Actually it was supposed to be a cure for Hypertension (high blood pressure) and Angina Pectoris (cardiac chest pain) And in fact it is still used to treat Pulmonary Hypertension (high blood pressure in the blood vessel from the heart to the lungs) Considering that heart disease is the number one cause of death in North America, I would consider this to be quite "useful" research. And despite it's recreational uses, the drug is used to treat serious medical conditions even now, so it's hardly an example of something developed frivolously.
Well, if driving is an inalienable right that everyone should have regardless of knowing how, we should do away with the farce of driving licenses. If we believe that licensing is important to ensure safe drivers, we should actually do it. I live in a city that is positively AWFUL for people without a car, and yet I lived that way for years without one. It is doable, and if you want to drive, you'll learn how. I don't think these standards would make most people unable to drive, it would just force most people to actually learn how. sure a few people would be disqualified, but do we really want those people driving?
If we actually had testing standards before issuing licenses, most people would be able to qualify, with some instruction. Unfortunately current road tests are a joke. I remember taking my test and realizing they cared more if you could read signs and park straight then if you could actually drive. No skid training was required, no tight space manoeuvring, in fact no emergency situations were tested at all. They cared much more that you could parallel park (in a spot the length of 3 city buses) than they did if you were an actual safe driver. While I'll admit that not everyone could pass such a test, I bet the majority could with a bit of training. But as it is, the training isn't required, so very few people get any. If you combine that with measures that stop people who have been proven at fault in multiple collisions from continuing to drive without further training, you'd end up with much safer roads. The solution isn't better features on the cars, it's better training and more accountability for the drivers.
Except that if only 1 wheel is sliding, I want all 4 wheels to continue to brake normally. because only 1 wheel sliding means that the surface that's slippery is small enough that it doesn't affect much. In addition to all 4 (or at least both front which is where most of the braking power is) wheels doing the ABS thing and loosing most of my braking power, they also do it for far longer than necessary, I pass over a manhole cover, and the ABS is going for the next 30-50ft even though the manhole cover was only 2ft accross. meaning I'm standing on the brake and passing 50% of the way through the intersection even though without the ABS I'd stop before the stop line.
Bingo! Mitsubishi ABS... bad, but about as good as ABS gets Ford ABS (and the Chev one I had before)... downright DANGEROUS. I can't believe they are allowed to sell such a thing.
And that doesn't even go in to the fact that there are times where locking up the wheels is the right thing to do to avoid a collision. (of course proper threshold braking is also better than ABS every time)
Good, if we have the choice I'll take me driving, and you'll take computer driving, and I'll continue to drive regardless of the conditions safely, and you... well, you take your chances. What I can't tolerate is the idea that they'll take the choice away from me in the name of safety when we have proven several times that with even a half competent driver most of these safety features work worse than when you don't have them. You want to fix safety on vehicles. Start with who you let drive. As long as we refuse to make drivers pass proper testing before getting behind the wheel, and as long as we refuse to stop people who have proven repeatedly that they can't drive from doing so, safety will never improve, regardless of how many gimmicks you put on the vehicle.
As for "caring about perceptions" I care about reality, not perceptions. And my ABS has nearly caused several collisions in no imaginary way. I drive vehicles both with, and without ABS, I never have these problems without ABS, but with it...
According to the decal on the windshield this truck was proudly made in Ford's Kentucky plant. I also had the same issue on my last Ford, and the Chev before that. My Mitsubishi, while still worse than no ABS, is much much better and has never come close to causing a collision.
I have had this exact problem on all 3 of my north american vehicles. right from brand new. I doubt it's a faulty sensor. I think it's more poor design.
The problem is, these won't be optional. How easy is it to find a car now without ABS? or even traction control? both of these systems cause far more problems than they solve with even a half way competent person behind the wheel, and yet you can't buy a vehicle without them. This will just be one more mandatory expensive system that you MUST pay for on every new vehicle, and if it causes a crash, it will be considered your fault just as it is today if your ABS or traction control do the same.
What is really needed in the automotive safety world is to make sure drivers are half way competent before we let them out on public streets. Unfortunately that sounds too much like personal responsibility and how dare you deny someone the RIGHT to drive just because they don't know how!
