What the link doesn't tell you is that for models produced in 2000, the fix is to replace the struts with static ones. Which admittedly work perfectly fine for the purpose of preventing the injuries.
Link is strictly for 2002 models, and explicitly states that the intended repair is to replace the strut and hinges. No mention of welding is indicated.
Only if you don't factor in the risk of deadly super-strains having free reins because vaccination regimes suppress all the more benign strains who could out-compete them.
Except that vaccines work quite efficiently, and are simply our own immune system being trained to fight them. Smallpox is eradicated, and polio is pinned down to only the poorest of countries. Vaccines if applied appropriately can wipe out a virus population, and we're essentially done dealing with it.
I honestly don't expect to see a more virulent strain of smallpox popping up in 500 years, because it's been eradicated.
... [it] still doesn't give vaccination proponents the right to call all vaccination opponents crackpots. Some are, but some arrive at their conclusions from quite different reasons and perspectives.
True, however, the reasons you are presenting are irrational and unrealistic though. It's like saying that killing making mammoths extinct will result in a super-mammoth appearing in the future. No. It's extinct.
The reason that we can't pin down all diseases like we have with polio and smallpox, is that not all diseases are exclusive to humans. That makes it difficult to contain, because vaccinating wild animals is unrealistic.
That being said, Japan went on a concerted effort to eradicate rabies from their islands, which was really only practical, because they are on islands. There is not a chance that Japan will have a super rabies pop up, because there is no rabies to evolve anymore. It's gone, poof.
Or, to put it another way, I do not want cattle and fish fed antibiotics as a preventative measure, even if it saves some cows' lives right now.
The use of antibiotics for anything but medical need for treatment of medical conditions is just a bad idea, whether it is in animals, or anti-bacterial soap.
For the exact same reason, I do not want mandatory inoculations either. Use them when needed to fight actual epidemics, but no more.
That is not how vaccines work. Vaccines train our immune systems which are adaptive systems. Two people with the same vaccine will not produce identical antibodies. And the antibodies don't kill the virus anyways, they only identify the virus for the white blood cells to attack. As a result, there is an evolutionary disconnect between the antibodies attaching, and the death of the cell. As such, the evolutionary response to the human immune system is muted.
And even if vaccines were able to produce superbugs, it would be an inevitable case then, because as the human population is killed off by a super virus, it breeds an immunity, or resistance in hosts, thus resulting in the entire domain of hosts being inhospitable towards the super virus.
However, you seem to be having a fundamental misunderstanding about the mechanism that vaccines work, and attempt to analogize it with antibacterial usage, which is not actually analogous. (It's like saying cars should be worried about crashing into mountains, because planes crash into mountains.) In the same way, use of bleach will not breed bleach-resistant super bugs. It's just not how their mechanism of action works.
Actual recall by Ford for certain Ford and Mercury models.
I've done an initial search to attempt to validate this claim, however I can't seem to find anything readily. If you wouldn't mind providing a link to it so that I can evaluate it.
But is it reasonable for the doctor to say "you won't let me treat you for a potential X, so I refuse to treat you for an actual Y or Z either".
As long as Y and Z are not life-threatening conditions. Yes. If you refuse well-supported medical advice, then they should be under no compulsion to continue treating you.
Calling vaccines the equivalent of welding something shut so that it can't open, so that it can't fall on someone is entirely inappropriate. Vaccines are known to be effective, and the risks from side-effects are minuscule compared to the risks from what they are vaccinating against. And if you fail to acknowledge something that is harming not only yourself, but the entire population, then what good are you? How does he know if he recommends taking your antibiotics until they are exhausted, rather than just until you feel well, that you will actually take your antibiotics appropriately. How does he know that when he prescribes vicodin or oxycodone with directions not to take it with tylenol that you won't disregard his advice, and shut down your liver from an acetaminophen overdose?
It's like the brown m&m's clause from Van Halen... if you're not going to take overwhelming medical advice seriously, then why the hell are you going to go to a doctor in the first place?
We still vaccinate for polio in the US. The polio vaccine is just included with a couple of other vaccines. Polio hasn't been dead nearly as long as Smallpox has.
Looking up info from the CDC, yeah, we've only stopped oral vaccinations of polio. Probably, because we don't have to dose as many kids anymore.
And that's why US children no longer get a smallpox or polio vaccine. When the disease has been eradicated, we don't vaccinate against it anymore.
Polio vaccine is not eradicated. It's still endemic in south Asia and Nigeria. And according to the CDC, children in the US are still vaccinated against polio (which makes sense, since it's not eradicated).
I didn't say that polio has been eradicated globally. But the cdc says, "OPV has not been used in the United States since 2000 but is still used in many parts of the world."
I suppose I mistook them not using the oral version, for not using any of it. Although, usually, if you're from the US, and you're heading to a place where polio is still common, you will get a new vaccination.
they will still sue for patent infringement merely by it being present without being purchased. Lookup Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser if you don't believe me.
Very well, let's look it up.
In 1997, Percy Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan, discovered that a section of one of his fields contained canola that was resistant to herbicide Roundup. A farmhand later harvested and saved the seed from this area, which was used to replant in 1998. That harvest was sold for feed. During 1998, over 95% of Schmeiser's canola crop of approximately 1,000 acres (4 km) was identified as the Roundup Ready variety.
Oh, it appears that Schmeiser didn't just have the gene show up in his crop, but he exploited the fact that it showed up in his crop, and went ahead and planted his whole crop with the gene infestation.
For comparison, this would be like (not just kind of similar, but almost exactly the same as) suing someone for copyright infringement after finding a copy of your virus on their system, which they did not put there, and then winning.
