Slashdot Mirror

The second person you're referring to does not have Ebola.

Well, you can understand the confusion, since Texas TV stations national news sites and newspapers were reporting exactly the story I relayed.

http://www.wcnc.com/story/news...

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/1...

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension there... for one thing, wcnc.com isn't a Texas TV station, national news site, or a newspaper. It's a local Charlotte, North Carolina TV station. While just about every TV station has a web site these days, accessible from around the world, WCNC still a local station, with news geared for a local audience--it's no CNN or New York Times. And secondly, neither site reported "exactly the story [you] relayed". You claimed that there was a "second Ebola patient"--one of the sheriff's deputies. However, neither site says that the deputy contracted Ebola--just that he was feeling sick to his stomach/having stomach issues, and since he had been in the Ebola victim's apartment, the hospital wanted to observe him "out of an abundance of caution." FYI, the test results are back, and he doesn't have Ebola. You also said, "When offered protective gear, he declined." However, the articles never say that he was offered protective gear, or that he declined it. One simply states, "No one who went inside the unit that day wore protective gear."

The second person you're referring to does not have Ebola.

Well, you can understand the confusion, since Texas TV stations national news sites and newspapers were reporting exactly the story I relayed.

http://www.wcnc.com/story/news...

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/1...

Basically you're a moron

So, you believe the Texas deputy who went in to the Ebola patient's home after refusing to wear gloves or a mask was just exercising his god-given Texas rights to ignore scientists?

You understand that "direct contact" with any bodily fluids from an Ebola patient, even after the patient is no longer present, represent a vector that could be infectous, right? Something like used kleenex or surfaces that the Ebola patient had leaked on. Unlike something like HIV, the Ebola virus does in fact live a pretty long time outside the living body. That's why handling Ebola corpses is one of the ways it's spread. Or are you getting your information from Alex Jones too?

And my being a moron has nothing to do with Texas dumbassery. I earned my moron status, I wasn't born with it like Texans.

It's not as bad as some NBC news articles. But, editors, this isn't the standard to float above.

It's pretty funny you should ask about risk in the face of the example of underground weapons manufacture in occupied Europe. Those people were summarily executed by the Gestapo or similar agencies. Doesn't get riskier than that, and it still happened.

And as for armed women, the numbers are not ultimately important, the principle of access is. You don't count freedom on your fingers. Which one of these examples would you say to their face 'I would rather you were disarmed to salve my own sensibilities even if it meant you would have been raped and/or killed'?

Out here in California, prices surged as people bet the price would sky rocket and bought gas no matter what the price. The local 7/11 had people topping off their tanks because their price, usually the highest around, was 10 cents lower than in town. Most of the people buying gas didn't need it but figured the price was going higher so they bought while it was "low" at $2.90.

If the price stays high for the next few years, people will get out of their SUVs and move into more efficient vehicles. The oil markets will respond, just as it did in the 80's, and prices will drop in real terms. Eventually, people will forget and they'll buy gas hogs again. People do that - they forget.

Those of you who are certain that we're running out of oil forget as well. In 1970, it was common knowledge that we'd be out of oil by 1985. Paul Erlich at Stanford made a fortune pitching his dystopian view of the future and we bought it. The futurists who got it right were the economist who argued that the real price of commodities fall over time as producers and consumers become more efficient.

It's worth noting that the shift to SUVs wasn't due to just the cheap price of gas. Congress played a major role as well. Business used to be able to depreciate the price of cars it purchased at an accelerated rate. Small business owners used that to their advantage by buying nicer cars which angered folks who didn't own businesses and hence, couldn't get the same tax write off. Congress responded by eliminating the write off for business-owned cars. The accelerated depreciation schedule remained for trucks which GM and Ford exploited by gussing up what used to be utility trucks for hauling workers around into SUVs. I saw a lot of new SUVs in my neighborhood after my accountant sent out a flyer advising his clients of the tax advantage which was considerable. A very smart friend of mine grumbled that the "I want my children to be safe and so I have to have the biggest car available" crowd just got a tax boost and the only way to retaliate was to drive a Peterbilt to work.