"extra steps upon re-entering" would more specifically be mandatory quarantine for 3 weeks upon returning. Some may consider that synonymous with arrest, but you'd do the exact same thing for somebody who was known to have a communicable disease anyways.
So you'd arrest people and hold them for scaring you. I'm glad we aren't doing quarantines. We don't need any more concentration camps. Given the US's track record, I'd expect the CIA to deliberately infect some people in quarantine to justify the quarantine's existence.
So there's no session information in a packet? TCP is stateless? I'm going to have to find some brain bleach to fix all my bad info. Thanks A/C. I thought TCP was stateful and that packets can contain information that pertains to port sequence and other things that demonstrate a life beyond that single packet.
When one peer is pushing a lot more traffic onto the other network, then that usually goes out the window and the pusher is required to pay the receiving network.
When did this change? In the Early Days, the puller paid, not the pusher. Hosting servers in datacenters was almost free, as upload bandwidth was "free" to the ISP. I pay my ISP to get the Internet. If their connection to the content I want isn't good enough, my ISP, not the other side, should pay to fix it. Puller pays. Otherwise, my ISP should be paying me to be their customer for generating demand that they make money from.
Nope. The anti-trust cases have ended up (successfully) arguing that a monopoly isn't a monopoly, if you have choice. You can choose to move states and get different choices, so you aren't "locked in".
The requestor pays. That was the old system. They are now finding out ways of blackmailing the sender into paying. My fees to my ISP pay for all the bandwidth needed to get the bits from Netflix to me. Unless my ISP blackmails Netflix.
The problem is that the backbone provider they chose sends way more traffic than they accept. Typically, this type of peering agreement means that the smaller backbone provider (i.e. Cogent) pays fees to the larger backbone provider (Comcast).
Typicaly, the small provider isn't a host, but is a small ISP. residential ISPs accept way more traffic than they send. They get the highest fees.
Part of the problem is that one ISP will download 10G and upload 1G and they'll be charged 10G rates, and the next ISP will upload 10G and download 1G and they'll be charged at 10G rates. The backbone will move 11G of traffic while being paid for 20G. And they'll complain about it all the way to the bank.
Realistically, you don't even need restrictions on traffic TO countries with outbreaks if you're being selective on which traffic you're permitting FROM the country.
So you want the US military to invade and run the airports? Or just shoot down unauthorized flights?
Nobody wants to pay to properly quarantine and support people who have been exposed.
Especially when it's the nuts in the US talking about it. What would you do? Arrest them on landing? For what? If you don't arrest them, you can't hold them. Also, how do you identify where they came from if they come back an indirect path?
Can anybody who allegedly knows the answer to this please explain how or why such a thing might be logistically impossible,
Ever heard of Cuba? The US had sanctions against them. So Americans couldn't go. But thousands (millions?) flew to Mexico or other Carribian countries, and then to Cuba. Cuba didn't stamp any US passports. So the Americans could come and go as they pleased, and the government maintained that no Americans went to Cuba, despite proof to the contrary.
Since there are no direct flights from the affected area to the US, how would the US identify people who changed planes in Paris as having come from Africa?
Also, "extra steps upon re-entering" is not defined. Most "extra steps" would be legally an "arrest". Unless you suspend the Constitution, you can't arrest someone for being exposed to a disease.
So, aside from being illegal and impossible, it's a really good idea.
She, knowing something about the subject, assumes she knows everything about the subject, and believes that there is no need for her to be in any quarantine whatsoever.
She is following standard Ebola protocol. It's the people calling for quarantine that aren't. She knows the protocol better than the governor who is (in my opinion) threatening her.
The rules for "possible" infection demand no quarantine. That's based on science. You are the one that seems to be claiming that following the science is wrong. Show a fever, go to quarantine. Show no symptoms, you are "safe", according to the science.
Whether or not they are at risk of transmitting Ebola "right now" is not the question. It is whether they are at risk of transmitting Ebola in the future.
Huh? So anyone aardvarkjoe thinks could transmit Ebola in the future should be rounded up, arrested, and held in a jail (called quarantine) until aardvarkjoe feels better.
Nah, I think I'm happy erring on the side of liberty (vs security).
It's worth noting that US soldiers are quarantined for three weeks under these circumstances and they have less exposure to Ebola than the nurse has.
It's worth noting that it's legal to order a US soldier to sit and not move for 3 weeks, and arrest him if he doesn't comply. The same is not true of civilian citizens. Exposure is irrelevant to rights.
Sounds like he is. Let us also keep in mind that quarantines work a whole lot better than their absence does.
They are also illegal. But we don't need a Constitution if khallow is scared.
But my big problem is with the way that a certain contingent of people -- and politicians -- keeps harping on the fact that this person tested negative for the disease as validation for their claims that any action is unwarranted.
Without formally suspending the Constitution, there is no legal way to do anything about someone who isn't actively sick. Politicians refuse to say "It's illegal to do the right thing" because then they look like powerless buffoons. So they argue the only point they can, that it isn't the right thing to arrest and hold people for having been to "inconvenient" places.
