A similar thing can be said about security hired by the airlines.Where Government security had no reason not to overreact airline security has every reason to under react. Every time they decide to shut something down airline security would have to prove they were right or they will lose their jobs. That is something that is impossible to do unless they actually caught someone. Overreaction causes delays and lost revenue. Under reaction could cause death. I choose what some call overreaction.
To implement your scenario the security checks would have to take place at each gate while boarding the aircraft. Otherwise passengers who can mingle once past current security could distribute weapons. Also security is not just about the airline. It is about what could be done with a hijacked aircraft. Are the people in the building that the aircraft was flown into party to the security decision?
By the way, the whole airport was not shut down. Here is the quote from the article;
A portion of Atlanta’s airport, including MARTA rail service, was interrupted for more than half an hour Friday morning because of a toothbrush.
The checked in bag with no one to verify what was inside started to make a strange buzzing sound. Employees have to assume the worst until proven otherwise. Anything else would be stupid. I bet many people who are now calling this over reaction would blame security for not reacting correctly and clearing the area if the unknown buzzing object had exploded.
I was trying to point out to the AC that there could be an alternate explanation. Notice that I said "Another explanation might be...". I stated that there might be another explanation not the the explanation was a fact. The issue I had with the your post was the assumption that parental teaching is automatically accepted by a juvenile. It is quite possible that the parents did everything right and the juvenile went a different direction. There is a huge difference between direction and control. Parents have the former; not the latter.
Sorry about the second part. My bad, I didn't check the name.
You are one data point which proves nothing. The other children who sleep in class may not be as smart or familiar with the subject as you and may fail. Until there is a study that proves sleeping in class does not lead to higher rates of failure you story is anecdotal.
They are combining signals from dishes separated by up to 16km so it is not a necessity that the supercomputer be right next to one of the dishes. Why not build the supercomputer at the base of the mountain instead of the top. They are already beaming raw data around so it will not make a difference.
Have you had teenagers? At that point in life peers have much more influence in a juvenile's lives than their parents.
You also missed the main points of my post. 1. It seems that you think assumptions are bad unless you are the one making them. 2. It seems that you think the only explanations are the ones you agree with. You are incorrect on both points.
I wouldn't bet that. Consider the facts: 1. The girl drugs her parents 2. The parents have the girl make them milkshakes (didn't make them together as a family since the girl was able to put drugs in them, wait for them to dissolve, etc) 3. The parents are paranoid enough, or knowledgeable enough about drugs, that they immediately suspected drugs based on how they felt, and got a drug kit 4. The parents chose to bring their daughter to the police
1. An entitled juvenile with no boundaries decides she really want to use the internet late at night at a sleepover and comes up with a cunning plan. They do not think far enough that the drugs may kill. 2. Juvenile "Hey Mom, we are making milkshakes. Want one?". Parent "sure". It takes almost no time to dissolve drugs in a blender especially if they have been crushed before hand.. 3. Most adults have taken sleeping pills at one time or another so the effects are well known. When they woke up with those symptoms but didn't take any they were suspicious and instead of accusing the juveniles without proof they decided to investigate it. Would you really walk into a juveniles room with a milkshake in your hand and accuse them of drugging you? They would just laugh at you. 4. They decided that the issue was so serious that family justice was not sufficient to impress the gravity of what was done and went to the next level. If the juvenile was willing to something like that to a parent what would they be willing to do to a stranger they hated?
Do you think all sleeping pills are incredibly dangerous for all people and the parents are lucky to be alive today?
