Then you're children should be quarantined until such time as you agree to vaccination, and if any outbreak is ties to your children, an electric chair is awaiting you.
The issue here isn't whether you're convinced vaccines are good or not. The issue here is the insistence on an absolute right to refuse a vaccination for you and those you are a legal guardian over can have devastating effects on others. If you decide, as foolish as it may be, that vaccines are bad, and you refuse to have your children vaccinated, and there are enough of you that it compromises herd immunity, what is the recourse for those whose children are too young or for other legitimate medical reasons could not have the vaccine? Are you saying your rights outweigh theirs?
You are aware, I trust that the MMR-autism link was a fabrication of a con artist named Andrew Wakefield, who had his on MMR formulation that he wanted to put on the market, and so managed to get a fake research on the current MMR formulation put into the British Medical Journal. His fraud was completely exposed, his research demonstrated to be fake, and he was utterly discredited.
Science isn't determined in courts, no matter what a bunch of evil lawyers says.
So if there is an outbreak of measles, you think the state should be rendered impotent, that the lives of others who, for a number of reasons, do not have the luxury of choice over vaccinations (the very young and immuno-compromised people) should be sacrificed on your altar of absolute liberties?
This is the problem. There is a certain level of libertarianism that is rationale, even positive and beneficial. And then there are is a kind of libertarianism that views society as a sort of dangerous fiction whose only purpose is to steal the absolute and unconstrained liberties that this kind of libertarian believes exists.
The worst part is that if your type of Libertarian causes the death of a person who cannot be vaccinated for a number of medically legitimate reasons, it could never be reasonably proven in court, so that the basic judicial action that your kind of Libertarian always proclaims as the legitimate way for citizens who have been harmed could not be used.
Or, to put things more simply, you should be allowed to be a carrier of harmful diseases, and anyone that objects can go get fucked, and if any of them are harmed via your decision, well, too fucking bad.
Mod up +10000. Most of the "modern" languages seem to have this addiction to overly verbose libraries and obscenely long syntax. Do we really need method names that could constitute a simple sentence?
I agree that Oliver is the natural choice to replace Stewart. But I'd hate to see Oliver's HBO die. It's a brilliant show that has had some powerful (and excruciatingly funny) segments; net neutrality, FIFA, and my personal favourite, taking the piss out of Dr. Oz.
Still, if a Comedy Central wants the Daily Show to keep working, they need to other Oliver whatever it takes to get him back.
The list are repeated because of wishful thinking. So long as all those evil commie climatologists are out to destroy America, nothing needs to be done about CO2 emissions or the industrialized world's addiction to fossil fuels. The minute AGW becomes widely accepted, something has to be done. And it isn't just the likes of the Koch Brothers trying to preserve their fortunes, it is the average person who believes they have some sacred right to not be out of pocket due to negative human influence on the environment.
AGW denial really is the modern equivalent of praying to the rain god to make the droubt go away.
Sure. I remember writing a Pacman clone in the semigraphics mode (which anyone familiar the MC6847 VDG knows is incredibly limited). I started out using the built-in MS-BASIC graphics function (PUT and GET, as I recall), but they sucked so badly that I ended up re-implementing the moving graphics in PEEK and POKE, which sped things up a bit. I learned quite a bit about arrays, and replacing arrays with sticking everything directly into RAM so I could avoid the slower BASIC functions.
The game worked well enough to show off, though gameplay sucked. But man, I learned a helluva lot about programming, and because the old BASIC interpreters sat so much closer to the bare metal, you got quite a feel for the underlying hardware.
Probably the most valuable of my early programming projects was my BASIC-in-BASIC project. I was about 13 or 14, and had been coding for a year or two by that point. I got this crazy idea to create my own language, and wrote it in BASIC. I got the project to the point of having a program counter, variables, branching logic, simple arithmetic, and tokenization. I only had a dozen commands or so, basically reimplementations of PRINT, INPUT, GOTO, GOSUB, and a semi-working IF, but I could actually write a simple program that would ask for input of two numbers and add the two together, a jump to a line number based on whether the number was less than or greater than 10.
Yes, I do deny this, because first of all, I don't think it would prevent civilian casualties, and second of all, if we're going to fight a total war, I want us to win.
I'd preferred to live in a flawed but still relatively virtuous Western nation than in whatever Nazi Germany would have transformed much of the West into had it been victorious.
