The forces that move the nation are far bigger than the president.
So, let's make them even bigger and more powerful so that they are even less responsive to the will of the people?
Uh, the will of the people is half the problem here. I was in no way intending to imply that the will of the people wasn't one of the forces that moves the nation.
Sure, but compared to posting it in a classified ad, I think that any of those services are probably superior since there is a greater chance that the affected person will be reached.
The court doesn't need your blessing to take action against you. If you go out of your way to be hard to reach, then they will make a show of reaching out to you and then screw you over without any representation. What is the alternative - barring people from taking their grievances to the courts if their opponent acts evasively, thus leaving vigilante justice the only open avenue?
If on the other hand, one is looking for an avenue to influence company direction
And how many shares would you realistically have to buy of Apple in order to have an influence on company direction? Do you think that's applicable to anyone reading this?
Well, the ownership thing DOES matter insofar as the interests of all shareholders are aligned.
Suppose the CEO of Apple decided to sell all the company's assets and pay the resulting funds to himself as a bonus. The shareholders would be legally able to prevent this, and even though any individual only votes a tiny fraction of the total, their interests are basically all aligned.
If a few people running Alibaba decided to do the same, there would be no legal recourse, since the "investors" don't actually own anything. It is like "investing" in a company via kickstarter - they get the money, and you only get a promise.
The same is true of buying stock in companies that have a majority shareholder.
If you want to defend the president 24x7 against absolutely any threat that includes non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction, then you'll need to forget about putting the white house in the middle of a city, and never have the president step outside of an armored and sealed environment. If you want to protect against a threat that includes nuclear weapons, now you need maybe a 10 mile buffer zone between anywhere the president goes and the rest of civilization.
On the other hand, half of the other national leaders can bike to work if they want to. Granted, terrorists aren't gunning for the leader of Norway the way they would be for the US president.
In the end, security is a balance. Sure, we could have sentries that shoot anything that moves and a minefield in the white house lawn, but as was pointed out that results in lots of dead crazy people on the news. There is no question that the style of secret service the US has is going to lead to a few dead presidents each century, which is basically what the trend has been. I just don't see a way to fix things without making other things much worse. The problem is that there are a lot of nutjobs who think that killing one person will somehow solve the world's problems, and that the last election was just a one-time delusion that could never happen again.
Do you think that anybody else who has been elected in the last 20 years would have pulled off Obamacare
They were smart enough not to try.
Great, then count yourself among the very small minority of people in industrialized nations who think that not having a universal system of health insurance is a good idea. The issue is that people complain about the execution of Obamacare, when in reality they objected to having any kind of solution to the healthcare problem at all.
> Your math doesn't work out. Care to show your work?
$1.3 trillion (US) federal tax cost / 12 million people = $11.3 million per person covered.
That is just repeating yourself. Showing your work means showing where you got the two numbers, not repeating yourself.
How about this. You earn $100 trillion (US). There are only 300 million people in the US. So, you can afford to just write everybody a check for $300k and they can just buy their own insurance. Do you need me to show my work? If I did you would discover that I obtained your earnings by multiplying $10/hr by 40 hrs/wk by 52 wks/yr by 5 billion years, which is about how long you'll have to work before the sun burns out to pay for that one-time payment.
Incidentally, that is the same error you made in taking point-in-time figures and cost-over-long-periods-of-time figures and combining them.
No argument from me. But, this is exactly the sort of sensible reform that is impossible to turn into a law, because it steps on the toes of a bunch of special interests.
While I was at it I'd fix up the patchwork of medicare laws and just have one premium/deductible/coinsurnace/limit for everything, instead of the maze of gaps, per-incident deductibles, and all that stuff that we have today.
To get a law passed you need to spend $5 on the problem you want to spend, and another $10 in handouts to people that won't do anything to solve the problem but who have a financial stake in maintaining the status quo.
So there's another trillion dollars it cost average Americans, in the form of much higher premiums. A couple TRILLION dollars to (maybe) cover $12 million people. At a cost of around $20 million per person covered, I don't think I'd trumpet that as a victory if I were a Democrat. (And in fact Democrat most candidates are distancing themselves from the mess.)
Your math doesn't work out. Care to show your work?
And nobody liked Obamacare. That is why it was able to be made into a law. The US political system isn't capable of enacting solutions that actually work.
What solution that provides universal coverage would you advocate? Or, are you more in favor of a system where you generally do well if your parents did well?