In overdose to a person not aware that they are under the influence of the medication they are incredibly dangerous. I was prescribed a strong sleeping pill to be taken at home. The advice of the doctor was to take the prescribed dose and go straight to bed. I was advised to take no other medications while I was on them including OTC antihistamines. The parents did not have this option as they did not know they were taking the sleeping pills. At double that dose there would be coordination and control issues. I could fall down stairs, fall and hit my head, etc. Not knowing they had been administered the sleeping pills the parents may have taken another central nervous system depressant, alcohol, antihistamines, etc. All of which are normal events on most household from time to time. That combined with the overdose of sleeping pills may have stopped their breathing. There are also other medications such as antidepressants that interact with certain sleeping pills and can kill. The drugs were administered before 10PM. The parents may have decided to make a quick run to the store for something "Hey we're out of ice cream lets get some more" and had an accident. There have been instances where people have taken too much sleep medication, gone to sleep in the bath, slipped under the water and drown. There are several ways the parents could have died and the juveniles didn't care about that; they just wanted their fun.
She probably put her parents' lives more at risk when she was getting her driver's license (if she's 16, we don't even know that). Should that be added to her charge list?
That is BS. Any one teaching a juvenile to drive would not take them out on the highway before teaching them to be safe. That is also not an illegal activity done for a trivial selfish reason. On a completely logical level your argument is false. Just because there is danger in one situation does not mean that it is OK to create danger in another situation. Another reason for falsehood is that when teaching a juvenile to drive the parent knowingly accepts the danger as they can take measures to control it. These parents did not have the option as they did not know they were given sleeping pills.
I feel sorry for this girl to have grown up with such horrible parents.
Sorry but I doubt very much that the friend's parent was prescribed Ketamine for sleep. It was probably a sedative like Ambien. Please note the following warning;
What happens if I overdose?
Seek emergency medical attention or call the Poison Help line at 1-800-222-1222. An overdose of Ambien can be fatal when it is taken together with other medications that can cause drowsiness.
Overdose symptoms may include sleepiness, confusion, shallow breathing, feeling light-headed, fainting, or coma.
Ketamine itself isn't even safe as shown in this use positive site. Here are a couple of quotes;
Ketamine users attempting to move around are likely to fall down, bump into things or find themselves in a body of water without the ability to swim. Talking, moving or even going to the bathroom can be extremely difficult. It’s very important to be in a safe environment. For inexperienced users, a clear-headed sitter is absolutely essential.
Environmental Hazards At high doses, ketamine can be physically incapacitating, even paralyzing. Users must be sure to extinguish all cigarettes, candles and any other flame that could be knocked over. Over the years, several deaths have been attributed to ketamine. In virtually every case, the actual cause of death was some physical accident. A woman passed out and froze to death in her own side yard. Several users have drown, some even in their own bathtubs. It’s very easy for a user under the influence to trip and fall, potentially causing themselves great bodily harm. Given these examples it is hopefully apparent that a clear-headed sitter is virtually essential for even experienced ketamine users.
I would not call a couple of teens in their room playing on the internet to be " clear-headed sitter[s]".
The fact that a certain drug itself would not kill them does not preclude the fact that the juveniles did not know what other medication the parents were taking or if they were going to drink alcohol or drive a vehicle. The juveniles took their parents' lives in their hands when they administered a prescription sleeping medication.
The "miserable school day" is no consequence to most teenagers. They generally don't care. They will just sleep through class anyway or skip it all together. Many teenagers see no further than the next date or party and generally don't care whether or not they pass.
I agree that there are some parents who are control freaks. They dictate everything in their children's lives and the children rebel. There are also parents who set no boundaries for their children and the children act up just to be noticed. Both extremes have the same consequences; children that act out. There is a balance between those extremes where a child has both freedoms and constraints. Most teenagers do not yet have the mental capacity to understand the consequences of failing school. That is what parents are for. I think requiring a juvenile to not contact friends after bedtime so they get a good night sleep and have the capacity to learn in school is reasonable.
Who is betting the kids were doing poorly in school due to late night gab sessions on the internet and the restriction was a justifies response to the situation? Yeah, we don't know the details so why assume the parents were control freaks. Nothing justifies drugging and possibly killing another person so one can have internet access late at night.
Putting their kids behind bars might just teach them that their actions have consequences. We also don't know how long they were behind bars (if you can call a juvenile facility "behind bars"). They may have been out the next day after being arraigned.