No, a proper comparison, is that someone found a scripting virus on their computer system, and then used code from the virus in order to make their own product.
Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser was not "I accidentally got contaminated and Monsanto sued me", it was a case of "I accidentally got contaminated and EXPLOITED THE CONTAMINATION to my own gain."
If I was given a search like that in the EU I'd walk away and make a fuss -- but in the EU I'm confident of my rights, and my citizenship. But what could I have done on my way home after a business trip to the USA?
Well, as an EU citizen, you could have chosen to be arrested as a terrorist... oh... I made myself sad.:(
BTW, some of these diseases really are quite extinct in the US.
And that's why US children no longer get a smallpox or polio vaccine. When the disease has been eradicated, we don't vaccinate against it anymore. However, the stuff we're still vaccinating for is still kicking, and that's why we still vaccinate for it!
Tin-foil comes in maroon? Can I get it in purple instead?
On a side note, I agree that it's the doctors' right to see what patients they want (as long as the decision is not based on certain criteria like race/color/religion/gender/etc). Stupidity is not a protected group.
No less, it's reasonable for a doctor to be able to refuse to treat a patient who continuously refuses treatment. At that point, the doctor is simply saying, well, if you don't want me to treat you, then I won't treat you.
Apparently, you did not read the entire article at all.
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.
Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater cannot be criminal anymore in the United States, because it no longer meets the NEW BAR, established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, for infringing upon Free Speech. As it does not incite people to imminent lawless action.
Why is the post Insightful? Because it corrects misinformation that people continue to spread.
'I could care less' clearly grew out of 'I couldn't care less' via an accidental dropping of the negative, not out of a sarcastic twist. Users of 'I could care less' may well nowadays (anymore?) justify it by saying it is sarcastic, and indeed that would make it sarcastic nowadays (anymore? - am I getting the hang of this), but it was obviously originally a mistake, and I can't really see how 'I could care less' is any more sarcastic than 'I couldn't care less' anyway.
And you know this from your extensive linguistic studies of the English language do you? Many linguistics agree with my assessment of the situation. In fact, my assessment of the situation is not my own, but based on linguists who actually have studied this matter.
Surely with double negatives, most of the time it does resolve to a positive in English (your examples using other languages are interesting but irrelevant) but we all know when a speaker isn't meaning it to. I couldn't care less about your linguistic theory, if you say I haven't got no books, then you sound thick, and you sound thick because you haven't used the language correctly (ain't not used it incorrectly?).
NO, it does not "automatically" resolve to a positive. "I don't have no books" does not resolve to a positive anymore than "3 - x - y" resolves to "3 + x + y". Negation is distributive across all elements of a sentence. This is a well known feature called "negative concordance". There are a selection of words that are only used in negative sentences (by most people) case in point the original "anymore" that kicked off this whole debate. But just because the "anymore" no longer looks like a negative, does not mean that it is not there solely as a result of the sentence being negative.
The cases where two negatives make a positive, is when they compound directly upon each other.
I'm curious about the 'positive anymore' but something in me, and it seems most speakers, seems to rail against it, I think it's something to do with the 'more' part that seems to require a negative to set it up although I can't quite justify saying the 'positive anymore' is wrong.
What is railing against it in your head is that "anymore" is only allowed in a negative sentence. It's a negative concordance, and it is dictated in order to ensure that the word complies with the form of a negative sentence. It "appears" to be positive, because it does not actually contain a negating word, but in fact, it is a word that indicates a negative sentence, and thus it is itself a negative element of the sentence.
It's like some person in the past decided that there should only be one negative in an algebraic sequence, and that all other negatives in the sequence should be represented with, let's say "~". As such, the sequence "3 - x - y" would be viewed as "uncouth" and should PROPERLY be represented as "3 - x ~ y", because otherwise the two negatives would cancel each other out. Except that the negatives never did cancel each other out, and the "~" symbol for subtraction would itself be a negative component of the sentence regardless of any claims that it is "positive".
The whole fact that my sentence employs the "positive anymore" as opposed to the most widely used "negative anymore" should indicate that it is a negating element of the sentence.
Shoot, Nursie was even complaining that he apparently understands the sentence to be a simple negative, because the "anymore" has to be used in a negative sentence, and thus for Nursie, "anymore" is a negative word, so "I haven't seen him anymore" is a double negative, which should cancel to a positive!
I understand your algebra and what you are trying to say, I just don't really agree that it's good grammar to say "I have not misunderstood nothing", regardless of whether the conveyed meaning is the same.
IT'S NOT GRAMMAR... it's STYLE. And I could give a shit if you think that it's grammar, because it's not. IT'S STYLE.
No, my argument is that double negatives in English are often a case of bad grammar.
My point is that it's NOT BAD GRAMMAR. It is rather poor style. Just because using your desert fork for your salad is improper and bad manners, does not make it an application of the wrong tool. They're both forks, and it's merely etiquette that determines which to use and where.
I humbly disagree. There may have been sarcasm in the original usage of "I could care less", but now it is said unthinkingly as an idiom meaning that someone doesn't care.
The original sarcasm does not vaporize simply because it is not rigorously intoned anymore. The sarcasm was there to begin with, and the sarcasm has been enshrined in the pragmatics surrounding the idiom.
Didn't say it was, don't agree that that makes it in the slightest bit relevant to English, which has strong Germanic roots as well as others languages, and don't even think it that relevant anyway.