Politics? Darn, I should have read the article - I thought this was about http://obamacare.com/
My point is that democracy doesn't put competent people in charge most of the time. That's just the nature of the beast.
Do you think that anybody else who has been elected in the last 20 years would have pulled off Obamacare? Heck, put Obama in a different period of time and he probably couldn't have done as well as he did either. The forces that move the nation are far bigger than the president.
3. Show you available health care plans in your area;
Unless the list is 100% based on geography, this is not a straightforward problem. Also, where does this list come from? What data describes a plan for comparison purposes?
5. Help you pay for it.
How much does it cost? I imagine that has a bunch of rules behind it.
The problem is that the website itself could be relatively simple, but there are layers and layers of systems behind it, and those cost a lot more to build.
I'm sure that figure includes more than just the website. I suspect most large companies pay on the order of a billion dollars for an ERP system, and you can't expect the government to complete with a private operation for efficiency.
1) The administration didn't knowingly force people to use a badly designed, insecure web site that wasn't ready for prime time. That's just something the administration's critics made up, out of context.
That is correct. The administration did not force anybody to use the website at all during the period it was non-functional. There were alternative ways of signing up, and the enrollment periods were extended to allow time to use the system once it was in better shape.
2) The administration has fixed all of the security concerns, and that the whole platform is now working as they promised it would, and that anyone saying otherwise is lying and spinning the glorious real facts on the ground.
I'm sure that not all security concerns have been addressed. I'm sure that 20 years from now they won't be addressed. In fact, I doubt there is a single government or corporate website functioning anywhere where all security concerns are addressed.
I think the issue here is unrealistic expectations. This is an incredibly large undertaking, and problems with large undertakings are fairly common.
If it were up to me I'd greatly simplify the whole mess which would make rollout much less complex. I'd start by simplifying medicare so that there is just one deductible, coinsurance rate, and out of pocket limit for everything. Then I'd just start ratcheting down the eligibility age a few years at a time until everybody is eligible from birth. No new systems to deal with, etc. Then I'd start fixing the provisioning of healthcare services (start opening public providers and gradually transition the system to one where the coverage network is government-run). But, the various vested interests don't want to buy into something like that, so we end up with the affordable care act instead of a system like one of those that has already been tried and tested elsewhere.
That technology is remarkably old, and hardly reliable by modern standards.
The old system would apparently not detect trains in some regions due to sensor failures. With such a small number of trains, a computer-controlled system would simply keep track of all of them and if one didn't check in it would assume the worst and fail safe.
Now, keeping track of every car in the US centrally isn't as practical, but you could still have a system where the absence of information is detectable. Aircraft are managed in this manner, even though they are manually flown. A large plane doesn't take off without a clearance, and when those clearances are given a failure to communicate further gets noticed on both ends, with protocols being defined for how to handle a lack of communications. Cars would actually be safer than planes, since if a dangerous situation exists with cars the cars can simply all pull over and stop. Cars would be given reservations for certain regions of space and time, which would be updated as the car moves along its path. If for whatever reason a car doesn't receive a clearance to move forward, it just stops, and the central system wouldn't give out a reservation for another car to enter that space until the previous car reports having vacated it. This would be a system that always fails safe, though I'm not sure how much capacity it could handle offhand (to some extent it might depend on the accuracy of the cars in both space and time).
US politics at its finest. We select the most popular people around to lead, and then act surprised when it turns out that they're not necessarily the best leaders...
Sounds like you're a typical nerd who gets asked to support apple gear and you're out of your depth, so just say "it's crap" because you don't understand it.
If you don't have the source code, you don't truly understand it. That's why I don't depend on Apple gear unless I have to, and I've yet to find a case where I have to. In some other niches I don't have as much choice, so I deal with it. The main advantage of open source is that you usually have more options when things go wrong.
Form is the most important thing if you would do something 'really' interesting. And bottom line such a form is most of the time considered really beautiful. A sword comes to mind, or a bow, or a simple arrow even. Or a hang glider...The idea that stuff only needs to work, has to be cheap and can otherwise be as awkward to use and as ugly to handle is utter nonsense.
There is a balance. I buy cheap stuff all the time, and somebody once said that quantity has a quality all its own. Lots of companies make lots of money selling cheap plastic toys for dogs.
I think the key is to understand your market. Apple's market is people who don't mind paying $700 for a $200 phone that looks just right, is easy to use, and is the phone all their friends think is the best. They are basically a luxury market, and in a luxury market paying the extra $10 so that you don't have a single stitch out of place makes sense so that you can charge an extra $500 markup.
