Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:freedom 2 b a moron (Score 1) 1037

And I agree the argument hasn't been made well enough, but keeping non-vaccinated kids out of an environment where they are in very close contact with others does help the herd. No vaccine is perfect and so extracting those who have a higher chance to harbor a disease is better than letting them in.

Eventually we're all out in public together and at work, but it's still not the same as the petri-dish that are kindergarten or elementary education environments

Comment: Re:freedom 2 b a moron (Score 1) 1037

I suspect you will find few private schools or day cares that don't have similar vaccination requirements.

My intention was about home-schooling. I would agree many private schools likely have similar requirements.

Still, outright bans on attending school without vaccinations should not be the rule. The "herd" effect works there

My question is that allowing people without vaccinations begins to weaken the herd effect. And I think we're seeing that result now. You need something like 90-95% for some diseases linky. Whooping cough being one of them.

There just isn't any valid justification for not getting the vaccinations prior to school starting.

Comment: Re:freedom 2 b a moron (Score 1) 1037

Wow, people pushing for mandatory vaccinations are 'right-wing'?

The *only* possible thread of fact in your rant is the CIA using vaccines in Pakistan to try and find Bin Laden...which has caused the locals there to now be very very wary of aid workers trying to actually help them.

And I would agree, that CIA behavior was truly evil...in it's effects and the apparently blind ignorance of the implementers to the possible ramifications.

Comment: Re:freedom 2 b a moron (Score 3, Insightful) 1037

While it is controversial to conclude that the vaccines caused the condition

It's not controversial....its explicitly FALSE. There is no link or evidence supporting this.

I don't believe it is controversial to consider vaccination 14 shots at 2 years old extreme.

You know what isn't controversial? Not allowing 10s of 1000s of innocent children to die from a multitude of diseases that, until quite recently, were no longer a threat to 1st world countries over the objections of people uniformed and spouting FUD.

We simply didn't have whooping cough or measles or mumps outbreaks for the last multiple decades. Now, after a decade or two of people not vaccinating, they are back.

Comment: Re: Are they really that scared? (Score 1) 460

by pixelpusher220 (#48535309) Attached to: Why Elon Musk's Batteries Frighten Electric Companies
Nice straw man. Never said 100% renewables right now. But until you start a journey you'll never get there - which you seem to claim to want to go. Nothing for free, so we need to start paying now to get where you say you want to go. Scratch that, solar energy is free...

I'm sure as hell not willing to pay to clean up some CO2 demon which science says is largely imaginary.

Wow, totally missed this. The science claims CO2 effects on future climate is largely imaginary? just wow. we're done here, you truly are a denier.

Comment: Re: Are they really that scared? (Score 1) 460

by pixelpusher220 (#48535291) Attached to: Why Elon Musk's Batteries Frighten Electric Companies
The frog in the pot says the same thing as the temp slowly warms. No concrete provable harm right now so why jump out?

But lets throw this back...
How would you prove that something going on TODAY is going to cause massive harm in 50-100 years?

Because, assuming the VAST majority of science and scientists, that is what's happening now. If we assume for a minute this is fact. That what we're doing now will cause these problems, what proof is available now to show these future results?

Is it really worth the risk to wait until absolutely concrete evidence exists when that might very well be too late?

Comment: Re:Not just yes, but HELL, YES! (Score 2) 545

by pixelpusher220 (#48534931) Attached to: Should IT Professionals Be Exempt From Overtime Regulations?
not just aerospace. Pretty much any contractor to the federal govt has to do this. I"m currently on a Dept of State project and it's the same deal. I'm salaried/exempt but have to report hours worked AND can't work 10 extra this pay period and bill short next pay period like any sane accounting system.

Comment: Re:No (Score 0) 545

by pixelpusher220 (#48534815) Attached to: Should IT Professionals Be Exempt From Overtime Regulations?
tech is different. Tech is generally paid well above 'normal' salary job positions so the 'need' for overtime pay is a lot less. Hence exempting tech won't be likely to happen. Its also why the semi-regular calls to unionize tech workers fall flat every time - the problem unionizing solves isn't really a huge problem in tech.

Now I'd whole heartily support OT pay, being in tech myself :)

Comment: Re: Are they really that scared? (Score 1) 460

by pixelpusher220 (#48534543) Attached to: Why Elon Musk's Batteries Frighten Electric Companies
What costs? Specifically the release of millions of years worth of CO2 into the atmosphere in just a couple centuries.

As far as scrubbers, are you saying acid rain wasn't a problem? Or Sulfur Dioxide? Or Nitrogen oxides? Mercury? Estimates are that coal plants kill thousands annually. So yes, pollute and you, and I did say we, should pay for it.

The United States is one of the leading producers of CO2 emissions. China only recently surpassed us. You seem to be both claiming we're great (clean/green) and decrying the very things that made us that 'great', the scrubbers and other requirements to NOT pollute the environment.

Comment: Re: Are they really that scared? (Score 1) 460

by pixelpusher220 (#48533921) Attached to: Why Elon Musk's Batteries Frighten Electric Companies

If we consider subsidizing power to the poor a valuable social service, then we should state that bluntly

We do. It's called regulated franchises so that the power companies are required to damn near everyone regardless of *where* they happen to live. If you left it up to the cost effectiveness then rural places wouldn't get the infrastructure installed.

We also do so by providing government assistance to those who are having trouble paying bills. There are many, many plans in place around the country that do this specifically.

As I said it's larger societal issue as to how we deal with things going forward. If there are systemic problems causing growing numbers of people to be unable to afford basic utility rates...that's something that has to be dealt with because just cutting people off hurts everyone in the long run.

Comment: Re: Are they really that scared? (Score 1) 460

by pixelpusher220 (#48533893) Attached to: Why Elon Musk's Batteries Frighten Electric Companies
No it isn't. You're confusing electric service with the infrastructure build out. People in the outer burbs or outright rural have electricity because the infrastructure installation cost has been subsidized by the closer in masses. The service is then how this is amortized over time with rates that are the same for everyone even though rural places had a lot more spent to connect them to the grid.

If it's worth hacking on well, it's worth hacking on for money.

Working...