Most other Germanic languages struggle with the exact same double negative "problem" that English does. Namely, people constantly use the double negative, because it's not actually ungrammatical. It's purely style and etiquette that determines the proper usage, not GRAMMAR. But then grammarians are so stupidly backwater anymore having been left behind by 2 centuries of linguistic studies that they frequently mistake orthographic errors, and style errors as "grammar".
My initial response was that in light of other Americanisms by other people in which the negative is dropped, I found it very hard to understand what you were saying.
Let me help you with this one. Unless it's sarcastic, or pragmatically sarcastic idiom, then it is not a case of the negative "being dropped".
I've never come across 'positive anymore' before. Does everyone use it in your parts?
Honestly? *shrug* I have no idea. To me it sounds odd, but grammatical. Honestly, I had never heard about "positive anymore" until another poster posted a link to the wikipedia article. Rather, when I was writing the post, it just seemed like the best choice for what I wanted to portray. Combined with the fairly typical lack of proofreading on slashdot, it went out. Maybe I would have changed it or drafted a better and more clear version if I had proofread. We may never know.
I do know that my dad used "anymore" and "yet" very oddly...
What you wrote wasn't clear to me, but guessing that you mean "people are able to shout fire":
Yes, you can shout fire, but if you do it when you know there isn't a fire that will be a crime.
No, you are not correct anymore. Since Brandenburg v. Ohio it can no longer be criminal to say something that recklessly endangers another person. In order for speech to be criminal in the United States anymore, it must present a call to imminent lawless action (such as a riot). The problem with "shouting fire in a crowded theater" was that by analogy, it was being used against pacifists distributing literature opposing a draft.
Can you just clear up what you meant by it? The way I understand it then "I will do it anymore" it should be the closed interval beginning from now and continuing forever into the future (Wikipedia says "from now on"). Right? So what I don't get is did you mean that this is now true but wasn't true before or that this was always true?
Indeed, prior to Brandenburg v. Ohio, it was illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. However, since Brandenburg v. Ohio, it is no longer illegal.
It looks like you and I see language in vastly different ways, which makes sense as I'm used to evaluating statements in computer language and thinking in line with strict grammars in which tokens have meaning. Perhaps we differ there.
I've come up with a better example provided this paragraph.
Saying "I don't have no books" is like "3 - x - y". You would never argue that the two negatives in "3 - x - y" make a positive, and so it should equal 6. Saying "I don't have any books" is like "3 - (x + y)". Obviously "3 - (x + y)" is equivalent to "3 - x - y", even though the later contains a double negative.
Now, unlike the prior paragraph, saying "I have not misunderstood" is like "3 - (-x)". As "misunderstood" contains a morphological negation it is at a different level which is expanded by the "not".
Saying "I have not misunderstood nothing." is like saying "3 - (-x) - y", whilc "I have not misunderstood anything" is like saying "3 - (-x + y)". The two statements are clearly equivalent, and hopefully since you claim to be able to parse strict grammars, I hope that you can clearly understand what is negated to a positive and what is simply a negative concordance.
Your argument is similar to arguing that you can murder someone by shooting them repeatedly in the chest and face in the middle of the busy city centre.
No, it's not.
Sure, you can. But it's illegal. So is shouting "fire" in the theatre.
In the United States, no, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is NOT illegal, or criminal. So, let me rephrase, "In the United States, one may shout 'fire' in a crowded theater."
You'll just be liable for damages. Just like with the fire shouting.
You can always be held liable for damages that you cause. Whether the action were criminal or illegal. As long as you were the proximal cause of the injury, and the other side can show negligence, recklessness, or intent to commit the act or omission, then you can be held liable for the damages.
Dropping flour barrels out of the top floor of your warehouse is neither illegal nor criminal. However, if it hits someone, you're going to be responsible for the harm caused. Selling coffee so hot that it can cause 3rd degree burns in 5 seconds is neither illegal nor criminal. However, if it does cause 3rd degree burns upon contacting someone's skin, you're going to be responsible for the harm caused.
Of course I can disagree with it, unless you're contending that there is an absolute right and wrong in language? Something deeply unfashionable in linguistics these days I believe.
There are rights and wrongs in language. For instance, we know for sure that "language is a Markov chain" is wrong. The same that we know that caloric theory is wrong.
Your argument that double negatives must make a positive statement is fallacious, because language does not work that way.
It looks like you and I see language in vastly different ways, which makes sense as I'm used to evaluating statements in computer language and thinking in line with strict grammars in which tokens have meaning. Perhaps we differ there.
I'm equally accustomed to computer languages as well. But I understand that natural language is not definable by the same grammar definitions used by computer languages.
Regardless of whatever model one designs to explain the world, if the actual evidence from the real world conflicts with that model, then the model is wrong.
Your model is CLEARLY wrong.
No, it's a case of a double negative meaning a positive, something you said was a fallacy.
I said that the argument that double negatives always mean a positive is a fallacious argument. Go read about the "fallacy fallacy". My statement does not mean that the conclusion is false, or that no evidence can ever be brought that the conclusion is true. Rather, it means solely that the logical argument cannot be trusted to be true.
Take for example an argument: "all animals are mammals." This is clearly a fallacious argument, because there are clearly animals that are not mammals (reptiles and avians as simple token counter-examples). Yet, pointing out "but raccoon are animals, and they're mammals!" will not suddenly make the argument valid.
Your argument is that all double negatives are positives. I provide a counter-example from numerous languages that demonstrate that double negatives in a negative concordance can be equivalent to a simple negative. I have supplied the necessary counter example to your argument. Provide all the supporting arguments that you wish, your argument must apply to all double negatives, and it doesn't.