On the other hand if you want to do things the Apple way I'd suggest not doing them in a market that Apple is already in, because creating a new luxury brand is very risky. The fashionable brand is the one everybody has, and that is never the new brand.
Targetting the lower end of the market is almost always safer, but then you need a more functional product at a cheap price, and spending that extra $10 to make the unboxing video prettier is probably not wise.
I'm not sure how much it cuts manufacturing costs if you're just talking about different colors/etc. However, what that simplification does do is cut your warehousing costs across the entire supply chain. Your store just needs a few boxes of widgets, not one box of every color and, "sorry sir, we're out of that color." Also, it does give you a lot of brand uniformity/etc.
I'm sure it is cheaper to make 10M white phones than 5M white phones and 5M black phones. However, unless you have so many colors that you're taking orders of magnitude difference I doubt it adds up.
Yup. This would be like the Taliban telling their field commanders to just station soldiers with sniper rifles to shoot down F-15s. If you want to shoot down a drone which is taking steps to be hard to shoot down, you'll need a radar-controlled anti-aircraft battery or missile system. I hear they're selling them at the grocery stores in Eastern Ukraine.
That, and no lunch for your crew when the caterer's can't navigate to your site.:)
Inverse square is also a problem - those drones can be rather high so unless you know where it is and can use a directional antenna, you have to broadcast a very strong omnidirectional GPS jammer. The drone can also use a directional antenna that rejects signals from below, which means that you need to use even more power. When nearby aircraft start having navigation issues, you might start getting complaints about that.
The drone operation is clandestine and likely run by a few individuals with little money, while your GPS jamming operation is broadcasting a strong signal while being owned by a huge corporation with deep pockets. The studio can't really afford to get into games like this if it creates either legal or liability exposure. Heck, they're having to deal with export controls just to get drone-monitoring equipment - do you think the people flying the drones have to deal with export controls?
32. Have you ever personally experienced inappropriate or sexual remarks, comments about physical beauty, cognitive sex differences, or other jokes, at an anthropological field site?
Those are all joined by "or" so this is true if the answer to this question is true: Have you ever personally experienced comments about physical beauty at an anthropological field site?
Technically that would be true if I said to a corker at a dig site, "that sure is a beautiful sunset." Even if making the obvious correction that they're talking about comments about YOUR OWN physical beauty, the statement is true if I compliment a coworker on her haircut.
The other question is much more useful as it focuses more on unwanted physical contact. Question 32 is so broad that I'd be surprised if it wasn't true of almost everybody.
Not all root servers are in the US. Not all root servers are controlled by US companies/government agencies. And there is nothing preventing a cut of potion of the Internet/group of ISPs to route any or all of the these IPs to their own DNS servers.
The still control the majority of the routing. They can cripple the internet any time they want and they can get their loyal partners in europe to follow suit.
This is the kind of control that exists by consensus though.
The reason that half of Europe and Asia go along with the US, is that at some level most US policies around things like the Internet tend to make sense. I don't care for the intrusive surveillance, but when you look at it at a national level the US comes along, installs a bunch of gear, and likely shares all the data obtained from it with the country that gave them access (I doubt they give them access to everything internationally, but I wouldn't be surprised if a small country could get more data on what is on their own networks by collaborating with the US than trying to do it themselves, and for the most part their interests are aligned with the US on the sort of stuff they'd be looking for anyway).
The US can't just arbitrarily enact some kind of lasting blockade on the internet, because they wouldn't have the support on the ground to do that.
Now, the US could exercise control over data travelling through undersea cables that cross its territories, and when it comes to the Pacific I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of those (as a result of WWII). Land routes from Europe to Asia, however, are probably fairly free from US direct control.
If the government can't stop undocumented immigrants, how can they stop a population full of people with 9mm diversions and nothing to lose?
I was speaking of the quarantine of something like a town. That is a FAR different problem than sealing a large border. I also assumed that there would be no constraints on the tactics used - shooting anybody that moves is far easier to implement than arresting anybody that moves (and far less likely to expose troops to the disease).
Like I said, I don't think this scenario is likely since there isn't that much political will for something like this. If there were, however, it could probably be done fairly effectively.
Slashdot Mirror
The forces that move the nation are far bigger than the president.
So, let's make them even bigger and more powerful so that they are even less responsive to the will of the people?
Uh, the will of the people is half the problem here. I was in no way intending to imply that the will of the people wasn't one of the forces that moves the nation.
