A driver less car is pretty much worthless to me if I ever have to take over. Either I am focused on the task at hand (driving) or I am not. To do otherwise only maximizes distraction and invites accidents and injury. Imagine sinking into the daily Facebook updates after 2.5 hours of mind-numbing automated driving when suddenly a chime goes off indicating that the automated systems have failed and you have 1.5 seconds to make a decision critical to the safety of the vehicle and its occupants.
I agree it's worthless at 1.5 seconds but not if the warning time was 15 minutes and if you didn't respond then it just pulled over to the side of the road. This would be a huge benefit for travellers, business people, and truck drivers. Imagine getting in a car at 8pm in chicago, falling asleep and being woke up at 8am saying you are about to arrive in New York. If I was google, I would take what I learned from city driving, learn from it, and switch full gear in supporting major interstates. I would do it piecemeal and hit one interstate at a time like they are doing with google fiber. San Francisco to Los Angeles would be a decent one to start with. There are probably lots of people in CA that would buy a car if it could drive hwy 5 from SF to LA while they slept. I live in MO and I would gladly pay a decent price for a car that could go from Kansas City to Saint Louis unassisted even if that was the only route it could do.
And THIS is why we can't have any thing nice... People who buy solely on price drive down the cost so far it's impossible to keep open companies that make good quality parts.
TL,DR: Cheapskates screw things up for the rest of us.
I tend to buy on the two extremes. I own an ipad in a waterproof case and a top of the line android phone. I also own several cheap android tablets that my kids can abuse, I can hack on, take to the beach, etc... I think there is a very good use case for both ends.
The usb bridges I own, I mostly use to talk arduinos. Quality isn't a big concern as long as it mostly works which is why I opted for a $3 bridge instead of a $25 bridge when for my application I can't tell the difference (that is unless somebody starts intentionally sabatoging them).
We're talking about a cheap usb bridge. I probably have dozens of devices that use a ftdi chip or a clone. Many of these devices were bought on ebay for a couple bucks. Yeah, they were cheaply made, I knew that when I bought them but they also worked when I bought them. I had no idea what chips were in them or even how to check because I didn't care. It worked. Now here comes someone who is mad because you bought a cheap knockoff and decides to break all the cheap knockoffs. I have a few cheap android tablets too that may or may not have paid google rights to use android. I don't have any idea how to even check. I wouldn't want google to make them not function after the fact. If you could do it early somehow while the consumer still has a chance to back out of the transaction then I think it would be fine but disabling devices months after the fact because you feel the clone/knockoff is unauthorized is wrong. It would be like apple frying any non-apple chargers that you try to charge your iphone with.
Have you tried this? Pepsi now offers "throwback" where the pepsi/mountain dew is made with sugar instead. I buy it about half the time. From my experience (and from the science I've read), there seems to be no different in satiation. For that matter, there seems to be no difference in satiation between diet and non-diet soda. I think that's one of the problems with soda. Soda doesn't satiate so those calories just end up being EMPTY EXTRA CALORIES that you wouldn't otherwise consume. If you're short and need an extra 500 calories a day (i.e. mostly no one) then it might be a good thing but throwing 500 calories on top of your regular meal is a bad thing.
**Diet soda has a host of other problems from being flat out poisonous and/or cancerous to triggering some but not all pathways confusing the body's response and possibly leading to diabetes as well.
It's not just that honey possible has more "flavor", it's that processed foods in general are playing multiple flavors against each other to neutralize flavor. The FDA has recently outlawed caffinated alcohol because the caffeine and the alcohol counteract each other's effects. Well, soda has been doing this for years. The salt and the sugar are designed to counteract each other. Even the fizz is used to that effect. Ever notice how sweet "flat" soda is? If they took the salt out of soda, noone could stand to drink it as it would be way too sweet.
How do you think we made the Jimi Hendrix posters on the walls of our rooms glow so brightly, back in the 70s, when UV fluorescent technology was prohibitively expensive for those of us in junior high?
