alanschu

Also, by offering the vaccine to grade 6 students, you still leave a very viable market open to make billions more dollars on teenagers and young adults, that will still have to purchase the drug for themselves. It's more profitable (especially short term) to offer the drug for "free" (government subsidized) to those that won't need it for probably at least 5 years (unless times have really changed in the past decade), and longer for the majority. So that 18 year old teenager still has to fork over the money so they can make even more short term profits. Offering the vaccine to say, 15 year olds, would still cover an extreme majority of people that have not had sex yet (or at least limited sexual experience), but it would hurt Merck's bottom line. They wouldn't make as much money.

The cost really isn't that much of an issue. It's the mandatory vaccination to be given to those that are (hopefully) still a few years away from such a vaccine even having a purpose, simply because they are at the lower bound of when they are available. The other issue is that the governor decided to sidestep the entire legislature to throw this in. Other issues involve the relationship the governor has with the creator of this drug. He has close ties with lobbyists involved with the drug company, and the drug company also donated money to his election campaign. I'd be perfectly content if the government were to offer free innocuations to young women in the age group of the sample size given that sought to obtain the innocuation. My schools didn't have mandatory Hepatitis innocuations, but when I was planning on going to the Dominican Republic. On the plus side, the current plan is allowing for those to opt out of optimizations for philosophical or religious differences. Hopefully the terms for doing so are less than complicated. Again, I'd rather the funding be put towards a compound that has shown results against all types of cancer (which would therefore also include the ability to cure cervical cancer caused by HPV) at a fraction of the costs since the compound is not patented and can be manufacturered by whomever wanted to manufacture it. Unfortunately, there's no big money involved in it, so you'll get lobbyists from this very same company that wants to help all these 9 and 10 year old girls not get cervical cancer fighting against it since their client stands to lose billions of dollars. Talk about awesome. Just to make sure things are clear, I have no problems with pharmaceutical companies making lots of money selling patented drugs that cure and vaccinate serious diseases. I understand that research on these cost gigantic amounts of money, and that if there were no patent protections, none of them would bother doing any of this research. But when governments start giving drug companies a whole heck of a lot of money, especially when said government was helped voted into power because of this drug company, it doesn't exactly give me warm fuzzy feelings. Double so when other, less profitable ventures have recently come on to the horizon that would cover not only the problem that the drug company will solve, but so much more. Unfortunately, lobbyists are very powerful, and elections are not cheap.

Do you feel you have $55 to spare, and will spending it now significantly impact your ability to upgrade in the near future?

I'm just curious if anyone out there named Llyranor has heard of this game. IGN had a good review, Gamespot not so much. Seems a big issue with the game is the length of the single player game, though both reviews comment about a really fun coop experience. Hopefully it's not "coop" in terms of "coop against other human players" so I figured I'd send the jerk an inquiry. EDIT: There is a demo which I'll probably get around to playing sometime this evening. I'll post impressions on the game then.

How is Shanahan responsible for your team's lack of success?

The issue I have is through the means by which the HPV disease is contracted. An important part of getting kids early with a polio vaccine is that they could come from poor families that don't have access to clean food and water, and other basic needs that may not be met. Given that executive powers were also used to skip over the entire legislative process, leads me to think that something fishy is going on here.

Okay:

I was thinking something that doesn't come with a lot of preconceived notions about it. Besides, the NRA already exists. It is a bit late to go and start it. Why?

Besides, as long as review is made based on the experience playing the game, and not the hype, no problems. I'm sure we've all been super stoked about a game, only to have it come out and be a complete turd and we were pretty pissed off.

Yes, but the law is the law. :confused: You once had a goal of becoming involved in politics. Start a lobby group.

I'm not too surprised about Malkin, but Staal certainly has been a surprise.

For a virus that, when I read up on it at a variet of places, was suggested that is typically cured by the body on its own, why would it remain with their husbands (whom I shall assume are being faithful) indefnitely? In fact, the Center for Disease Control comments that "for those who choose to be sexually active, a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner is the strategy most likely to prevent future genital HPV infections." (It also comments that the effectiveness of condom use is unknown, which means you were just talking on assumptions like the rest of us were). Going a bit further, and seeing what Center of Disease Control had to say about HPV in men, it clearly states that "for most men, there would be no need to treat HPV, even if treatment were available

Plus, chambering a shell with a pump action is a loud and unmistakable sound. Who is going to stick around after hearing that? As much as I am willing and able to use deadly force to defend myself and home, I'd rather an intruder run before it comes to that. *edit* But I have 14 dogs, who in their right mind will ever break into my place? Heh, I thought I mentioned it, but apparently I didn't. I meant to specifically mention the deterrence that pumping the shotgun would also have.

But you'll keep watching no doubt.

Will Eddo be encountering people at ranges significantly farther than 5 to 15 feet in the defense of his home? The thing I particularly liked with GuardDog's suggestion is that, while a shotgun will likely be lethal force, it was chosen specifically to accent his accuracy (to be honest, I'd be surprised if upon discovering an intruder, that many people would have the mental fortitude to line up their gun and aim properly down the sights, rather than more of a point and shoot), and to limit the chance of accidental injury. As for your stupid laws, well, that just stupid.

Is the HPV cause of anal-cancer any more difficult to detect and treat in a precancerous stage than the cervical cancer? The big issue I have is that the scale is so small, and even then it's possible to detect, treat, and remove the cancer with a Pap test.

Why specifically to kill? Is killing more effective than incapacitation?

I know it depends on the ammunition. I have limited experience firing bullets through walls. Is our skin significantly tougher than drywall, or is it the organs that slow things down sufficiently that would prevent the round from exiting out the other side of the individual and still hitting an innocent bystander?

If you were a Snickers commercial I'd ban you!

So is the gun truly for self-defense, or is it looking for a justified reason to kill someone? Why a precise shot to the head, and not a shot to the chest (which is probably where you should be aiming if it's so dark that you need night sights)? I'd imagine that firing a blank would be more than effective at protecting yourself and your home, with perhaps the second round in the magazine being a live round in case the intruder doesn't buy it. At least that's an honest answer.

If it's dark enough that you need glow in the dark sights to ensure that you're pointing your pistol at the person, how can you be certain that you're actually pointing it at someone. I'd be surprised if, given the close range of the encounter and being a man of military training, your accuracy would be so bad that you would be unable to actually hit the intended target. Furthermore, would your rounds effectively shoot through walls and wound neighbours? Wouldn't they break apart before they could get through the second layer of drywall?

Well, the linked object also requires electrodes to be attached to the surface of the brain, which may make it prohibitively expensive and dangerous.

Was anyone stating that clinical tests aren't underway? Since you mention it though, if clinical tests are still only underway and not finished, isn't it premature to use an executive order to bypass legislature to enforce this act in 2008? I was under the impression that the vaccine specifically targets HPV and its related cancer causing agents, so the ability to combat anal cancer is from HPV induced anal cancer, which would still effectively be a sexually transmitted disease.

THat link is actually pretty old by now (2000), so I'm not sure exactly what is happening with the project.

I don't know, it seemed kind of obvious to me. SHe feels World Trade Centre is better than United 93. I found it funny that shortly after the release of United 93, the official transcripts of everything that was said and recorded on the black box of United 93 was released to the public.