Not true, roads have tolls, and school quality depends on income of nearby neighborhoods (and thus funding). But that's not the aspect I was using for the metaphor. Maybe abetter methafor is airplanes. Like paying for a flight at 4:00pm but if oversold, you can pay extra to get on the plane. The ones that don't pony up, sorry you'll be late. What is fair is that if there is a bottleneck/oversold, they should compensate those that accept to be delayed, just like airlines do. Verizon is telling that your packets will have to wait for another flight, in spite of you having bought sufficient bandwidth per second, and charging someone else for the service of not being late vs you.

One now

You are a genius. Let's also solve the traffic as well and reduce taxes: reserve one lane on every highway, and if you want to to avoid a 5 hour trip to work, you just pay a little more than your friend directly in front. If everyone pays, then it's not working. Wait, just raise the toll until many can't pay. Now that's life....arriving at work on time in 20 min. Isn't it worth the $500 per monthyou can afford to pay?

Let's also solve water scarcity, crowded public parks, access to beaches, electricity scarcity, crowded metros and many other problems. Lack of funds in your public school? No problem, when teachers become scarce, just bid to enter that math class that is at full capacity. I have many other great ideas. Thanks

For the very reason that it's not upgrading your bandwith. You already had it. I didn't RTFA but from summary, you are prileging your traffic AGAINST others that paid for a given bandwith. Their skype wont run unless they pay, and the price will be exactly that amount that maximizes profit for the carrier, creating infinite incentive for bottlenecks so that my service is usable. Those that apologized are mistaken. This is a horrible precedent. Starting with this API, network congestion is an asset to the carriers. Prepare your wallets if you play online games, use VOIP or anything that requires quality of service.

Maybe it's the children exposure, not the parents, what counts.People with more education get paid better and have more toys, gadgets, etc. But anyway, since Mattress have been loaded with Bromium (or something that sounds like that), Boric Acid and what not, and since you can't have one organic without a medical prescription, maybe that's why the difference is not so big IF there's any correlation with current lifestyle and this disorders. Then again, today 1% off all children are diagnosed autism, and we don't know what it is.

But we know how we lived in past, and how we live now, and the likelihood of a connection is close to 100% in my unscientific book or things that make obvious sense.

Look for the author of the report. He wrote a book. I haven't found any huge missdoing in his report, and all the claims against, to me, seem fabricated. Now, the reality is that today, in the USA, 1 out of 96 child have Autism (or 110 if you ask CDC). This is a huge number. It's 1% of all children born. The author claimed that all the chemicals, including vaccines, that we take for harmless, add up, and that brings all kind of problems, one of which is finding ourselves with 1% of all children in the country, with Autism. I made my comment more casually, and wanted it to be broader: we don't know what is causing so much allergies, cancer, autism and all the other illnesses. But certainly, injecting Mercury compounds when alternatives are available, isn't our best choice.

The problem today is that we want to detect the individual contribution of each thing to something very narrow. And we find everything is safe. And then, well, something is wrong and nobody knows what causes it. Yet, 1 out of every 96 of all Children have to fight really hard to live a normal life, and most fail (Autism).

There are other studies that show in animals that this Mercury compound seriously affects the brain. There are studies that state that while the half life may be relatively short, the compound isn't 100% stable and tends to change to not so safe forms. There are more things we don't know, than the things we know. Also, people point out that fish has more mercury. This makes the case stronger: if there are more ways to get it, then reduce the number of sources to a minimum. That argument, to me, is like saying that it's ok for interior lamps to have a lot of UV...the sun is already producing vasts amounts. No, that's not a good reason. Protect while in the sun, and don't make it even worst by creating artificial sources for trouble. Especially in vaccines.

But anyway....I should have made my comment more general. Mercury compounds aren't needed, and I personally would avoid it if I have kids. I don't see a reason not to use the other preservatives - in my case.

Not deceptive....becase of my sister reaction, she measured her metals levels. That river is within acceptbale alu dose. But made my sister red spots. After she analyzed her blood, metals in the blood where too high. Same with my parents. Did you analyze yours?

Anyway, I thank you for posting. Some others just decided my post was flamebait or troll. Guess This is ine of the few occasions my opinion is unpopular. I don't care. I post when i think i't worth saying.

Ok, that is the consensus. Point taken. I believe otherwise. The earth was flat for 3 millenia or more. I believe this mercury preservative isn't safe.

Feed your kids mercury or mercury compounds. I prefer not and do not like this preservative. I do not like boric acid or bromium as my or my kids beds flame retardant. I don't want it in my TV. I don't want added toxic fluoride in my tap water and I don't want systemic pesticides in my food. I choose with my wallet as much as I can. But sometimes I don't even have an option.

The alternative are vaccines than use other preservatives. Re-read the hole thread. Also, the flu doesn't kill 2%.

You science is wrong. First, you control the experiment, not the things around. Suppose there is a correlation, that after X dose you get a higher rate. Now suppose that it has been linked, but that people habits changed, an now they eat more tuna. Your study will mean that it is contributing, but that Tuna in both populations now players a mayor role, so both are unaffected. So you may end up assuming that it's perfectly fine, while it's largely toxic and dangerous. Yet, you make it appear innocent. Could this be the case? Pretty much yes, regardless how how many Phds you and your sources may have, they can be absolutely wrong and be contributing to many known and unknown conditions just because Mercury is easy for vaccines. Also, tests in animals have shown that it's very dangerous. We don't test that with humans, because they die.

Nobody wins. it's not about winning. It's about freedom. You can prevent me for going to a pub you own if I am not vaccinated. But you cannot forcibly vaccinate others. You are actually injecting something into their bodies. The best way is a healthy environment, and well nourished people with strong immune systems. People with AIDS are also a risk. You need to accept them. Same with anything you perceive a risk. Else, the country will seem more like a Communist/Authoritarian. Capitalism base is the belief that individuals, when free, will create a better world for others. We are going the opposite way.

I propose a different model. Measure mercury levels. Today, many many things contain mor mercury than before, like the tuna you advocate you pregnant woman. Maybe vaccines are not just a 1% of all the mercury being absorbed by kids through tuna and other foods. Would high doses of this mercury have adverse effects? Yes. So why add even more? Get rd of Tuna also, and buy fish that doesn't live several years. That more practical than pointing the vaccines with mercury have no correlation. They still many have, if the other kids are also absorbing mercury in some other ways. The claim isn't so much about vaccines, but about mercury (and vaccines is just one distribution channels).

As I said, you may be right. I still don't like Mercury in my bloodstream, if it can be avoided. Call this an opinion and let it live as such. Tobbaco was super safe for years. I trust science in the long run (100 years), not 20 years timeframe when a lot of money is still in the table.

Your super-source is not a good source...look at the Discussion page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thiomersal_controversy

From the editor of the article...

I wouldn't want my son to get Mercury in his blood purposely. If science is so great, find another way and stop the studies (or continue for hobby). Tobacco was "perfectly safe" not just years, but for a large numbers of decades, research after research. Why are you so confident? Your opinions are partly responsible for damages EVEN if the studies you have access to right now say there is no harm from feeding mercury to babies.

I don't eat Tuna for that reason. And for the same reason I don't want Thimerasol. There's no safe dose. Just beasure the mercury level in the adult population. All my family (except me) had some eruptions, after drinking from an area that was naturally rich in Alu, and they detected not only high levels of Alu, but high levels of mercury as well. My father is 67...and had a lot of Tuna and vaccines in the past. So why accumulate to avoid a flu once in a while? I don't buy it, but that's just me.