Um, No, It's yellow. Also, you're referring to a UV light which is a specific frequency of light. Combining the visual attributes of light doesn't change the underlying frequency. You can't create ultraviolet light by combining visible light.
If the complexity was removed from the tax system, government would primarily be monitoring businesses for compliance (the vast majority of the tax income would come from withholding), rather than having to spy on every single individual, a far better situation from a civil rights perspective.
The vast majority of poor and middle class income comes from withholdings. So fixing the income tax system would do nothing to stop the millions of rich people from dodging taxes.
One proposal I saw was to tax all financial transactions. If you taxed all financial transactions, you could generate an enormous amount of tax revenue with tax percentages below 1%
Problematic though it is, an income based tax is the only sane form of general taxation for a nation that chooses to support large amounts of government spending.
I think it's nieve to say that the income tax is the best we can do. Surely we can come up with something better.
I think that's the point. It's too complex to model but if you have a playground that you can play with you can explore interactions without having to do a ton of math. Most people can't grasp certain complex stuff. Even something as simple as combining green light and red light to make yellow confuses people as it goes against their grade school intuition. Allow people to get a chance to play with it in a lab and then it just clicks.
You obviously need some allowance for commercial entities like truck drivers. There are already systems in place to give tax breaks for business expenses. The point is to shift from taxing income which is hard to track and shift to consumption of goods which is easier to track and also is the bigger concern as the consuming more than your fair share is really the problem, not the making more than your fair share.
There are plenty of ways to do that, from turning in receipts to get reimbursed to mailing out coupons, etc... We have taxed plenty of stuff that's harder to track than gasoline. We're used to tracking income but for alot of people (waiters, barbers, even farmers that sell locally), tracking income is really hard too. We're just used to it. You could easily tax the car based on the odometer instead if tracking the actual fuel was hard. My point is that there are plenty of ways to tax other things and just because we've taxed income for the past 100 years doesn't mean it's the best and fairest way to tax stuff. The government does need at least some money to run, the goal is to get that money in the fairest and least painful way. Taxing food is not very progressive because a person's food bill keeps dropping as a percentage of income as their wealth increases. Other items like housing cost, energy cost, transportation cost, entertainment cost, etc... on the other hand keep going up with income.
I think "rock" is synonymous with boring. We've pretty much concluded that the moon is boring which is why we've decided to explore elsewhere. The opposite of "boring" is of course "exciting". What makes something scientifically exciting is that it either is something we can't explain or helps confirm something we already think we know. What makes something boring is if there is nothing new to discover there. My backyard is scientifically boring. You're unlikely to discover something novel in it. It's possible to find a new mouse that is unknown but it's unlikely. The interesting non-boring stuff in our solar system are places that might harbor life or are most likely to help further explain physical processes like the creation of planets or the solar system.
How does inflation fund government services to the general populace? Genuinely curious. I like taxes, I get a benefit from them. I don't see much benefit from inflation (that I am aware of but I am ignorant of much macroeconomics).
When the Federal Reserve decides to boost the money supply, it buys Treasury bonds. i.e. our national debt. So yes, inflation does help fund government services to the general populace.
The only people particularly worse off than the poor in a consumption tax system are those who engage in conspicuous consumption. Plenty of middle class people do it to pretend they're rich enough that such consumption is a trivial expense to them. And that's precisely it: once you reach beyond a certain point in income, your proportionate needs and wants to your income become increasingly smaller. Hence, the richer you are, the less you're proportionately taxed.
What do you think the "rich people" do with all their money? Stick in in a shoe box? Rich people consume more resources and if they don't, what does it matter, as money is just paper until actually spent on something. A consumption tax is already progressive but it's easy to make it more progressive by slowing increasing the tax as consumption increases. A middle class person can't possibly consume $200k worth of goods if they're only making $100k while someone who owns a $50M house probably consumes more than that just in upkeep of their house.
who decides what is a bare necessity? that's the problem. Fair tax removes the government from deciding what is a bare necessity and leaves it to the household to decide what it considers a bare necessity.
