If Ebola were even half as transmissible as the flu I'd stock up my pantry and not leave my house for two months. Fortunately it's so hard to transmit to others that it has no chance of reaching epidemic proportions in a country like the US with a first world health system. It's difficult to be perfect and there may be a few cases that slip through the cracks like Thomas Duncan but even if some ISIS terrorist tried to bring it here deliberately there's no chance for it to develop into a widespread epidemic as long as it's so difficult to transmit.

The US military personnel sent to Liberia are there to build some treatment centers and to expedite logistics for materials to fight the epidemic. They are not treating or even being exposed to the people who are contagious with Ebola. Your post is just more fear mongering.

By doing what I suggested I do, I actually AM driving with the general road conditions in this area...if you stop at a light that turns yellow, you will be rear ended by at least 2 cars.

After a few accidents, people will start to get the message. If this is the only way people in your area will learn then it's the way people in your area will have to learn. Basically you're being part of the problem... and promoting that others do the same, you do need your license taken off you.

Now running a red light means that they have to build a timer into the red on both sides to prevent right angle crashes which are significantly more deadly and disruptive than rear end crashes (which rarely results in a fatality). The extended light timing will cause more disruption to traffic making your overall route slower. In effect, you're punishing everyone for your impatience.

In Australia we prefer using red light cameras as it doesn't punish everyone, only the people who run red lights. People who repeatedly run red lights end up having their licenses revoked.

Finally, I'm a defensive driver. If you're approaching a green light, you should be preparing to stop. This means you pay attention to the light and travel at a steady speed, I move my right foot over the brake (I drive a manual, not that anyone should left foot brake). If the light turns yellow you should already be aware of if you have sufficient time to stop safely (because you're paying attention) so no indecision here. You're pretty much the opposite of a defensive driver, we call your kind "organ donors".

You also have people from out of town that have learned their own light timing system and have an expectation when they visit you.

Basically, what you need is a national code for the programming of lights.

We have it in Australia, yellow light timing is the same nationally and you can report shortened yellow lights to the local council or state roads department. The biggest problem is with old lights using a mechanical system for timing (yes they still exist, its expensive to replace every traffic light in the country when new tech comes out) as these systems malfunction.

The rules were changed so certain judicial nominations couldn't be filibustered but I don't think that applies to appointments like Surgeon General.

It should be said that most of the mistakes here were by the hospital in Texas, not the CDC. If the CDC had descended on the hospital like a ton of bricks and the first inkling of Ebola they might have prevented most of that from happening then people would be complaining about Federal overreach. Instead they're complaining they didn't do enough. Regardless of what it does there's a certain sector of the American public that will always find a way to fault the government.

We knew what was going on when you ran your anti-IBM campaign, sometimes even positioning yourself as arguing on behalf of our community. It was a way to lend credence to IBM and MS arguments during the SCO issue. To state otherwise is deceptive, perhaps even self-deceptive.

Florian, you would not be devoting all of this text to explaining yourself if you didn't feel the need to paint your actions in a positive light. That comes from guilt, whether you admit it to yourself or not.

Go write your app, and if you actually get to make any money with it you can give thanks, because it will happen despite what you worked for previously. Keep a low profile otherwise because your credibility is well and truly blown and you can only make things worse. And maybe someday you can really move past this part of your life. But I am not holding out much hope.

No, there is no guarantee that the user will not use a mobile phone to access his online banking (and the idiocy of some banks pushing out mobile apps for online banking doesn't actually improve security in that area either).

You can't make the user secure. You can only offer it to him and hope that he's intelligent enough to accept it.

In the U.S. they are different. But this statute is trying to link them, and I'm not sure that would stand up to a Constitutional test.

One thing our Supreme Court established long ago is that government cannot establish what is obscene by statute. It must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Look up the Miller Test.

And that is why they worded it this way. They aren't making artificial depictions of child pornography illegal; they're simply making them illegal *IF* they fail the Miller Test. But that's redundant, because things that fail the Miller Test are already, by definition, obscene.

So it's a law with no apparent purpose except grandstanding. Unless its purpose was to change the punishment for this particular obscene material.

I am not defending child pornography. But any responsible statute has to balance the good it does with the potential harm (because there is almost always some of both). Freedom of speech is an area in which legislators are obliged to tread very carefully.

This kind of argument deserves to be taken out behind the woodshed and shot dead.

The question here wasn't what someone is willing to risk. It was about what is LEGAL. And to answer your question: YES, as long as something I do is LEGAL, I am not going to cower in a corner and be afraid of the damage false prosecution would do to my perceived character. To do so would be abject cowardice.

Having said that, I do not intentionally involve myself in any way with ANY kind of depictions of child pornography, real or fake, simply because I find it morally objectionable. But in a free and rational society, morality informs the law, not the other way around. They are two very different things.

YES, they ARE! It's a search engine. Changing the order of the search results changes EVERYTHING.

And by their own admission, they're doing based on [A] payment, and [B] their subjective perception of whether the content is real.

I repeat: that *IS* modifying search results, and they're doing it for money.

When I search, I'm not searching for the highest bidder.

This is why I am using Google less and less now. I have actually started using Bing (which in some ways isn't much better), and I'm giving DuckDuckGo a serious try.