The anti-lock brakes on my work truck do this all the time, 1 tire hits a small patch of gravel/ice/manhole cover and suddenly I feel a drastic loss of braking power on all 4 wheels. It has nearly caused many collisions. For some reason the anti-lock brakes on my personal vehicle, despite being very annoying, have never caused me the same problems, despite being on a vehicle nearly 15 years older (so theoretically not as advanced a design) If I could find a vehicle without them I would definitely have it, for safety reasons!
wow... that is a heck of a lot of compression, we have HD down to about 6Mbps and SD at about 1.8Mbps (can't remember the exact numbers, I'm a field tech, I don't do the back end stuff) We send it all over ADSL, so a customer with 15meg service is allowed 1HD stream and 2SD streams at a time (plus internet) at about 35meg service we allow 3HD, 1SD (plus internet) If what you're reporting is common to the industry it explains why we constantly win in picture quality surveys....
nitpick... is it broadcast at 720p or 1080i? I know at the telco I work for we receive all the feeds from the providers at 1080i with the exception of sports channel feeds which arrive at 720p. people have their choice of which resolution they want to set their digital boxes to, but that doesn't change how the providers send the feed, only how it's displayed on their TV.
In fact this is the same as the cable/satellite/telephone company's PVR system. They all stop working if you cancel your subscription too, even though the shows are stored locally you still can't get at them without paying hte monthly fee. On a side note, I work for a telco who looked in to network based PVR features, the end result was that it was determined that it was a legal nightmare that we didn't dare touch, so instead we put a PVR in each customer's house. Customer's get most of the same functionality, but it costs more in hardware, and is limited to how many shows you can record at a time, the network solution would have removed those restrictions.
Once again the media cartels refuse to adapt to new technologies and everyone else pays the price.
wow... just wow... I don't even know how to respond to that ridiculousness. You've ignored every point I made, twisted my words around to be the opposite I said, and completely made up what you think I might believe.
In short, the same thing religions have been doing since the advent of them thousands of years ago.
Anyway, it's obvious this discussion is pointless as you won't even read what I said. So I'm just going to stop saying anything in response to you here and let others read it and see what they think (which will likely boil down to how religious they are anyway...)
If my morals were truly based on religion I would be discriminatory towards gays (I am not) I would believe blind faith to be a virtue (it is not) I would believe it was wrong to live with my significant other before we were married (I do not) and may other things. In fact, if it was truly based in religion it would be impossible to not be religious as the single most important lesson taught by religion is that you MUST at all costs be religious.
The fact that you ignore the choices I've made to exclude the negative aspects of your religion while pretending that I had not choice in including some of the same morals you happen to have makes your argument absurd. If I chose my morality in relation to all the things religions still exclude, why is it so hard to believe I may have chosen my own morality in things religions happen to agree with me on?
This has nothing to do with language either, The concept of mixing up "rights" with what is "right" is an absurd strawman. My morals are 100% based on the type of society I want to live in, which is mostly governed by what I would wish inflicted on me. (For instance, you can't morally believe in slavery unless you want to be a slave yourself because you aren't the one who picks which position within a society you get to exist in.)
I don't believe murder is bad because some religion says so. I believe murder is bad because I don't want to live in a society where anyone can run around killing people at will (mainly because I don't want them to kill me or others that I care about) I don't believe rape is bad because some religion says so. I believe rape is bad because I don't want to live in a society where anyone can run around rapeing people at will (mainly because I don't want them to rape me or others that I care about) I don't believe theft is bad because some religion says so. I believe theft is bad because I don't want to live in a society where anyone can run around strealling things at will (mainly because I don't want them to steal from me or others that I care about)
See a pattern? Conversely, I do believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they want in their own bedrooms, despite religion telling me otherwise, because I don't want to live in a society where a few people in power can tell people what they can do in their own bedrooms (mainly because I don't want them to tell me or others that I care about what we can do in our bedrooms) (in case that was too subtle for you, I'm talking about homosexuality, pre-marital sex, contraception, and any of a number of other ridiculous restrictions religions want to place on us) Also, I do believe that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want, and more importantly believe in nothing at all if they so choose, despite religion telling me otherwise, because I don't want to live in a society where a few people in power can tell people what to believe (mainly because I don't want them to tell me or others that I care about what we can believe) (in case that was too subtle for you, I'm talking about how every single religion thinks it is the only "true" religion and preaches that everyone not in their religion is in some way worse than they are (it ranges from edicts to murder those people, to efforts to convert them, to more subtle things, but every single religion believes themselves superior to every other, precluding a true lack of discrimination))
My life is based on reason and science, there is no room for blind faith or magical mythical creatures.