The reaction may seem excessive to you but not to me. The juveniles put the parents' lives at risk. A day or two in juvenile detention pales before that.
I guess you haven't read this document. Here is a quote from it:
Instead of being sentenced to state prison, many defendants will be serving their "prison" term in county jail.
The juveniles are also not in County Jail but Placer County Juvenile Hall along with other juveniles. That looks like a very scary place. We have no information whether or not they have been released to or bailed out by their parents. Lets wait till things pan out before condemning the parents over what might or might not happen.
Maybe this will be a wake up call for a couple pf entitled teens and may even turn their lives around.
Your employer, credit bureau, and many other organizations can't see it or even know it exists. There has to be a reason for someone to look for and ask a judge for a sealed record to be unsealed. Using a juvenile record in court means that the person has been accused of another crime. It does not happen when applying for a job and therefore does not effect one's career so the GP's statement about the teenager being permanently condemned is false. So the only thing a juvenile record "condemns" someone to is not be charged with another crime or it may come back to haunt them(as it should).
Excellent, a reward foe endangering their parent's lives because they do not agree with a rule. Let's teach them that no matter how trivial your needs are you are allowed to do anything to get it; even endanger people's lives. As long as it is resourceful it is OK. That's really what we want to teach our kids.
Here is the list of assumptions you are making; 1. That they will be convicted to jail. They could very easily get probation on the recommendation of the victims/parents. 2. That their record would not be expunged/sealed at 18. If this is the only mark on the record there is a good chance it will.
Teenagers these days know that parents have no power if the teenager refuses to follow orders. Maybe the parents decided to deal with the issue when they were the victims and had some input rather than wait till something happened to someone else.
Ever heard of a sealed or expunged juvenile file? As ling as it is handled in juvenile court it may disappear. There may be hoops to jump through but if this is the only mark on their record when they tirn 18 it will probably go away.
What the fuck kind of parents are you people?
Parents who hold teenagers responsible for activities that would kill. There is a line between mischief and harm and the teenagers went very far across it. Do you really believe that anyone over 13 doesn't know that overdoses can kill?
I am not a doctor, but all medications come in varying dosages. We don't exactly know the whole story here, so stop making assumptions.
My bet here is that something was seriously wrong in this household, and the teen was acting out in the only way she knew how.
It seems funny how you can assume that " the teen was acting out in the only way she knew how" based on the girl drugging the parents but not that the dosage in the shake might have been lethal based on the effect of 1/4 of the dose. If you are against assumptions the you are against all assumptions. Sorry but you can not pick and choose.
The parents were being vindictive, that's the only explanation.
Yet another assumption. Another explanation might be they were great parents at the end of their rope with a daughter who has no boundaries. We do not know the whole story..
Yes, some people do not turn off their devices but most people carefully comply with the restriction and turn their devices off. If the restrictions were removed many times more devices would be turned on which would greatly increase the risk of accident. Look at this list of contaminants in water. Notice that low levels of cyanide is even allowed though we all know that high levels will kill. By your logic we should allow any amount of cyanide as we know low levels are OK. It is the same with RF on an aircraft. We know that low levels are OK as seen by today's real life experience. What we do not know is what will happen if 300+ people turn on a large number of RF transmitters on the same plane at the same time. A person with a cell phone, wireless headset, tablet, laptop and games device could have 8 transmitters on them. That could be up to 2400 transmitters on one aircraft though a more realistic figure is closer to 1200. The line between what does not and what does cause an issue has not been tested for. It may not even be an issue but testing needs to be done before it is allowed.
I never said it was all inflation. Between 1997 and 2011 the price of oil has varied by +60% to -41%. Last year it increased by 5%. It seems to be pretty stable to me compared to recent years. It is not even at its highest price adjusted for inflation which was back in 1980 at $104/bbl.