The lesson in all of this is to avoid total war, because inevitably it will drag all citizens; uniformed or otherwise, into the conflict.
I don't think I'm that brainwashed when I think that people who put someone in a cage and light them on fire are not the kind of people that any civilization should negotiate with where said civilization has a choice.
The whole point of total war is that everything becomes a legitimate military target. Since the entire economic, social and political engines of nation states become turned towards feeding the war machine, all targets ultimately have military value.
It is precisely the nature of total war, as opposed to the more limited kinds of war practiced in the past, that make it so important that we avoid it whenever possible. Each generation of total war, starting with the US Civil War, becomes ever more destructive to both soldier and civilian alike.
"My side" in the WWII didn't invade France. "My side" in WWII didn't bomb Pearl Harbor. "My side" in WWII didn't start the indiscriminate bombing campaigns by trying to knock London and other major cities to the ground with aerial bombing campaigns. "My side" in WWII didn't slaughters tens of thousands of Chinese. "My side" in WWII didn't exterminate six million Jews.
Yes,. the bombings of Dresden and Tokyo were horrible, but if the purpose was demoralization of failing military powers to bring the two theaters to a faster conclusion, then so be it.
I will remind you that in Japan, at least, it took not one, but two atom bombs to force the Japanese Cabinet to finally surrender.
I'm not apologizing for anything. That is the nature of total war.
And you know what, I'm glad we won. I won't apologize for it. That you don't like the bombing campaigns is irrelevant to me.
The Carthaginians picked a fight with the Romans, and in the end, Carthage was knocked to the ground and its fields salted.
The lesson of Carthage, Dresden and Hiroshima is that you don't take on the pre-eminent military power of your day and then expect that you can be protected by rules of engagement you didn't even bother following when you thought you had the upper hand.
I'd say, at the very least, ISIS represents an economic threat to the United States, and the United States has dealt with economic threats via military power, even where there was no direct territorial threat, almost back to its beginnings. The US waged the Barbary Wars against North African pirates because the tribute the Barbary Pirates demanded was a threat to US economic interests.
The "rules of war" can only work when the belligerents recognize that they exist. A number of the people executed at the war crimes trials after WWII were tried, convicted and sentenced because of their treatment of prisoners of war.
Not that the Allies were perfect, but in the case of the more egregious acts against POWs by Japan and Germany, often the orders came from pretty high up, so it wasn't just the odd unit going a little nuts.
Total war is an awful fucking thing, which is why we should avoid it. But if you are going to attack major military powers in the age of air power, then you will be bombed, and tens of thousands of your citizens will die, often horribly.
And the flipside to that, particularly where ISIS is concerned, is that horrific acts like the burning of the Jordanian fighter pilot to death, easily available online or via the nightly news, might actually serve to inflame the anger of the public in many countries, serving the purpose of creating more support for the anti-ISIS campaign. That certainly seems to be what has happened in Jordan, where ISIS's actions has probably eliminated any desire on the part of the Jordanian government or its citizens to seek some sort of diplomatic compromise.
To me, al Qaeda, ISIS and the other Islamist extremists are like a hyper-virulent virus. They leave behind a horrible trail of death and misery, but they are so awful and so destructive that they essentially burn themselves out. Even Muslims who might in some ways be sympathetic to the extremists' variant of Islam will likely walk away from them because of these kinds of insanely over-the-top displays of cruelty. ISIS shouldn't be worried about shocking and pissing off Westerners, it should be worried about shocking and pissing off their co-religionists.
But all the Western news organizations do it to some extent. My favorite example was the 2005 Indian Ocean tsunami. News organizations seemed to have little problem showing the bloated bodies of Asians, but if they showed any Western bodies on the wall-to-wall broadcasts, it was purely by accident.
While I can see the point of not giving the likes of ISIS what amounts to free publicity, the fact is that they did do something horrifying, and it was made publicly available.
They would have fallen to the Internet, instead of to Best Buy, Walmart and the like. There was a time when Radio Shack's distribution system was second to none. I was up in Canada, and I could literally order, say, RAM expansion for an old Model 4 from a dealer down in New Orleans.
But between Amazon, eBay, and all the suppliers who sell directly online, Radio Shack could not have competed there either. The Internet is killing a lot of the traditional retailers like Radio Shack and Sears, and what the Internet isn't killing Walmart is.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the point here is surface area, not volume.
Then you're children should be quarantined until such time as you agree to vaccination, and if any outbreak is ties to your children, an electric chair is awaiting you.
