Kinda like the forecast "60% chance of rain" is right either way.
You do realize that all models can do reasonably well at forecasting if the forecast period is not very long, don't you? That the "validity" of a model is never judged by a truly significant forecast period, but by how well it hindcasts. And that every model that does long range forecasts has to ignore factors that it cannot predict, like solar output, right?
It's hard to claim that forecasts made 15 years ago are correct when it was about ten years ago that the satellite remote sensors realized there was a mistake in their calculations and the true surface temperatures were a couple of degrees off of what they were claiming. All the input data was wrong, so if you claim the output is right then the model has to be wrong. Or good at guessing.
Any model that is correct at 100 years is luck more than science.
Technically, if the engine isn't pushing them through the air, they aren't flying.
Technically, you are quite wrong. "Powered flight" requires the adjective to differentiate it from unpowered flight because both are still flight.
And technically, there are a large number of powered aircraft that are never pushed through the air by their engines. Pulled, yes.
They are falling... with style.
I'm sorry, but you're demonstrating the common misconception that an engine failure in a powered aircraft causes the aircraft to fall from the sky. With style, without style, it isn't falling.
IIRC, the POH for the stock Cessna 172 shows that the power-off glide distance from 8000' AGL is 12 miles. That's about 8:1. Not as good as a glider, but certainly nothing close to "falling".
Don't feel too bad, many people don't know. I took a guy up over the mountains once and I could tell he was concerned about what would happen if the engine stopped. Lots of trees and pointy rocks below us, what a danger! I pulled the power back to idle, looked around, and pointed to an open field about 8 miles away. "There's where we are going." Once he realized that 1) we weren't plummeting from the sky and 2) we were approaching the place to land faster than we were descending, he lost his fear, and we went on with the flight.
Of course humans affect the environment, how is that disputable? It's the degree and duration of the affect that is not clear.
This is like saying "of course cell phones cause pancreatic cancer. How is that disputable? It's the degree and duration of the affect that is not clear." Most people would say that "zero" or "minimal" degree counts as "don't affect". And most people would, while admitting that humans affect the local environment (cities that are warmer than the surrounding countryside because of absorbed solar radiation, e.g.), maybe hesitate to claim global affect of a cataclysmic scale. In other words, you're creating a semantic straw man by claiming "of course X" and then admitting that the degree is unknown and may be zero. But you've got the meme "of course X" created and that's enough to start the stampede.
It's how salesmen coerce people into buying stuff they really don't want. Get them saying "yes" to simple things ("Isn't that a beautiful display on the 128" HDTV?" "Wouldn't that look great in your living room?") and then slip in the big stuff ("Would you like to charge that on your credit card or fill out our credit application...?").
I'm curious with these models, do they work with backtesting? How accurate have they been with predicting the last 10 years? The last 20 years?
It's called 'hindcasting'. They're all pretty good at that. That's not because they are all based on actual physics and are all really good models, but because the models being used are modified until they DO match what happened. Then they are run forward.
So, 19 different models. Are there 19 different versions of "basic physics", or just 19 different empirical equation systems created by 19 different people with 890 different parameters to tweak? In the late 1990s, after the hockey stick was well entrenched in global thought, NCAR announced quite proudly that they had been able to modify the model that created the stick so that it kept the same hindcast values but turned upwards much more rapidly. Was the upturn real or just a more hysterical view of the impending doom? Didn't matter. It was good. Had "basic physics" changed in just a couple of years to base the new model on? Of course not.
There is an old saying in science. "Correlation is not causation". It is being forgotten. Abandoned. When someone says "the level of CO2 should be an input parameter in our model", they're assuming it has an effect. Then they modify the equations and the constants until it has the effect they think it should have.
I remember a seminar from long ago. How many points does it take to fit an elephant? Answer: 31. The presenter demonstrated that with 31 points (30 degrees of freedom) you could fit a curve to the outline of an elephant. Thus, in modern science, he proved that an elephant consists of 31 things. That certainly wasn't his point because he did this long before correlation became sufficient to prove causation. It was exactly the opposite: that with sufficient freedom to create variables you could prove anything.
By the way, before you bring up the "you can't understand the science unless you are a specialist in the field" canard, I work with climate scientists doing modelling. I've seen some of the models and know the empirical nature of how they operate. They all have bits where they say "we need to include the effects of X in our model but we have only a guess at the physics and certainly cannot solve the equations involved, so let's approximate by using this simple calculation... why yes, that looks right".
