Plants actually consume LESS CO2 when it is in abundance...
Categorically false: the rapid propagation of poison ivy has been attributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Toxicodendron species grow 3x faster than they did in the 1500s due to CO2 availability.
Multiple studies find that CO2 greatly enhances plant growth in general, while also increasing the water demand for plants. Agriculture in a high-CO2 atmosphere will place higher demands on aquifers, but will produce higher yield. Higher temperatures also increase growing yield by rapid plant growth and growing season extension. This leads to the disturbing consideration that our society may depend on an unsustainable increase in atmospheric CO2.
Add to this that most farmed varieties of plants we depend on today for food stock are custom-bred for their zone, and would not survive in a 1500s climate. Thankfully, we've got seed banks and heirloom varieties still exist. Not in the quantities needed to feed today's world, but things tend to adapt to the environment, including food.
Isn't bitumen just a combination of kerosene, methane, propane and gasoline?
If they can make this synthetic fuel, they should be able to make the methane, propane and kerosene too, and then pump it back into the ground to use the earth's crust to re-combine them under pressure. It make take a while, but hey....
Maybe what they need to do is use this method to sequester carbon and then inject it down long shafts into shale deposits in the earth's crust... That way, enterprising future generations can drill for these deposits and use them for such things as powering their automotive vehicles and creating plastics....
There's also the fact that Stevia is a naturally occurring plant wit a standard cellular structure, so our bodies know how to deal with it for the most part. All the other artificial sweeteners listed are designed to avoid being processed by our system, even though they bond appropriately to our taste receptors.
I would be interested in a study comparing stevia to sugar cane, sugar beet, corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup -- all in their processed and non-processed varieties. Most artificial sweetening these days is done by sugar beet derivatives (artificial in this case meaning not naturally occurring in the other ingredients) or high fructose corn syrup.
The problem is, our bodies don't treat all energy sources as equal -- different processes kick off in our bodies depending on what sort of energy sources we consume. Things like insulin production, the manufacture of fatty acids, and other key store/vs/use decisions our bodies make are based on the composition of the foods we eat. So it's possible to keep building fat while consuming fewer calories -- to the detriment of muscle production, blood flow, stomach efficiency and overall energy levels.
If you adjust your diet to eat nothing but twinkies and you are grossly overweight, you will lose weight. You will also develop a number of health problems that could stick with you even after you switched to a healthier diet.
If you are slightly overweight and you switch to the twinkie diet, you may actually experience weight gain, as more fat will be produced, less muscle, and you won't have the energy to move as much as you are used to. And then when you switch back to a "regular" diet, things will only get worse.
So the energy in vs. energy out issue is more complex than you might think. Our bodies also store energy in various ways, and consume energy in many many ways.
For the obligatory car analogy, it would be like deciding to run your diesel car on unfiltered used deep-fry oil. Sure, it's energy in/out, but you're going to be able to access less and less of that energy as time goes on -- and switching back to regular diesel isn't going to suddenly switch you back to your original fuel efficiencies.
Indeed... it's amazing how many people confuse bad grammar for bad typos and vice-versa....
Here I was hoping someone would come up with some sort of explanation, instead of finding a typo and going after my "operatives" term when I clearly stated "not saying this is what happened, but it's just as much a possibility as the official story."
The entire point behind gatekeeper is that it prevents (most) of the most common attack vectors: web downloads and email-borne malware. Using the XProtect engine, it does a really good job of this. So much so that most of the malware authors that were targeting these attack vectors have since moved on to the greener pasture that is Android. However, until the common torrent clients start setting the download flag on files, cracked commercial software and "videos" downloaded via torrents will still be a really easy way to take over a victim's Mac.
Of course, if someone's downloading cracked software, they're going to expect the checksum to fail anyway, and use the right-click-"open" method to evade GateKeeper even if the torrent clients start setting the metadata appropriately.
The clueless meter went off the charts for me at "by the addition of new security features such as Gatekeeper and XProtect to OS X recently" -- XProtect has been around since mid-10.6, and Gatekeeper is just a wrapper around XProtect.
The actual Synack presentation is better (I saw the precursor at CSW): "Gatekeeper doesn't verify an extra content in the apps. So if I can find an Apple-approved app and get it to load external content, when the user runs it, it will bypass Gatekeeper," is the real security flaw here. CSW had a good presentation on how to do this leveraging dylibs. With a simple exploit dropping a crafted dylib, you can run any code you can force the user to download via drive-by as root. And it's persistent, without adding a bunch of extra junk to the target system.
