Alternately he is a US citizen (a lot of ISIS fighters are from western countries). Gets on a plane from a country bordering Syria (say Turkey, which has quite a pours border atm) and lands directly in a major US population centre (say New York). He now can very effectively spread the disease. It is also worth noting that air travel is a brilliant way to spread a disease (hundreds of people trapped on a plane with recycled air for 12hours)
Now a better question is, realistically is it sensible to introduce extra security measures to respond to this? The answer is most likely no.

I wonder how familiar the readers using the kindles where with the device. I imagine that if you are using it for the first time it would be somewhat distracting until you get used to it.

No the control experiment did not get the same results. An alternate version of the "drive" that did no comply with the theory it was supposed to work by did. they also tested a control:

He's at a bad school. As someone currently studying CS or first year course is in C, which a bit of very basic assembler thrown in on the side. Assembler is compulsory in second year, as is perl, and java.

UNSW teaches C, and OS, and microprocessors (which I belive includes assembler). You do Java in second or third year.

The evidence that most strongly points to the Russian sponsored separatists is that several social media accounts owned by that group posted that they had shot down a Ukrainian military transport at the time and place of the crash, and then quickly removed them. And this has been independently verified. (And given this I can accept that it was also a mistake, because it would be pretty stupid to post otherwise).
FYI the plane altered its course because of severe weather it was avoiding and was still flying in the approved corridor. I was in the air on the day in question in a nearby area, and the weather defiantly warranted this.

You know that requesting asylum is a legally defined channel regardless of how they arrived right? Or at least that is what we agreed to under international law?

Apart from the legal duty that our government committed to uphold, and our moral responsibility as human beings. If you disagree with this you should lobby the government to withdraw from these treaties instead of making us look bad on the international stage, but considering the government currently has to lie that they are doing this to "save lives" as supposed to pleasing bigots like you I suspect you won't be very successful.

Yes and soon so will the rest of the world if we continue to do this. We depend on the rest of the world for things like trade and defence. But more importantly the ends do not justify the means, we are not a country that condones torture and show trials.

It may have arisen due to the fact that our government signed binding legal agreements with the rest of the world saying that they would do so. Or maybe some people actually have this thing called morals.

Handing over people to be tortured would be at the top of the list. Quickly followed by housing people in inhumain conditions where asylum seekers are regularly beaten, and one was murdered by the guards. Illegally detaining people without trial or appeal would also fall into that category, as would disappearing people and trying to cover up the evidence.

And most other countries can say that same, but all those 1%s add up.
Anyone with a moral compass should be terribly ashamed of how the government we elected is treating refugees.

No that wouldn't be politicly viable, instead we get "direct action" which by all independent projections will achieve approximately 0% of our emission target.

Take a look at the first preference vote, Labor lost significantly more than the Liberals gained. To me that would imply that they won due to people voting out the previous government rather than voting for the current. (Anecdotally a large number of people I've spoken to have also said that they voted for this reason, and were to scared to vote for minor parties incase we got a hung parliment)

actually until pretty recently Australia used soccer as well (it has now been phased out officially, but sadly some people still use it)

Actually whilst this is written by someone clearly biased, it does explain quite reasonably the point I am trying to make (and in a clearer manor then the orignal article): Wikipedia: Talk: Historicity of Jesus FAQ

Thank you, it appears that my assumption that an wikipedia article on such a controversial topic would have been reasonably neutral (or biased away from a Christian perspective) was mistaken. However, from the talk it still seems to appear that there is reasonable evidence for Jesus's existence, although not a consensus as the original article implied.

At the time or my original comment the the main article used the term "scholars of antiquity", which in the context would be the the relevant majority of historians. It has since emerged that the evidence to support that claim is less then originally represented in the articles (see the comment below yours).
However it appears that the majority of scholars who have studied the issue (which appears to mainly be bible scholars, so must be taken with a grain of salt) do support this issue, but not many historians have studied it. I would still argue however that there it is still unreasonable to claim that jesus did not exist when there is a reasonably strong body of evidence (as listed in the wikipedia article) to support his existence, and little to no statements from historians to the contrary.