BTW, I am in favor of imunization. I'm not in favor of denying unimmunized children healthcare because their parents did not have them immunized.
Yeah, reading your post, you don't say you are agaist providing care. I'm pretty sure that my response was to a different post. Strange.
Anyway, to answer your questions...
Death by kitchen fire alone is 3x greater than pre-vaccine chicken pox. No doubt that including various other ways people die would increase that number. Even worse is that while 95% of all chicken pox cases were in children, 50% of all deaths were in adults. Then add to it that the chicken pox vaccine does not offer life long immunity, and you have a situation where, for that perticular vaccine, the numbers just don't pan out for childhood immunization. If they offered it to adults who never caught chicken pox as children, the numbers would come out entirely different.
This is why I find it highly irresponsible for doctors to try to scare people into getting 'vaccinations'. Not all vaccinations are created equal, and not all diseases with available vaccines are equally dangerous. When doctors (and anti-anti-vaxers) equate chicken pox with something like polio or small pox, they lose credibility. When they lose credibility, they are far less effective at convincing people to vaccinate against the real threats.
The number of people opting out of mumps vaccines can also be set at the feet of the medical industry. A doctor (you know, one of the 'experts') indicated that the combined mumps, measles and rubella vaccine caused autism. He recommended taking the vaccines seperately. The response from the medical industry was to rely on brow beatings, insults, and lies. They assumed that everyone would just fall into line due to their appeal to authority. If they had just shrugged their shoulders and offered the three vaccines seperately, the movement against vaccines as a group would not have gotten as much of a foothold has it has.
I've always thought of San Francisco as the new Sodom and Gomorrah.
That's a decade or two out of date. Maybe more. Here's this weekend's list of sex and fetish events in SF. There's a nostalgia tour for tourists of SF's sex history, and a screening of porn films from a Berlin festival. Yawn.
The greatest time in that articel is spent claiming that 192Khz is overkill because everything above 20Khz is unhearable. He shows how a square looking waveform has all the right spectral components in the 20Khz range and so therefore it it is not missing anything. This is fourier and nyquist type argument that assumes linearity.
as you put it F( a+b) = F(a) + F(b). When this is true then it's as he said. But if F(a+b) != F(a) + F(b) then you need more than 20Khz to describe the spectrum.
I'm not saying 192Khz is the right thing. I'm just say the entire argument in the article is assuming linearity to draw the conclusions that the 0-20Khz spectrum contains all the information you can hear.
In fact we already know that ears are not linear. This is in fact how some compression algorithms function. They know that as it gets loud that you can't hear quieter frequencies as efficiently so they are removed. This is an example that actually works in the opposite direction-- that there's less information needed. However it supports the notion that describing everything by spectral analysis is wrong when things are linear.
You said, well it's just a change of basis. Sort of. How tightly you want to sample has th be determined first. This is what actually sets the bases that the analysis is going to be changing between. A given point spacing in time for a given lenght of time forces the interval over which the fourier transform exists. Conversely if you insist that the highes frequency is 20K (or 40K for nyquist) then you have fixed the time interval of the sampling. You are then blind to any point in the intervals between which is where the non-linear effects could, conceivebly, hide.
I'm not seeing this. It's a dull period for San Francisco. The first dot-com boom was more fun. Connecting up everybody and everything was important. This boom is all from ad-based companies, and most of what they're doing is rather banal. So are many of the people doing it.
Almost all the artists who need more than a desk and a laptop moved out years ago. SF used to have lots of big empty warehouse and factory spaces that were used for art projects and wild parties. That's what SOMA was. Those are gone, replaced with "live/work lofts" or giant bullpen workspaces.
I do not get why tech people want to live in the Mission. I've had friends there for years, and it's tolerable, but not a place to live in by choice. Wednesday I went to a stand up comedy improv thing in the Mission where people tried to put together presentions from random PowerPoint slides. Heavy bouncer presence outside because it was right next to a service center for homeless people. The comedy sucked, too. That's what the tech crowd is bringing into the area.
Here's a typical Mission location, one which also happens to be a Google bus stop. "Cafe la Boheme" has crappy food, and it's had crappy food for years. The place with the graffiti is an upstairs dance studio which is hanging on. "Chinese Food and Donuts" isn't very good at either. That corner has looked the same for many years. There are some decent restaurants a few blocks over on Valencia, but not at this corner. There are cool places to live in SF, but this isn't one of them.
One of the big problems with the pro-vaccine argument is that 99% of the time all vaccines get lumped into a single entity when all vaccines are most certainly not created equal.
Your comment is a good example for why it is so hard to get people to vaccinate for the important diseases.
This is what the European Union really does - they set standards so stuff works all over Europe, across borders and across vendors. Like GSM phones. In the past, over 20 years they moved the 220V and 240V countries to 230V. That was completed in 2003. Trying to get the whole EU to use the same AC power plug, though, was not successful.
Whats this "early" mean?
The whole analysis at the list site assumed fourier spectral analysis, nysquat limits, etc.... Thats assuming linearity in the way they used them.