To be fair, editors have to take guesses at what is going to be common knowledge in the readership vs things that need to be explicitly stated. It is not always an easy thing to get right, and always erring on the side of explaining is its own problem.
It's too bad that nobody has invented a method where a link to a full explanation could be included within the summary itself. Maybe when people start using this new-fangled "world wide web" thing, we'll be able to do cool things like that.
Could you please inform the engineers that the North Sea is full of salt water? Armed with that piece of information that I'm sure they don't have, they can take that into consideration when designing this.
More likely they'll have to cancel the project. After all, if it was possible for modern technology to create machinery that works when submersed in salt water, I sure that somebody would have already done it.
If you stay on DST year round, won't schedules eventually gravitate towards everything happening an hour later? And eventually, somebody will get the brilliant idea to switch the clocks forward another hour...
It is misleading, although mostly because the "House Majority PAC" is misleadingly named. I'm not quite sure what they intend to accomplish with that name -- maybe they're trying to make it less obvious which party is benefiting from "outside money"? Their website says that it was formed in 2011, so it's never actually been aligned with the "house majority."
You obviously do think that there are circumstances where it is appropriate to impose restrictions on a person's liberty when there is some threshold of probability that they could infect others with a deadly disease.
Obviously, you are the one lying. I never said any such thing.
But then you say:
A person who is a danger to themselves and others may be restrained. Whether that's someone with advanced Ebola or waiving a gun around in a crowd, the answer is the same.
I don't know any way to reconcile those statements. They are fundamentally contradictory.
I keep saying you support quarantines because you keep supporting them. "I'm against quarantines, but I think they should be used" isn't a consistent point of view.
Repeated assertion does not make something true. I am capable of recognizing and assessing the arguments on both sides, and I intensely dislike a mode of debate that tries to marginalize or misrepresent the people on the other side.
I never lied. You are arguing with people who, for as much as you'll share about your reasons, want the same thing you do, but for different reasons. That I expose your stupidity doesn't make me a liar. Though I can see how it would make me unpopular with those I'm exposing the stupidity of.
You keep saying that I support quarantines. That is untrue, and you know it. That is the definition of a lie. If you don't like being called a liar, you should probably stop doing it.
You obviously do think that there are circumstances where it is appropriate to impose restrictions on a person's liberty when there is some threshold of probability that they could infect others with a deadly disease.
Obviously, you are the one lying. I never said any such thing. There is the assumption that FEMA/CDC/etc can step in in the case of a national emergency. I didn't follow the cases closely, but from my understanding, the concentration camps in WWII were never ruled "unconstitutional", even though apologies were offered for them. Since everyone else assumes it, I wasn't going to argue the color of the shoes of the government officials that would be involved. Seemed irrelevant.
So you believe that a quarantine is never appropriate, under any circumstances? All right; I'll believe you, although I got a different impression from thesecomments that you made that led me to believe that you thought that quarantining a person who was "actively sick" with Ebola would be reasonable.
Denying the right of the government to impose a quarantine under any circumstances is a consistent point of view, albeit one that is probably not going to get much support.
When you act like a reasonable person, then maybe that would be what this is about.
How about you address what I said, rather than making personal attacks? Do you deny the statement that "Reasonable people can disagree on what that threshold is, and what the restrictions should be?" Based on your last answer, maybe you do. But say so, rather than lashing out.
So you are saying that the quarantines you are calling for are illegal, even if the person is actively sick?
I'm guessing that means that you can't actually answer the question?
I gave you a pass before, but since you've responded to all my comments, you already know very well that I do not support a general quarantine. If your argument is so sound, why do you keep resorting to lying about someone who disagrees with you?
To answer the question, the CDC says that the federal government derives its authority to impose a quarantine from the Commerce Clause. Which is mostly just a way of saying that "it's not in the Constitution, but we're pretending that it is anyway."
You obviously do think that there are circumstances where it is appropriate to impose restrictions on a person's liberty when there is some threshold of probability that they could infect others with a deadly disease. Reasonable people can disagree on what that threshold is, and what the restrictions should be. That is essentially what this is about.
The rules for "possible" infection demand no quarantine. That's based on science. You are the one that seems to be claiming that following the science is wrong. Show a fever, go to quarantine. Show no symptoms, you are "safe", according to the science.
Of the three healthcare workers who have come down with symptoms, at least one of them traveled using mass transit after beginning to exhibit those symptoms. That's not a particularly good record. The concern is that by not taking any precautions, you increase the probability that someone will be in public when they are contagious.
