Link to Original Source
My vaccination card (which I do still have for some reason) lists the vaccinations separately while my son's lists a single MMR entry, and I do remember getting separate shots for my booster. As for why I didn't get the combined shot, it might have been a local government thing (vaccination schedules vary widely between counties/states/countries) or a cost thing (new drugs are typically more expensive than old ones). But they *were* administered on the same day...
I agree that "pulled from the market" is overstating things - it was just supply and demand.
The only credible research I've seen showed a possible connection to intestinal bacteria getting out of control after vaccination in some young children, with the advice to simply spread the initial two dozen or so recommended vaccinations over a slightly longer period of time (I think it was 48 months), with prioritization given to highly infectious and deadly diseases (e.g. meningitis).
There are also a bunch of "non-medical" ingredients in some manufacturer's vaccines that are prescription drugs (statins, etc.) used to "bootstrap" the vaccines but that are not approved for use in children otherwise. Some localities do enforce requirements on such ingredients in children's vaccines while others don't... I'm not aware of any specific research into the side-effects of such ingredients, but (as an example) our son's pediatrician avoided given vaccines containing unapproved ingredients to children out of simple caution.
Ultimately I think the biggest problem is that both "sides" are demonizing the other, with "pro vaccine" people calling anyone who has questions or fears about vaccines an idiot, dangerous, etc. and governments providing a liability shield to vaccine manufacturers and forcing parents to give their children more and more vaccines on an accelerated schedule, often with little or no notice. As an example, we were told our son's vaccinations were up to date at the beginning of the last school year only to be told 8 months later he needed another vaccination or he would not be allowed to continue going to school. Getting a notice from the government saying "do this or else" is hardly a way to build a trusting relationship. And experts not talking openly and freely with those that have concerns forces those with concerns to talk with the "alternate experts" that are willing to fill their heads with their agenda.
The first measles vaccine (according to http://www.historyofvaccines.o...) came in 1960, followed by the mumps and rubella vaccines later in the sixties, and then the first combination MMR vaccine in 1971....
I'm not sure where this page gets its information from, but I know for a fact (from my immunization records) that I was given three separate shots (administered the same day, mind you, but not a single shot containing a combination of the three vaccines) as a child, both for my initial vaccination (1973) and the subsequent boosters (1982). My son (now 8) got the combination MMR vaccine since they no longer manufacture the separate ones.
Clarke did very little writing on robot brains.
Um, I'll have to assume that you weren't around for April, 1968, when the leading AI in popular culture for a long, long, time was introduced in a Kubrick and Clarke screenplay and what probably should have been attributed as a Clarke and Kubrick novel. And a key element of that screenplay was a priority conflict in the AI.
Well, you've just given up the argument, and have basically agreed that strong AI is impossible
Not at all. Strong AI is not necessary to the argument. It is perfectly possible for an unconscious machine not considered "strong AI" to act upon Asimov's Laws. They're just rules for a program to act upon.
In addition, it is not necessary for Artificial General Intelligence to be conscious.
Mind is a phenomenon of healthy living brain and is seen no where else.
We have a lot to learn of consciousness yet. But what we have learned so far seems to indicate that consciousness is a story that the brain tells itself, and is not particularly related to how the brain actually works. Descartes self-referential attempt aside, it would be difficult for any of us to actually prove that we are conscious.
You're approaching it from an anthropomorphic perspective. It's not necessary for a robot to "understand" abstractions any more than they are required to understand mathematics in order to add two numbers. They just apply rules as programmed.
Today, computers can classify people in moving video and apply rules to their actions such as not to approach them. Tomorrow, those rules will be more complex. That is all.
Agreed that a Robot is no more a colleague than a screwdriver.
I think you're wrong about Asimov, though. It's obvious that to write about theoretical concerns of future technology, the author must proceed without knowing how to actually implement the technology, but may be able to say that it's theoretically possible. There is no shortage of good, predictive science fiction written when we had no idea how to achieve the technology portrayed. For example, Clarke's orbital satellites were steam-powered. Steam is indeed an efficient way to harness solar power if you have a good way to radiate the waste heat, but we ended up using photovoltaic. But Clarke was on solid ground regarding the theoretical possibility of such things.
VMWare is a GPL violator and got off of its most recent case on a technicality. Any Linux developer can restart the case.
The Linux foundation is sort of like loggers who claim to speak for the trees. Their main task is to facilitate the exploitation of Open Source rather than contribution to it.
Bitcoins aren't really worth anything. There are just some people who have convinced themselves that they are worth something. You can'r really rely on such people continuing their belief.
Neutrinos are into physicists.