I don't see why this is so hard. We can solve the tax problem and the global warming problem in one shot. The average person in the USA uses about 400 gallon per year of gas. The average gas tax is about 50 cents per gallon. Cut that number in half and say that noone pays taxes on the first 200 gallons of gas and everyone pays $1 on the next 200 gallons. That matches the current usage and pays the current bills while encouraging everyone to save a little gas. Now multiply that up and say it's $2 for the next 200 gallons, and $4 for the next 200 gallons, etc...
Repeat the above with electricity, water, alcohol, etc... and you've both saved the environment and created a great solution for the tragedy of the commons. The tax burden then falls on the stereotypical rich person that lives in a 10k square foot house, drives a hummer, and flies around in their private jet while everyone else has incentives to conserve earth's limited resources. It's probably about as fair and as transparent as you can get with taxes.
We charge the people doing the labor (income tax) and then *also* charge them on consumption? The people least able to pay?
This will end well.
The point is to STOP taxing labor and only tax consumption but also to do it progressively. Luxury taxes and sin taxes are great examples of this. There would be plenty of other ways to do this. Taxing private jets, taxing first class travel, taxing electricity or water usage progressively, carbon taxes for the individual, taxing gasoline progressively, etc.. Inequality isn't a problem because rich people MAKE more than poor people. We should encourage people to create as much wealth as possible. Inequality is a problem because rich people (or countries) CONSUME more than their fair share. It's the consumption of wealth not the creation of wealth that you want to control via taxation. If someone has billions of dollars and never consumes anything (like warren buffet), then that money will eventually be returned to the system when that person dies. Stored wealth isn't a problem, using up our limited resources is.
The current method where the people at the bottom are reproducing faster than the people at the top and the jobs at the bottom are being increasingly replaced by machines is probably not sustainable unless something changes. Eugenics has a terrible history and I doubt we're better than mother nature at picking desirable traits but if nothing else, we should probably try to prevent a slide. Maybe a good strategy would be to pick embryos for maximum diversity but any strategy would probably be better than the defacto strategy we're currently deploying.
This ain't no zombie apocalypse, son. Until the epidemic somehow makes the victim want to infect other people, e.g. people like you becoming cold-hearted enough to refuse food or health care to the infected, your scenario is pretty silly.
No, maybe not directly want to infect everyone but if everyone around you is dying, you're going to want to go somewhere that they're not. So you get out any way possible. You might even see that you have a slight fever but you think, maybe it's not ebola, and anyways, it's better to get to someplace that still has hospital beds available. For instance if mexico had a 30% infection rate of ebola, there is no way you could stop the flood of people crossing the border (short of shooting them)
Our best bet at this point is to start vaccinating all the health care workers and require the ones that get the vaccination first to be available for blood donations for the ones that don't. We are going to quickly run out of "ebola survivors" to draw blood from.
There might be plenty of people lining up to take those jobs but that doesn't mean it's not underpaid. I know plenty of people who love to teach, I also know plenty of people who have abandoned teaching because the pay was too poor. My experience going thru public education in the US was that teaching was dominated by two groups of people. Group 1 was people who loved to teach so much that the stuck with it despite being underpaid. Group 2 was people who did it because it was the best paying job they could find. If people are lining up around the street to get a job then they need to increase the quality bar until everyone in Group 2 is eliminated. Thousands of people apply for jobs at google when there is a job opening. Does that mean google should reduce their pay until only a handful of people apply? Not unless they only want poor or mediocre candidates. Same applies to teachers, cops, nurses, etc.... If there are that many applicants it's much better to raise the bar.