How do you determine "casual" vs "non-casual"? and with what degree of accuracy? It sounds like you are over complicating things. If you make killing illegal so that side of things is covered, and paying for someone to kill also illegal, why do you also need to make talking about it illegal? What purpose does it serve to add more laws to the situation when you've already made it illegal both to do the killing, and to reward someone for doing it? (that's both sides of a contract killing transaction) The only thing that adding a communication component does is cause an increased likelihood of punishing someone who was just kidding around or some such for simple words that can cause no harm.
You chastise the romans for fights to the death and mass rapes, and yet promote the christian bible that promotes the same things, slavery, mass rape, intollerance, murder, all in the bible.
Society has moved on, and moved away from those values and we are much better for it. It could be argued that this is DESPITE christianity instead of because of it. All the good things you promote in the bible were also around before it, and all the bad things that have vanished in society since christianity started did so not because of people holding religious beliefs, but despite them. Most positive changes to human morality have been strongly opposed by religion until fully accepted by society. see birth control, gay rights, slavery, women's rights, and many other issues. You can't take credit for all the good in the world without also accepting blame for the bad that came with it.
And yet again a religious person passes judgment saying that I must be either a) lying and secretly religious, or b) immoral... Luckilly people who do know me are the ones judging me, not religious trolls on the internet...
If I make a casual remark "I hate ________, I wish someone would just shoot him/her", should I spend years in jail just because of the remote possibility that someone might take me seriously and shoot the person? If not, where do you draw the line? and if so, how do you justify jailing people for what is a fairly common outburst when people become frustrated? No, you should punish the person who shoots the person (or attempts to). Now if you wanted to jail me for paying someone to shoot the person that would be different, but that's not the speech that's the problem, it's the fact that I'm paying someone to do something illegal. (money is not speech, regardless of what court decision says otherwise)
If my speech causes damage or loss of life, I must have had the volume up VERY loud!.... If someone else does something that causes damage or loss of life after hearing my speech, they are the ones who should be held responsible! The only valid exception I have ever agreed to for freedom of speech is in consumer protection. you should not be allowed to outright lie about what your product/service does to get someone's money with no recourse. there should be some form of consequence to that (arguably that is more contract law than freedom of speech though)
No, they consider themselves enlightened because they believe in the scientific process and only believe in things that have at least a small amount of evidence to back them up. I believe in many things greater than myself, society is greater than I am, as is nature, the universe is positively amazing. All of these are much greater than myself, and all of them are real. None of these are based soley on "someone said so and I've been told not to question them"
If the only reason for you to do good deeds are because of a fear of God/the devil, or a need to please God/the church. Then you are not a good person. A good person does good deeds for the sake of doing good, or to improve society as a whole.
People doing good things in God's name are being dishonest and selfish. People doing good without religion are truly good people.
As for what "chrisitan ideals" are... if you'd ever read the bible you'd know how full of hate and immorality those "ideals" really are. picking and choosing only the "good" from a book espousing the common beliefs of people thousands of years ago does not give you the moral high ground to claim that nobody else could come up with those same "good" things without secretly believing the same thing. Worse yet, when they leave out all the bad parts of the morality listed in the bible you still take credit for it as if it stemmed from a religious text that is far more immoral than what the later group follows. Cristians do not have an eternal patent on morality, there is much prior art, and anyone looking at a truly moral culture would see that it is a completely different work than that found in any cristian literature.
My morality has no basis whatsoever in any religion. My moral code is derived 100% from what form of society I want to live in with the theory that I should act the way I want all people to act. I believe it is immoral to murder, cheat, steal, rape, discriminate in any way, etc. I volunteer hundreds of hours a year to various non-profit and charitable organizations. I don't drink/smoke/swear. and yet my lack of religion causes people to claim that I must be a bad person because I could not possibly have morals. This coming from someone who judges a person soley by what imaginary creature they worship?
And that's why it is the submarine that needs to be held responsible, not the cruiser. they need to be more careful so as not to surface in the way of a ship that will have no choice but to hit them.
Assuming the submarine had seen the cruiser through the periscope on the surface, at 200yards, what evasive options do they have? Is it reasonable to try to dive quickly to avoid the collision? Or is it pointless? The cruiser quickly reversed the props, but there isn't much info about what, if anything, the sub did. (or could/should have done)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it was supposed to be a cure for Hypertension (high blood pressure) and Angina Pectoris (cardiac chest pain) And in fact it is still used to treat Pulmonary Hypertension (high blood pressure in the blood vessel from the heart to the lungs) Considering that heart disease is the number one cause of death in North America, I would consider this to be quite "useful" research. And despite it's recreational uses, the drug is used to treat serious medical conditions even now, so it's hardly an example of something developed frivolously.
