Tidus44

While I do believe in the right of freedom of expression, I do ponder where this movie falls in regards to that right. I have seen the question raised numerous times regarding, "How would the USA feel about a film that was about a plot to assassinate the President?" and I do wonder what the reaction would be if such a movie was made. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights regarding the freedom of speech and expression do not offer an open ended right to express any idea or anything. There are limitations on freedom of expression and I would suggest that if the movie didn't cross a line, then it was pushing the boundary pretty hard. One of the limitations that the Declaration identifies is the "offence principle". This came about through a number of incidents such as the Danish newspaper cartoons portraying Mohammed, the movie "Jerry Springer: The Opera" and the movie Behzti. The declaration recognizes that offence can be very deeply felt and its consequences can be damaging. The principle suggests that consideration of how offensive something is should consider the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, community interests and the extent to which the material could be avoided. It also considers who expresses the view. There is a significant difference between an individual expressing a view and a corporation that has global finance, global reach and close relationships with governments. The Declaration does consider the levels of responsibility that would be expected from an individual and those of a global corporate media differ. I don't say that Sony and the movie makers are wrong, but I do question if it was absolutely necessary to make the movie as it was made and if the intent was to be offensive. There is a fine line between offending someone and satire or a parody.

Work like you own the company.

Surprise your spouse, not your boss.

pathophobia - A fear of disease.

Sony let theater companies decide whether to play the movie. Rogen and Franco cancelled all media appearances for their movie. Sony Pictures cancelled the release after the big movie/theater companies and distributors decided not to show the movie. Sony should take further losses financially by releasing a movie no one is going to show? I doubt Sony made the decision on fear, but more so on financial concerns, and especially concerns about getting sued into bankruptcy if something should happen at some theater. As for the theater companies, I don't see how one can be critical of them for cancelling either; it's not like there isn't a plethora of nutbars out there who may be inspired to do something at some theater. After all, no theater in North America has ever had someone walk in and start shooting people have they? How critical would people be if Sony and theater companies did show the movie and some wack job killed people at some theater? The whiners would be complaining about how irresponsible Sony was releasing the movie. Sony and the theater companies are in a no win situation no matter what they do. Better to not release it than to open the door for every crazy to have an excuse to do something.

The comparison was eluded to in the previous thread. It was brought up in response to people being panicked because of it being something that is mostly fatal, but which they can contract just by being around someone who is infected. In short the "Someone coughed in the room and now I've suddenly gotten ebola" stupidity which was prevalent at the start and was the leading edge of the paranoia. In response I drew the comparison between this "deadly infectious disease that you cannot prevent on an individual level" and deaths from drunk driving which; while being something that individuals usually have no control over, and while having more deaths annually just in one country, you don't see anyone refusing to go about their lives in fear of. I didn’t follow the previous thread very far and probably should have gone there to see what the specific point was about.

The term refers to very fine solid or liquid particles in air. In referring to ebola in most instances it is liquids (body fluids) that may be sprayed into the air, as by cough or sneeze. The one report referenced by the website identifies the US Army as having an interest in ebola as a possible biological weapon and they (as well as others) are likely still looking at ebola as a possible weapon. And biological weapons do tend to have aerosol delivery systems.

Watched the entire video (33 minutes wasted) and read through the website and the referenced web pages and there wasn't one thing anywhere that I wasn't told in regards to ebola when I was in Africa in September/October. There wasn't one thing that I have not been instructed on since returning to Canada and my job as an emergency responder. Yes, ebola is an issue that has emergency responders doing some planning IN CASE an ebola patient is found on a emergency call. No one is predicting some huge outbreak so don't make anything out of it other than what it is, precautions just in case the unexpected does happen. There wasn't one thing that I have not already read in public information made (readily) available by Health Care agencies. Because good information is ignored by the sensationalizing media, ignorant politicians and petty, self important bureaucrats, it does not mean there is some conspiracy or no good information. And honestly, if you get your health advice from the media or politicians or some conspiracy website, then you probably deserve what happens to you. Considering how much good and accurate information is available and information that the website totally ignored or deliberately misinterpreted, one would have to be pretty dim to believe the website has any motivation other than to spread misinformation in order to cause fear and support some idiotic theory dreamt up in a delusional stupor, ("StormCloudsGathering", now there's a website that isn't in conspiracy mode and has nothing but 100% accurate information). They should be in the "Sensationalism run amock" (amok) thread. As for how many people one thing or another kills, I fail to see what is the point. Is it preferable to be killed by ebola or a drunk driver or some other event one can take precautions to avoid? I didn't see anything of value or an update on the website, just more misinformation from another website on a mission.

