Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Proper risk management (Score 1) 340

by Ken D (#48224267) Attached to: NY Doctor Recently Back From West Africa Tests Positive For Ebola

Such a parochial worldview. Ebola is a global problem and threat, which is why the CDC has been talking about controlling Ebola *in Africa* since at least July. So far the evidence is that it is just hot air with no substance. For example see: http://www.cdc.gov/media/relea...
A July briefing on the situation in Africa containing such gems as: " CDC along with others are surging to begin to turn the tide. It's not going to be quick. It's not going to be easy. But we know what to do. " and " In fact, any advanced hospital in the U.S., any hospital with an intensive care unit has the capacity to isolate patients. There is nothing particularly special about the isolation of an Ebola patient other than it's really important to do it right. "

Yes, nothing special, 100% routine.

Comment: Re:Proper risk management (Score 1) 340

by Ken D (#48219557) Attached to: NY Doctor Recently Back From West Africa Tests Positive For Ebola

This.

Since at least August the CDC has been spouting the line "We know how to control Ebola" yet months later we were caught with our CDC protocols around our ankles. So far that mistake appears not to have snowballed in the US.

Meanwhile, no signs of progress controlling Ebola in Africa, despite repeated claims by many that "we know how to control Ebola".

Ebola just keeps on keeping on, doubling and re-doubling and re-doubling. Getting harder and harder to control, if that's even possible at this point.

Meanwhile we get stories like the "extraordinary success", the "spectacular success" in Nigeria... about how Ebola was stopped after one air traveler imported Ebola and only eight people died and twenty secondary infections. Yay team! A few more successes like that and we'll really have Ebola on the run.

But seriously if every existing case of Ebola ONLY led to 8 more deaths and 20 more infections before the outbreak was controlled that would be (at this point) a spectacular success. That's not going to happen... those numbers aren't small. The real numbers are going to be bigger, and that's only if the global community gets their act together and stops merely pissing on the fire.

Comment: Re:US,Nigeria (Score 3, Insightful) 381

by Ken D (#48159085) Attached to: How Nigeria Stopped Ebola

The performance so far does not inspire confidence. Mistake after mistake and being reactive instead of proactive.

So far neither the CDC (nor WHO) has explained exactly how more cases of Ebola in more locations leads to eventual control. Texas is an informative example of what to expect when Ebola shows up in a new location that has no experience with such an unusual and deadly disease.

[And the flu trolls have to stop. Flu is already endemic. Meanwhile Ebola must be prevented from becoming endemic. There is a very rational reason to be agitated by the apparent lack of competent response. Ebola has never before been contained after an outbreak this large. This outbreak is already twenty times larger than the largest successfully contained outbreak.]

Comment: Re:Completely Contained? (Score 2) 475

by Ken D (#48034637) Attached to: Ebola Has Made It To the United States

This report also shows that our first case of Ebola was screwed up.

How does a hospital release someone who just traveled from Liberia and has symptoms consistent with Ebola? They allowed this person to expose people for twice as long compared to if they had handled the situation as common sense would dictate. [Isolate and test]

Comment: Re:Time to... (Score 1) 475

by Ken D (#48034611) Attached to: Ebola Has Made It To the United States

Give it a few weeks.

In Lagos the primary case didn't conduct life as usual for days while contagious before being isolated. 1 initial case, 8 deaths, 20 additional cases, hundreds of exposed people monitored for infection. A 'successful' containment of Ebola.

In a few weeks we'll have the numbers for Dallas. We have to believe it'll be a 'successful' containment as well.

Comment: Re:Wrong decision (Score 1) 484

by Ken D (#47324263) Attached to: Supreme Court Rules Against Aereo Streaming Service

See bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

Scalia has it right, they wanted aereo to be illegal and they waved their hands to make it so. Cloud computing is at risk as a result of the ruling.

Breyer's attitude of "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it doesn't matter if its a robot" is idiotic. If technologic details didn't matter we wouldn't spend so much money designing around existing patents.

Comment: Re:Wrong decision (Score 1) 484

by Ken D (#47324155) Attached to: Supreme Court Rules Against Aereo Streaming Service

That still doesn't help. I've lived in apartment buildings with an antenna on the roof and a coax jack coming out the wall. Not my wire, not my antenna, no cost.

People rent equipment all the time, that doesn't make the company you rented it from a provider of the service you get out of the equipment.

And this was EXACTLY the argument about why this case affects cloud computing. So I use AWS to stream video, now Amazon is a TV service provider because I hired that labor out to Amazon? If not explain the damn difference and stop waving your hands that aereo is just illegal without explaining where the magic is.

Comment: Re:Wrong decision (Score 1) 484

by Ken D (#47323083) Attached to: Supreme Court Rules Against Aereo Streaming Service

So your position is that using Slingbox or a DVR over the Internet (a shared non dedicated connection per user) makes you a CATV company and a copyright infringer as well?

If not, why not? What makes a "dedicated internet connection per user"? Some condos and apartment buildings aggregate their per unit connections before they enter the ISP equipment. WiFi at a public hotspot is certainly shared accessed. People in neighboring apartments often share internet access over WiFI. Is any transmission of video in these shared setups a "CATV company"? and infringing copyright due to a public performance?

It's all well and good to say that CATV companies had to pay because of "shared access", now the SC has made nebulous what exactly can't be shared. Access is by nature shared these days and more shared every day. Aereo gave everyone a dedicated antenna, what more would they have needed to not have "shared access"?

Comment: Re:Wrong decision (Score 1) 484

by Ken D (#47320907) Attached to: Supreme Court Rules Against Aereo Streaming Service

Don't change the subject.

It is not a violation for you and I as individuals to receive broadcast TV for free over the air. I and many others have legal antennas and do so.

I'm surprised to find that I'm on the side of the SC Justices I most abhor, but there has to be a place where your legal antenna is not attached to your house. Where is that place?

I can put an antenna on my TV, I can put it in my attic, I can put it on my roof, I can put it on a mast in my yard....

I can lease a spot in my neighbors yard and erect a mast..
I can lease a spot on top of a nearby hill and use a microwave link back to my house...
I can erect an antenna across town and back haul the signal on the internet...

Where is this magical place where you become a CATV provider? Aereo offered no other programming than what your leased antenna brought in.

The SC screwed up and I'm on the side with the dissenters (whom I almost always disagree with)

Comment: Re:Wrong decision (Score 1) 484

by Ken D (#47316139) Attached to: Supreme Court Rules Against Aereo Streaming Service

Broadcast Television is by definition broadcast to all who can receive it. Just because cable companies pay to rebroadcast it to their customers doesn't change the primary fact. You do not have to pay to watch broadcast TV. It is not a violation of copyright to do so.

So. Given that, what are your options to watch that free Broadcast TV when the reception where you live happens to be poor? and by 'free' I specifically mean without a dime of your cash being given to the TV station.

If your position is that there is no way for a company to charge for something in order to somehow provide you with broadcast TV without paying a TV station, then what is to stop the TV stations from transmitting the most craptastic signal that they can possibly get away with so that it isn't really possible for anyone to receive a decent signal via antenna? Why then they'd be able to monetize those airwaves in more profitable endeavors. Talk about win-win for the TV stations.

(1) Never draw what you can copy. (2) Never copy what you can trace. (3) Never trace what you can cut out and paste down.

Working...