Cause it's a short flight? I don't know. I didn't pick Spain. You asked how to get from Liberia to Spain, like it was impossible. I answered that question.
I just had this discussion elsewhere. Define quarantine. Some mean forced isolation, others mean the medical definition (self-imposed home stay, with regular vitals measuring). The media is implying quarantine should be like in the movies, with the quarantined herded into mass gatherings. The medical personnel mean "completely free to wander among us, if they choose, we just ask that they not" type quarantine.
No... I want to put people who are returning from infected areas into quarantine. People in quarantine are free in all respects except that they are not permitted to leave quarantine,
How is that not prison? They are free, aside from not being able to leave.
Quarantine is typically largely self-policed, and often even in the person's own home. A person may be allowed to leave their home while under such quarantine, but only to the extent that they do not come into contact with anyone else (such as going for a jog by oneself, for instance).
Yes, and the nurse in Maine was still under "quarantine" when she went for a bike ride. But the Governor condemned her for "breaching quarantine". She didn't come near anyone while outside who wasn't fully aware of her condition (the media and police breached quarantine approaching her). Her "boyfriend" was under a type of quarantine as well, as he had already visited her, and should be treated similarly.
But the "quarantine" that everyone is talking about is: forced isloation (prison or concentration camp, depending on what words you like better) for anyone landing on a plane from the affected area (there are no flights from the affected area to the USA, so they then spread this to everyone entering the USA, from anywhere).
That you take quarantine to be a self-imposed limitation on public contact doesn't mean that's what anyone else means by it.
Nope. Skin is an effective barrier to the disease. We are mostly covered in skin. A transfusion, uses a needle to pierce the skin. That's the *only* way to get it. From it getting *inside* the body.
You don't catch cooties from the school playground.
Traffic is billed based on who sends more data down each half of the connection.
In the "old days" traffic was billed by who received the most. User pays.
So you are still wrong. If you were right, I could start a small ISP that only had residential connections (essentially "receive only"). And, since I sent nothing, and the other guy sent me more, I could charge my users $0 and still make money from all the people paying me to take their traffic.
But it doesn't work that way. The small ISP pays a lot to receive data, not send it.
(note it would be unlikely as you would have to have the same era and plant design as Fukushima)
It was noted at the time that it was a common design, and the earlier and later ones would have had the same effect from cutting outside power and disabling the generators.
It was the loss of outside power (and backup) that caused the meltdown. Not the earthquake, nor the tsunami. Those may have caused the loss of power, but did not cause the meltdown directly.
There is a PROVEN non-zero chance of infection when people are actively practicing whatever safety precautions are necessary when treating ebola patients, which flies strongly in the face that this disease should be considered paricularly difficult to catch from an infected individual, which is what we are hearing on the news.
So argue with the news, that has nothing to do with me, or what I'm saying that you disagree with.
Innocence and guilt have nothing to do with any of this.
Due process does.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
People are "free" from unreasonable searches and seizures. The courts have mainly dealt with that in criminal cases, but people have the right to be free from unreasonable seizures (of their persons or effects).
Of course, we could always just wait until we have several thousand new cases of Ebola each week in North America too...
We have two (cases of people in the US catching it) and you want to abolish the Constitution to lock everyone up. That's what I'm objecting to. There's no evidence it anyone in the USA has it right now, is there? The people who caught it are over it, and the ones that didn't aren't showing signs. No the "yet" doesn't matter. Nobody in the US has Ebola, unless they came here after getting it and were always in quarantine.
So I honestly don't see the issue. Wait a week. If nobody shows signs, then it's over.
Odd, the ones I've been in had large battery rooms. Relatively open and easy to access, as batteries need regular maintenance (even if only every few years). And the diverse power coming in comes to one room because the battery room can fill with H2 gas and explode (rare, but possible with lead-acid batteries), so the handling of that is concentrated, for cost, size, and safety reasons. One grenade in one room could take it down. Though getting to that room may be hard.
