Because a large portions of Americans are obese, having the iPhone in such cramped conditions under extreme pressure for extended periods of time is causing the issue.

Not sure what the solution is but I'm sure Apple will have a fix out in no time.

.. By the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, the chamber walls add no net power in. It just goes right back out through your boundary again. How many times must I explain this to you? .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-23]

If radiation enters the boundary and goes right back out, we need to account for it entering and exiting. That's why there are separate terms for "power in" and "power out". For instance:

There is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter. It's against the second law of thermodynamics, and it violates the S-B radiation law: (e * s) * (Ta^4 - Tb^4). [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-23]

That's exactly the equation Jane should be using to calculate electrical heating power! It has separate terms for "power in" and "power out" so it can describe power entering and exiting a boundary. If Jane would use that equation, he'd honestly be only saying there is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter.

Instead, Jane insists that electrical heating power = (e * s) * (Ta^4). Jane's ridiculous equation doesn't just say there is no net "radiative power in" from cooler to hotter. Jane's wrongly saying the source absorbs no radiative power at all.

There is nothing more to say. You have been proved wrong. You can write books about your nonsense "physics", and it won't make your bullshit theory any more correct. .. The textbooks all say you're wrong. Goodbye. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-23]

So Jane refuses to retract his absurd claim that view factors vary as the radius ratio, which violates conservation of energy. A cynic might have expected as much, given how Jane flagrantly violates conservation of energy by incoherently ignoring radiative power passing in through a boundary around the heat source.

.. I honestly -- and I mean that: honestly -- don't believe you could be this stupid and possess a degree in physics. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

.. I only replied on the off-chance that you really were ignorant and could be educated. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-20]

Jane's campaign of educating ignorant, stupid physicists about physics has only just begun. Jane still needs to educate Prof. Brown and Lonny Eachus still needs to educate Dr. Joel Shore.

Then, Jane/Lonny Eachus needs to educate the "ignorant" and "stupid" American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society.

.. the CO2-warming model rely on the concept of "back radiation", which physicists (not climate scientists) have proved to be impossible. I'm happy to leave actual climate science to climate scientists. But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]

.. I consult "the experts". When it's a question of physics, for example, I look to references from physicists, not climatologists. After all, physicists are "the experts" when it comes to physics. [Jane Q. Public, 2013-11-15]

All those professional physics societies agree that our CO2 emissions are causing warming, which Slayers like Jane/Lonny Eachus deny. Jane's claimed that physicists are "the experts" when it comes to physics, and that Jane "takes the physicists' word for it." I'm skeptical.

.. Be a man for a change and admit it. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

.. Be a man and admit the truth.. You've been owned, man. BE enough of a man to admit it. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-19]

Jane/Lonny Eachus wins a silver medal in psychological projection for telling me to "be a man for a change" but Slayer CEO John O'Sullivan still takes the gold.

.. I set out to have a scientific discussion, not to argue about your religion. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-21]

As Jane expands his endless campaign to educate ignorant, stupid physicists about physics, Jane might set out to have a scientific discussion without writing things like this:

".. non-person.. disingenuous and intended to mislead .. he is either lying .. dishonest .. intellectually dishonest .. intellectually dishonest .. Khayman80's intellectual dishonesty .. Pathetic. .. you've come out the loser in every case.. you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. .. cowardice .. odious person .. you look like a fool .. utterly and disgustingly transparent .. Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell. .. You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about. .. Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit. .. spewing bullshit .. You're making yourself look like a fool. .. Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. .. a free lesson in humility.. you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter. .. Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit. .. if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume) .. I wouldn't mind a bit if the whole world saw your foolishness as clearly as I do. .. stream of BS.. idiot .. Your assumptions are pure shit. .. I'm done babysitting you.." [Jane Q. Public]

"Jesus, you're a dumbshit. .. your adolescent, antisocial behavior .. keep making a fool of yourself. .. you're being such a dumbass .. your analysis of it is a total clusterfuck. .. you're so damned arrogant you think I'm the one being stupid. .. you were too goddamned stupid .." [Jane Q. Public]