It's already a well known fact that many important professions like teachers, police officers, nurses, firefighters, paramedics, etc... are not paid very well compared to how much they are needed but what's scary is how few there are. We have decent health care in the USA but it would take very little to overwhelm them. Most cities have only 1 ambulance per 30000 people. It only takes a very tiny disaster to deplete them. Heck, it doesn't even take a real disaster. Listening to the police scanner in my city, it's fairly common to hear "status 0" which means that every available ambulance is already on a call. And forget worrying about isolation rooms, in the USA we only have 3 hospital beds per 1000 people. Isolation rooms are several orders of magnitude smaller than that as is proper equipment. We are completely unprepared for any type of mass illness.
You haven't been to a hospital recently have you? Doctors aren't like Dr. House. They aren't looking for zebras when 99.99% of their patients are horses. If you come in with a rare disease it can sometimes take years to get a proper diagnosis. Also most hospitals in the US are private and understaffed so taking time out to train everybody in every hospital to look for ebola and how to treat it is just not going to happen as that would hurt their bottom line. That's assuming that a hospital even has someone on staff that is qualified to do the training which I assume most hospitals don't. What really needs to happen is the CDC needs to train 10 people and have those 10 people train 10 people, etc... Let's say you are REALLY FAST and can keep doing this on a 3 day schedule, that means that it would take 9 days to train 1000 people, 12 days to train 10000 people, etc.... IF you can keep up this extremely tight schedule it would take over 21 days to train all the health care workers in the US. That's assuming that the person 3 levels deep is actually trained well enough in 3 days to teach it to the next level. Good luck with that.
I suppose once we have total control over the individual placement of atoms, at scale, anything really will be possible.
Yes, possible, but mother nature is also better at discovering advantageous arrangements thru trial and error. We still can't predict simple protein folds. Many of the substances we take for granted were discovered first naturally being produced by plants and animals. There are hundreds of substances and techniques where the plant and animal kingdom still is far and away better than anything we can replicate in the laboratory. Even many medicines are produced in a host whether that's a pig or an egg.
And they're right that you want everything stowed away for those two phases of the flight.
So talk to their boss. If an airline wants to allow/disallow certain things or require everything to be stowed, then let the airline decide to do this. If the airline wants to sell flights where noone is allowed luggage, or where there are no seats and it is standing room only, then let the airlines do this. The FAA should only be concerned with the safety of the airplane and the safety of the pilot so that the airline can safely take off and land without hurting anyone outside the airplane. If luggage isn't stored properly and falls on someone, that's the airline's problem. It's no different than if someone slips and falls on ice at walmart, let the airlines decide what is needed to prevent unnecessary lawsuits.
This is still a royal pain. So now to check the balance on my checking account, I have to login to dropbox, type in my password, find my banking password, copy or temporarily memorize it, open up my bank app and log into my bank app.
A password manager is suppose to make it easier. It's ALOT easier to just memorize my banking password.
The promotions tab separates the promotions from your inbox. I'm talking about the promotions stuff that ends up in the spam folder. I wish there was a "borderline spam" tab for the spam folder. Thre is no reason I need to look thru a bunch of viagra emails from china to find the occasional email that is miscategorized. My guess is that the miscategorized email has a very low score and barely crossed over while the viagra spam from china probably has a "score" thru the roof.
Except that if the goal is to get people to adopt a password manager (like the article suggests) then having a bunch of overlapping and conflicting standards for passwords is probably the best way of doing it. That's one of the things that has made me consider a password manager because I can't remember which sites require a symbol or disallow a symbol or require a capital, etc... The only thing that keeps me from using a password manager is that I use lots of different computers, phones, tablets, etc... and I don't know of any password manager than can manage multiple devices. Does anyone know of a password manager that works with apps? Even if I wanted to, I don't think my android banking app would work with any type of password manager intentionally or unintentionally.