Yes, and I'm keenly aware that the construct is used without a hint of sarcasm.
Then you need your brain checked, because it's clearly sarcastic.
It doesn't cancel out the intent of the speaker, if that is the speakers intent, certainly.
Intent, schmintent. Double negatives through negative concordance are proper grammatical forms in many languages, which provide all the counter examples you need to invalidate the argument that a double negative is always a positive.
As you say, pragmatics, which brings us back to the my original comment, your use of positive "anymore" is not pragmatic and I'm clearly not the only one thrown by it.
You're fucking throwing around words that you don't even understand anymore. I understand that the positive anymore is a highly unusual grammatical form, and I understand that it's an odd construction. But you're not getting any traction by telling me that simply by including the "anymore" that it created a negative sentence, or that double negatives always mean a positive.
You can't argue against 21st century linguistics with 18th century grammarian bullshit. It's like trying to tell a chemist that they're wrong, because they disagree with your alchemy.
Then you may take it that I disagree with the argument as you have so nicely explained it.
You can't disagree with my argument, as it is the consensus of the linguistic community. It's like saying that Newtonian physics is correct, and Relativistic physics is wrong. We have documented evidence that states quite clearly who is right and who is wrong. Hint: YOUR SIDE IS WRONG.
Then to you the phrases "I have never understood" and "I have never misunderstood" have the same meaning? Interesting.
This is not a case of negative concordance. "I have a book" and "I don't have no books," however is a case of negative concordance, and has identical meaning to "I don't have any books." It's all in the register/dialect's choice of how a negative concordance is met.
The same arbitrary choice dynamics shows up with the argument that "to be" should always have nominative arguments on both sides, "It is I" instead of "It is me". Except that French requires the oblique case "C'est moi", and Polish requires the instrumental case. "by mdrym" not "*by mdry". The logical argument "'to be' is an equal sign, so both sides must agree in case" is born out of grammarians from the 18th century competing for the most number of rules for speakers to follow.
Guess what? Science and study has advanced a long ways since then... and the overwhelming evidence from other languages states that much of the "logic" employed by these grammarians was faulty, and fallacious.
No, it's really not. If that's the way you use it then good for you, you understand what you're saying. I do not believe that the general use of this phrase in American English is sarcastic.
And this comes from all your experience as a linguist and deep study of American English? Let me tell you something, as a person who actually speaks American English... THE SENTENCE IS SARCASTIC.
See, there's this whole field of linguistics beyond phonology and morphology, semantics and syntax. It's called "pragmatics". And it deals with things that are simply understood by speakers, without them being said.
And they claim that the British are so much more keenly aware of sarcasm than Americans...
Then as I said before, your dialect and mine are clearly moving apart in terms of mutual intelligibility.
And as I stated before, "I'm sorry we speak a different dialect."
However, despite us speaking different dialects, double negation through negation concordance is scientifically known to not cancel itself out.
There aren't many people who speak your dialect of "mentally challenged."
Funny that the Oxford English Dictionary would seem to affirm the use of a positive anymore, but then obviously, you're the authority here, and since your dialect and register says it is wrong, that must mean it is wrong for all dialects and registers.
Are you unfamiliar with the phrasing "X makes a nonsense of Y" ?
I think we would say, "X makes nonsense of Y".
... which strictly means the opposite of that which the speaker intends.
Again, as I already explained, this is a fallacious argument. Double negatives, and indeed in some languages negative concordance requires all words that can negate to be negative. This does not change the meaning from the original single negative.While you could consider "Je n'ai pas" to be a concordance in the positive, the sentence "On ne voit jamais aucune perfection." clearly uses negative concordance in the negative.
The whole notion that "two negatives make a positive" is logical fallacy.
The usual exemplar of this is the aforementioned "could care less", but it seems to be spreading.
This is not a case of what you seem to be inventing as "dropped negative". This is a case of SARCASTIC TONE.
The usual argument I hear in defense of strange constructs like that is that the meaning is still clear. Here it was not.
I'm sorry that we speak a different dialect. The meaning was clear enough to me, despite sounding odd.
Well, consider me educated, though it still reads like a grammatical nonsense.
In American English, we would say "like grammatical nonsense". Nonsense being considered something like water... uncountable. I'm curious, would you say "much nonsense", or "many nonsenses"?
Are you actually defending the use of double negatives in English as well? That they are valid in one language does not make them correct in another.
English already uses negative concordance, we just don't see our concordances as negative. It is ungrammatical to say "I have any books." Yet the negative of "I have books" is "I don't have any books." Clearly, the "any" there is simply to coordinate with the negative of the sentence, much like you expected "anymore" to concord with a negative sentence.
So, the only reason we don't consider English to use double negatives is only because the negative concordances that we have invented to avoid double negatives out of some fallacious argument about "logic".
I am well aware that many registers of English, particularly the formal registers of all native English groups consider the double negative to be poor form. That does not however make the forms ungrammatical.
As the person above you was capable of understanding, and even linked to, it's a positive anymore.
The sentence is a positive one, and NOT a negative sentence. You can yell "fire" in a crowded theater in the United States. Or did you just not even read the quoted text that I had copied from Wikipedia? The "anymore" means "since the ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio".
And if you're going to start shitting on the double negative, then you need to check your credentials at the door, because any number of languages require negation for every word that can negate. (French's simplest negation even requires a double negative.)
Slashdot Mirror
What the link doesn't tell you is that for models produced in 2000, the fix is to replace the struts with static ones. Which admittedly work perfectly fine for the purpose of preventing the injuries.
