I have yet to do a single one where sugary drinks, for example, caused it.
Wait...even where it causes obesity? When it causes a person to be uninterested or unable to perform sexually? When it causes someone to be unable to perform household tasks? I would be surprised if that wasn't a hidden cause in more cases than you think.
I would be surprised to see sugary drinks as the cause of anything you list, even obesity. Obesity is caused by consuming more calories than one burns. Sure sugary drinks add to the total calorie intake, but so does everything else that one eats. Who is to say that the sugary drinks caused the obesity versus the meatloaf?
As for the insinuation that obesity lead to the other partner becoming disinterested in sex, that is often an excuse given, but psychology there are other issues involved. One does not become obese over night, nor does one suddenly decide on Tuesday, that they are no longer interested in their partner because of their weight. These things occur over time and start well before one's weight becomes an issue. Superficial attributes, such as one's weight, housework ability, etc., are often just the symptom of what the underlying problem is. It is much easier to say that "He/she is the problem," than "I am the problem."
Relationships are hard work. People often focus on the external, superficial attributes of their partner as justification for not wanting to put the effort in to maintaining the relationship. So, I stand by my original statement that you quoted and I am confident that it isn't a hidden cause.
This is just the continuation of the "public health crisis" excuse to ban something people don't agree with. Smoking, Sugary drinks, guns, etc. The slippery slope continues.
Not all nudity is porn, however, most nudity that is porn portrays abusive behavior and feeds a need in the viewer that probably is not healthy. I've done a lot of counseling sessions with people whose relationships and lives were ruined by the persons addiction to porn. I have yet to do a single one where sugary drinks, for example, caused it.
Is that $770M the price tag for everything the ATCs were asking for, including everything on their wish list, or is that the price tag for what would have been a reasonable compromise that they probably would have agreed to? Unions (or any side in a negotiation really) always ask for the Moon and then compromise for less.
That was the cost the FAA said the ATCs demands would cost.
1) Reagan had a large pool of former military ATC folks who were able to practically jump into the job. PATCO didn't really expect that to happen.
2) Air traffic was a whole lot lighter back then.
Ummm, of the 13,000 air traffic controllers who walked out on strike, only 900 were replaced by military ATC. While it is true that there were about half of today's domestic flights back in 1983, they also didn't have today's technology to deal with them. In addition there are more ATC staff today per flight than previously, so the workload per controller was significantly higher.
Riiiiiight. They went on strike over concerns of metal fatigue.
Every union lists tons of things, but only one is the real reason. The rest are negotiating gambits.
Actually, it is well documented that one of the primary concerns of the air traffic controllers was about mistakes being made because the job was high stress and long hours. They were pushing for a 32 hour work week without being required to do double shifts. Of course, they were also pushing for increased salaries and pensions.
The FAA agreed with the safety issues but would not implement the change because of the cost involved.
He's most likely talking about Garn-St. Germain Depository Institution Act of 1982 that led to the S&L crisis. Clinton merely leveled the playing field by deregulating the banks like Reagan did for the S&L industry. It just took a bit longer for the consequences of such deregulation to be realized.
Back in the 1980's the US Air Traffic Controllers went on strike, and Reagan fired them all with a prevision that they could not be rehired for many, many years. Jets still flew.
Of course, none of the air traffic controllers walked off the job until all of the jets under their coverage were safely on the ground or transferred to other air traffic control zones. The public was never in danger from that strike any more than if pilots go on strike, the passengers in flight are in danger. Sure, something can go wrong, but the pilots still fulfill their obligation to the public until the plane is safely at the gate and the passengers disembark.
As for the jets still flying, the FAA grounded over 50% of all scheduled flights and 60% of smaller airports because of safety reasons. So, it would be more accurate to say that "some" jets still flew. Ironically, the price tag of what the air traffic controllers were asking for was around $770M. The government paid about 50% more than that, by the time everything was said and done and back to normal. So, while Reagan put the air traffic controllers in their place, it cost the taxpayer almost $400M more than if he had not done so.
Trump is a businessman, that means he steer clear of unprofitable ventures.
Four business bankruptcies later...
I don't think Trump would make a good president, but as a businessman, why would you not use a government provided means to get out from under your creditors. To not declare bankruptcy when cash flows can't keep up would be the stupid move. As for the OP's position that he steers clear of unprofitable ventures is dead wrong. Trump, like every other venture capitalists throws money at numerous projects knowing that many are not going to pan out. No one project needs to pan out as long as those that do cover the cost of those that don't. That's how venture capitalists work.