You're not "safe" if you show no symptoms. You're safe right now. The fact that you and so many others fail to acknowledge the difference tells me that you're being deliberately obtuse. And until you approach the subject honestly, you can't pretend that you are engaging in an intelligent discussion on the subject.
So, anyone you don't like (we'll call them "sick" or "potentially sick") can be rounded up and thrown into concentration camps.
There is a large continuum between "Everyone can do anything they want" and "Everyone should be put into a concentration camp." It is outright dishonest for you to claim that there is no middle ground.
They don't have to understand science to understand human rights.
There is a valid argument to be made concerning human rights. So make that argument, rather than the stupid one that people are trying to make.
if she is asymptomatic and do not test positive for the virus she cannot spread the disease
This is true.
and thus quarantine accomplishes nothing.
This, on the other hand, is false. It does not logically follow, no matter how many times people assert it.
You either misunderstand or misrepresent the reasoning behind these quarantines. The purpose is not to prevent someone who is already contagious from infecting someone else. The purpose is to prevent someone who may become contagious in the future from doing so where there is potential to infect other people.
There are arguments to be made against that policy, but "she tested negative" is completely irrelevant in this context. Until you acknowledge the real reasoning behind the policies instead of the strawman you've constructed, you can't engage in an intelligent discussion on the topic.
If you cannot isolate infectious virus or amplify its genetic material from someone's bodily fluids, they are not infectious.
Making assertions based on panic is not reasonable.
You accuse me of making an assertion based on panic. What assertion is that? Do you deny that a person can be infected, and still test negative for ebola? If so, then you need to do some more research.
The purpose for the quarantine is so that people will be away from the public when they become infectious.
If you think that's unneeded or the wrong way to go about it, then fine. I actually agree. But stop trying to pretend that a negative test for ebola is relevant in this discussion. It's not.
Go compare what is costs in most cities to put a veggie loaded salad with some white meat chicken on the table ($20-25 in my experience) compared to a vat of spaghetti with red sauce ($3-4, or $7-8 if you toss in a pound of meat). Poor people are making rational economic choices based on how we have driven down the cost per calorie in processed foods.
First off, $20-25 seems really high unless you're feeding an army.
But regardless of that, if you're looking to get the calorie count up, a salad is exactly the wrong way to do that. There's a reason why dieters eat so much salad, after all. Take a look at your basic staple foods -- flour, rice, potatoes, etc. They beat out typical processed foods in a calorie-per-dollar comparison any day.
So why should someone who is showing no symptoms and thus has a 0 risk of transmitting Ebola right now be forced into a 21 day quarantine?
Whether or not they are at risk of transmitting Ebola "right now" is not the question. It is whether they are at risk of transmitting Ebola in the future.
A certain contingent of people and politicians keep (probably intentionally) confusing those two issues. I don't even support a quarantine for all these people, but I don't think that it's possible to have an intelligent discussion on the matter when one side keeps bringing up misleading arguments.
When I say science, I also mean to include ALL the science around Ebola as reported by groups like the CDC. So if you think that you know something that they don't, do tell.
Let's see. You said:
Do you mean the person who doesn't have any symptoms and has tested negative to ebola at least once? That person?
Are you suggesting that people should be quarantined regardless of the science?
You seriously expect me to believe that you didn't want your "regardless of the science" question to refer to your statement about her not having symptoms and testing negative for ebola?
Come on. Man up and admit when you get something wrong. That would be, you know, the scientific attitude.
Sorry, but no, it's not meaningless. Do the current test methods provide a definitive answer as to whether or not someone is infected with the virus? No, the current methods are difficult and prone to cross-contamination and human error. 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.
The context, in this case, is the question of whether or not someone should be quarantined due to the potential to contract the disease. Testing and not showing symptoms does not tell you anything about that. It tells you whether they are at risk to spread the disease right now, not whether that risk will happen in the future. It is meaningless in the context that we're talking about.
Wow. So you're saying that people should be quarantined without any evidence of infection? Or maybe you think that anyone who has traveled to Africa should be quarantined?
First, I didn't say that I support quarantining them. I do think that there are some sensible precautions that we should be taking in relation to healthcare workers who have been working with ebola patients. But my big problem is with the way that a certain contingent of people -- and politicians -- keeps harping on the fact that this person tested negative for the disease as validation for their claims that any action is unwarranted.
Do you mean the person who doesn't have any symptoms and has tested negative to ebola at least once? That person?
That doesn't mean anything. You can test negative, and be asymptomatic, for a long time while still carrying the disease.
The position of actual scientists that oppose quarantines doesn't rely on whether somebody tested negative for ebola. It's based on whether somebody who is infected is likely to infect others when they become contagious.
