Hmm. How is my position vis a vis his choice to pirate music close to the RIAA's position on his choice? Note that I did not comment at all on the validity of his choice, only on the fact that it was his choice to make?
BTW, my opinion on piracy is that if you don't like the terms of sale, don't listen to the music. Pirating music doesn't send any message other than "If you can figure out a way to make me pay for this, you'll be even richer" to the labels.
The terms clearly state that he SHOULD be allowed to do what he wants to do
Please link to the purchase terms, since they are not in TFA anywhere.
Q) What is DRM?
A) DRM stands for Digital Rights Management and is a technology that can help protect the copyright of artists and record labels by helping prevent illegal and unauthorised copying. Customers who buy tracks from this service can makepersonal CD copies of all tracks purchased and also transfer to their portablemusic players.
Still ignoring the iPod documentation? I don't know about you, but when I'm checking compatibility, I look at both components.
Yes, it does. It is a contradiction to say that it is faster to file an item immediately because you filed it later.
And when did I say that? Never. What I'm saying is that filing is not urgent, so when it gets done is not important. This is independent of the importance of how long it takes me to file it (plus how long retrieval takes) which is the primary consideration when you're talking about filing efficiency, which we are. This is the point that you seem to ignore in every post, which is why, in my frustration, I called you daft.
Let me try to explain via your waitress analogy. So the tables order drinks -- if they don't get them quickly, then there are negative consequences -- these tasks have urgency, immediacy is a consideration. However, say that the waitress also needs to submit her tabs for each section to the section managers, who are in the back office. This is a matter that is not urgent, but must be done at some point. Since this is a matter without urgency, that is best done all-at-once at the end of her shift. Say instead, that she needs to put the tabs for each section (say, two or three sections) in different envelopes before handing them to the managers. In this case, there is still no urgency, but it is most efficient to have three envelopes at the register, and to place each tab in the correct envelope when she closes it out.
Although given that you say you file things later AND immediately, that seems to fit.
Again, your substituting what you want to believe with what I wrote. Go back and re-read the thread. Isn't it perfectly clear that I classify documents according to whether it's more efficient to file them immediately or more efficient to file them in batches (for example, if they are archival files that need to be filed across the hall)? Or did you choose to ignore the post where I explicitly stated that?
Obviously you are dealing with a low-volume environment. I'm dealing with many financial documents, which not only cannot be discarded, but must be re-accessed often, without delays for searching -- and when you have a couple thousand of them, keeping them on top of your desk is not an option. This is not an uncommon or unique situation, most medium-to-large companies have several employees in this situation.
Most paperwork either goes into archives which are not going to be in your desk drawer, or are used repeatedly, with makes the 'I only handle the paper once' argument an invalid argument.
Not so. I'm not sure in what capacity you are handling paperwork, but it seems to me that you don't deal with files that need to be accessed for regular operations, nor do you deal with a high volume. You also need to differentiate between action items and reference documents. Yes, I'm 'handling' (i.e. acting on an item) once, but referring back to the document is a different story, and needs to be accounted for in your organizational setup.
As for looking for misplaced document three months down the road, that only happens if you can't remember where you put the documents.
Sure. If you handle a few documents a day or week, it's no problem to leave them on your desk.
Basically, you're looking at it from the perspective of someone who's line of work does not necessitate strong organization. I'm looking at it (see my OP) from the perspective of a high-volume position.
The iPod documentation clearly shows what file formats are compatible.
I have yet to come across an online music store that doesn't provide the terms of its license. Furthermore, for conversion, it's clear in the FAQs and documentation of every MP3 encoder I've seen that licensed files cannot be converted. For him to be upset about incompatibility is silly -- 5 minutes of basic research would have told him about this issue.
I still believe that 'caveat emptor' is some advice he should be following, and the fact that everything isn't as easy as it should be doesn't absolve him of the fact that he made a choice.
He also claimed he didn't know WMA files wouldn't play on his iPod, yet he knew that.WAV files were better quality than the iTunes format. It just doesn't all add up.
I wouldn't be surprised if the CSRs' comments weren't 'edited for effect' -- it's not uncommon in the blogosphere, and frankly, I'm hesitant to take it at face value since the source is completely unknown.
His problem was that he didn't think that he was buying a product that was intentionally crippled.
Well, that's some loaded language there. BUT, anyone who does even basic research into downloaded music is aware of the DRM problems. And almost every site that sells WMA music has a disclaimer that the downloads won't work on an iPod. Caveat emptor.