That said, this method still relies on working exploits (or more often, patched torrents of popular software). The skill level to pull off the entire attack chain is fairly high too -- you're going to see governments and organized crime using these techniques, not your average bot herder.
...which is itself myopic. OpenStep can run on top of Windows OR Linux OR BSD, and would be a perfectly fine environment in which do to iOS dev work.
However, I don't see the Mac market vanishing any time soon; it might shrink a bit, get a bit more expensive/specialized, but there are still a number of markets that lean heavily on Macs and would be loathe to give them up for whitebox + POSIX OS.
I am not an Obama fan but I cannot place blame on anyone here except Al Qaeda. Intelligence isn't perfect, it appears due diligence was done, but unfortunately hostages were killed. Perhaps the blame should go to the group that took perfectly innocent people hostage and held them near military commanders who they knew were being targeted.
What's with the blame-adverse atmosphere that seems to be going around these days? In this case, I place the blame all over the place, to be shared unequally by many involved.
First off, an operative was compromised and taken captive. Someone fell down on their job for this to happen. Secondly, Obama issued the executive order that caused him (and many others) to be killed. Somewhere in between those two events, other operatives and military intelligence lost track of where their missing operative was being held. Also, they misidentified what was actually taking place at that AQ hideout. Finally, we've got the Pakistani government involved in all this, giving a foreign power carte blanche to send a drone in to kill other foreigners on its soil.
After all that, we get back to blaming the AQ strategists who messed up using foreigners as a human wall to protect their commanders -- because someone forgot to let the enemy know that this was happening. Unless, of course, they didn't, and both people killed were actually government operatives that were considered expendable for the cause -- but their cover can't be blown without implicating others (hence the delay) -- even though it looks like AQ already blew their cover long ago. Not saying this is what happened, but it's just as much a possibility as the official story. Ant everyone on all sides of the conflict made lots of mistakes here, many of which could be learned from and avoided in the future. Kudos to Obama for at least admitting this and aiming to do something towards these ends.
I find that the more spaces you use, the more secure you feel. Increase your password security feelings with "Your        gut!"
I don't disagree with the climate change cut. After all, the studies are already done. We've already decided to ignore them (both sets). So what good does funding more studies to tell us what we already know (or believe we know) do?
on the other hand, your stomach could be a good power source -- kinetic energy, electrolyte source, AND it keeps a steady temperature. I think your colon would be even better though:)
YES! The colon produces methane which is a fuel and could be used in some kind of fuel cell, perhaps. It's a win-win: you'd fart less and not have to remember passwords!
...and any time you needed a password for something, you could go with your gut!
Creation is usually influenced or built off earlier creations. Very little music is created in a vacuum, and the line between 'inspiration' and 'derived work' can be fuzzy and subjective.
Well... I took THAT out of context. I forgot what window I had open and thought this was a discussion on Creationism vs Evolution.
I think I may re-post your comment to one of those threads sometime:D
Canada is one of the outliers because the US pushed the 70 year term as a condition on a number of treaties. But you're right about the "not totally senseless" side -- I thought this change was old news: it's a requirement of the latest round of trade treaties with the US. Doing it got Canada some other trade "concessions" with the US.
Didn't LinkedIn get in trouble for doing this a while back? They ended up mining everyone's address books and then leaking that data out to anyone and everyone based on received calls? What are the privacy controls on this?
meaning it has to be activated by your particular stomach in order for the challenge to be accepted in the first place
As with DRM, if the thing that decides if you are valid can be in your hands (so to speak), you may as well assume it will be compromised.
There's no way I can think of to pass on a piece of information describing yourself to another party without that party having to know that information already to validate it, and if they do, it can be stolen and replayed.
on the other hand, your stomach could be a good power source -- kinetic energy, electrolyte source, AND it keeps a steady temperature. I think your colon would be even better though:)
Biometrics are only good so long as the device that reads your pattern is "honest." If you have to inject a device to read your biometric patterns, you could just as easily inject a device that pretends to read your biometrics, but actually copies someone else's.
