The general public needs to get over its delusion that scientists are some sort of priesthood that exists to tell them The One True Way and save them the trouble of having to understand issues well enough to make their own informed decisions about what is best.
Mankind needs to get over its delusion that some sort of priesthood exists to tell them the One True Way.
The suit says Nathan's death was unnecessary and avoidable if EnergyUnited had complied with industry safety standards and its own safety policies.
Statements like this strike fear into the hearts of corporate safety managers everywhere. Not following your own safety procedures = lawsuit FAIL. On the other hand...
The electric meter for the property was located outside a garage, "and from the meter there was a clear view of the high-voltage line as well as the white pine tree that Nathan climbed when he was electrocuted," the suit says.
Deborah Kenemore took Nathan to the neighbor's house so he could play with a 6-year-old girl. She remained on the property at all times and was in close proximity to the tree, the suit says.
If there is such a clear view of the hazard why did you let your child climb into that tree in the first place?
The simple fact is that fear sells papers. Print a headline that strikes fear into the hearts of parents and they're likely to buy the paper to read the article. Printing a headline stating the opposite ( new study finds vaccines reduce asthma deaths ) just doesn't have the same emotional impact.
Perhaps the rational stories just need *better headlines:
Exclusive Report: Sensationalist headlines could kill your child!
Because this good life has a price tag. And it's our generation that has to pay for our share and the previous generations share. Upset yet? You should be.
Yes, the Baby Boomers should hurry up and die already.
But I still think that it's not that bad in objective terms. It's just that everything is sensationalized today (one of the downsides of instant global communication).
And I'm disinclined to throw robust support behind "The American economy" when its primary effects at this peak are to further enrich the top 1% and at best keep the rest of us along with a carrot-and-stick routine.
I am 28 years old. In my lifetime I've seen the shift from rotary dial telephones to near universal mobile phone coverage.
Back when I was in grade school, the state-of-the-art in information distribution involved physically shipping books from library to library. Now most of the accumulated knowlege of mankind is available instantly to everyone, everywhere.
People are safer, healthier and live longer than ever before. We can communicate with people from all over the world practically for free.
There has never been a better time to live on this planet than the present. We're living in the golden age of humanity; why do you insist on being so miserable?
Suffice it to say that brakes are a safety feature that you don't to have missing in an emergency.
Unless you're in Oklahoma, in which case you use brakes only for emergencies and also reflexively at the top of every fucking hill and during any curve (no matter how slight)...
By way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, nearly all of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been applied to the states, under what's known as the incorporation doctrine. As a result, the Fourteenth Amendment not only empowered the federal courts to intervene in this area to enforce the guarantee of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, but also to import the substantive rights of free speech, freedom of religion, protection from unreasonable searches and cruel and unusual punishment, and other limitations on governmental power. At the present, the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments and all of the Fifth Amendment other than the requirement that any criminal prosecution must follow a grand jury indictment, but none of the provisions of the Seventh Amendment relating to civil trials. Thus, the Court has also greatly expanded the reach of procedural due process, requiring some sort of hearing before the government may terminate civil service employees, expel a student from public school, or cut off a welfare recipient's benefits.
Also, if you'll read the First Amendment you'll notice that there's no limitation on any body besides Congress impeding free speech, yet somehow that notion has evolved to include state legislatures as well. I'm more likely to shit a brick as I listen to how you try to explain to me why that is not an instance of legal interpretrations changing.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The restrictions placed on our government were put there for a reason. Our society will benefit far more from our rights being upheld than they will by this one junkie being sent back to prison based on an illegal search.
Exactly. Evidence exclusion exists because it is a good compromise. We sacrifice a little bit of justice for a large gain in liberty.
Slashdot Mirror
New laws always cause more crime (by definition).
Mankind needs to get over its delusion that some sort of priesthood exists to tell them the One True Way.
Wow
???
"Neither A nor NOT A"... This logically evaluates to:
If I was designing the cable, I'd try to make it so that any force that could cut the cable would break it at ground level first.
The weakest part of the cable will be at the bottom so that if it breaks it will fall up
In the USA, truth is an absolute defense to defamation claims.
Statements like this strike fear into the hearts of corporate safety managers everywhere. Not following your own safety procedures = lawsuit FAIL.
On the other hand...
If there is such a clear view of the hazard why did you let your child climb into that tree in the first place?
No, it's really easy when the tragic consequences happen to the person who makes the bad decision.
When the tragic consequences happen to other people it gets difficult, especially when those other people are children.
Perhaps the rational stories just need *better headlines:
Exclusive Report: Sensationalist headlines could kill your child!
*For certain definitions of "better"
Worthing Chronicles by Orson Scott Card
You forgot about mostly dead.
But try to imagine a world in which your typical business major could specify business requirements that were amenable to formal proofs...
Yes, the Baby Boomers should hurry up and die already.
But I still think that it's not that bad in objective terms. It's just that everything is sensationalized today (one of the downsides of instant global communication).
Gives them an incentative to get rich...?
I am 28 years old. In my lifetime I've seen the shift from rotary dial telephones to near universal mobile phone coverage.
Back when I was in grade school, the state-of-the-art in information distribution involved physically shipping books from library to library. Now most of the accumulated knowlege of mankind is available instantly to everyone, everywhere.
People are safer, healthier and live longer than ever before. We can communicate with people from all over the world practically for free.
There has never been a better time to live on this planet than the present. We're living in the golden age of humanity; why do you insist on being so miserable?
Sadly, most of their problems are because of exactly that.
but manbearpig is real...
hyperbondage
If you've never been to Oklahoma then you are a luckier person than I am.
Unless you're in Oklahoma, in which case you use brakes only for emergencies and also reflexively at the top of every fucking hill and during any curve (no matter how slight)...
I agree that punishing the bad cops is preferable to letting criminals go free.
Let us know when you have a reliable way of doing this that less susceptible to corruption and conflicts of interest than evidence exclusion.
Keep reading
Doesn't anyone read anymore?
Exactly. Evidence exclusion exists because it is a good compromise. We sacrifice a little bit of justice for a large gain in liberty.
Not all of them