Just because you say you aren't something doesn't make it true. You want someone else to take responsibility for their actions, then you should take responsibility for your words (and what they can get you labeled as).
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with what a shill is -- calling someone a shill doesn't make them one. Them taking payment from the organization's position they espouse does. But if you check my full post history, you'll find I'm consistently in favor repealing the DMCA, of limiting DRM, of better consumer protection for digital media. People on Slashdot, such as yourself, seem to forget that it's possible for someone "on the same side" to have divergent positions on tangential topics.
I take full responsibility for my words. What I cannot take responsibility for is when people infer things that are false.
I'm in agreement with you. But it's still a choice he made. I've been ripped off before, when purchasing physical goods. I don't really want to make the theft analogy, since I know it doesn't apply, but I didn't then go and steal a replacement from someone.
It is partly semantics, but semantics give insight into how people think about things. He was not forced. He was given a set of options, and chose pirating the music.
I am a big believer in personal responsibilty, and it seems to me like he's shifting the choice to the music industry, rather than explaining how their actions led to him making the choice he made. There is a difference, and while it is subtle, it is a big one.
I'm not saying he wasn't justified. What I am saying is that it was HIS choice. No one else's. No one threatened to break his legs if he didn't pirate mnusic.
Maybe the choice he made is the best choice. But no matter what, it was his to make.
Why you feel something needs to be done immediately does not change how long it takes to actually do it, or the fact that you want it done immediately.
But it doesn't make on whit of difference if I file now or file later, in terms of the product of the activity; as opposed to the wife, who HAD to deliver drinks, etc, in a timely manner. Are you trying to not understand that timeliness is not a output control for optimizing filing efficiency? I don't feel that it needs to be done immediately; I feel that it needs to be done with a minimum of wasted effort, so why put it down where I'll need to pick it back up and review it again?
Stuffing all of your papers into a folder or piling them on the desk is no different, other than the fact that your "hiding your mess in the folder, and taking longer to do it in the process.
You're visualizing something far different from what I do; again, interpreting what you want to, without regard for actuality.
our bad accounting is clear in that you claim filing something takes the same amount of time as just setting it on your desk. Filing something, even if it is a file sitting on your desk is going to take at least twice as long. If it is in a drawer, it will take you five times as long, if it is on the other side of your office, it will take you 10 times as long, and if it is in the cabinet in the hall, can take a hundred times as long. I would honest to goodness be willing to bet real money on my ability to win a race between me dropping a piece of paper on my desk, and another persons ability to file that same piece of paper.
Now you're being daft. I would bet my life savings that if you were to drop that piece of paper on your desk, then pick it back up later to file it, the total time you spend on that piece of paper will be longer than if you just filed it immediately (again, for the type of file that doesn't require you to move in order to file it).
Now, before you respond, READ my post. DON'T skim it and dispute things that I didn't write. DON'T assume you know what I'm going to say before you read it. And DON'T respond before thinking through the implications of having to deal with every sheet of paper twice.
To say they take the same amount of time is just bad accounting.
But that's not the time figures I was comparing. Apples and oranges, bub. You forgot to include the amount of time it would take you to eventually file that paper. And if you don't file it, then you have to consider the amount of time you spend looking for misplaced documents three months down the road when you need that paper -- which is beyond the scope of this discussion. At any rate, if there's bad accounting going on, it's being done by the person who is failing to consider the full amount of time spent dealing with each sheet of paper.
I'm no fan of the draconian restrictions that exist on most digital music, but this guy was not "pushed to become a pirate" or "forced to become a pirate". He downloaded material without bothering to make sure that what he was downloading was what he needed in order to play the music.
This entire blog post should be retitled "Why I chose to become a pirate, and how my own ignorance of media formats helped it along." The guy made a mistake (downloading WMA format music to play on an iPod) and rather than deal with it and eat his $10 losses, decided that he would rather get his music for free.
Please... if you pirate music, good for you. But don't claim it was forced on you, and don't claim that you didn't choose to do it of your own free will. Man up and take responsibility for you actions.
Note: I am not a record-industry shill, I'm just sick of people justifying their actions in order to clear their consciences.
Immediately filing things does fall under the category of "immediacy was still a concern".
Not at all. The filing can wait -- but I choose to do it immediately. The concern is efficiency, not immediacy at all.
You are also now back peddling and saying that you don't REALLY stay in a state of tidiness.
