US-Americans would NEVER do such things.

They'll get some of those famous non-US-Americans (or US-non-Americans) from Gitmo to do the job for them. With implausible deniability, of course.

Whose fundamental legal principles? Do you misunderstand the concept of a sovereign nation? Each nation is different. And each nation has the right to be different, to the extent to which they can defend their difference with thermonuclear weapons. Or weaponised Ebola. Or their weapon(s) of choice.

Half of them run Windows in a VM (or otherwise emulate windows) so they can run IE, for the piles of sites written as IE-only.

I can't remember when I met a site that didn't work and told me to switch to using IE. In fact, it's pretty rare to find a site with obviously borked functionality.

Examples? Seriously, enough people use non-IE browsers (whatever it is on Macs [not used one for years] / Chrome / Firefox / Opera) and have done for getting on for a decade now that any new site has no choice but to work cross-platform.

If you're going to bring up the example of your bank, then by implication you're talking about a bank that doesn't update it's security programming for years at a stretch, and that's probably synonymous with a bank you shouldn't be trusting with your money. (I do my banking by going into the branch. It's safer and easier.)

$1 per year might be enough. Maybe they'd just have to watch one of those ads once a year that Youtube puts in front of a Beyoncé music video, and that would cover it.

It would take a lot more than a dollar to make me watch a Beyoncé video.

He comes to the USA to do some installation work of the product that was developed by his team in his country. How is this at all a sane idea that he now needs to be paid something entirely different based on the country where he is doing installation rather than what his actual salary is back in the country where he was hired and where he has his actual job?

Speaking as someone who moves around the world to operate software, train users and install and maintain equipment which my company develops here in the UK, no, I don't expect my pay rate to vary much from one country to another. There are local variations (dislocation pay rates if I'm more than 2 time zones away from home, which makes contacting the wife harder ; hardship rates for when working in disease-ridden hell holes with a good chance of being killed on the way to work ; overtime rates for more than 40 days a quarter away from home) which add up to about a 30% variation in pay rate from one job to the next.

There are, however plenty of employers in this business who do deliberately hire from the cheapest countries they can, and pay discriminatorily low pay rates as they move those staff around the world. We do try to harm them, our competitors, by hiring their best staff on UK contracts. If that means that we pay them like local maharajahs, we don't care. We still hire them out at UK rates, and shipping them around the world is a negligible cost (compared to finding the right people. Why should we care which continent they live on? That would be as discriminatory as hiring a Brit and paying him on a Thai rate just because he live there with his Thai family, even if he's working in Angola.

IF the company in question is based in India and this is what they're doing, then there's no problem with that. If the company is HQ'd elsewhere, then that's the rates they should be paying their staff on.

(Incidentally, our typical working day is 16 hours for seniors, 12 hours for juniors ; that's 112 and 84 hours per week respectively ; obviously in a crisis, you do what's necessary to not die, but generally that's not more than a few days of overtime.)

Disclaimer - I'm talking about Scottish law ; I am not sure of the state of English law. I'm sure that Asda's Scottish advocates do know and can inform their English barrister associates which bits of Asda HQ's English laws are not going to work in Scotland.

If you can handle the civil disorder charges afterwards, you know since it is in a public place...

No, it's not in a public place. It's on private property (a supermarket) to which the public are *granted* access but do not have a *right* to access. Which is why they have to employ security guards who do not have the powers of the police (they can't touch you, except in self defence, nor detain you except under the normal conditions of a citizen's arrest). You do not have the right to go there - the store can refuse you access and demand that you leave (and you're then committing a public order offence if you don't then leave the private property).

If the store management object to you stripping your clothes off, then they can request that you leave. But they've invited you onto their property and if they don't like you stripping off and dancing naked down the aisles, it's for them to deal with, not the Police.

The boundaries are subtle, but they are there.

if you take off your cloths inside the booth when the scan is taken.

What, if anything, is to stop you from taking your clothes off outside the booth? It doesn't have to be on the street, you know.

And who would want a 9" pianist figurine anyway?

In a world where the Baby Jesus Butt Plug is a real artefact, and given the frequent public redneck masturbation on Slashdot over the buttocks of Obama, I can guess that slightly modified 9in Obama-dildoes are going to sell well.

The same tests on DNA from another man from the same era and locale but from a different Y-haplogroup

Where's the sample?

In archaeology (and palaeontology in general), you play the hand you're dealt. (Though you can try to stack the deck a little by choosing where to dig.)

maybe I have played/watched too much resident evil

Maybe you have. (What's "resident evil"?) Unfortunately, this is not a game, and people are at risk. I've a colleague working in the area at the moment, and I'm due to be going back there in about April ; my neighbour's husband is worried about relatives who live in Ghana and his colleagues in Senegal.

I really think your concern about your conspiracy theories are a bit over-blown.

Note that the NewLink vaccine donated by Canada has demonstrated Ebola-like symptoms in many of the people who've been inoculated in Phase I trials, so it's entirely possible Canada Health has been giving those people

Hmmm, I wonder if, after vaccination with this (or one of the other in-development vaccines and treatments), the patient will then always return positive on the piss-in-a-pot type tests for Ebola which are also under development?

Of course, if they do return positive because of the vaccination, then they'll not be prevented from travelling on that basis - they show positive because of the vaccination, and the vaccination is reported in their vaccination passport (do you carry your vaccination passport along with your identification passport? I do, in the same wallet.). So they'll just get waved through any security check for perfectly good reasons.

Will this vaccine against this strain of Ebola protect against the 6 or 7 other strains of Ebola? Oh, now that's a question whose answer would be really quite important to know.

But Slashdot demands immediate action now, regardless of unimportant questions like that. Oh Noes!

It definitely muddies the study up somewhat,

I'll translate that into statistician speak : more patients die than absolutely necessary.

I'm not trying to make you feel bad - it's just a nasty situation.

Try one of the standard psychological tests : there is a run-away train on a line running towards a car with a family of five children in a car stuck on the tracks ; there is a set of points (errr, EN_US : switch??) which you can use to divert the runaway train into a siding where it will impact a wheelchair-bound man stuck in the crossing there. This is your situation. What do you do?

Nature doesn't care about how uncomfortable it makes you feel.

As I understood it - vacine - post infection is a moderately effective treatment

We don't know that for this disease. It is the case for some diseases, but ... I'll spell it out :
W_E
D_O
N_O_T
K_N_O_W
T_H_A_T ...
And that is one of the things that we need to find out.

I still emotionally struggle with the clinical trial approach of giving half the participants a placebo to see how many of them die vs. the ones who were given the drug under study

You don't, generally, give the patients a placebo ; you give them the standard treatment. Generally, you're not interested in comparing whether your new treatment is better than nothing ; you're interested in finding out if your new treatment is better than the standard treatment.

And as your results (deaths, or whatever other end state you've defined, for example a 20% reduction in tumour size) come in, you assess the likelihood of the test treatment being better than the standard. If you reach a pre-defined level of confidence one way or the other then you switch people to the better treatment, but not until you reach that level of confidence.

Unfortunately, for Ebola, the best treatment at the moment is supportive care (fluids, essentially), with about a 30-40% survival rate.

Struggle with it emotionally. It's hard. That's why I gave that career path a body swerve when offered it (plus I hate working in offices).