while i agree in part, anti-nuclear proponents have a point: nuclear energy is dangerous if not carefully managed and handled. Fukushima and Chernobyl are deadly enough reminders.

simple. because those persons can go to a third country and then travel from there. it creates an impetus for persons from West Africa to simply try to evade such controls. this would of course worsen the situation, not improve it.

the world as a whole needs to be sending more resources to West Africa to fight the epidemic *there*. that is the only thing that will help stop this from becoming an actual pandemic.

only a Sith deals in absolutes.

The current theory is that Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol contracted Ebola in a scrub room from another staff member who had been infected but wasn't showing enough outward signs of infection. hopefully the persons involved in transport will be more carefully screened before the flight.

NOTHING is 100% safe. all people can do is reduce risk as much as possible. that being said, the risk of this patient now spreading ebola to the U.S. is incredibly low.

also, 3.5 stripes is right. there's seriously no need to call anyone "stupid". wth.

and if your post is normal to you, i heavily suggest you look in a mirror and start wondering about the human race. the internet was not always this way. humankind can and should do better.

also, ad hominem attacks are debating fallacies for a reason. it means you have no point to back up. good work.

"bitch"? really? there's no need to call anyone that.

and perhaps that is the reason: the flight crew considered the tweet intimidation or threatening. 14 CFR 125.328 prohibits anyone from interfering with the crew: "No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part."

the tweet identified someone by name. rather than taking it up with Southwest corporate or something more measured, the guy called out a specific person. that can be intimidating as hell. there are more reasonable ways to lodge a complaint, and that ain't one of them.

my guess is that things were not as one sided as this story leads to believe.

just because a passenger is a customer that should be treated with respect does NOT mean that the passenger doesn't have to follow crewmember instructions. if the passenger was being particularly difficult because he had his two snowflakes in tow and did not want to abide by Southwest's procedures, he should not be allowed on the plane.

given what's happened recently in aviation, one would think safety is important. safety shouldn't be shrugged off merely because a passenger whines when he doesn't get out of the ordinary preferential treatment.

a Senator who might actually do good for the general public for once and not solely for a limited cadre of corporations? no, there's no way someone like that won't make it far in DC!

awesome. no counterargument, so you just resort to insults instead. you know why ad hominem is considered a debating fallacy, right?

i also noticed that my comment that started all of this got modded down as flamebait. huh. well, good luck figuring out why sexual harassment and gender inequities continue to happen in science. i'm gonna go watch some Neil DeGrasse Tyson some more, cause he seems to get it more than anyone here.

good. dismiss the comment with an insult rather than tackle the underlying issue. methinks you should return to Tumblr or Reddit or whereever it is you learned basic internet.

this is not new. comments about how a person looks, or comments about how men and women "think differently", are in fact sexual harassment. it's not just opinion, it's scientifically observed and recorded fact. such comments are used daily to continue the kind of harassment that goes on in scientific fields.

but ok, that's a "Tumblr" position so obviously you win. sorry, for a second i thought I was on Slashdot, where rational and well thought out argument was the baseline.

it's hard to take such posts seriously when they fail to recognize that "trifling transgressions" are actually terrible in their own right. comments about physical beauty and cognitive differences are part of the power play that IS sexual harassment. it is wrong and it has to stop.

i fully agree with the troubling implications that the U.S. can subpoena any information regardless of where it physically resides in the world, but the headline is woefully inaccurate. i thought this was Slashdot, not BuzzFeed. very disappointed here.

i'm sorry, i must have missed the part where you proposed a unique and never-before-tried solution. before it just sounded like you wanted to let the corporations sort it out without regulation in the "free" market. yeah, that certainly hasn't been done before, to no malicious effect against regular people whatsoever.

i've been around a while. watched various corporations dump all over people in terms of pay, pollution, discrimination, gentrification, and most recently, cutting up the internet into fiefdoms and, just recently, demanding that people pay twice for the same connection. so you'll understand when i say, an unregulated free market doesn't work. it ultimately boils down to how many people can make as much money as they can in as little time as they can and damn the consequences to others.

reducing government ability to regulate only allows corporates like Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, BP, Walmart, McDonalds, Monsanto, et al. to destroy ordinary people just to make a buck. excuse me if i don't put much faith in such companies to miraculously realize that they can treat people well without regulations or laws to tell them as such. if history has shown us anything, they DON'T.

the answer isn't just government regulation. it's also getting the populace to work with government and to vote jokers out when government also overreaches. in this case, we don't have enough people telling government to tell the corps to knock it off. and people can't tell the corps to knock it off directly because they've created a situation that is not a competitive "free" market where people can choose with their dollars.

the answer is not a binary "all government or no government." it. is. a. BALANCE. of the two.

if you're claiming that i haven't the years of experience in this, i would turn that around on you. trying to pass off a black and white binary as the only possible solutions speaks of incredible naiveté!