And the Salem hypothesis is demonstrated once again.
The issue here isn't whether you're convinced vaccines are good or not. The issue here is the insistence on an absolute right to refuse a vaccination for you and those you are a legal guardian over can have devastating effects on others. If you decide, as foolish as it may be, that vaccines are bad, and you refuse to have your children vaccinated, and there are enough of you that it compromises herd immunity, what is the recourse for those whose children are too young or for other legitimate medical reasons could not have the vaccine? Are you saying your rights outweigh theirs?
You are aware, I trust that the MMR-autism link was a fabrication of a con artist named Andrew Wakefield, who had his on MMR formulation that he wanted to put on the market, and so managed to get a fake research on the current MMR formulation put into the British Medical Journal. His fraud was completely exposed, his research demonstrated to be fake, and he was utterly discredited.
Science isn't determined in courts, no matter what a bunch of evil lawyers says.
So if there is an outbreak of measles, you think the state should be rendered impotent, that the lives of others who, for a number of reasons, do not have the luxury of choice over vaccinations (the very young and immuno-compromised people) should be sacrificed on your altar of absolute liberties?
This is the problem. There is a certain level of libertarianism that is rationale, even positive and beneficial. And then there are is a kind of libertarianism that views society as a sort of dangerous fiction whose only purpose is to steal the absolute and unconstrained liberties that this kind of libertarian believes exists.
The worst part is that if your type of Libertarian causes the death of a person who cannot be vaccinated for a number of medically legitimate reasons, it could never be reasonably proven in court, so that the basic judicial action that your kind of Libertarian always proclaims as the legitimate way for citizens who have been harmed could not be used.
Or, to put things more simply, you should be allowed to be a carrier of harmful diseases, and anyone that objects can go get fucked, and if any of them are harmed via your decision, well, too fucking bad.
Mission accomplished...
There isn't a moderation score high enough. Incredibly insightful post.
Mod up +10000. Most of the "modern" languages seem to have this addiction to overly verbose libraries and obscenely long syntax. Do we really need method names that could constitute a simple sentence?
I agree that Oliver is the natural choice to replace Stewart. But I'd hate to see Oliver's HBO die. It's a brilliant show that has had some powerful (and excruciatingly funny) segments; net neutrality, FIFA, and my personal favourite, taking the piss out of Dr. Oz.
Still, if a Comedy Central wants the Daily Show to keep working, they need to other Oliver whatever it takes to get him back.
The list are repeated because of wishful thinking. So long as all those evil commie climatologists are out to destroy America, nothing needs to be done about CO2 emissions or the industrialized world's addiction to fossil fuels. The minute AGW becomes widely accepted, something has to be done. And it isn't just the likes of the Koch Brothers trying to preserve their fortunes, it is the average person who believes they have some sacred right to not be out of pocket due to negative human influence on the environment.
AGW denial really is the modern equivalent of praying to the rain god to make the droubt go away.
I didn't even know it existed.
Sure. I remember writing a Pacman clone in the semigraphics mode (which anyone familiar the MC6847 VDG knows is incredibly limited). I started out using the built-in MS-BASIC graphics function (PUT and GET, as I recall), but they sucked so badly that I ended up re-implementing the moving graphics in PEEK and POKE, which sped things up a bit. I learned quite a bit about arrays, and replacing arrays with sticking everything directly into RAM so I could avoid the slower BASIC functions.
The game worked well enough to show off, though gameplay sucked. But man, I learned a helluva lot about programming, and because the old BASIC interpreters sat so much closer to the bare metal, you got quite a feel for the underlying hardware.
Probably the most valuable of my early programming projects was my BASIC-in-BASIC project. I was about 13 or 14, and had been coding for a year or two by that point. I got this crazy idea to create my own language, and wrote it in BASIC. I got the project to the point of having a program counter, variables, branching logic, simple arithmetic, and tokenization. I only had a dozen commands or so, basically reimplementations of PRINT, INPUT, GOTO, GOSUB, and a semi-working IF, but I could actually write a simple program that would ask for input of two numbers and add the two together, a jump to a line number based on whether the number was less than or greater than 10.
Yes, I do deny this, because first of all, I don't think it would prevent civilian casualties, and second of all, if we're going to fight a total war, I want us to win.
I'd preferred to live in a flawed but still relatively virtuous Western nation than in whatever Nazi Germany would have transformed much of the West into had it been victorious.
