I don't think you know what you're talking about. Saying "only spread via direct contact with bodily fluids and can be easily addressed in first world nations" seems to be a very dismissive attitude.

You can't declare them roughly equivalent to Ebola since they all cause types of hemorrhagic fevers, and therefor Ebola isn't anything special because it's "nothing new".

Hanta in particular. It isn't even transmitted from person to person, only from exposure to infected rodents. It isn't at all relevant to discussions on Ebola.

Lassa is also from exposure to rodents with 80% of cases asymptomatic, and from what I understand is much less likely to transmit person to person than Ebola.

Hanta and Lassa also have much lower mortality rates than Ebola.

Marburg seems to be especially rare, with one case ever of someone returning to the US with it, and it wasn't during an outbreak the size of the current one with Ebola, but is also to be taken seriously should there be an outbreak. I don't know the ease of person to person transmission with this one.

No kidding:P

Question is, is it marked 5 Funny because of what he said or what he missed?

You may need to hash out your post a bit.. I can't tell if you're mad at the cost of the licenses or mad at uber drivers not needing to pay it.

Anyway, if it really costs THAT much for a taxi license then the regulators are crazy. Why aren't the protests directed at that?

There were three *entire* sentences that were self-plagiarized? They shouldn't just kill the journal, but the author himself!

The horror.

But seriously, it seems to me that the librarian-blogger is full of himself, and that the publisher may be hyper-sensitive to any form of criticism (or might have people making decisions whose virtually religious views on the topic of climate change align with the librarian, and this was used as an excuse to smack down the journal). Of course that is just supposition.

This instance of self-plagiarism doesn't exactly seem like it was malicious, I imagine it was an oversight that the journal and author(s) would have no problem correcting.

Slashdot is trolling us:(

So now internet companies are essentially trying to train users to trust whatever information shows up on a web page that claims to be from 'known' sources?

After all the problems that spoof emails cause for people who don't know better, you'd think an internet provider *would* know better.

I'm not even religious, but I'm pretty sure this post is trolling (if not 'just' idiotic).

Somehow religious people who buy into creationism are incapable of science and technology? What is the line of thinking.. "God created this creature, so I can't *possibly* bring myself to study how it works and duplicate it's function in novel technologies for mankind's use!" ?

Is the 11th commandment something like "You shall not look too closely at my other creations," or "You shall respect the privacy of all other creatures (but you can still eat them)" ?

And competing in fossil fuels..??? I think even the most devout church-goer knows that oil, coal, and natural gas are in the ground, and they can be quite useful if dug up or pumped out.

The same point applies to most other areas of technology and research, caveats being areas with moral concerns such as cloning and genetic manipulation. But even with those, there are legitimate non-religious reasons to be wary of progress with a lack of understanding the long term implications.