Children too young to be vaccinated are affected by other unvaccinated people who have come in recent contact with the disease. If the latter people had instead been vaccinated, the likelihood of passing on the disease to anyone who hasnt't been is immensely reduced (in addition to the fact that they will not get it).
I've heard it said before that preventable disease outbreaks like this happen because children who are typically not yet old enough to be vaccinated come into contact with a more mature individual who was never vaccinated.
If so, it seems to me that the only reason this kind of thing keeps happening is because of THEIR choice... and their choice is directly affecting the lives of other children that they could communicate the disease to.
As for how to really get them to support vaccinations? I can only suggest something that is at least mostly preventable through vaccination, but particularly virulent and lethal as what may be the only thing to have any impact. It won't necessarily convince them to do anything about it if they succumb themselves, but the memory of the incident will stick around for at least a couple of generations in the survivors.
If mammoths were wiped out by climate change, then resurrecting the species in a modern climate would be bringing it into an environment that it was not evolved to handle.
Not only does that seem rather pointless, but it also strikes me as arguably sounding like animal cruelty. I'd suggest that the scientific discoveries we might make by doing this may be heavily outweighed by the ethical considerations involved.
This matter really feels one of those times when scientists should be reminding themselves that just because we *CAN* do something does not necessarily mean that we *SHOULD*.
I'm not smart enough for some of the XKCD strips...
Hell, I'm not smart enough for Garfield.
Network transparency is a MUST to me, but if it is important for many it should end up getting implemented into any solution eventually.
I am curious as to why?
I have seen the amazingly cool things X can do when someone showed them to me a decade or so back, but it has never once been useful to me in the real world.
When I admin a linux server I do everything on the command line via ssh. This is the whole strength of Linux in that you can do everything without needing a GUI. What I have needed far more is the responsiveness that direct display writes from app to hardware give me when running stuff locally.
I never seem to have a need to run a GUI on a remove machine but I use them on my local machine every day so it makes perfect sense to make fast local performance a priority at the expense of remote GUI performance that is not used as often.
That's complete claptrap. Yes, very recent (last 5-10 years) widget toolkits have started to force use of features that result in bitmaps being sent across the network, but that's hardly a reason to throw out X. And it's essentially a lie to pretend it means, somehow, that X11 doesn't have network transparency.
I find it pretty bad, to be honest, that the same devs who are protesting that X11's network transparency isn't what it could be are:
1. The devs that did this in the first place, refusing to advance the protocol to include the features that GTK3 et al required.
2. Apparently think the solution is getting rid of network transparency altogether.
I'm staggered, to be honest, by the whole thing. I appreciate old code is sometimes awkward to support, but the solution isn't a wholesale replacement of the project. Mozilla's developers may have made many mistakes in their decision to throw out the Netscape code that delayed the release of a great browser for many years, but they were NEVER, NEVER so stupid as to say "Well, we looked at the Netscape source code, and we think the solution is to get rid of HTML. It's too kludgy! I mean, just look at it, it's impossible to add features to it cleanly!"
If we were talking about a rewrite of X.org, nee XFree86.org, nee X86, that'd be one thing. It's probably necessary by now although I'd still say they need to seriously think in terms of refactoring the project. But throwing out the entire protocol because they refused to add the features necessary to make the protocol efficient? Fuck that.
It's hard to see why anyone with an interest in Linux would want us to move away from X11 to an unstable untried display system that will be missing features by design, simply because some X11 developers feel that the core X.org server has a lot of cruft in it.
Wayland will look elegant to those programmers until the day they start adding the missing features. It'll be far more crufty and inefficient than X.org long before it ends up being feature complete. That's how programming works.
I hope you encrypt everything on those drives, just in case your bag is lost or stolen.
I didn't say I carry the bag around. I keep it locked in a massive safe buried underground.
It's not as convenient, but it sure is secure. Except from flooding, but that's a different story. I can't actually get to the data, but it's there. Secure. But not from floods. I'm going to have to think about sealing it in impenetrable waterproof material, but I can't afford that because the password to my online banking is on one of those SD cards, in the bag, in the safe, 20 feet underground.
You see how complicated my life is.
That's because it's a new option that was not available in Win7.
Is it possible to run windows 7 apps on windows 8 ?
Yes, so long as it's not ARM (and hence running Windows RT).
.Is there an easy means to click on a file and tell it to install it as if it was running on windows 7?
Yes, but only for desktop apps. It doesn't work for the new-style Store apps - the latter can only be installed from the Store (though there are some options for sideloading if you get a free-but-registration-required developer license).
. I installed a virtual machine in windows 7, only to find that my video card didn't have an XP driver other than the default windows one
This doesn't make sense. Your physical video card is not exposed directly to the VM, the VM gets some sort of emulated one, the performance of which depends on which VM software you are using.
I really like the people at Good Old Games that figured out a way to make a large selection games run on a modern
Most of GOG stuff is just the original game packaged together with DOSBox. You can do it yourself for many other titles if you can obtain the original binaries.
The point of vsync is to prevent tearing because rendering framerate does not match the monitor refresh rate. It doesn't matter how slow or fast something goes, it's the disparity that gives tearing, and makes vsync useful.
Too bad that this one is actually made up (since control panel didn't change in any significant way since Win7).
And you can "open" any folder on the system like that - including, say, C:\
Transformers are actually exactly the device category where Win8 makes sense - the original concept was severely hampered by the limitations of Android itself, and apps for it, running on a device with full-fledged keyboard and mouse/trackpad, whereas Win8 is designed for that as much as a touchscreen.