Sure, show me ANY shred of medical proof that the vaccination had anything at all to do with any other symptoms and we can call it "vaccine related". But you or him thinking that without any medical proof does not constitute much. Are either you or your friend medical doctors, with specialization in disease? No, then what you have is an unproven medical theory put forth by non-professionals. Why should that be chalked up to "vaccine related"?
Then move to a different area. It is not your god given right to have every alternative school for anyone who has bizarre medical beliefs in every geographical location. If your beliefs are that strong and you are that certain of them, I suggest living somewhere near the vicinity of others that share your opinion. If it is such an established fact that vaccines cause autism, you would think that schools not requiring immunizations would be popping up everywhere. Or you could look at all the medical evidence that points to the fact that there is no basis for believing any such idea. Last year, a friend of mine went vegetarian. Then later, he had herpes. The only logical conclusion to draw is that the vegetarianism caused the herpes, right?
That is for everybody's safety. Could you imagine another outbreak of polio, or mumps, or any other disease that has virtually been stamped out (at least in countries that do immunizations) by immunizing? Sorry, but it is not a right for your child to go to a certain school. If you want to go to a specific school, you must adhere by their rules. I am sure there has to be some alternative schools out there that don't have immunization requirements. You can always home school your child if you really don't want to give them immunization shots as well. But acting like your rights have been violated because you have a medically unproven opinion about immunization, and pretending that public schooling is required by law (it isn't), is dishonest. What about the rights of the other hundreds or thousands of children at the school - the ones that have parents that understand the dangers of not immunizing, and who do adhere to the rules? What if you applied the same logic to another scenario? What if I decided that taking the driver license test would give me cancer, and I decided I could just start driving without ever taking the test. It would be ridiculous, and I would be putting others at risk through my behavior.
You need to apply for a license to purchase a handgun, but you don't need any license to own a handgun after it is purchased. Shotguns and rifles can be purchased without a permit. Carrying a handgun concealed requires a permit in most states but not all - I know Vermont is one of the states that does NOT require a permit to carry concealed.
Um, good question. You proved what I said was right in your own post - we are #3 in exports, which means our output doesn't match China or Germany, who we used to be ahead of.
Also, a total of 3.2 million - one in six U.S. factory jobs - have disappeared since the start of 2000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#Manufacturing
So we are importing a lot more than we used to as well. Care to point out how these facts are "so wrong" now?
Before World War II, the US was the leading exporter in the world. Now we are the biggest importer. Our output may be higher now (although I would need to see numbers to believe it), but it doesn't match the output of other countries.
And how would paying for music that you discovered you didn't like after you bought it be any better? And since you seem to have an opinion about what makes music good and bad, where is your music? Obviously you seem to think you could do better, so put your money where your mouth is and post some links to your music, which MUST be better.
We all already have a slight risk of cancer without stem cells. Examining your family history may also help in determining if you are more susceptible to getting cancer.
I recall many people having the same opinion about laser eye surgery when it was new - that seems to have worked out quite nicely for the majority of folks. But it is all relative. If you are one of the small percent that has major problems, your perspective will be different.
Unfortunately in some areas, killing animals is not a crime - domesticated or not. Also if a rifle was used, all the handgun arguments go out the window as well. However, if you were in a city, it would probably be illegal to discharge a firearm in the city limits - but not every city. And if the contract only stated permission to "shoot your dog" they may be able to do it with a crossbow within the city and commit no crimes.
Isn't the law a funny thing sometimes?
If you happened to get an animal loving cop involved, it may help, but generally cops treat crimes like this pretty lightly. I have personally reported animal abuse before, and been basically told "we can't do much about it". I also know someone who had their cat poisoned by a neighbor, because he "didn't want it walking around in his yard". He admitted killing it to the police, and was not charged with any crime. The cat's owner was told if she didn't want her cat to get hurt, she should have kept it inside. So while I would really like to believe that the police care about crimes against animals, my personal experience tells me otherwise.
I am not saying it makes sense, I am just saying that IS what the law is in the US. If you give away food you are responsible for everything that happens afterward, whether or not it was your direct actions that caused any problems. That is why so much food is wasted - because of the liability of giving it away.
It would be, if it were the case. Which it isn't. Copyright infringement is a CIVIL offense, and murder is a CRIMINAL offense. You go to jail and do time for murder, you get a fine for copyright infringement. See any differences yet?
Yeah, that is a nice theory, but try opening a kitchen and serving food to the public without having an inspection by the health department. I worked as a chef for years and we had a hard time even legally giving away food to charities. If we give them food, and they heat it improperly or do not refrigerate properly etc., we would be liable for any illness/death/monetary loss suffered by anyone eating the food, even if it was 100% not our fault. (Same reason it is illegal to bring outside food into establishments that serve food. If you get sick on the outside food, they could still be held liable if eaten in the establishment. I am not saying it makes sense, but it IS the law.) Not to say I didn't send a lot of food out the back door to charities anyways, but I could only do so by breaking the law as well as company policies that were likely to get me fired if caught. I knew the risks, and was still willing to take them to do it. But had I gotten caught I wouldn't have whined about it. I knew the risks going in. So considering I was risking my own job and possible lawsuits if something went wrong, and there was absolutely nothing material for me to gain from giving food away, I would hardly say I have earned the "tyrant" moniker you so casually toss about.