".. what a despicable human being you are .. after you are gone, I will quite happily reveal those things and your "legacy" won't be quite what you thought it was. .. get stuffed. I am far beyond tired of your incessant BULLSHIT. If you want to contemplate something before you die, I would suggest starting with meditating on why you have been such an incorrigibly rude, insufferable human being .. You'd at least expect a "physicist" to get that much right. .. Now I have given you your bone, doggie. GO AWAY. .. a clusterfuck pretending to be physics .. simply bad math .. you haven't even managed to ride your tricycle without falling off .. either you're not competent to analyze this, or (probably more likely), you are attempting yet again to misdirect from the real science .. weasel out of it .. you had to obfuscate it and throw n all this other bullshit. Every goddamned time. .. you can go knowing that you abdicated on a chance to prove to the world that you can solve "civilization-paralyzing misinformation". And I will know that you went exactly as you (from what you have shown me, anyway) deserve: unknown and deservedly so. .. you refuse to lose like a man .. you're STILL full of shit, you pretender. .. you're STILL full of shit, you pretender. This is the most ludicrous thing I've heard coming from someone who claims to be a real scientist in years. .. It is A WASTE OF MY TIME to argue with you. You don't learn. I won't do it any more. And I'm going to give a copy of this to my grandchildren. .. bullshit .. weaseling .. all your misdirection .. I am willing to concede that you really are a Kool-Aid drinker, and can't accept that the dogma isn't what you thought it was. That's preferable to believing that you're simply a malicious lying sonofabitch. I am fucking well done here. .. Same shit different day. .. you won't do it because you know you're wrong. .. you're wrong by default .. Why don't you just shut up and do it? Why have you been so mightily struggling, like a fish on a hook, to avoid it? .. BS excuse .. Same shit different day. .. I consider that to be an admission of defeat. .. bullshit excuse .. I guess you do admit defeat. .. your analysis is completely full of shit. .. absolute fantasy .. I'm really not sorry to say this after your past behavior, but showing you're wrong is just plain dirt simple. And not JUST wrong, but so ridiculously wrong that I can (and will, believe me!) use it as entertainment for certain of my friends. .. a pretty major concession that I don't think you deserve. .. Bullshit. .. you're still falling off your tricycle .. simple damned algebra .. You're just clownishly hand-waving again.. START OVER AND DO IT RIGHT .. you're full of bull, and you have been all along. Either you are incapable of doing this properly, or you're just bullshitting everybody for reasons of your own. .. Hahahahaha! .. just more bullshit .. no more bullshit .. of course you still won't, because you're not capable. .. if you don't want me to keep calling you (and showing you to others to be) nothing more than a clown. .. I want to show other people just how much a clown you actually are. .. shut up .. you want to try to mischaracterize everything I say.. you were just messing with me. .. fantasy .. It feels as though I'm explaining to a high-school student who has never seen a physics problem before. .. supposed to have been a physics major. .. Stop being obtuse. .. SIMPLE MULTIPLICATION .. No matter how you try to bullshit your way around this, it is still WRONG. .. provably bullshit .. I'm just plain tired of your bull. .. Jesus, I'm glad you weren't one of my physics profs. .. That's your goddamned problem, and you don't get to complain about it. I'm really looking forward to showing this latest exchange to my friends. .. There is no way to weasel out of this, man. You're trying to output more power than you're putting in. This isn't even 11th-grade physics. Let's try it at something more like your level: You have 200 beans equally distributed among 10 squares. If you now take those beans, and divide them equally among 25 squares of the same size, how many beans do you now have per square? Show your work. .. THERE'S NOTHING "CUTE" ABOUT IT! IT'S AN ACCURATE ASSESSMENT OF YOUR ERROR! This is not "approximation", it's fucking logical error! JESUS CHRIST, man, you can't talk your way around this. .. You can violate thermodynamics all you want, and it doesn't prove a damned thing. .. STOP THE BULLSHIT. .. If you continue to just bullshit your way around, as I have stated I will declare you in default and damned few reasonable people would disagree. .. NO. See my comment above. One more bullshit comment like this, and as I said, I will just call you a clown and few reasonable people will disagree. .. you are deliberately trying to make things difficult. .. It is dirt simple to show you are wrong. .. you're throwing a fit .. Are you drunk? .. Get the hell on with it.. I am very, very close to calling you full of shit and posting this where everyone can see it. .. YOU are the one who is trolling.. You simply wanted to waste more of my time. .. You're finally proving that you were full of bull all along. .. You're just plain wrong. .. you are quite clearly throwing a fit.. How could I possibly be "wrong"? .. I called bullshit.. prepare to be publicly declared a charlatan. .. plenty of reason to call you both wrong and a liar. .. I am going to declare you a fraud and a failure. .. I'm still going to declare you a failure.. he's just a trolling, malicious, lying son of a bitch.. he has berated me, publicly derided and taunted me, and (in my strong opinion) libeled me.. I can show clearly, to someone with high school level math skills, that he was utterly, abjectly, and rather pathetically wrong, and the "Slayers", as he calls them, were right all along. .. "global warming alarmist" bullshit is just that: bullshit. .. mere incompetence and arrogant belief in your own abilities and contempt for others? Or was it because you were protecting your political ideology, or global warming religion, or maybe JPL grant money? I really don't know, and I really don't care, but now I can show the world very clearly, using your own words, that you were wrong the whole time. I would thank you for that but you don't deserve thanks. .. I am not going to judge here whether he was honestly mistaken or he was just a malicious bullshitter, but in all honesty it's hard to imagine someone who calls himself a physicist unintentionally getting it so badly wrong so many ways. Unless his "global warming" religion would simply not allow him mentally to accept the right answer. .. I could go on, but this was my BRIEF analysis of khayman80's folly. As I sincerely promised him, I will be writing up a more complete discussion of his errors later on "the interwebz". Spencer and khayman80 were wrong. Latour was right, and I was correct to stick to my guns and say so, despite all of khayman80's public bullying and insults and braying like an ass. .. another aspect of khayman80's folly. .. khayman80, otherwise known as Bryan Killett, you're either a liar of a fool. As I said before, I don't know which, but I've proved that it MUST be one of the two. .. khayman80's nasty remarks .. schooling a physicist on why his physics is awful.. You can't even fucking add 2 + 2. .. you complete bozo. .. you're a complete loon. .. I'm not wrong, in any basic way. .. Face it. You've been spouting the wrong answer for 2 years, and using it to justify calling OTHER PEOPLE names, and bullying them online, and other nasty antisocial behavior. But even if I made a small mistake somewhere (I did NOT make a large one), you're still busted. .." [Jane Q. Public]