If fukushima taught us anything, it's that you need to cut the power coming in (the plants require mains power from the grid to operate), and disable the generator. Those two things, and nearly all designs of plants will melt down. Only one of those things is on site. The other is "easy" to take down (drive a pickup truck into a nearby power line support). They don't even have to be simultaneous if you disable the generator in a way that isn't discovered. Find out who supplies it with diesel. Infiltrate them. At some point, they'll do a top-up of fuel. Spoil it. Then you have from then to the next generator test to take out mains power coming into the plant. Though a portable generator might be brought in, apparently nobody thought of that at fukushima, or it happened too fast.
Every Tier-4 I've ever seen could be take down by a single grenade. One "fatal flaw" is the lack of diverse power. Redundant, yes, but I've seen 3-UPSs in a single UPS room, each for a different feed. In "normal" operation, that would give more nines than you need, but place a single grenade in the middle of the room, and you'd take out the feed for the whole place. I've never seen one with power rooms on separate sides, insulated and isolated from each other. They have separate feeds in, but they go to the same room, then out from there. They are built to withstand an "attack" from the outside pretty well, but not deliberate sabotage. Usually, the "attack" designed against are the natural ones.
There are plenty of places a single grenade would do damage in a nuke plant. I'd go into a cooling tunnel (one of the long walkable tunnels with pipes along the wall/ceiling). Drop a grenade anywhere in there, and you'd likely cause a mess that would leave it offline for a while.
So you believe that a quarantine is never appropriate, under any circumstances?
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.
Kidnapping people because you fear they may have been exposed to cooties is never ok.
Also, my opinion is that a quarantine of any kind would require suspension of the Constitution.
You keep saying that I support quarantines. That is untrue
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.
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.
A quarantine should require suspension of the Constitution to do. That was always my main point. They are illegal. That you confuse my legal opinion of them with support (or lack thereof) is your mental shortage, not fact.
Do you deny the statement that "Reasonable people can disagree on what that threshold is, and what the restrictions should be?"
Sure, and reasonable people can disagree on the color of an apple. That won't make it an orange.
To kidnap someone and hold them against their will requires the force of law, or is illegal. The Constitution doesn't have a "FEMA can do whatever they want whenever they want" clause. So to make the quarantine of people "legal" the Constitution must be suspended.
Note your wording " the right of the government to impose a quarantine" Governments have no "rights". They only have powers. People have rights.
Of course,then they'll just declare a national state of emergency, invoke martial law and *EVERYONE* will lose their freedoms.
Or is that what you are hoping for?
I'm saying that's the requirement for what you are demanding. The Constitution doesn't make a distinction between taking the rights of one person or 100,000,000. In either case, the Constitution must be suspended. You'll sell out the constitution from fear when there is no outbreak. I would prefer to wait until there was actually a problem.
IP isn't a protocol. It's called TCP/IP for a reason. You are too dumb to educate. You probably know the answer, but are lying to yourself to win an argument that everyone reading this knows you already lost. IP is a suite of protocols, TCP being one of them. THat you don't even know what IP is, yet feel the need to lecture others on it proves you are too dumb to understand it.
Mandatory quarantine nips that problem in the butt.
And is illegal and unconstitutional. Holding people against their will without due process is problematic. It's "punishment" for being near Ebola. And punishment without trial or process of any kind is illegal. Especially for innocent people (provably so).
You quarantine them on landing. This isn't a crime, and quarantine isn't punishment.
"Am I free to leave?" "no" Then this is an arrest." "yes, it is legally in every court in the nation, but Rich0 said we coudl hold you illegally." "Oh, sorry, I didn't know Rich0 approved it."
That you don't know the definition of "arrest" doesn't mean it's not when you don't want it to be.
As far as identification goes - put the burden of proof on the passenger.
If the person holds a US passport, the US must allow them to land. That's clear international law. So, what are you going to do about that?