Personal vehicle (acceptable ABS):
- 1995 Mitsubishi Delica L400 Spacegear
Work vehicles (dangerous ABS):
- 2001 Chevrolet Astro Van
- 2006 Ford E250
- 2008 Ford F350
Well, if driving is an inalienable right that everyone should have regardless of knowing how, we should do away with the farce of driving licenses. If we believe that licensing is important to ensure safe drivers, we should actually do it.
I live in a city that is positively AWFUL for people without a car, and yet I lived that way for years without one. It is doable, and if you want to drive, you'll learn how. I don't think these standards would make most people unable to drive, it would just force most people to actually learn how. sure a few people would be disqualified, but do we really want those people driving?
Maybe you missed how my personal vehicle behaves much better. So it's unlikely my driving style.
I think most people put up with vehicles that in a bad situation make things worse instead of better.
If we actually had testing standards before issuing licenses, most people would be able to qualify, with some instruction. Unfortunately current road tests are a joke.
I remember taking my test and realizing they cared more if you could read signs and park straight then if you could actually drive. No skid training was required, no tight space manoeuvring, in fact no emergency situations were tested at all. They cared much more that you could parallel park (in a spot the length of 3 city buses) than they did if you were an actual safe driver.
While I'll admit that not everyone could pass such a test, I bet the majority could with a bit of training. But as it is, the training isn't required, so very few people get any.
If you combine that with measures that stop people who have been proven at fault in multiple collisions from continuing to drive without further training, you'd end up with much safer roads.
The solution isn't better features on the cars, it's better training and more accountability for the drivers.
Except that if only 1 wheel is sliding, I want all 4 wheels to continue to brake normally. because only 1 wheel sliding means that the surface that's slippery is small enough that it doesn't affect much. In addition to all 4 (or at least both front which is where most of the braking power is) wheels doing the ABS thing and loosing most of my braking power, they also do it for far longer than necessary, I pass over a manhole cover, and the ABS is going for the next 30-50ft even though the manhole cover was only 2ft accross. meaning I'm standing on the brake and passing 50% of the way through the intersection even though without the ABS I'd stop before the stop line.
Bingo!
Mitsubishi ABS... bad, but about as good as ABS gets
Ford ABS (and the Chev one I had before)... downright DANGEROUS. I can't believe they are allowed to sell such a thing.
And that doesn't even go in to the fact that there are times where locking up the wheels is the right thing to do to avoid a collision. (of course proper threshold braking is also better than ABS every time)
Good, if we have the choice I'll take me driving, and you'll take computer driving, and I'll continue to drive regardless of the conditions safely, and you... well, you take your chances.
What I can't tolerate is the idea that they'll take the choice away from me in the name of safety when we have proven several times that with even a half competent driver most of these safety features work worse than when you don't have them.
You want to fix safety on vehicles. Start with who you let drive. As long as we refuse to make drivers pass proper testing before getting behind the wheel, and as long as we refuse to stop people who have proven repeatedly that they can't drive from doing so, safety will never improve, regardless of how many gimmicks you put on the vehicle.
As for "caring about perceptions" I care about reality, not perceptions. And my ABS has nearly caused several collisions in no imaginary way. I drive vehicles both with, and without ABS, I never have these problems without ABS, but with it...
According to the decal on the windshield this truck was proudly made in Ford's Kentucky plant. I also had the same issue on my last Ford, and the Chev before that. My Mitsubishi, while still worse than no ABS, is much much better and has never come close to causing a collision.
I have had this exact problem on all 3 of my north american vehicles. right from brand new. I doubt it's a faulty sensor. I think it's more poor design.
The problem is, these won't be optional.
How easy is it to find a car now without ABS? or even traction control? both of these systems cause far more problems than they solve with even a half way competent person behind the wheel, and yet you can't buy a vehicle without them. This will just be one more mandatory expensive system that you MUST pay for on every new vehicle, and if it causes a crash, it will be considered your fault just as it is today if your ABS or traction control do the same.
What is really needed in the automotive safety world is to make sure drivers are half way competent before we let them out on public streets. Unfortunately that sounds too much like personal responsibility and how dare you deny someone the RIGHT to drive just because they don't know how!