Trump is a businessman, that means he steer clear of unprofitable ventures. His actions are dictated by what is profitable, FOR HIMSELF. That means his position shifts when it'll help him reach his goal. I don't see H1B reform being one that will net him profit.
Jan Davis and Mark Lee, who were the first married couple to go to space in 1991, and were on their honeymoon. This was an unusual situation, NASA does not send up married couples as a rule, but these two were training for a specific mission together when they got involved and married. Changing the mission crew would have delayed the mission, so up they went. Despite the close quarters, and busy schedule I would think that the other astronauts would be able to find some way to stay busy, while the newlyweds "got busy" at some point.
And yet somehow, NASA has made last minute substitutions to flight crews for illnesses without a delay in any of the missions. It is very likely that NASA would have split the couple up if they did not want them there. A much more plausible explanation was that given the opportunity of having a married couple in space, NASA chose to maximize the research opportunities it allowed (versus dealing with various morality issues if they were not married to each other).
People standing up to large corporate interests who just want to keep cutting jobs, pay, and benefits is a good thing.
How is striking going to convince a corporation to stop offshoring and automating jobs? It seems to me that it will convince them to do more. Look at what UAW strikes did to Detroit.
If striking gets the message out and people agree with the strikers, then change is possible. The court of public opinion sways a lot of corporate action in America (and elsewhere). For instance, if benefits are part of one's total compensation, then these cuts are compensation cuts.
As a percentage, are all workers receiving the same cut in compensation from the clerk in the stock room to the top executives? Or are these cuts targeting a certain class of worker? If they are not across the board cuts, then one could argue that an injustice is taking place. One could further decide if one wants to support Verizon and its shareholders for perpetrating said injustice. If enough people agree, then change really can happen. If they don't then regardless the workers are SOL.
The biggest harm corporations have done to society is convince individuals that there is nothing they can do. A few people threw a bunch of tea in the bay a couple hundred years ago and the ultimate result was a new country. Corporate power is only an illusion if the people exercise their power.
"We're sharing real comments from real customers," Claure wrote in the aftermath of criticism. "Maybe not the best choice of words by the customer. Not meant to offend anyone."
It doesn't matter if it wasn't the best choice of words by the customer. Somebody at Sprint or their ad agency thought it was okay to run it. The real story isn't that some customer said that, but that Sprint thought it was acceptable to air it.
Claiming piracy is hurting the movie business is like claiming street drugs are hurting the pharmaceutical business. In both cases, people partaking in the illicit activity are unlikely to be participating in the licit one.
Oil and natural gas (the primary electricity producer in the US) are linked because they both come from the same wells. As odd as it seems, decreased prices have caused increased production in many countries that rely on oil for their economy to sustain there cash flows. As such, there is also a glut of natural gas. Eventually, this will level off, because low oil prices will mean fewer wells so the production of both oil and gas will decline and prices will stabilize. Until then, low oil prices means low natural gas prices which means even lower cost for non-renewable energy resources versus renewable ones.
Because they have a marginally profitable product that collapsed when the Chinese dumped cheap panels on the world? I don't see it.
Probably has more to do with cheap oil than the Chinese at least the current situation. In the short run, renewable sources are usually more costly than non-renewable source and the recent drop in oil prices only exasperates that. In the long run, non-renewable can be more costly because of the environmental impact, but that usually is not figured in as it is somebody elses problem.
Yeah, but they had to throw Microsoft in the title because this is/. after all. Microsoft discounts are immaterial to this case, but it helps it get posted here. These guys stole money by committing fraud. I'm sure they tried to hide their tracks in a number of different ways before finding this latest trick that got them caught.
The prosecutors said there was much corruption in the contract. That would be the contract that Microsoft was party to, would it not? As such, naming Microsoft would be appropriate.
Personally, I'd wait until there was an app that I wanted to purchase and see which VR system it used. As with most new computer technologies, it is the software that will drive adoption.
Think about how many software jobs wouldn't exists without the Linux Kernel..
Probably, without Linux, there would be even more jobs because of all the extra people needed to support the additional Windows Servers that would be in use.