Link is strictly for 2002 models, and explicitly states that the intended repair is to replace the strut and hinges. No mention of welding is indicated.
Only if you don't factor in the risk of deadly super-strains having free reins because vaccination regimes suppress all the more benign strains who could out-compete them.
Except that vaccines work quite efficiently, and are simply our own immune system being trained to fight them. Smallpox is eradicated, and polio is pinned down to only the poorest of countries. Vaccines if applied appropriately can wipe out a virus population, and we're essentially done dealing with it.
I honestly don't expect to see a more virulent strain of smallpox popping up in 500 years, because it's been eradicated.
... [it] still doesn't give vaccination proponents the right to call all vaccination opponents crackpots. Some are, but some arrive at their conclusions from quite different reasons and perspectives.
True, however, the reasons you are presenting are irrational and unrealistic though. It's like saying that killing making mammoths extinct will result in a super-mammoth appearing in the future. No. It's extinct.
The reason that we can't pin down all diseases like we have with polio and smallpox, is that not all diseases are exclusive to humans. That makes it difficult to contain, because vaccinating wild animals is unrealistic.
That being said, Japan went on a concerted effort to eradicate rabies from their islands, which was really only practical, because they are on islands. There is not a chance that Japan will have a super rabies pop up, because there is no rabies to evolve anymore. It's gone, poof.
Or, to put it another way, I do not want cattle and fish fed antibiotics as a preventative measure, even if it saves some cows' lives right now.
The use of antibiotics for anything but medical need for treatment of medical conditions is just a bad idea, whether it is in animals, or anti-bacterial soap.
For the exact same reason, I do not want mandatory inoculations either. Use them when needed to fight actual epidemics, but no more.
That is not how vaccines work. Vaccines train our immune systems which are adaptive systems. Two people with the same vaccine will not produce identical antibodies. And the antibodies don't kill the virus anyways, they only identify the virus for the white blood cells to attack. As a result, there is an evolutionary disconnect between the antibodies attaching, and the death of the cell. As such, the evolutionary response to the human immune system is muted.
And even if vaccines were able to produce superbugs, it would be an inevitable case then, because as the human population is killed off by a super virus, it breeds an immunity, or resistance in hosts, thus resulting in the entire domain of hosts being inhospitable towards the super virus.
However, you seem to be having a fundamental misunderstanding about the mechanism that vaccines work, and attempt to analogize it with antibacterial usage, which is not actually analogous. (It's like saying cars should be worried about crashing into mountains, because planes crash into mountains.) In the same way, use of bleach will not breed bleach-resistant super bugs. It's just not how their mechanism of action works.
Actual recall by Ford for certain Ford and Mercury models.
I've done an initial search to attempt to validate this claim, however I can't seem to find anything readily. If you wouldn't mind providing a link to it so that I can evaluate it.
But is it reasonable for the doctor to say "you won't let me treat you for a potential X, so I refuse to treat you for an actual Y or Z either".
As long as Y and Z are not life-threatening conditions. Yes. If you refuse well-supported medical advice, then they should be under no compulsion to continue treating you.
Calling vaccines the equivalent of welding something shut so that it can't open, so that it can't fall on someone is entirely inappropriate. Vaccines are known to be effective, and the risks from side-effects are minuscule compared to the risks from what they are vaccinating against. And if you fail to acknowledge something that is harming not only yourself, but the entire population, then what good are you? How does he know if he recommends taking your antibiotics until they are exhausted, rather than just until you feel well, that you will actually take your antibiotics appropriately. How does he know that when he prescribes vicodin or oxycodone with directions not to take it with tylenol that you won't disregard his advice, and shut down your liver from an acetaminophen overdose?
It's like the brown m&m's clause from Van Halen... if you're not going to take overwhelming medical advice seriously, then why the hell are you going to go to a doctor in the first place?
We still vaccinate for polio in the US. The polio vaccine is just included with a couple of other vaccines. Polio hasn't been dead nearly as long as Smallpox has.
Looking up info from the CDC, yeah, we've only stopped oral vaccinations of polio. Probably, because we don't have to dose as many kids anymore.
And that's why US children no longer get a smallpox or polio vaccine. When the disease has been eradicated, we don't vaccinate against it anymore.
Polio vaccine is not eradicated. It's still endemic in south Asia and Nigeria. And according to the CDC, children in the US are still vaccinated against polio (which makes sense, since it's not eradicated).
I didn't say that polio has been eradicated globally. But the cdc says, "OPV has not been used in the United States since 2000 but is still used in many parts of the world."
I suppose I mistook them not using the oral version, for not using any of it. Although, usually, if you're from the US, and you're heading to a place where polio is still common, you will get a new vaccination.
they will still sue for patent infringement merely by it being present without being purchased. Lookup Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser if you don't believe me.
Very well, let's look it up.
In 1997, Percy Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan, discovered that a section of one of his fields contained canola that was resistant to herbicide Roundup. A farmhand later harvested and saved the seed from this area, which was used to replant in 1998. That harvest was sold for feed. During 1998, over 95% of Schmeiser's canola crop of approximately 1,000 acres (4 km) was identified as the Roundup Ready variety.
Oh, it appears that Schmeiser didn't just have the gene show up in his crop, but he exploited the fact that it showed up in his crop, and went ahead and planted his whole crop with the gene infestation.
For comparison, this would be like (not just kind of similar, but almost exactly the same as) suing someone for copyright infringement after finding a copy of your virus on their system, which they did not put there, and then winning.
No, a proper comparison, is that someone found a scripting virus on their computer system, and then used code from the virus in order to make their own product.
Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser was not "I accidentally got contaminated and Monsanto sued me", it was a case of "I accidentally got contaminated and EXPLOITED THE CONTAMINATION to my own gain."
If I was given a search like that in the EU I'd walk away and make a fuss -- but in the EU I'm confident of my rights, and my citizenship. But what could I have done on my way home after a business trip to the USA?
Well, as an EU citizen, you could have chosen to be arrested as a terrorist... oh... I made myself sad. :(
BTW, some of these diseases really are quite extinct in the US.
And that's why US children no longer get a smallpox or polio vaccine. When the disease has been eradicated, we don't vaccinate against it anymore. However, the stuff we're still vaccinating for is still kicking, and that's why we still vaccinate for it!
Tin-foil comes in maroon? Can I get it in purple instead?
On a side note, I agree that it's the doctors' right to see what patients they want (as long as the decision is not based on certain criteria like race/color/religion/gender/etc). Stupidity is not a protected group.
No less, it's reasonable for a doctor to be able to refuse to treat a patient who continuously refuses treatment. At that point, the doctor is simply saying, well, if you don't want me to treat you, then I won't treat you.
Apparently, you did not read the entire article at all.
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Despite Schenck being limited, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.
Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater cannot be criminal anymore in the United States, because it no longer meets the NEW BAR, established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, for infringing upon Free Speech. As it does not incite people to imminent lawless action.
Why is the post Insightful? Because it corrects misinformation that people continue to spread.
'I could care less' clearly grew out of 'I couldn't care less' via an accidental dropping of the negative, not out of a sarcastic twist. Users of 'I could care less' may well nowadays (anymore?) justify it by saying it is sarcastic, and indeed that would make it sarcastic nowadays (anymore? - am I getting the hang of this), but it was obviously originally a mistake, and I can't really see how 'I could care less' is any more sarcastic than 'I couldn't care less' anyway.
And you know this from your extensive linguistic studies of the English language do you? Many linguistics agree with my assessment of the situation. In fact, my assessment of the situation is not my own, but based on linguists who actually have studied this matter.
Surely with double negatives, most of the time it does resolve to a positive in English (your examples using other languages are interesting but irrelevant) but we all know when a speaker isn't meaning it to. I couldn't care less about your linguistic theory, if you say I haven't got no books, then you sound thick, and you sound thick because you haven't used the language correctly (ain't not used it incorrectly?).
NO, it does not "automatically" resolve to a positive. "I don't have no books" does not resolve to a positive anymore than "3 - x - y" resolves to "3 + x + y". Negation is distributive across all elements of a sentence. This is a well known feature called "negative concordance". There are a selection of words that are only used in negative sentences (by most people) case in point the original "anymore" that kicked off this whole debate. But just because the "anymore" no longer looks like a negative, does not mean that it is not there solely as a result of the sentence being negative.
The cases where two negatives make a positive, is when they compound directly upon each other.
I'm curious about the 'positive anymore' but something in me, and it seems most speakers, seems to rail against it, I think it's something to do with the 'more' part that seems to require a negative to set it up although I can't quite justify saying the 'positive anymore' is wrong.
What is railing against it in your head is that "anymore" is only allowed in a negative sentence. It's a negative concordance, and it is dictated in order to ensure that the word complies with the form of a negative sentence. It "appears" to be positive, because it does not actually contain a negating word, but in fact, it is a word that indicates a negative sentence, and thus it is itself a negative element of the sentence.
It's like some person in the past decided that there should only be one negative in an algebraic sequence, and that all other negatives in the sequence should be represented with, let's say "~". As such, the sequence "3 - x - y" would be viewed as "uncouth" and should PROPERLY be represented as "3 - x ~ y", because otherwise the two negatives would cancel each other out. Except that the negatives never did cancel each other out, and the "~" symbol for subtraction would itself be a negative component of the sentence regardless of any claims that it is "positive".
The whole fact that my sentence employs the "positive anymore" as opposed to the most widely used "negative anymore" should indicate that it is a negating element of the sentence.
Shoot, Nursie was even complaining that he apparently understands the sentence to be a simple negative, because the "anymore" has to be used in a negative sentence, and thus for Nursie, "anymore" is a negative word, so "I haven't seen him anymore" is a double negative, which should cancel to a positive!
I understand your algebra and what you are trying to say, I just don't really agree that it's good grammar to say "I have not misunderstood nothing", regardless of whether the conveyed meaning is the same.
IT'S NOT GRAMMAR... it's STYLE. And I could give a shit if you think that it's grammar, because it's not. IT'S STYLE.
Irregardless, this is not the main issue.
You're doing that on purpose.
No, my argument is that double negatives in English are often a case of bad grammar.
My point is that it's NOT BAD GRAMMAR. It is rather poor style. Just because using your desert fork for your salad is improper and bad manners, does not make it an application of the wrong tool. They're both forks, and it's merely etiquette that determines which to use and where.
I humbly disagree. There may have been sarcasm in the original usage of "I could care less", but now it is said unthinkingly as an idiom meaning that someone doesn't care.
The original sarcasm does not vaporize simply because it is not rigorously intoned anymore. The sarcasm was there to begin with, and the sarcasm has been enshrined in the pragmatics surrounding the idiom.
Didn't say it was, don't agree that that makes it in the slightest bit relevant to English, which has strong Germanic roots as well as others languages, and don't even think it that relevant anyway.
