Yes, I do not disagree, however, the point is that the posting/article do not do enough to clarify that this is only a computer projection based on a worst case scenario. More to the point, the post references stale data, possibly for the exaggerated figures contained therin. An accurate accounting would be far less newsworthy. A headline of "Current living carriers of Ebola is tabulated as 1,500 cases" would send an entirely different message. It is for this reason that I regularly discount claims of high outrage over poorly reported statistics. I get that "yea, I see what is really going on here" feeling when the reporter leans over and photographs a rainbow glean on a few square inches of seawater and proclaims that widespread pollution is resulting from the recent Gulf Oil Spill. Sadly there is a category of colleagues who seize upon these poor statistics and embrace them as fact further propagating the fallacy. Yes, apples to oranges, but please do not mislead me you have apples, when all you have is that orange.

First off Ebola is a tragedy and is worthy of all efforts at control and eradication, not because I may someday be at risk, but because real people are dying. However.... The posting links to an "updated assessment" which you can view. Looking there, one is led to believe that on Oct 24, the number of Ebola cases are 30,000 worldwide. But if you look really closely, this is just a projection based on data accumulated 30 days ago. Is this the most current data we can view on which to base our assessment? Look now at the bottom of the page and you will see updated assessments including one for Oct 29 (yesterday). Look for the WHO situation reports further down. Currently the stats are: approx 13,000 confirmed or suspected cases total approx 6,000 cases confirmed. approx 5,000 deaths approx 1,000 total cases of live people testing positive for infection And the big news..... Cases in the past 21 days approx 1,500 vs. 30,000 My question is why are we trying to inject this fear into our people? Why the over inflated assessment for the purpose of publication? Is the author guided by an alternative motive, or are they just too lazy to look? Again.. Ebola is a huge concern and a tragedy to humankind. We need to do everything we can to fight this outbreak. But we should be given accurate information not scare tactics.

I have been a happy t-mobile customer for a decade. Not a problem mind you, but the t-mobile unlimited data plan has a soft cap. They DO inform you of the cap, and I do not know what the penalty feels like because I have never consumed enough of my plan to reach it. And what about my hard wired ISP? Selling me 15 MB/s and giving me never more than 8? Now I would like to see the FTC step in there and right that wrong...

Yes. I can confirm it it true. I have a Cable TV Internet Service in Los Angeles. I ordered their second tier offering, Something like speeds up to 15 mb/s download. After the tech left, I ran a test, and I was getting like 5 mb/s. Alot less than what they promised. I called to ask, and I was told that performance vaires by location. OK, was my reply. If I get only 5 mb/s, then why should I not pay for the 10mb/s plan instead of the 15? I still only get 5, right? The tech asked me to wait a moment, and returned to say that my account had been setup at the standard 10mb by mistake. She fixed it and now I would get 15. I ran another test, and now I get 8 mb/s. So what changed? If I get 5 on the 10mb plan, but it only takes a quick config change to get me 8, then why can I not get 8 on the 10 mb plan?

I read the description on wikipedia. I do not see where this replacement for email and IM has accomodations for SPAM control. Can anybody give a synopsys on how WAVE will protect me from unwanted commercial solicitation?