Or vice versa: you could ingest a device that pretends to use your biometrics for security validation, but actually copies your biometrics and broadcasts for someone else to spoof or collect for various purposes not approved by you.
"biometrics" are only metric at the point they're being read -- the resulting hashes etc. are by no means biometric, and are instead a static constant to be used/abused by whomever.
I think the idea here is that the system would be two-part: challenge/response key, but with extra biodata, meaning it has to be activated by your particular stomach in order for the challenge to be accepted in the first place.
However, there are all sorts of problems with that: 1) Our bodies change over time. 2) The information must be broadcast, at which point any receiver can grab that info (unless it's protected by ANOTHER c/r system) 3) Spoofing this would be relatively easy with a replay attack.
Wearing a seatbelt does in fact increase risk to you of serious harm in certain kinds of accidents. It also protects those around you, as you are held into the driving position in your vehicle, so are less likely to lose/be unable to regain control of your car.
Vaccines protect the herd -- this is not "random people" but the people you come into contact with each day.
The next time a vaccine starts shooting random people, let me know.
You do indeed have the right to get the flu instead of a shot. However, by exercising that right, you are putting people in harms' way that would otherwise be more protected. That's a decision you get to make. Other people have made the decision to get vaccinated, which indirectly benefits you, as long as enough people get vaccinated.
We keep learning about the companies that make these and how the effectiveness is way lower than they have been telling us, or it turns out to cause cancer.
Who is we? I haven't been hearing these things. There are some non-approved vaccines that have side effects that are considered worth the risk in the middle of a pandemic -- are those the ones you're referring to? They have nothing to do with chicken pox, nor with the flu virus, nor MMR (the vaccines discussed in this thread so far).
Flu vaccines are a crap shoot -- I never used to get them, but now I do, as it costs me nothing. The reason they're a crap shoot isn't because they're not effective though; it's because they only target one strain. Vaccine companies look at what's brewing in China at the beginning of their flu season, and then inoculate against that in North America so by the time flu season hits NA, enough people are inoculated to the most likely strain, protecting the herd. This year, they guessed wrong, and a different strain made the hit list. Result? A greater number of child and elderly deaths due to influenza.
Everyone was still inoculated against the strain that went nowhere; nobody was inoculated against the strain that became pandemic. Was the vaccine effective? Not at minimizing flu exposure, but it WAS effective at minimizing exposure to the target strain -- in China, before it ever spread anywhere else.
The main reason vaccines don't work as well as we are led to expect is that what many people hear regarding vaccines is "get this shot to be protected from viral family X" when, as I originally stated, that's not what vaccination is about at all.
Vaccines are pretty simple; reviewing them is pretty simple, and delivering them without side effects is getting simpler as time goes by. Stay away from "live strain" vaccines, and at worst you're injecting junk into your muscle tissue that your lymph nodes have to collect and dispose of (or in a minority of cases, your body marshals its T cells and histamine chains, and the NEXT time you're exposed, you go into shock).
That's not what vaccines are for. They're herd protection, and are to decrease the number of possible hosts in a population. If everyone who CAN get vaccinated does, then that protects those few who can't get vaccinated for whatever reason (too young/old, react to the vaccine, forgot to get the booster, etc.).
That's the point of getting vaccinated. What possible side effects are there that are greater than contracting chicken pox without the vaccine?
It's kind of like wearing a seatbelt while driving a car. Same counter-arguments get used too. It doesn't change the scientific reality that belt enforcement saves more lives than not having belt enforcement.
That's rewriting history. The anti-vaccine movement was specifically against MMR, following the publishing of a (since redacted) paper showing a link between MMR and autism. Not only was the paper redacted, the research was proven to be flawed and then re-done properly to show that there is zero correlation. That's the ONLY autism-related vaccine issue that's ever been raised.
There are other (past and present) vaccines which do have potential side effects; these are generally understood and considered to be worth the risk. Usually it's a case of allergic reaction to the suspension that the vaccine is in, and is tied to the person taking it.
Vaccines are not all safe, but herd protection is generally safer for the population at large than unchecked infections. "Dead" vaccines are generally safe, other than the possibility of your body rejecting the vaccine itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Plants actually consume LESS CO2 when it is in abundance...
Categorically false: the rapid propagation of poison ivy has been attributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Toxicodendron species grow 3x faster than they did in the 1500s due to CO2 availability.