And I don't get what makes it impossible. Just require any passenger bound for the US to have certification from the country they are departing from that they have not been to West Africa recently, and don't accept certifications from countries until you've ensured they're serious about it.
And how is Spain supposed to know when I show up at the Madrid airport that I didn't come from Africa? They can't certify how I entered the EU, if I take a plane from an affected area to Casablanca, then from there to Amsterdam. And take trains from there to Paris or Madrid, and try to fly home from there.
Oh, and it's illegal to block a citizen from returning home. So if Madrid finds out that I'm an American citizen, and I was recently in Africa, they are within their international rights to deport me to the USA. So, what do you do? Throw me off the plane half-way?
If your argument is so sound, why do you keep resorting to lying about someone who disagrees with you?
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 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.
Reasonable people can disagree on what that threshold is, and what the restrictions should be. That is essentially what this is about.
When you act like a reasonable person, then maybe that would be what this is about.
You're not "safe" if you show no symptoms. You're safe right now.
Prove you don't have Ebola.
You can't, so you should be in quarantine. You are the one being obtuse. The science says "don't jump at shadows." You are doing the opposite and asking people to prove your opinion wrong. Opinions can't be proven wrong. You like pizza. You hate brazil nuts. You want them in quarantine (Against the recommendations of science).
Someone who is safe right now, is "safe". You are arguing semantics. Substitute "not contagious" for safe.
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.
There is no continuum. You have two choices. You can do anything you want. Or you can't.
Which is it? A concentration camp held in your own house is still a concentration camp. Just a camp of one.
So make that argument, rather than the stupid one that people are trying to make.
Politicians are dumb. I can't make them have the right discussion. I can only point out the many ways you are wrong. That will do for now.
Slashdot Mirror
Anything that caused a loss of power would necessarily cause a meltdown. That is the "cause" and that cause could be replicated elsewhere.
Cause it's a short flight? I don't know. I didn't pick Spain. You asked how to get from Liberia to Spain, like it was impossible. I answered that question.
I just had this discussion elsewhere. Define quarantine. Some mean forced isolation, others mean the medical definition (self-imposed home stay, with regular vitals measuring). The media is implying quarantine should be like in the movies, with the quarantined herded into mass gatherings. The medical personnel mean "completely free to wander among us, if they choose, we just ask that they not" type quarantine.
No... I want to put people who are returning from infected areas into quarantine. People in quarantine are free in all respects except that they are not permitted to leave quarantine,
How is that not prison? They are free, aside from not being able to leave.
Quarantine is typically largely self-policed, and often even in the person's own home. A person may be allowed to leave their home while under such quarantine, but only to the extent that they do not come into contact with anyone else (such as going for a jog by oneself, for instance).
Yes, and the nurse in Maine was still under "quarantine" when she went for a bike ride. But the Governor condemned her for "breaching quarantine". She didn't come near anyone while outside who wasn't fully aware of her condition (the media and police breached quarantine approaching her). Her "boyfriend" was under a type of quarantine as well, as he had already visited her, and should be treated similarly.
But the "quarantine" that everyone is talking about is: forced isloation (prison or concentration camp, depending on what words you like better) for anyone landing on a plane from the affected area (there are no flights from the affected area to the USA, so they then spread this to everyone entering the USA, from anywhere).
That you take quarantine to be a self-imposed limitation on public contact doesn't mean that's what anyone else means by it.
Nope. Skin is an effective barrier to the disease. We are mostly covered in skin. A transfusion, uses a needle to pierce the skin. That's the *only* way to get it. From it getting *inside* the body.
You don't catch cooties from the school playground.
Traffic is billed based on who sends more data down each half of the connection.
In the "old days" traffic was billed by who received the most. User pays.
So you are still wrong. If you were right, I could start a small ISP that only had residential connections (essentially "receive only"). And, since I sent nothing, and the other guy sent me more, I could charge my users $0 and still make money from all the people paying me to take their traffic.
