Most of the ethics questions around Alexander involve his company IronNet Cybersecurity. He founded it when he retired. He's charging big banks $1,000,000 a month to protect them in cyberspace, and its not exactly clear what he has to offer to justify the price tag, other than classified insider knowledge of cyber threats from his NSA years, he probably shouldn't be selling to the highest bidder.

See my reply to the other poster.

Licking was a comical exaggeration. But curtains are sufficient to separate adult patients and prevent cross contamination, no "separate rooms" necessary. Families with children are a bigger concern but ultimately the safest and most practical course is to keep those kids with their parents, and keep them all at home.

Humans instinctually fear rare events significantly more than common events, even if those common events are more likely to result in danger. It made sense as a hunter-gatherer to run from the rare and strange, but today the instinct is often just lower brain messing with our more-advanced rational thought processes. It's why the average person fears plane crashes far more than car crashes, despite car crashes being statistically a more likely way to die.

Things that might kill you have two parts - the chance of this affecting you, and the chance of the affect being death. People inflate the first for rare events, and downplay it for common events, despite science and statistics to the contrary.

>> Put them all in the same room? Maybe only one or two have ebola. Can't put them in one room, then they'll all get ebola if a few had it.

Not unless they lick each other's bodily fluids.

You might find the intro of this book of interest (just noticed it today) as it talks about the conflict between scarcity and post-scarcity ideas, including market failures and market-based solutions: http://books.google.com/books?...
"Sustainable Growth in a Post-Scarcity World: Consumption, Demand, and the Poverty Penalty -- by Philip Sadler"

IMHO, universities have an implicit moral obligation (including "in loco parentis") to be candid and as accurate as possible with their students about things like career prospects; that they fail to do so as evidenced by this issue is problematical whatever the reasons (including "selection bias" that you only see relatively successful academics working in universities and the advice they give may have worked for them decades ago but may not be very useful either now or for other personality types).

If you look at other countries like in Western Europe, there is not as much of a conflict between being reasonable "successful" in a field and having a family and hobbies and such. Example: http://www.salon.com/2010/08/2...
"Germany's workers have higher productivity, shorter hours and greater quality of life. How did we get it so wrong? ... But even before the recession, American workers were already clocking in the most hours in the West. Compared to our German cousins across the pond, we work 1,804 hours versus their 1,436 hours â" the equivalent of nine extra 40-hour workweeks per year. The Protestant work ethic may have begun in Germany, but it has since evolved to become the American way of life. ... In comparison to the U.S., the Germans live in a socialist idyll. They have six weeks of federally mandated vacation, free university tuition, nursing care, and childcare. ... How did Germany become such a great place to work in the first place? The Allies did it. This whole European model came, to some extent, from the New Deal. Our real history and tradition is what we created in Europe. Occupying Germany after WWII, the 1945 European constitutions, the UN Charter of Human Rights all came from Eleanor Roosevelt and the New Dealers. All of it got worked into the constitutions of Europe and helped shape their social democracies. It came from us. The papal encyclicals on labor, it came from the Americans. ..."

Various studies show that overwork does not make people more productive in the long term. Lots of things suffer -- including creativity. Overwork in the USA is a cultural pathology. BTW, it is also problematical to try to motivate the best creative work via rewards:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

As for technological innovation, there is a lot of discussion related to that by people like Langdon Winner and E.F. Schumacher (including related to "appropriate technology"). Just look at how US federal dollars went as subsidies via land grand colleges to big agriculture research vs. small farm research. Why were research funds for decades going into ever bigger mechanized harvesting operations and related plant varieties (the tasteless tomato) instead of multi-purpose flexible agricultural robotics useful for small farms and heirloom seeds? Why is funding "Seed Savers" heirloom seed production (seeds with a variety of natural resistance and good nutrition) or remineralizing US soils via ground up rock dust not one of the USA's top defense priorities vs. defending long supply lines of imported oil used to create monocultures propped up in dead soil doused in petro-chemical-derived synthetic fertilizers and pesticides?
http://www.seedsavers.org/
http://remineralize.org/

Markets may be good at producing certain types of abundance, but in the absence of political oversight, markets are problematical when it comes to distributing that abundance, creating healthy working conditions, or managing the risk of market failures. Just ask Alan Greenspan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10...
"But on Thursday, almost three years after stepping down as chairman of the Federal Reserve, a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending."

