So it's PlanetLab, now on Internet2... because apparently some folks still care about that.

The problem then is perception. Network utilization isn't obvious to the end user, so when they're throttled, it just appears that their carrier is slow for no reason. An hour later, it could be fine, so the average self-centered user will blame their carrier for having service that just gets really slow all of a sudden.

With predictable limits, especially with a warning message or a way to check how much data the user has used, the user feels that it's their fault for hitting the limit, especially if the limit's low enough that they come close every month. They know it's coming, so when bandwidth is suddenly throttled to the slower speed, they're not surprised. It's business as usual, not their provider's inconsistent service.

When I flew to and from Ghana, I went through London. Is Great Britain considered a "risky" nation? Should my flight of 100+ people be diverted because one person came from a place where a rare disease is somewhat less rare? If so, then you must also divert thousands of other flights. Soon the logistics of scale creep in, and you're processing a ridiculous number of passengers through this "small number" of quarantine sites.

Let's not discuss the cost of diverting so much travel and disrupting so many plans.

...but we don't. We don't have anything remotely like that. Reliable testing takes a few days to get results. Faster screening is asking "do you have these symptoms", but since symptoms don't appear for a week after infection, it's often inaccurate.

Ellis Island processed a maximum of 11,747 immigrants per day. One terminal of JFK International airport can handle over three times that many.

This is not a solution that scales easily. Quarantining 3,150 people isn't a big deal in itself, but they're scattered among millions of passengers traveling from everywhere else in the world, coming into a few hundred terminals across the country. Back when all immigration came in by ships to New York or California, there were convenient locations to put such facilities. Today, the scale of the problem is far larger than you seem to imagine.

And you think altruism is purely the cause?

More likely, Cuba is using health care politically:

Of course, money's also a motive, especially considering the economic sanctions still in place against Cuba:

Sure, I'd love to see Cuba join the world as a serious economic player, but not so much that I'll ignore the other reasons why Cuba has recently been exporting more medical care than cigars.

I, too, find it strange how often the United States starts hearing cries supporting one of several groups. At first, it's about individuals, who are quick to point out their differences, vying for control of the media spotlight. After a round of polling, the contestants pair off into new demographically-appealing sets, each promising their own brand of radical extremism. Eventually the major players on each side of the major ideological schism form alliances, and the battle for the public eye returns to the same terminology we had four years earlier: Democrats vs. Republicans.

The more restrictive the quarantine rule is, the less likely someone will report symptoms. New cases don't announce themselves with a face-up card and a cube on a map. They arrive with aches and nausea, just like a thousand other ailments. If someone's at risk and starts feeling symptoms, are they going to voluntarily lock down their life for a week until a more accurate (and benign) diagnosis arrives? Of course not. They'll lie, say they're feeling great, then go out in public anyway.

Early and accurate detection is the key, not panicking every time someone gets a cough. If someone's at risk, encourage every report, but don't cause panic. After basic screening ("No, sir, erectile dysfunction is not a symptom of Ebola"), tell patients to be cautious and avoid contact with others. Make the patients feel like their conduct is the most important factor in protecting their neighbors. They're not just one of this week's overreactions. They're the center of attention, until their case is ruled out, like almost all such things are.

Ultimately, outbreaks like this only stop when there's either an effective vaccine/treatment, our when people can not or choose not to spread the disease to others. In the absence of the former, we must rely on others' good judgement to enact the latter. Panic is not conducive to that end.

Even if it cuts through metal, the simple solution is to just not put the computer in front of the jet. Like you said, put it in a box out of the way, with some baffles to stop water coming in the ducts, and just to be paranoid, elevate the computer within the box, so it's not sitting in a pool of any water that may come in.

Market cap doesn't have any bearing on ROI. If I'm looking to invest $10,000 for dividend returns, I'll be investing in something with a higher return for the price, with little concern* for the vehicle's total size, as market cap shows.

That Microsoft is bigger than Amazon is actually even more cause for alarm. Amazon has far less cash in their coffers, and does more (at least, more interesting to investors) with it.

* Some concern for diversity should always be held, but that's beside the point.

A quick check shows that they pay dividends quarterly, but the dividend rate (compared to stock price) isn't particularly great... While their dividends have risen somewhat in recent history, their stock price hasn't even kept up with inflation. IBM is about the same rate, and AT&T is notably better.

The investors were apparently right. Microsoft's stock price has gone roughly nowhere in the last decade, mostly because they're one of the most boring companies to invest in. They don't pay high dividends, they don't produce must-have new technology, and there's nothing that distinguishes them (in a positive way) from any other investment vehicle. They're just Microsoft.

On the other hand, Amazon is currently trading at six times Microsoft's price, and has shown enormous growth. Even if they don't make a profit or pay dividends, they're still interesting to inventors because they're doing interesting things. It's helpful to remember that investing in a company is effectively adding your money to the pool for whatever the company's project is. That project might be (and usually is) simply "make more money", but changing the world is also a possible goal. Being unprofitable is still reasonable for an investment, as long as investors are still interested in the company. I'll worry when Amazon's price falters, and they start using profit as a means to keep their value up.

Hardly. This guy comes up with something cool, and I'm wary of the claim that it will somehow overthrow the existing system, mostly because to informed observers, the current system isn't actually unreasonable (mostly, anyway). There are good reasons behind all of the seemingly-insane details, but they're not as obvious as "some kid is missing a hand".

In fact, I actually have to give quite a bit of credit to the designer of this particular device. On his website, he's not encouraging kids to try the thing or making any claims that it's something particularly special. Rather, he's asking for help from experts to refine the design and turn it into something that is fully-tested and documented. If he can do that and still keep it printable (by end users or even trained technicians... either would be a help), then we'll have a real boon to the state of the art.

