My point was that the article made statements that it failed to back-up. I didn't say that the statements couldn't be backed-up, just that Wired didn't do it, and that's crap.
So... I'm pretty sure that I'm not the loon here...
You might actually read what I wrote, but, by all means, feel free to prove who the loon is. :)
I didn't say anything about whether or not vaccinations are good or bad.
(Except where I stated that there isn't a link between autism and the MMR vaccine.)
Pointing out faulty logic on one side doesn't mean I'm all for the other side.
But that's OK. I even tolerate nutters like you. You just have to accept that one of the consequences of free speech is more speech, especially by people who have no idea what they're talking about.
First, the Wired article wasn't about controversial vaccinations, or the debate about them. The article was about people who think that certain vaccinations cause autism, and how crazy they are.
Second, 'that woman' is not the face for anti-vaccination. Most people who don't vaccinate want nothing to do with her, for obvious reasons. She is the face of about one-third of the people who are affected by autism. That's not a large portion of the autism people, and the autism people are an already small segment of the anti-vaccination people.
If Wired had done their homework, they would see that the largest autism support groups, and their members, don't believe that vaccinations have anything to do with autism, and that they support vaccinations. We just don't get as much press time as crazy dried-up celebrities, which is very unfortunate for the majority of people that are affected by autism, who are quite sane, thank you.
Third, that article is pretty crappy. They didn't do their homework, and they took the easiest path to selling magazines. It went from 'This guy has proved that the MMR/autism link isn't real.' to 'So you see, all vaccinations are great for all children, no matter what, and people who don't 100% trust pharmaceutical companies are as crazy as 'that woman'.'. That leap is bad science and bad logic.
The article pretty much said that the only objection to vaccinating is the alleged risk of autism, and that there's no risk of autism, so everyone who doesn't want to vaccinate, who wants to vaccinate on a slower schedule, or who wants to skip certain vaccinations is crazy, like a certain dried-up celebrity, who has fewer brain cells than she's had plastic surgeries.
Well, proving that the MMR doesn't cause autism (which has been done) is a long shot from proving that all vaccines are great and everyone should have them, and I think it's crap that Wired took the low road on this.
It takes a minimum number of employees to sort and deliver your mail. There's not a staffing difference between 500 and 1500, but there's a huge profit difference there...
Advertising is already expensive, and people have been doing less of it, meaning less money for USPS. If you raise prices more, more people will stop using it, leading to less profitability, not more. That's the opposite of what they want to do.
I know that it took the time before last stamp price being raised for my store owner to finally give into my pleases to use MailChimp to send targeted e-mails at $0.07 each, instead of $0.40 each, plus the cost of printing and paper. Now he's a convert to the Internet. Cheaper and better response.
Anyway, the point is that raising prices for adverts is going to cut profitability for USPS and raise the amount of advertising mail in your e-mail inbox. Bad for everyone.
They don't have a monopoly on mailboxes. I'm absolutely allowed to add additional boxes on my property for anyone I want to use in any way I want. whether it's a small box for a newspaper (fat chance) or a large box for deliveries (woot, books).
I think the line makes sense. If someone sues YouTube for their content, Big Media is much more likely to to step up and help prove that it's not porn. Small Media just doesn't have the same resources.
Further, it's really easy to say 'This has educational and/or scientific merit.' or 'This does not have educational and/or scientific merit.'. It's really, really hard to say 'This is art.' or 'This is not art.'.
No, porn is the depiction of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual excitement. Boobs and penetration both count, under that definition. Now, personally, I don't have a problem with pornography at all, but what you and I might consider okay, other people flip out about.
I think that, if I were YouTube, the answer would be a definite NO. It's very hard to draw a line between artful nudity and pornography, and YouTube is having enough trouble as it is.
"...her music is being pirated...writers and performers are being ripped off."
It's possible that she owns the rights to her music, but most writers and performers whose works are being shared do not. So, you should amend your statement to the following:
...the record label's music is being pirated...the record label is being ripped off.".
On the post: Are Anonymous Comments Evil?
Re: AC First, register second.
On the post: Reporting On Someone Claiming An Opponent 'Lies' In A Heated Debate Is Not Libel
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Reporting On Someone Claiming An Opponent 'Lies' In A Heated Debate Is Not Libel
Re: OK.
My point was that the article made statements that it failed to back-up. I didn't say that the statements couldn't be backed-up, just that Wired didn't do it, and that's crap.
So... I'm pretty sure that I'm not the loon here...