I'll agree with you that there is a very complex dynamics of the whole system, with lots of parts interconnected in surprising ways. This post-doc issue is just one piece of the puzzle reflecting a lot of trends. And it is unlikely it will be made a lot better without considering the complex dynamic of the whole system -- which is just the sort of thing one might think "smart" people would be studying -- if they were not "disciplined minds" with assignable curiosity assigned to prop up a failing status quo: :-(
http://www.disciplined-minds.c...

I don't know about short-term solutions, but in the next couple decades, it seems pretty clear to me that, given increasing automation of mental labor, our entire current economic system is going to undergo a huge transformation. What exactly the end result will be remains to play out... But the "economic literacy" you imply IMHO is getting to be more and more a historical thing related to the 20th century, and will be less and less applicable as the 21st century unfolds. Something I wrote on that back in 2008: http://www.pdfernhout.net/post...

I would agree that cheap hot or cold fusion (or something similar) is probably about the only thing that could displace cheap PV economically. PV doesn't take that much space on a global scale for our current power needs (a small patch of the Sahara desert could produce our current needs), but cold fusion would be so much more compact and in that sense be more aesthetic and not shade out any green plants or disrupt fragile desert ecosystems. Also, if (and likely when) our energy use grows, including for things like space launches, then solar starts to get iffier (like if our global energy use grows by 100X). We probably don't need to grow our energy use like that to be happy at roughly the current population (although 3X is likely as other countries continue to industrialize).

The biggest new thing a compact energy source such as LENR as described makes possible are improved mobile systems (space craft, flying cars, autonomous yachts, etc.). Solar will likely never be that compact for human-scale mobile systems, where the need for a big surface area conflicts with other mobile requirements for sleekness.

Still, that is if cold fusion / LENR works. This "verification" still is debatable as these researchers seem to have been tangentially involved in evaluating Rossi's work for years. So, this report is not as "independent" as one might like (even if I thought it was notable as a story). But there are many other reports by others. Things remain still unsure until you can buy one at your local big box store or via Amazon -- or your utility company uses them. :-) Of course, if ten university teams were saying they had such test results, well that would also be pretty significant. One collection of authors at a couple less prestigious institutions is still in the realm of fraud or self-deception or some other confusion. On the other hand, as with the original "cold fusion" reports at MIT twenty years ago dismissing the phenomenon, there is an incentive within the status quo to dismiss such claims because they would potentially disturb existing social and financial relationships (like hot fusion funding, fossil fuel subsidies, now solar PV research, etc.).

swb's comment is insightful too. The best reason to go into space is because we are happy on Earth and want to grow that happiness further.

That said, it is not unreasonable to want a distributed population for reasons of backup and resiliency, as well as reasons for new perspectives/exploration/innovation. Humans run simulations to learn things, and space habitats may develop a variety of approaches to things that are new and useful.

Also, as human technological power grows, the Earth becomes ever smaller and the stakes for a global mistake (e.g. bioweapon, nuclear war) get every higher -- even as we should do what we can to reduce and contain those risks as appropriate.

See also:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/K...
"A planet is the cradle of mind, but one cannot live in a cradle forever."

NASA should have been doing these sort of hab missions decades ago IMHO. Better late than never!

Less of some types of carbs, yes, but more other stuff too: https://www.drfuhrman.com/libr...
"Excess weight interferes with insulin's functions, and is the primary risk factor for developing type 2 diabetes. Therefore the most effective treatment for type 2 diabetes is significant weight loss. However, the primary mode of treatment by physicians today is glucose-lowering medication. These medications give a false sense of security, providing implicit permission to continue the same disease-causing diet and lifestyle that allowed diabetes to develop in the first place. Many of these medications promote weight gain -- making the patient more diabetic; most importantly, these medications do not prevent diabetes from progressing and causing complications. ...
The key to diabetes reversal is superior nutrition and exercise. It may take a little extra effort, but avoiding the tragic complications of diabetes and a premature death is well worth it. My diabetes-reversal diet is vegetable-based with a high nutrient to calorie ratio, containing lots of greens and beans, other non-starchy vegetables, (such as mushrooms, eggplant, tomatoes and onions), raw nuts and seeds, and limited fresh fruit with no sweeteners or white flour products. When diabetics eat in this style, they lose their excess weight -- the cause of their diabetes -- quickly and easily, reducing or eliminating their need for medications and they also flood the body with disease-protective and healing micronutrients and phytochemicals that aid the body's recovery and self-repair mechanism."