vernacularize: to translate into the natural speech peculiar to a people. Been trying to translate a Toyota HiLux repair manual to Portugese and Makhuwa. Taking way longer than I thought.

biometeorology - The study of how the weather affects people. What’s the difference between weather and climate? You can’t weather a tree, but you can climate. When the fog burns off it won't be mist. My two favorite weather sayings.

Why do ghosts say "boo!"? boo is the present infinitive of boāre (latin) and means; to cry aloud, bellow, roar or bray. Boāre; breeze, scent, fragrance, (obsolete) exhalation of breath; stench And why would a ghost speak in latin? Because its a dead language.

Beautiful cold and wonderful snow for the last two weeks. Not a cold snap, just normal weather where I am. Since I was away all of October I didn't get any leaves raked or picked up before the snow hit. Damned things clog the snow blower.

aesthete: one who cultivates great sensitivity to beauty.

There are 7 chests throughout Tamriel, each with a skeleton near it. There are other chests and boxes that are around in Tamriel that are just sitting outside near a fort or ruin, but the 7 I am interested in all have a skeleton nearby. I can only recall two, one in the pond near Fort Linchal and one in a partial ruin by Fort Gold Throat. There was a thread on this a few years back, but I can't find it and I'm not even sure if it was here at the Nexus or at Eslaf Erol's blog website (which is no longer around). Anyone recall running across a chest with a skeleton near it outside (none were in a ruin or fort or structure)? Appreciate it if you'd say where. Found them all.

saxicolous; one who lives under a rock

No one has said that ebola cannot be transmitted via the air. Ebola is not an airborne virus and the term must be understood in context of the virus and how it is spread. Airborne infection; means the virus is transmitted by its presence on particles, dust, or droplet nuclei suspended in the air and must be inhaled via the respiratory route. Direct contact means that body fluids from an infected person have come into contact with someone’s eyes, nose, or mouth; an open cut, wound, or abrasion and inhaled, ingested or absorbed. So what is the difference between airborne and direct contact mean in practical terms? If you stand 6 feet away from someone with ebola and don't specifically get contaminated by a body fluid, there is a 1% chance (or less) of getting infected. If you stand 6 feet away from a patient with measles or influenza (and you're not immune) then there's a 100% chance you'll get infected. In other words, ebola is not all that contagious. Ebola spreads by direct contact with body fluids such as saliva, mucus, vomit, feces, sweat, tears, breast milk, urine, and semen of an infected human. A person infected with ebola who coughs or sneezes may spray body fluid into the air and thus onto another person who may ingest, inhale or absorb a droplet. However, this is not airborne transmission, it is still direct contact with body fluids. The virus can be spread by breast milk and seman/vaginal fluids up to 3 months after recovery - again, this is direct contact with a body fluid. Outside of the body, the survival of the ebola virus is dependent on numerous factors such as temperature and humidity. The virus can survive for several hours on dry surfaces and may survive in blood for several days and it is believed the virus may survive up to 10 days in optimum conditions. However, exact times are unknown. Droplets from coughing or sneezing would not remain airborne very long and would drop to surfaces fairly quickly. However, again transmission by direct contact is required to spread the virus meaning someone would need to be in direct contact with a droplet and absorb, ingest or inhale it. To suggest that there is a government conspiracy in the use of terminology is simply a different form of fear mongering. As for the study, all it does is suggest the possibility of spread of ebola from pigs to farm workers in the Philippines could have occurred either by inhalation (of aerosol or larger droplets), and/or droplet inoculation of eyes and mucosal surfaces and/or by fomites due to droplets generated during cleaning processes. It does not suggest the virus spread by airborne transmission. The hype and misinformation and general stupidity of US bureaucrats and the US media who rely on emotional impact rather than science or medical fact is why people such as Kaci Hickox who pose absolutely no threat to anyone are being forced to be in isolation. The idea that an ebola pandemic will occur in North America because someone was in Africa and came into the US is just about the most ridiculous thing ever suggested.