You seem unaware that the law is mostly a protest.
The law being a "protest" changes nothing about your comment or my reply.
But, in general, it seems like the sort of thing the news would be all over reporting considering the hysteria over laser pointers and such.
Yeah, you've never seen it in the news so it hasn't happened, because you know that pilots would rather call a reporter instead of an A&P to fix the plane. You complain because you don't think I read both the silly sentences you wrote, did you bother to read even one sentence of what I wrote?
Like I told you last time, in some places it is a well known event, whether you've seen it in the papers or not.
Please go look up the words "can also" and see how they might apply. Consider also how "typically" doesn't justify banning what you consider atypical, or even make what you consider atypical actually so.
I'm all for being allowed to down planes flying lower than 1000 feet (with a grace area around airports since, well, they somehow have to get there). Anywhere else, they simply have no business flying lower.
Wrong again. There are all kinds of reasons to fly lower. And your expectation that you can murder anyone who happens to be below 1000' in an airplane is just pathetic.
Instead of displaying penis envy by calling for the downing of anyone flying lower than you think they should, maybe you should go get a pilot's license and join the fun. And then face people like you who think you should die because you flew "too low".
Mostly it is that legitimate civilian traffic typically flies above the effective range of a hunting rifle and certainly above the range of a shiotgun.
And legitimate civilian traffic can also fly within the effective range of a rifle. Stop spouting nonsense. Helicopters have essentially no lower limit on altitude; fixed wing depends on the population density but still allows landing. I.e., if I want to land my airplane on that big field I own out back of my house, I very well might be over your property next door at 50'.
It isn't actually all that hard to tell a drone from a manned vehicle using a half decent scope.
If you read the law, you'd notice that it doesn't require the use of assisted vision devices for aircraft below a certain altitude. And that the shooter gets to estimate the altitude. And if you talk to airport people, you'll find that untrained people are notorious for underestimating the altitudes of aircraft overhead.
I haven't seen any reports ever of an aircraft being shot by hunters. Perhaps it has happened, but I'd think it would make the news.
Because you've never seen it in the news it has never happened. Check.
There are areas of Oregon (and probably California) where it is well known that you don't fly within shotgun range of the ground because the planes tend to come back with holes in them.
So you are saying that drones are a cheap, easy, and incredibly effective way to oppressive your citizens,
They're also a cheap, safer way to obtain scientific data in remote areas of the country (like Deer Ass, Colorado). Despite the paranoia, not all UAV use is for shooting you while you sleep.
The license includes but is not limited to government property. Read the actual proposal.
Unmanned aerial vehicle. Below 1000 feet. Most people can't determine the altitude of a passing aircraft. The local airport gets calls from people all the time about pilots who are allegedly buzzing the city "too low", but radar shows they were quite legal (above 1000'). Some of these aircraft are ones like this, which is hard to tell is manned from a distance.
Thank goodness the law exempts "toy" vehicles, but includes manned aircraft that are "following" someone. Or looks like it has "weapons".
But you're right about stupidity. Stupid, thy name is Deer Trail.
I wish it would come back and someone would figure out a way to properly moderate it so the whole system doesn't get choked up with spam and trolls again.
If it comes back "properly moderated" it isn't really coming back, it's something different. It's... a web board.
Think of it this way. If you can cancel your posts, then the basic structure is in place to allow you to vote on messages that you receive.
You could think of it that way, but that makes no sense.
You can already use a killfile so you get to "vote" on what you receive that way. Use a scoring newsreader and you can give each article a score. Ten points up for certain senders, ten points down for google groups, etc.
If you mean creating the long-proposed 'other users vote on what you get to see', still no. Being able to include a header in your postings that allow you to match up a cancel (and prove you are the one who posted that article) doesn't mean you have a mechanism that would deal with readers voting on other people's articles. There is nothing to match. I could post 1000 votes for my own article using dummy names and there would be no way to know they were real users.
Others have mentioned winds and tides. I'll point out that while technically the sea level is rising all along the Oregon coast, as an example, the Oregon coast is also rising at different rates. Therefore, in some places there is an apparent sea level rise, in some there is either no change or a decrease.