But it doesn't work that way. The small ISP pays a lot to receive data, not send it.
Reality proves you wrong.
(note it would be unlikely as you would have to have the same era and plant design as Fukushima)
It was noted at the time that it was a common design, and the earlier and later ones would have had the same effect from cutting outside power and disabling the generators.
It was the loss of outside power (and backup) that caused the meltdown. Not the earthquake, nor the tsunami. Those may have caused the loss of power, but did not cause the meltdown directly.
There is a PROVEN non-zero chance of infection when people are actively practicing whatever safety precautions are necessary when treating ebola patients, which flies strongly in the face that this disease should be considered paricularly difficult to catch from an infected individual, which is what we are hearing on the news.
So argue with the news, that has nothing to do with me, or what I'm saying that you disagree with.
Innocence and guilt have nothing to do with any of this.
Due process does.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
People are "free" from unreasonable searches and seizures. The courts have mainly dealt with that in criminal cases, but people have the right to be free from unreasonable seizures (of their persons or effects).
Of course, we could always just wait until we have several thousand new cases of Ebola each week in North America too...
We have two (cases of people in the US catching it) and you want to abolish the Constitution to lock everyone up. That's what I'm objecting to. There's no evidence it anyone in the USA has it right now, is there? The people who caught it are over it, and the ones that didn't aren't showing signs. No the "yet" doesn't matter. Nobody in the US has Ebola, unless they came here after getting it and were always in quarantine.
So I honestly don't see the issue. Wait a week. If nobody shows signs, then it's over.
" The quarantine is not onerous"
Loss of grid power and disabling the generators caused a meltdown. That wouldn't be too hard to do in a targeted attack.
Odd, the ones I've been in had large battery rooms. Relatively open and easy to access, as batteries need regular maintenance (even if only every few years). And the diverse power coming in comes to one room because the battery room can fill with H2 gas and explode (rare, but possible with lead-acid batteries), so the handling of that is concentrated, for cost, size, and safety reasons. One grenade in one room could take it down. Though getting to that room may be hard.
If fukushima taught us anything, it's that you need to cut the power coming in (the plants require mains power from the grid to operate), and disable the generator. Those two things, and nearly all designs of plants will melt down. Only one of those things is on site. The other is "easy" to take down (drive a pickup truck into a nearby power line support). They don't even have to be simultaneous if you disable the generator in a way that isn't discovered. Find out who supplies it with diesel. Infiltrate them. At some point, they'll do a top-up of fuel. Spoil it. Then you have from then to the next generator test to take out mains power coming into the plant. Though a portable generator might be brought in, apparently nobody thought of that at fukushima, or it happened too fast.
Every Tier-4 I've ever seen could be take down by a single grenade. One "fatal flaw" is the lack of diverse power. Redundant, yes, but I've seen 3-UPSs in a single UPS room, each for a different feed. In "normal" operation, that would give more nines than you need, but place a single grenade in the middle of the room, and you'd take out the feed for the whole place. I've never seen one with power rooms on separate sides, insulated and isolated from each other. They have separate feeds in, but they go to the same room, then out from there. They are built to withstand an "attack" from the outside pretty well, but not deliberate sabotage. Usually, the "attack" designed against are the natural ones.
There are plenty of places a single grenade would do damage in a nuke plant. I'd go into a cooling tunnel (one of the long walkable tunnels with pipes along the wall/ceiling). Drop a grenade anywhere in there, and you'd likely cause a mess that would leave it offline for a while.
So you believe that a quarantine is never appropriate, under any circumstances?
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.
Kidnapping people because you fear they may have been exposed to cooties is never ok.
Also, my opinion is that a quarantine of any kind would require suspension of the Constitution.
You keep saying that I support quarantines. That is untrue
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.
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.
A quarantine should require suspension of the Constitution to do. That was always my main point. They are illegal. That you confuse my legal opinion of them with support (or lack thereof) is your mental shortage, not fact.
