One of the problems is that biological evolution is such a broad term that encompasses many things. Take the bible for instance, there are many historically real facts in there. There are some that is questionable and unverifiable to date. However, saying that a burning bush never spoke to someone names Moses doesn't mean that the Egyptians didn't enslave the jews, or that rome didn't conquer the land currently known as Israel and so on.
With that in mind, there are several aspects of evolution that should have subcategories but don't specifically because people want the appearance of challenges to the validity to appear as challenges to what we know. You pointed to the genetic engineering in which we created breed of the same species. This has been present with cattle probably just as long. However, that is what some attempt to consider as micro evolution (changes within the same species) verses a macro evolution which is changes large enough to create separate species.
You will find that almost no one disagrees with the premise of micro evolution where some disagree with macro evolution. Now they are related to the extent that enough micro evolutionary changes are thought to product a macro evolutionary change. However, this doesn't mean that the line of thinking is true, nor does it mean that if the speciation portion is false, that the micro evolution has to be false too. Therefore the presence of micro evolution only supports macro evolution, it doesn't prove that aspect, and pointing to it for a response to a macro evolution comment only deflects the position behind tricks and smoking mirrors. It doesn't address anything relevant to the conversation other then it is a mechanical part in the theory.
Please don't say birds can fly to the moon because we observe them flying so high and far away that the naked human eye can't spot them under some circumstances. That is the reality of what you did, you pointed to evolution within a species to counter a statement questioning the evidence of if two separate species evolved away from a common ancestor somewhere in time.
Could you pelase show us your proof that chimp/ape/human don't share a common ancestor ?
Wow, good argument there. Let's see, lets assume that you don't believe me when I say the was light is green at the intersection exactly 25 years 1 day, 13 minutes and 2 seconds ago, now prove to me it wasn't. You see how that seems ridiculous? The problem isn't finding proof one way or another, it's how convincing that proof is and how much it ties the truth of the situation to reality. Obviously, there are people who aren't convinced that A happened, the answer is to find more proof that A is true as stated not to have someone who doesn't agree run out and find why A is not true. This is especially problematic if A isn't true to begin with and the focus is on A.
Ha I see you are a creationist then. I hate to rbeak it to you, but the above article is about science, and for science, as of now with the evidence we have, all animal evolve and those two animal, whatever the animal HAVE evolved.
This is a problem with psudo scientist like yourself who have turned science into their own religion. First of all, faith or a leap of faith has nothing to do with religion unless the topic is about religion. In the way the GP used the term, the statement was exactly like this "Shall I even mention the _enormous amounts of confidence in the existing evidence's interpretations being absolutely correct_ that is required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved from a common ancestor in the first place?"
But you have turned this into a My religion verses their religion. Because of your own ignorance, you have misinterpreted something someone has said and you then instead of constructively address it, which is the scientific way, you then attempt to remove all value of the statement, ignore it, and rail on about science in which you demonstrated an inability to practice.
You may be one of these evangelical atheist, it doesn't matter. But if your going to pretend to use science to counter your arch nemesis, then do so using science and not the some psudo religious replacement in which your holy book is more right then theirs. It adds absolutely nothing to the conversation and marks you as one of the same you are railing against.
The problem isn't really a single trait, it the lack of a complete set of traits. Much of what is known about the past is interpreted in order to fit into a prescribed story. You have relationships between form and function that go completely ignored too. Similarities in DNA can easily be attributed to similarities in appearance where the DNA is a certain way because of Two arms and two legs or the way the arms and legs bend rather then because of a common ancestor. There was a recent discussion about dog breeds and how they would be labeled different species altogether is they were extinct and and we dug up the bones. You could theoretically, under the current definition being applied in evolutionary biology as speciation, have two border collies, one in the UK and one in America, separated by the Atlantic ocean and they would be considered separate species.
Now this isn't to say that there isn't a common ancestral connections, it's to say that there is no empirical evidence proving it and too much weight is being put on the evidence claiming it is true. In fact, some people, even here on slashdot, will claim that evolution as it is currently stated is a proven fact that is indisputable (even to science) despite never witnessing speciation in the real world without bending the definition of species. They won't even allow for Evolution to be broken into distinct groups for challenges as if it harms their holy word or something. Take this laughter situation, rats have been witnessed to emit ultrasonic squeals when tickled as a youth. Dog and cats make the same respective growls and purs when tickled at young ages. To make the same claim that laughter is 16 million years old and that this shows proof of a common ancestor, then rats, cats, dogs, and elephants, most likely belong in the same family with the same ancestors and are practicing something 16 million years old.
On the other hand, if laughter, especially at an early age, it a function of necessity in pack animals (rats, apes, elephants, canine, felines, and humans are all pack animals in that we band together in early years of life and display what could be considered laughter) in which young animals are encouraged by enjoyment and feedback of that enjoyment to stay with their parents/siblings to learn (interpret) instinct and so on to ensure their survival the species, the only connections to ancestors would be survival over a set of environmental circumstances. Laughter could be nothing more then an evolved trait that animals which group together have found keeps them together at critical stages in life. In short, it could be nothing more then a learned behavior with benefits that encouraged those who did it well to live longer and procreate more then those who didn't.
Wilson may have leaned that way but the reality was that the political realm simply didn't accept the premise before Roosevelt challenged he authority of the supreme court and caused the expansion of the Interstate Commerce clause of the constitution in order to avoid a constitutional crisis.
The political will at the time simply wasn't there.
It appears that Tang was a citrus drink modeled to the taste of the uglis tangerine. It's a citrus fruit that is a mix of an orange, grapefruit, and tangerine. But now Tang has decided to offer pineapple accent flavors so get ready for the new and improved tang, the Pu-Tang.
Yes, studies found that most men and quite a few women prefer the taste of Pu-Tang over ugli fruit.
I didn't even begin to touch on desegregation in the 1900's or the 1960's civil rights movement. I was concentrating on slavery and the appearance it took throughout american history with the immediate connection to racism after the end of it. While I agree with your assessment somewhat, the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened as it took place in the 1960's. We most likely would have had desegregation and integration but not the riots nor the resistance as seen by the 1960's. However, the early 1900's saw a strong KKK present which might have made it necessary to take out certain Klan leaders as wanted criminals.
Wilson was president before the idea of the government giving favors and taking care of the people. The great depression and the resulting new deal legislation, under Roosevelt ( most of which was found unconstitutional and Roosevelt knew it specifically because of a speech in response to the repeal of prohibition in which he said " "As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject1, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as reported the New York Times by March 3, 1930" is proof of that.
