Apple wins! Jobs always wanted developers in a "exclusivity" arrangement. Adobe busted out and supported Windows as Apple floundered. Jobs always wanted to set an example to those who leave the village. Looks like Apple's refusal to allow flash on mobile will teach all the villagers a lesson. Who is number one? Apple is!
Does more compact folding mean better?
Or does faster folding mean better?
What is meant by better folding? Does is look like what they can get from x-ray crystallography ?
They have to. Some really talented engineers could re-imagine google search fairly easily. At this point, they have to pay them not to jump ship and become competitors. Google was both "the search engine" and "the best search engine". They are rapidly becoming a shopping site and "karma whores" have gamed their ranking algorithms. What you are looking for is no longer in the top 3 google results. I wouldn't be surprised if facebook or Apple took a run an their core business.
What do you say the relative of someone who had a vaccine and immediately became crippled and couldn't walk because the reaction damaged their inner-ear? Just co-incidence? No p-value with a sample of one? Would you make them take that vaccine? Or let 'em slide on this one? I'm not sure your government regulations would deal with this case.
The immune system is an organ like the muscles, brain and heart. Putting a little stress on these organs is actually good. Just because the autism/vaccine fiasco was fraud doesn't invalidate all concerns. For instance the school system forcing girls to get "anti-cancer" vaccines when there is an effect alternative (i.e. "dont' be a promiscuous"). The parents can make that choice ... or the kid when she becomes a teenager.
If polio or small-pox are threats, certainly the good out weighs the bad. But chicken-pox? Not so clear cut. AIDS? Again, don't sleep around and dont jab things in your body and you won't get AIDS.
> The immune system is an organ like the muscles, brain and heart. Putting a little stress on these organs is actually good.
That kind of armchair immunology and microbiology would exactly be prevented by harsher regulations. This analogy and hunch might not just hurt your child, but if your child gets infected, they could infect infants at a doctors office who have not yet gotten their immunizations.
> For instance the school system forcing girls to get "anti-cancer" vaccines when there is an effect alternative (i.e. "dont' be a promiscuous").
OK agree with you there, however there is no easy way to prevent many of these infectious diseases.
re no need for a hypothetical aids vaccine (or the cervical cancer one) if you don't "sleep around" or take drugs:
I assume that you've never heard about rape? Or for that matter coming into contact with HIV positive blood in an accident, or any other infection vector?
"jab things into your body" is not the only such vector. There is also "having things jabbed into your body" (a subtle but important distinction).
Your post implies that if someone is infected with the HIV virus it's their own fault. This assumption is toxic, and makes people more hesitant to apply resources towards trying to treat and cure people with this disease.
It's like telling a person with lung cancer that "It's your own damn fault for smoking" when it is perfectly possible to develop lung cancer without ever having a smoke.
>What do you say the relative of someone who had a vaccine and immediately became crippled and couldn't walk because the reaction damaged their inner-ear?
The same thing you say to the person who got struck by lightning five times. On a societal level, you work with the 99.99999%.
>The immune system is an organ like the muscles, brain and heart. Putting a little stress on these organs is actually good.
Just to verify: you took one bio course as a college underclassman and you think that makes you an immunologist.
Clarification: I did not take any undergraduate biology courses.
You don't need prestige academic credentials to read about it in the popular press, type in some search terms, and come up with this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis . There is no checking of your SAT scores or college GPA or anything inorder to do this, so give it a try. They may track you via cookies, but I recommend taking a chance.
I mean, famously the popular press and internet provide a totally infallible account of information.
Here's the scoop. I did take undergraduate biology courses. I studied biochemistry to bachelors and masters degree level, and I can tell you for absolutely nothing that the "popular media's" interpretation of science is pretty frequently bordering irresponsible. The media is there to sell papers.
Your analysis of the need-case for an AIDS (and HPV) vaccine is ignorant and frankly offensive.
For starters, blatant homophobia. Risk of AIDS is hardly limited to illegal drug users and gays. Medical professionals and police officers are fairly often exposed to blood (and other bodily fluids), either accidentally or intentionally, in the process of dealing professionally with people at higher than normal risk of carrying AIDS (or other infectious agents).
It's called the hygiene hypothesis, not the vaccine hypothesis. Let's take a look:
>In medicine, the Hygiene Hypothesis states that a lack of early childhood exposure to infectious agents, symbiotic microorganisms (e.g., gut flora or probiotics)
Okay, so if you've had the chicken pox vaccine, your immune system has been exposed to infectious agents -- just inactivated ones! The kind that don't cause shingles. Vaccines do stimulate an immune response, after all.
The article you linked contains precisely one reference to vaccination.
>Th2 immune disorders such as asthma and other allergic diseases are probably related to the hygiene hypothesis. A baby has many Th2 cells, which stimulate the production of antibodies. When not sufficiently stimulated with early life diseases, the immune system will have too many Th2 cells present, leading to a greater risk of Th2 immune disorder. If a child is exposed to infection diseases then the cell defense will be stimulated via Th1 cells causing a reduction of Th2 cells and subsequently a reduction of antibody stimulation by Th2 and therefore a lower risk of developing an allergic disease such as asthma. Unfortunately, vaccination only uses the Th2 mechanism.
Interesting. I wonder if there's some data to back this up?
>There is no association between diphtheria, tetanus and whole cell pertussis vaccine, oral polio vaccine or measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the risk of asthma. The weak associations for Hib and hepatitis B vaccines seem to be at least partially accounted for by health care utilization or information bias.
This was a study with n > 100000. That's a good study. Apparently vaccines don't cause athsma.
On the other hand, there actually appears to be some hope that vaccines can fight athsma:
>Active vaccination against IL-5 reduces key pathological events associated with asthma, such as Th2 cytokine production, airways inflammation, and hyperresponsiveness, and thus represents a novel therapeutic approach for the treatment of asthma and other allergic conditions.
Excellent points. Much appreciated. My point is that just dealing with the flu, chicken pox, some transient herpesvirae infections, etc by letting the body's defences deal with it without actively vaccinating against them might be the best way to deal with problem. Often the body develops memory cells to defeat later similar infections on it's own. I am not convinced that the notion that we might over-vaccinate has been disproven.
Yes? But it presents a much smaller attack surface (as compared to the attack surface presented by the set of applications you might otherwise run under a sandbox). And it's maintained/secured by one vendor instead of the set of vendors that distribute the applications you might otherwise run under the sandbox.