Multiple studies find that CO2 greatly enhances plant growth in general, while also increasing the water demand for plants. Agriculture in a high-CO2 atmosphere will place higher demands on aquifers, but will produce higher yield. Higher temperatures also increase growing yield by rapid plant growth and growing season extension. This leads to the disturbing consideration that our society may depend on an unsustainable increase in atmospheric CO2.
Add to this that most farmed varieties of plants we depend on today for food stock are custom-bred for their zone, and would not survive in a 1500s climate. Thankfully, we've got seed banks and heirloom varieties still exist. Not in the quantities needed to feed today's world, but things tend to adapt to the environment, including food.
Isn't bitumen just a combination of kerosene, methane, propane and gasoline?
If they can make this synthetic fuel, they should be able to make the methane, propane and kerosene too, and then pump it back into the ground to use the earth's crust to re-combine them under pressure. It make take a while, but hey....
Maybe what they need to do is use this method to sequester carbon and then inject it down long shafts into shale deposits in the earth's crust... That way, enterprising future generations can drill for these deposits and use them for such things as powering their automotive vehicles and creating plastics....
Oh wait; what year is it here?
There's also the fact that Stevia is a naturally occurring plant wit a standard cellular structure, so our bodies know how to deal with it for the most part. All the other artificial sweeteners listed are designed to avoid being processed by our system, even though they bond appropriately to our taste receptors.
I would be interested in a study comparing stevia to sugar cane, sugar beet, corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup -- all in their processed and non-processed varieties. Most artificial sweetening these days is done by sugar beet derivatives (artificial in this case meaning not naturally occurring in the other ingredients) or high fructose corn syrup.
The problem is, our bodies don't treat all energy sources as equal -- different processes kick off in our bodies depending on what sort of energy sources we consume. Things like insulin production, the manufacture of fatty acids, and other key store/vs/use decisions our bodies make are based on the composition of the foods we eat. So it's possible to keep building fat while consuming fewer calories -- to the detriment of muscle production, blood flow, stomach efficiency and overall energy levels.
If you adjust your diet to eat nothing but twinkies and you are grossly overweight, you will lose weight. You will also develop a number of health problems that could stick with you even after you switched to a healthier diet.
If you are slightly overweight and you switch to the twinkie diet, you may actually experience weight gain, as more fat will be produced, less muscle, and you won't have the energy to move as much as you are used to. And then when you switch back to a "regular" diet, things will only get worse.
So the energy in vs. energy out issue is more complex than you might think. Our bodies also store energy in various ways, and consume energy in many many ways.
For the obligatory car analogy, it would be like deciding to run your diesel car on unfiltered used deep-fry oil. Sure, it's energy in/out, but you're going to be able to access less and less of that energy as time goes on -- and switching back to regular diesel isn't going to suddenly switch you back to your original fuel efficiencies.
Indeed... it's amazing how many people confuse bad grammar for bad typos and vice-versa....
Here I was hoping someone would come up with some sort of explanation, instead of finding a typo and going after my "operatives" term when I clearly stated "not saying this is what happened, but it's just as much a possibility as the official story."
The entire point behind gatekeeper is that it prevents (most) of the most common attack vectors: web downloads and email-borne malware. Using the XProtect engine, it does a really good job of this. So much so that most of the malware authors that were targeting these attack vectors have since moved on to the greener pasture that is Android. However, until the common torrent clients start setting the download flag on files, cracked commercial software and "videos" downloaded via torrents will still be a really easy way to take over a victim's Mac.
Of course, if someone's downloading cracked software, they're going to expect the checksum to fail anyway, and use the right-click-"open" method to evade GateKeeper even if the torrent clients start setting the metadata appropriately.
The clueless meter went off the charts for me at "by the addition of new security features such as Gatekeeper and XProtect to OS X recently" -- XProtect has been around since mid-10.6, and Gatekeeper is just a wrapper around XProtect.
The actual Synack presentation is better (I saw the precursor at CSW): "Gatekeeper doesn't verify an extra content in the apps. So if I can find an Apple-approved app and get it to load external content, when the user runs it, it will bypass Gatekeeper," is the real security flaw here. CSW had a good presentation on how to do this leveraging dylibs. With a simple exploit dropping a crafted dylib, you can run any code you can force the user to download via drive-by as root. And it's persistent, without adding a bunch of extra junk to the target system.