So, anyone you don't like (we'll call them "sick" or "potentially sick") can be rounded up and thrown into concentration camps. Well, they were called concentration camps back when we did it in WWII, but we don't use that word anymore because it's a self-goodwin. So throw them into internment camps. No due process needed. No rights for the people you don't like. Just put them all in one place and let them kill off each other. At least this time gas chambers won't be needed, they'll hopefully kill themselves with disease.
You do realize that's what it looks like when you talk about stripping people of all rights without any process at all?
Those who oppose any form of quarantine keep invoking "science" for their support, but then they also keep bringing up the fact that this nurse "tested negative" to validate their views. Makes me think that they don't really understand the "science" as well as they think they do.
They don't have to understand science to understand human rights.
especially since there were multiple police cars shadowing her, and a media circus driving/running along side. Anyone exposed to her blood would have had to do so deliberately.
She wasn't quarantined, and met the requirements of the quarantine they were trying to impose.
The governor is lying to make people mad at her, and not him.
Short of suspending the Constitution, she can't be "placed in quarantine". She's a free person. She has not gone through due process to remove her rights to travel and free association. Nor has she been placed in a voluntary quarantine. She was asked to stay home. Period. A quarantine isn't about limiting the movement of the person, but limiting their contact. She's free to host dinner parties, invite people over, share communal wine with millions. But was ordered into home arrest (with legal force, as that's clearly illegal) to not scare others. That's not a quarantine, no matter how much the governor lies about it.
Yes, who enforces it? How do you stop someone from the US from traveling there? They could fly to Amsterdam, train to Italy, ferry to Tunisia, and take ground transport from there to the affected area. Unless the affected areas seal their own borders voluntarily, it can't work. So the US has nothing to do with a travel ban, unless the US wants to ban all tourists in and out of the US, regardless of destination or origin.
What about all the doctors and others from other countries? Present a German passport, get in without a quarantine. Doesn't matter where you've been. The stamps can be removed, or not put there in the first place. Oh, and 1%-5% of Americans have dual passports, so there are millions of people that could travel to Liberia on one passport and back into the US on a "clean" US passport (clean from Liberian stamps, but ful of Ebola).
There hasn't been a travel ban that has been legal or made sense.
The quarantine people are asking for is prison without trial, abolishing the Constitution because they are afraid of a germ. Is that really what you want?
Slashdot Mirror
Where is the part of the Constitution that allows you to hold someone who is actively sick?
So you are saying that the quarantines you are calling for are illegal, even if the person is actively sick?
People looking for so hard for anything from aircraft anywhere in the flight range of that plane is probably why that was just now found.
For having a disease, yes. For being suspected of having been exposed to a disease, no.
"extra steps upon re-entering" would more specifically be mandatory quarantine for 3 weeks upon returning. Some may consider that synonymous with arrest, but you'd do the exact same thing for somebody who was known to have a communicable disease anyways.
So you'd arrest people and hold them for scaring you. I'm glad we aren't doing quarantines. We don't need any more concentration camps. Given the US's track record, I'd expect the CIA to deliberately infect some people in quarantine to justify the quarantine's existence.
So there's no session information in a packet? TCP is stateless? I'm going to have to find some brain bleach to fix all my bad info. Thanks A/C. I thought TCP was stateful and that packets can contain information that pertains to port sequence and other things that demonstrate a life beyond that single packet.
When one peer is pushing a lot more traffic onto the other network, then that usually goes out the window and the pusher is required to pay the receiving network.
When did this change? In the Early Days, the puller paid, not the pusher. Hosting servers in datacenters was almost free, as upload bandwidth was "free" to the ISP. I pay my ISP to get the Internet. If their connection to the content I want isn't good enough, my ISP, not the other side, should pay to fix it. Puller pays. Otherwise, my ISP should be paying me to be their customer for generating demand that they make money from.
Nope. The anti-trust cases have ended up (successfully) arguing that a monopoly isn't a monopoly, if you have choice. You can choose to move states and get different choices, so you aren't "locked in".
The requestor pays. That was the old system. They are now finding out ways of blackmailing the sender into paying. My fees to my ISP pay for all the bandwidth needed to get the bits from Netflix to me. Unless my ISP blackmails Netflix.
The problem is that the backbone provider they chose sends way more traffic than they accept. Typically, this type of peering agreement means that the smaller backbone provider (i.e. Cogent) pays fees to the larger backbone provider (Comcast).
Typicaly, the small provider isn't a host, but is a small ISP. residential ISPs accept way more traffic than they send. They get the highest fees.
Part of the problem is that one ISP will download 10G and upload 1G and they'll be charged 10G rates, and the next ISP will upload 10G and download 1G and they'll be charged at 10G rates. The backbone will move 11G of traffic while being paid for 20G. And they'll complain about it all the way to the bank.
And it's just 10 miles from Morocco to Spain (across a strait), or one of the many flights from Casablanca to Madrid.
Realistically, you don't even need restrictions on traffic TO countries with outbreaks if you're being selective on which traffic you're permitting FROM the country.