Anyways, No special favors outside of making sure all laws applied to everyone equally would have happened. This means fountains for white only and blacks only had to be for everyone only unless they were on private property without any legal enforcement and no overlooking breached of peace. No quotas that fueled the appearance of special treatment at the expense of people who viewed themselves as never doing any harm to them, a no government taking care of the people which spurred the anti welfare movement when a lot of the disenfranchised minorities assumed the roles pit of necessity in the mid 1960's. We also wouldn't have had the "projects" where the minorities were more or less rounded up and shipped to cluster housing with no job prospects or chances of jobs without having to sacrifice and waste all their spare time getting to and from their low paying 12 hour shift jobs. We probably wouldn't have had a national prevailing wage either because it was enacted to stop minority contractors from flooding the market with cheap labor and out bidding white contractors after it was discovered that southern black laborers replaced northern white laborers in building the Veterans' Bureau hospital in Long Island circa 1930-1931.
In the north, by the turn of the century, a good portion of the minorities fit in about as well as everyone else. This is especially true when the whites and blacks were pretty much united against the Irish who came to America without a desire to go back to Ireland and much like the freed slaves, ended up taking jobs for less then the prevailing wages and from the established workforce just to put food on the table. It would have been a very different landscape then what we saw not only because of integration in the military but because of the difference in the expectations of government and what government could do.
BTW, the resentment and hate from displacement is something inherit in American nature and can be seen by the illegal immigration and outsourcing scenarios right now. Most people don't seem to mind qualified legal immigrants making the same amount but have an embellished resentment towards the illegals who work for less that displace legal workers and companies moving over seas to cut labor costs.
One of the more important reasons for the shift from white and black slaves stems of a US based British colony ran mostly by slaves in which the slaves, both white and black banded together for a slave rebellion in an attempt to escape to Spanish Florida where free colonies already existed. They killed a about 25 free whites in their attempt who were outnumbered enormously by slaves in the area at the time. They also burned several buildings and amassed a decent sized following but the rebellion was put down.
In 1740, 2 years after that Stono Rebellion the South Carolina legislature (mostly a corporate board because of the colony situation) passed the Negro Act of 1740 in attempts to control the slaves. It provided protections against harsh working conditions and so on that would create a rebellious situation in the first place but was hard to enforce because a slave couldn't testify against a free man. One of the more influential parts of the Negro act was that it regulated manumissions which is more or less a fancy term for a slave owner granting freedom to their slaves. One of these regulations came to be a divide and conquer strategy in which 1 white slave to every 10 black slaves were required but black slave could never be anything more then a slave where the whites could regain their full citizenship.
This provided a situation where the white slaves would (were encouraged to) report suspected rebellion plots in hopes of gaining their freedom and stopped the entire slave groups from banding together again. This also led to the downfall of white slaves as other restrictions such as importation of new slaves were discouraged/banned and populations were breed from existing stock. A big issue here is corruption of blood, the blacks because of the manumissions laws would always be slaves, including their children where the children of the whites would/could be free people woth full citizenship rights (*another incentive to not rebel and report conspiracies).
This also created the concept of classes among the slaves in which the black slaves were at the bottom by default. This had to do with white slaves appearing smarter because they could already speak the language and mostly read and/or write. Once white slaves fell to the side, the class differences sort of remained which was part of the prejudices throughout early America. Although with the end of the civil war, freed slaves being dumped onto the populations and taking white jobs, and the north mandating the whites succeed power to the freed slaves made the system of racism far more worse then what this was about before then, but slaves weren't really treated with respect either.
The history of racism in the US is deeply tied to slavery and perhap unique to the US because a lot of the laws like the Negro act wasn't enacted in other countries. Combine that with slaves in other countries either finding support from manumissions and former slaves already living and integrating in the other areas or they simply wanted to go home, were in the US, they attempted to create a local stock in which they were already home so to speak and you can see some issues directly connected to slavery that fueled the hate and resentment on both sides.
The problem with positions like yours is that it creates serfdom. You may have no initiative to own your own property and are perfectly fine with paying someone else for the privilege of living somewhere in your own country but many of us aren't. What will happen is that two classes of people will start to emerge, those with and those without that are dependent on those with. It's already here and it's already a problem more commonly expressed as the have's and have not's.
When this country was founded, it was originally to each their own according to their own abilities. Now, it's highly cost prohibitive to start your own business in many areas. If you can, usually it will never be more then a single person business or a family business and it will generally never survive your death. There is no reason why someone can't trade their labor for money, save and purchase their own land. If it wasn't for credit, almost no one would own their own home and almost no one but the "rich" would be able to better themselves in anyway they see fit. As it is now, poor people can participate. But even if the property taxes were assessed based around the use as well as the value of the property (which is already the case in many areas because the property tax is assessed on the value of the property instead of the square footage), you would end up locking all but the rich out of the system. All but the rich would be barred from bettering themselves without having to take, and most likely take by force (legal or otherwise) from the rich.
In short, in your push for justice or equality or whatever it is that makes you think taxing property is right, you are creating the inequality that most likely fuels most of your push. Take a step back and think about that. Think about if the policies you support don't actually create the issues that you don't like and cause you to support those policies. And yes, Rich people do not pay taxes when they charge others fees, they pass them to the people paying the fees by raises in fees so it isn't like anyone will take a cut in their funds and be less rich. IF it does, then you will never be satisfied and only create hardships for others even though your intentions are well meaning.
The problem here is that it isn't an extra task. It's a new concept on the same task. Fraud, Child porn, and everything else is already one of the 5 tasks. Adding the word internet may change the expertise needed to affect those tasks but it doesn't change the task. Take all of them and apply the existing wire or mail fraud charges and poof, you have the exact same effect of an "internet crime".
Maybe the problem isn't being expressed properly. Maybe the state should be saying that with the internet, the amount of crime covered by the existing tasks has increased to a point that more funding for enforcement is needed. I could buy that justification even though I wouldn't support a tax. But as it stands, it is being presented as the parent said, as a new qualification for an existing job which in every other industry, the employee would be required to cover the expense of most of it for the same pay or be replaced by someone who is qualified. On occasions, profitable companies will provide training to those less likely to be able to afford it, some companies roll the cost into the entire change over knowing that new machinery or menu changes or whatever will require some levels of retraining. But the police isn't a profit center, and the state isn't supposed to be one either.
With the usage of computers, the requirements for internet crimes already cross over into other crimes like Murder, regular fraud and so on. So creating a separate task that already falls within an existing task would be like claiming that collecting evidence of someone searching how to kill someone and viewing pages on how his wife was actually killed a week before her death would be an entirely different task the murder investigations itself. Just because the internet or a computer was used, does not make it another task, it's just a new aspect of an existing task.