Not at all. You're interpreting what you want to interpret, rather than what I've written. Just because I have a file folder labeled "archives" at my desk, where I place archival documents until I bother crossing the hall to the archives so I can file them all at once, doesn't mean that I'm not tidy.
This still leaves us with the fact that tidying up immediately is just hiding the time by counting it as part of another task.
No, since filing it where it belongs replaces putting it down on the desk, but mostly saves time by not having to visually rescan the item to determine where to file it. Do you understand the time savings there, by not duplicating efforts?
Calling it a time savings is just bad accounting.
Please see my last point. There is definite time savings there.
Your anecdote, though, is different, since it is about things to be done, not things to be set aside for future use. Immediacy was still a concern for your wife when she was aggregating tasks.
You may gain other benefits from tidying up after every step, but it is not a time savings based on no cleaning time.
Not necessarily, it depends on your filing system. I've got it set up so that files I use frequently are within easy reach of my desk (both at home and at work). Rather than leaving it on the desk until later, it really does reduce clean-up time by popping it into the file in the drawer as soon as I'm done with a document. Things that are not filed within easy reach are held for filing with other like documents at some other point -- the end of the day, typically.
I guess my point is that it may be most efficient to use a combination of techniques.
Can anyone think of anything that the US government is spending money on that it shouldn't?
Wow. Dude, this is Slashdot, home of foaming-at-the-mouth anarchists and libertarians (among many other categories of people this post doesn't apply to, like tree-hugging granola-crunching Birkenstock-wearing non-showering reefer-smoking hippies).
Are you trolling for replies or seriously asking that question?
If you take them at their word, you would have to get special permission from them to file a news report on the game, for example. That's clearly not the case. You don't have to have special permission to report on the superbowl.
Unlike with trademark, under copyright they can allow infringement in some cases, while seeking takedown in others.
They would require, for example, you to get permission to take a 10 sec clip to show someone throwing a helmet. This falls under a paradigm known loosely as fair-use. For example, I don't have to get permission from a book author to quote a passage from their book.
Not true. It depends on the intended usage of the passage/clip, along with the size of the sample, not just on the fact that it's just a small part of the work. De minimis usage is only acceptable under fair use if the portion reproduced would be considered fair use for other reasons.
For example, I don't have to get permission from a book author to quote a passage from their book.
Better check with your lawyer, first. See Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters, where a 400-word excerpt was deemed not to be fair use, since it comprised "the heart of the book".
I fully agree with the point you make in your post. However, things have gotten worse recently, and it's important to note that what was considered fair use in 1990 is no longer necessarily still considered fair use.
Whether a messy person is more productive than a neat one depends on several factors, which the summary and article fail to mention -- I have no idea if the book touches on them.
1. Method of maintaining neatness. The article talks about time wasted maintaining neatness, and says that neatniks spend 1-4 hours per day on this. But I didn't see any discussion of time spent looking for lost items, nor did I see any mention of time-saving organizational techniques such as "handle it once" or file-as-you-go.
2. Type of production. Certain types of work demand organization -- such as information handling, accounting, etc. Messiness in those positions will be less efficient and productive than orderliness. Creative positions, on the other hand, may benefit from disorder.
Reading the article, I felt that no case was made for greater productivity by slobs. Yes, there was a discussion of certain factors make disorder potentially better in certain situations, but the headline overstates the summary. I'd like to read the book and see if the article understates, accurately summarizes, or overstates the book's conclusions.
Why do I think a lot of the posts on this thread are astroturfers for the NFL?
Probably the same reason everyone thinks there are always astroturfers... because there are a significant amount of people who actually disagree with the the rabid "free-speech" (read: don't want to pay for content) "advocates" on Slashdot. They are typically modded into oblivion, which is why you don't see their posts a lot. Not that there aren't people on Slashdot who have valid concerns about copyright, and not to denigrate those of us who are interested in more than getting freebies.
I believe the copyright system is broken. I also believe that there should be protection for creators of content.
This view has had me labeled "astroturfer" and "record company exec/shill," plus many other terms not suitable for public use. I usually point those people to my post history, but non-subscribers can't see the full history.
Are there astroturfers on Slashdot? Sure. Are there also valid posters who diasgree with the Slashdot copyright zeitgeist? You betcha. Should we deny someone's opinion because it is different than ours? I don't think so.
The new guidance to agents cites a provision in federal law allowing a telephone provider to voluntarily turn over phone records to law enforcement figures "in good faith" if they "believe that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires disclosure without delay," a senior FBI official said.