Most other Germanic languages struggle with the exact same double negative "problem" that English does. Namely, people constantly use the double negative, because it's not actually ungrammatical. It's purely style and etiquette that determines the proper usage, not GRAMMAR. But then grammarians are so stupidly backwater anymore having been left behind by 2 centuries of linguistic studies that they frequently mistake orthographic errors, and style errors as "grammar".
My initial response was that in light of other Americanisms by other people in which the negative is dropped, I found it very hard to understand what you were saying.
Let me help you with this one. Unless it's sarcastic, or pragmatically sarcastic idiom, then it is not a case of the negative "being dropped".
I've never come across 'positive anymore' before. Does everyone use it in your parts?
Honestly? *shrug* I have no idea. To me it sounds odd, but grammatical. Honestly, I had never heard about "positive anymore" until another poster posted a link to the wikipedia article. Rather, when I was writing the post, it just seemed like the best choice for what I wanted to portray. Combined with the fairly typical lack of proofreading on slashdot, it went out. Maybe I would have changed it or drafted a better and more clear version if I had proofread. We may never know.
I do know that my dad used "anymore" and "yet" very oddly...
What you wrote wasn't clear to me, but guessing that you mean "people are able to shout fire":
Yes, you can shout fire, but if you do it when you know there isn't a fire that will be a crime.
No, you are not correct anymore. Since Brandenburg v. Ohio it can no longer be criminal to say something that recklessly endangers another person. In order for speech to be criminal in the United States anymore, it must present a call to imminent lawless action (such as a riot). The problem with "shouting fire in a crowded theater" was that by analogy, it was being used against pacifists distributing literature opposing a draft.
Can you just clear up what you meant by it? The way I understand it then "I will do it anymore" it should be the closed interval beginning from now and continuing forever into the future (Wikipedia says "from now on"). Right? So what I don't get is did you mean that this is now true but wasn't true before or that this was always true?
Indeed, prior to Brandenburg v. Ohio, it was illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. However, since Brandenburg v. Ohio, it is no longer illegal.
"3 - x - y" make a positive, and so it should equal 6.
Provided x = 2, and y = 1... which was the first draft that I wrote, and didn't proofread before posting the amended version...
It looks like you and I see language in vastly different ways, which makes sense as I'm used to evaluating statements in computer language and thinking in line with strict grammars in which tokens have meaning. Perhaps we differ there.
I've come up with a better example provided this paragraph.
Saying "I don't have no books" is like "3 - x - y". You would never argue that the two negatives in "3 - x - y" make a positive, and so it should equal 6. Saying "I don't have any books" is like "3 - (x + y)". Obviously "3 - (x + y)" is equivalent to "3 - x - y", even though the later contains a double negative.
Now, unlike the prior paragraph, saying "I have not misunderstood" is like "3 - (-x)". As "misunderstood" contains a morphological negation it is at a different level which is expanded by the "not".
Saying "I have not misunderstood nothing." is like saying "3 - (-x) - y", whilc "I have not misunderstood anything" is like saying "3 - (-x + y)". The two statements are clearly equivalent, and hopefully since you claim to be able to parse strict grammars, I hope that you can clearly understand what is negated to a positive and what is simply a negative concordance.
Your argument is similar to arguing that you can murder someone by shooting them repeatedly in the chest and face in the middle of the busy city centre.
No, it's not.
Sure, you can. But it's illegal. So is shouting "fire" in the theatre.
In the United States, no, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is NOT illegal, or criminal. So, let me rephrase, "In the United States, one may shout 'fire' in a crowded theater."
You'll just be liable for damages. Just like with the fire shouting.
You can always be held liable for damages that you cause. Whether the action were criminal or illegal. As long as you were the proximal cause of the injury, and the other side can show negligence, recklessness, or intent to commit the act or omission, then you can be held liable for the damages.
Dropping flour barrels out of the top floor of your warehouse is neither illegal nor criminal. However, if it hits someone, you're going to be responsible for the harm caused. Selling coffee so hot that it can cause 3rd degree burns in 5 seconds is neither illegal nor criminal. However, if it does cause 3rd degree burns upon contacting someone's skin, you're going to be responsible for the harm caused.
Of course I can disagree with it, unless you're contending that there is an absolute right and wrong in language? Something deeply unfashionable in linguistics these days I believe.
There are rights and wrongs in language. For instance, we know for sure that "language is a Markov chain" is wrong. The same that we know that caloric theory is wrong.
Your argument that double negatives must make a positive statement is fallacious, because language does not work that way.
It looks like you and I see language in vastly different ways, which makes sense as I'm used to evaluating statements in computer language and thinking in line with strict grammars in which tokens have meaning. Perhaps we differ there.
I'm equally accustomed to computer languages as well. But I understand that natural language is not definable by the same grammar definitions used by computer languages.
Regardless of whatever model one designs to explain the world, if the actual evidence from the real world conflicts with that model, then the model is wrong.
Your model is CLEARLY wrong.
No, it's a case of a double negative meaning a positive, something you said was a fallacy.
I said that the argument that double negatives always mean a positive is a fallacious argument. Go read about the "fallacy fallacy". My statement does not mean that the conclusion is false, or that no evidence can ever be brought that the conclusion is true. Rather, it means solely that the logical argument cannot be trusted to be true.
Take for example an argument: "all animals are mammals." This is clearly a fallacious argument, because there are clearly animals that are not mammals (reptiles and avians as simple token counter-examples). Yet, pointing out "but raccoon are animals, and they're mammals!" will not suddenly make the argument valid.
Your argument is that all double negatives are positives. I provide a counter-example from numerous languages that demonstrate that double negatives in a negative concordance can be equivalent to a simple negative. I have supplied the necessary counter example to your argument. Provide all the supporting arguments that you wish, your argument must apply to all double negatives, and it doesn't.