If I want to open my kitchen and give away free food, I can.
As long as you pass a health inspection to make sure you aren't going to kill or make ill any large groups of people.
If I want to buy a bunch of blank CDs and hand-out copies of Ubuntu Linux, I can.
Because the authors allow you to do so.
Why can't I give-away free access to Wi-Fi in my home or restaurant?
You can! Nobody is going to put out a firmware revision that works on all wireless access points that will not allow them to have open access. However if you do chose to provide access as such, know that you are responsible for what happens.
Say you got a land line, and ran an extension phone out to the sidewalk in front of your house for anyone to use. Someone calls a $1.99 per minute pay line, and talks for an hour. Should you not be responsible for the phone bill? If no, why not?
Yep, in a statistics class I had once, half the class was assigned to make up "random number" lists, and the other half actually generated a random number list using actual randomly generated numbers (by using dice). It was very easy to tell which were made by people, becasue as you stated, there were not enough repeating sequences as in the truly random ones.
No country would want to enter a full scale war with the US, but plenty of smaller groups that do not represent any official government would love to. A distributed attack from all parts of the globe via the internet would be the way it would happen. It wouldn't originate from one country, and even if it did that wouldn't give the US justification, or a positive view from the rest of the world, to just go ahead and start nuking major cities around the world. No official countries military would ever think of officially attacking the US, but it isn't them that the US has to worry about.
Which raises the question: If the US is so vulnerable, why hasn't this happened already? What is preventing the type of attacks they were simulating? It seems to me either the US is not as vulnerable as claimed to be, or there is really no interest in cyber-attacking the US. I know one of them is false, and suspect the other may be as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, show me ANY shred of medical proof that the vaccination had anything at all to do with any other symptoms and we can call it "vaccine related". But you or him thinking that without any medical proof does not constitute much. Are either you or your friend medical doctors, with specialization in disease? No, then what you have is an unproven medical theory put forth by non-professionals. Why should that be chalked up to "vaccine related"?
Then move to a different area. It is not your god given right to have every alternative school for anyone who has bizarre medical beliefs in every geographical location. If your beliefs are that strong and you are that certain of them, I suggest living somewhere near the vicinity of others that share your opinion. If it is such an established fact that vaccines cause autism, you would think that schools not requiring immunizations would be popping up everywhere. Or you could look at all the medical evidence that points to the fact that there is no basis for believing any such idea. Last year, a friend of mine went vegetarian. Then later, he had herpes. The only logical conclusion to draw is that the vegetarianism caused the herpes, right?
In pains me more to see someone use the logic - son has autism + son was vaccinated = vaccination causes autism.
That is for everybody's safety. Could you imagine another outbreak of polio, or mumps, or any other disease that has virtually been stamped out (at least in countries that do immunizations) by immunizing? Sorry, but it is not a right for your child to go to a certain school. If you want to go to a specific school, you must adhere by their rules. I am sure there has to be some alternative schools out there that don't have immunization requirements. You can always home school your child if you really don't want to give them immunization shots as well. But acting like your rights have been violated because you have a medically unproven opinion about immunization, and pretending that public schooling is required by law (it isn't), is dishonest. What about the rights of the other hundreds or thousands of children at the school - the ones that have parents that understand the dangers of not immunizing, and who do adhere to the rules? What if you applied the same logic to another scenario? What if I decided that taking the driver license test would give me cancer, and I decided I could just start driving without ever taking the test. It would be ridiculous, and I would be putting others at risk through my behavior.
Budweiser is now owned by a Belgian company.
Another would be to allow no software at all to run at all on the device. 100% security from malware. Of course functionality may suffer some...
You need to apply for a license to purchase a handgun, but you don't need any license to own a handgun after it is purchased. Shotguns and rifles can be purchased without a permit. Carrying a handgun concealed requires a permit in most states but not all - I know Vermont is one of the states that does NOT require a permit to carry concealed.
Um, good question. You proved what I said was right in your own post - we are #3 in exports, which means our output doesn't match China or Germany, who we used to be ahead of.
Also, a total of 3.2 million - one in six U.S. factory jobs - have disappeared since the start of 2000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#Manufacturing
So we are importing a lot more than we used to as well. Care to point out how these facts are "so wrong" now?
Before World War II, the US was the leading exporter in the world. Now we are the biggest importer. Our output may be higher now (although I would need to see numbers to believe it), but it doesn't match the output of other countries.
