Kethal

Whenever there's a stupidity expensive version of a functional thing, Coleman makes a version that's as good or better for half the price: https://www.coleman.com/coolers-drinkware/drinkware/.

The bottles are a different company, but I'd say that calling Stanley tools "mediocre" is generous of you.

It's a a rival of Hardvard.

"It's"? Are you talking about covid? Because we're talking about other diseases, and if you're claiming that a population fully vaccinated against mumps, other than the immunocompromised, doesn't protect the immunocompromised from mumps, feel free to look up and compare current and past rates for mumps infections.

Then, use your half a brain to extend that to COVID. The COVID vaccines do little to prevent transmission in that if you are vaccinated, and are exposed to the virus, you will still likely become infected. But the vaccines reduce the duration of infection and reduce the viral load shed by the infected person, thus reducing the probability that an infected person will spread to anyone else. If an infected person is infecting fewer people, that is a reduction in overall transmission. So when you say "’we've known the vaccines do not prevent transmission", you're completely wrong, or at the very least, equivocating, by conflating individual transmission with overall transmission rates. Here's a link, since I doubt you'll know what that means either: https://www.thefreedictionary.com/equivocating.

That sounds far more interesting that the run-of-the-mill crap churned out by the MCU.

And they're dead.

Well, I wasn't even considering them. That's a particularly vulnerable group, but I was referring to uncompromised people for whom the vaccine is not effective, or for whom immunity has waned.

A lot of people here are claiming something "like this is a problem that only affects these idiots". Sadly, that's not the case. A number of these vaccines are only roughly 80% effective. The efficacy of these lies in herd immunity, where the 20% of people who did get the vaccine, but are not protected, will never encounter the disease because the other 80% can't get it to spread it to them.

Let's say you need 70% of people to be protected to maintain herd immunity. Then just 10% of the population needs to be idiots, and the disease spreads to the 30% that isn't protected. Of that 30%, 20 points are people who were not idiots and got vaccinated, but unfortunately are not protected. The idiots will get sick, but twice as many not-idiots will get sick too. Unfortunately, for some of these diseases, the idiots will be hurting many more people than themselves.

The affected people are not necessarily immunocompromised. For example, after two doses of the mumps vaccine, 88% of people are immune. Immunity decreases with time, so the proportion that's immune is lower than that. Let's guess at 80%. You, the person reading this, can be a normal healthy person who got the mumps vaccine, and you have a 1 in 5 chance that you're not immune. Those are some pretty big odds.

The article headline is misleading. Nothing in the study indicates that fingerprints can't be used to uniquely identity people. It claims to show that although each fingerprint on a single person is unique, they have similar features. Thus, one could assess whether a pair of fingerprints come from the same person.

The argument that a president is immune from trial sounds like nonsense, but I don't understand why Sauer failing to answer is the slam dunk the author says it is.

People are giving some advice but it doesn't seem appropriate for an absolute newbie. Here's what I'd say. Absolutely do not run telnet. Because it's so insecure and everyone knows that, it's usually not on by default, and you would have had to start it yourself somehow. It's unlikely that you did that, but you can check to see.

If you're new, you very likely don't need an SSH server running. Unless you're logging into that computer remotely, you don't need it. It's probably not running, but it's conceivable that it could run by default. Check to see and disable it if you don't need remote login.

If you do need remote login, use SSH and use a very good password. Ideally, you'd need to leave newbie territory and use public-private keys instead of a password. It's also not a bad idea to use a nonstandard port, instead of 22. That doesn't beef security much, but many scanners are going to look for 22 and nothing else.

Grass will flower if you don't mow it.