".. you were "hanging yourself", as the saying goes. Hoist by your own petard. .. You are busted. .. I'll be here watching and laughing all the way. .. It doesn't matter how you try to squirm and twist this. You have been owned. End of story. .. I repeat that you can twist and squirm all you want, but unless you can come up with a "khayman80 law" to replace the Stefan-Boltzmann law, this IS the answer, it is known, and it is unequivocal. .. Introduce all the complications, and prevarications and half-assed reasoning you want. I have already shown you the correct answer according to established physics. Give it up lest you make yourself look more of a fool than you already are. Because as I promised you, all of this is being recorded and will be made public, with your name displayed prominently. I promised that I would do that regardless of how it turned out. You have no reason to complain just because you lost. Further, I'm going to INVITE people who teach heat transfer to examine my write-up, and evaluate it. I already know what they will say about your half-assed thermodynamic reasoning. To be honest, I still don't see why YOU don't see, where I showed that you were clearly wrong. But again, I suspect that your CO2-based greenhouse gas religion will not let you accept the clearly established facts. I have said all I need to say here. Nothing you say will change it, and no, I do not agree with your fallacious "reasoning". I'll stick with the engineering textbooks, thanks very much. .. Have I reminded you lately that your grasp of logic seems a bit off? .. It's just bullshit. You're squirming like a fish on a hook. You just don't seem to realize you have already been flayed, filleted, and fried in batter. You're owned, man. .. PROOF that you're bullshitting everybody.. You keep making the same bullshit assertions, after I have proved them false. Why do you do this? You're just going to look that much more foolish later. .. YOU are disputing the Stefan-Boltzmann law. But it is a known physical law, and this is a textbook demonstration of it. You lose. .. Your calculations contradict themselves, and your methodology contradicts itself. .. no matter how you cut it, your answer is wrong, by your own rules. .. I find it highly amusing that you derive your own calculations from the Stefan-Boltzmann law, then deny that it is valid. Every time you try to squirm out of this you just contradict yourself again. I am further amused that you find it "adorable" that you've been proven wrong. Be a man for a change and admit it. .. No more bullshit. .. I'm just trying to find out whether you're actually crazy or just bullshitting. .. Are you REALLY the moron you make yourself out to be? .. You are giving physicists a bad name, and I repeat that I am going to show this to all the world to see. .. This is so utterly obvious that I honestly don't believe you don't get it. .. I have finally concluded that you are just a very good troll. I honestly -- and I mean that: honestly -- don't believe you could be this stupid and possess a degree in physics. .. You're just wrong about how this works. And not just a little bit wrong, but completely out there in lala-land wrong. And you have made it perfectly obvious that I am wasting my time talking to you. You are either crazy, or stupid, or a very talented troll. Based on my experience, I vote for that last one, but I think that necessarily implies a little bit of the first, too. So we're done. I'm going to write this up as it stands here. I don't need anything else, and you've made it very clear that anything else would be further waste of my time. You refuse to change your tune, so fine. I'll just write it up that way. Don't worry: I am going to include your exact words. .. You DO know what a minus sign is, yes? .. You made assumptions that are, to be blunt, bullshit nonsense. .. Do you think we're all idiots? .. knock off the bullshit, because I see right through it, and so will the others I show this to. .. Yet again, you have contradicted yourself. You're a great bullshitter but I've caught you out and you've already been proved wrong. All this trying to twist out from under the obvious any way you can only confirms that you were bullshitting all along. Be a man and admit the truth, because people ARE going to see this. Why do you want to look more foolish than you do already? .. Complete bullshit again. .. It is a simple equation that is well-known to physicists. You claim to be a physicist, so why don't you know it? .. You've been owned, man. BE enough of a man to admit it. Because everybody's going to know it anyway. .. This is just another straw-man argument. Which you are very good at, by the way. Not good enough to sucker me