Did you read TFA? This deputy walked into the apartment after the patient had left, in order to get a decontamination warrant signed. Without protective gear. And he caught it. Apparently it's significantly more contagious than HIV. When's the last time you heard that an HIV victim's apartment or ambulance had to be completely decontaminated by people in level 4 bio-hazard gear?

You're right - it is asinine to restrict immigration to control ebola. You have to restrict travel. 21 day quarantine before you're allowed in, if you have been anywhere that doesn't quarantine. We're all in this together, so let's keep the quarantined area as small as possible.

I'm sorry, but you must be trolling or truly clueless.

So you're a cable company shill? Should have known.

Wireless won't work in general for anything more than static content / downloads. No high performance 2-way streaming, for example.

I stated this was part of the problem. Please get it right.

As opposed to the current horribly inefficient monopoly that also controls who or what I can connect to to promote their own profits? Municipal owned cables can have many pros, not the least that they're not being milked for every last red cent of profit.

I'd argue it is a conspiracy, although the level of conspiracy was at the local level, repeated many times across many localities, and then merged and acquired and continued across several decades into what we have today: de facto monopolies that not only control access to large segments of the population individually, but also use their influence to affect industries outside of themselves. Allowing Comcast/TW to merge would fulfill Comcast's ultimate goal of controlling access to most of america and be able to essentially showcase their own content, starting to slowly suppress all others - the only outcome I can see happening.

There are huge costs, mostly in physical cable. The second part is paying to go through all the regulations and easement payments setup by those pesky incumbents.

Exactly why the cables should be common carrier at a minimum, and municipality owned at best. It's nothing more or less than water, sewer, or telephone service, all utilities we pretty much all need in today's world. To think someone should be maximizing profit off of a necessity is rather predatory. The telecoms have been drooling for an alternative to common carrier status because it prevents them from milking every last cent out of their monopoly position. Note how they promised low cost internet/phone service while cutting your copper, and now all those prices are back to previous levels with lowered costs for them.

Cons for the consumer? Let's start with controlling the gateway. You want to reach our 288 million people (we don't care about the 20 odd million out in podunk that costs too much to reach and they don't shop anyways) you pay us. We also own content, but our content doesn't have to pay to be seen. Yours, however, will. We don't like Netflix, Amazon, etc competing with us - so the interconnects will be sized to 1Mbps unless you guessed it - they pay us.

That's just the first thing I can see happening, as they are already doing some of this.

Seizing evidence is one thing, seizing evidence and selling it for money is perfectly legal, after the trial, conviction, etc. Doing so before trial is an entirely different thing, and will probably lead to some problems down the road, especially if DPR is not convicted. At that point, it's going to be a very very interesting case.

All presidents, if they stay in office long enough, make bad decisions. The question is whether those bad decisions outweigh their good ones when considering whether they were bad presidents. Some made very few good decisions (defined as something you chose to do in spite of the current popular opinion to improve things) and many bad decisions (whether going with popular opinion or acting on their own). Deciding to go to war with the Taliban - was there another option? Deciding to invade Iraq? Plenty of other options on that one. Carter leaving the American hostages in Iran for 400 days? That one resulted in a 1 term presidency for him. Reagan pushing for deregulation? Both good and bad points on that one, and I'd argue mostly bad from the ones that had major negative impacts such as the 2008 financial collapse, although that was not solely his fault, he started the avalanche with a healthy couple of kicks.

In the case of Gore, he was promoting something new at the time, not criticizing the current government operations. That he's moved to that stance is indisputable, as he certainly has continued to make waves over time and tried to move the gov into a stance more to his liking. In some ways, that's the same as Cheney, in others, very very different.

The comment is actually about Bush essentially being Cheney's (and Karl Rove's / GOP's) sock puppet. You argue by blatant assertions that Bush wasn't a sock puppet. Nothing you've stated leads anyone to the conclusion that he wasn't, and your admission about Cheney's activities can only mean you agree to at least some extent that he is active in those areas of interest.

I do agree with you that all presidents and vice presidents should in general leave the leading to others after they're out of office. They had their turn. In the case of Bush/Cheney, their screwups are going to be with us through at least 1 more administration, and I would hazard several more.

Lastly, Cheney didn't need to fill up his overflowing vault/swimming pool - and he's mostly likely still reaping Halliburton rewards.