Slashdot Mirror
A driver less car is pretty much worthless to me if I ever have to take over. Either I am focused on the task at hand (driving) or I am not. To do otherwise only maximizes distraction and invites accidents and injury. Imagine sinking into the daily Facebook updates after 2.5 hours of mind-numbing automated driving when suddenly a chime goes off indicating that the automated systems have failed and you have 1.5 seconds to make a decision critical to the safety of the vehicle and its occupants.
I agree it's worthless at 1.5 seconds but not if the warning time was 15 minutes and if you didn't respond then it just pulled over to the side of the road.
This would be a huge benefit for travellers, business people, and truck drivers. Imagine getting in a car at 8pm in chicago, falling asleep and being woke
up at 8am saying you are about to arrive in New York. If I was google, I would take what I learned from city driving, learn from it, and switch full gear
in supporting major interstates. I would do it piecemeal and hit one interstate at a time like they are doing with google fiber. San Francisco to Los Angeles
would be a decent one to start with. There are probably lots of people in CA that would buy a car if it could drive hwy 5 from SF to LA while they slept.
I live in MO and I would gladly pay a decent price for a car that could go from Kansas City to Saint Louis unassisted even if that was the only route it could do.
And THIS is why we can't have any thing nice... People who buy solely on price drive down the cost so far it's impossible to keep open companies that make good quality parts.
TL,DR: Cheapskates screw things up for the rest of us.
I tend to buy on the two extremes. I own an ipad in a waterproof case and a top of the line android phone.
I also own several cheap android tablets that my kids can abuse, I can hack on, take to the beach, etc...
I think there is a very good use case for both ends.
The usb bridges I own, I mostly use to talk arduinos. Quality isn't a big concern as long as it mostly works
which is why I opted for a $3 bridge instead of a $25 bridge when for my application I can't tell the difference
(that is unless somebody starts intentionally sabatoging them).
We're talking about a cheap usb bridge. I probably have dozens of devices that use a ftdi chip or a clone.
Many of these devices were bought on ebay for a couple bucks. Yeah, they were cheaply made, I knew
that when I bought them but they also worked when I bought them. I had no idea what chips were in them
or even how to check because I didn't care. It worked. Now here comes someone who is mad because
you bought a cheap knockoff and decides to break all the cheap knockoffs. I have a few cheap android
tablets too that may or may not have paid google rights to use android. I don't have any idea how to
even check. I wouldn't want google to make them not function after the fact. If you could do it early
somehow while the consumer still has a chance to back out of the transaction then I think it would be fine
but disabling devices months after the fact because you feel the clone/knockoff is unauthorized is wrong.
It would be like apple frying any non-apple chargers that you try to charge your iphone with.
Have you tried this? Pepsi now offers "throwback" where the pepsi/mountain dew is made with sugar instead.
I buy it about half the time. From my experience (and from the science I've read), there seems to be no
different in satiation. For that matter, there seems to be no difference in satiation between diet and non-diet
soda. I think that's one of the problems with soda. Soda doesn't satiate so those calories just end up being
EMPTY EXTRA CALORIES that you wouldn't otherwise consume. If you're short and need an extra 500
calories a day (i.e. mostly no one) then it might be a good thing but throwing 500 calories on top of your
regular meal is a bad thing.
**Diet soda has a host of other problems from being flat out poisonous and/or cancerous to triggering
some but not all pathways confusing the body's response and possibly leading to diabetes as well.
It's not just that honey possible has more "flavor", it's that processed foods in general are playing multiple flavors against
each other to neutralize flavor. The FDA has recently outlawed caffinated alcohol because the caffeine and the alcohol
counteract each other's effects. Well, soda has been doing this for years. The salt and the sugar are designed to
counteract each other. Even the fizz is used to that effect. Ever notice how sweet "flat" soda is? If they took the salt
out of soda, noone could stand to drink it as it would be way too sweet.
Green light + red light = black light.
How do you think we made the Jimi Hendrix posters on the walls of our rooms glow so brightly, back in the 70s, when UV fluorescent technology was prohibitively expensive for those of us in junior high?
