GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
I usually don't use emphasis on text in this manner, but in your case where you selectively ignore or distort what I posted, I fell like I have no other choice but to use ALL CAPS and screaming bold and italic to call your attention to the parts of the post you missed.
Actually, I am more for the implementation of a resource based economy (for example, see the Venus Project). In such a society, money is not the driving force behind anything because it doesn't exist. It is a meritocracy where the most competent person gets assigned to handle whatever task is at hand, and where technology is implemented based on it's efficiency and whether there are resources available for it.
For example, fossil fuels should be history already but because they are still monetarily viable and corporations can still make huge profits off them, they are still used. In a resource based economy, if we can implement our power generating capabilities using other means just as easily, then there is nothing stopping us. No oil companies holding patents to new battery technology, or lobbying to prevent the adoption of wind and solar power.
This would also mean that automation would become a big part of how the society functions, offloading all the dull and repetitive tasks onto machines.
And if people don't have to compete with machines (as many do in factories and assembly lines) just to be able to have money to live, then human beings can be free to pursue other more mentally challenging endeavors and be free from back breaking labour. Technology will also be able to advance much faster than it does now, because there will be no "agenda" behind it's implementation.
I know this is a very utopic view of a society, but it is not impossible. Unfortunately, it can't be done overnight because of how ingrained our current system is. There has to be some form of transition, which first and foremost starts with a good scientifically and socially oriented education. The other more difficult part is to get both corporations and governments to scale back because they are institutions that will also fight tooth-and-nail to survive and perpetuate their old self-interest. For example, politicians won't really have a reason to exist, not in their current form anyway.
In such a society, the pursuit of knowledge and the advancement of our civilization unites us and means that there really are no borders between us any more. If we can stop squabbling and warring with each other, then just imagine what we could accomplish.
How can two people that share such a similar hope for the future differ so wildly in its process of becoming real?
in this regard, you would be most interested in my personal research. My primary field is a realistic artificial intelligence. I seek this technology to provide a framework for mundane tasks to be automated, such as government, transportation, and anything else it might be useful for.
(READ: Anything a human could never really be as qualified for as I would want him to be, such as a surgeon, a judge, etc)
Presently the work is focused on developing an algorithm that could "learn" and allow for knowledge to be modified at will, as well as "personally" sought by the program itself.
The hope initially would be to have a "digital person" that could read, interpret, and understand as a variety of human beings would - all the information on the internet. I dunno what that might do to a human being, to understand everything on the internet, but I intend to find out what it would do to an electronically implemented person.
Ala - Government must regulate everything, or else there will be lots of people willfully and gleefully destroying themselves, and their environment.
I would like to point out that Somalia hasn't had a government for going on 20 years. I have yet to see any anti-government type vote with their feet and move there despite the fact that it must be a libertarian paradise by now. Oh, wait, they are pretty much willfully and gleefully destroying themselves and their environment. So if government is the root of all evil, how do you explain that a place where there is no .gov, and hasn't been for quite some time is a complete hell-hole?
How can two people that share such a similar hope for the future differ so wildly in its process of becoming real?
You want to allow the free market to run itself, but we have seen from experience time and again that this simply doesn't work like it should.
By giving corporations all the freedom they want you are giving them the ability to perpetuate the current monetary system and all it's flaws indefinitely.
I also don't want a Soviet-like government, that is just as bad or worse than an unregulated capitalistic society.
I do however believe that forming a responsible and unselfish government that nudges society and the economy away from the monetary system and towards a resource based system is possible. But this requires the existence of a government with integrity and competent people running it in the first place, to take the first few steps in the right direction.
Unfortunately I don't think I will see such a society in my lifetime
Quote:
in this regard, you would be most interested in my personal research. My primary field is a realistic artificial intelligence. I seek this technology to provide a framework for mundane tasks to be automated, such as government, transportation, and anything else it might be useful for.
(READ: Anything a human could never really be as qualified for as I would want him to be, such as a surgeon, a judge, etc)
Presently the work is focused on developing an algorithm that could "learn" and allow for knowledge to be modified at will, as well as "personally" sought by the program itself.
The hope initially would be to have a "digital person" that could read, interpret, and understand as a variety of human beings would - all the information on the internet. I dunno what that might do to a human being, to understand everything on the internet, but I intend to find out what it would do to an electronically implemented person.
Very interesting indeed. The quest for knowledge and technology are the keys to setting us free (if used correctly).
