I do not see a correlation of level of intelligence and ability to work hard, especially it cannot be said of verse correlation. I do not believe that Intelligence cases man to be lazy and less prepared for challenges. On the contrary, intelligence helps man to cope with challenges and problems if he chooses to do so and has a strong character and mostly important desire and ambitions. Intelligence helps dealing with challenges efficiently and successfully.
I know that I will probably get down voted for voicing opinion against majority but I will go with it anyway. There are evidence that vaccination is not safe, contains mercury and has negative long term side effects. Also there are long lasting debates on whether the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the harm. I have looked at both sides of the argument and based on what I have read and concluded that I would not vaccinate myself or my kids(see my reasoning below).
Government cares only of the short term effect and keeping society from outbreaks of deceases where they are less concerned of long term effect that will be hard to link to any past vaccinations anyways. Even the fact the insurance companies do not cover vaccination due to possibility of severe side effects poses a question why?
The long trim effect of vaccine is not well studied yet. If you look at both sides of the argument, the major question is what side has more benefit for fighting. Pharmaceuticals make tons of money on vaccination and have tons of money to promote it including usage of science as well government policies. So looking at both sides where none have concrete scientifically proof on long term effect of vaccines, what side would you take thinking on benefits that each side might have in the argument as well as possessing knowledge of possible danger of vaccine including the fact that vaccine do not work 100% as well. So the ultimate question, would you put substance containing mercury in your body knowing that it will have side effect for sure what might be mild or severe in long term against some low chance possibility of getting diseases that your body will fight anyway and that having vaccinated might not even protect you against. Here is some more info for consideration: http://www.relfe.com/vaccine.html
I up-voted you because you are wrong, in the hopes that as many people as possible will give you reasons as to exactly how.
There is no grand conspiracy to make the world sick via vaccines to profit. If they are truly 'evil', both insurance and big pharma would benefit much, much more in not having people vaccinated and overpricing drugs every time there is a panic and a run on supplies, ala H1N1. Could you imagine the demand with today's media if there was a measles outbreak in a major city with many deaths?
There is no conspiracy.
As for mecury, you ingest much more of it every time you eat some fish. It is a fact of life.
With every medication, a certain percentage of people will experience side effects. People have died from taking aspirin after all. The point is that a major outbreak of a disease like measles, mumps, rubella, etc would be catastrophic for a large group of people. It is in all of our interests to do what we can to prevent this from happening, even if it means a small, small percentage suffer in the process.
Look at a history book. There is but one constant dread in every story: plague. Disease has culled populations quickly and dramatically in regular fashion for as long as humanity has existed. When is the last time you remember a major outbreak killing off half your neighbourhood? Exactly. That's due 100% to vaccinations.
Get vaccinated. Help yourself and your children; help our civilization survive the horrible effects of these diseases.
First of all, I was not referring to any conspiracy at all, it is simple business and benefit analysis unless you believe in idealistic and humanitarian business that only care about human well being(I am not saying they do not exist either).
Second, the mercury and heavy metals that fish you eat might contain are not injected into your blood and small amounts if any gets there.
Third, "According to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, childhood diseases decreased 90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved sanitation and hygienic practices, well before mandatory vaccination programs. Infectious disease deaths in the U.S. and England declined steadily by an average of about 80% during this century (measles mortality declined over 97%) prior to vaccinations.".
Once again I am not forcing you to believe in what I believe and made conclusion based on what I have read and reasoned so please do not attack me as an enemy of humanity I am just voicing my opinion and believe I have a valid argument. Though I like when people tell me that i am wrong, otherwise there will be no arguments and learning.
childhood diseases decreased 90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved sanitation and hygienic practices, well before mandatory vaccination programs
The polio vaccine's first mass vaccination campaign was in 1955, take a look at what happened to the incidence of polio: http://www.post-polio.org/ir-usa.html
Yes, and I just gave you a better business case to not vaccinate.
Second, the mercury and heavy metals that fish you eat might contain are not injected into your blood and small amounts if any gets there.
Fish are the number one source of Mercury poisoning incidents, according to the USEPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning#cite_note-EPA...). There is no protection offered from your digestion system against this heavy metal. Your argument is irrelevant here.
childhood diseases decreased 90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved sanitation and hygienic practices, well before mandatory vaccination programs
I think a lot of this disagreement could be cleared up if there were studies done on the long term effects of low doses of mercury.
Mercury is bioaccumalitive and so I think such studies are justified. Why is no one doing this?
Also from a business perspective if there is such concern about methylmercury in vaccines why doesn't someone bring to market vaccines that use a different (more natural?) preservative? It seems like this would be a win win all around.
Also I would avoid using wikipedia as a direct source.
Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines and other products since the 1930's. There is no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site.