Are you suggesting that people should be quarantined regardless of the science?
If you don't understand the science, why do you expect those you disagree with to understand it?
She has tested negative multiple times, has no symptoms, and the CDC has cleared her to go home.
"Testing negative" and "no symptoms" is essentially meaningless in this context. The virus may not be detectable in the blood, and the person may be asymptomatic, for a long time.
Frequent, early testing is useful for early diagnosis if she contracts the disease. But the fact that she has tested negative doesn't say anything about whether or not she needs to be quarantined.
Those who oppose any form of quarantine keep invoking "science" for their support, but then they also keep bringing up the fact that this nurse "tested negative" to validate their views. Makes me think that they don't really understand the "science" as well as they think they do.
Can you make Bennett Haselton an editor, so that everyone that doesn't care about his articles can simply exclude them? He's becoming the new Jon Katz -- and Katz was the reason why we eventually got the "exclude by posting editor" feature in the first place.
"Little particles of inspiration sleet through the universe all the time traveling through the densest matter in the same way that a neutrino passes through a candyfloss haystack, and most of them miss."
It wasn't me that made the statement that you responded to. And if you don't want people to call you out when you are blatantly lying, you probably should start telling the truth, rather than throwing a temper tantrum.
You're not even supposed to run the amber, never mind the red.
It is a physical impossibility to avoid running the yellow light in all cases. If the length of the yellow has been decreased, it may be impossible or extraordinarily dangerous to avoid running the red in some cases as well.
The thing is, with a good password manager, there's no reason to have a weak password, even for the sites that you aren't worried about.
Most non-technical people (the ones who we're most concerned about in terms of password security) aren't very good at figuring out where security is and isn't important. For instance, I can't count the number of times I've heard statements along the lines of "I don't care about my e-mail password, because I don't care if a hacker could read my e-mail." Better to create tools methods to make sure that people can conveniently create secure passwords across the board, rather than hoping that people will make the correct decisions related to security.
Of course I do. But the fallout of fraud is expensive, in terms of time for me, and in terms of money for retailers (which indirectly gets passed on to me.) A responsible person takes measures to avoid it.
Slashdot Mirror
To be fair, editors have to take guesses at what is going to be common knowledge in the readership vs things that need to be explicitly stated. It is not always an easy thing to get right, and always erring on the side of explaining is its own problem.
It's too bad that nobody has invented a method where a link to a full explanation could be included within the summary itself. Maybe when people start using this new-fangled "world wide web" thing, we'll be able to do cool things like that.
Could you please inform the engineers that the North Sea is full of salt water? Armed with that piece of information that I'm sure they don't have, they can take that into consideration when designing this.
More likely they'll have to cancel the project. After all, if it was possible for modern technology to create machinery that works when submersed in salt water, I sure that somebody would have already done it.
If you stay on DST year round, won't schedules eventually gravitate towards everything happening an hour later? And eventually, somebody will get the brilliant idea to switch the clocks forward another hour...
It is misleading, although mostly because the "House Majority PAC" is misleadingly named. I'm not quite sure what they intend to accomplish with that name -- maybe they're trying to make it less obvious which party is benefiting from "outside money"? Their website says that it was formed in 2011, so it's never actually been aligned with the "house majority."
Let's review, shall we?
You obviously do think that there are circumstances where it is appropriate to impose restrictions on a person's liberty when there is some threshold of probability that they could infect others with a deadly disease.
Obviously, you are the one lying. I never said any such thing.
But then you say:
A person who is a danger to themselves and others may be restrained. Whether that's someone with advanced Ebola or waiving a gun around in a crowd, the answer is the same.
I don't know any way to reconcile those statements. They are fundamentally contradictory.
I keep saying you support quarantines because you keep supporting them. "I'm against quarantines, but I think they should be used" isn't a consistent point of view.
Repeated assertion does not make something true. I am capable of recognizing and assessing the arguments on both sides, and I intensely dislike a mode of debate that tries to marginalize or misrepresent the people on the other side.
I never lied. You are arguing with people who, for as much as you'll share about your reasons, want the same thing you do, but for different reasons. That I expose your stupidity doesn't make me a liar. Though I can see how it would make me unpopular with those I'm exposing the stupidity of.
You keep saying that I support quarantines. That is untrue, and you know it. That is the definition of a lie. If you don't like being called a liar, you should probably stop doing it.
You obviously do think that there are circumstances where it is appropriate to impose restrictions on a person's liberty when there is some threshold of probability that they could infect others with a deadly disease.