in, though. .. your assertion is only "obvious" if you're not a heat transfer engineer or a physicist, you pretender. Heat transfer is not a science of the obvious. Intuition (and, as pointed out before, "thermodynamic thinking") can easily lead you astray. .. Knock off the BS. Time to admit you were wrong. .. I've already proved you wrong, mathematically, logically, and thermodynamically. The fact that your "global warming" religion will not let you accept the reality of the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law is not my problem. But you have sure as hell tried hard to make it everyone else's problem. .. You're either incompetent or a liar. As I said before: I don't know for sure which, but I strongly suspect the latter. It's a done deal. You have been proved wrong. You have been owned. Your ranting means nothing. I only replied on the off-chance that you really were ignorant and could be educated. But it seems that you are determined to promote your ignorance (or more likely: ignorant act and propaganda) to everyone else. So be it. No more replies. You haven't earned any; you don't deserve any. .. NOW what kind of bullshit are you trying to pull? Do you understand what NET means, or do you not? I assure you that a lot of people do. You claimed before that you did. Why are you doing this? Are you really trying to make yourself look more ridiculous than before? .. I'm going to ask you again: WHY do you continue to spout this violation-of-physics bullshit? What do you think you're accomplishing other than wasting my time? I have concluded that is all you are trying to do. .. If you are sincere (you certainly haven't been acting like you are), then you must be postulating some kind of "tractor beam" effect that allows the chamber wall to "suck" power out of the heat source from a distance. I assure you that at least at out current level of technology, we have not managed to build such a sucking device. The heat source radiates out what it radiates out, and nothing around it is "sucking" any power from it. Although you seem to be doing your very best at "sucking" my time away over stupid bullshit. .. NONSENSE. .. What's ridiculous is your constant repetition of this bullshit idea. .. If you're being honest, then it's really too bad that you still don't understand the clear implications of the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law. But at the same time, it makes me wonder how you got your degree. I'm done. If all you're going to do is keep repeating these incorrect assertions, after why they are incorrect has been clearly explained to you many times, this is indeed just a waste of my time. I set out to have a scientific discussion, not to argue about your religion. .. NO!!! This is just plain bullshit. .. You are VERY good at trying to make it appear I have been saying things I actually haven't. But it isn't going to fly. It's just bullshit. .. Why do you keep disputing textbook physics laws? Stop lying. Because that's all you're doing now. .. What I object to is your insane insistence that the electrical power to the heat source requires a term for the chamber walls. This is sheer nonsense. .. YOU are the one who is getting them confused, not me. .. Look it the hell up. .. Apparently you don't understand the concept of NET, even though you have derided me for supposedly "ignoring" it. .. This is textbook stuff, and you just aren't getting it straight. Are you sure you're a physicist? .. Why don't you look it up in a textbook and discover that for yourself? .. I repeat: if you truly don't understand this, due to your "greenhouse gas religion" or something, that's just too bad. I'm using textbook physics for situations like this. You are not. You are espousing magical net power transfer from cold to hot, rather than actual physics. .. That's complete bullshit. Doesn't happen. Knock off the fantasy physics and pick up a textbook. .. There is nothing more to say. You have been proved wrong. You can write books about your nonsense "physics", and it won't make your bullshit theory any more correct. I have 3 heat transfer textbooks here, and they all say you're wrong. I'll stick with the well-known and established physics, thanks very much, and dismiss the nonsense from the cheap seats. Funny, but for years you talked about "consensus" and "established science", but whenever the established physics disagrees with you, you will write pages and pages about why they're wrong and you're right. There's a word for that. The word is "hypocrisy". There are other words for what you do, too, but I'll let other readers decide on those. Well, it didn't work and it won't work. The textbooks all say you're wrong. Goodbye. .." [Jane Q. Public]