The issue is that the article is about absolute price and not price change. It is like saying "I am the oldest I have ever been". In a year I can say the same thing and it would be true. It is a reliable and predictable result. The same can be said for the price of most items we buy; prices will go up on most items. Now if they were talking about biggest price change that would be a story. Prices could have gone up by 1 cent a gallon and the statement "the highest price for gas" would be true. The same thing could happen next year. Once one has the "highest price" any price increase, no matter how small, will create another "highest price". If you didn't notice the previous record was set last year. Until gas prices start going down, which I doubt they ever will, every year this meaningless headline will be true.
Inflation rate is the weighted average of price changes in a number of categories. I was just trying to point out that price increases are a natural outcome of inflation. People demand more wages so the price of the product they produce go up. Overall, prices will always go up from year to year it is not news.
The increase in the price of gas is 2.5%, The average inflation rate for 2012 was 2.1%. So the increase was 15% over inflation but that is understandable. I bet most of the things we but would have a highest price ever this year.
Not true. There is a difference between a few cell phones that have in inadvertently or intentionally not turned off and hundreds of people using their cell phones, games devices, tablets and laptops. Sure the regulations do not eliminate the RF interference but it does keep it to a level at which can be handled by the hardware.
Your reference shows just how well you read and understood the article. Notice that the article states that people are allowed to use their devices at altitudes above 3,000m. The FAA rules are about using devices on aircraft during takeoff and landing which is a restriction still in force in the article cited.
Sorry but rules don't work that way. Sure the Kindle may be fine but that is not the only electronic device that can be carried on an aircraft. There are other eReaders and tablets that look like Kindles. Allowing a few tested devices causes the following issues. 1. Flight attendants must know the up to date list of approved equipment which leads to the following sub-issies;
a. Attendants may make mistakes and pass unapproved items or deny approved items.
b. Attendants would have to inspect every device to ensure it is approved. That takes time.
c. People with unapproved devices will get into arguments with people using approved devices.
d. People with unapproved devices will use them anyway. 2. Device specs change and something that was approved may now not be approved and some devices that were not approved may now be.\ 3. Similar looking devices can have very different specifications. What may look like a Kindle may be a much less shielded knock off. 4. Were the tests done with the wireless radio on or off? If it ws off how can a flight attendant know that it is still of and that would require flight attendants to check every device and know how to check every device. 5. There could be an aircraft that is brought down by a specific configuration of an number of grey market and or defective devices causing an issue during takeoff or landing. There is no way to recreate the exact configuration as theere may be nothing left of the aircraft and/or the devices that caused the crash. Rules are made to deal with the exceptions and not the average. Sure there are hundreds of devices that could be used quite safely on aircraft during takeoff and landing. The issue is that the risk of miss identification and the time and hassle required in dealing with inspection of hundreds of devices aboard aircraft it is much simpler and safer to ban all electronic devices with radio emitters until all have been proven safe.
To me, the possibility of an RF interference issue during take off or landing far outweigh the issue of having to turn your device off for a total of 40 minutes during a flight. A simple minor restriction that could save hundreds of lives is a reasonable trade off.
You make that sound like I think safety always outweighs liberty. That is far from the truth. Take for example the freedom of religion. If safety was paramount and based on the number of religious wars all religion should be banned. I am not for that. In this specific small instance There has not been enough testing to sufficiently prove that large numbers of wireless devices on aircraft is safe. Therefore, weighing the risk (death of hundreds of people) vs the reward (people being able to use wireless devices on aircraft) I will err on the side of caution.
How can a stewardess can recognize those devices? Some will always be turned on but that is very different than 300+ passengers having anywhere multiple devices all turned on. The rules will never eliminate electrical noise but it can keep it to a level that aircraft are known to be able to handle.
There is also the importance that needs to be considered. Freedom of speech has been proven as a basic human right. The use of wireless devices on an aircraft has not. They are nowhere similar in scale. There are different criteria for different issues.