Busses are a convenience factor for the government, not for the people. It's a way of putting in a mass transit system without having to build anything more than a few signposts and buy a vehicle.
You want faster buses, put in the necessary infrastructure. Bus lanes, priority traffic lights, busways, heck some cities have built massive underground bus stations complete with interconnected stops, tunnels, and dedicated highways / bridges (think a metro system which isn't confined to tracks).
Currently buses share the road with cars and all the downsides that traffic, red lights, and stop signs entail. You're never going to be faster or more convenient than a car unless you do something serious to tip the scales in favour of the buses.
In reality, buses are not a convenience factor for the government, but instead for businesses. It enables businesses to get workers and customers to locations not possible without a personal vehicle. It enables businesses not to have to have enough parking spaces for every worker and customer. It allows businesses to be larger and centrally located instead of spread out throughout the various communities, saving money, as they were at the turn of the 20th century.
Just think, if there were no cars on those streets, how much faster traveling by bus would be. Buses aren't the problem, they are a solution to the huge number of cars in cities that were never designed to have them in the first place. How many more roads need to be built in major cities and where are you going to put them just to satisfy peoples fetish with the automobile? And let's not forget that all of those roads need to be paid for and maintained.
You want to tip the scales in favor of buses, forget the convenience factor. Just start charging automobile owners the true cost of driving in a major city. After all, money talks.
Once we have robots driving busses, we can have them go more often and needn't train and pay busdrivers. I really hope to see that day soon.
More frequent buses do not require autonomous vehicles. It can be done today. All it takes is purchasing additional buses. Also, you lament 97% of cars being parked all day. Wouldn't that be the same for a personally owned self-driving car? Now, if you are talking about publicly owned self-driving cars that you just summons, kind of like Uber, well, that will be a long way off and unless you disallow privately owned vehicles, is likely not to solve the problem.
In short, if you want more frequency for buses, the locale can do that today. Chances are, it wouldn't even take that many buses as it would only be needed during peak times. Kind of like commuter trains run more frequently during "rush hour" than other times during the day.
In short, this "problem" doesn't need new technology to solve it. It needs common sense and the willingness of government to serve the common person.
Figure out a way to eliminate the individual payments.
Simple, increase the taxes to allow the public to ride for free. Mass transit is like schools. Good systems benefit the entire community, not just those directly using the system. Likewise, bad ones are a detriment. Since it is in everybody's best interest in a community to have a good mass transit system, then spread the cost among the community.
A large part of the bus perception problem is the slow, smoky, lumbering diesels. A hybrid design with fully regenerative braking could accelerate and stop a lot faster, because there would no longer be such a fuel penalty for zippier operation.
In my part of the country, diesel buses were replaced years ago. Most are propane or NG powered around here. Since most city driving is relatively slow, anyway, being able to accelerate and stop quicker is usually not a factor. Also, remember, that the occupants aren't belted in, so zippier operation tends to take its toll on the riders.
Jeff Kaufman writes that buses are much safer than cars, by about a factor of 67....If we made buses more dangerous by the same percentage that motorcycles are more dangerous than cars," concludes Kauffman, "they would still be more than twice as safe as cars."
So, to get more people to ride buses, we increase the risk to those already riding buses by a factor around 32. I guess those people don't matter in the equation. How about something much more practical -- the author states that many who don't ride do so because it is faster to drive. But faster is also riskier to themselves, but more importantly others. So, remove that advantage to driving by lowering the speed limits and enforcing it. That way, everybody is safer, there are fewer accidents and a smaller carbon footprint because more people in the cities will ride mass transit.
Since any accident not only can hurt the driver that caused it, but any passengers and people in the other vehicle(s), plus the delays to thousands in the ensuing snarled traffic, this is a way for everybody to win. Of course, I am sure it won't be popular, but most safety regulations are rarely popular.
There is a serious incident on Monday, one of a number that have been raising concern. The metro decides to shut down the system to do a major safety inspection. That is somehow bad?
The summary suggests that they could have waited until the weekend, which is true or done it at night over a longer period of time, which is also true. Of course, if another incident had occurred in either of those time frames and lives were lost, what then?
Have we really gotten to the point in the US that no matter what the authorities do, even with matters of safety, it is always bad?
Slashdot Mirror
I have yet to do a single one where sugary drinks, for example, caused it.