The anti-lock brakes on my work truck do this all the time, 1 tire hits a small patch of gravel/ice/manhole cover and suddenly I feel a drastic loss of braking power on all 4 wheels. It has nearly caused many collisions.
For some reason the anti-lock brakes on my personal vehicle, despite being very annoying, have never caused me the same problems, despite being on a vehicle nearly 15 years older (so theoretically not as advanced a design)
If I could find a vehicle without them I would definitely have it, for safety reasons!
wow... that is a heck of a lot of compression, we have HD down to about 6Mbps and SD at about 1.8Mbps (can't remember the exact numbers, I'm a field tech, I don't do the back end stuff) We send it all over ADSL, so a customer with 15meg service is allowed 1HD stream and 2SD streams at a time (plus internet) at about 35meg service we allow 3HD, 1SD (plus internet)
If what you're reporting is common to the industry it explains why we constantly win in picture quality surveys....
nitpick... is it broadcast at 720p or 1080i? I know at the telco I work for we receive all the feeds from the providers at 1080i with the exception of sports channel feeds which arrive at 720p. people have their choice of which resolution they want to set their digital boxes to, but that doesn't change how the providers send the feed, only how it's displayed on their TV.
In fact this is the same as the cable/satellite/telephone company's PVR system. They all stop working if you cancel your subscription too, even though the shows are stored locally you still can't get at them without paying hte monthly fee.
On a side note, I work for a telco who looked in to network based PVR features, the end result was that it was determined that it was a legal nightmare that we didn't dare touch, so instead we put a PVR in each customer's house. Customer's get most of the same functionality, but it costs more in hardware, and is limited to how many shows you can record at a time, the network solution would have removed those restrictions.
Once again the media cartels refuse to adapt to new technologies and everyone else pays the price.
wow... just wow... I don't even know how to respond to that ridiculousness. You've ignored every point I made, twisted my words around to be the opposite I said, and completely made up what you think I might believe.
In short, the same thing religions have been doing since the advent of them thousands of years ago.
Anyway, it's obvious this discussion is pointless as you won't even read what I said. So I'm just going to stop saying anything in response to you here and let others read it and see what they think (which will likely boil down to how religious they are anyway...)
If my morals were truly based on religion I would be discriminatory towards gays (I am not) I would believe blind faith to be a virtue (it is not) I would believe it was wrong to live with my significant other before we were married (I do not) and may other things. In fact, if it was truly based in religion it would be impossible to not be religious as the single most important lesson taught by religion is that you MUST at all costs be religious.
The fact that you ignore the choices I've made to exclude the negative aspects of your religion while pretending that I had not choice in including some of the same morals you happen to have makes your argument absurd. If I chose my morality in relation to all the things religions still exclude, why is it so hard to believe I may have chosen my own morality in things religions happen to agree with me on?
This has nothing to do with language either, The concept of mixing up "rights" with what is "right" is an absurd strawman. My morals are 100% based on the type of society I want to live in, which is mostly governed by what I would wish inflicted on me. (For instance, you can't morally believe in slavery unless you want to be a slave yourself because you aren't the one who picks which position within a society you get to exist in.)
I don't believe murder is bad because some religion says so. I believe murder is bad because I don't want to live in a society where anyone can run around killing people at will (mainly because I don't want them to kill me or others that I care about)
I don't believe rape is bad because some religion says so. I believe rape is bad because I don't want to live in a society where anyone can run around rapeing people at will (mainly because I don't want them to rape me or others that I care about)
I don't believe theft is bad because some religion says so. I believe theft is bad because I don't want to live in a society where anyone can run around strealling things at will (mainly because I don't want them to steal from me or others that I care about)
See a pattern?
Conversely, I do believe that people should be allowed to do whatever they want in their own bedrooms, despite religion telling me otherwise, because I don't want to live in a society where a few people in power can tell people what they can do in their own bedrooms (mainly because I don't want them to tell me or others that I care about what we can do in our bedrooms) (in case that was too subtle for you, I'm talking about homosexuality, pre-marital sex, contraception, and any of a number of other ridiculous restrictions religions want to place on us)
Also, I do believe that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want, and more importantly believe in nothing at all if they so choose, despite religion telling me otherwise, because I don't want to live in a society where a few people in power can tell people what to believe (mainly because I don't want them to tell me or others that I care about what we can believe) (in case that was too subtle for you, I'm talking about how every single religion thinks it is the only "true" religion and preaches that everyone not in their religion is in some way worse than they are (it ranges from edicts to murder those people, to efforts to convert them, to more subtle things, but every single religion believes themselves superior to every other, precluding a true lack of discrimination))
My life is based on reason and science, there is no room for blind faith or magical mythical creatures.