Do you deny the statement that "Reasonable people can disagree on what that threshold is, and what the restrictions should be?"
Sure, and reasonable people can disagree on the color of an apple. That won't make it an orange.
To kidnap someone and hold them against their will requires the force of law, or is illegal. The Constitution doesn't have a "FEMA can do whatever they want whenever they want" clause. So to make the quarantine of people "legal" the Constitution must be suspended.
Note your wording " the right of the government to impose a quarantine" Governments have no "rights". They only have powers. People have rights.
Of course,then they'll just declare a national state of emergency, invoke martial law and *EVERYONE* will lose their freedoms. Or is that what you are hoping for?
I'm saying that's the requirement for what you are demanding. The Constitution doesn't make a distinction between taking the rights of one person or 100,000,000. In either case, the Constitution must be suspended. You'll sell out the constitution from fear when there is no outbreak. I would prefer to wait until there was actually a problem.
IP isn't a protocol. It's called TCP/IP for a reason. You are too dumb to educate. You probably know the answer, but are lying to yourself to win an argument that everyone reading this knows you already lost. IP is a suite of protocols, TCP being one of them. THat you don't even know what IP is, yet feel the need to lecture others on it proves you are too dumb to understand it.
So any rights can be taken away, so long as khallow deems the intrusion to be "not onerous". I don't remember reading that in any decisions.
Mandatory quarantine nips that problem in the butt.
And is illegal and unconstitutional. Holding people against their will without due process is problematic. It's "punishment" for being near Ebola. And punishment without trial or process of any kind is illegal. Especially for innocent people (provably so).
Yes, that's arresting someone for being near something that scares you.
You quarantine them on landing. This isn't a crime, and quarantine isn't punishment.
"Am I free to leave?"
"no"
Then this is an arrest."
"yes, it is legally in every court in the nation, but Rich0 said we coudl hold you illegally."
"Oh, sorry, I didn't know Rich0 approved it."
That you don't know the definition of "arrest" doesn't mean it's not when you don't want it to be.
As far as identification goes - put the burden of proof on the passenger.
If the person holds a US passport, the US must allow them to land. That's clear international law. So, what are you going to do about that?
And I don't get what makes it impossible. Just require any passenger bound for the US to have certification from the country they are departing from that they have not been to West Africa recently, and don't accept certifications from countries until you've ensured they're serious about it.
And how is Spain supposed to know when I show up at the Madrid airport that I didn't come from Africa? They can't certify how I entered the EU, if I take a plane from an affected area to Casablanca, then from there to Amsterdam. And take trains from there to Paris or Madrid, and try to fly home from there.
Oh, and it's illegal to block a citizen from returning home. So if Madrid finds out that I'm an American citizen, and I was recently in Africa, they are within their international rights to deport me to the USA. So, what do you do? Throw me off the plane half-way?
If your argument is so sound, why do you keep resorting to lying about someone who disagrees with you?
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 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.
Reasonable people can disagree on what that threshold is, and what the restrictions should be. That is essentially what this is about.
When you act like a reasonable person, then maybe that would be what this is about.
You're not "safe" if you show no symptoms. You're safe right now.
Prove you don't have Ebola.
You can't, so you should be in quarantine. You are the one being obtuse. The science says "don't jump at shadows." You are doing the opposite and asking people to prove your opinion wrong. Opinions can't be proven wrong. You like pizza. You hate brazil nuts. You want them in quarantine (Against the recommendations of science).
Someone who is safe right now, is "safe". You are arguing semantics. Substitute "not contagious" for safe.
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.
There is no continuum. You have two choices. You can do anything you want. Or you can't.
Which is it? A concentration camp held in your own house is still a concentration camp. Just a camp of one.
So make that argument, rather than the stupid one that people are trying to make.
Politicians are dumb. I can't make them have the right discussion. I can only point out the many ways you are wrong. That will do for now.