Obviously, you are the one lying. I never said any such thing. There is the assumption that FEMA/CDC/etc can step in in the case of a national emergency. I didn't follow the cases closely, but from my understanding, the concentration camps in WWII were never ruled "unconstitutional", even though apologies were offered for them. Since everyone else assumes it, I wasn't going to argue the color of the shoes of the government officials that would be involved. Seemed irrelevant.
So you believe that a quarantine is never appropriate, under any circumstances? All right; I'll believe you, although I got a different impression from these comments that you made that led me to believe that you thought that quarantining a person who was "actively sick" with Ebola would be reasonable.
Denying the right of the government to impose a quarantine under any circumstances is a consistent point of view, albeit one that is probably not going to get much support.
When you act like a reasonable person, then maybe that would be what this is about.
How about you address what I said, rather than making personal attacks? Do you deny the statement that "Reasonable people can disagree on what that threshold is, and what the restrictions should be?" Based on your last answer, maybe you do. But say so, rather than lashing out.
So you are saying that the quarantines you are calling for are illegal, even if the person is actively sick?
I'm guessing that means that you can't actually answer the question?
I gave you a pass before, but since you've responded to all my comments, you already know very well that I do not support a general quarantine. If your argument is so sound, why do you keep resorting to lying about someone who disagrees with you?
To answer the question, the CDC says that the federal government derives its authority to impose a quarantine from the Commerce Clause. Which is mostly just a way of saying that "it's not in the Constitution, but we're pretending that it is anyway."
You obviously do think that there are circumstances where it is appropriate to impose restrictions on a person's liberty when there is some threshold of probability that they could infect others with a deadly disease. Reasonable people can disagree on what that threshold is, and what the restrictions should be. That is essentially what this is about.
The rules for "possible" infection demand no quarantine. That's based on science. You are the one that seems to be claiming that following the science is wrong. Show a fever, go to quarantine. Show no symptoms, you are "safe", according to the science.
Of the three healthcare workers who have come down with symptoms, at least one of them traveled using mass transit after beginning to exhibit those symptoms. That's not a particularly good record. The concern is that by not taking any precautions, you increase the probability that someone will be in public when they are contagious.
You're not "safe" if you show no symptoms. You're safe right now. The fact that you and so many others fail to acknowledge the difference tells me that you're being deliberately obtuse. And until you approach the subject honestly, you can't pretend that you are engaging in an intelligent discussion on the subject.
So, anyone you don't like (we'll call them "sick" or "potentially sick") can be rounded up and thrown into concentration camps.
There is a large continuum between "Everyone can do anything they want" and "Everyone should be put into a concentration camp." It is outright dishonest for you to claim that there is no middle ground.
They don't have to understand science to understand human rights.
There is a valid argument to be made concerning human rights. So make that argument, rather than the stupid one that people are trying to make.
Without formally suspending the Constitution, there is no legal way to do anything about someone who isn't actively sick.
Where is the part of the Constitution that allows you to hold someone who is actively sick?
if she is asymptomatic and do not test positive for the virus she cannot spread the disease
This is true.
and thus quarantine accomplishes nothing.
This, on the other hand, is false. It does not logically follow, no matter how many times people assert it.
You either misunderstand or misrepresent the reasoning behind these quarantines. The purpose is not to prevent someone who is already contagious from infecting someone else. The purpose is to prevent someone who may become contagious in the future from doing so where there is potential to infect other people.
There are arguments to be made against that policy, but "she tested negative" is completely irrelevant in this context. Until you acknowledge the real reasoning behind the policies instead of the strawman you've constructed, you can't engage in an intelligent discussion on the topic.
If you cannot isolate infectious virus or amplify its genetic material from someone's bodily fluids, they are not infectious.
Making assertions based on panic is not reasonable.
You accuse me of making an assertion based on panic. What assertion is that? Do you deny that a person can be infected, and still test negative for ebola? If so, then you need to do some more research.
The purpose for the quarantine is so that people will be away from the public when they become infectious.
If you think that's unneeded or the wrong way to go about it, then fine. I actually agree. But stop trying to pretend that a negative test for ebola is relevant in this discussion. It's not.
Go compare what is costs in most cities to put a veggie loaded salad with some white meat chicken on the table ($20-25 in my experience) compared to a vat of spaghetti with red sauce ($3-4, or $7-8 if you toss in a pound of meat). Poor people are making rational economic choices based on how we have driven down the cost per calorie in processed foods.
First off, $20-25 seems really high unless you're feeding an army.
