So a vaccine that failed the test stops being a vaccine? That is news for me. Also we do not live in a static world - yesteryear's vaccine might be ineffective to today's viruses. Also what about vaccines that have been approved in some countries and rejected in others?

Also this does not distinguish between the "no-brainer" vaccines where the benefits clearly outweigh the risks and costs and the vaccines that are just barely beneficial.

So basically the question is completely wrong and should instead be: "Do you believe that the testing procedures of vaccines are safe and effective."

In that case I would also say that this is doubtful.

That is a nonsense argument and you know it.

If the human body is influenced by evolution, then so is the human brain, simply because the brain is part of the body.

When you propose that for some reason all brains are functionally the same and are not influenced by genes, then the burden on proof is on you.

In other words you agree with your TV-set that the human body is formed by evolution (= genes), but the human brain is not influenced by evolution?

That kind of proves benzapp's point completely.

Interesting question. The TV tells that evolution exists but race differences (especially in morality, behaviour and intelligence) don't exist. But evolution requires race differences - what now?

Also the TV admits that race differences exists for things that are too obvious to deny (like appearance, body size, blood pressure, testosterone levels, etc.) but deny any differences for things that may have been tested and confirmed countless times but are touching on the subject of what makes us human and what distinguishes us from animals (intelligence, behavior, morality, etc.). Essentially the TV claims that evolution works on the human body, but not on the human brain.

People who are raised by the TV (and there are a lot of those) actually believe these contradictions, it is what Orwell called "doublethink".

This "let's throw all vaccines into one giant pot and treat them as if they were the same thing" - opinion is the main reason why I am increasingly sceptic.

Just because SOME vaccines are safe and effective, how does this make them ALL safe? It is a fact of life that some diseases can be treated well with vaccines and some not at all.

The question about safety has to be answered for each vaccine individually (and also btw for each surgery).

To proclaim that "vaccines are safer than surgeries" - what complete and utter nonsense is that? What vaccine can cure a broken leg? What surgery can cure an infection?

"Only about half of the people accepted that vaccines are safe and effective, with 15 percent doubting."

Well that is kind of a loaded question, because every vaccine is different.

SOME vaccines are safe and effective, SOME are safe and not effective (i.e. a placebo, the drug companies most favorite kind of drug), SOME come with a greater risk than the disease itself.

To give the pharmaceutical industry a blank cheque by believing that ALL vaccines are safe and effective is just as stupid as proclaiming that "all drugs are safe and effective".

Every vaccine is different and the safeness and effectiveness is completely undefined for vaccines in general.

I had a similar problem (although in my case they fixed it remarkably fast - in a few days) and that's exactly why I like to have both the stable and slow moving OpenOffice along with the fast moving LibreOffice.

Yeah right, there also were too many PC-makers out there...

It is a great thing that I can have both LibreOffice and OpenOffice installed on my PC without them knowing from each other so that when LO crashes on a document (which did happen here) I can still use OO as a backup.

Wrong, both have their place:

OpenOffice is the more stable "enterprise-ready" version that won't change too much.

LibreOffice is the bleeding-edge version that incorporates new features (SVG-support, yay!) but sometimes also introduces new bugs. They also seem to think that users should update every couple of months.

And the best feature of them all:

You cannot easily install two versions of either OpenOffice or LibreOffice, you can however install OpenOffice along LibreOffice, so you can have the best of both worlds.

Yeah, but Russia is not burdened by affirmative action, so that makes it about even.

In Switzerland ever adult male (who was in the army, which is most of them) has a government-issued rifle in his own home. Bear in mind, that's a real automatic military rifle and not some "civilian" semi-automatic.

Murder-rate: 0.6 to 0.7 (2007-2011), lower than most European countries.

I don't see why this fact should give rise to cries of racism, when it is just as much sexist and ageist.

This is because on TV-shows (doesn't matter if you watch CSI, Monk, Columbo or anything else), pretty close to 100% of the murderers are middle-aged, well-off, white males. (in rare instances it may also be a well-off white woman)

People who are raised by the TV are believing this as reality. They are looking at this day-in and day-out year after year - of course they will think it is racism when you contradict that.

Probably the MS-fans will think that's a problem, because LibreOffice is not "compatible".

In fact the very fact that LibreOffice is an independent implementation of the file formats is a big advantage, because it is much more robust - When you reverse-engineer something you usually cover all possibilities (of a variable, etc.) - this is also the reason why you can often open corrupted .doc files with LibreOffice.

If that what you say were even remotely true, we would have seen a reduction in crime after welfare was greatly expanded in the 1960s.

But that didn't happen - on the contrary, crime AND welfare payments increased.

The point is that some policy that may work (or not cause much damage) in Finland may not work at all in the UK or US simply because we are talking about very different people.