While callous, the above comment has a point.

This new "dating site" system is going to make the whole set of men the women browse considerably more "beta" as a whole.

BTW, guys who gotta call other guys "beta" are likewise beta themselves. If you are alpha, you know it, and everybody else knows it and it doesn't have to be said.

"Behaving like a jerk" and "OMG he's so cute" can be valid responses to the EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR. The match up between whatever trips her trigger and what he's doing make it "good" or what she doesn't like about him (her friend told her he's unemployed) plus the same behavior makes him "creepy."

This reality stems from biology, women as the investors and men as the spreaders of DNA.

Which is funny, because even the younger crowd of females on Tinder typically say something about "soulmates" or "not DTF" or whatever rejection of casual hookups they care to add. Then, many of them can be worked into casual hookups with proper application of game. (Which I don't have, btw, just noted this from watching others.)

They should add a moderator ability to both men and women. Sort of like Slashdot. You get a few mod points to use to vote up or vote down the behavior of the person's interactions. Then you can set their messages to whatever threshold of moderation you want. "Only show me messages from people modded on average above 3.5"

No kidding. Having a steady stream of people interested in you seems like being "In the drivers's seat" to me. What exactly is the problem?

Women just don't want to go through the work of filtering (or briefly looking at a profile in order to decide not to respond or block the sender) and this requires a whole new method?

How about women accept that dating is work, even if you are a woman?

Wow.. i love how you worked the koch bros in there like it actually means something. But i'm not so sure you beed to force others into conserving abd sequestoring. It would appear that you are simply too selfish to go the extra mile for someone else who might not want to jump in the band wagon.

So qhy exactly is it that you think everyone else has to jump through your hoops too?

Actually, i started this off a little faceteously with the emphasis on someone not wanting to harm others. Eveeything you said is absolutely true for soneone acting in ill will.

I did however think that people nott qanting to harm others would act in a sense of self preservation and to the betterment of others. If what has been revieled turns out to be true, my faith in humans is not displaced but my assumptions that government and health care people would have a clue turns out to be completely incorect. This guy went to the hospital vomiting and told them where he had been citing concerns about ebola. They gave him some antibiotics and sent him home where he though it would be wise to play with kids or something. An absolute failure worse than the secret service allowing a fence jumper into the whitehouse or convicted felons serve as contract security agents.

To this day, they haven't even quarentined the people he is known to have been in cintact with. Instead, they are watching them or something stupid. You are correct- it simply won't work that way.

So what are you doing about it?

I mean if everyone who was worried about AGW reduced and sequestored carbon, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Why is it that others need to be forced into it too?

You are right. There is always the north korean style, the chinese style, vietnamese/cambodian style, german style, and a few others i missed.

Communism has and likely will always devolve into oppresive styles of ruling over the people with brushes against mass murder because everyone has to either agree with the results of it, be forced to agree with it, or eliminated from innfluencing it at all. Every single conversion to communism we have witnessed has either mass murdered some of the people who rejected it or imprisoned them. This is just history and no one has ever pointed to anytjing that would change it in the future. There has however been plenty of people claiming it was never true communism and thinking it would somehow be different if we just tried again. Unfortunately, everyone looks like a scottsman to them.

I'm sort of at a loss here. Why would a random person think they have ebola? The CDC has ready contacted the people possibly exposed. Either way, yes, they should contact a medical professsionsl as they have all or should have all been contacted and are aware of the threat and symptoms.

But thats largely neither here nor there. The entire point of my comment was about people knowingly in a possible situation where they could have been infected.If they are one of the, assuming they value their life or even the lives of others, do yoh think they would want to know if it was ebola or just not care and get some antibiotics?

Exactly. Get the people to want something they have previously rejected and witnessed most previous attempts turn into violent oppressive regimes that failed to progress much through fear and contrived disdain.

All hail the stupidity of the crowd. Er i mean the will of the people.

How else can we get rid of capitalism and institute communism against the will of the majority of people?

It doesn't have to be alien like.

The main purpose was to determine if the enviroment was hostile to them. Of course they did other crap but think about where we need to know if the enviroment is hostile.

Think off fire response, motor vehicle accidents, threat assesments for dignitaries, yet another way to find electronic listening devices, and so on.

Of course it might need a little work before it is ready and reliable but there is a use that may be right around tbe corner- litteraly

Any other type illness i could agree with you. But these people would have known they were in areas that could have exposed them. They would know what to watch for (symptoms) and they would know the disease is a painfull death if not caught early.

So unless getting ebola and infecting others annd dieing was their intent, i suspect they would get checked out for signs of jetlag let alone one of the documented symptoms. If it wasn't so deadly- unlike varients of the flu, i could agree.

It would seem that the incubation period can be several weeks but the risk of spreading is only there once symptoms appear. I imagine a person who is not intending on doing ill will with the disease could self monitor and quarantine himself if needed.

It's not like they will let ISIS or ISAL or whatever infect anyone and send them over with the disease to spread it across all populated western areas or anything. And if they tried, they would be captured at the airport or border crossing by the professional TSA.

Wait, maybe they should quarantine some people.