I would like to point out that Somalia hasn't had a government for going on 20 years. I have yet to see any anti-government type vote with their feet and move there despite the fact that it must be a libertarian paradise by now. Oh, wait, they are pretty much willfully and gleefully destroying themselves and their environment. So if government is the root of all evil, how do you explain that a place where there is no .gov, and hasn't been for quite some time is a complete hell-hole?
I dunno what the deal is with somalia exactly, but saying it "lacks government" isn't entirely correct.
Then again, the preferred "governor" in Africa has usually been the warlord, who came into power by being far more savage and brutal than his predecessor. Kinda like in the drug trade, but most of this stems from individuals who've learned this way of life over decades of competition for the rich man's money.
I dunno what the deal is with somalia exactly, but saying it "lacks government" isn't entirely correct.
How is is not correct? The Ethiopians are gone (and never had much influence beyond Mogadishu). Nothing has replaced them. Somalia really hasn't had any sort of government for almost 20 years. Instead of becoming a libertarian paradise, it has degenerated into a haven for thugs. It is my contention that lack of proper government is a huge part of this.
Anyway, I think I'm done here. This thread has wandered very far from its original intent and at this point I think we're pretty much stuck in the mud with no hope of ever getting out.
How is is not correct? The Ethiopians are gone (and never had much influence beyond Mogadishu). Nothing has replaced them. Somalia really hasn't had any sort of government for almost 20 years. Instead of becoming a libertarian paradise, it has degenerated into a haven for thugs. It is my contention that lack of proper government is a huge part of this.
Anyway, I think I'm done here. This thread has wandered very far from its original intent and at this point I think we're pretty much stuck in the mud with no hope of ever getting out.
NOTE: I support the original ten amendments to the US constitution, and I don't mind .gov so long as it doesn't breach the constitution.
(Which has happened under "threat of the communists!" "Threat of the WWI Dissenters!" "Threat of unlawful enemy combatants!" "Threat of no national healthcare!" "Threat of terrorism!" and all of a sudden, saying the wrong thing gets you in jail. No reason at all to have your privacy invaded. Complete destruction of the 10th amendment, and various other acts of treason within the last century, that you may or may not care about, such as the National Firearms Act (Shall not be infringed?), the AWB, age limits, etc)
Does somalia have have a bill of rights similar to ours? I don't think so.. Does anyone else?
Perhaps not anymore. Ours might be more akin to somalias, infact, since it's virtually worthless, and has no bearing on governmental policies whatsoever these days. Even in an attempt to make you think it does, the "ultimate authority" of the supreme court can be directed to fit as need be, to support any opinion necessary to further the inevitable destruction of the entire foundation this country built on.
DOWN WE GO..
You say you're a practicing scientist, but why on this subject do you ditch your control and add more variables? That's rather.. sloppy, and UNscientific, IMO.
Officials with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) and U.K. National Health Service (NHS) have argued for the possible inclusion of squalene adjuvants in candidate swine flu vaccines without informing the public that rats injected with squalene develop the animal versions of rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis; and induces antibodies specific to systemic lupus erythematosus in mice. Rheumatoid arthritis, MS and lupus are incurable autoimmune diseases – diseases that occur when the immune system attacks the body it is supposed to defend. Examination of rats injected with squalene showed severe inflammation in their joints; other show lesions in the brain and nerves stripped of their insulation called the myelin sheath. Demyelization is a clinical hallmark of MS. There are two squalene adjuvants being tested in clinical trials in the U.S. Europe, Asia and South America – MF59 from Novartis and AS03 from GlaxoSmithKline. According to the manufacturers, at least 46 thousand volunteers are now enrolled in clinical trials for swine flu shots containing MF59 and AS03. Novartis and GlaxoSmithKline say their adjuvants are safe. The Novartis adjuvant, MF59, is already licensed in a seasonal influenza approved for human use in the European Union. Around 40 million doses have been distributed in Europe safely, Novartis says.
emphasis added by me
Yeah, go ahead, call BS again. Personally, I don't care, but maybe some people on here will benefit from at least thinking about what the truth might be. I don't know the truth, but I know the most probably truth.
Last edited by H_TeXMeX_H; 10-24-2009 at 08:40 AM.
Both of which are for the EUROPEAN version of the vaccine. They are not the same as what is produced in the US. Squalene is NOT in any US versions of H1N1 vaccine. Squalene is not approved for use as an adjuvant in the US. Facts about squalene.
