I recall seeing that death rate from gunshot wounds is about 1 in 2 for rifle and 1 in 7 for handgun. Ebola death rate is what, about 2 in 3? So which one should we restrict?? /sarcasm

Like locks in general keep honest men honest...

Figure if someone really wants to steal 'em, well, that's why they're insured.

How about letting individual channels choose if they want to go subscription? Cuz what a subscription model will cut down, drastically in the case of casual-content videos, is the impulse watcher who generates ad revenue whether they really care enough about your video to watch it or not.

Considering that he discovered the virus and has established expertise, I'm inclined to give his opinion a lot more weight, including where he thinks it could go.

Really?

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-...

It Depends. New plate every year used to be fairly standard practice, but that was a Long Time Ago.

Back in the olden days, Montana used to sell you new plates every year, which is quite the nuisance. This went away in the 1970s (I believe in 1975 since I recall changing the plate on my first car only a couple times), and tho current law says plates shall be replaced every five years, I suspect that's gone by the wayside with the switch to a one-time, permanent registration for vehicles 11 years or older.

At least as of 1984, California sold you one plate (which could be transferred to a new vehicle) and an annual sticker.

Presumably anything can be cut, given a hard enough blade, but are those "recommended locks" actually any better than the cheap standard locks for the job of discouraging a bungler armed with a hammer?

[The main thing I use padlocks for is to make stealing my trailers too inconvenient for the casual thief.]

I've read Amundsen's account. The problem with Scott's party wasn't the type of food (Amundsen's party largely ate their surplus sled dogs on the return route, which was planned as a way of not having to haul as much weight on the return leg) but that Scott simply didn't bring =enough= food, and they were unable to find some of their caches on the return route. More than that, their clothing was inadequate, especially their footgear.

Yeah, I remember someone mentioned how requiring bicycle helmets correlates with an increase in serious car-vs-bike accidents, presumably because of the false sense of security (but also probably because it impacts peripheral vision -- we use that far more than we're consciously aware).

Or as someone's sig says, "Safety is a tyrant's tool; no one can oppose safety."

With enough such tools, it becomes possible to oppress the citizenry in complete "safety".

Safer is good (and more information via research is good too), but I think what will happen is more use against the public for more trivial reasons, because after all, it's "safe".

Kinda like how pepper spray and tasers were safer than being shot, and LEOs became inclined to use them against the most trivial or even no resistance.

If the choices boil down to "wall them off and let them die" or "spread the epidemic far and wide" -- yeah, I know which one I'd choose.

So far it appears that the more treatment is attempted, the worse it gets, because the caregivers are at such risk, and some will need treatment in turn... rinse and repeat until there are no caregivers left.

Quarantine may not be kind to the victims, but spreading it around so everyone can share isn't kind to anyone.

I suggest sending Air Force One to Liberia, with Obama aboard. Wonder what tune he'd be whistling then...

Even if that worked, high doses of vitamin C can cause bleeding. Hmmm... maybe it was the gun after all.

And if an individual's immune response is slow or poor, there may not BE any antibodies until too late for the test to catch.

The obvious solution is a 4 week quarantine (to make sure every case is discovered -- a few may incubate beyond the usual) everyone who's been in West Africa.

This isn't "denying a citizen entry"; it's delaying it due to sheer common sense.

Better, tho, would be to quarantine the affected parts of West Africa as best we can; let people in, but don't let them back out. Because what we're doing now is pretty much guaranteeing ebola's spread.

You could also quickly and easily negate any sort of protest... including protests against using chemical restraint on the public.

Who are the "bad guys" is generally dependent on what laws you have and who enforces them. YOUR side won't always be in charge.