Slashdot Mirror
A similar thing can be said about security hired by the airlines.Where Government security had no reason not to overreact airline security has every reason to under react. Every time they decide to shut something down airline security would have to prove they were right or they will lose their jobs. That is something that is impossible to do unless they actually caught someone. Overreaction causes delays and lost revenue. Under reaction could cause death. I choose what some call overreaction.
To implement your scenario the security checks would have to take place at each gate while boarding the aircraft. Otherwise passengers who can mingle once past current security could distribute weapons. Also security is not just about the airline. It is about what could be done with a hijacked aircraft. Are the people in the building that the aircraft was flown into party to the security decision?
By the way, the whole airport was not shut down. Here is the quote from the article;
A portion of Atlanta’s airport, including MARTA rail service, was interrupted for more than half an hour Friday morning because of a toothbrush.
The checked in bag with no one to verify what was inside started to make a strange buzzing sound. Employees have to assume the worst until proven otherwise. Anything else would be stupid. I bet many people who are now calling this over reaction would blame security for not reacting correctly and clearing the area if the unknown buzzing object had exploded.
I was trying to point out to the AC that there could be an alternate explanation. Notice that I said "Another explanation might be...". I stated that there might be another explanation not the the explanation was a fact. The issue I had with the your post was the assumption that parental teaching is automatically accepted by a juvenile. It is quite possible that the parents did everything right and the juvenile went a different direction. There is a huge difference between direction and control. Parents have the former; not the latter.
Sorry about the second part. My bad, I didn't check the name.
You are one data point which proves nothing. The other children who sleep in class may not be as smart or familiar with the subject as you and may fail. Until there is a study that proves sleeping in class does not lead to higher rates of failure you story is anecdotal.
They are combining signals from dishes separated by up to 16km so it is not a necessity that the supercomputer be right next to one of the dishes. Why not build the supercomputer at the base of the mountain instead of the top. They are already beaming raw data around so it will not make a difference.
Have you had teenagers? At that point in life peers have much more influence in a juvenile's lives than their parents.
You also missed the main points of my post.
1. It seems that you think assumptions are bad unless you are the one making them.
2. It seems that you think the only explanations are the ones you agree with.
You are incorrect on both points.
The article does state where they got the medication. Here is the quote;
the daughter secretly put her friend's prescription sleeping medicine
Ketamine was in all probability not the medication.
I wouldn't bet that. Consider the facts:
1. The girl drugs her parents
2. The parents have the girl make them milkshakes (didn't make them together as a family since the girl was able to put drugs in them, wait for them to dissolve, etc)
3. The parents are paranoid enough, or knowledgeable enough about drugs, that they immediately suspected drugs based on how they felt, and got a drug kit
4. The parents chose to bring their daughter to the police
1. An entitled juvenile with no boundaries decides she really want to use the internet late at night at a sleepover and comes up with a cunning plan. They do not think far enough that the drugs may kill.
2. Juvenile "Hey Mom, we are making milkshakes. Want one?". Parent "sure". It takes almost no time to dissolve drugs in a blender especially if they have been crushed before hand..
3. Most adults have taken sleeping pills at one time or another so the effects are well known. When they woke up with those symptoms but didn't take any they were suspicious and instead of accusing the juveniles without proof they decided to investigate it. Would you really walk into a juveniles room with a milkshake in your hand and accuse them of drugging you? They would just laugh at you.
4. They decided that the issue was so serious that family justice was not sufficient to impress the gravity of what was done and went to the next level. If the juvenile was willing to something like that to a parent what would they be willing to do to a stranger they hated?
Do you think all sleeping pills are incredibly dangerous for all people and the parents are lucky to be alive today?