The lesson in all of this is to avoid total war, because inevitably it will drag all citizens; uniformed or otherwise, into the conflict.
I don't think I'm that brainwashed when I think that people who put someone in a cage and light them on fire are not the kind of people that any civilization should negotiate with where said civilization has a choice.
The whole point of total war is that everything becomes a legitimate military target. Since the entire economic, social and political engines of nation states become turned towards feeding the war machine, all targets ultimately have military value.
It is precisely the nature of total war, as opposed to the more limited kinds of war practiced in the past, that make it so important that we avoid it whenever possible. Each generation of total war, starting with the US Civil War, becomes ever more destructive to both soldier and civilian alike.
"My side" in the WWII didn't invade France. "My side" in WWII didn't bomb Pearl Harbor. "My side" in WWII didn't start the indiscriminate bombing campaigns by trying to knock London and other major cities to the ground with aerial bombing campaigns. "My side" in WWII didn't slaughters tens of thousands of Chinese. "My side" in WWII didn't exterminate six million Jews.
Yes,. the bombings of Dresden and Tokyo were horrible, but if the purpose was demoralization of failing military powers to bring the two theaters to a faster conclusion, then so be it.
I will remind you that in Japan, at least, it took not one, but two atom bombs to force the Japanese Cabinet to finally surrender.
I'm not apologizing for anything. That is the nature of total war.
And you know what, I'm glad we won. I won't apologize for it. That you don't like the bombing campaigns is irrelevant to me.
The Carthaginians picked a fight with the Romans, and in the end, Carthage was knocked to the ground and its fields salted.
The lesson of Carthage, Dresden and Hiroshima is that you don't take on the pre-eminent military power of your day and then expect that you can be protected by rules of engagement you didn't even bother following when you thought you had the upper hand.
I'd say, at the very least, ISIS represents an economic threat to the United States, and the United States has dealt with economic threats via military power, even where there was no direct territorial threat, almost back to its beginnings. The US waged the Barbary Wars against North African pirates because the tribute the Barbary Pirates demanded was a threat to US economic interests.
The "rules of war" can only work when the belligerents recognize that they exist. A number of the people executed at the war crimes trials after WWII were tried, convicted and sentenced because of their treatment of prisoners of war.
Not that the Allies were perfect, but in the case of the more egregious acts against POWs by Japan and Germany, often the orders came from pretty high up, so it wasn't just the odd unit going a little nuts.
Because Germany and Japan were just victims.
Total war is an awful fucking thing, which is why we should avoid it. But if you are going to attack major military powers in the age of air power, then you will be bombed, and tens of thousands of your citizens will die, often horribly.
And the flipside to that, particularly where ISIS is concerned, is that horrific acts like the burning of the Jordanian fighter pilot to death, easily available online or via the nightly news, might actually serve to inflame the anger of the public in many countries, serving the purpose of creating more support for the anti-ISIS campaign. That certainly seems to be what has happened in Jordan, where ISIS's actions has probably eliminated any desire on the part of the Jordanian government or its citizens to seek some sort of diplomatic compromise.
To me, al Qaeda, ISIS and the other Islamist extremists are like a hyper-virulent virus. They leave behind a horrible trail of death and misery, but they are so awful and so destructive that they essentially burn themselves out. Even Muslims who might in some ways be sympathetic to the extremists' variant of Islam will likely walk away from them because of these kinds of insanely over-the-top displays of cruelty. ISIS shouldn't be worried about shocking and pissing off Westerners, it should be worried about shocking and pissing off their co-religionists.
But all the Western news organizations do it to some extent. My favorite example was the 2005 Indian Ocean tsunami. News organizations seemed to have little problem showing the bloated bodies of Asians, but if they showed any Western bodies on the wall-to-wall broadcasts, it was purely by accident.
While I can see the point of not giving the likes of ISIS what amounts to free publicity, the fact is that they did do something horrifying, and it was made publicly available.
They would have fallen to the Internet, instead of to Best Buy, Walmart and the like. There was a time when Radio Shack's distribution system was second to none. I was up in Canada, and I could literally order, say, RAM expansion for an old Model 4 from a dealer down in New Orleans.
But between Amazon, eBay, and all the suppliers who sell directly online, Radio Shack could not have competed there either. The Internet is killing a lot of the traditional retailers like Radio Shack and Sears, and what the Internet isn't killing Walmart is.