... the only reason that it's not been cracked yet may be because of apathy.... more specifically, it isn't popular enough yet, or possibly not good enough to have warranted the attention of enough crackers to have made a working crack by this point. This story being on a tech journal might increase awareness slightly in that regard, and could conceivably act as an impetus that causes a crack to appear sooner rather than later, but I wouldn't suggest that is a particularly probable outcome, only that it is well within the realm of possibility.
Just get rid of the stupid thing. Unlike the high costs that are associated with changing when it is, which we got to witness only a few years ago, the costs of abandoning it entirely should be minimal. Even on any automated systems that are set to automatically adjust for DST when it happens, it would typically only involve disabling a setting that specifies that you want it to use DST in the first place.
I don't agree with it, but the argument apparently is that if medical personnel knew that they would be put under quarantine upon their return, they may be less willing to volunteer to go and help in the first place... so in that respect, such restrictions could hinder the aid that those countries need.
However, I do not think that this would actually impact many people in reality, most people would actually respect a quarantine that was imposed upon them, particularly if they had some kind of assurance that they would not suffer any sort of financial hardship as a consequence. To that end, I know that laws do exist that can require that employers hold jobs for people who are placed under an official quarantine, and in such jurisdictions, it is illegal to use such a lawfully excused absence from work as a basis for dismissal.
How is that not prison? They are free, aside from not being able to leave
Prisoners do not generally have ordinarily unrestricted access to communicate with other people. The amount of time you are allowed to spend on a telephone, for example, would tend to be at least somewhat restricted if you were being held in a prison, and you would probably not also be able to freely use your own computer equipment without supervision. Both of these things would be able to be done without limitation or supervision while under quarantine.
Also, in general, it is my understanding that laws regarding quarantine require that employers hold jobs for employees that are placed under official quarantine, There is no such requirement when you arrest someone or put them into a prison.
There is a *VAST* difference between being a prisoner and being put into quarantine... the only similarity they possess is the inability to freely come and go as one wishes, which is such an overbroad generalization of the notion of being a prisoner that it doesn't even carry the same negative connotation that the word prisoner would ordinarily imply. Barring the suicidal, most of us would be prisoners of life by that notion.... for example... that's hardly a justification to argue that living is a bad thing.
We have two (cases of people in the US catching it) and you want to abolish the Constitution to lock everyone up.
No... I want to put people who are returning from infected areas into quarantine. People in quarantine are free in all respects except that they are not permitted to leave quarantine, and the only real restriction on quarantine for something like this is that they are not permitted direct physical contact with anyone else except sanctioned medical personnel. Further, Ebola is a disease with a gestation period that is no longer than 3 weeks, so the maximum duration of the quarantine is not really that long.
So let's get specific here. Quarantine (as opposed to isolation, which is for people who are known to be infected with a contagious illness that can be spread without requiring any type of particularly intimate contact, and thus need to be in a special medical facility, and under the direct care of trained medical staff) is typically largely self-policed, and often even in the person's own home. A person may be allowed to leave their home while under such quarantine, but only to the extent that they do not come into contact with anyone else (such as going for a jog by oneself, for instance). Of course, because quarantine is largely enforced, it may be possible to break quarantine without it necessarily being discovered, but breaking quarantine before they have been released from it is a crime, and if it *IS* discovered that a person has violated quarantine, they can be placed under arrest. So while some restrictions exist, there remains a huge difference between quarantine and being placed under arrest, where with the latter many more of your rights and privileges get suspended, and the time period for which that suspension lasts is rarely explicitly spelled out at the time of an arrest (such periods are spelled out as part of the punishment, but arrest procedures themselves take however long they take, and can be lengthened by noncompliance, where quarantine for possible Ebola would not ever last longer than 3 weeks).
So please.... stop saying that apples are oranges.
You'll sell out the constitution from fear when there is no outbreak.
