Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 4 Badge!

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^spoco2:
Awesome stuff.
I hate with a passion those who espouse not giving their kids vaccinations, especially those who do so based on here-say or what a 'friend told them' without ever looking into it.
Vaccines keep us safe, they have eradicated many diseases that would otherwise be killing us by the thousands or millions.
So while it's good to keep a sceptical eye on things at all times stopping things like vaccines without having any fricken idea why you are other than some uninformed dicks told you it was dangerous is just horrendous.
It's the same people who take homoeopathic medicines instead of actually doing anything to get cured of life threatening illnesses.

Eradicated diseases? No, the vaccines have suppressed many diseases, but have not eradicated them. If vaccines "Utterly destroyed" the maladies then the vaccines would no longer be needed and you would be advocating their uselessness.
The diseases are still around, and will continue to be around. Vaccines, no matter how good, will always be weaker than nature's wrath.
I blame this on the community of health and science for one reason. Autism is spiking, as are so many other diseases, and the answer to the question of why is pretty much an "I don't know the answer. But I will fail to give a possible answer that is believable, and additionally I will sell our opinion without any fanfare or exictement at all. It will be like a box of shit, but then, we don't know if it is manmade shit or not, but enjoy the shit nevertheless."
Also, if someone doesn't have the answers, people will temporarily fill in the blanks for them. It is our nature, it has been the way of man for 30 thousand years. It is how science advances (Temporary thoughts or theories.) Even the smartest, liberal minds do this everyday... So you cannot really hate people who guessed vaccines were bad.
You can however hate them now that the evidence contradicts their guesses.

The way of science isn't to fill in the blanks with wild speculation. Ok, every hypothesis starts with a guess, but the blank isn't truly filled in until its been tested. Your right though, humanities curious nature seems to be born out of a fundamental fear of the unknown, and we'll make up any fairy tale to help us sleep. I honestly wish we could embrace our ignorance without shame, after all, ignorance is really only damaging when you delude yourself into thinking you know the answers you don't. Do I hate the people that jumped to the wrong conclusion, not really, but I can't say I think much of the people who propogated the lie.

People used to be so stupid back in the 00s...
>> ^MycroftHomlz:

There was a time (just a few years back) here on videosift that the overwhelming sentiment was anti-vaccine and most of the people here had never heard of Andrew Wakefield. I am happy to see things have changed.

Small pox is gone. So yes, eradication is possible given persistence and commitment.

Weaker than natures wrath? That is some mighty fine grandstanding there, going for the nomination of best dramatic comment . Frankly, medicine and food are the two most important areas science has advanced. For instance, mortality rates for mothers giving birth is less than 1%, down from nearly 10% so many years ago. And this malevolent force of nature to which you refer hasn't struck every first born yet.


I agree with the jist of your comment mostly, though. If my child just got diagnosed with autism, I would be looking for answers, and vaccines would seem to be a smart place to look, strange men in lab coats poking children with needles is an easy target.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^spoco2:
Awesome stuff.
I hate with a passion those who espouse not giving their kids vaccinations, especially those who do so based on here-say or what a 'friend told them' without ever looking into it.
Vaccines keep us safe, they have eradicated many diseases that would otherwise be killing us by the thousands or millions.
So while it's good to keep a sceptical eye on things at all times stopping things like vaccines without having any fricken idea why you are other than some uninformed dicks told you it was dangerous is just horrendous.
It's the same people who take homoeopathic medicines instead of actually doing anything to get cured of life threatening illnesses.

Eradicated diseases? No, the vaccines have suppressed many diseases, but have not eradicated them. If vaccines "Utterly destroyed" the maladies then the vaccines would no longer be needed and you would be advocating their uselessness.
The diseases are still around, and will continue to be around. Vaccines, no matter how good, will always be weaker than nature's wrath.
I blame this on the community of health and science for one reason. Autism is spiking, as are so many other diseases, and the answer to the question of why is pretty much an "I don't know the answer. But I will fail to give a possible answer that is believable, and additionally I will sell our opinion without any fanfare or exictement at all. It will be like a box of shit, but then, we don't know if it is manmade shit or not, but enjoy the shit nevertheless."
Also, if someone doesn't have the answers, people will temporarily fill in the blanks for them. It is our nature, it has been the way of man for 30 thousand years. It is how science advances (Temporary thoughts or theories.) Even the smartest, liberal minds do this everyday... So you cannot really hate people who guessed vaccines were bad.
You can however hate them now that the evidence contradicts their guesses.

>> ^spoco2:
Awesome stuff.
I hate with a passion those who espouse not giving their kids vaccinations, especially those who do so based on here-say or what a 'friend told them' without ever looking into it.
Vaccines keep us safe, they have eradicated many diseases that would otherwise be killing us by the thousands or millions.
So while it's good to keep a sceptical eye on things at all times stopping things like vaccines without having any fricken idea why you are other than some uninformed dicks told you it was dangerous is just horrendous.
It's the same people who take homoeopathic medicines instead of actually doing anything to get cured of life threatening illnesses.


The reason I bring up the significance of "eradicate" is--People honestly think that when a vaccine works, its use can be stopped because the disease is gone for good. This cannot be further from the truth!