I wish him the best of luck, but I also recognize that the obstacles he faces are a bit more realistic (and i daresay more difficult) than fighting a conspiracy theory.

And I can tell you that nerve damage (especially around the fingertips) is important to glove manufacturers, especially concerning sporting gloves, where the risk of such damage is high with or without gloves.

As for watchbands, I actually do know a few people who've had allergic reactions to watchbands of various kinds, starting with myself. I can't wear a gold watch, because after a few hours my wrist turns red, and after an evening of wearing it my lower arm is covered in small red bumps. I have a lesser reaction to my gold wedding ring, but I've never bothered finding out exactly which part of the alloy it is that I'm allergic to. In discussions with others, I've met folks allergic to plastic and cloth watchbands as well as metals, some of whose allergies didn't show up until after months of use.

That's what insurance is for. Sure, it's a slim chance that I'll ever need a $40,000 medical device, but that's why I pay into the pool. If I ever do need it and don't have the cash lying around, my insurance provider does. If I never do need it, then my premiums went mostly to somebody else in the pool who did.

No, I'm saying that the cheapest options present more risks that have not been mitigated. I have no problem informing people of the risks they face, and I sincerely hope that a doctor would inform his patients of the risk associated with any treatment, regardless of the cost.

For a cane, it's a different matter. Canes typically do not have prolonged contact with the wearer and their well-studied risks do not often cause long-term problems once the adjustments have been made.

...and what is the actual risk of that slippery slope? Certainly it's nowhere near probable enough that we'd need to regulate clothing as tightly as medical devices. If you're working with high-energy devices, however, the risk posed by clothing is far greater. I don't recall exactly which jurisdiction requires it, but I know that every piece of clothing worn at my local nuclear plant must be cotton. Cotton burns, while synthetic fibers usually melt. Though often cheaper, synthetic clothes increase the damage from accidents enough to warrant that small amount of regulation.

By that time, the damage may already be permanent. That's one of the things that research would study before handing it off to an unsuspecting patient.

"Functional" prostheses are available for far less than $40,000, and typically are used temporarily while a primary device is being built or repaired.

....until they're dead because the airbag was stripped for resale and the seat belts were worn out.

In other words, you have no idea what a risk analysis is, but you follow the hacker mentality in thinking that you can do anything if you have the raw material and a tool to work it, without the need for actual expertise. As long as the stated objective is met, that's good enough, right?

Medicine doesn't work that way. Medicine (ideally) isn't about just meeting the primary target, but about improving someone's health. Sometimes, that means doing nothing, and occasionally it even means letting people die rather than making the rest of their life miserable. Throughout the process, every decision is based on risk. Every drug has a risk of side effects, every test has a risk of being erroneous, and even if a doctor performs to the best standards available, there is always a risk that their patient will die.

That's why we have the FDA. That's why we run clinical trials. That's why medicine costs so damned much, because someone has to do the research and find out what the risks are, before asking patients to commit their well-being to a new device.

So can you tell me what the long-term effects of wearing this $45 printed device are?

Is it weighted such that it pulls muscles awkwardly, causing pain after a few months of continuous use? Does the constant contact with skin cause any nerve damage? If worn during physical activity, does it create an additional risk of shattering or otherwise injuring the wearer or others?

Can you show test results indicating otherwise, even when the user may not have it attached properly? What resources are available so the user can be certain they're properly fitting the device?

Approved medical devices are expensive because they meet all applicable regulations, and have documentation to prove it. They've been reviewed and tested by experts in the field, who understand exactly what subtle problems to look for that are likely to cause harmful effects in the future. One of the primary principles of medicine is to do no harm. Can you assure patients that this 3D-printed model will be harmless?

Yes, you can buy a beat-up used car for $500. It will still accomplish the obvious goal of transporting you from point A to point B, but it's not going to be as good in the long run as a more expensive one.

Enabling the video camera or microphone won't actually help. You'd need both to determine if the user was actually using their phone, and the processing cost needed to perform that kind of recognition on a large scale would be so ridiculously expensive that it would undermine any additional benefit from the research.

Statistically, a user waiting 60 seconds before searching is uninteresting. It's an outlier, so the developers really don't care what happened. Far more useful would be an observation that 75% of users use the center enter key to submit queries, 20% use the mouse, and 5% use the enter key on the numeric keypad, combined with an observation that 80% of mouse users move the cursor around after a period of inactivity before clicking. To a design team, that means that the users' attention has shifted to typing, and they've forgotten where the mouse is. Perhaps the mouse should highlight in some way when it first moves...

Similarly, the actual content of searches doesn't matter from a UI perspective. If you're having trouble searching for something, it doesn't matter if you're looking for instructions to knit a sweater for a kitten, or the mixture used in the Oklahoma City bombing. On the other hand, the exact search text is useful to the folks developing the search engine, so they can put the most relevant results at the top of the list. Of course, the search engine team doesn't care about how long it takes the user to find their mouse cursor.

This leads to one of the most entertaining aspects of the whole privacy debate. Gathering data is easy, but proper anonymizing is hard. Practically speaking, the analysis of the gathered data is often easier than ensuring that data is anonymous. For example, there are certain combinations of ZIP code and state that identify as few as 30 people within the continental United States, so any data set that includes both ZIP code and state is probably not sufficiently anonymous. It's far easier to simply collect only what's needed for a particular team, and make sure nothing else can be connected to that record. One database records that somebody searched for "geriatric german grandmas spanking spanish men", and another knows that user submitted a search with a mouse, and perhaps another knows that the user is located in western Iowa. With no way to connect the records, the business need is fulfilled and the user's privacy is effectively safe... but the legal disclosure will still simply say that the company collects all those things, stirring up a nice panic.