There is a PROVEN non-zero chance of infection when people are actively practicing whatever safety precautions are necessary when treating ebola patients, which flies strongly in the face that this disease should be considered paricularly difficult to catch from an infected individual, which is what we are hearing on the news.
And Ebola may not be at all contagious before symptoms start, but because being symptomatic itself is a progression and not a binary condition, there is liable to be a non-zero window of time during which they may be contagious but do not necessarily outwardly exhibit many of or even any of the symptoms, and may not even suspect yet they are actually sick, or may want to deny to themselves or to others they they are feeling ill, and as a result, because neither they nor the people around them are acting with any particular care to avoid contagion, and in the absence of any particular care to prevent it, the probability of accidental transmission may be even higher than what is considered normal in such cases. I'll start suspecting I'm wrong about that when there actually are no new Ebola cases in a given week.
And of course, the biggest problem with suspending the constitution for everyone because of a national state of emergency like what it would be if an outbreak happened in North America is that once that happens, it's going to be a very long and hard road back, even after the actual epidemic has ended... and its one that I honestly don't know if the USA will ever recover from in my lifetime.
As for the difference between being under arrest and being put into mandatory quarantine, with the former, you tend to find your rights to freely communicate with other people whenever you want to having been restricted... while that's not going to tend to be the case with the latter... only physical contact would be prohibited.
And is illegal and unconstitutional. Holding people against their will without due process is problematic. It's "punishment" for being near Ebola. And punishment without trial or process of any kind is illegal. Especially for innocent people (provably so).
Innocence and guilt have nothing to do with any of this. Ebola kills the innocent as well as the guilty, indiscriminately, with a 90% mortality rate within just weeks of exposure. We should be focussing effort on stopping the spread of the disease by quarantining people who have been known to be in contact with it until such time as they can be confirmed as clear, because we have direct evidence that some people who supposedly were practicing whatever safeguards are normally practiced when dealing with the illness still acquired it...and there is certain to be a non-zero probability of contagion before they necessarily realize that they have the disease,because "being symptomatic" (and therefore contagious, in the case of Ebola) is not a truly binary condition, but one of progression.
Of course, we could always just wait until we have several thousand new cases of Ebola each week in North America too... then watch a national state of emergency get declared, and *EVERYBODY'S* freedoms get summarily suspended until further notice. It won't matter one iota that it's illegal, it's what is going to happen if this isn't stopped. And of course, even after the threat is past... which probably won't be anytime particularly soon after it's risen to those levels, the government will probably have found that it actually really likes having all of those emergency powers, and they won't be as quickly released. Oh sure there will be an extremely vocal group of people who will suggest raising all kinds of hell over the matter or threatening to do such and such, but in the end, all that will probably just be a lot of people spouting a bunch of hot air.. In the end, there will always remain sufficient apathy about the situation to allow it to endure.
You allow them to land, but put them under quarantine for three weeks, in part to eliminate any possibility that people might lie or misinterpret their symptoms, but the even bigger issue that is addressed by such a quarantine is so that they can't transmit the disease to anyone during a period of time that they may technically qualify as being symptomatic, and therefore contagious, but their symptoms may have just not yet progressed to a stage where they would necessarily be readily observable by somebody else, or even necessarily consciously noticed by the person themselves. Because being symptomatic itself is not typically a binary condition, but generally a gradual progression, without quarantine, there will almost inevitably be a distinct non-zero window of contagion from someone who is infected before they necessarily know they have the illness, and during that window the probability of transmission may actually be even higher than what is considered normal for Ebola because neither they nor the people around them may necessarily actually realize that they should be practicing caution.
Mandatory quarantine nips that problem in the butt.
We already put people who are known to be ill with such diseases in mandatory quarantine.
In terms of the freedom you are giving them or revoking, it amounts to exactly the same thing as what I'm suggesting. The fact that they might not know about it yet, or that they may not yet be symptomatic is irrelevant.