In overdose to a person not aware that they are under the influence of the medication they are incredibly dangerous. I was prescribed a strong sleeping pill to be taken at home. The advice of the doctor was to take the prescribed dose and go straight to bed. I was advised to take no other medications while I was on them including OTC antihistamines. The parents did not have this option as they did not know they were taking the sleeping pills. At double that dose there would be coordination and control issues. I could fall down stairs, fall and hit my head, etc. Not knowing they had been administered the sleeping pills the parents may have taken another central nervous system depressant, alcohol, antihistamines, etc. All of which are normal events on most household from time to time. That combined with the overdose of sleeping pills may have stopped their breathing. There are also other medications such as antidepressants that interact with certain sleeping pills and can kill. The drugs were administered before 10PM. The parents may have decided to make a quick run to the store for something "Hey we're out of ice cream lets get some more" and had an accident. There have been instances where people have taken too much sleep medication, gone to sleep in the bath, slipped under the water and drown. There are several ways the parents could have died and the juveniles didn't care about that; they just wanted their fun.
She probably put her parents' lives more at risk when she was getting her driver's license (if she's 16, we don't even know that). Should that be added to her charge list?
That is BS. Any one teaching a juvenile to drive would not take them out on the highway before teaching them to be safe. That is also not an illegal activity done for a trivial selfish reason. On a completely logical level your argument is false. Just because there is danger in one situation does not mean that it is OK to create danger in another situation. Another reason for falsehood is that when teaching a juvenile to drive the parent knowingly accepts the danger as they can take measures to control it. These parents did not have the option as they did not know they were given sleeping pills.
I feel sorry for this girl to have grown up with such horrible parents.
Excellent
Sorry but I doubt very much that the friend's parent was prescribed Ketamine for sleep. It was probably a sedative like Ambien. Please note the following warning;
What happens if I overdose?
Seek emergency medical attention or call the Poison Help line at 1-800-222-1222. An overdose of Ambien can be fatal when it is taken together with other medications that can cause drowsiness.
Overdose symptoms may include sleepiness, confusion, shallow breathing, feeling light-headed, fainting, or coma.
Ketamine itself isn't even safe as shown in this use positive site. Here are a couple of quotes;
Ketamine users attempting to move around are likely to fall down, bump into things or find themselves in a body of water without the ability to swim. Talking, moving or even going to the bathroom can be extremely difficult. It’s very important to be in a safe environment. For inexperienced users, a clear-headed sitter is absolutely essential.
Environmental Hazards
At high doses, ketamine can be physically incapacitating, even paralyzing. Users must be sure to extinguish all cigarettes, candles and any other flame that could be knocked over. Over the years, several deaths have been attributed to ketamine. In virtually every case, the actual cause of death was some physical accident. A woman passed out and froze to death in her own side yard. Several users have drown, some even in their own bathtubs. It’s very easy for a user under the influence to trip and fall, potentially causing themselves great bodily harm. Given these examples it is hopefully apparent that a clear-headed sitter is virtually essential for even experienced ketamine users.
I would not call a couple of teens in their room playing on the internet to be " clear-headed sitter[s]".
The fact that a certain drug itself would not kill them does not preclude the fact that the juveniles did not know what other medication the parents were taking or if they were going to drink alcohol or drive a vehicle. The juveniles took their parents' lives in their hands when they administered a prescription sleeping medication.
The "miserable school day" is no consequence to most teenagers. They generally don't care. They will just sleep through class anyway or skip it all together. Many teenagers see no further than the next date or party and generally don't care whether or not they pass.
I agree that there are some parents who are control freaks. They dictate everything in their children's lives and the children rebel. There are also parents who set no boundaries for their children and the children act up just to be noticed. Both extremes have the same consequences; children that act out. There is a balance between those extremes where a child has both freedoms and constraints. Most teenagers do not yet have the mental capacity to understand the consequences of failing school. That is what parents are for. I think requiring a juvenile to not contact friends after bedtime so they get a good night sleep and have the capacity to learn in school is reasonable.
Who is betting the kids were doing poorly in school due to late night gab sessions on the internet and the restriction was a justifies response to the situation? Yeah, we don't know the details so why assume the parents were control freaks. Nothing justifies drugging and possibly killing another person so one can have internet access late at night.