Um, No, It's yellow. Also, you're referring to a UV light which is a specific frequency of light. Combining the visual attributes
of light doesn't change the underlying frequency. You can't create ultraviolet light by combining visible light.
If the complexity was removed from the tax system, government would primarily be monitoring businesses for compliance (the vast majority of the tax income would come from withholding), rather than having to spy on every single individual, a far better situation from a civil rights perspective.
The vast majority of poor and middle class income comes from withholdings. So fixing the income tax
system would do nothing to stop the millions of rich people from dodging taxes.
One proposal I saw was to tax all financial transactions. If you taxed all financial transactions, you could
generate an enormous amount of tax revenue with tax percentages below 1%
Problematic though it is, an income based tax is the only sane form of general taxation for a nation that chooses to support large amounts of government spending.
I think it's nieve to say that the income tax is the best we can do. Surely we can come up with something better.
Stop making my brain hurt!
I think that's the point. It's too complex to model but if you have a playground that you can
play with you can explore interactions without having to do a ton of math.
Most people can't grasp certain complex stuff. Even something as simple as combining
green light and red light to make yellow confuses people as it goes against their grade school intuition.
Allow people to get a chance to play with it in a lab and then it just clicks.
You obviously need some allowance for commercial entities like truck drivers. There are already
systems in place to give tax breaks for business expenses. The point is to shift from taxing income
which is hard to track and shift to consumption of goods which is easier to track and also is the
bigger concern as the consuming more than your fair share is really the problem, not the making
more than your fair share.
There are plenty of ways to do that, from turning in receipts to get reimbursed to mailing out coupons, etc...
We have taxed plenty of stuff that's harder to track than gasoline. We're used to tracking income but for
alot of people (waiters, barbers, even farmers that sell locally), tracking income is really hard too. We're
just used to it. You could easily tax the car based on the odometer instead if tracking the actual fuel was
hard. My point is that there are plenty of ways to tax other things and just because we've taxed income
for the past 100 years doesn't mean it's the best and fairest way to tax stuff. The government does need
at least some money to run, the goal is to get that money in the fairest and least painful way. Taxing
food is not very progressive because a person's food bill keeps dropping as a percentage of income as
their wealth increases. Other items like housing cost, energy cost, transportation cost, entertainment cost, etc...
on the other hand keep going up with income.
I think "rock" is synonymous with boring. We've pretty much concluded that the moon is boring which
is why we've decided to explore elsewhere. The opposite of "boring" is of course "exciting". What
makes something scientifically exciting is that it either is something we can't explain or helps confirm
something we already think we know. What makes something boring is if there is nothing new to
discover there. My backyard is scientifically boring. You're unlikely to discover something novel in
it. It's possible to find a new mouse that is unknown but it's unlikely. The interesting non-boring
stuff in our solar system are places that might harbor life or are most likely to help further explain
physical processes like the creation of planets or the solar system.
How does inflation fund government services to the general populace? Genuinely curious. I like taxes, I get a benefit from them. I don't see much benefit from inflation (that I am aware of but I am ignorant of much macroeconomics).
When the Federal Reserve decides to boost the money supply, it buys Treasury bonds. i.e. our national debt. So yes, inflation does
help fund government services to the general populace.
The only people particularly worse off than the poor in a consumption tax system are those who engage in conspicuous consumption. Plenty of middle class people do it to pretend they're rich enough that such consumption is a trivial expense to them. And that's precisely it: once you reach beyond a certain point in income, your proportionate needs and wants to your income become increasingly smaller. Hence, the richer you are, the less you're proportionately taxed.
What do you think the "rich people" do with all their money? Stick in in a shoe box? Rich people consume more resources and if they
don't, what does it matter, as money is just paper until actually spent on something. A consumption tax is already progressive but
it's easy to make it more progressive by slowing increasing the tax as consumption increases. A middle class person can't possibly
consume $200k worth of goods if they're only making $100k while someone who owns a $50M house probably consumes more than
that just in upkeep of their house.
who decides what is a bare necessity? that's the problem. Fair tax removes the government from deciding what is a bare necessity and leaves it to the household to decide what it considers a bare necessity.