So you want the US military to invade and run the airports? Or just shoot down unauthorized flights?
Nobody wants to pay to properly quarantine and support people who have been exposed.
Especially when it's the nuts in the US talking about it. What would you do? Arrest them on landing? For what? If you don't arrest them, you can't hold them. Also, how do you identify where they came from if they come back an indirect path?
Can anybody who allegedly knows the answer to this please explain how or why such a thing might be logistically impossible,
Ever heard of Cuba? The US had sanctions against them. So Americans couldn't go. But thousands (millions?) flew to Mexico or other Carribian countries, and then to Cuba. Cuba didn't stamp any US passports. So the Americans could come and go as they pleased, and the government maintained that no Americans went to Cuba, despite proof to the contrary.
Since there are no direct flights from the affected area to the US, how would the US identify people who changed planes in Paris as having come from Africa?
Also, "extra steps upon re-entering" is not defined. Most "extra steps" would be legally an "arrest". Unless you suspend the Constitution, you can't arrest someone for being exposed to a disease.
So, aside from being illegal and impossible, it's a really good idea.
IMO, the travel ban would just be good common sense to impose
It would also be illegal and ineffective.
She, knowing something about the subject, assumes she knows everything about the subject, and believes that there is no need for her to be in any quarantine whatsoever.
She is following standard Ebola protocol. It's the people calling for quarantine that aren't. She knows the protocol better than the governor who is (in my opinion) threatening her.
The rules for "possible" infection demand no quarantine. That's based on science. You are the one that seems to be claiming that following the science is wrong. Show a fever, go to quarantine. Show no symptoms, you are "safe", according to the science.
Whether or not they are at risk of transmitting Ebola "right now" is not the question. It is whether they are at risk of transmitting Ebola in the future.
Huh? So anyone aardvarkjoe thinks could transmit Ebola in the future should be rounded up, arrested, and held in a jail (called quarantine) until aardvarkjoe feels better.
Nah, I think I'm happy erring on the side of liberty (vs security).
It's worth noting that US soldiers are quarantined for three weeks under these circumstances and they have less exposure to Ebola than the nurse has.
It's worth noting that it's legal to order a US soldier to sit and not move for 3 weeks, and arrest him if he doesn't comply. The same is not true of civilian citizens. Exposure is irrelevant to rights.
Sounds like he is. Let us also keep in mind that quarantines work a whole lot better than their absence does.
They are also illegal. But we don't need a Constitution if khallow is scared.
But my big problem is with the way that a certain contingent of people -- and politicians -- keeps harping on the fact that this person tested negative for the disease as validation for their claims that any action is unwarranted.
Without formally suspending the Constitution, there is no legal way to do anything about someone who isn't actively sick. Politicians refuse to say "It's illegal to do the right thing" because then they look like powerless buffoons. So they argue the only point they can, that it isn't the right thing to arrest and hold people for having been to "inconvenient" places.
You do realize that's what it looks like when you talk about stripping people of all rights without any process at all?
Those who oppose any form of quarantine keep invoking "science" for their support, but then they also keep bringing up the fact that this nurse "tested negative" to validate their views. Makes me think that they don't really understand the "science" as well as they think they do.
They don't have to understand science to understand human rights.
Not that the scenario is overly likely
especially since there were multiple police cars shadowing her, and a media circus driving/running along side. Anyone exposed to her blood would have had to do so deliberately.
Just quarantine anybody travelling from West Africa, and bill the costs to the airline to be passed along to the ticket-holders.
Illegal, and impossible. Other that that, no problems.
She wasn't quarantined, and met the requirements of the quarantine they were trying to impose.
The governor is lying to make people mad at her, and not him.
Short of suspending the Constitution, she can't be "placed in quarantine". She's a free person. She has not gone through due process to remove her rights to travel and free association. Nor has she been placed in a voluntary quarantine. She was asked to stay home. Period. A quarantine isn't about limiting the movement of the person, but limiting their contact. She's free to host dinner parties, invite people over, share communal wine with millions. But was ordered into home arrest (with legal force, as that's clearly illegal) to not scare others. That's not a quarantine, no matter how much the governor lies about it.
Yes, who enforces it? How do you stop someone from the US from traveling there? They could fly to Amsterdam, train to Italy, ferry to Tunisia, and take ground transport from there to the affected area. Unless the affected areas seal their own borders voluntarily, it can't work. So the US has nothing to do with a travel ban, unless the US wants to ban all tourists in and out of the US, regardless of destination or origin.
What about all the doctors and others from other countries? Present a German passport, get in without a quarantine. Doesn't matter where you've been. The stamps can be removed, or not put there in the first place. Oh, and 1%-5% of Americans have dual passports, so there are millions of people that could travel to Liberia on one passport and back into the US on a "clean" US passport (clean from Liberian stamps, but ful of Ebola).
There hasn't been a travel ban that has been legal or made sense.
The quarantine people are asking for is prison without trial, abolishing the Constitution because they are afraid of a germ. Is that really what you want?