It's much different from a hate crime. A hate crime is simply saying that if hate was your motivation, your in more trouble then all those who just wasn't to kill, murder, rape, or whatever else they did to cause the crime to happen. An internet crime actually describes the differences and limitations in investigation and enforcement criteria.
An internet crime can extend beyond the jurisdictional limits of the enforcement agency which requires special and specific coordination and cooperation from other jurisdictions which may even be outside the country. Also an internet crime may require the collection of evidence only present in digital forms which created an entirely new skill set for investigators. It may be that investigators will not even get the attention of extraterritoriality partners without a certain levels of evidence pointing to a crime originating or taking place there.
Without the internet, the perpetrators needed to be present to some extend unless it was mail or wire fraud and there was a clearer record of transactions. Internet crimes is distinguishing the investigation needed to put remote offenders into a legal classification to ensure charges will apply. Hate crimes is little more then what was he thinking when committing the crime. I hope those differences can be seen well enough to not confuse the two and my explanation shows enough of them to distinguish the special needs of it.
That being said, I'm not for this tax and think it should just be a qualification requirement that evolves with law enforcement of any given area. I see this just like being able to hit your target evolved from police carrying guns without training or having to qualify. It's like changes in fitness requirements. I don't remember any special taxes to ensure the cops can hit what they are aiming at with reasonable accuracy or that they could run a certain distance or lift so much weight or anything.
Slavery was typically little more then a conquered nation doing the bidding of the conquerors. Even the slaves of colonial America were conquered tribes and the descendants of them. Once a person was a slave, they were considered property and not a citizen with citizenship rights and were treated as such. This treatment was more or less to enforce or reinforce their lack of freedoms in the society. It was a spoil of war, even if the war consisted of sending an overwhelming forces or raiding parties to round people up.
In fact, that's how the term Nigger came into play. Near the end of Slavery shipments to the US, most of the tribes in Africa along the slave coast had been captured and the rest fled into the interior portions of the African Jungle where Europeans feared entering. There was the Niger river that blocked a lot of their paths and they would find tribes on either side of it. Anyways, the Niger river which has a long speculation on the name origin the meant "river of rivers" rather then the french word for "black and night". But as property usually sold unseen to overseas buyers, slave being shipped needed several things. A lineage to prove their worth and ability to act as slaves, some types of slaves refused to cooperate and usually brought less money while the ones that resisted the longest and made it the deepest into the jungle were typically the strongest and most desirable, so the fact they were from the Niger river area was a plus. This is much like the lineage in animals and so on where a purebred and documents dog or horse or cattle or whatever commands more money then the same without the documentation. Now another practice which is still in use today was to have a bill of lading that included both the origin of the property and the destination. In keeping with the Lineage, Niger was used as the origin so traders in the Americas wouldn't become suspect of the lineage. Anyways, it has been determined that the first or one of the first written use of the term "Nigger" was from a shipping clerk in Maryland and the term was most likely in use before that by the phonetically speaking southerners who distinguished between domestic slaves and imports. This also explains the connection of skin color to race and why racist concentrated more on bloodline then color of skin.
Looks like I went way past your topic but slavery has typically been a spoil of war. Even the slavery from Africa brought to the Americas was tribal and kingdom warfare (in Africa) that got people classified as property and sold as slaves.
Why should he have to fix it when it is already being touted as working? I'm sure some of his issues might be User setup in which something isn't configured "just right" and with his broken English, I can also assume that expressing the actual problem in ways someone might be able to help might hinder some of his issues being corrected too. If he is bitching about purposed solutions, he has already submitted the bug reports and gotten responses.
But none of that is the point. People are saying "It works" when sometimes it doesn't. The answer isn't telling someone to do something when he may not even possess the skills to fix it, the answer is to not brag it up with blanket statements that end up leaving someone disgruntled. The idea of telling someone to fix it themselves just to shut them up does not make the problem go away, it only makes acknowledging the problem disappear. Do you actually think that if he could fix the problems, he would still be whining about them instead of fixing them? Hell no, he isn't stupid, he would have already fixed the problems then either kept his mouth shut or bragged about how he did it because he isn't the only person with those problems.
Here is a hint, if any other service/industry/company in the world took a default position of read the fucking manual when someone has an issue or tells them to fix it themselves, they wouldn't be in business. In fact, if they promoted their products like Linux is promoted, they would have been shut down by the government regulatory agencies of the world for deception when they defaulted to those positions.
You know, the issue is mostly how _you_said_ it too. If you would have said people are working on it but need help if you can, it would have been acceptable. If you would have said, "it's in the supported hardware list as a known problem that we need a fix for", that would have been acceptable. But to sit there and say "quite crying and fix it yourself" is moronic, asinine and the reason why Linux will never be ready for the desktop. Any idiot can point the blame and shift it to someone else, it takes someone special to offer something constructive that working solutions can be explored and/or built from. I suggest you try to be more of the later and less of the former.
Sure, but PCI is a best practice standard, it isn't a guarantee against being hacked or any security breach. It more or less means you did the best that someone could expect at security, not that you are bullet proof.
If I certified your systems as PCI-DSS compliant or SOX compliant, I'm not certifying that you won't get hacked, I'm certifying that you meat a standard. Now if you were hacked because you weren't compliant and I certified you anyways, then I should have some liability. The amount of liability would be based on how much of a role the mistake I made played in the hacking.
But if I certify you on Monday, and you replace a router on Tuesday, and you hack happened through that router on Wednesday, then I'm not liable for anything because A: I didn't certify your router or the router config and B: even if it is the same model number and make, it doesn't mean that the software is the same version, if the config is the same or that the router is not already compromised when you purchased it from Ebay at 1/3 the normal price.
If your employee visits a porn site or some hijacked site that installs an active X control or reroutes the computers traffic through a proxy under their control and they find all the passwords and pins, it's not my problem.
So there are a lot of details, including specific understandings, and actions or who took the actions, that need to be taken into account before external liability can be assessed.
PRocessing patients is an important task. It's where you find out about allergies to certain medications, other medication being taken, health conditions and so on. You don't want to MRI someone who had pins in his head because of a skill fracture 10 years ago or pins in his back because of car accident 4 years ago. You also don't want to give them something they are allergic to or would interact badly with other medication like heart pills.
If they couldn't manage that because the systems were down, then there was a lawsuit in the making anyways. They more or less simply closed the emergency room down until an acceptable level of safe assurances against mistakes and improper treatment could be ensured. I also think whoever governs hospitals will see that as a good and proper thing to do.