For Type II diabetics, such a diet with weight loss brings the body's ability to respond to glucose in line with the remaining capacity to make it as needed. Exercise that builds more muscles and that is done when sugar is spiking can also help in managing glucose levels.

For Type I diabetics however, where the body can't produce much glucose at all if any, this improved diet/exercise is not enough, even if it can improve the situation some what as far as reducing complications. For Type I diabetics, this sort of breakthrough with stem cells, if it works, would be truly amazing.

Sometimes type I diabetics are really misdiagnosed type II, and vice versa, so there is a small level of confusion here where sometimes diet works when you would not expect etc..

BTW, vitamin D deficiency (from lack of natural sunlight) may be involved with the autoimmune response that could cause type I diabetes or perhaps make type II worse.

More from Furhman:
https://www.drfuhrman.com/libr...
http://www.amazon.com/The-End-...

More from others:
http://www.rawfor30days.com/
http://www.fatsickandnearlydea...
https://www.drmcdougall.com/he...
http://articles.mercola.com/si...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...
http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/0...

The deeper issue is that our brains and microbiomes are adapted for a scarcity of refined carbs, and we struggle with the abundance of cheap ones:
http://www.drfuhrman.com/libra...
"Scientific evidence suggests that the re-sensitization of taste nerves takes between 30 and 90 days of consistent exposure to less stimulating foods. This means that for several weeks, most people attempting this change will experience a reduction in eating pleasure. This is why modern foods present such a devastating trap--as most of our citizens are, in effect, "addicted" to artificially high levels of food stimulation! The 30-to-90-day process of taste re-calibration requires more motivation--and more self-discipline--than most people are ever willing to muster.
    Tragically, most people are totally unaware that they are only a few weeks of discipline away from being able to comfortably maintain healthful dietary habits--and to keep away from the products that can result in the destruction of their health. Instead, most people think that if they were to eat more healthfully, they would be condemned to a life of greatly reduced gustatory pleasure--thinking that the process of Phase IV will last forever. In our new book, The Pleasure Trap, we explain this extraordinarily deceptive and problematic situation - and how to master this hidden force that undermines health and happiness."

Limited liability is a privilege, not a right. Think of anything else corporations today demand - including their new so-called "free speech" - and realize that all of those things can be negotiated away to those voluntarily seeking this limited liability.

A corporation enjoys special tax and legal status not available to individuals. In exchange for that status, the government can and should demand that they give up their so-called "right" to free speech (the same way non-profit groups can be restricted so long as they wish to retain their non-profit status).

The law should also be changed to make it easier to pierce the corporate veil and prosecute executives, employees, and board members. The defense of "I didn't know what the other guys were doing so I couldn't see the whole picture" should be evidence of conspiracy, not a defense.

Punishment for corporations found guilty of crimes should be more than token fines. Yes, non-employee shareholders of publicly-traded companies enjoy limited liability for those companies' actions, but they do have liability up to the value of the stock. No, it doesn't make sense to give corporations the "death penalty" very often, so long as the company had some legal business, but the government should be better able to seize assets, primarily stock and options, especially from executives. The public will demand more accountability from the companies they own if they know that corporate crime will more often cost them their ownership directly, not just as a blip in profit.

Because government in this country is so limited and the benefits of monopoly (or, more likely duopoly) so immense, corporates naturally grow in size until they are "too big to fail". Again, as with free speech in exchange for special tax status, corporations do not have the right to grow so big or become so vital to the economy that their collapse would lead to destabilization of the country. The government should regularly be reviewing this and taking actions to break those companies up, or prevent the mergers that lead to this situation in the first place. Maximizing efficiency and profits through consolidation when times are good leads to increased instability when times are bad. It is the government's job to regulate the economy to ensure the general welfare, and that includes smoothing both the highs and lows.

While I am not a medical professional, someone out there could argue that a drug designed to prevent more of your healthy X cells from being infected is a vaccine, even if some of your existing X cells are already infected. Substitute white blood, red blood, brain, heart, bone, etc. for X depending on the disease.

Humans are not homogenous and not every cell of an infected person is infected. While such a drug should probably be called both a treatment and a vaccine, language evolves and if people start calling drugs that prevent any or further infection "vaccines", so be it.

Because if you want to get home, now you need to trek through the jungle to another country first, then lie about having been in an Ebola country.

In case you haven't been following the systemd flame wars, many people think they are trying to create dependency, that is why everyone hates it and them so much.