However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.
You'll get downvoted not because you're voicing an opinion against the majority, but because you are wrong. While there are "studies" that say that you've repeated, not are scientifically reputable, in the sense of being repeatable experiments with repeatable results conducted in a scientifically rigorous way to eliminate extraneous variables.
What you are doing to your kids is an insult to mine, and I will continue to fight those who oppose vaccinations until you lose.
All of your arguments have been fully and completely refuted using real science, not anecdotes and paranoia. Check out ToddW's AntiAntiVax compilation (http://antiantivax.flurf.net/) for all the facts. Please don't spread lies in future. Thank you.
To replace the existing systems for health, education, government, money and business with systems which are in harmony with nature and which give maximum
freedom, wealth and happiness to ALL the people and animals of earth. Please pray for this situation to come into existence
Computer hackers hack computers, and for all other questions they defer to the "appropriate" authority. Autism is caused by poisoning, and my mother did some Swedish program and helped cure a boy of autism, whom I've met personally. I believe its called the The Son-Rise Program. Go ahead and down vote me all you stupid lemmings. I'm not full of sick vanity.
legality is relative term to rules and constitution of the country. North Korea is totally dominated by the government therefore sets its own rules. Whatever government does is considered to be legal because they make it to be so.
Legality assumes that the source of the power of the government is legal. These days it is generally accepted worldwide that the only legal source of power for a government is the one that originates from the people. Most countries are democratic, at least in name. There are only a very few despotic countries left (where the source of the power is the "Grace of God" both de jure and de facto).
North Korea claims to be a democratic country, however the government is clearly not elected democratically at all so the acts of of the government can hardly be called "legal". The government of North Korea isn't fairly elected and is probably in power against its citizens' will. The only way they can remain in power is by the application of violence.
Of course, it is still a good idea for North Koreans to do whatever their governemnt calls "legal" given that they have to power to enforce it. But the fact that I have the power to mug the neighbour kid and I call it legal doesn't make it legal.
> Of course, it is still a good idea for North Koreans to do whatever their governemnt calls "legal" given that they have to power to enforce it. But the fact that I have the power to mug the neighbour kid and I call it legal doesn't make it legal.
You're mixing up terminology. Legal/illegal and right/wrong are separate concepts. Legal/illegal is a system of cause and effect: The law says, "If you do X, and we can prove it to this extent, we will do Y to you." Or, "If you fail to X, and we can prove it to this extent, we will do Y to you."
Law does not make something right/wrong. For instance, alcohol is more dangerous to both the individual and society than THC - the active ingredient in marijuana and hashish. Alcohol in moderately large quantities is a poison, whereas THC isn't, it's more chemically addictive and tolerance building, it impairs judgment very similarly to marijuana but has a quality of making people think their judgment isn't as impaired as it is, and is more prone to causing aggressive/violent behavior than THC. In no sane world is alcohol relatively unrestricted and THC is completely prohibited. (For the record, I don't drink or use any recreational drugs) In the United Sates, the law says alcohol is relatively unrestricted and THC is almost completely prohibited. That doesn't get to rightness/wrongness, it just specifies cause and effect.
So law - it's not a right/wrong thing. Is what North Korea did just now wrong? By most people's ethics, oh hell yes it's terrible. But it's legal, because it was signed into law by a body with the capacity to enforce it in its jurisdiction.
These days it is generally accepted worldwide that the only legal source of power for a government is the one that originates from the people.
Citation? Perhaps sociologists or philosophers accept that, but governments certainly don't. If they did, North Korea wouldn't be generally recognized as an independent country. Since it is, and since the current government there is generally recognized as such, it's legal.
For source, see the constitution of pretty much any country that claims to be democratic. Most of them state explicitly one way or other that the exclusive source of power is the people.
The United Kingdom (and more specifically, England) is an exception. Actually, I had the United Kingdom in mind when I've said "most". The system of the government of the United Kingdom is exceptionally complex and in theory it is still ruled by the Sovereign by the Grace of God. In practice though, the Royal Prerogative is exercised by the Crown and not the Sovereign, which means the Government which is lead by the Prime Minister who is in turn the leader of the parliamentary majority which is elected by the people.
Well, here's a potentially-relevant quote from the North Korean constitution:
Comrade Kim Il Sung elucidated the fundamental principles of nation building and State activities, established the best State and social system, the best mode of politics and system and methods of administering society, and laid solid foundations for the prosperity of the socialist motherland and for the continuation and consummation of the revolutionary cause of Juche. Regarding “The people are my God” as his maxim, Comrade Kim Il Sung always mixed with the people, devoted his whole life for them and turned the whole of society into a large family which is united in one mind by taking care of the people and leading them through his noble benevolent politics. The great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung is the sun of the nation and the lodestar of national reunification.