The problem is, you see, is that being symptomatic is not a binary condition, and there will generally be a non-zero window of time before they will necessarily notice any symptoms in themselves or particularly that such symptoms will be readily observable by somebody else during which time an infected person is still technically symptomatic, and therefore contagious.
Unless we start instituting such quarantines, it's only a matter of time before the outbreaks become just as common in North America as they have been in the most heavily infected countries in Africa.
Of course,then they'll just declare a national state of emergency, invoke martial law and *EVERYONE* will lose their freedoms.
By that rationale, there is no reason to quarantine somebody even *AFTER* they've started to exhibit symptoms. Really, the only difference is that what I am proposing is to make sure that between the time that they don't think they have Ebola and the time that they can either know for certain that they didn't accidentally bring it over, or are certain that they actually do have it, there is no possibility of them transmitting the disease to anyone else.
"extra steps upon re-entering" would more specifically be mandatory quarantine for 3 weeks upon returning. Some may consider that synonymous with arrest, but you'd do the exact same thing for somebody who was known to have a communicable disease anyways. The reasonable cause for such precaution comes solely from the disease's high mortality rate... if it was more survivable, it would not be an issue. But it's not... last time I heard, the mortality rate is in the vicinity of 90%, for anyone who is diagnosed, so I'd suggest that issues of public health, and safety against what can be objectively shown to be an almost certainly fatal disease ought to rank somewhat higher than any so called constitutional rights, which, as I said, would be suspended for the person anyways if the person was *known* to have such a disease. This isn't some ambiguous threat from somebody that nobody has heard of before... this isn't some propaganda that the government is trying to spread to encourage having a cause for being discriminatory, this is frickin' killer disease that simply needs to be stopped.
Also, for people who are going to develop the disease, there is some non-zero amount of time between when they are not yet showing any symptoms at all, and are thus definitely not contagious, and the point in time where they can be positively outwardly identified as having the disease, at which point we know that it is contagious... as simply as if you touch a doorknob that was touched by such a person and then should ever happen to touch your face without first washing your hands, for example.
Consider that trained health care workers wearing protective gear have come down with the disease and these are people who have supposedly been practicing how to deal with this disease in the safest possible manner.
And it is during that non-zero time window there is a particularly high possibility of contagion because people, both the person who is developing the illness and those that they may come in contact with, may not necessarily realize that they need to be particularly cautious.
However, you're forgetting that the general consensus is that someone infected is not considered to be contagious until they're symptomatic. Therefore "no symptoms" carries a lot of meaning.
Except "symptoms" itself is rarely a binary condition... they progress - from a point where there are no symptoms to the point where they are visibly exhibiting symptoms. Somewhere in between is inevitably going to be window of time where they may technically qualify as symptomatic, but it has not progressed to the point that they may actually suspect they have the disease, and because the chance of touching one's own face is non-zero for most individuals, therefore risking the virus getting inside of the body, it follows that during that period, there is also going to be a non-zero chance of contagion, It is the mortality rate of the disease that is the reason why this should be taken so seriously, regardless of how allegedly improbable it is that the disease can be caught. After all, you have what are supposedly trained health workers catching the illness, so it really can't be quite as difficult to catch after being exposed to it as some are suggesting. And because you can't always tell from looking at a person or even worse, subjectively asking how they feel whether or not they are actually exhibiting signs of a particular illness. you often can't know if they have the disease or not until there are outwardly visible signs, by which time they have already been contagious for some non-zero period.
So yes.... I'm of the opinion that they should quarantine absolutely everyone coming in from that region, whether they are "symptomatic" or not. Ban all civilian flights into or out of the region until the problem has been cleared up... and all quarantine all personnel on official flights from the region for 3 weeks to ensure that they do not inadvertently pass on the virus during a period of time that may exist before they realize (or perhaps just subjectively deny) that they are showing some signs of illness. The economic impact to the country from such a ban is unfortunate, but reasonably, this could probably be considered a national state of emergency for the infected countries, and that condition can reasonably grant special considerations.