I don't know the specifics in your grandmothers situation, but recently my father had the same thing done. It went from outpatient surgery to a weekend stay at the VA the they couldn't suck it out and had to cut him open.
Anyways, the IV bag they gave him already had medication mixed into it. The only markings on the bag was a code stating patient code-room number- and that it was mixed. There was a bar code that whoever adds the medication to the solution places on it which can list the dosage amounts, patient ID and everything else. When the nurse scanned it, it would bring up his file, look at the prescription, and then verify that it was what he was supposed to have.
It could be that the reason they didn't want to use it before scanning it was because they couldn't verify it's accuracy. There was no problems with my dad's IV or anything, but the nurse explained what was going on and showed me it was working.
I thought the 3 mile incident was caused by someone falling asleep at the controls and knocking them over. Of course that's not the official wording, but what if "terrorists" feed you some time delayed release sleeping pill or better yet, a hallucinogen. If you were a control operator, you might all of a sudden see the knobs rotate in all kinds of directions, with you trying to compensate.
For some reason, I'm reminded of the simpsons here. From what I can understand, and someone just gave me a more detailed link then the PBA/History channels documentary on it and my 5 year old recollection that I was recalling from. Regardless of the cause of why the main feed water pumps stopped responding (which would be your guy asleep at the wheel), there are alarms that alert others to something being wrong and safety controls as well as backup systems to compensate. Anyways, it isn't as much the "crap, I did something wrong" as much as it is the "shit, this is wrong, lets make it work right" phase. In the Three mile island, a stuck valve that wasn't detected properly prevented water from cooling the core as it should have and presented a dangerous gas buildup scenario. Read the link for more. The lessons learned from that placed sweeping changes to the Nuke industry including changes in equipment design, new sensors, protocols and procedures, and so on.
You think the Gods of Olympus, or the powers that be today, don't get bored sometimes and play with real people's lives, to study and see what happens? In fact some unpracticed and unplanned-for "fire drill"-like candid camera exercises in nuclear plants might just be on the agenda of the Nuclear Safety Commission and the Dept of Fatherland Security. (Gotta love buzzwords.)
I'm sure there are training drills and accident scenario exercises in order to detect the weak spots and compensate. However, these couldn't be completely blind tests because of the level of awareness the public has now. Someone, if only a few people, have to know it's a test because of the evacuation standards and I doubt they would work with a live plant because real changes to equipment made by people correcting the issue will have real consequences and effects on the workings of the plant.
I'm sure as hell not gonna ever take a "control rod technician" job, that I was kind of ushered towards, in this unemployment economy, two months ago. Because of pretty much the above reasons. I get messed with too much as it is, don't need to enter situations where the potential is even greater for trouble. Quiet, peace and safety of others are golden. Self risk, such as rock climbing, is a personal choice, with the option to refuse or accept, that's up to yourself, but making that choice for others, that's quite different.
Your probably not qualified for the job but if you were, your attitude expressed right there would probably disqualify you. Certain jobs at a nuke facility can be done by drones who hate their job and life. However, other jobs are picked only for certain people who are both stable and willing. I'm sure some may have fallen through the cracks but there are other safeguards in place to override their mistakes.
as for the scenario above, I doubt anything would be presented as a real life scenario without everyone knowing it is a drill of some sort. Even if they attempted to sneak one in, they would have to intercept all of the electronic controls somehow and then present you with artificial readouts accurate enough to simulate everything you have seen in the last 20 years. In other words, we would almost have to be at star fleet and your scenario would be a simulation training test where the entire plant was simulated. I'm sure they have dummy rooms availible that can simulate the controls and feedback but I doubt they have entire plants where you can go to a valve and check it's position and all.
Is there any evidence that more people would drive stoned if pot were legal? I'd make an argument for the converse:
There really isn't any data on stoned people driving in the first place. First, the present of THC in the system does not directly coordinate to how high someone is or if they are under the influence or pot in anyways. Second, the THC is absorbed by your fat cells relatively fast then re-released at a much slower rate which could take days or weeks. This means you hit a joint, have a high for an hour or so, then it isn't able to be detected in concentrations enough to assume a psychoactive influence. Often, if you were to smoke a joint, then get into an accident, the 4 hours to collect evidence that most states have would be longer then any concentrations in your system would stay to show an influence. Even the time it takes to get EMS out, transport you to the hospital, and then take a blood sample would be longer then the time that could be needed to remove any evidence of concentrations large enough to determine an influence factor. What we end up with is no useful or meaningful statistics on people under the influence of marijuana and the coordination to accidents unless the driver or someone in the car tells on themselves.
So this means that we do not know what would be "more" in the first place because we don't have an accurate baseline. For the most part, THC being present in the system skews all the results and everyone knows that presence doesn't mean under the influence like with alcohol. This is why work place rules and other testing disqualify for the mere presence.
Currently there can be no widespread campaigns to stigmatize driving stoned (as there have been for driving drunk) because they would be seen as implicit approval of getting stoned and not driving. But if pot were legal you'd be sure to see a slew billboards and PSAs talking about the dangers of driving stoned.
There are campaigns but not explicit to getting high from pot. But, without the ability to create an accurate baseline, there are no hard figures to be bandied about like there is with alcohol. There are national groups fighting driving while impaired and yes, that does include drunk drivers who aren't legally drunk too. But it also includes tired drivers, people on prescription drugs and so on. This is probably why you aren't noticing it like you do groups like MADD which are very vocal about drunk driving. You have to realize though, the lack of someone shouting at the top of their lungs doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist, it doesn't mean a false dichotomy where it imply support otherwise, it means that no one is shouting loud enough to get your attention as with other people and substances.
The three mile island incident happened because a stuck valve ended up restricting or losing coolant and the result was something that indicated another situation entirely. This same situation used to be the downfall of cars too and the fix was pretty much the same.
In the cars, there was simply a temperature gauge that measured coolant temp. when the coolant was missing, it wouldn't show the engine over heating and you didn't know anything was wrong until damage started happening. Now they put coolant level sensors in place plus sensors that detect both the coolant temp and the engine block temp. The result is that is anything gets too hot, it shows an alarm, if the coolant level is too low, it shows an alarm.
In the three mile island incident, there was nothing to ensure coolant was moving through the pipes so when the temp sensors indicated that it wasn't over heating at several locations, they incorrectly assumed the core sensors were faulty until the next shift came in and took a different approach. Now we measure not only the temps, but the amount of flow in and out of the core and at several stages of the supply and exhaust pipe. This was the simple fix that ensures three mile island won't happen again.