This is due to the subduction zone off the OR coast pushing the coast up as the offshore plate slides under the landward plate. The friction between the two plates causes a flexing that pushes the coast up. And the release of that friction causes the 500 year subduction zone earthquakes that Oregon is coming due for.
They are nearly identical. In fact the flying bit is arguably a bit easier in some ways.
No, adding the third dimension to the problem really does increase the complexity, as well as create special problems like "how do I handle an engine failure while enroute", which in an automotive environment means "pull over and wait for a tow truck", but in an aeronautical one involves finding a place on the ground without anyone already occupying it and somehow maneuvering your crippled vehicle to that location -- and hoping it is within gliding distance.
Perhaps that's why the majority of driver's ed involves how to operate the car while the majority of flight training involves how to handle your potentially burning neo-glider (or some subset of that, such as engine failure in a twin, which is much more complicated to deal with than engine failure in a single.)
You won't be flying to work until there are nearly foolproof autopilots that communicate with all other nearby planes. It's that simple. Sounds a lot like the driving problem, doesn't it?
You people who aren't pilots are a continual source of amusement for those of us who are. I bet you think that an aircraft stall is when the engine dies, don't you?
3.All additional profit is pocketed by the former employer.
2a. Prices plummet as demand decreases. Less money in the hands of the consumers means less demand for everything. Any company that wants to continue to exist drops prices to match the lowered costs of production, thus eliminating the "additional profit" there would have been had sales remained constant.
4. Workers find new jobs in the service sector (serving mostly former employers).
One of the first adopters of automation will be the service sector. Imagine being able to remove the employee costs at a McDonalds by presenting a display of items to the consumer who selects his choices and then waits a few minutes for the food to pop out of a window.
Automats were one of the early "robotic" systems in service. Now that we have NFC and "wave your card at the cash register" payments, there is no reason for them not to come back in big style. Especially if costs can be cut and there are a lot of people out of work because larger scale automated systems have made them redundant. It's nice to walk into a Subway and have a low-paid "sandwich specialist" make your sandwich to order, but in the long run it will be a choice between paying for personal service like that at full price or being able to eat at all.
(I'd love to try to spend more time entertaining you with music, poetry, and a novel I've got an idea for, but I have to hack e-commerce software to pay the bills.)
We have a vision of this future already. Now that there is "self-publishing" available to anyone who wants to be an author, the quality of published works has taken a nose-dive. Anyone who thinks they can write is trying it and, well, let's just say that there really is a place for publishers and editors in the world. Once you put everyone on the dole so they don't have to work a real job, there will be no barrier to entry to becoming an "author", even a low barrier like "literacy" and "can write a simple declarative sentence."
As for being entertained by your poetry, I think Douglas Adams wrote about what "self-published" poetry would be like. Don't Panic.
Oh, and I guess FCC emergency broadcasts that hit your phone like the recent CA Amber alert would be exempt because those come from "approved" sources.. and you citizen are anything but approved.
Once you explain how the official who issued the amber alert would know that you are driving and would read the message while doing so, your logic makes perfect sense.
I dislike this example. How about this:
It is illegal for a person (call him Fred) to drink while driving, but nobody would argue that giving Fred (who is over 21) sealed beer to take home with him with the intent of him drinking them later, and then Fred choosing to drink the beer while in the car on the way makes you liable.
It's almost a perfect analogy of the original scenario,
Except it isn't. The original scenario is based on texting someone who you know will read the message while driving. Therefore, your analogy is broken because the "intent of him drinking them later" really is "knowing that he'll pop one open as soon as the key is in the ignition.".
The "lowest common denominator" is the vocal minority who feel their "right" to bring a peanut butter sandwich or wear a particular fragrance to work outweighs the rights of others to come to work without fear of developing an illness,
Hate to point this out, but if you've got a serious peanut allergy, you've already got an illness. Ditto if you die when you run across a whiff of perfume.
I suppose you'd have no problem with demanding that all your normal employees go through a sterile scrubdown and take broad spectrum antibiotics so you could employ someone with a failed immune system, too. Better to try to modify the general environment for everyone than to keep those who need special environments to stay alive in their own.
Slashdot Mirror
So it turns out that the forecasting did work.
Kinda like the forecast "60% chance of rain" is right either way.
You do realize that all models can do reasonably well at forecasting if the forecast period is not very long, don't you? That the "validity" of a model is never judged by a truly significant forecast period, but by how well it hindcasts. And that every model that does long range forecasts has to ignore factors that it cannot predict, like solar output, right?