MO, the travel ban would just be good common sense to impose -- while setting up some exceptions for medical staff legitimately traveling to/from the high risk areas for the purpose of aid. I *love* how the government makes it out to be an "all or nothing" proposition -- where we simply can't impose the ban without risking inability to provide medical assistance over there. Seriously?! You can't come up with scenarios allowing SELECTIVE travel for appropriate people and some extra steps they're required to go through upon re-entering the US?
This... seriously. Can anybody who allegedly knows the answer to this please explain how or why such a thing might be logistically impossible, or why it would still impact the ability to get emergency medical aid to the area? Because I certainly can't see any such reason.
I was under the impression that travel bans would just impact ordinary civilian and commercial craft, not military air vehicles or airplanes which are designated specifically for transporting medical supplies to an area where they are so vitally needed. So why would such travel restrictions still cause delays in treating the outbreak, exactly?
We would not remain in control of it only if we explicitly gave it a free will... or more perhaps more specifically, if we gave it as much free will as we appear to have, ourselves.
Energy would probably be the primary scarce resource that it would have to cope with. It may compete with other AI's for this resource, and humans could conceivably be seen as an acceptable casualty of that struggle, if not necessarily an actively intended one.
... to videos that are already available on youtube in the first place. For example, if the copyright holder had put them on youtube. And this decision would prevent the copyright holder from claiming infringement or damages for anyone who had embedded said video into their own website.
That's fine... but as was concluded above, people would lie about their symptoms anyways if they thought they might be quarantined. The point of the blood test would be not to find people who aren't symptomatic, it would be to find people who *HAVE* had symptoms, but do not necessarily yet realize they might have contracted the illness because the symptoms haven't seemed particularly bad to them yet, or would lie about their symptoms because they don't want to face quarantine. As I said, this test could take only about 15 minutes per person. If you are only doing this as you go with people who are traveling from countries where it is epidemic (which you can tell from their passport, even if they are not directly travelling from that country), then it should be entirely manageable.
Slashdot Mirror
... the only reason that it's not been cracked yet may be because of apathy.... more specifically, it isn't popular enough yet, or possibly not good enough to have warranted the attention of enough crackers to have made a working crack by this point. This story being on a tech journal might increase awareness slightly in that regard, and could conceivably act as an impetus that causes a crack to appear sooner rather than later, but I wouldn't suggest that is a particularly probable outcome, only that it is well within the realm of possibility.
Just get rid of the stupid thing. Unlike the high costs that are associated with changing when it is, which we got to witness only a few years ago, the costs of abandoning it entirely should be minimal. Even on any automated systems that are set to automatically adjust for DST when it happens, it would typically only involve disabling a setting that specifies that you want it to use DST in the first place.
I don't agree with it, but the argument apparently is that if medical personnel knew that they would be put under quarantine upon their return, they may be less willing to volunteer to go and help in the first place... so in that respect, such restrictions could hinder the aid that those countries need.
However, I do not think that this would actually impact many people in reality, most people would actually respect a quarantine that was imposed upon them, particularly if they had some kind of assurance that they would not suffer any sort of financial hardship as a consequence. To that end, I know that laws do exist that can require that employers hold jobs for people who are placed under an official quarantine, and in such jurisdictions, it is illegal to use such a lawfully excused absence from work as a basis for dismissal.
Prisoners do not generally have ordinarily unrestricted access to communicate with other people. The amount of time you are allowed to spend on a telephone, for example, would tend to be at least somewhat restricted if you were being held in a prison, and you would probably not also be able to freely use your own computer equipment without supervision. Both of these things would be able to be done without limitation or supervision while under quarantine.
Also, in general, it is my understanding that laws regarding quarantine require that employers hold jobs for employees that are placed under official quarantine, There is no such requirement when you arrest someone or put them into a prison.