How do you determine "casual" vs "non-casual"? and with what degree of accuracy?
It sounds like you are over complicating things. If you make killing illegal so that side of things is covered, and paying for someone to kill also illegal, why do you also need to make talking about it illegal? What purpose does it serve to add more laws to the situation when you've already made it illegal both to do the killing, and to reward someone for doing it? (that's both sides of a contract killing transaction)
The only thing that adding a communication component does is cause an increased likelihood of punishing someone who was just kidding around or some such for simple words that can cause no harm.
You chastise the romans for fights to the death and mass rapes, and yet promote the christian bible that promotes the same things, slavery, mass rape, intollerance, murder, all in the bible.
Society has moved on, and moved away from those values and we are much better for it. It could be argued that this is DESPITE christianity instead of because of it.
All the good things you promote in the bible were also around before it, and all the bad things that have vanished in society since christianity started did so not because of people holding religious beliefs, but despite them. Most positive changes to human morality have been strongly opposed by religion until fully accepted by society. see birth control, gay rights, slavery, women's rights, and many other issues. You can't take credit for all the good in the world without also accepting blame for the bad that came with it.
And yet again a religious person passes judgment saying that I must be either a) lying and secretly religious, or b) immoral...
Luckilly people who do know me are the ones judging me, not religious trolls on the internet...
If I make a casual remark "I hate ________, I wish someone would just shoot him/her", should I spend years in jail just because of the remote possibility that someone might take me seriously and shoot the person? If not, where do you draw the line? and if so, how do you justify jailing people for what is a fairly common outburst when people become frustrated?
No, you should punish the person who shoots the person (or attempts to). Now if you wanted to jail me for paying someone to shoot the person that would be different, but that's not the speech that's the problem, it's the fact that I'm paying someone to do something illegal. (money is not speech, regardless of what court decision says otherwise)
If my speech causes damage or loss of life, I must have had the volume up VERY loud!.... If someone else does something that causes damage or loss of life after hearing my speech, they are the ones who should be held responsible!
The only valid exception I have ever agreed to for freedom of speech is in consumer protection. you should not be allowed to outright lie about what your product/service does to get someone's money with no recourse. there should be some form of consequence to that (arguably that is more contract law than freedom of speech though)
No, they consider themselves enlightened because they believe in the scientific process and only believe in things that have at least a small amount of evidence to back them up.
I believe in many things greater than myself, society is greater than I am, as is nature, the universe is positively amazing. All of these are much greater than myself, and all of them are real. None of these are based soley on "someone said so and I've been told not to question them"
If the only reason for you to do good deeds are because of a fear of God/the devil, or a need to please God/the church. Then you are not a good person.
A good person does good deeds for the sake of doing good, or to improve society as a whole.
People doing good things in God's name are being dishonest and selfish. People doing good without religion are truly good people.
As for what "chrisitan ideals" are... if you'd ever read the bible you'd know how full of hate and immorality those "ideals" really are. picking and choosing only the "good" from a book espousing the common beliefs of people thousands of years ago does not give you the moral high ground to claim that nobody else could come up with those same "good" things without secretly believing the same thing. Worse yet, when they leave out all the bad parts of the morality listed in the bible you still take credit for it as if it stemmed from a religious text that is far more immoral than what the later group follows. Cristians do not have an eternal patent on morality, there is much prior art, and anyone looking at a truly moral culture would see that it is a completely different work than that found in any cristian literature.
My morality has no basis whatsoever in any religion. My moral code is derived 100% from what form of society I want to live in with the theory that I should act the way I want all people to act. I believe it is immoral to murder, cheat, steal, rape, discriminate in any way, etc. I volunteer hundreds of hours a year to various non-profit and charitable organizations. I don't drink/smoke/swear. and yet my lack of religion causes people to claim that I must be a bad person because I could not possibly have morals. This coming from someone who judges a person soley by what imaginary creature they worship?
And that's why it is the submarine that needs to be held responsible, not the cruiser. they need to be more careful so as not to surface in the way of a ship that will have no choice but to hit them.
Assuming the submarine had seen the cruiser through the periscope on the surface, at 200yards, what evasive options do they have? Is it reasonable to try to dive quickly to avoid the collision? Or is it pointless? The cruiser quickly reversed the props, but there isn't much info about what, if anything, the sub did. (or could/should have done)