There is a small typo in there, you can't close that kind of loop with "next i", although you'll find that "another i" may work in some way.

Ummmm I think you are talking crap.

http://www.cdc.gov/rotavirus/s...

Prior to the vaccine, almost all U.S. children were infected with rotavirus before their 5th birthday. Each year, among U.S. children younger than 5 years of age, rotavirus led to

more than 400,000 doctor visits,
more than 200,000 emergency room visits,
55,000 to 70,000 hospitalizations, and
20 to 60 deaths.

Also from the CDC website - Rotavirus vaccine risks - http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafe...

  It is possible that an estimated 1 to 3 U.S. infants out of 100,000 might develop intussusception within 7 days of getting their first dose of rotavirus vaccine. That means 40 to 120 vaccinated U.S. infants might develop intussusception each year.

What the fuck is intussusception?
a medical condition in which a part of the intestine invaginates (folds into) into another section of intestine

Treatment?
The intussusception can be treated with either a barium or water-soluble contrast enema or an air-contrast enema, which both confirms the diagnosis of intussusception, and in most cases successfully reduces it. The success rate is over 80%. The remaining 20% require surgery.

So to summarise
Prior to the rotavirus vaccine there were 55,000+ hospitalisations and 20+ deaths per year due to rotavirus. Post vaccine your worst case risk is a minor surgery which occurs 8 to 24 times a year. I think I know which I would prefer.
 

In Europe, North America, Australia and NZ I know that asking about family status, marital status, sexual orientation, religion, political affiliation, union membership, race or ethnicity is not allowed.

And wow Chilonim, never heard that term before so I had to google it. Interesting concept that there is a grouping for non-religious Jews and that it is a recognised way of considering them. They way you put it "even amongst the Chilonim" could, and I stress could not that I am, be used to imply that non-Chilonim people are more family orientated.

Then if you had two potential employees, 1 Chilonim & 1 not, both equally qualified and experienced and both with families which would you choose if your role had long hours or lots of travel? Do you decide to hire the Chilonim candidate because they are likely to care less about their family?

This is the problem when non technical considerations are used to make a hiring decision. People's stereotypes become too major a factor. You can't stop people using their stereotypes but you can try to reduce its prevalence.

No worries. I'm surprised you have to fill out these application forms for each job. I'm guessing the employment market is still not great over there because we don't see those type of things outside of Government jobs. As a general rule people won't fill them in here.

Actually there has been a revival of that type of music. The same with Glam-Metal. Five finger death punch for the guitars, Black Veil Brides for you glam-metal.

The other band that has made a really good comeback with their new stuff is Korn.

You gave the reason in the interview, where you were able to talk it through and answer any questions that came up. (I've been there myself having come into the office with all my stuff in a box).

If that had been written on your CV though it potentially would have cause you problems.

Assuming you haven't been unemployed for an extended period then the say reason applies with the added. "I decided it was a good time to take a period off. I had a number of personal projects I wanted to complete and am now keen for my next challenge" or some variation of this.

If you have been long term unemployed and desperate to work then this becomes much more difficult.

No see following post - Do not put a reason for leaving on your CV. That is something to discuss in interview.

It was actually not an assertion, but an observation. I used the article that you fulminated against as an argument that the apparently, the world is moving on. The debate rages in fringe websites and far right political theatres. In scientific circles, there is no debate as the 'sceptical' side has completely failed to put any new arguments or competing theories in the debate for the past two decades. That's what the 'science is settled' means.

For me, I draw the line with some basic facts and basic physics. If you disagree with those, I would say that you're in denial, and to have a rational discussion is as likely to have a rational discussion with a Young Earther on geology. This basic fact is that there is anthropogenic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. We had a lot of CO2 captured in the soil of the earth, and we've put it in the atmosphere. If you want to dispute that, there's no helping you, you are in denial. Second is a basic bit of physics: with increased CO2 there is increased retention of heat -- given all else being equal. This is the greenhouse effect. If you dispute that, I would like to urge you to create a greenhouse and observe. We can fairly accurate estimate what increase in warmth we can expect with increase in CO2 concentration. Again, disregarding all other factors such as heat sinks and many of the things that make climate modelling so difficult. This is a highly idealized physical theory that cannot be blindly applied to climate, yet it establishes one important thing: CO2 is a forcing term in the earth's atmosphere by its ability to capture heat. And we can very exactly compute how much heat it captures, and boy, are we in trouble!