Wait...even where it causes obesity? When it causes a person to be uninterested or unable to perform sexually? When it causes someone to be unable to perform household tasks? I would be surprised if that wasn't a hidden cause in more cases than you think.
I would be surprised to see sugary drinks as the cause of anything you list, even obesity. Obesity is caused by consuming more calories than one burns. Sure sugary drinks add to the total calorie intake, but so does everything else that one eats. Who is to say that the sugary drinks caused the obesity versus the meatloaf?
As for the insinuation that obesity lead to the other partner becoming disinterested in sex, that is often an excuse given, but psychology there are other issues involved. One does not become obese over night, nor does one suddenly decide on Tuesday, that they are no longer interested in their partner because of their weight. These things occur over time and start well before one's weight becomes an issue. Superficial attributes, such as one's weight, housework ability, etc., are often just the symptom of what the underlying problem is. It is much easier to say that "He/she is the problem," than "I am the problem."
Relationships are hard work. People often focus on the external, superficial attributes of their partner as justification for not wanting to put the effort in to maintaining the relationship. So, I stand by my original statement that you quoted and I am confident that it isn't a hidden cause.
This is just the continuation of the "public health crisis" excuse to ban something people don't agree with. Smoking, Sugary drinks, guns, etc. The slippery slope continues.
Not all nudity is porn, however, most nudity that is porn portrays abusive behavior and feeds a need in the viewer that probably is not healthy. I've done a lot of counseling sessions with people whose relationships and lives were ruined by the persons addiction to porn. I have yet to do a single one where sugary drinks, for example, caused it.
Is that $770M the price tag for everything the ATCs were asking for, including everything on their wish list, or is that the price tag for what would have been a reasonable compromise that they probably would have agreed to? Unions (or any side in a negotiation really) always ask for the Moon and then compromise for less.
That was the cost the FAA said the ATCs demands would cost.
Two slight differences, though -
1) Reagan had a large pool of former military ATC folks who were able to practically jump into the job. PATCO didn't really expect that to happen.
2) Air traffic was a whole lot lighter back then.
Ummm, of the 13,000 air traffic controllers who walked out on strike, only 900 were replaced by military ATC. While it is true that there were about half of today's domestic flights back in 1983, they also didn't have today's technology to deal with them. In addition there are more ATC staff today per flight than previously, so the workload per controller was significantly higher.
Riiiiiight. They went on strike over concerns of metal fatigue.
Every union lists tons of things, but only one is the real reason. The rest are negotiating gambits.
Actually, it is well documented that one of the primary concerns of the air traffic controllers was about mistakes being made because the job was high stress and long hours. They were pushing for a 32 hour work week without being required to do double shifts. Of course, they were also pushing for increased salaries and pensions.
The FAA agreed with the safety issues but would not implement the change because of the cost involved.
He's most likely talking about Garn-St. Germain Depository Institution Act of 1982 that led to the S&L crisis. Clinton merely leveled the playing field by deregulating the banks like Reagan did for the S&L industry. It just took a bit longer for the consequences of such deregulation to be realized.
Back in the 1980's the US Air Traffic Controllers went on strike, and Reagan fired them all with a prevision that they could not be rehired for many, many years. Jets still flew.
Of course, none of the air traffic controllers walked off the job until all of the jets under their coverage were safely on the ground or transferred to other air traffic control zones. The public was never in danger from that strike any more than if pilots go on strike, the passengers in flight are in danger. Sure, something can go wrong, but the pilots still fulfill their obligation to the public until the plane is safely at the gate and the passengers disembark.
As for the jets still flying, the FAA grounded over 50% of all scheduled flights and 60% of smaller airports because of safety reasons. So, it would be more accurate to say that "some" jets still flew. Ironically, the price tag of what the air traffic controllers were asking for was around $770M. The government paid about 50% more than that, by the time everything was said and done and back to normal. So, while Reagan put the air traffic controllers in their place, it cost the taxpayer almost $400M more than if he had not done so.
Trump is a businessman, that means he steer clear of unprofitable ventures.
Four business bankruptcies later...
I don't think Trump would make a good president, but as a businessman, why would you not use a government provided means to get out from under your creditors. To not declare bankruptcy when cash flows can't keep up would be the stupid move. As for the OP's position that he steers clear of unprofitable ventures is dead wrong. Trump, like every other venture capitalists throws money at numerous projects knowing that many are not going to pan out. No one project needs to pan out as long as those that do cover the cost of those that don't. That's how venture capitalists work.