Now I agree that some accident or incident at a reactor could very well happen again. That was never my intent to deny. But a three mile island incident will not happen because of the placement of sensors, redundant lines and pumps, and changes in protocols that close the lack of information loop you were mentioning as well as turns the error to the side of safety.
In this instance, it isn't as much about control as it is responsibility.
The current drug tests check for the presence of THC, but doesn't have the ability to measure a concentrated amount that would indicate beyond a legal point that you were intoxicated at any specific point in time. Basically, what this means is that they can't tell the difference between you getting high while watching TV, and you driving to the store to get munchies 4 hours later.
I imagine you would disagree with the premise of someone getting high and driving, especially if they cause an accident with a fatality is wrong and not consistent with what you stated as acceptable usage. Without being able to tell the difference between you sitting in front of the TV verses driving down the road while high is the reason they will not legalize it. If you are the responsible person, you shouldn't be blamed for the accident, and if your not, you should be if being high decreased your ability to avoid it. That's the conundrum we are in, how can we tell if a person is high or not, and how to we hold them accountable for their impaired actions. Currently, prescription drug can get you a DUI/DWI if they impair your ability mental or motor skills.
BTW, this really has little to do with US congress. At the levels of possession and all that most people will come into contact with at one point in time, Marijuana laws are largely left to state and local penalties. It takes a certain amount in order to provoke federal penalties. These amounts are measured either by weight or number of whole plants which create a bulk amount limit that moves the offense into a higher class and penalty.
It's common knowledge and scientific fact that Marijuana produces immediate, temporary changes in thoughts, perceptions, and information processing. The cognitive process most clearly affected by marijuana is short-term memory. reflex and response time. (*Marijuana Intoxication," Psychopharmacology 76 (1982): 278-81. *Deadwyler, S.A. et al., "The Effects of Delta-9-THC on Mechanisms of Learning and Memory." Neurobiology of Drug Abuse: Learning and Memory. Ed. L. Erinoff. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse 1990. 79-83. *Block, R.I. et al., "Acute Effects of Marijuana on Cognition: Relationships to Chronic Effects and Smoking Techniques." Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 43 (1992): 907-917.)
At some doses, marijuana affects perception and psychomotor performances- changes which could impair driving ability. This hasn't been linked to highway driver safety but it does have the same requirement meeting most state DWI standards where even under a legal limit, if you are impared, you can be cited. (*Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. "Legalization: Panacea or Pandora's Box". New York. (1995):36. *Swan, Neil. "A Look at Marijuana's Harmful Effects." NIDA Notes. 9.2 (1994): 14. *Moskowitz, Herbert and Robert Petersen. Marijuana and Driving: A Review. Rockville: American Council for Drug Education, 1982. 7. *Mann, Peggy. Marijuana Alert. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985. 265.)
These impairments have also been shown in testing samples of MS patients using Pot. It found that in some instances, being high increased the response time compared to patient who weren't high. They were on average 50 percent slower. Granted, this was a look at people with MS, but I have personally witnessed the same behavior in perfectly fine people. When I used to work with people that got high on the job, they would rail about how good they were doing and all I could think of was how much bullshit it was because I had to work harder to keep things going smooth. And yes, I worked with these people sober where they performed much better at their assigned tasks.
Now, it is true that none of the information I presented showed a specific link between the driving abilities of a person who is high and their likelihood of getting into an accident. But I also don't need specific links to any action to know the sun will rise in the morning and set in the evening. I don't care how pedantic you want to be, it is obvious that being high presents more of a danger then not being high does. It should also be noted that there is no test that can be performed to tell if someone is high or not. All they can do is look for THC concentrations being released from fat cells. THC is released slower then it is absorbed so it doesn't always rise to the concentration required for detectable psychoactivity. There is also no standard baseline for concentration levels in the brain that would allow detectable psychoactivity or evidence someone was high. So unless someone openly admitted to being high on an illegal drug after having an accident, the statistics simply won't be there in the first place.
Three mile island was a design failure that has been addressed and fixed. The coolant leak which resulted in low coolant causing resulted in the wrong procedures being implemented and the suspect of faulty sensors. We now measure coolant levels not only in the feed, but in transition through the piping before and after the reactor. There are backup coolant lines to boot.
The entire issue that was behind TMI has been addresses and implemented into all other facilities and the type of incident has never been repeated.
I think the big picture is that once they realized the sensors wasn't at fault and the problem was a lack of coolant verses ineffective coolant-bad readings, figured out a plan, vented for safety and enacted the plan to control the reactor, the biggest problem was the lack of ability to evacuate the surrounding and potentially effected population. Roads were jammed, many people had no immediate transportation and the traffic problems was making it difficult to get buses into the area. The Three mile Island accidence is pretty much impossible to happen again, but it showed how impossible it was to protect the people at the same time.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the problems is that biological evolution is such a broad term that encompasses many things. Take the bible for instance, there are many historically real facts in there. There are some that is questionable and unverifiable to date. However, saying that a burning bush never spoke to someone names Moses doesn't mean that the Egyptians didn't enslave the jews, or that rome didn't conquer the land currently known as Israel and so on.
With that in mind, there are several aspects of evolution that should have subcategories but don't specifically because people want the appearance of challenges to the validity to appear as challenges to what we know. You pointed to the genetic engineering in which we created breed of the same species. This has been present with cattle probably just as long. However, that is what some attempt to consider as micro evolution (changes within the same species) verses a macro evolution which is changes large enough to create separate species.
You will find that almost no one disagrees with the premise of micro evolution where some disagree with macro evolution. Now they are related to the extent that enough micro evolutionary changes are thought to product a macro evolutionary change. However, this doesn't mean that the line of thinking is true, nor does it mean that if the speciation portion is false, that the micro evolution has to be false too. Therefore the presence of micro evolution only supports macro evolution, it doesn't prove that aspect, and pointing to it for a response to a macro evolution comment only deflects the position behind tricks and smoking mirrors. It doesn't address anything relevant to the conversation other then it is a mechanical part in the theory.
Please don't say birds can fly to the moon because we observe them flying so high and far away that the naked human eye can't spot them under some circumstances. That is the reality of what you did, you pointed to evolution within a species to counter a statement questioning the evidence of if two separate species evolved away from a common ancestor somewhere in time.
Wow, good argument there. Let's see, lets assume that you don't believe me when I say the was light is green at the intersection exactly 25 years 1 day, 13 minutes and 2 seconds ago, now prove to me it wasn't. You see how that seems ridiculous? The problem isn't finding proof one way or another, it's how convincing that proof is and how much it ties the truth of the situation to reality. Obviously, there are people who aren't convinced that A happened, the answer is to find more proof that A is true as stated not to have someone who doesn't agree run out and find why A is not true. This is especially problematic if A isn't true to begin with and the focus is on A.