Your not agreeing with a President's actions didn't make them incompetent.
When did I claim to not agree with any president's actions?
Since when did udev run as PID=1? As far as I'm aware, it doesn't under systemd.
Sure, but compared to posting it in a classified ad, I think that any of those services are probably superior since there is a greater chance that the affected person will be reached.
The court doesn't need your blessing to take action against you. If you go out of your way to be hard to reach, then they will make a show of reaching out to you and then screw you over without any representation. What is the alternative - barring people from taking their grievances to the courts if their opponent acts evasively, thus leaving vigilante justice the only open avenue?
If on the other hand, one is looking for an avenue to influence company direction
And how many shares would you realistically have to buy of Apple in order to have an influence on company direction? Do you think that's applicable to anyone reading this?
Well, the ownership thing DOES matter insofar as the interests of all shareholders are aligned.
Suppose the CEO of Apple decided to sell all the company's assets and pay the resulting funds to himself as a bonus. The shareholders would be legally able to prevent this, and even though any individual only votes a tiny fraction of the total, their interests are basically all aligned.
If a few people running Alibaba decided to do the same, there would be no legal recourse, since the "investors" don't actually own anything. It is like "investing" in a company via kickstarter - they get the money, and you only get a promise.
The same is true of buying stock in companies that have a majority shareholder.
If you want to defend the president 24x7 against absolutely any threat that includes non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction, then you'll need to forget about putting the white house in the middle of a city, and never have the president step outside of an armored and sealed environment. If you want to protect against a threat that includes nuclear weapons, now you need maybe a 10 mile buffer zone between anywhere the president goes and the rest of civilization.
On the other hand, half of the other national leaders can bike to work if they want to. Granted, terrorists aren't gunning for the leader of Norway the way they would be for the US president.
In the end, security is a balance. Sure, we could have sentries that shoot anything that moves and a minefield in the white house lawn, but as was pointed out that results in lots of dead crazy people on the news. There is no question that the style of secret service the US has is going to lead to a few dead presidents each century, which is basically what the trend has been. I just don't see a way to fix things without making other things much worse. The problem is that there are a lot of nutjobs who think that killing one person will somehow solve the world's problems, and that the last election was just a one-time delusion that could never happen again.
Do you think that anybody else who has been elected in the last 20 years would have pulled off Obamacare
They were smart enough not to try.
Great, then count yourself among the very small minority of people in industrialized nations who think that not having a universal system of health insurance is a good idea. The issue is that people complain about the execution of Obamacare, when in reality they objected to having any kind of solution to the healthcare problem at all.
> Your math doesn't work out. Care to show your work?
$1.3 trillion (US) federal tax cost / 12 million people = $11.3 million per person covered.
That is just repeating yourself. Showing your work means showing where you got the two numbers, not repeating yourself.
How about this. You earn $100 trillion (US). There are only 300 million people in the US. So, you can afford to just write everybody a check for $300k and they can just buy their own insurance. Do you need me to show my work? If I did you would discover that I obtained your earnings by multiplying $10/hr by 40 hrs/wk by 52 wks/yr by 5 billion years, which is about how long you'll have to work before the sun burns out to pay for that one-time payment.
Incidentally, that is the same error you made in taking point-in-time figures and cost-over-long-periods-of-time figures and combining them.
No argument from me. But, this is exactly the sort of sensible reform that is impossible to turn into a law, because it steps on the toes of a bunch of special interests.
While I was at it I'd fix up the patchwork of medicare laws and just have one premium/deductible/coinsurnace/limit for everything, instead of the maze of gaps, per-incident deductibles, and all that stuff that we have today.
To get a law passed you need to spend $5 on the problem you want to spend, and another $10 in handouts to people that won't do anything to solve the problem but who have a financial stake in maintaining the status quo.
So there's another trillion dollars it cost average Americans, in the form of much higher premiums. A couple TRILLION dollars to (maybe) cover $12 million people. At a cost of around $20 million per person covered, I don't think I'd trumpet that as a victory if I were a Democrat. (And in fact Democrat most candidates are distancing themselves from the mess.)
Your math doesn't work out. Care to show your work?
And nobody liked Obamacare. That is why it was able to be made into a law. The US political system isn't capable of enacting solutions that actually work.
What solution that provides universal coverage would you advocate? Or, are you more in favor of a system where you generally do well if your parents did well?