Trump is a businessman, that means he steer clear of unprofitable ventures. His actions are dictated by what is profitable, FOR HIMSELF.
That means his position shifts when it'll help him reach his goal. I don't see H1B reform being one that will net him profit.
So he is like any other politician, then.
Jan Davis and Mark Lee, who were the first married couple to go to space in 1991, and were on their honeymoon. This was an unusual situation, NASA does not send up married couples as a rule, but these two were training for a specific mission together when they got involved and married. Changing the mission crew would have delayed the mission, so up they went. Despite the close quarters, and busy schedule I would think that the other astronauts would be able to find some way to stay busy, while the newlyweds "got busy" at some point.
And yet somehow, NASA has made last minute substitutions to flight crews for illnesses without a delay in any of the missions. It is very likely that NASA would have split the couple up if they did not want them there. A much more plausible explanation was that given the opportunity of having a married couple in space, NASA chose to maximize the research opportunities it allowed (versus dealing with various morality issues if they were not married to each other).
People standing up to large corporate interests who just want to keep cutting jobs, pay, and benefits is a good thing.
How is striking going to convince a corporation to stop offshoring and automating jobs? It seems to me that it will convince them to do more. Look at what UAW strikes did to Detroit.
If striking gets the message out and people agree with the strikers, then change is possible. The court of public opinion sways a lot of corporate action in America (and elsewhere). For instance, if benefits are part of one's total compensation, then these cuts are compensation cuts.
As a percentage, are all workers receiving the same cut in compensation from the clerk in the stock room to the top executives? Or are these cuts targeting a certain class of worker? If they are not across the board cuts, then one could argue that an injustice is taking place. One could further decide if one wants to support Verizon and its shareholders for perpetrating said injustice. If enough people agree, then change really can happen. If they don't then regardless the workers are SOL.
The biggest harm corporations have done to society is convince individuals that there is nothing they can do. A few people threw a bunch of tea in the bay a couple hundred years ago and the ultimate result was a new country. Corporate power is only an illusion if the people exercise their power.
"We're sharing real comments from real customers," Claure wrote in the aftermath of criticism. "Maybe not the best choice of words by the customer. Not meant to offend anyone."
It doesn't matter if it wasn't the best choice of words by the customer. Somebody at Sprint or their ad agency thought it was okay to run it. The real story isn't that some customer said that, but that Sprint thought it was acceptable to air it.
Claiming piracy is hurting the movie business is like claiming street drugs are hurting the pharmaceutical business. In both cases, people partaking in the illicit activity are unlikely to be participating in the licit one.
Oil and natural gas (the primary electricity producer in the US) are linked because they both come from the same wells. As odd as it seems, decreased prices have caused increased production in many countries that rely on oil for their economy to sustain there cash flows. As such, there is also a glut of natural gas. Eventually, this will level off, because low oil prices will mean fewer wells so the production of both oil and gas will decline and prices will stabilize. Until then, low oil prices means low natural gas prices which means even lower cost for non-renewable energy resources versus renewable ones.
Because they have a marginally profitable product that collapsed when the Chinese dumped cheap panels on the world?
I don't see it.
Probably has more to do with cheap oil than the Chinese at least the current situation. In the short run, renewable sources are usually more costly than non-renewable source and the recent drop in oil prices only exasperates that. In the long run, non-renewable can be more costly because of the environmental impact, but that usually is not figured in as it is somebody elses problem.
Your brother is an idiot.
Not necessarily, although he is speculating/gambling. Day traders do this all the time.
Romania Jails Ex-Minister Over embezzlement.
Yeah, but they had to throw Microsoft in the title because this is /. after all. Microsoft discounts are immaterial to this case, but it helps it get posted here. These guys stole money by committing fraud. I'm sure they tried to hide their tracks in a number of different ways before finding this latest trick that got them caught.
The prosecutors said there was much corruption in the contract. That would be the contract that Microsoft was party to, would it not? As such, naming Microsoft would be appropriate.
Personally, I'd wait until there was an app that I wanted to purchase and see which VR system it used. As with most new computer technologies, it is the software that will drive adoption.
Think about how many software jobs wouldn't exists without the Linux Kernel. .