There is a *VAST* difference between being a prisoner and being put into quarantine... the only similarity they possess is the inability to freely come and go as one wishes, which is such an overbroad generalization of the notion of being a prisoner that it doesn't even carry the same negative connotation that the word prisoner would ordinarily imply. Barring the suicidal, most of us would be prisoners of life by that notion.... for example... that's hardly a justification to argue that living is a bad thing.
D'oh... really confusing typo in the above wall of text there that I never noticed until after I clicked submit.
"because quarantine is largely enforced... should be "because quarantine is largely self-enforced..."
Kind of a big difference there, and it almost totally changes the meaning of what I was trying to say.
No... I want to put people who are returning from infected areas into quarantine. People in quarantine are free in all respects except that they are not permitted to leave quarantine, and the only real restriction on quarantine for something like this is that they are not permitted direct physical contact with anyone else except sanctioned medical personnel. Further, Ebola is a disease with a gestation period that is no longer than 3 weeks, so the maximum duration of the quarantine is not really that long.
So let's get specific here. Quarantine (as opposed to isolation, which is for people who are known to be infected with a contagious illness that can be spread without requiring any type of particularly intimate contact, and thus need to be in a special medical facility, and under the direct care of trained medical staff) is typically largely self-policed, and often even in the person's own home. A person may be allowed to leave their home while under such quarantine, but only to the extent that they do not come into contact with anyone else (such as going for a jog by oneself, for instance). Of course, because quarantine is largely enforced, it may be possible to break quarantine without it necessarily being discovered, but breaking quarantine before they have been released from it is a crime, and if it *IS* discovered that a person has violated quarantine, they can be placed under arrest. So while some restrictions exist, there remains a huge difference between quarantine and being placed under arrest, where with the latter many more of your rights and privileges get suspended, and the time period for which that suspension lasts is rarely explicitly spelled out at the time of an arrest (such periods are spelled out as part of the punishment, but arrest procedures themselves take however long they take, and can be lengthened by noncompliance, where quarantine for possible Ebola would not ever last longer than 3 weeks).
So please.... stop saying that apples are oranges.
There is a PROVEN non-zero chance of infection when people are actively practicing whatever safety precautions are necessary when treating ebola patients, which flies strongly in the face that this disease should be considered paricularly difficult to catch from an infected individual, which is what we are hearing on the news.
And Ebola may not be at all contagious before symptoms start, but because being symptomatic itself is a progression and not a binary condition, there is liable to be a non-zero window of time during which they may be contagious but do not necessarily outwardly exhibit many of or even any of the symptoms, and may not even suspect yet they are actually sick, or may want to deny to themselves or to others they they are feeling ill, and as a result, because neither they nor the people around them are acting with any particular care to avoid contagion, and in the absence of any particular care to prevent it, the probability of accidental transmission may be even higher than what is considered normal in such cases. I'll start suspecting I'm wrong about that when there actually are no new Ebola cases in a given week.
And of course, the biggest problem with suspending the constitution for everyone because of a national state of emergency like what it would be if an outbreak happened in North America is that once that happens, it's going to be a very long and hard road back, even after the actual epidemic has ended... and its one that I honestly don't know if the USA will ever recover from in my lifetime.
As for the difference between being under arrest and being put into mandatory quarantine, with the former, you tend to find your rights to freely communicate with other people whenever you want to having been restricted... while that's not going to tend to be the case with the latter... only physical contact would be prohibited.
Innocence and guilt have nothing to do with any of this. Ebola kills the innocent as well as the guilty, indiscriminately, with a 90% mortality rate within just weeks of exposure. We should be focussing effort on stopping the spread of the disease by quarantining people who have been known to be in contact with it until such time as they can be confirmed as clear, because we have direct evidence that some people who supposedly were practicing whatever safeguards are normally practiced when dealing with the illness still acquired it...and there is certain to be a non-zero probability of contagion before they necessarily realize that they have the disease,because "being symptomatic" (and therefore contagious, in the case of Ebola) is not a truly binary condition, but one of progression.
