StringJunky

They are all after your money and data. Some hide it better than others.

If the diversity of people surviving to a reproductive age increases then the fitness of the human species increases by virtue of the fact that, at any given time in the future, the gene pool is more diverse relative to the non-vaccinating eras. It's quite simple.

Another thing, not often mentioned, is that the higher the numbers of people vaccinated, the more it insulates those who can't be vaccinated, like: - People without a fully-working immune system, including those without a working spleen - People on chemotherapy treatment whose immune system is weakened - People with HIV - Newborn babies who are too young to be vaccinated - Elderly people - Many of those who are very ill in hospital http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/herd-immunity

Why is it that science has to have all the information now and if they don''t have it now it's automatically wrong?

Better to stay in the frying pan than jump in the fire. Hilary's not so pristine having her own server. I think there would have been a 'something-gate' with her as well if she'd won. Obama's like our queen compared to those two, on reflection.

As JC said, you would be OK but other factors would come into play as you go deeper which are mentioned in that link.

The longer the tube, the less exhaled air gets expelled from the tube, so you end up re-breathing it. You can't replenish the snorkel tube, beyond that length, with fresh air... the dead space is too big. Increasing pressure on the lungs from going deeper has an effect on the efficiency as well. https://www.snorkelingonline.com/pages/why-are-snorkel-tubes-so-short

We are not distinct from Nature. What we do are acts of Nature. We are reducing the laws of chance in our favour. Somewhat science fiction at the moment but we may one day lift critical species, including ourselves, off this ultimately doomed planet to a safer haven and hence allow this particular strand of evolution to continue. Through humans, nature is becoming less probabilistic and more deterministic. That's the way it is. We don't know what genes are favourable in any given future environment , so, the more the better. The more genes available for combination, the more permutations are available to produce individuals that can best cope with that potentially hostile future environment; this is the definition of fitness.Variation is insurance against adversity. Vaccination aids that.

That's a sign of strong character rather than intelligence.

Reading the Art Hobson paper, it's interesting that Faraday was already on the right track in the 1800's with his field theory: It's not a hard conceptual leap to see those "convergences" as excitations in a field. Could have saved a lot of conceptual hassle later if this had come to the fore earlier, it seems to me.

Yes, that's how I understand it. It's a simliar situation with abiogenesis, although abiogenesis is on a bit more solid footing.

True.

Ideal is ok as a substitute for aspiration/aim/target. I didn't know Bristolians used 'ideal' in place of 'idea' until now though.

You must be quite young to have not seen the effects of naturally acquired immunity on some people. It is puzzling that you sign off with "ex RN" and yet ask or suggest these things.

Isn't it the case though that they are going to make string theory work; the nomenclature and language is in place. They'll fiddle with it until as and when it fits observation and future testing.

All the bit's inside are made by the same few manufacturers. Pick the one that does what you want at the best price.

Yes. The problem for me was visualising how single objects could split and still make sense. Best to just forget about the Bohr model..

On a side note, It's peculiar that when something is infected one says "it has a fungus" instead of " it has fungi" when there are likely to be several or many examples present.

Yes, I wasn't implying the field is a physical medium but moving values through the field co-ordinates. Cool. I just asked because it's easier thinking of particles as excitations in a field than discrete little balls when applying it to things like Young's experiment. This way it's not counter-intuitive or mysterious. Thanks.

Is it ok to think of a field as passing through both slits when a single particle passes through; the particle field is always connected in both slits but can interfere when they reconnect the other side? I'm thinking like a flow of water passing around a rock both sides

Cheers.

You need to make friends with yourself. Regardless of the level of closeness of ones relationships they are all transient and will end, in some way, at some point. You enter the world alone and you will leave alone. It's not easy, but seek to find a sense of completeness and self-containment in your own company so that the inherent selfishness of everybody around you does not affect your sense of who you are. Expect nothing from anyone and then you should never feel let down. The only people that you should love unconditionally and give, without expectation of return, are children in your care.

From what I understand, it's not mandatory but children can be excluded from schools for not having them.

That's what they do. The procedure will be such that compliance is as successful as possible. I'm sure they've gone through multiple procedural models in testing.