Probably, without Linux, there would be even more jobs because of all the extra people needed to support the additional Windows Servers that would be in use.
Busses are a convenience factor for the government, not for the people. It's a way of putting in a mass transit system without having to build anything more than a few signposts and buy a vehicle.
You want faster buses, put in the necessary infrastructure. Bus lanes, priority traffic lights, busways, heck some cities have built massive underground bus stations complete with interconnected stops, tunnels, and dedicated highways / bridges (think a metro system which isn't confined to tracks).
Currently buses share the road with cars and all the downsides that traffic, red lights, and stop signs entail. You're never going to be faster or more convenient than a car unless you do something serious to tip the scales in favour of the buses.
In reality, buses are not a convenience factor for the government, but instead for businesses. It enables businesses to get workers and customers to locations not possible without a personal vehicle. It enables businesses not to have to have enough parking spaces for every worker and customer. It allows businesses to be larger and centrally located instead of spread out throughout the various communities, saving money, as they were at the turn of the 20th century.
Just think, if there were no cars on those streets, how much faster traveling by bus would be. Buses aren't the problem, they are a solution to the huge number of cars in cities that were never designed to have them in the first place. How many more roads need to be built in major cities and where are you going to put them just to satisfy peoples fetish with the automobile? And let's not forget that all of those roads need to be paid for and maintained.
You want to tip the scales in favor of buses, forget the convenience factor. Just start charging automobile owners the true cost of driving in a major city. After all, money talks.
Once we have robots driving busses, we can have them go more often and needn't train and pay busdrivers. I really hope to see that day soon.
More frequent buses do not require autonomous vehicles. It can be done today. All it takes is purchasing additional buses. Also, you lament 97% of cars being parked all day. Wouldn't that be the same for a personally owned self-driving car? Now, if you are talking about publicly owned self-driving cars that you just summons, kind of like Uber, well, that will be a long way off and unless you disallow privately owned vehicles, is likely not to solve the problem.
In short, if you want more frequency for buses, the locale can do that today. Chances are, it wouldn't even take that many buses as it would only be needed during peak times. Kind of like commuter trains run more frequently during "rush hour" than other times during the day.
In short, this "problem" doesn't need new technology to solve it. It needs common sense and the willingness of government to serve the common person.
Figure out a way to eliminate the individual payments.
Simple, increase the taxes to allow the public to ride for free. Mass transit is like schools. Good systems benefit the entire community, not just those directly using the system. Likewise, bad ones are a detriment. Since it is in everybody's best interest in a community to have a good mass transit system, then spread the cost among the community.
A large part of the bus perception problem is the slow, smoky, lumbering diesels. A hybrid design with fully regenerative braking could accelerate and stop a lot faster, because there would no longer be such a fuel penalty for zippier operation.
In my part of the country, diesel buses were replaced years ago. Most are propane or NG powered around here. Since most city driving is relatively slow, anyway, being able to accelerate and stop quicker is usually not a factor. Also, remember, that the occupants aren't belted in, so zippier operation tends to take its toll on the riders.
Jeff Kaufman writes that buses are much safer than cars, by about a factor of 67....If we made buses more dangerous by the same percentage that motorcycles are more dangerous than cars," concludes Kauffman, "they would still be more than twice as safe as cars."
So, to get more people to ride buses, we increase the risk to those already riding buses by a factor around 32. I guess those people don't matter in the equation. How about something much more practical -- the author states that many who don't ride do so because it is faster to drive. But faster is also riskier to themselves, but more importantly others. So, remove that advantage to driving by lowering the speed limits and enforcing it. That way, everybody is safer, there are fewer accidents and a smaller carbon footprint because more people in the cities will ride mass transit.
Since any accident not only can hurt the driver that caused it, but any passengers and people in the other vehicle(s), plus the delays to thousands in the ensuing snarled traffic, this is a way for everybody to win. Of course, I am sure it won't be popular, but most safety regulations are rarely popular.
There is a serious incident on Monday, one of a number that have been raising concern. The metro decides to shut down the system to do a major safety inspection. That is somehow bad?
The summary suggests that they could have waited until the weekend, which is true or done it at night over a longer period of time, which is also true. Of course, if another incident had occurred in either of those time frames and lives were lost, what then?
Have we really gotten to the point in the US that no matter what the authorities do, even with matters of safety, it is always bad?