Politics? Darn, I should have read the article - I thought this was about http://obamacare.com/
My point is that democracy doesn't put competent people in charge most of the time. That's just the nature of the beast.
Do you think that anybody else who has been elected in the last 20 years would have pulled off Obamacare? Heck, put Obama in a different period of time and he probably couldn't have done as well as he did either. The forces that move the nation are far bigger than the president.
2. Verify your identify;
And how do you propose to do that?
3. Show you available health care plans in your area;
Unless the list is 100% based on geography, this is not a straightforward problem. Also, where does this list come from? What data describes a plan for comparison purposes?
5. Help you pay for it.
How much does it cost? I imagine that has a bunch of rules behind it.
The problem is that the website itself could be relatively simple, but there are layers and layers of systems behind it, and those cost a lot more to build.
$197 billion for a web site? "Really?"
I'm sure that figure includes more than just the website. I suspect most large companies pay on the order of a billion dollars for an ERP system, and you can't expect the government to complete with a private operation for efficiency.
1) The administration didn't knowingly force people to use a badly designed, insecure web site that wasn't ready for prime time. That's just something the administration's critics made up, out of context.
That is correct. The administration did not force anybody to use the website at all during the period it was non-functional. There were alternative ways of signing up, and the enrollment periods were extended to allow time to use the system once it was in better shape.
2) The administration has fixed all of the security concerns, and that the whole platform is now working as they promised it would, and that anyone saying otherwise is lying and spinning the glorious real facts on the ground.
I'm sure that not all security concerns have been addressed. I'm sure that 20 years from now they won't be addressed. In fact, I doubt there is a single government or corporate website functioning anywhere where all security concerns are addressed.
I think the issue here is unrealistic expectations. This is an incredibly large undertaking, and problems with large undertakings are fairly common.
If it were up to me I'd greatly simplify the whole mess which would make rollout much less complex. I'd start by simplifying medicare so that there is just one deductible, coinsurance rate, and out of pocket limit for everything. Then I'd just start ratcheting down the eligibility age a few years at a time until everybody is eligible from birth. No new systems to deal with, etc. Then I'd start fixing the provisioning of healthcare services (start opening public providers and gradually transition the system to one where the coverage network is government-run). But, the various vested interests don't want to buy into something like that, so we end up with the affordable care act instead of a system like one of those that has already been tried and tested elsewhere.
That technology is remarkably old, and hardly reliable by modern standards.
The old system would apparently not detect trains in some regions due to sensor failures. With such a small number of trains, a computer-controlled system would simply keep track of all of them and if one didn't check in it would assume the worst and fail safe.
Now, keeping track of every car in the US centrally isn't as practical, but you could still have a system where the absence of information is detectable. Aircraft are managed in this manner, even though they are manually flown. A large plane doesn't take off without a clearance, and when those clearances are given a failure to communicate further gets noticed on both ends, with protocols being defined for how to handle a lack of communications. Cars would actually be safer than planes, since if a dangerous situation exists with cars the cars can simply all pull over and stop. Cars would be given reservations for certain regions of space and time, which would be updated as the car moves along its path. If for whatever reason a car doesn't receive a clearance to move forward, it just stops, and the central system wouldn't give out a reservation for another car to enter that space until the previous car reports having vacated it. This would be a system that always fails safe, though I'm not sure how much capacity it could handle offhand (to some extent it might depend on the accuracy of the cars in both space and time).
US politics at its finest. We select the most popular people around to lead, and then act surprised when it turns out that they're not necessarily the best leaders...
Sounds like you're a typical nerd who gets asked to support apple gear and you're out of your depth, so just say "it's crap" because you don't understand it.
If you don't have the source code, you don't truly understand it. That's why I don't depend on Apple gear unless I have to, and I've yet to find a case where I have to. In some other niches I don't have as much choice, so I deal with it. The main advantage of open source is that you usually have more options when things go wrong.
Form is the most important thing if you would do something 'really' interesting. And bottom line such a form is most of the time considered really beautiful. A sword comes to mind, or a bow, or a simple arrow even. Or a hang glider ...The idea that stuff only needs to work, has to be cheap and can otherwise be as awkward to use and as ugly to handle is utter nonsense.
There is a balance. I buy cheap stuff all the time, and somebody once said that quantity has a quality all its own. Lots of companies make lots of money selling cheap plastic toys for dogs.