I don't understand. So they all voted against David Bowie's song "Rebel Rebel"? Why? It is a good song...
And how would paying for music that you discovered you didn't like after you bought it be any better? And since you seem to have an opinion about what makes music good and bad, where is your music? Obviously you seem to think you could do better, so put your money where your mouth is and post some links to your music, which MUST be better.
He said downloading music, not downloading beer.
We all already have a slight risk of cancer without stem cells. Examining your family history may also help in determining if you are more susceptible to getting cancer.
I recall many people having the same opinion about laser eye surgery when it was new - that seems to have worked out quite nicely for the majority of folks. But it is all relative. If you are one of the small percent that has major problems, your perspective will be different.
Unfortunately in some areas, killing animals is not a crime - domesticated or not. Also if a rifle was used, all the handgun arguments go out the window as well. However, if you were in a city, it would probably be illegal to discharge a firearm in the city limits - but not every city. And if the contract only stated permission to "shoot your dog" they may be able to do it with a crossbow within the city and commit no crimes.
Isn't the law a funny thing sometimes?
If you happened to get an animal loving cop involved, it may help, but generally cops treat crimes like this pretty lightly. I have personally reported animal abuse before, and been basically told "we can't do much about it". I also know someone who had their cat poisoned by a neighbor, because he "didn't want it walking around in his yard". He admitted killing it to the police, and was not charged with any crime. The cat's owner was told if she didn't want her cat to get hurt, she should have kept it inside. So while I would really like to believe that the police care about crimes against animals, my personal experience tells me otherwise.
Oh, well that logical argument clears everything up. Thanks for the intelligent conversation.
I am not saying it makes sense, I am just saying that IS what the law is in the US. If you give away food you are responsible for everything that happens afterward, whether or not it was your direct actions that caused any problems. That is why so much food is wasted - because of the liability of giving it away.
It would be, if it were the case. Which it isn't. Copyright infringement is a CIVIL offense, and murder is a CRIMINAL offense. You go to jail and do time for murder, you get a fine for copyright infringement. See any differences yet?
Yeah, that is a nice theory, but try opening a kitchen and serving food to the public without having an inspection by the health department. I worked as a chef for years and we had a hard time even legally giving away food to charities. If we give them food, and they heat it improperly or do not refrigerate properly etc., we would be liable for any illness/death/monetary loss suffered by anyone eating the food, even if it was 100% not our fault. (Same reason it is illegal to bring outside food into establishments that serve food. If you get sick on the outside food, they could still be held liable if eaten in the establishment. I am not saying it makes sense, but it IS the law.) Not to say I didn't send a lot of food out the back door to charities anyways, but I could only do so by breaking the law as well as company policies that were likely to get me fired if caught. I knew the risks, and was still willing to take them to do it. But had I gotten caught I wouldn't have whined about it. I knew the risks going in. So considering I was risking my own job and possible lawsuits if something went wrong, and there was absolutely nothing material for me to gain from giving food away, I would hardly say I have earned the "tyrant" moniker you so casually toss about.
Yes, let's all fly off the handle and come to the conclusion that murder is the only solution to a civil matter.
If I want to open my kitchen and give away free food, I can.
As long as you pass a health inspection to make sure you aren't going to kill or make ill any large groups of people.
If I want to buy a bunch of blank CDs and hand-out copies of Ubuntu Linux, I can.
Because the authors allow you to do so.
Why can't I give-away free access to Wi-Fi in my home or restaurant?
You can! Nobody is going to put out a firmware revision that works on all wireless access points that will not allow them to have open access. However if you do chose to provide access as such, know that you are responsible for what happens.
Say you got a land line, and ran an extension phone out to the sidewalk in front of your house for anyone to use. Someone calls a $1.99 per minute pay line, and talks for an hour. Should you not be responsible for the phone bill? If no, why not?
Yep, in a statistics class I had once, half the class was assigned to make up "random number" lists, and the other half actually generated a random number list using actual randomly generated numbers (by using dice). It was very easy to tell which were made by people, becasue as you stated, there were not enough repeating sequences as in the truly random ones.
I believe he may have been referring to the film Pi, and not the number.
No country would want to enter a full scale war with the US, but plenty of smaller groups that do not represent any official government would love to. A distributed attack from all parts of the globe via the internet would be the way it would happen. It wouldn't originate from one country, and even if it did that wouldn't give the US justification, or a positive view from the rest of the world, to just go ahead and start nuking major cities around the world. No official countries military would ever think of officially attacking the US, but it isn't them that the US has to worry about.
As opposed to Communism where 5% of party official hold 90% of the wealth?
Which raises the question: If the US is so vulnerable, why hasn't this happened already? What is preventing the type of attacks they were simulating? It seems to me either the US is not as vulnerable as claimed to be, or there is really no interest in cyber-attacking the US. I know one of them is false, and suspect the other may be as well.