I just got home after spending the end of Sept and October doing work with the Rangers for ASAM and for MSF in Africa. I have been in a fair number of countries in the last month traveling by aircraft, ground vehicle or walking and the only place I saw or heard the words "Ebola Scare" was in a USA newspaper at Heathrow on Friday (Oct 31) afternoon. The MSF team I was with consisted of 2 doctors (an American and a Belgian) and 4 nurses (Canadians), but there were also a number of teams in house and while conversation did include Ebola as a topic, no one was overly concerned about coming in contact with it; yellow fever, malaria and guerrillas (and driving 150 kph in a right hand drive vehicle in a convoy) were of greater concern and more likely what was going to put the hurt on someone. As for ebola becoming airborne - yeah, that and me winning the lottery two weeks in a row using the same numbers have about the same potential of occurring. There was also a fair bit of laughter from the medical people over how the CDC was handling the Dallas incident in early Oct; and while I was in the back country from Oct 21st until the 30th and had no contact with the outside world, it seems the CDC is still talking like ebola is an immediate threat to the entire planet and we are all about to die, but then treats potential contacts in the most lackadaisical way possible. I did have Immigration officials in various countries ask or I had to complete forms/questionnaires that did general screening for potential contact with ebola, but no one was freaking out over it as far as I saw or heard, except the USA. I met other travelers in Nelspruit, Johannesburg, Beira and Heathrow who were saying that the TSA was subjecting travelers from Africa to hours of interrogation and isolation and people were trying to bypass or figure out how to be dishonest in order to avoid receiving the same treatment. I didn't even get a second look from Nelspruit.immigration coming back from Nigeria, but apparently if you were anywhere in Africa the TSA was afraid of you. I'm just thankful I didn't have to go anywhere near the USA on traveling. It looked to me that the only place there was a "scare" or anyone was afraid was in the USA.

nostomania - homesickness, urge to return to familiar surroundings. Living in Canada, this isn't a common, everyday scene one runs across. Ran across this guy somewhere around the Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe border area about the 22nd October. For some reason he made me want to come home and see my dogs. http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l511/ffa1mf/20141028_075440_zpscc6a24ba.jpg

orphrey; gold or other rich embroidery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgZfhnCAdI#t=358

It is suggested that if time travel were possible, a possible 3 outcomes may result. The most commonly held belief is if we could change the past it would have impacts on the present/future. The problem with this theory is the paradox it creates. The typical one is if you go back in time and kill your father before you are born how can you go back and kill him if you were never born? Killing a serial killer (for example) before they kill someone creates a different paradox. The someone saved doesn’t exist in the present/future so are they stuck in the past? How do they get from the past to the present? Then there is the concept that the impact the change would have would not be known resulting in the individual going back into the past and constantly changing the past over and over again and thus the present/future would never exist. Lastly, the Novikov theory suggests that changing things in the past isn’t possible. It states that if an event exists that would result in a paradox then the probability of that event occurring is zero. My thought is Novikov is probably the most likely correct result. Hence, even if it were possible to travel to the past I would not do anything. Also, time travel is not and never will be possible as time is not something that passes or flows or is a continuous stream or however one wants to visualize it. Time is static and only we move, thus there is no past, present or future, only now exists.