This is a problem with psudo scientist like yourself who have turned science into their own religion. First of all, faith or a leap of faith has nothing to do with religion unless the topic is about religion. In the way the GP used the term, the statement was exactly like this "Shall I even mention the _enormous amounts of confidence in the existing evidence's interpretations being absolutely correct_ that is required to even consider whether those same 2 animals evolved from a common ancestor in the first place?"
But you have turned this into a My religion verses their religion. Because of your own ignorance, you have misinterpreted something someone has said and you then instead of constructively address it, which is the scientific way, you then attempt to remove all value of the statement, ignore it, and rail on about science in which you demonstrated an inability to practice.
You may be one of these evangelical atheist, it doesn't matter. But if your going to pretend to use science to counter your arch nemesis, then do so using science and not the some psudo religious replacement in which your holy book is more right then theirs. It adds absolutely nothing to the conversation and marks you as one of the same you are railing against.
The problem isn't really a single trait, it the lack of a complete set of traits. Much of what is known about the past is interpreted in order to fit into a prescribed story. You have relationships between form and function that go completely ignored too. Similarities in DNA can easily be attributed to similarities in appearance where the DNA is a certain way because of Two arms and two legs or the way the arms and legs bend rather then because of a common ancestor. There was a recent discussion about dog breeds and how they would be labeled different species altogether is they were extinct and and we dug up the bones. You could theoretically, under the current definition being applied in evolutionary biology as speciation, have two border collies, one in the UK and one in America, separated by the Atlantic ocean and they would be considered separate species.
Now this isn't to say that there isn't a common ancestral connections, it's to say that there is no empirical evidence proving it and too much weight is being put on the evidence claiming it is true. In fact, some people, even here on slashdot, will claim that evolution as it is currently stated is a proven fact that is indisputable (even to science) despite never witnessing speciation in the real world without bending the definition of species. They won't even allow for Evolution to be broken into distinct groups for challenges as if it harms their holy word or something. Take this laughter situation, rats have been witnessed to emit ultrasonic squeals when tickled as a youth. Dog and cats make the same respective growls and purs when tickled at young ages. To make the same claim that laughter is 16 million years old and that this shows proof of a common ancestor, then rats, cats, dogs, and elephants, most likely belong in the same family with the same ancestors and are practicing something 16 million years old.
On the other hand, if laughter, especially at an early age, it a function of necessity in pack animals (rats, apes, elephants, canine, felines, and humans are all pack animals in that we band together in early years of life and display what could be considered laughter) in which young animals are encouraged by enjoyment and feedback of that enjoyment to stay with their parents/siblings to learn (interpret) instinct and so on to ensure their survival the species, the only connections to ancestors would be survival over a set of environmental circumstances. Laughter could be nothing more then an evolved trait that animals which group together have found keeps them together at critical stages in life. In short, it could be nothing more then a learned behavior with benefits that encouraged those who did it well to live longer and procreate more then those who didn't.
Wilson may have leaned that way but the reality was that the political realm simply didn't accept the premise before Roosevelt challenged he authority of the supreme court and caused the expansion of the Interstate Commerce clause of the constitution in order to avoid a constitutional crisis.
The political will at the time simply wasn't there.
It appears that Tang was a citrus drink modeled to the taste of the uglis tangerine. It's a citrus fruit that is a mix of an orange, grapefruit, and tangerine. But now Tang has decided to offer pineapple accent flavors so get ready for the new and improved tang, the Pu-Tang.
Yes, studies found that most men and quite a few women prefer the taste of Pu-Tang over ugli fruit.
I didn't even begin to touch on desegregation in the 1900's or the 1960's civil rights movement. I was concentrating on slavery and the appearance it took throughout american history with the immediate connection to racism after the end of it. While I agree with your assessment somewhat, the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened as it took place in the 1960's. We most likely would have had desegregation and integration but not the riots nor the resistance as seen by the 1960's. However, the early 1900's saw a strong KKK present which might have made it necessary to take out certain Klan leaders as wanted criminals.
Wilson was president before the idea of the government giving favors and taking care of the people. The great depression and the resulting new deal legislation, under Roosevelt ( most of which was found unconstitutional and Roosevelt knew it specifically because of a speech in response to the repeal of prohibition in which he said " "As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject1, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as reported the New York Times by March 3, 1930" is proof of that.
Anyways, No special favors outside of making sure all laws applied to everyone equally would have happened. This means fountains for white only and blacks only had to be for everyone only unless they were on private property without any legal enforcement and no overlooking breached of peace. No quotas that fueled the appearance of special treatment at the expense of people who viewed themselves as never doing any harm to them, a no government taking care of the people which spurred the anti welfare movement when a lot of the disenfranchised minorities assumed the roles pit of necessity in the mid 1960's. We also wouldn't have had the "projects" where the minorities were more or less rounded up and shipped to cluster housing with no job prospects or chances of jobs without having to sacrifice and waste all their spare time getting to and from their low paying 12 hour shift jobs. We probably wouldn't have had a national prevailing wage either because it was enacted to stop minority contractors from flooding the market with cheap labor and out bidding white contractors after it was discovered that southern black laborers replaced northern white laborers in building the Veterans' Bureau hospital in Long Island circa 1930-1931.
In the north, by the turn of the century, a good portion of the minorities fit in about as well as everyone else. This is especially true when the whites and blacks were pretty much united against the Irish who came to America without a desire to go back to Ireland and much like the freed slaves, ended up taking jobs for less then the prevailing wages and from the established workforce just to put food on the table. It would have been a very different landscape then what we saw not only because of integration in the military but because of the difference in the expectations of government and what government could do.
BTW, the resentment and hate from displacement is something inherit in American nature and can be seen by the illegal immigration and outsourcing scenarios right now. Most people don't seem to mind qualified legal immigrants making the same amount but have an embellished resentment towards the illegals who work for less that displace legal workers and companies moving over seas to cut labor costs.
One of the more important reasons for the shift from white and black slaves stems of a US based British colony ran mostly by slaves in which the slaves, both white and black banded together for a slave rebellion in an attempt to escape to Spanish Florida where free colonies already existed. They killed a about 25 free whites in their attempt who were outnumbered enormously by slaves in the area at the time. They also burned several buildings and amassed a decent sized following but the rebellion was put down.