I don't see why this is so hard. We can solve the tax problem and the global warming problem in one shot.
The average person in the USA uses about 400 gallon per year of gas. The average gas tax is about 50 cents per gallon.
Cut that number in half and say that noone pays taxes on the first 200 gallons of gas and everyone pays $1 on the next 200 gallons.
That matches the current usage and pays the current bills while encouraging everyone to save a little gas.
Now multiply that up and say it's $2 for the next 200 gallons, and $4 for the next 200 gallons, etc...
Repeat the above with electricity, water, alcohol, etc... and you've both saved the environment and created a great solution for the tragedy of the commons.
The tax burden then falls on the stereotypical rich person that lives in a 10k square foot house, drives a hummer, and flies around in their private jet
while everyone else has incentives to conserve earth's limited resources. It's probably about as fair and as transparent as you can get with taxes.
We charge the people doing the labor (income tax) and then *also* charge them on consumption? The people least able to pay?
This will end well.
The point is to STOP taxing labor and only tax consumption but also to do it progressively.
Luxury taxes and sin taxes are great examples of this. There would be plenty of other
ways to do this. Taxing private jets, taxing first class travel, taxing electricity or water
usage progressively, carbon taxes for the individual, taxing gasoline progressively, etc..
Inequality isn't a problem because rich people MAKE more than poor people. We should
encourage people to create as much wealth as possible. Inequality is a problem because
rich people (or countries) CONSUME more than their fair share. It's the consumption of
wealth not the creation of wealth that you want to control via taxation. If someone has
billions of dollars and never consumes anything (like warren buffet), then that money will
eventually be returned to the system when that person dies. Stored wealth isn't a
problem, using up our limited resources is.
The current method where the people at the bottom are reproducing faster than the people at the top and the
jobs at the bottom are being increasingly replaced by machines is probably not sustainable unless something
changes. Eugenics has a terrible history and I doubt we're better than mother nature at picking desirable traits
but if nothing else, we should probably try to prevent a slide. Maybe a good strategy would be to pick embryos
for maximum diversity but any strategy would probably be better than the defacto strategy we're currently
deploying.
This ain't no zombie apocalypse, son. Until the epidemic somehow makes the victim want to infect other people, e.g. people like you becoming cold-hearted enough to refuse food or health care to the infected, your scenario is pretty silly.
No, maybe not directly want to infect everyone but if everyone around you is dying, you're going to want to go somewhere that they're not.
So you get out any way possible. You might even see that you have a slight fever but you think, maybe it's not ebola, and anyways,
it's better to get to someplace that still has hospital beds available. For instance if mexico had a 30% infection rate of ebola, there is no
way you could stop the flood of people crossing the border (short of shooting them)
Our best bet at this point is to start vaccinating all the health care workers and require the ones that get the vaccination first to be available
for blood donations for the ones that don't. We are going to quickly run out of "ebola survivors" to draw blood from.
There might be plenty of people lining up to take those jobs but that doesn't mean it's not underpaid.
I know plenty of people who love to teach, I also know plenty of people who have abandoned teaching
because the pay was too poor. My experience going thru public education in the US was that
teaching was dominated by two groups of people. Group 1 was people who loved to teach so much
that the stuck with it despite being underpaid. Group 2 was people who did it because it was the
best paying job they could find. If people are lining up around the street to get a job then they need
to increase the quality bar until everyone in Group 2 is eliminated. Thousands of people apply for
jobs at google when there is a job opening. Does that mean google should reduce their pay until
only a handful of people apply? Not unless they only want poor or mediocre candidates. Same
applies to teachers, cops, nurses, etc.... If there are that many applicants it's much better to raise
the bar.