Putting their kids behind bars might just teach them that their actions have consequences. We also don't know how long they were behind bars (if you can call a juvenile facility "behind bars"). They may have been out the next day after being arraigned.
The reaction may seem excessive to you but not to me. The juveniles put the parents' lives at risk. A day or two in juvenile detention pales before that.
I guess you haven't read this document. Here is a quote from it:
Instead of being sentenced to state prison, many defendants will be serving their "prison" term in county jail.
The juveniles are also not in County Jail but Placer County Juvenile Hall along with other juveniles. That looks like a very scary place. We have no information whether or not they have been released to or bailed out by their parents. Lets wait till things pan out before condemning the parents over what might or might not happen.
Maybe this will be a wake up call for a couple pf entitled teens and may even turn their lives around.
Your employer, credit bureau, and many other organizations can't see it or even know it exists. There has to be a reason for someone to look for and ask a judge for a sealed record to be unsealed. Using a juvenile record in court means that the person has been accused of another crime. It does not happen when applying for a job and therefore does not effect one's career so the GP's statement about the teenager being permanently condemned is false. So the only thing a juvenile record "condemns" someone to is not be charged with another crime or it may come back to haunt them(as it should).
Excellent, a reward foe endangering their parent's lives because they do not agree with a rule. Let's teach them that no matter how trivial your needs are you are allowed to do anything to get it; even endanger people's lives. As long as it is resourceful it is OK. That's really what we want to teach our kids.
Here is the list of assumptions you are making;
1. That they will be convicted to jail. They could very easily get probation on the recommendation of the victims/parents.
2. That their record would not be expunged/sealed at 18. If this is the only mark on the record there is a good chance it will.
Teenagers these days know that parents have no power if the teenager refuses to follow orders. Maybe the parents decided to deal with the issue when they were the victims and had some input rather than wait till something happened to someone else.
Ever heard of a sealed or expunged juvenile file? As ling as it is handled in juvenile court it may disappear. There may be hoops to jump through but if this is the only mark on their record when they tirn 18 it will probably go away.
What the fuck kind of parents are you people?
Parents who hold teenagers responsible for activities that would kill. There is a line between mischief and harm and the teenagers went very far across it. Do you really believe that anyone over 13 doesn't know that overdoses can kill?
I am not a doctor, but all medications come in varying dosages. We don't exactly know the whole story here, so stop making assumptions.
My bet here is that something was seriously wrong in this household, and the teen was acting out in the only way she knew how.
It seems funny how you can assume that " the teen was acting out in the only way she knew how" based on the girl drugging the parents but not that the dosage in the shake might have been lethal based on the effect of 1/4 of the dose. If you are against assumptions the you are against all assumptions. Sorry but you can not pick and choose.
The parents were being vindictive, that's the only explanation.
Yet another assumption. Another explanation might be they were great parents at the end of their rope with a daughter who has no boundaries. We do not know the whole story..
Yes, some people do not turn off their devices but most people carefully comply with the restriction and turn their devices off. If the restrictions were removed many times more devices would be turned on which would greatly increase the risk of accident. Look at this list of contaminants in water. Notice that low levels of cyanide is even allowed though we all know that high levels will kill. By your logic we should allow any amount of cyanide as we know low levels are OK. It is the same with RF on an aircraft. We know that low levels are OK as seen by today's real life experience. What we do not know is what will happen if 300+ people turn on a large number of RF transmitters on the same plane at the same time. A person with a cell phone, wireless headset, tablet, laptop and games device could have 8 transmitters on them. That could be up to 2400 transmitters on one aircraft though a more realistic figure is closer to 1200. The line between what does not and what does cause an issue has not been tested for. It may not even be an issue but testing needs to be done before it is allowed.
I never said it was all inflation. Between 1997 and 2011 the price of oil has varied by +60% to -41%. Last year it increased by 5%. It seems to be pretty stable to me compared to recent years. It is not even at its highest price adjusted for inflation which was back in 1980 at $104/bbl.