It's hard to claim that forecasts made 15 years ago are correct when it was about ten years ago that the satellite remote sensors realized there was a mistake in their calculations and the true surface temperatures were a couple of degrees off of what they were claiming. All the input data was wrong, so if you claim the output is right then the model has to be wrong. Or good at guessing.
Any model that is correct at 100 years is luck more than science.
Technically, if the engine isn't pushing them through the air, they aren't flying.
Technically, you are quite wrong. "Powered flight" requires the adjective to differentiate it from unpowered flight because both are still flight.
And technically, there are a large number of powered aircraft that are never pushed through the air by their engines. Pulled, yes.
They are falling ... with style.
I'm sorry, but you're demonstrating the common misconception that an engine failure in a powered aircraft causes the aircraft to fall from the sky. With style, without style, it isn't falling.
IIRC, the POH for the stock Cessna 172 shows that the power-off glide distance from 8000' AGL is 12 miles. That's about 8:1. Not as good as a glider, but certainly nothing close to "falling".
Don't feel too bad, many people don't know. I took a guy up over the mountains once and I could tell he was concerned about what would happen if the engine stopped. Lots of trees and pointy rocks below us, what a danger! I pulled the power back to idle, looked around, and pointed to an open field about 8 miles away. "There's where we are going." Once he realized that 1) we weren't plummeting from the sky and 2) we were approaching the place to land faster than we were descending, he lost his fear, and we went on with the flight.
Of course humans affect the environment, how is that disputable? It's the degree and duration of the affect that is not clear.
This is like saying "of course cell phones cause pancreatic cancer. How is that disputable? It's the degree and duration of the affect that is not clear." Most people would say that "zero" or "minimal" degree counts as "don't affect". And most people would, while admitting that humans affect the local environment (cities that are warmer than the surrounding countryside because of absorbed solar radiation, e.g.), maybe hesitate to claim global affect of a cataclysmic scale. In other words, you're creating a semantic straw man by claiming "of course X" and then admitting that the degree is unknown and may be zero. But you've got the meme "of course X" created and that's enough to start the stampede.
It's how salesmen coerce people into buying stuff they really don't want. Get them saying "yes" to simple things ("Isn't that a beautiful display on the 128" HDTV?" "Wouldn't that look great in your living room?") and then slip in the big stuff ("Would you like to charge that on your credit card or fill out our credit application...?").
I'm curious with these models, do they work with backtesting? How accurate have they been with predicting the last 10 years? The last 20 years?
It's called 'hindcasting'. They're all pretty good at that. That's not because they are all based on actual physics and are all really good models, but because the models being used are modified until they DO match what happened. Then they are run forward.
So, 19 different models. Are there 19 different versions of "basic physics", or just 19 different empirical equation systems created by 19 different people with 890 different parameters to tweak? In the late 1990s, after the hockey stick was well entrenched in global thought, NCAR announced quite proudly that they had been able to modify the model that created the stick so that it kept the same hindcast values but turned upwards much more rapidly. Was the upturn real or just a more hysterical view of the impending doom? Didn't matter. It was good. Had "basic physics" changed in just a couple of years to base the new model on? Of course not.
There is an old saying in science. "Correlation is not causation". It is being forgotten. Abandoned. When someone says "the level of CO2 should be an input parameter in our model", they're assuming it has an effect. Then they modify the equations and the constants until it has the effect they think it should have.
I remember a seminar from long ago. How many points does it take to fit an elephant? Answer: 31. The presenter demonstrated that with 31 points (30 degrees of freedom) you could fit a curve to the outline of an elephant. Thus, in modern science, he proved that an elephant consists of 31 things. That certainly wasn't his point because he did this long before correlation became sufficient to prove causation. It was exactly the opposite: that with sufficient freedom to create variables you could prove anything.
By the way, before you bring up the "you can't understand the science unless you are a specialist in the field" canard, I work with climate scientists doing modelling. I've seen some of the models and know the empirical nature of how they operate. They all have bits where they say "we need to include the effects of X in our model but we have only a guess at the physics and certainly cannot solve the equations involved, so let's approximate by using this simple calculation... why yes, that looks right".
You seem unaware that the law is mostly a protest.
The law being a "protest" changes nothing about your comment or my reply.