But regardless of that, if you're looking to get the calorie count up, a salad is exactly the wrong way to do that. There's a reason why dieters eat so much salad, after all. Take a look at your basic staple foods -- flour, rice, potatoes, etc. They beat out typical processed foods in a calorie-per-dollar comparison any day.
So why should someone who is showing no symptoms and thus has a 0 risk of transmitting Ebola right now be forced into a 21 day quarantine?
Whether or not they are at risk of transmitting Ebola "right now" is not the question. It is whether they are at risk of transmitting Ebola in the future.
A certain contingent of people and politicians keep (probably intentionally) confusing those two issues. I don't even support a quarantine for all these people, but I don't think that it's possible to have an intelligent discussion on the matter when one side keeps bringing up misleading arguments.
When I say science, I also mean to include ALL the science around Ebola as reported by groups like the CDC. So if you think that you know something that they don't, do tell.
Let's see. You said:
Do you mean the person who doesn't have any symptoms and has tested negative to ebola at least once? That person?
Are you suggesting that people should be quarantined regardless of the science?
You seriously expect me to believe that you didn't want your "regardless of the science" question to refer to your statement about her not having symptoms and testing negative for ebola?
Come on. Man up and admit when you get something wrong. That would be, you know, the scientific attitude.
Sorry, but no, it's not meaningless. Do the current test methods provide a definitive answer as to whether or not someone is infected with the virus? No, the current methods are difficult and prone to cross-contamination and human error. 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.
The context, in this case, is the question of whether or not someone should be quarantined due to the potential to contract the disease. Testing and not showing symptoms does not tell you anything about that. It tells you whether they are at risk to spread the disease right now, not whether that risk will happen in the future. It is meaningless in the context that we're talking about.
Wow. So you're saying that people should be quarantined without any evidence of infection? Or maybe you think that anyone who has traveled to Africa should be quarantined?
First, I didn't say that I support quarantining them. I do think that there are some sensible precautions that we should be taking in relation to healthcare workers who have been working with ebola patients. But my big problem is with the way that a certain contingent of people -- and politicians -- keeps harping on the fact that this person tested negative for the disease as validation for their claims that any action is unwarranted.
Do you mean the person who doesn't have any symptoms and has tested negative to ebola at least once? That person?
That doesn't mean anything. You can test negative, and be asymptomatic, for a long time while still carrying the disease.
The position of actual scientists that oppose quarantines doesn't rely on whether somebody tested negative for ebola. It's based on whether somebody who is infected is likely to infect others when they become contagious.
Are you suggesting that people should be quarantined regardless of the science?
If you don't understand the science, why do you expect those you disagree with to understand it?
She has tested negative multiple times, has no symptoms, and the CDC has cleared her to go home.
"Testing negative" and "no symptoms" is essentially meaningless in this context. The virus may not be detectable in the blood, and the person may be asymptomatic, for a long time.
Frequent, early testing is useful for early diagnosis if she contracts the disease. But the fact that she has tested negative doesn't say anything about whether or not she needs to be quarantined.
Those who oppose any form of quarantine keep invoking "science" for their support, but then they also keep bringing up the fact that this nurse "tested negative" to validate their views. Makes me think that they don't really understand the "science" as well as they think they do.
Can you make Bennett Haselton an editor, so that everyone that doesn't care about his articles can simply exclude them? He's becoming the new Jon Katz -- and Katz was the reason why we eventually got the "exclude by posting editor" feature in the first place.
"Little particles of inspiration sleet through the universe all the time traveling through the densest matter in the same way that a neutrino passes through a candyfloss haystack, and most of them miss."
It wasn't me that made the statement that you responded to. And if you don't want people to call you out when you are blatantly lying, you probably should start telling the truth, rather than throwing a temper tantrum.
This is not a debate worth having again and again and again and again.
Presumably because you keep losing it, again and again and again?
You're not even supposed to run the amber, never mind the red.
It is a physical impossibility to avoid running the yellow light in all cases. If the length of the yellow has been decreased, it may be impossible or extraordinarily dangerous to avoid running the red in some cases as well.
The thing is, with a good password manager, there's no reason to have a weak password, even for the sites that you aren't worried about.
Most non-technical people (the ones who we're most concerned about in terms of password security) aren't very good at figuring out where security is and isn't important. For instance, I can't count the number of times I've heard statements along the lines of "I don't care about my e-mail password, because I don't care if a hacker could read my e-mail." Better to create tools methods to make sure that people can conveniently create secure passwords across the board, rather than hoping that people will make the correct decisions related to security.
Of course I do. But the fallout of fraud is expensive, in terms of time for me, and in terms of money for retailers (which indirectly gets passed on to me.) A responsible person takes measures to avoid it.