If you accept those two things, it might be worth having a discussion about climate change. We, as humans, have introduced a forcing term in the climate that can be expressed as an additional amount of energy that is retained in the atmoshpere, and we are now trying to establish the actual effects. It is fine to be sceptic about some of the results, but honestly, you should also consider the possibility that some of those models are right. Just dismissing them is not an option, as the idealized model already predicts massive trouble. You would have to explain how this is NOT a problem. Claiming ignorance won't help you here, as you are arguing that many knowledgeable people are basically wrong.

The third breed of denier/sceptic is the 'anti-alarmist'. They hate the discussion about what to do about climate change and are denying the science in order to derail the discussion. A fair person would examine the actual ideas, and propose a weighted argument about the costs of the ideas versus the actual uncertainty in the rate of change we're experiencing. A denier just denies the science.

Finally, there is the bona fide sceptic. Somebody that has read up on the subject, has found some major issues, and is busy keeping his peers (because he is climate scientist by now) honest. Some of them exist (people know them by name), and although many don't agree with them, the are fairly well respected.

So, what type are you: the 'young-earth' equivalent of the denier that cannot understand logic and science, the lazy sceptic that does understand a bit of science but cannot be bothered to actually read up on it, or the political activist that denies the science because he hates his policial adversaries, or a scientist that has some informed sceptical point of view? You seem to be a mix of the first three. A bit more honest than most, but still pretty deluded in your reasoning.

Yes, something like that. I think the re-education camps should be basic physics and reasoning courses, with as a graduation exercise the formal delivery of a reasonably plausible climate model that takes anthropogenic CO2 increase as a forcing term and explains how that would NOT lead to climate change. Or, if not interested in taking that up, a big dose of STFU.

In response to climate change, Elon Musk made a point to make cool electric cars. Millions of people died. In response to climate change, some people have refrained from taking planes and are using their cars if they don't really have to. Millions of people died. In response to climate change, people have chosen to select energy suppliers that provide 'green' energy. Millions of people died.

At this rate of millions dying, we soon will have not enough people to put enough CO2 in the atmosphere to keep the furnace going.

I am sorry that you feel left out. Guess what, this is what it means when the science is settled. It means that people stop caring about your untenable position. The world moves on and we are now looking at the effects of global warming, knowing that it occurs and that we do not know where it will stop. Glaciers are retreating, North Pole is shrinking, and Western Antartica is melting.

In contrast with you, Big Oil got the picture, and quite a few investigations are underway to figure out where the oil is when (not if, when) parts of the North Pole become accessible year around. I'm sure if Big Oil would listens to you they would save the 100s of millions they invest in this, but guess what, they follow the science, not the self-proclaimed sceptics that haven't been able to field a single climate model that explains how anthropogenic CO2 increase will NOT lead to climate change.

It's just from breathing Google's hot air for too long. Don't worry, I've quit.

This just shows that you don't know what the word means. I've know a couple of real sociopaths over a lifetime, and they were mean, manipulative, vindictive arseholes. One thing that they were not, was violent. They preferred to destroy people in more lasting and important ways than a few bruises. The closest everyday concept that mcuttatches the condition is evil.

Most blokes like burning off steam though. Not all of them, some are more shy retiring delicate types such as yourself. But for most men, regardless of whether they end up in the ivory towers of academia or cutting blocks in a yard, physical contact is normal. Success tends to correlate with the ability to control it and project it on demand. That's why we see sports as being a good outlet for it. I've known surprising number of martial artists in academia, they were all very straight forward about why they did it: they like punching things.