Hmm. That law they cite provides a justification for a telephone provider to turn over records; it does not provide a justification for law enforcement to request the records. Semantics, but important.
That the law clarifies under what kind of emergency such requests can be made is good-with-a-capital-G. What remains to be seen is if the old definition of emergency ("I can't be bothered with paperwork") will continue to be the de facto reason for a subpoena-less request.
IMO, any federal agent who acts outside the law wrt information requests should be prosecuted. They've broken the law no less than someone who smoked a joint -- and the cumulative negative effects on society are probably far worse for those who act outside the law in the name of the law.
I don't think we could eliminate malaria now. There are plenty of things done in the US in the past that would be impossible now due to environmental considerations (a lot of which are necessary, and it's a Good Thing (tm) that we couldn't do those things now), risk of loss of life and the huge costs associated with minimizing it, etc.
Hopefully the CDC is in more of a fighting trim than other goverment agencies in the US.
Except the CDC depends on other agencies for execution of emergency measures -- DHS, the military, etc. CDC is primarily an information handler, and it's up to those other agencies to actually DO anything in the case of a biological crisis.
Controlling disease is simple in theory -- remove the vector or remove the resevoir. The malaria vector is impossible to remove, but limiting the vector made it easier to remove the resevoir in the US, since the resevoir was human. Removing malaria in the eastern US was pretty easy, actually, since removing the resevoir was a matter of properly diagnosing it, and treating those infected -- it was a byproduct of improved medical care, really. That, and public awareness of the source.
Hmm. My last diesel was a '79 Dodge, had problems from 80,000 on, with regular maintenance. Wasn't aware newer ones were better.
Dunno why Cummins popped into my head, probably because I've owned several Dodges... oops. Also oops on inserting the G there, habit of typing -ing I gess.
All in all, a bad post by me.. thanks for the corrections. Guess I need to think a bit more before posting, and just canceling if I'm trying to get the post in before heading into a meeting...
Funniest thing I've seen all day. How many times do you plan on rebuilding the engine during those 350k miles? How about the trannie? A lot of complaints about the F350 not sure about the diesel cummings.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm. That's why I didn't want to bring in the car analogies... especially since theft is not an accurate term for copyable media.
Hmm. How is my position vis a vis his choice to pirate music close to the RIAA's position on his choice? Note that I did not comment at all on the validity of his choice, only on the fact that it was his choice to make?
BTW, my opinion on piracy is that if you don't like the terms of sale, don't listen to the music. Pirating music doesn't send any message other than "If you can figure out a way to make me pay for this, you'll be even richer" to the labels.
Still ignoring the iPod documentation? I don't know about you, but when I'm checking compatibility, I look at both components.
Let me try to explain via your waitress analogy. So the tables order drinks -- if they don't get them quickly, then there are negative consequences -- these tasks have urgency, immediacy is a consideration. However, say that the waitress also needs to submit her tabs for each section to the section managers, who are in the back office. This is a matter that is not urgent, but must be done at some point. Since this is a matter without urgency, that is best done all-at-once at the end of her shift. Say instead, that she needs to put the tabs for each section (say, two or three sections) in different envelopes before handing them to the managers. In this case, there is still no urgency, but it is most efficient to have three envelopes at the register, and to place each tab in the correct envelope when she closes it out.
Again, your substituting what you want to believe with what I wrote. Go back and re-read the thread. Isn't it perfectly clear that I classify documents according to whether it's more efficient to file them immediately or more efficient to file them in batches (for example, if they are archival files that need to be filed across the hall)? Or did you choose to ignore the post where I explicitly stated that?
Obviously you are dealing with a low-volume environment. I'm dealing with many financial documents, which not only cannot be discarded, but must be re-accessed often, without delays for searching -- and when you have a couple thousand of them, keeping them on top of your desk is not an option. This is not an uncommon or unique situation, most medium-to-large companies have several employees in this situation.Not so. I'm not sure in what capacity you are handling paperwork, but it seems to me that you don't deal with files that need to be accessed for regular operations, nor do you deal with a high volume. You also need to differentiate between action items and reference documents. Yes, I'm 'handling' (i.e. acting on an item) once, but referring back to the document is a different story, and needs to be accounted for in your organizational setup.
Sure. If you handle a few documents a day or week, it's no problem to leave them on your desk.