You might actually read what I wrote, but, by all means, feel free to prove who the loon is. :)
On the post: Court Rejects PA DAs Attempt To Charge Teens For Sexting Themselves
Re: Sexting themselves
Some of the parents preferred to actually parent their children themselves.
You're upset that they wanted to raise their own children, as opposed to letting the government do that for them?
On the post: Reporting On Someone Claiming An Opponent 'Lies' In A Heated Debate Is Not Libel
Re: Re:
I didn't say anything about whether or not vaccinations are good or bad.
(Except where I stated that there isn't a link between autism and the MMR vaccine.)
Pointing out faulty logic on one side doesn't mean I'm all for the other side.
But that's OK. I even tolerate nutters like you. You just have to accept that one of the consequences of free speech is more speech, especially by people who have no idea what they're talking about.
On the post: Reporting On Someone Claiming An Opponent 'Lies' In A Heated Debate Is Not Libel
Second, 'that woman' is not the face for anti-vaccination. Most people who don't vaccinate want nothing to do with her, for obvious reasons. She is the face of about one-third of the people who are affected by autism. That's not a large portion of the autism people, and the autism people are an already small segment of the anti-vaccination people.
If Wired had done their homework, they would see that the largest autism support groups, and their members, don't believe that vaccinations have anything to do with autism, and that they support vaccinations. We just don't get as much press time as crazy dried-up celebrities, which is very unfortunate for the majority of people that are affected by autism, who are quite sane, thank you.
Third, that article is pretty crappy. They didn't do their homework, and they took the easiest path to selling magazines. It went from 'This guy has proved that the MMR/autism link isn't real.' to 'So you see, all vaccinations are great for all children, no matter what, and people who don't 100% trust pharmaceutical companies are as crazy as 'that woman'.'. That leap is bad science and bad logic.
The article pretty much said that the only objection to vaccinating is the alleged risk of autism, and that there's no risk of autism, so everyone who doesn't want to vaccinate, who wants to vaccinate on a slower schedule, or who wants to skip certain vaccinations is crazy, like a certain dried-up celebrity, who has fewer brain cells than she's had plastic surgeries.
Well, proving that the MMR doesn't cause autism (which has been done) is a long shot from proving that all vaccines are great and everyone should have them, and I think it's crap that Wired took the low road on this.
Anyway, that's my seventy-five cents.
On the post: Overwhelming Majority Of EU Parliament Votes Against ACTA
On the post: Cutting Saturday Mail Delivery? Sure, If It Makes Good Business Sense.
Re: Saturday Delivery is a FEATURE
On the post: Cutting Saturday Mail Delivery? Sure, If It Makes Good Business Sense.
Re: Re: Re: Lets see.
On the post: Cutting Saturday Mail Delivery? Sure, If It Makes Good Business Sense.
Re: Lets see.
I know that it took the time before last stamp price being raised for my store owner to finally give into my pleases to use MailChimp to send targeted e-mails at $0.07 each, instead of $0.40 each, plus the cost of printing and paper. Now he's a convert to the Internet. Cheaper and better response.
Anyway, the point is that raising prices for adverts is going to cut profitability for USPS and raise the amount of advertising mail in your e-mail inbox. Bad for everyone.
On the post: Cutting Saturday Mail Delivery? Sure, If It Makes Good Business Sense.
Re: the USPS as a business? not so sure
On the post: Judge Orders Satirical Site To Remove Joke Story About Fictional Giraffe Attack
SarcMarc!
Oh, wait, I might need one now...
On the post: Should YouTube Allow Artful Nudity?
Re: YouTube is a censor
On the post: Should YouTube Allow Artful Nudity?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Should YouTube Allow Artful Nudity?
Re: Re:
Further, it's really easy to say 'This has educational and/or scientific merit.' or 'This does not have educational and/or scientific merit.'. It's really, really hard to say 'This is art.' or 'This is not art.'.
On the post: Should YouTube Allow Artful Nudity?
Re:
On the post: Should YouTube Allow Artful Nudity?
Re: Re:
On the post: Should YouTube Allow Artful Nudity?
On the post: Confused Musician Threatens Google, Blog Because Her Works Are Found Elsewhere On The Internet
Re: Except...
It's possible that she owns the rights to her music, but most writers and performers whose works are being shared do not. So, you should amend your statement to the following:
...the record label's music is being pirated...the record label is being ripped off.".
On the post: Confused Musician Threatens Google, Blog Because Her Works Are Found Elsewhere On The Internet
Re: Reminds me of
Next >>