The issue is that the article is about absolute price and not price change. It is like saying "I am the oldest I have ever been". In a year I can say the same thing and it would be true. It is a reliable and predictable result. The same can be said for the price of most items we buy; prices will go up on most items. Now if they were talking about biggest price change that would be a story. Prices could have gone up by 1 cent a gallon and the statement "the highest price for gas" would be true. The same thing could happen next year. Once one has the "highest price" any price increase, no matter how small, will create another "highest price". If you didn't notice the previous record was set last year. Until gas prices start going down, which I doubt they ever will, every year this meaningless headline will be true.
Inflation rate is the weighted average of price changes in a number of categories. I was just trying to point out that price increases are a natural outcome of inflation. People demand more wages so the price of the product they produce go up. Overall, prices will always go up from year to year it is not news.
The increase in the price of gas is 2.5%, The average inflation rate for 2012 was 2.1%. So the increase was 15% over inflation but that is understandable. I bet most of the things we but would have a highest price ever this year.
Not true. There is a difference between a few cell phones that have in inadvertently or intentionally not turned off and hundreds of people using their cell phones, games devices, tablets and laptops. Sure the regulations do not eliminate the RF interference but it does keep it to a level at which can be handled by the hardware.
Your reference shows just how well you read and understood the article. Notice that the article states that people are allowed to use their devices at altitudes above 3,000m. The FAA rules are about using devices on aircraft during takeoff and landing which is a restriction still in force in the article cited.
Sorry but rules don't work that way. Sure the Kindle may be fine but that is not the only electronic device that can be carried on an aircraft. There are other eReaders and tablets that look like Kindles. Allowing a few tested devices causes the following issues.
1. Flight attendants must know the up to date list of approved equipment which leads to the following sub-issies;
a. Attendants may make mistakes and pass unapproved items or deny approved items.
b. Attendants would have to inspect every device to ensure it is approved. That takes time.
c. People with unapproved devices will get into arguments with people using approved devices.
d. People with unapproved devices will use them anyway.
2. Device specs change and something that was approved may now not be approved and some devices that were not approved may now be.\
3. Similar looking devices can have very different specifications. What may look like a Kindle may be a much less shielded knock off.
4. Were the tests done with the wireless radio on or off? If it ws off how can a flight attendant know that it is still of and that would require flight attendants to check every device and know how to check every device.
5. There could be an aircraft that is brought down by a specific configuration of an number of grey market and or defective devices causing an issue during takeoff or landing. There is no way to recreate the exact configuration as theere may be nothing left of the aircraft and/or the devices that caused the crash.
Rules are made to deal with the exceptions and not the average. Sure there are hundreds of devices that could be used quite safely on aircraft during takeoff and landing. The issue is that the risk of miss identification and the time and hassle required in dealing with inspection of hundreds of devices aboard aircraft it is much simpler and safer to ban all electronic devices with radio emitters until all have been proven safe.
To me, the possibility of an RF interference issue during take off or landing far outweigh the issue of having to turn your device off for a total of 40 minutes during a flight. A simple minor restriction that could save hundreds of lives is a reasonable trade off.
You make that sound like I think safety always outweighs liberty. That is far from the truth. Take for example the freedom of religion. If safety was paramount and based on the number of religious wars all religion should be banned. I am not for that. In this specific small instance There has not been enough testing to sufficiently prove that large numbers of wireless devices on aircraft is safe. Therefore, weighing the risk (death of hundreds of people) vs the reward (people being able to use wireless devices on aircraft) I will err on the side of caution.
How can a stewardess can recognize those devices? Some will always be turned on but that is very different than 300+ passengers having anywhere multiple devices all turned on. The rules will never eliminate electrical noise but it can keep it to a level that aircraft are known to be able to handle.
There is also the importance that needs to be considered. Freedom of speech has been proven as a basic human right. The use of wireless devices on an aircraft has not. They are nowhere similar in scale. There are different criteria for different issues.