Why aren't nurses required to wear the same protective gear as the people cleaning up Ebola contaminated waste... fresh from the patient projectile vomit seems like a much higher risk than three day old bed sheets yet the requirements don't seem to be in place for full protective gear for nurses... I think if the CDC guidelines aren't updated to include full protective gear such as requiring full hazmat suits when in the isolation room with the patient, then we haven't learned anything.

And more importantly... who in their right mind still uses IE? Internet Explorer is currently blocked by my company's proxy server because it is considered so insecure and isn't likely to get unblocked any time soon.

The way these things are killed are to under budget them, then blame cost overruns as justification for canceling the project. Then everyone says they gave it a chance and it failed and no other similar projects get funding... There are many many varied interests that don't want this type of technological advancement.

the point was that fusion works. it is an observed physical phenomena. My idea for containing it is have a bunch of engineers design a reactor, have a bunch of other engineers and physicists validate the concept and then build it.

If their design and the math checks out, then it is easily worth $2.7 billion to validate the design by constructing a full size reactor. Heck add another billion to the budget just in case.

tell that to the sun

Libertarian Party does not equal libertarianism. I think the dilution of the word libertarian has been very deliberate. The fundamental ideal of libertarianism is simply the minimization of the threat or use of force in society.

There is no right for corporations to exist. There is a freedom of association, but that is of no specific form. Corporations are government contrived legal entities that are given rights by laws.

Not quite that clear. Congress makes all sorts of laws to enable companies to exist in the first place. If some of those laws enable companies to unreasonably stifle free speech then that would be a violation of the first amendment by proxy.

Not at all. Today's vast accumulations of wealth are enabled by government regulations that promote that concentration of wealth in private hands and under limited liability corporate entities. Government protections for private property should have some limits and there also must be limits on private security forces. I don't suggest higher taxes on the ultra rich as a libertarian ideal, or as a left leaning way to concentrate wealth in government hands which is no better than concentration of wealth in private hands. I would lower taxes on the merely rich and middle-class, it is at the extremes of wealth that go beyond mere luxury living that become about coercive and fuedal control of necessary resources. That needs to be addressed through government policy because Liberty shouldn't self destruct.

Let me try... The free market isn't a game someone wins it is the playing field and the rules of the game.

Not this libertarian. A free market requires freedom not feudalism. And the only way capitalism is an efficient system is when capital is spread out into as many hands as possible. Capitalism is meant as the economic form of democracy in the sense that many hands will most often make better decisions than central planners or kings. Free Market Capitalism isn't meant as a winner take all sport of who can accumulate the most capital in order to buy Hawaii... ie Larry's World. For Free Market Capitalism to work as a system there have to be high taxes on the most rich and/or on vast estates as a way to periodically re-level the playing field and keep some equity in the system.

In the case of nuclear power I think we need a government subsidized build out to insure longer term stability of our energy supply in a carbon free future rather than leave it up to short term whims of profiteers. With nuclear materials the risks and benefits are just too high to leave it to the free market alone.

It should not be considered unexpected.

Common Core is a set of curriculum standards not a detailed curriculum itself or the educational materials that go along with that. Having a Common Core shared by most states allows for more competition in educational products such as books, software, handouts and curriculum. This allows publishers to focus on quality rather than spending much time aligning their content to 50 different state standards. I believe the overall effect on education quality has been to raise it, but there are many more important factors to education than just the Common Core.

I think a debate over particular requirements is good and the Common Core should be updated to reflect best practices as much as possible and there should be room in state and Federal funding for new curriculum standards being adopted by schools or school districts in order to properly assess them, but for the most part what I've heard is sniping over examples of poor implementation of the Common Core which is more an issue of bad purchasing decisions by schools and individual school districts.

I think the Google rule is more a function of battery life since that kind of constant radio communication uploading video back to the cloud is a drain on batteries.

In terms of personal privacy or police state concerns... The police already have decent facial recognition technology available to police and government along with fixed cameras that are hard wired for power. Yes there is a performance issue if you try to match too many faces to too many faces, but as others have said this is subject to Moore's law and the price performance curve of Cloud Computing making this more attainable and more affordable starting with the police and government and hopefully working its way down to civilian use.

To me it is of greater concern if facial recognition technology remains only affordable and practical for the police and government when the technology could be of great help to pro democracy activists. If I were a pro democracy activist in a police state I would want access to facial recognition in order to identify known or suspected police agents that were trying to thwart, subvert or otherwise undermine political organizing activities. Basically all it takes is one paid operative within a peaceful protest to start throwing rocks at the police to justify a police crackdown as law and order rather than political repression. It has even been an issue in the US with paid police infiltrators caught being the ones inciting violence and criminality in order to justify the subsequent police crackdown. If that person could be identified ahead of time as a police operative, then organizers can intervene and expel the person from the protest before they start causing trouble.

Identifying and controlling the troublemakers that try to blend in and cause trouble would be a sea change in a groups ability to organize peaceful protest. Not all troublemakers are paid operatives, some people just like causing trouble. So the ability to take someone's picture, tag them as a potential or known troublemaker and then share that with other organizers would be of great help in countering and exposing that kind of government sponsored sabotage or even just criminal elements out to cause trouble for sport.