Here's another:
As a veteran statesman in the world, Comrade Kim Il Sung opened up the new era of independence, carried out energetic activities for the strengthening and development of the socialist movement and the non-aligned movement as well as for world peace and for friendship among the peoples and made an imperishable contribution to the cause of human independence. Comrade Kim Il Sung was a genius in ideology and theory, a master of leadership, an ever-victorious iron-willed brilliant commander, a great revolutionary and politician and a great man.
And one more for the road:
Article 4. The sovereignty of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea resides in the workers, peasants, working intellectuals and all other working people. The working people exercise power through their representative organs―the Supreme People’s Assembly and local People’s Assemblies at all levels.
Note that this last one is phrased as a statement of fact, and not as an imperative given to the government. That is to say, "North Korea's government is derived from the public", and _not_ "North Korea's government should be derived from the public".
I will concede that these snippets are taken from the 1972 constitution, which has since been revised a couple of times. However, given the addition of an article declaring Kim Jong-Il to be Supreme Leader in the 2009 constitution, I suspect what the North Korean government is doing is entirely legal, unless you are suggesting that they are somehow bound by (e.g.) the U.S. constitution.
EDIT:
Ooh, here's another good one:
Article 11. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea shall conduct all activities under the leadership of the Workers’ Party of Korea.
So, it would actually be illegal for the current government to not be the current government. They are legally obligated by their constitution to maintain the dictatorship.
PART I OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982(80)
Assented to March 29th, 1982
PART I
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
...
>> Of course, it is still a good idea for North Koreans to do whatever their governemnt calls "legal" given that they have to power to enforce it. But the fact that I have the power to mug the neighbour kid and I call it legal doesn't make it legal.
No, you don't have the power. You think you do, until you realise that society actually has the power to stop you, and you are powerLESS to resist. You will find society is typically happy for you to have powers over nothing but your own person and property (an oxymoronic presumption, I know, but adequate), but unfairly try to exert any power over another person and you will find a functional society will tend to react against you and rapidly demonstrate why you are deemed to have implicitly relinquished the power you're now claiming to have, by mere fact of being in your society's jurisdiction.
Well, a government has to follow its own laws. For example, the U.S. government could conceivably bring its troops into a house under gunpoint and have them sleep the night there. It wouldn't be legal, since it's directly against the Third Amendment.
That's what's called rule of law and it is, regretably, not as common as one might think.
Especially dictatorships often had and have some kind of law that allows the dictator to do anything. You could call it rule of law minus one. One person who is exempted from the rule of law is enough to bring the whole system down. Strange, how fickle the rule of law seems to be.
It might take a while before Google get negative wide spread reaction or loose of revenue just due their reputation build over the years and innovative drive. However, in competitive market and emerge of hungry start ups looking for new business it might come as an opportunity for others
Most online discussion are behind nick name, not the name on the resume. I do not put my nick (sometimes I think I should LOL) on the resume. So, searching by resume name might not give you much results and give you false negative
Would be the same to argue that TV is destructive because it has continuous broadcast. Do not like it turn damn TV of.
Regardless of how much buzz the term has, it is valuable in some cases(some are mentioned din the article) and it is up to the user to decide what value it has for him. Rather than talking about negativity, just make it optional so user can make a choice of turning it of or on.
Apps might be helpful but nothing is better then self determination and self-discipline especial when outcome of work directly impact your profit and well being. Multitasking is a bitch of today's productivity. It makes you think that it helps you get things faster but research indicates then on the contrary it does not. The laps of time you brain takes to switch between the task is the waist. It is also very addictive. I used to multitask a lot and now try to discipline myself not to do it unless one task is taking time without my direct control(like coping large files or running long process). Sometimes I find myself ridiculously starting to read and article or code few lines of code while my brain start doing something also and looking for other task to start. I started finding it destructive and in need to eliminate.
It depends on the goal of your writing. Concise writing with minimized wording and maximized content is good for informative writing. However writing a book or a paragraph to cause or reflect emotional effect does require additional unnecessary words and possible redundancy
Google provide better perks then most of the companies out there. Have to admit that all perks they provide make you feel more like being a start up by offering you chose of projects, freedom of actions and creative expression and corresponding intensives. It might be a perfect place for the once who love start up culture and want to create new things without corporate pressure but are willing to sacrifice true perks of starting one for stability and relative luck of risk. I still would go for perks of own start up that Google can not provide me.
article should be titled "increasing hourly productivity to improve life balance" - working more hours do not have any negative impact on having less productive time
maximized hour/efficiency-productivity * maximized #hours/week = maximized output(not necessary value). The rest depends on how much you are willing to sacrifice to balance your life with other activities.