That said, this method still relies on working exploits (or more often, patched torrents of popular software). The skill level to pull off the entire attack chain is fairly high too -- you're going to see governments and organized crime using these techniques, not your average bot herder.
Sticks of gum in your area sound puny. I like my 10cm x 4cm gum sticks.
...which is itself myopic. OpenStep can run on top of Windows OR Linux OR BSD, and would be a perfectly fine environment in which do to iOS dev work.
However, I don't see the Mac market vanishing any time soon; it might shrink a bit, get a bit more expensive/specialized, but there are still a number of markets that lean heavily on Macs and would be loathe to give them up for whitebox + POSIX OS.
I am not an Obama fan but I cannot place blame on anyone here except Al Qaeda. Intelligence isn't perfect, it appears due diligence was done, but unfortunately hostages were killed. Perhaps the blame should go to the group that took perfectly innocent people hostage and held them near military commanders who they knew were being targeted.
What's with the blame-adverse atmosphere that seems to be going around these days? In this case, I place the blame all over the place, to be shared unequally by many involved.
First off, an operative was compromised and taken captive. Someone fell down on their job for this to happen. Secondly, Obama issued the executive order that caused him (and many others) to be killed. Somewhere in between those two events, other operatives and military intelligence lost track of where their missing operative was being held. Also, they misidentified what was actually taking place at that AQ hideout. Finally, we've got the Pakistani government involved in all this, giving a foreign power carte blanche to send a drone in to kill other foreigners on its soil.
After all that, we get back to blaming the AQ strategists who messed up using foreigners as a human wall to protect their commanders -- because someone forgot to let the enemy know that this was happening. Unless, of course, they didn't, and both people killed were actually government operatives that were considered expendable for the cause -- but their cover can't be blown without implicating others (hence the delay) -- even though it looks like AQ already blew their cover long ago. Not saying this is what happened, but it's just as much a possibility as the official story. Ant everyone on all sides of the conflict made lots of mistakes here, many of which could be learned from and avoided in the future. Kudos to Obama for at least admitting this and aiming to do something towards these ends.
Your mistake was in leaving out the " " :)
I find that the more spaces you use, the more secure you feel. Increase your password security feelings with "Your        gut!"
I don't disagree with the climate change cut. After all, the studies are already done. We've already decided to ignore them (both sets). So what good does funding more studies to tell us what we already know (or believe we know) do?
on the other hand, your stomach could be a good power source -- kinetic energy, electrolyte source, AND it keeps a steady temperature. I think your colon would be even better though :)
YES! The colon produces methane which is a fuel and could be used in some kind of fuel cell, perhaps. It's a win-win: you'd fart less and not have to remember passwords!
...and any time you needed a password for something, you could go with your gut!
Creation is usually influenced or built off earlier creations. Very little music is created in a vacuum, and the line between 'inspiration' and 'derived work' can be fuzzy and subjective.
Well... I took THAT out of context. I forgot what window I had open and thought this was a discussion on Creationism vs Evolution.
I think I may re-post your comment to one of those threads sometime :D
Canada is one of the outliers because the US pushed the 70 year term as a condition on a number of treaties. But you're right about the "not totally senseless" side -- I thought this change was old news: it's a requirement of the latest round of trade treaties with the US. Doing it got Canada some other trade "concessions" with the US.
Didn't LinkedIn get in trouble for doing this a while back? They ended up mining everyone's address books and then leaking that data out to anyone and everyone based on received calls? What are the privacy controls on this?
meaning it has to be activated by your particular stomach in order for the challenge to be accepted in the first place
As with DRM, if the thing that decides if you are valid can be in your hands (so to speak), you may as well assume it will be compromised.
There's no way I can think of to pass on a piece of information describing yourself to another party without that party having to know that information already to validate it, and if they do, it can be stolen and replayed.
Precisely.
on the other hand, your stomach could be a good power source -- kinetic energy, electrolyte source, AND it keeps a steady temperature. I think your colon would be even better though :)
Biometrics are only good so long as the device that reads your pattern is "honest." If you have to inject a device to read your biometric patterns, you could just as easily inject a device that pretends to read your biometrics, but actually copies someone else's.
Or vice versa: you could ingest a device that pretends to use your biometrics for security validation, but actually copies your biometrics and broadcasts for someone else to spoof or collect for various purposes not approved by you.