I think the key is to understand your market. Apple's market is people who don't mind paying $700 for a $200 phone that looks just right, is easy to use, and is the phone all their friends think is the best. They are basically a luxury market, and in a luxury market paying the extra $10 so that you don't have a single stitch out of place makes sense so that you can charge an extra $500 markup.
On the other hand if you want to do things the Apple way I'd suggest not doing them in a market that Apple is already in, because creating a new luxury brand is very risky. The fashionable brand is the one everybody has, and that is never the new brand.
Targetting the lower end of the market is almost always safer, but then you need a more functional product at a cheap price, and spending that extra $10 to make the unboxing video prettier is probably not wise.
I'm not sure how much it cuts manufacturing costs if you're just talking about different colors/etc. However, what that simplification does do is cut your warehousing costs across the entire supply chain. Your store just needs a few boxes of widgets, not one box of every color and, "sorry sir, we're out of that color." Also, it does give you a lot of brand uniformity/etc.
I'm sure it is cheaper to make 10M white phones than 5M white phones and 5M black phones. However, unless you have so many colors that you're taking orders of magnitude difference I doubt it adds up.
Yup. This would be like the Taliban telling their field commanders to just station soldiers with sniper rifles to shoot down F-15s. If you want to shoot down a drone which is taking steps to be hard to shoot down, you'll need a radar-controlled anti-aircraft battery or missile system. I hear they're selling them at the grocery stores in Eastern Ukraine.
That, and no lunch for your crew when the caterer's can't navigate to your site. :)
Inverse square is also a problem - those drones can be rather high so unless you know where it is and can use a directional antenna, you have to broadcast a very strong omnidirectional GPS jammer. The drone can also use a directional antenna that rejects signals from below, which means that you need to use even more power. When nearby aircraft start having navigation issues, you might start getting complaints about that.
The drone operation is clandestine and likely run by a few individuals with little money, while your GPS jamming operation is broadcasting a strong signal while being owned by a huge corporation with deep pockets. The studio can't really afford to get into games like this if it creates either legal or liability exposure. Heck, they're having to deal with export controls just to get drone-monitoring equipment - do you think the people flying the drones have to deal with export controls?
Meh, that's what NXDOMAIN is for I suppose. That's what I get when I try to resolve them. I must have 25 domains configured this way.
32. Have you ever personally experienced inappropriate or sexual remarks, comments about physical beauty, cognitive sex differences, or other jokes, at an anthropological field site?
Those are all joined by "or" so this is true if the answer to this question is true:
Have you ever personally experienced comments about physical beauty at an anthropological field site?
Technically that would be true if I said to a corker at a dig site, "that sure is a beautiful sunset." Even if making the obvious correction that they're talking about comments about YOUR OWN physical beauty, the statement is true if I compliment a coworker on her haircut.
The other question is much more useful as it focuses more on unwanted physical contact. Question 32 is so broad that I'd be surprised if it wasn't true of almost everybody.
Except they don't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Not all root servers are in the US. Not all root servers are controlled by US companies/government agencies. And there is nothing preventing a cut of potion of the Internet/group of ISPs to route any or all of the these IPs to their own DNS servers.
The still control the majority of the routing. They can cripple the internet any time they want and they can get their loyal partners in europe to follow suit.
This is the kind of control that exists by consensus though.
The reason that half of Europe and Asia go along with the US, is that at some level most US policies around things like the Internet tend to make sense. I don't care for the intrusive surveillance, but when you look at it at a national level the US comes along, installs a bunch of gear, and likely shares all the data obtained from it with the country that gave them access (I doubt they give them access to everything internationally, but I wouldn't be surprised if a small country could get more data on what is on their own networks by collaborating with the US than trying to do it themselves, and for the most part their interests are aligned with the US on the sort of stuff they'd be looking for anyway).
The US can't just arbitrarily enact some kind of lasting blockade on the internet, because they wouldn't have the support on the ground to do that.
Now, the US could exercise control over data travelling through undersea cables that cross its territories, and when it comes to the Pacific I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of those (as a result of WWII). Land routes from Europe to Asia, however, are probably fairly free from US direct control.
If the government can't stop undocumented immigrants, how can they stop a population full of people with 9mm diversions and nothing to lose?
I was speaking of the quarantine of something like a town. That is a FAR different problem than sealing a large border. I also assumed that there would be no constraints on the tactics used - shooting anybody that moves is far easier to implement than arresting anybody that moves (and far less likely to expose troops to the disease).
Like I said, I don't think this scenario is likely since there isn't that much political will for something like this. If there were, however, it could probably be done fairly effectively.