Of course, we could always just wait until we have several thousand new cases of Ebola each week in North America too... then watch a national state of emergency get declared, and *EVERYBODY'S* freedoms get summarily suspended until further notice. It won't matter one iota that it's illegal, it's what is going to happen if this isn't stopped. And of course, even after the threat is past... which probably won't be anytime particularly soon after it's risen to those levels, the government will probably have found that it actually really likes having all of those emergency powers, and they won't be as quickly released. Oh sure there will be an extremely vocal group of people who will suggest raising all kinds of hell over the matter or threatening to do such and such, but in the end, all that will probably just be a lot of people spouting a bunch of hot air.. In the end, there will always remain sufficient apathy about the situation to allow it to endure.
You allow them to land, but put them under quarantine for three weeks, in part to eliminate any possibility that people might lie or misinterpret their symptoms, but the even bigger issue that is addressed by such a quarantine is so that they can't transmit the disease to anyone during a period of time that they may technically qualify as being symptomatic, and therefore contagious, but their symptoms may have just not yet progressed to a stage where they would necessarily be readily observable by somebody else, or even necessarily consciously noticed by the person themselves. Because being symptomatic itself is not typically a binary condition, but generally a gradual progression, without quarantine, there will almost inevitably be a distinct non-zero window of contagion from someone who is infected before they necessarily know they have the illness, and during that window the probability of transmission may actually be even higher than what is considered normal for Ebola because neither they nor the people around them may necessarily actually realize that they should be practicing caution.
Mandatory quarantine nips that problem in the butt.
We already put people who are known to be ill with such diseases in mandatory quarantine.
In terms of the freedom you are giving them or revoking, it amounts to exactly the same thing as what I'm suggesting. The fact that they might not know about it yet, or that they may not yet be symptomatic is irrelevant.
The problem is, you see, is that being symptomatic is not a binary condition, and there will generally be a non-zero window of time before they will necessarily notice any symptoms in themselves or particularly that such symptoms will be readily observable by somebody else during which time an infected person is still technically symptomatic, and therefore contagious.
Unless we start instituting such quarantines, it's only a matter of time before the outbreaks become just as common in North America as they have been in the most heavily infected countries in Africa.
Of course,then they'll just declare a national state of emergency, invoke martial law and *EVERYONE* will lose their freedoms.
Or is that what you are hoping for?
By that rationale, there is no reason to quarantine somebody even *AFTER* they've started to exhibit symptoms. Really, the only difference is that what I am proposing is to make sure that between the time that they don't think they have Ebola and the time that they can either know for certain that they didn't accidentally bring it over, or are certain that they actually do have it, there is no possibility of them transmitting the disease to anyone else.
"extra steps upon re-entering" would more specifically be mandatory quarantine for 3 weeks upon returning. Some may consider that synonymous with arrest, but you'd do the exact same thing for somebody who was known to have a communicable disease anyways. The reasonable cause for such precaution comes solely from the disease's high mortality rate... if it was more survivable, it would not be an issue. But it's not... last time I heard, the mortality rate is in the vicinity of 90%, for anyone who is diagnosed, so I'd suggest that issues of public health, and safety against what can be objectively shown to be an almost certainly fatal disease ought to rank somewhat higher than any so called constitutional rights, which, as I said, would be suspended for the person anyways if the person was *known* to have such a disease. This isn't some ambiguous threat from somebody that nobody has heard of before... this isn't some propaganda that the government is trying to spread to encourage having a cause for being discriminatory, this is frickin' killer disease that simply needs to be stopped.
Also, for people who are going to develop the disease, there is some non-zero amount of time between when they are not yet showing any symptoms at all, and are thus definitely not contagious, and the point in time where they can be positively outwardly identified as having the disease, at which point we know that it is contagious... as simply as if you touch a doorknob that was touched by such a person and then should ever happen to touch your face without first washing your hands, for example.