Can squalene be harmful? Yes, it can. But so can pretty much anything you care to name if applied in sufficient quantity. You want to have some fun, go dig into selenium. It is toxic in relatively small doses, but you're dead without some. I bet there are some doozy conspiracy sites about selenium. Or maybe you could start one of your own. I suspect that if you look hard enough, you would find selenium in the H1N1 vaccine. And the obvious logical conclusion of such a possiblity is that the governement is trying to kill us all. Then again, I'm sure this paragraph is sufficient evidence for sites like you've been finding and they'll pick up on the selenium conspiracy.
Quote:
Yeah, go ahead, call BS again. Personally, I don't care, but maybe some people on here will benefit from at least thinking about what the truth might be. I don't know the truth, but I know the most probably truth.
OK, I call BS. Again. And you might benefit from applying a little bit of your skepticism to these "sources" you keep pulling out. What makes them more reliable than others? I'm hoping that by putting science out there, maybe some people around here will stop falling for pseudo-scientific gobbldygook from dubious web sites run by self-serving paranoiacs. Just because it is on the web doesn't mean that it has even a passing relationship to scientific fact.
Nice article, but notice the plasma levels are in MICROGRAMS, and they were ingesting the squalene not having it administered intravenously, which makes a huge difference, BTW. Now, this presents a problem, because you are injecting 10.69 MILLIGRAMS (10690 MICROGRAMS) of squalene intravenously not orally. Give me an article on that.
The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) awarded Novartis two contracts totaling USD 979 million for purchase of H1N1 bulk vaccine and the Novartis proprietary MF59 adjuvant.
Injecting organisms into your body to provoke immunity is contrary to nature, and vaccination carries enormous potential to do serious damage to your health.
Anybody willing to make a statement that ignorant gets no more consideration from me. I consider them a liar of the highest order and any other information they use is probably not reliable. Vaccines have a very long history of being largely safe and have rid humans of a number of terrible diseases.
The GLG website attributes the article to a "GLG Expert Contributor" which is defined as:
Quote:
Names and details of certain GLG News authors are available only to GLG Clients and Council Members. GLG News authors are subject-matter experts within the GLG Councils and are available for expert consulting - by phone, in-person, or written analysis. To find out how to become a GLG client or Council Member, click here.
Personally, I'll stick to peer reviewed science as opposed to hacks afraid of the light of day.
Now lets look at that Novartis press release, shall we?
Quote:
The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) awarded Novartis two contracts totaling USD 979 million for purchase of H1N1 bulk vaccine and the Novartis proprietary MF59 adjuvant.
Note that TWO contracts were let. One for the purchase of H1N1 vaccine and one for the purchase of MF59. Nowhere does it say that the H1N! vaccine contains MF59, does it? That tidy little fact is being overlooked by the conspiracy wackos. So what was the purchase for? Clinical trials of MF59. MF59 is NOT APPROVED FOR USE IN THE US. Period. End of sentence. Novartis CANNOT USE MF59 IN ITS US VACCINES.
In any case, there are peer reviewed studies showing MF59 does not cause anti-squalene antibodies to be produced. Do a pubmed search on MF59 for a ton more research. Futhermore, MF59 has been in use for a decade in Europe. Notice any huge outbreak of GWS? There is a large amount of data suggesting it is safe and only squalene hysteria to suggest it isn't.
In any case, there are peer reviewed studies showing MF59 does not cause anti-squalene antibodies to be produced. Do a pubmed search on MF59 for a ton more research. Futhermore, MF59 has been in use for a decade in Europe. Notice any huge outbreak of GWS? There is a large amount of data suggesting it is safe and only squalene hysteria to suggest it isn't.
Well, that is indeed an interesting article, especially:
Quote:
Our study confirms that squalene is very poorly immunogenic. Indeed, in studies carried out by Matyas et al. (12), antibodies against squalene were elicited in mice only when squalene was formulated within liposomes containing endotoxin (lipid A).
You probably already know about lipid A, right ? if not, wiki it.
I'm wondering why these antibodies are only produced when lipid A is injected with it. lipid A being highly antigenic, wouldn't this mean that maybe the virus or maybe the mercury could also be parts of the equation ?
Maybe they should run tests of not only MF59, but of the whole vaccine. Even now the vaccines remain not thoroughly tested, and yet applied. Immunology is a very, very complicated field, and the only real way to know the safety of a vaccine is to test it.
As for Novartis, maybe they should be more explicit about what MF59 will be used for. If not in a vaccine, then in what ?