Those not vaccinated will be even more susceptible to diseases! Where nature once thinned the herd and built up resistance naturally, nowadays there is either a pill for every near-fatal malady or death.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

There was a time (just a few years back) here on videosift that the overwhelming sentiment was anti-vaccine and most of the people here had never heard of Andrew Wakefield. I am happy to see things have changed.


I know I had some questions until I became aware of the dutch study on it. It pays to question that stuff you put into your body, like corn sugar, fast food, ect. Not exactly the same, but you get the idea.

>> ^spoco2:
Awesome stuff.
I hate with a passion those who espouse not giving their kids vaccinations, especially those who do so based on here-say or what a 'friend told them' without ever looking into it.
Vaccines keep us safe, they have eradicated many diseases that would otherwise be killing us by the thousands or millions.
So while it's good to keep a sceptical eye on things at all times stopping things like vaccines without having any fricken idea why you are other than some uninformed dicks told you it was dangerous is just horrendous.
It's the same people who take homoeopathic medicines instead of actually doing anything to get cured of life threatening illnesses.


Eradicated diseases? No, the vaccines have suppressed many diseases, but have not eradicated them. If vaccines "Utterly destroyed" the maladies then the vaccines would no longer be needed and you would be advocating their uselessness.

The diseases are still around, and will continue to be around. Vaccines, no matter how good, will always be weaker than nature's wrath.

I blame this on the community of health and science for one reason. Autism is spiking, as are so many other diseases, and the answer to the question of why is pretty much an "I don't know the answer. But I will fail to give a possible answer that is believable, and additionally I will sell our opinion without any fanfare or exictement at all. It will be like a box of shit, but then, we don't know if it is manmade shit or not, but enjoy the shit nevertheless."

Also, if someone doesn't have the answers, people will temporarily fill in the blanks for them. It is our nature, it has been the way of man for 30 thousand years. It is how science advances (Temporary thoughts or theories.) Even the smartest, liberal minds do this everyday... So you cannot really hate people who guessed vaccines were bad.

You can however hate them now that the evidence contradicts their guesses.

Your video, Anti-vaccination: Rebecca Watson Follows the money, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Chaucer:

This was only the first round score. It went on:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/13/ibm-watson-takes-jeopardy
-champs/
"Though Watson ended the exhibition in the lead with $4,400 compared to Jenning’s $3,400 and Rutter’s $1,200, a continuation of that battle shown on internal televisions during lunch revealed that Jenning had pulled ahead after scoring a Daily Double. Watson still isn’t perfect, it seems."
>> ^entr0py:
>> ^Chaucer:
Actually, this story has been going around that the computer won. Which is WRONG! If you get the rest of the story, you'll know that the computer ends up getting stomped by Jennings by the end of the segment.

You're probably thinking of a different test. Watson did win the game shown in the video. Though they only played single Jeopardy. http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/13/ibms-wat
son-supercomputer-destroys-all-humans-in-jeopardy-pract/
Final Score
Watson : $4,400
Ken : $3,400
Brad : $1,200.



I hope they do more of these with v2, v3, v4, Skynet, etc.

This was only the first round score. It went on:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/01/13/ibm-watson-takes-jeopardy-champs/

"Though Watson ended the exhibition in the lead with $4,400 compared to Jenning’s $3,400 and Rutter’s $1,200, a continuation of that battle shown on internal televisions during lunch revealed that Jenning had pulled ahead after scoring a Daily Double. Watson still isn’t perfect, it seems."

>> ^entr0py:

>> ^Chaucer:
Actually, this story has been going around that the computer won. Which is WRONG! If you get the rest of the story, you'll know that the computer ends up getting stomped by Jennings by the end of the segment.

You're probably thinking of a different test. Watson did win the game shown in the video. Though they only played single Jeopardy. http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/13/ibms-wat
son-supercomputer-destroys-all-humans-in-jeopardy-pract/
Final Score
Watson : $4,400
Ken : $3,400
Brad : $1,200.

Seems to me like Jennings would have won the first round if he didn't lose the buzz, either by buzzing too soon or by the computer beating his timing. I wonder if they program in some variability to Watson's buzzing in, or if it buzzes in the moment it hears Alex stop speaking. Wonder if that would be any advantage at all given that humans can read ahead and know exactly when the question's over. If Watson's only listening it wouldn't have that foresight.. unless it's also running some kind of inflection analysis on the voice recognition.

>> ^Chaucer:

Actually, this story has been going around that the computer won. Which is WRONG! If you get the rest of the story, you'll know that the computer ends up getting stomped by Jennings by the end of the segment.


You're probably thinking of a different test. Watson did win the game shown in the video. Though they only played single Jeopardy. http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/13/ibms-watson-supercomputer-destroys-all-humans-in-jeopardy-pract/

Final Score
Watson : $4,400
Ken : $3,400
Brad : $1,200.

>> ^Chaucer:

Actually, this story has been going around that the computer won. Which is WRONG! If you get the rest of the story, you'll know that the computer ends up getting stomped by Jennings by the end of the segment.


URL for the story?

>> ^Payback:

>> ^ant:
>> ^quantumushroom:
I for one welcome our new...ah fuck it.

There's a group called "ah fuck it"?

You have another explanation for the popularity of Sarah Palin?


Yeah, because she's hot? j/k!