It's already a well known fact that many important professions like teachers, police officers, nurses, firefighters, paramedics, etc...
are not paid very well compared to how much they are needed but what's scary is how few there are. We have decent health care
in the USA but it would take very little to overwhelm them. Most cities have only 1 ambulance per 30000 people. It only takes a
very tiny disaster to deplete them. Heck, it doesn't even take a real disaster. Listening to the police scanner in my city, it's fairly
common to hear "status 0" which means that every available ambulance is already on a call. And forget worrying about isolation
rooms, in the USA we only have 3 hospital beds per 1000 people. Isolation rooms are several orders of magnitude smaller than
that as is proper equipment. We are completely unprepared for any type of mass illness.
You haven't been to a hospital recently have you? Doctors aren't like Dr. House. They aren't looking for
zebras when 99.99% of their patients are horses. If you come in with a rare disease it can sometimes
take years to get a proper diagnosis. Also most hospitals in the US are private and understaffed so
taking time out to train everybody in every hospital to look for ebola and how to treat it is just not going
to happen as that would hurt their bottom line. That's assuming that a hospital even has someone on
staff that is qualified to do the training which I assume most hospitals don't. What really needs to
happen is the CDC needs to train 10 people and have those 10 people train 10 people, etc...
Let's say you are REALLY FAST and can keep doing this on a 3 day schedule, that means that it would
take 9 days to train 1000 people, 12 days to train 10000 people, etc.... IF you can keep up this
extremely tight schedule it would take over 21 days to train all the health care workers in the US.
That's assuming that the person 3 levels deep is actually trained well enough in 3 days to teach it
to the next level. Good luck with that.
I suppose once we have total control over the individual placement of atoms, at scale, anything really will be possible.
Yes, possible, but mother nature is also better at discovering advantageous arrangements thru trial and error. We still can't
predict simple protein folds. Many of the substances we take for granted were discovered first naturally being produced
by plants and animals. There are hundreds of substances and techniques where the plant and animal kingdom still is
far and away better than anything we can replicate in the laboratory. Even many medicines are produced in a host whether
that's a pig or an egg.
And they're right that you want everything stowed away for those two phases of the flight.
So talk to their boss. If an airline wants to allow/disallow certain things or require everything to be stowed, then
let the airline decide to do this. If the airline wants to sell flights where noone is allowed luggage, or where there
are no seats and it is standing room only, then let the airlines do this. The FAA should only be concerned with
the safety of the airplane and the safety of the pilot so that the airline can safely take off and land without hurting
anyone outside the airplane. If luggage isn't stored properly and falls on someone, that's the airline's problem.
It's no different than if someone slips and falls on ice at walmart, let the airlines decide what is needed to prevent
unnecessary lawsuits.
This is still a royal pain. So now to check the balance on my checking account, I have to login to dropbox,
type in my password, find my banking password, copy or temporarily memorize it, open up my bank app
and log into my bank app.
A password manager is suppose to make it easier. It's ALOT easier to just memorize my banking password.
The promotions tab separates the promotions from your inbox.
I'm talking about the promotions stuff that ends up in the spam folder.
I wish there was a "borderline spam" tab for the spam folder.
Thre is no reason I need to look thru a bunch of viagra emails from china
to find the occasional email that is miscategorized. My guess is that
the miscategorized email has a very low score and barely crossed over
while the viagra spam from china probably has a "score" thru the roof.
Except that if the goal is to get people to adopt a password manager (like the article suggests)
then having a bunch of overlapping and conflicting standards for passwords is probably the
best way of doing it. That's one of the things that has made me consider a password manager
because I can't remember which sites require a symbol or disallow a symbol or require a capital,
etc... The only thing that keeps me from using a password manager is that I use lots of
different computers, phones, tablets, etc... and I don't know of any password manager than
can manage multiple devices. Does anyone know of a password manager that works with
apps? Even if I wanted to, I don't think my android banking app would work with any type
of password manager intentionally or unintentionally.