Consider that trained health care workers wearing protective gear have come down with the disease and these are people who have supposedly been practicing how to deal with this disease in the safest possible manner.
And it is during that non-zero time window there is a particularly high possibility of contagion because people, both the person who is developing the illness and those that they may come in contact with, may not necessarily realize that they need to be particularly cautious.
So yeah... quarantine for 3 weeks.
Except "symptoms" itself is rarely a binary condition... they progress - from a point where there are no symptoms to the point where they are visibly exhibiting symptoms. Somewhere in between is inevitably going to be window of time where they may technically qualify as symptomatic, but it has not progressed to the point that they may actually suspect they have the disease, and because the chance of touching one's own face is non-zero for most individuals, therefore risking the virus getting inside of the body, it follows that during that period, there is also going to be a non-zero chance of contagion, It is the mortality rate of the disease that is the reason why this should be taken so seriously, regardless of how allegedly improbable it is that the disease can be caught. After all, you have what are supposedly trained health workers catching the illness, so it really can't be quite as difficult to catch after being exposed to it as some are suggesting. And because you can't always tell from looking at a person or even worse, subjectively asking how they feel whether or not they are actually exhibiting signs of a particular illness. you often can't know if they have the disease or not until there are outwardly visible signs, by which time they have already been contagious for some non-zero period.
So yes.... I'm of the opinion that they should quarantine absolutely everyone coming in from that region, whether they are "symptomatic" or not. Ban all civilian flights into or out of the region until the problem has been cleared up... and all quarantine all personnel on official flights from the region for 3 weeks to ensure that they do not inadvertently pass on the virus during a period of time that may exist before they realize (or perhaps just subjectively deny) that they are showing some signs of illness. The economic impact to the country from such a ban is unfortunate, but reasonably, this could probably be considered a national state of emergency for the infected countries, and that condition can reasonably grant special considerations.
This... seriously. Can anybody who allegedly knows the answer to this please explain how or why such a thing might be logistically impossible, or why it would still impact the ability to get emergency medical aid to the area? Because I certainly can't see any such reason.
I was under the impression that travel bans would just impact ordinary civilian and commercial craft, not military air vehicles or airplanes which are designated specifically for transporting medical supplies to an area where they are so vitally needed. So why would such travel restrictions still cause delays in treating the outbreak, exactly?
I know what deadpan means... what I don't know is why portable fusion would be necessary to achieve 10% reduction in emissions per year.
Why?
I'm serious.
That's probably only because we don't know how. If we knew how, we would.
Be may want to be careful there... you tread all to close to intelligent design.
We would not remain in control of it only if we explicitly gave it a free will... or more perhaps more specifically, if we gave it as much free will as we appear to have, ourselves.
Energy would probably be the primary scarce resource that it would have to cope with. It may compete with other AI's for this resource, and humans could conceivably be seen as an acceptable casualty of that struggle, if not necessarily an actively intended one.
We already do create life itself... the factory process taking approximately nine months, and generally requires bootstrapping by a male and female.
My Youtube-fu is poor. Does it offer facilities to people who post videos to prevent other people from embedding that video?
... to videos that are already available on youtube in the first place. For example, if the copyright holder had put them on youtube. And this decision would prevent the copyright holder from claiming infringement or damages for anyone who had embedded said video into their own website.
That's fine... but as was concluded above, people would lie about their symptoms anyways if they thought they might be quarantined. The point of the blood test would be not to find people who aren't symptomatic, it would be to find people who *HAVE* had symptoms, but do not necessarily yet realize they might have contracted the illness because the symptoms haven't seemed particularly bad to them yet, or would lie about their symptoms because they don't want to face quarantine. As I said, this test could take only about 15 minutes per person. If you are only doing this as you go with people who are traveling from countries where it is epidemic (which you can tell from their passport, even if they are not directly travelling from that country), then it should be entirely manageable.