I am pretty sure the ER surgeon wished a snake did form part of the ER "tool kit". 2 hours on German long sword instruction and exercise today. It was a bit unnerving as two moms brought young children who spent most of their time screaming about something. Made it rather hard to concentrate. I recommended to one mother that she may want to consider antinatalism as a lifestyle choice. (antinatalism: philosophy of not having children to control population.)

Is there anyone, anywhere on the entire planet who gives a flying leap about what Canadian politicians think about climate change or global warming? The debate on global warming and climate change is full of dimbulbs on both sides; the deniers who say global warming and climate change doesn't exist, then say the global warming and climate change that they say doesn't exist is caused by something other than CO2 or human activity; and then there is the alarmists who just need the attention of everyone and who I am sure gain great satisfaction in scaring the love beads off of all the tree huggers into thinking the planet is due for a catastrophic disaster of biblical proportions in the next few weeks. The idea that only one side of the debate is influenced by politics and thus all information supporting global warming and climate change is alarmist and corrupted by greed for financial gain and all deniers have information that is 100% factual, honest and infallible because they are only motivated by doing good for the sake of humanity is about as idiotic as stating that the media is an unbiased factual information service that has never sensationalized anything in the name of ratings. The simple fact is, global warming has occurred since the 1800's. It is also a simple fact that CO2 and methane levels have risen significantly in the atmosphere, an increase that can be attributed in part to human activity, and that both these gasses have some impact on the observed warming of the planet. And no, it’s not getting warmer EVERYWHERE all at once in a nice homogenous system with a clearly defined growth; but it is getting warmer on average in some places, colder on average in others, and warmer OVERALL on average. The thing is, it isn't important that the average global temperature is going up or down as it is that temperature averages have changed; and additionally whether the changes are occurring faster and at some magnitude than previously observed/known. Even extremely small changes to an environment can result in drastic and unpredictable events that can impact the entire environment. The more complex a system is, the more unpredictable the result of changes to factors which make up the system. For example, the gas composition of the atmosphere has an impact on radiation passing through it. For simplicity’s sake, scientists speak of “greenhouse gases”, a term that only captures the aspect that is considered relevant as the controlling variable presumed to influence radiation reaching the Earth and effecting average surface temperatures. What impact does an imbalance of these "greenhouse gases" have on the environment? Have scientists been fired for not following the direction of their employers? Yes they have, but the media makes it a big deal when the alarmist side fires someone, but they don't say much when the deniers side does. If the pro-global warming, alarmist side was so corrupt, then why have so many respected scientists at so many universities and research agencies who raise questions concerning the validity of the IPCC's conclusions still have their jobs and research funding? Could it be that a differing view supported by scientific fact questioning a theory is OK, but to run off at the mouth without facts or the authority to do so might get someone fired? There is quite a list of respected scientists who are skeptics (as opposed to deniers) who question a number of aspects of global warming and climate change advanced by the IPCC, but they do not deny that the changes are occurring. The IPCC report (AR5) lists 3 main conclusions; The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years. There is strong evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise. The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.The skeptics mostly do not deny global warming, but have raised concerns or questioned the conclusion of the IPCC research; questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections. that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes. that the cause of global warming is unknown. that global warming will have few negative consequences. There are very few (if any) actual research scientists within the field who simply deny global warming and climate change. There are however many youtubers and bloggers who have no background, education or understanding of the complexity of the problem who are more than willing to raise their alarmist views, and way too many who want to believe them. The whole thing comes down to that humans are polluting the planet and it isn't getting less polluted. I doubt very much that the fish are polluting the oceans and water or that animals are polluting the land or the birds are polluting the air. I also doubt that all the pollution is having any impact on the well being of the planet. Honestly, unless some mass from outer space impacts the planet with sufficient force to smash it to pieces, regardless of what humans do the planet is going to survive and be circling the sun for a very long time. The only question is will there be humans still on the planet?

At the hospital this morning restocking the EMS kit on the apparatus and the ER surgeon asks me, "How many perverts does it take to put in a light bulb?" Me. "I don't know." Surgeon, "Just one, but a whole ER crew to remove it.". Imbroglio; an altercation or complicated situation