There is a video of someone throwing around my model, without the keyboard, here.

Whoever downmodded that, you just lost your geek card. :)

Listening to users isn't necessarily a good thing. Henry Ford said that if he'd asked his customers what they wanted, they'd have asked for a faster horse. This is especially true of UI design, because most people (even power users) really don't measure what they're spending time doing and get into unproductive patterns. The problem with GNOME was that they also didn't listen to usability experts. Or even vaguely competent people who had read an HCI book. They went down a path of doing things that an uninformed user and a usability expert could both agree were stupid. Apparently they've improved recently, but it cost them a lot of users.

After something like 20 years I finally found a system that won't run Debian unstable right now. My Panasonic Toughpad FZ-G1 magnesium tablet + iKey Jumpseat magnesium keyboard. Systemd and GDM break. Bought (for less than full price) because I am a frequent traveler and speaker and really do need something you can drop from 6 feet and pour coffee over have it keep working.

But because of this bug I have ubuntu at the moment, and am not having fun and am eager to return to Debian.

It is possible to create a universe from nothing. What you do is borrow energy from a quantum fluctuation.

No. You can't have a quantum fluctuation when there is nothing to have a quantum fluctuation in. Your assertion requires the pre-existance of a universe in the first place.

Ergo, the universe does not exist.

Assumes facts not in evidence, to wit, that creation is required in the first place. Consider: everything we have and know about was not "created", it was always present in some form or other. Assuming that this is not the case for a time/dimensional configuration for which we have neither evidence or understanding is, at best, fact-free speculation - certainly in no way an inevitable logical conclusion.

If you can't "wrap your mind around" how your average bunny rabbit could rule a world of vicious, hungry, intelligent tigers, does that make you "appreciate the idea"? Are you willing to extend "blind faith" in this direction as well?

I think the premise that you can "appreciate it" because "you don't get it" is just politically correct appeasement.

Why not just go with "I don't get it" and so "it's not worthy of confidence, only speculation, and that utilizing the knowledge we do have, until or unless I do"?

As to infinity, if you don't understand it, what's the problem? Pizza still tastes like pizza, and science proceeds apace regardless. Not understanding something in no way makes the mythologies of pre-scientific societies in any way likely to provide answers.

It came from God... God created it.