Basically, you're looking at it from the perspective of someone who's line of work does not necessitate strong organization. I'm looking at it (see my OP) from the perspective of a high-volume position.
The iPod documentation clearly shows what file formats are compatible.
I have yet to come across an online music store that doesn't provide the terms of its license. Furthermore, for conversion, it's clear in the FAQs and documentation of every MP3 encoder I've seen that licensed files cannot be converted. For him to be upset about incompatibility is silly -- 5 minutes of basic research would have told him about this issue.
I still believe that 'caveat emptor' is some advice he should be following, and the fact that everything isn't as easy as it should be doesn't absolve him of the fact that he made a choice.
He also claimed he didn't know WMA files wouldn't play on his iPod, yet he knew that .WAV files were better quality than the iTunes format. It just doesn't all add up.
I wouldn't be surprised if the CSRs' comments weren't 'edited for effect' -- it's not uncommon in the blogosphere, and frankly, I'm hesitant to take it at face value since the source is completely unknown.
I fully agree with you. But I still have to take exception with the idea that he was 'forced' or 'pushed' into anything.
Is the current system broken? Yes.
Did he make the best choice available to him? Most likely.
Does that mean that he didn't have free will, that he didn't choose to do something illegal?
Perhaps you're unfamiliar with what a shill is -- calling someone a shill doesn't make them one. Them taking payment from the organization's position they espouse does. But if you check my full post history, you'll find I'm consistently in favor repealing the DMCA, of limiting DRM, of better consumer protection for digital media. People on Slashdot, such as yourself, seem to forget that it's possible for someone "on the same side" to have divergent positions on tangential topics.
I take full responsibility for my words. What I cannot take responsibility for is when people infer things that are false.
I'm in agreement with you. But it's still a choice he made. I've been ripped off before, when purchasing physical goods. I don't really want to make the theft analogy, since I know it doesn't apply, but I didn't then go and steal a replacement from someone.
It is partly semantics, but semantics give insight into how people think about things. He was not forced. He was given a set of options, and chose pirating the music.
I am a big believer in personal responsibilty, and it seems to me like he's shifting the choice to the music industry, rather than explaining how their actions led to him making the choice he made. There is a difference, and while it is subtle, it is a big one.
I'm not saying he wasn't justified. What I am saying is that it was HIS choice. No one else's. No one threatened to break his legs if he didn't pirate mnusic.
Maybe the choice he made is the best choice. But no matter what, it was his to make.
You're visualizing something far different from what I do; again, interpreting what you want to, without regard for actuality.
Now you're being daft. I would bet my life savings that if you were to drop that piece of paper on your desk, then pick it back up later to file it, the total time you spend on that piece of paper will be longer than if you just filed it immediately (again, for the type of file that doesn't require you to move in order to file it).
Now, before you respond, READ my post. DON'T skim it and dispute things that I didn't write. DON'T assume you know what I'm going to say before you read it. And DON'T respond before thinking through the implications of having to deal with every sheet of paper twice.
But that's not the time figures I was comparing. Apples and oranges, bub. You forgot to include the amount of time it would take you to eventually file that paper. And if you don't file it, then you have to consider the amount of time you spend looking for misplaced documents three months down the road when you need that paper -- which is beyond the scope of this discussion. At any rate, if there's bad accounting going on, it's being done by the person who is failing to consider the full amount of time spent dealing with each sheet of paper.
I'm no fan of the draconian restrictions that exist on most digital music, but this guy was not "pushed to become a pirate" or "forced to become a pirate". He downloaded material without bothering to make sure that what he was downloading was what he needed in order to play the music.
This entire blog post should be retitled "Why I chose to become a pirate, and how my own ignorance of media formats helped it along." The guy made a mistake (downloading WMA format music to play on an iPod) and rather than deal with it and eat his $10 losses, decided that he would rather get his music for free.
Please... if you pirate music, good for you. But don't claim it was forced on you, and don't claim that you didn't choose to do it of your own free will. Man up and take responsibility for you actions.
Note: I am not a record-industry shill, I'm just sick of people justifying their actions in order to clear their consciences.
Not at all. You're interpreting what you want to interpret, rather than what I've written. Just because I have a file folder labeled "archives" at my desk, where I place archival documents until I bother crossing the hall to the archives so I can file them all at once, doesn't mean that I'm not tidy.
No, since filing it where it belongs replaces putting it down on the desk, but mostly saves time by not having to visually rescan the item to determine where to file it. Do you understand the time savings there, by not duplicating efforts?
