Then they might just need to get ahold of your DNA.
Really, the "something you are" is still "something you have", but you "have" it attached to your body. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't be stolen or replicated somehow. Similarly, the "something you know" can also be considered to be "something you have", but you "have" it in your mind. In some circumstances, it can still be figured out or retrieved, or you might be tricked into providing it.
Real security isn't quite as simple as you make it sound.
I'm not sure if you're kidding, but that's not what people mean by "brute force attack".
Yes, essentially I agree. It's easy to imagine a situation where you have a 10 year-old die from an easily treatable condition due to lack of cheap antibiotics. It's easy to children not receiving inoculations, and having that turn into a public health crisis. Failing to provide that level of basic healthcare because the children's parents lack money seems crazy to me. It might not even save our society money in the end, because disease causes economic damage due to things as abstract as lost productivity.
So I've said this before (and it matches your sentiment): Once you admit that we, as a society, should make sure that poor children have access to that level of healthcare, we should stop asking, "Do we want to socialize healthcare costs?" and start asking, "How do we want to socialize healthcare costs?"
Once someone has your key, it's no more secure than your password.
Whether the token is something you know, something you are, or something you have, it *all* becomes useless once someone else has it. That's not really the issue here. The issue is brute-force attacks on SSH, and using a key makes them significantly more difficult than passwords.
Stealing someone's key/password is not a brute-force attack.
Personally, if you were to ask me, I would guess that the single-payer system would be better. I do think that free markets are appropriate for many things, but I'm not sure healthcare is one of them. I have too many reasons for thinking this and I won't go into them all, but to me, being able to see a doctor should be like being able to go to the police-- for reasons both pertaining to humanitarian concerns and preventing perverse incentives, money should not be the issue. However, it's very difficult to determine which would be better in a strictly scientific manner. Economics is a soft science.
However, I still believe that we do not now have a "free market" for healthcare, and our current system doesn't allow for even the theoretical benefits of a free market. You essentially have a bunch of government-funded monopolies, so you already have all the problems that come along with a socialized system, but also all of the dehumanizing cut-throat greed of a capitalistic venture. This is the worst of both worlds.