But, in general, it seems like the sort of thing the news would be all over reporting considering the hysteria over laser pointers and such.
Yeah, you've never seen it in the news so it hasn't happened, because you know that pilots would rather call a reporter instead of an A&P to fix the plane. You complain because you don't think I read both the silly sentences you wrote, did you bother to read even one sentence of what I wrote?
Like I told you last time, in some places it is a well known event, whether you've seen it in the papers or not.
Please go look up the words "can also" and see how they might apply. Consider also how "typically" doesn't justify banning what you consider atypical, or even make what you consider atypical actually so.
I'm all for being allowed to down planes flying lower than 1000 feet (with a grace area around airports since, well, they somehow have to get there). Anywhere else, they simply have no business flying lower.
Wrong again. There are all kinds of reasons to fly lower. And your expectation that you can murder anyone who happens to be below 1000' in an airplane is just pathetic.
Instead of displaying penis envy by calling for the downing of anyone flying lower than you think they should, maybe you should go get a pilot's license and join the fun. And then face people like you who think you should die because you flew "too low".
Mostly it is that legitimate civilian traffic typically flies above the effective range of a hunting rifle and certainly above the range of a shiotgun.
And legitimate civilian traffic can also fly within the effective range of a rifle. Stop spouting nonsense. Helicopters have essentially no lower limit on altitude; fixed wing depends on the population density but still allows landing. I.e., if I want to land my airplane on that big field I own out back of my house, I very well might be over your property next door at 50'.
It isn't actually all that hard to tell a drone from a manned vehicle using a half decent scope.
If you read the law, you'd notice that it doesn't require the use of assisted vision devices for aircraft below a certain altitude. And that the shooter gets to estimate the altitude. And if you talk to airport people, you'll find that untrained people are notorious for underestimating the altitudes of aircraft overhead.
I haven't seen any reports ever of an aircraft being shot by hunters. Perhaps it has happened, but I'd think it would make the news.
Because you've never seen it in the news it has never happened. Check.
There are areas of Oregon (and probably California) where it is well known that you don't fly within shotgun range of the ground because the planes tend to come back with holes in them.
So you are saying that drones are a cheap, easy, and incredibly effective way to oppressive your citizens,
They're also a cheap, safer way to obtain scientific data in remote areas of the country (like Deer Ass, Colorado). Despite the paranoia, not all UAV use is for shooting you while you sleep.
Sorry, the law says the shooter must pay you the cost of the vehicle, that's all.
This license isn't limited to "drones used for surveillance." It covers "unmanned aerial vehicle", and even some manned ones.
A license to hunt US Government property?
The license includes but is not limited to government property. Read the actual proposal.
Unmanned aerial vehicle. Below 1000 feet. Most people can't determine the altitude of a passing aircraft. The local airport gets calls from people all the time about pilots who are allegedly buzzing the city "too low", but radar shows they were quite legal (above 1000'). Some of these aircraft are ones like this, which is hard to tell is manned from a distance.
Thank goodness the law exempts "toy" vehicles, but includes manned aircraft that are "following" someone. Or looks like it has "weapons".
But you're right about stupidity. Stupid, thy name is Deer Trail.
The Internet is get awfully pedestrian nowadays.
No it isn't.
I do love the sandwich, but I still prefer the handmade ones.
I wish it would come back and someone would figure out a way to properly moderate it so the whole system doesn't get choked up with spam and trolls again.
If it comes back "properly moderated" it isn't really coming back, it's something different. It's ... a web board.
Think of it this way. If you can cancel your posts, then the basic structure is in place to allow you to vote on messages that you receive.
You could think of it that way, but that makes no sense.
You can already use a killfile so you get to "vote" on what you receive that way. Use a scoring newsreader and you can give each article a score. Ten points up for certain senders, ten points down for google groups, etc.
If you mean creating the long-proposed 'other users vote on what you get to see', still no. Being able to include a header in your postings that allow you to match up a cancel (and prove you are the one who posted that article) doesn't mean you have a mechanism that would deal with readers voting on other people's articles. There is nothing to match. I could post 1000 votes for my own article using dummy names and there would be no way to know they were real users.
Why is it more pronounced in some areas?
Others have mentioned winds and tides. I'll point out that while technically the sea level is rising all along the Oregon coast, as an example, the Oregon coast is also rising at different rates. Therefore, in some places there is an apparent sea level rise, in some there is either no change or a decrease.