Yes, and I'm keenly aware that the construct is used without a hint of sarcasm.
Then you need your brain checked, because it's clearly sarcastic.
It doesn't cancel out the intent of the speaker, if that is the speakers intent, certainly.
Intent, schmintent. Double negatives through negative concordance are proper grammatical forms in many languages, which provide all the counter examples you need to invalidate the argument that a double negative is always a positive.
As you say, pragmatics, which brings us back to the my original comment, your use of positive "anymore" is not pragmatic and I'm clearly not the only one thrown by it.
You're fucking throwing around words that you don't even understand anymore. I understand that the positive anymore is a highly unusual grammatical form, and I understand that it's an odd construction. But you're not getting any traction by telling me that simply by including the "anymore" that it created a negative sentence, or that double negatives always mean a positive.
You can't argue against 21st century linguistics with 18th century grammarian bullshit. It's like trying to tell a chemist that they're wrong, because they disagree with your alchemy.
Correct, I'm glad you agree.
-1 for your trolling here... you've made it far too obvious.
Then you may take it that I disagree with the argument as you have so nicely explained it.
You can't disagree with my argument, as it is the consensus of the linguistic community. It's like saying that Newtonian physics is correct, and Relativistic physics is wrong. We have documented evidence that states quite clearly who is right and who is wrong. Hint: YOUR SIDE IS WRONG.
Then to you the phrases "I have never understood" and "I have never misunderstood" have the same meaning? Interesting.
This is not a case of negative concordance. "I have a book" and "I don't have no books," however is a case of negative concordance, and has identical meaning to "I don't have any books." It's all in the register/dialect's choice of how a negative concordance is met.
The same arbitrary choice dynamics shows up with the argument that "to be" should always have nominative arguments on both sides, "It is I" instead of "It is me". Except that French requires the oblique case "C'est moi", and Polish requires the instrumental case. "by mdrym" not "*by mdry". The logical argument "'to be' is an equal sign, so both sides must agree in case" is born out of grammarians from the 18th century competing for the most number of rules for speakers to follow.
Guess what? Science and study has advanced a long ways since then... and the overwhelming evidence from other languages states that much of the "logic" employed by these grammarians was faulty, and fallacious.
No, it's really not. If that's the way you use it then good for you, you understand what you're saying. I do not believe that the general use of this phrase in American English is sarcastic.
And this comes from all your experience as a linguist and deep study of American English? Let me tell you something, as a person who actually speaks American English... THE SENTENCE IS SARCASTIC.
See, there's this whole field of linguistics beyond phonology and morphology, semantics and syntax. It's called "pragmatics". And it deals with things that are simply understood by speakers, without them being said.
And they claim that the British are so much more keenly aware of sarcasm than Americans...
Then as I said before, your dialect and mine are clearly moving apart in terms of mutual intelligibility.
And as I stated before, "I'm sorry we speak a different dialect."
However, despite us speaking different dialects, double negation through negation concordance is scientifically known to not cancel itself out.
There aren't many people who speak your dialect of "mentally challenged."
Funny that the Oxford English Dictionary would seem to affirm the use of a positive anymore, but then obviously, you're the authority here, and since your dialect and register says it is wrong, that must mean it is wrong for all dialects and registers.
Are you unfamiliar with the phrasing "X makes a nonsense of Y" ?
I think we would say, "X makes nonsense of Y".
... which strictly means the opposite of that which the speaker intends.
Again, as I already explained, this is a fallacious argument. Double negatives, and indeed in some languages negative concordance requires all words that can negate to be negative. This does not change the meaning from the original single negative.While you could consider "Je n'ai pas" to be a concordance in the positive, the sentence "On ne voit jamais aucune perfection." clearly uses negative concordance in the negative.
The whole notion that "two negatives make a positive" is logical fallacy.
The usual exemplar of this is the aforementioned "could care less", but it seems to be spreading.
This is not a case of what you seem to be inventing as "dropped negative". This is a case of SARCASTIC TONE.
The usual argument I hear in defense of strange constructs like that is that the meaning is still clear. Here it was not.
I'm sorry that we speak a different dialect. The meaning was clear enough to me, despite sounding odd.
Well, consider me educated, though it still reads like a grammatical nonsense.
In American English, we would say "like grammatical nonsense". Nonsense being considered something like water... uncountable. I'm curious, would you say "much nonsense", or "many nonsenses"?
Are you actually defending the use of double negatives in English as well? That they are valid in one language does not make them correct in another.
English already uses negative concordance, we just don't see our concordances as negative. It is ungrammatical to say "I have any books." Yet the negative of "I have books" is "I don't have any books." Clearly, the "any" there is simply to coordinate with the negative of the sentence, much like you expected "anymore" to concord with a negative sentence.
So, the only reason we don't consider English to use double negatives is only because the negative concordances that we have invented to avoid double negatives out of some fallacious argument about "logic".
I am well aware that many registers of English, particularly the formal registers of all native English groups consider the double negative to be poor form. That does not however make the forms ungrammatical.
As the person above you was capable of understanding, and even linked to, it's a positive anymore.
The sentence is a positive one, and NOT a negative sentence. You can yell "fire" in a crowded theater in the United States. Or did you just not even read the quoted text that I had copied from Wikipedia? The "anymore" means "since the ruling in Brandenburg v. Ohio".
And if you're going to start shitting on the double negative, then you need to check your credentials at the door, because any number of languages require negation for every word that can negate. (French's simplest negation even requires a double negative.)