As for vaccines, I don't mind vaccines against bacteria, but from what I've read on vaccines against viruses, they don't convince me. Many viruses (especially virulent ones, and most especially influenza A) are capable of changing their protein coats so quickly as to render any vaccine useless.
I'm not with the anti-vaccine campaign, I think many vaccines are actually quite useful, but some are just plain stupid: influenza A vaccines.
Well, I got FluMist this week and that contains live virus. Yet here I am... As for the government, yeah it sucks, but so what? No one's going to change anything. Taxes and government are the prices we pay to not have to live in a place like Somalia; just accept it and live your life.
Our study confirms that squalene is very poorly immunogenic. Indeed, in studies carried out by Matyas et al. (12), antibodies against squalene were elicited in mice only when squalene was formulated within liposomes containing endotoxin (lipid A).
I might be misreading your intent, but you seem to be suggesting that his is somehow bad. A good adjuvant is something that stimulates the immune response, but is not itself immunogenic. In other words, this statement suggests that MF59 is actually very safe on its own as it doesn't generate anti-squalene antibodies.
Quote:
I'm wondering why these antibodies are only produced when lipid A is injected with it. lipid A being highly antigenic, wouldn't this mean that maybe the virus or maybe the mercury could also be parts of the equation ?
Woah. First off, it would be thimerosol, not mercury, and second, thimersol is a preservative, not an adjuvant. Vaccines are potentially lovely breeding grounds for all sorts of nasty bacteria, so keeping them sterile is a must. My guess is that lipid A is stimulating a huge response and only if you get this massive level of response does MF59 become a target.
Quote:
Maybe they should run tests of not only MF59, but of the whole vaccine.
They have tested the whole vaccine. MF59 is part of the European version (which has been tested) and H1N! without MF59 has been tested here.
Quote:
Even now the vaccines remain not thoroughly tested, and yet applied. Immunology is a very, very complicated field, and the only real way to know the safety of a vaccine is to test it.
It just isn't true that this vaccine hasn't been tested. It is exactly the same vaccine that has been used for decades but with different neuraminidase and hemagglutinin. Everything else is the same.
Quote:
As for vaccines, I don't mind vaccines against bacteria, but from what I've read on vaccines against viruses, they don't convince me. Many viruses (especially virulent ones, and most especially influenza A) are capable of changing their protein coats so quickly as to render any vaccine useless.
Smallpox is a virus. Polio is a virus. Rubella is a virus. To be honest, vaccines are MOST useful against viruses because effective anti-virals are fairly rare. Furhtermore, vaccines can stop the disease before it gets started as opposed to treating the results of the disease. Do you consider an iron lung to be an acceptable alternative to the polio vaccine? And yes, influenza A can change its coat quickly (though none of the others I mentioned here can) which is why there needs to be yearly changes to the vaccine.
Quote:
I'm not with the anti-vaccine campaign, I think many vaccines are actually quite useful, but some are just plain stupid: influenza A vaccines.
If you're not part of the anti-vaccine campaign, why are you carrying their water? They are using a process first developed by the creationists and is highly effective:
Step 1 - Create a political statement you want advanced. In this case the political statement seems to be that the Government is evil and wants to maim and kill millions of innocent US citizens
Step 2 - Develop a series of "facts" to support the political statement. The truth of these "facts" is irrelevant. (The vaccines contain MERCURY!, the vaccines contain SQUALENE!)
Step 3 - Develop scientific sounding language around these "facts" so that it sounds convincing
Step 4 - Find "experts" willing to testify to the facts from step 3. A higher degree (M.D. or Ph.D.) is required but the actual field of the degree or the institution granting it are irrelevant. The important part is to be able to use the honorific Dr.
Step 5 - Create media outlets to push the political statement
Step 6 - Find 3rd party media outlets to push the political statements
Step 7 - When real scientists push back, scream "CONSPIRACY!" or "I'M BEING REPRESSED!". This frequently causes additional 3rd party media outlets to join.
The whole idea behind this process is to create the illusion of scientific disagreement where in fact, none exists. That way, they can garner unwarranted attention. By the way, that Fox "News" video you linked to is a fine example of this process. Their "expert" is an endocrinologist with no particular expertise in influenza or any other infectious disease. However, he was willing to pimp his M.D. to Fox to push their agenda of "Evil Government is gonna kill us all".
And by creating this thread, I would say you've played a direct role in the last couple of steps at least. Unfortunately I've also played a role by refuting all of the manure that is being spread. A scientific debate on this gives the conspiracy wackos a legitimacy they don't deserve.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