This is due to the subduction zone off the OR coast pushing the coast up as the offshore plate slides under the landward plate. The friction between the two plates causes a flexing that pushes the coast up. And the release of that friction causes the 500 year subduction zone earthquakes that Oregon is coming due for.
They are nearly identical. In fact the flying bit is arguably a bit easier in some ways.
No, adding the third dimension to the problem really does increase the complexity, as well as create special problems like "how do I handle an engine failure while enroute", which in an automotive environment means "pull over and wait for a tow truck", but in an aeronautical one involves finding a place on the ground without anyone already occupying it and somehow maneuvering your crippled vehicle to that location -- and hoping it is within gliding distance.
Perhaps that's why the majority of driver's ed involves how to operate the car while the majority of flight training involves how to handle your potentially burning neo-glider (or some subset of that, such as engine failure in a twin, which is much more complicated to deal with than engine failure in a single.)
You won't be flying to work until there are nearly foolproof autopilots that communicate with all other nearby planes. It's that simple. Sounds a lot like the driving problem, doesn't it?
You people who aren't pilots are a continual source of amusement for those of us who are. I bet you think that an aircraft stall is when the engine dies, don't you?
Now, get off my algal pond you young whippersnapper.
2. Employer fires workers and purchases robots.
3.All additional profit is pocketed by the former employer.
2a. Prices plummet as demand decreases. Less money in the hands of the consumers means less demand for everything. Any company that wants to continue to exist drops prices to match the lowered costs of production, thus eliminating the "additional profit" there would have been had sales remained constant.
4. Workers find new jobs in the service sector (serving mostly former employers).
One of the first adopters of automation will be the service sector. Imagine being able to remove the employee costs at a McDonalds by presenting a display of items to the consumer who selects his choices and then waits a few minutes for the food to pop out of a window.
Automats were one of the early "robotic" systems in service. Now that we have NFC and "wave your card at the cash register" payments, there is no reason for them not to come back in big style. Especially if costs can be cut and there are a lot of people out of work because larger scale automated systems have made them redundant. It's nice to walk into a Subway and have a low-paid "sandwich specialist" make your sandwich to order, but in the long run it will be a choice between paying for personal service like that at full price or being able to eat at all.
(I'd love to try to spend more time entertaining you with music, poetry, and a novel I've got an idea for, but I have to hack e-commerce software to pay the bills.)
We have a vision of this future already. Now that there is "self-publishing" available to anyone who wants to be an author, the quality of published works has taken a nose-dive. Anyone who thinks they can write is trying it and, well, let's just say that there really is a place for publishers and editors in the world. Once you put everyone on the dole so they don't have to work a real job, there will be no barrier to entry to becoming an "author", even a low barrier like "literacy" and "can write a simple declarative sentence."
As for being entertained by your poetry, I think Douglas Adams wrote about what "self-published" poetry would be like. Don't Panic.
Oh, and I guess FCC emergency broadcasts that hit your phone like the recent CA Amber alert would be exempt because those come from "approved" sources.. and you citizen are anything but approved.
Once you explain how the official who issued the amber alert would know that you are driving and would read the message while doing so, your logic makes perfect sense.
I dislike this example. How about this: It is illegal for a person (call him Fred) to drink while driving, but nobody would argue that giving Fred (who is over 21) sealed beer to take home with him with the intent of him drinking them later, and then Fred choosing to drink the beer while in the car on the way makes you liable. It's almost a perfect analogy of the original scenario,
Except it isn't. The original scenario is based on texting someone who you know will read the message while driving. Therefore, your analogy is broken because the "intent of him drinking them later" really is "knowing that he'll pop one open as soon as the key is in the ignition.".
The "lowest common denominator" is the vocal minority who feel their "right" to bring a peanut butter sandwich or wear a particular fragrance to work outweighs the rights of others to come to work without fear of developing an illness,
Hate to point this out, but if you've got a serious peanut allergy, you've already got an illness. Ditto if you die when you run across a whiff of perfume.
I suppose you'd have no problem with demanding that all your normal employees go through a sterile scrubdown and take broad spectrum antibiotics so you could employ someone with a failed immune system, too. Better to try to modify the general environment for everyone than to keep those who need special environments to stay alive in their own.