In 1740, 2 years after that Stono Rebellion the South Carolina legislature (mostly a corporate board because of the colony situation) passed the Negro Act of 1740 in attempts to control the slaves. It provided protections against harsh working conditions and so on that would create a rebellious situation in the first place but was hard to enforce because a slave couldn't testify against a free man. One of the more influential parts of the Negro act was that it regulated manumissions which is more or less a fancy term for a slave owner granting freedom to their slaves. One of these regulations came to be a divide and conquer strategy in which 1 white slave to every 10 black slaves were required but black slave could never be anything more then a slave where the whites could regain their full citizenship.
This provided a situation where the white slaves would (were encouraged to) report suspected rebellion plots in hopes of gaining their freedom and stopped the entire slave groups from banding together again. This also led to the downfall of white slaves as other restrictions such as importation of new slaves were discouraged/banned and populations were breed from existing stock. A big issue here is corruption of blood, the blacks because of the manumissions laws would always be slaves, including their children where the children of the whites would/could be free people woth full citizenship rights (*another incentive to not rebel and report conspiracies).
This also created the concept of classes among the slaves in which the black slaves were at the bottom by default. This had to do with white slaves appearing smarter because they could already speak the language and mostly read and/or write. Once white slaves fell to the side, the class differences sort of remained which was part of the prejudices throughout early America. Although with the end of the civil war, freed slaves being dumped onto the populations and taking white jobs, and the north mandating the whites succeed power to the freed slaves made the system of racism far more worse then what this was about before then, but slaves weren't really treated with respect either.
The history of racism in the US is deeply tied to slavery and perhap unique to the US because a lot of the laws like the Negro act wasn't enacted in other countries. Combine that with slaves in other countries either finding support from manumissions and former slaves already living and integrating in the other areas or they simply wanted to go home, were in the US, they attempted to create a local stock in which they were already home so to speak and you can see some issues directly connected to slavery that fueled the hate and resentment on both sides.
The problem with positions like yours is that it creates serfdom. You may have no initiative to own your own property and are perfectly fine with paying someone else for the privilege of living somewhere in your own country but many of us aren't. What will happen is that two classes of people will start to emerge, those with and those without that are dependent on those with. It's already here and it's already a problem more commonly expressed as the have's and have not's.
When this country was founded, it was originally to each their own according to their own abilities. Now, it's highly cost prohibitive to start your own business in many areas. If you can, usually it will never be more then a single person business or a family business and it will generally never survive your death. There is no reason why someone can't trade their labor for money, save and purchase their own land. If it wasn't for credit, almost no one would own their own home and almost no one but the "rich" would be able to better themselves in anyway they see fit. As it is now, poor people can participate. But even if the property taxes were assessed based around the use as well as the value of the property (which is already the case in many areas because the property tax is assessed on the value of the property instead of the square footage), you would end up locking all but the rich out of the system. All but the rich would be barred from bettering themselves without having to take, and most likely take by force (legal or otherwise) from the rich.
In short, in your push for justice or equality or whatever it is that makes you think taxing property is right, you are creating the inequality that most likely fuels most of your push. Take a step back and think about that. Think about if the policies you support don't actually create the issues that you don't like and cause you to support those policies. And yes, Rich people do not pay taxes when they charge others fees, they pass them to the people paying the fees by raises in fees so it isn't like anyone will take a cut in their funds and be less rich. IF it does, then you will never be satisfied and only create hardships for others even though your intentions are well meaning.
The problem here is that it isn't an extra task. It's a new concept on the same task. Fraud, Child porn, and everything else is already one of the 5 tasks. Adding the word internet may change the expertise needed to affect those tasks but it doesn't change the task. Take all of them and apply the existing wire or mail fraud charges and poof, you have the exact same effect of an "internet crime".
Maybe the problem isn't being expressed properly. Maybe the state should be saying that with the internet, the amount of crime covered by the existing tasks has increased to a point that more funding for enforcement is needed. I could buy that justification even though I wouldn't support a tax. But as it stands, it is being presented as the parent said, as a new qualification for an existing job which in every other industry, the employee would be required to cover the expense of most of it for the same pay or be replaced by someone who is qualified. On occasions, profitable companies will provide training to those less likely to be able to afford it, some companies roll the cost into the entire change over knowing that new machinery or menu changes or whatever will require some levels of retraining. But the police isn't a profit center, and the state isn't supposed to be one either.
With the usage of computers, the requirements for internet crimes already cross over into other crimes like Murder, regular fraud and so on. So creating a separate task that already falls within an existing task would be like claiming that collecting evidence of someone searching how to kill someone and viewing pages on how his wife was actually killed a week before her death would be an entirely different task the murder investigations itself. Just because the internet or a computer was used, does not make it another task, it's just a new aspect of an existing task.
It's much different from a hate crime. A hate crime is simply saying that if hate was your motivation, your in more trouble then all those who just wasn't to kill, murder, rape, or whatever else they did to cause the crime to happen. An internet crime actually describes the differences and limitations in investigation and enforcement criteria.
An internet crime can extend beyond the jurisdictional limits of the enforcement agency which requires special and specific coordination and cooperation from other jurisdictions which may even be outside the country. Also an internet crime may require the collection of evidence only present in digital forms which created an entirely new skill set for investigators. It may be that investigators will not even get the attention of extraterritoriality partners without a certain levels of evidence pointing to a crime originating or taking place there.
Without the internet, the perpetrators needed to be present to some extend unless it was mail or wire fraud and there was a clearer record of transactions. Internet crimes is distinguishing the investigation needed to put remote offenders into a legal classification to ensure charges will apply. Hate crimes is little more then what was he thinking when committing the crime. I hope those differences can be seen well enough to not confuse the two and my explanation shows enough of them to distinguish the special needs of it.
That being said, I'm not for this tax and think it should just be a qualification requirement that evolves with law enforcement of any given area. I see this just like being able to hit your target evolved from police carrying guns without training or having to qualify. It's like changes in fitness requirements. I don't remember any special taxes to ensure the cops can hit what they are aiming at with reasonable accuracy or that they could run a certain distance or lift so much weight or anything.
Slavery was typically little more then a conquered nation doing the bidding of the conquerors. Even the slaves of colonial America were conquered tribes and the descendants of them. Once a person was a slave, they were considered property and not a citizen with citizenship rights and were treated as such. This treatment was more or less to enforce or reinforce their lack of freedoms in the society. It was a spoil of war, even if the war consisted of sending an overwhelming forces or raiding parties to round people up.