Please see my last point. There is definite time savings there.
Not necessarily, it depends on your filing system. I've got it set up so that files I use frequently are within easy reach of my desk (both at home and at work). Rather than leaving it on the desk until later, it really does reduce clean-up time by popping it into the file in the drawer as soon as I'm done with a document. Things that are not filed within easy reach are held for filing with other like documents at some other point -- the end of the day, typically.
I guess my point is that it may be most efficient to use a combination of techniques.
Are you trolling for replies or seriously asking that question?
Unlike with trademark, under copyright they can allow infringement in some cases, while seeking takedown in others.
Not true. It depends on the intended usage of the passage/clip, along with the size of the sample, not just on the fact that it's just a small part of the work. De minimis usage is only acceptable under fair use if the portion reproduced would be considered fair use for other reasons.
Better check with your lawyer, first. See Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters, where a 400-word excerpt was deemed not to be fair use, since it comprised "the heart of the book".
I fully agree with the point you make in your post. However, things have gotten worse recently, and it's important to note that what was considered fair use in 1990 is no longer necessarily still considered fair use.
Whether a messy person is more productive than a neat one depends on several factors, which the summary and article fail to mention -- I have no idea if the book touches on them.
1. Method of maintaining neatness. The article talks about time wasted maintaining neatness, and says that neatniks spend 1-4 hours per day on this. But I didn't see any discussion of time spent looking for lost items, nor did I see any mention of time-saving organizational techniques such as "handle it once" or file-as-you-go.
2. Type of production. Certain types of work demand organization -- such as information handling, accounting, etc. Messiness in those positions will be less efficient and productive than orderliness. Creative positions, on the other hand, may benefit from disorder.
Reading the article, I felt that no case was made for greater productivity by slobs. Yes, there was a discussion of certain factors make disorder potentially better in certain situations, but the headline overstates the summary. I'd like to read the book and see if the article understates, accurately summarizes, or overstates the book's conclusions.
More like "Oh f*ck that, let's talk about NASCAR"
Or, "Let's talk about Lost"
Getting Americans to pay attention to world political events is laughable -- most Americans won't even seriously discuss domestic political events.
I believe the copyright system is broken. I also believe that there should be protection for creators of content.
This view has had me labeled "astroturfer" and "record company exec/shill," plus many other terms not suitable for public use. I usually point those people to my post history, but non-subscribers can't see the full history.
Are there astroturfers on Slashdot? Sure. Are there also valid posters who diasgree with the Slashdot copyright zeitgeist? You betcha. Should we deny someone's opinion because it is different than ours? I don't think so.
Oh crap. Didn't see the post between yours and mine... thought you were responding to my OP in the thread... sorry for being a jackass.
Why don't you try reading my post again, and actually pay attention to what the point is, before spouting your irrelevant nonsense, mmkay?
Hmm. That law they cite provides a justification for a telephone provider to turn over records; it does not provide a justification for law enforcement to request the records. Semantics, but important.
That the law clarifies under what kind of emergency such requests can be made is good-with-a-capital-G. What remains to be seen is if the old definition of emergency ("I can't be bothered with paperwork") will continue to be the de facto reason for a subpoena-less request.
IMO, any federal agent who acts outside the law wrt information requests should be prosecuted. They've broken the law no less than someone who smoked a joint -- and the cumulative negative effects on society are probably far worse for those who act outside the law in the name of the law.
Except the CDC depends on other agencies for execution of emergency measures -- DHS, the military, etc. CDC is primarily an information handler, and it's up to those other agencies to actually DO anything in the case of a biological crisis.
Controlling disease is simple in theory -- remove the vector or remove the resevoir. The malaria vector is impossible to remove, but limiting the vector made it easier to remove the resevoir in the US, since the resevoir was human. Removing malaria in the eastern US was pretty easy, actually, since removing the resevoir was a matter of properly diagnosing it, and treating those infected -- it was a byproduct of improved medical care, really. That, and public awareness of the source.
Hmm. My last diesel was a '79 Dodge, had problems from 80,000 on, with regular maintenance. Wasn't aware newer ones were better.
Dunno why Cummins popped into my head, probably because I've owned several Dodges... oops. Also oops on inserting the G there, habit of typing -ing I gess.
All in all, a bad post by me.. thanks for the corrections. Guess I need to think a bit more before posting, and just canceling if I'm trying to get the post in before heading into a meeting...