And it will take just as long to get it in Austin. The summary says that this was announced back in April, but it was announced (and the linked story is from) April 2013. It's been 16 months to learn that in two months neighborhoods with the same density as mine, but in another part of town, can sign up for fiber. They'll get it some time after that. It seems unlikely to be before 2017 in my neighborhood now.
The weight of cars has increased dramatically due to all the new safety and comfort features. The fact average mileage has improved too impressive.
Go find the gross wt of those 80s cars and compare weight vs power vs airbags vs road noise vs electronic options.
The reason the flu is so scary is because it could mutate into something that kills 70% of the time. And that's just as likely (or moreso) than ebola mutating into something that's airborne. See how easy it is to use that logic both ways?
Anything that might kill us has two parts:
1. Chance of it happening to us.
2. Chance of it killing us if it happens.
Our powerful pre-frontal cortex should multiply the two, and realize that something with a 0.0001% chance of happening and a 70% chance of killing us is no more or less life-threatening than something with a 70% chance of happening and a 0.0001% chance of killing us. But our primitive hunter-gatherer brains increase our fear of rare but occasional events, and downplay our fear of regular events, so we distort that curve.
To pull a few more statistics out of my ass, I bet there are many people who demand the government do everything they can (including suppressing civil liberties like freedom of travel) to protect citizens from ebola, while they simultaneously hate and condemn the government for its efforts to restrict smoking. And I bet more of those people will die (at an otherwise young and healthy age) from smoking than ebola.
>> If they work so much now so they don't have time to find someone, is this really the solution to the correct problem?
Why do you presume they haven't yet "found the right man"? Maybe they just don't want to have kids yet, but realize that it's far better/cheaper/safer to extract eggs at 24 instead of 38?
That's a question you would need to ask each individual woman. And respect each answer either way.
No kidding. Those burning fuels will kill more animals in the long run than the
See my reply to the other poster.
Licking was a comical exaggeration. But curtains are sufficient to separate adult patients and prevent cross contamination, no "separate rooms" necessary. Families with children are a bigger concern but ultimately the safest and most practical course is to keep those kids with their parents, and keep them all at home.
Humans instinctually fear rare events significantly more than common events, even if those common events are more likely to result in danger. It made sense as a hunter-gatherer to run from the rare and strange, but today the instinct is often just lower brain messing with our more-advanced rational thought processes. It's why the average person fears plane crashes far more than car crashes, despite car crashes being statistically a more likely way to die.
Things that might kill you have two parts - the chance of this affecting you, and the chance of the affect being death. People inflate the first for rare events, and downplay it for common events, despite science and statistics to the contrary.
>> Put them all in the same room? Maybe only one or two have ebola. Can't put them in one room, then they'll all get ebola if a few had it.
Not unless they lick each other's bodily fluids.
Limited liability is a privilege, not a right. Think of anything else corporations today demand - including their new so-called "free speech" - and realize that all of those things can be negotiated away to those voluntarily seeking this limited liability.
A corporation enjoys special tax and legal status not available to individuals. In exchange for that status, the government can and should demand that they give up their so-called "right" to free speech (the same way non-profit groups can be restricted so long as they wish to retain their non-profit status).
The law should also be changed to make it easier to pierce the corporate veil and prosecute executives, employees, and board members. The defense of "I didn't know what the other guys were doing so I couldn't see the whole picture" should be evidence of conspiracy, not a defense.
Punishment for corporations found guilty of crimes should be more than token fines. Yes, non-employee shareholders of publicly-traded companies enjoy limited liability for those companies' actions, but they do have liability up to the value of the stock. No, it doesn't make sense to give corporations the "death penalty" very often, so long as the company had some legal business, but the government should be better able to seize assets, primarily stock and options, especially from executives. The public will demand more accountability from the companies they own if they know that corporate crime will more often cost them their ownership directly, not just as a blip in profit.
Because government in this country is so limited and the benefits of monopoly (or, more likely duopoly) so immense, corporates naturally grow in size until they are "too big to fail". Again, as with free speech in exchange for special tax status, corporations do not have the right to grow so big or become so vital to the economy that their collapse would lead to destabilization of the country. The government should regularly be reviewing this and taking actions to break those companies up, or prevent the mergers that lead to this situation in the first place. Maximizing efficiency and profits through consolidation when times are good leads to increased instability when times are bad. It is the government's job to regulate the economy to ensure the general welfare, and that includes smoothing both the highs and lows.
While I am not a medical professional, someone out there could argue that a drug designed to prevent more of your healthy X cells from being infected is a vaccine, even if some of your existing X cells are already infected. Substitute white blood, red blood, brain, heart, bone, etc. for X depending on the disease.
Humans are not homogenous and not every cell of an infected person is infected. While such a drug should probably be called both a treatment and a vaccine, language evolves and if people start calling drugs that prevent any or further infection "vaccines", so be it.
HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!