There is absolutely zero evidence for this, so I see no reason at all to take it seriously.

So, it was always there then. You believe in infinity.

No. I don't "believe" in anything. I was simply correcting the simplistic, errant logic of the post parent to mine.

My confidence rest with the idea that our physics is currently unable to describe what went on prior to a certain point in time, if "time" is the relevant dimensional term, even assuming that we've got the facts straight back that far from the scant evidence that remains. I'm perfectly comfortable with that. I am curious to know the answer(s), if there is/are one/multiples I can understand, but it bothers me not all that I don't presently know, and may never know.

Although I'm comfortable, as I said, I find informed speculation interesting. What I have extremely low confidence in, though, are attempts at answers made up by pre-scientific societies. I find the idea that they had any means to know straight-up ludicrous. Having been raised in a country that positively reeks of Christianity (the USA), I have made it my business to learn as much about it in particular as I could. That process served only to significantly lower my confidence in its basic premise.

But where did the something it came from, come from. And where did that come from, etc.

Why did it have to come from anywhere? Our existence implies that something was there at any point in our current time, and any point related to that, dimensionally speaking, prior, if indeed "prior" is a relevant term.

Perhaps the universe is infinite in other dimensions (like time) as well as space. If it is, so what? Does Captain Crunch taste any different? No.

The important thing, to me, is to note that we do not know, and therefore it is pointless to claim that we do. Speculation, of course, is very interesting, but only serves to winnow out the things physics tells us are nonsense. Keeping in mind that physics is evolving as well.

No. We can trace the assembly of a loaf of bread just fine from its now-current components. We can't trace the creation of the universe. Our physics makes nonsense of the evidence we have uncovered; therefore, we do not understand that evidence. Until we do, we can't trace the universe any further.

I have no problem with yet to be solved questions, and find no need to make up stories in order to pretend to solve them. I'll wait comfortably until we figure it out, assuming we do, which is also not a given. It may be beyond our capacities, and certainly as far as this universe goes, most of the evidence our current skills allow us to work with has long since dispersed.

However, from a thermodynamics POV, the "logic" does not lead to "god", because that answer solves nothing:

- A god does not come from nothing. Thermodynamics prevents this.
- A god does not create itself. Thermodynamics prevents this.
- A god was not created.

The subtext to either series of reasoning, of course, is the "it was there all the time" sally. The difference: The universe is real, here now, and assuming it was there all the time in some form isn't a huge leap of any kind, it just asserts the status quo in regions we cannot confirm.

God (or gods), however, has/have not been demonstrated to be real, and so three leaps have to be taken: First the existence in the first place, and second, the "there all the time", and third, that this is somehow relevant to us.

I choose the simple answer: The universe, in some form, was there all the time. That could be wrong; but that's what little our current physics seem to imply.

The core problem is not Google+ (pustulent imposition that it was) but that Google does not provide clean answers about anything it does. Google's motto has long ceased being "don't be evil" and morphed into "that's for us to know, and users to divine".

My view is that happiness in life is directly proportional to eliminating all forms of "X behind a curtain" where X is man, woman, beast, tyrant, saint, priest, missionary, Smallpox vector, committee, club, association, organization, governmental body, natural, supernatural, mythical, legendary, or outright fabrication.

Google as presently configured is not a conduit of happiness in this world.

Well then, I guess the decision to be uneducated and ignorant will serve them well when their carcasses are being zipped up in a double-lined black bag and tossed into a common grave.

Yes, many, many injustices have been perpetrated against the African continent and its peoples, but when your people are dying and people are coming in, risking their own lives to try and help you, and your response is to attack and kill them, trying to use the injustices of the past to justify the mass deaths of the present won't win you any friends, will it?

Considering there was the recent killings of doctors who were trying to educate the unwashed masses on how to prevent or mitigate the spread of Ebola, along with the other attacks and general mistrust of health workers, letting the disease spread might not be a bad option.

Those who don't want to listen to experts die off, those who are too panicked to touch the dead bodies live, and things work themselves out.

Cruel? Maybe. But when you're already putting your life on the line trying to help people and those people attack and kill you, sometimes you have to make the tough decision to let nature take its course.