Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:One sided (Score 4, Informative) 858

by 241comp (#42181915) Attached to: Congressional Committee Casts a Harsh Eye On Vaccination Science
Assuming you really want to know and aren't just asking to start an argument: It is because newborns are at greatest medical risk if infected by one of the many diseases for which they are vaccinated and because for some diseases (such as Hep B), once it is contracted it can be a lifelong illness which later vaccination cannot prevent/cure. From the WHO:
"Young children who become infected with the hepatitis B virus are the most likely to develop chronic infections:

90% of infants infected during the first year of life develop chronic infections;
30–50% of children infected between one to four years of age develop chronic infections."

Comment: Re:And so (Score 1) 346

by 241comp (#34670242) Attached to: Pickens Wind-Power Plan Comes To a Whimpering End
From the article: "concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas" - meaning they weren't actually trying to compare Sugar vs HFCS. Since they weren't offering the rats similar amounts of each. So, did the rats gain weight because they preferred the less sweet HFCS solution and thus drank more? From the article: "Animals with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained 48 percent more weight than those eating a normal diet" - meaning the second study wasn't even comparing Sugar vs HFCS - just HFCS vs nothing. Of course rats who ate a bunch of HFCS were less healthy than those eating relatively lean and low-sugar rat food. Neither of these studies attempts to compare between equivalent consumption of Suger vs HFCS. And if you read the actual study, you will see that they did not intend to. That's not to say that HFCS is perfectly safe - but this study does nothing to study "equal amounts of sucrose and HFCS in a human metabolism" - or any other animal's metabolism for that matter.
The Internet

The Need For A Tagging Standard 200

Posted by Hemos
from the tagging-joy dept.
John Carmichael writes "Tags are everywhere now. Not just blogs, but famous news sites, corporate press bulletins, forums, and even Slashdot. That's why it's such a shame that they're rendered almost entirely useless by the lack of a tagging standard with which tags from various sites and tag aggregators like Technorati and Del.icio.us can compare and relate tags to one another. Depending on where you go and who you ask, tags are implemented differently, and even defined in their own unique way. Even more importantly, tags were meant to be universal and compatible: a medium of sharing and conveying info across the blogosphere — the very embodiment of a semantic web. Unfortunately, they're not. Far from it, tags create more discord and confusion than they do minimize it. I have to say, it would be nice to just learn one way of tagging content and using it everywhere.""

People who develop the habit of thinking of themselves as world citizens are fulfilling the first requirement of sanity in our time. -- Norman Cousins

Working...