In science fiction, you generally have some quantified differences from the real physical world, and then you play within the boundaries of the ramifications of that.

In fantasy, you don't bother with any of that.

Many of the great science fiction classics were written to criticize the world we live in without being straightforward enough to be censored, and pitch different social structured and value structures.

Heinlein and Gordon R Dickson come to mind immediately.

You should read Niven. I recommend Neutron Star, Ringworld and The Integral Trees.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre...
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/artic...
https://simple.wikipedia.org/w...

Seems to indicate that the bat species can be a host, but doesn't show the symptoms. Studies have also shown antibodies to previous strains of ebola in the areas where the matching outbreaks occurred.

Well, lets take an example. I think most people who are well read in the genre would agree that Larry Niven writes "Hard" SF. So... Ringworld.

Ringworld, at it's core, was about "What if we had access to an impossibly strong substance. How might that change everything."

The setting was an extrapolation on that one question. But, it's not about the possibilities of technology, because there is no such substance. It's an impossible technology, a technology based on an ever so slightly different set of universal rules.

But the story was a human story.

Science fiction has never been about predicting future technology.

Science fiction is about considering and exploring the human ramifications when certain aspects of reality are changed.

It's worse than that though -- many of these areas mistrust the doctors and also believe that the only way for a person's soul to be safe after death is with a ritual burial that involves physical contact with the dead. That's why they're hiding many of the dead, and why they have the "worst case" scenario in the first place.

The interesting thing about ebola is that it is aggressive enough that it generally DOES burn itself out, counting on other carriers (appears to be fruit bats from latest studies) to incubate the disease until the next outbreak in primates.

Whoops, sorry, I think I was mixing up sales tax and income tax. Discussion of the profit is totally an income tax thing. I don't have any sense of how sales tax applies.

Netflix doesn't allow Canadians to access Netflix USA -- they instead have a service called Netflix Canada that is only available to Canadians. Where this crosses the border is that they bank through a Canadian bank to process orders, therefore they are operating out of Canada.

Regulatory overreach would be the CRTC going after Netflix USA for something they're doing in the US; this is trade happening in Canada, so that's why they're involved.

That said, the CRTC likely doesn't have the right to step in here in the first place, even though they can, and have not been slapped down by the government in the past for doing similar things. That's because they're supposed to regulate broadcasting; the rest of their remit is on very shaky ground/legislation.

The interesting thing here is that while the CRTC clarified the definition of broadcasting here, they've also expanded their role beyond broadcasting. What Netflix is challenging here (rightly) is whether they actually have the right to do so. I'd say they don't, but the government has given them a LOT of leeway over the years.

They're not legislating anyone; they don't have that power. What they're trying to do is assert commecial control over Netflix Canada who isn't backing up their claims with actual numbers.

CRTC is very much involved in the Canadian part of the Internet, just like they are in Canadian imports of other things such as optical media and digital storage in general.

In case you didn't get it yet...

This is about Canadian companies (not Netflix USA, who Netflix doesn't let Canadians use) fighting for control over who gets to decide how/how much Canadian content is made available in Canada, and how.

You normally don't need to, because you're not profiting on the items being sold. The only exception would be if you were selling collectibles or some investment item that went up in price, and that's rarely sold at a yard sale.

You probably mean the Broadcasting Act, which establishes its subject-matter jurisdiction as follows:

You can only watch Corner Gas a few hundred times before it gets boring.
 
We have Just for Laughs. Canadian comedy is the best on the planet. Why would we need anything Americans make?

Really, shipping bulk raw materials is equivalent to shipping finished goods, in your world? Finished goods are usually predominantly waste space, are full of packaging, have to be handled gingerly, and need to be distributed to individuals in different locations. Raw materials are packed together as densely as possible, little to no packaging, can be thrown around, and go straight to just a couple manufacturers. And when import taxes come into play, it's even more extreme, since those are generally based on the price of what you're importing.

You know, I was just thinking, wouldn't it be possible to make a rapid 3d *moulder*, for those bulk parts that you don't require as much precision on (aka, chair)? Picture a stretchable half-mould surface, on a large bed (maybe 50x100cm for a home edition, larger for a workshop) with a grid of little pistons on it that can change it's shape (nothing too high res, maybe one every square centimeter). Picture a second half-mould positioned just opposite, such that the two elements can close off off a 3d space. Such a system could virtually instantly form whatever shape you want, spray the inside with release agent, pipe in a thermoplastic or thermoset resin or wax (for lost wax casting) or confectionary or whatnot, let it set / cure it, and then open up. The pistons could then reshape to ready for whatever shape you want next. If such a moulder would you mess with the two halves individually after they've formed their shapes, you could use it as a composite layup, too. Disposable liners for the mould could be used if sticking / damaging the adjustable mould surface would be a problem.

Wouldn't that be getting awfully close to the potential that mass manufacture currently has? Casting as many times as you want and only having to wait for the product to set? Sure, you'd be limited to relatively simple geometries, but if you need anything more complex, that's what regular 3d printing is for. Hollow shapes could be handled in a two-stage process, first printing out the inner, releasing it, securing it in place, respraying both it and the mould with release agent, then printing out the desired part. I'd think a well-designed moulder could handle that without human intervention.

Hmm, come to think of it, it might even be possible to make a direct metal casting moulder. I know there are high temperature flexible fabrics that can withstand the temperature of most molten metals (various ceramic fiber ones), although I'm not sure whether there are any with sufficient flex for such a role. Oh, hey, carbon fiber and graphite felt are used as a flexible insulating material , that'd probably do the trick.