"biometrics" are only metric at the point they're being read -- the resulting hashes etc. are by no means biometric, and are instead a static constant to be used/abused by whomever.
I think the idea here is that the system would be two-part: challenge/response key, but with extra biodata, meaning it has to be activated by your particular stomach in order for the challenge to be accepted in the first place.
However, there are all sorts of problems with that:
1) Our bodies change over time.
2) The information must be broadcast, at which point any receiver can grab that info (unless it's protected by ANOTHER c/r system)
3) Spoofing this would be relatively easy with a replay attack.
Wearing a seatbelt does in fact increase risk to you of serious harm in certain kinds of accidents. It also protects those around you, as you are held into the driving position in your vehicle, so are less likely to lose/be unable to regain control of your car.
Vaccines protect the herd -- this is not "random people" but the people you come into contact with each day.
The next time a vaccine starts shooting random people, let me know.
You do indeed have the right to get the flu instead of a shot. However, by exercising that right, you are putting people in harms' way that would otherwise be more protected. That's a decision you get to make. Other people have made the decision to get vaccinated, which indirectly benefits you, as long as enough people get vaccinated.
We keep learning about the companies that make these and how the effectiveness is way lower than they have been telling us, or it turns out to cause cancer.
Who is we? I haven't been hearing these things. There are some non-approved vaccines that have side effects that are considered worth the risk in the middle of a pandemic -- are those the ones you're referring to? They have nothing to do with chicken pox, nor with the flu virus, nor MMR (the vaccines discussed in this thread so far).
Flu vaccines are a crap shoot -- I never used to get them, but now I do, as it costs me nothing. The reason they're a crap shoot isn't because they're not effective though; it's because they only target one strain. Vaccine companies look at what's brewing in China at the beginning of their flu season, and then inoculate against that in North America so by the time flu season hits NA, enough people are inoculated to the most likely strain, protecting the herd. This year, they guessed wrong, and a different strain made the hit list. Result? A greater number of child and elderly deaths due to influenza.
Everyone was still inoculated against the strain that went nowhere; nobody was inoculated against the strain that became pandemic. Was the vaccine effective? Not at minimizing flu exposure, but it WAS effective at minimizing exposure to the target strain -- in China, before it ever spread anywhere else.
The main reason vaccines don't work as well as we are led to expect is that what many people hear regarding vaccines is "get this shot to be protected from viral family X" when, as I originally stated, that's not what vaccination is about at all.
Vaccines are pretty simple; reviewing them is pretty simple, and delivering them without side effects is getting simpler as time goes by. Stay away from "live strain" vaccines, and at worst you're injecting junk into your muscle tissue that your lymph nodes have to collect and dispose of (or in a minority of cases, your body marshals its T cells and histamine chains, and the NEXT time you're exposed, you go into shock).
umm, all I need to do is lure a victim to my untrusted dumpster, and I can do all sorts of bad things to them.
The problem isn't that there's a way for me to hurt you. The problem is that you're walking down dark alleys alone at night.
Stop doing that.
Why are you going to untrusted web-sites in the first place?
Do you trust Forbes?
That's not what vaccines are for. They're herd protection, and are to decrease the number of possible hosts in a population. If everyone who CAN get vaccinated does, then that protects those few who can't get vaccinated for whatever reason (too young/old, react to the vaccine, forgot to get the booster, etc.).
That's the point of getting vaccinated. What possible side effects are there that are greater than contracting chicken pox without the vaccine?
It's kind of like wearing a seatbelt while driving a car. Same counter-arguments get used too. It doesn't change the scientific reality that belt enforcement saves more lives than not having belt enforcement.
That's rewriting history. The anti-vaccine movement was specifically against MMR, following the publishing of a (since redacted) paper showing a link between MMR and autism. Not only was the paper redacted, the research was proven to be flawed and then re-done properly to show that there is zero correlation. That's the ONLY autism-related vaccine issue that's ever been raised.
There are other (past and present) vaccines which do have potential side effects; these are generally understood and considered to be worth the risk. Usually it's a case of allergic reaction to the suspension that the vaccine is in, and is tied to the person taking it.
Vaccines are not all safe, but herd protection is generally safer for the population at large than unchecked infections. "Dead" vaccines are generally safe, other than the possibility of your body rejecting the vaccine itself.