In fact, that's how the term Nigger came into play. Near the end of Slavery shipments to the US, most of the tribes in Africa along the slave coast had been captured and the rest fled into the interior portions of the African Jungle where Europeans feared entering. There was the Niger river that blocked a lot of their paths and they would find tribes on either side of it. Anyways, the Niger river which has a long speculation on the name origin the meant "river of rivers" rather then the french word for "black and night". But as property usually sold unseen to overseas buyers, slave being shipped needed several things. A lineage to prove their worth and ability to act as slaves, some types of slaves refused to cooperate and usually brought less money while the ones that resisted the longest and made it the deepest into the jungle were typically the strongest and most desirable, so the fact they were from the Niger river area was a plus. This is much like the lineage in animals and so on where a purebred and documents dog or horse or cattle or whatever commands more money then the same without the documentation. Now another practice which is still in use today was to have a bill of lading that included both the origin of the property and the destination. In keeping with the Lineage, Niger was used as the origin so traders in the Americas wouldn't become suspect of the lineage. Anyways, it has been determined that the first or one of the first written use of the term "Nigger" was from a shipping clerk in Maryland and the term was most likely in use before that by the phonetically speaking southerners who distinguished between domestic slaves and imports. This also explains the connection of skin color to race and why racist concentrated more on bloodline then color of skin.
Looks like I went way past your topic but slavery has typically been a spoil of war. Even the slavery from Africa brought to the Americas was tribal and kingdom warfare (in Africa) that got people classified as property and sold as slaves.
Why should he have to fix it when it is already being touted as working? I'm sure some of his issues might be User setup in which something isn't configured "just right" and with his broken English, I can also assume that expressing the actual problem in ways someone might be able to help might hinder some of his issues being corrected too. If he is bitching about purposed solutions, he has already submitted the bug reports and gotten responses.
But none of that is the point. People are saying "It works" when sometimes it doesn't. The answer isn't telling someone to do something when he may not even possess the skills to fix it, the answer is to not brag it up with blanket statements that end up leaving someone disgruntled. The idea of telling someone to fix it themselves just to shut them up does not make the problem go away, it only makes acknowledging the problem disappear. Do you actually think that if he could fix the problems, he would still be whining about them instead of fixing them? Hell no, he isn't stupid, he would have already fixed the problems then either kept his mouth shut or bragged about how he did it because he isn't the only person with those problems.
Here is a hint, if any other service/industry/company in the world took a default position of read the fucking manual when someone has an issue or tells them to fix it themselves, they wouldn't be in business. In fact, if they promoted their products like Linux is promoted, they would have been shut down by the government regulatory agencies of the world for deception when they defaulted to those positions.
You know, the issue is mostly how _you_said_ it too. If you would have said people are working on it but need help if you can, it would have been acceptable. If you would have said, "it's in the supported hardware list as a known problem that we need a fix for", that would have been acceptable. But to sit there and say "quite crying and fix it yourself" is moronic, asinine and the reason why Linux will never be ready for the desktop. Any idiot can point the blame and shift it to someone else, it takes someone special to offer something constructive that working solutions can be explored and/or built from. I suggest you try to be more of the later and less of the former.
That must be why I couldn't register it.
I tried to use this as my profile pic but they said they had a prohibition on pictures of pets. I haven't been back since.
Sure, but PCI is a best practice standard, it isn't a guarantee against being hacked or any security breach. It more or less means you did the best that someone could expect at security, not that you are bullet proof.
That depends on what was certified.
If I certified your systems as PCI-DSS compliant or SOX compliant, I'm not certifying that you won't get hacked, I'm certifying that you meat a standard. Now if you were hacked because you weren't compliant and I certified you anyways, then I should have some liability. The amount of liability would be based on how much of a role the mistake I made played in the hacking.
But if I certify you on Monday, and you replace a router on Tuesday, and you hack happened through that router on Wednesday, then I'm not liable for anything because A: I didn't certify your router or the router config and B: even if it is the same model number and make, it doesn't mean that the software is the same version, if the config is the same or that the router is not already compromised when you purchased it from Ebay at 1/3 the normal price.
If your employee visits a porn site or some hijacked site that installs an active X control or reroutes the computers traffic through a proxy under their control and they find all the passwords and pins, it's not my problem.
So there are a lot of details, including specific understandings, and actions or who took the actions, that need to be taken into account before external liability can be assessed.
PRocessing patients is an important task. It's where you find out about allergies to certain medications, other medication being taken, health conditions and so on. You don't want to MRI someone who had pins in his head because of a skill fracture 10 years ago or pins in his back because of car accident 4 years ago. You also don't want to give them something they are allergic to or would interact badly with other medication like heart pills.
If they couldn't manage that because the systems were down, then there was a lawsuit in the making anyways. They more or less simply closed the emergency room down until an acceptable level of safe assurances against mistakes and improper treatment could be ensured. I also think whoever governs hospitals will see that as a good and proper thing to do.
I don't know the specifics in your grandmothers situation, but recently my father had the same thing done. It went from outpatient surgery to a weekend stay at the VA the they couldn't suck it out and had to cut him open.
Anyways, the IV bag they gave him already had medication mixed into it. The only markings on the bag was a code stating patient code-room number- and that it was mixed. There was a bar code that whoever adds the medication to the solution places on it which can list the dosage amounts, patient ID and everything else. When the nurse scanned it, it would bring up his file, look at the prescription, and then verify that it was what he was supposed to have.
It could be that the reason they didn't want to use it before scanning it was because they couldn't verify it's accuracy. There was no problems with my dad's IV or anything, but the nurse explained what was going on and showed me it was working.
For some reason, I'm reminded of the simpsons here. From what I can understand, and someone just gave me a more detailed link then the PBA/History channels documentary on it and my 5 year old recollection that I was recalling from. Regardless of the cause of why the main feed water pumps stopped responding (which would be your guy asleep at the wheel), there are alarms that alert others to something being wrong and safety controls as well as backup systems to compensate. Anyways, it isn't as much the "crap, I did something wrong" as much as it is the "shit, this is wrong, lets make it work right" phase. In the Three mile island, a stuck valve that wasn't detected properly prevented water from cooling the core as it should have and presented a dangerous gas buildup scenario. Read the link for more. The lessons learned from that placed sweeping changes to the Nuke industry including changes in equipment design, new sensors, protocols and procedures, and so on.
I'm sure there are training drills and accident scenario exercises in order to detect the weak spots and compensate. However, these couldn't be completely blind tests because of the level of awareness the public has now. Someone, if only a few people, have to know it's a test because of the evacuation standards and I doubt they would work with a live plant because real changes to equipment made by people correcting the issue will have real consequences and effects on the workings of the plant.
Your probably not qualified for the job but if you were, your attitude expressed right there would probably disqualify you. Certain jobs at a nuke facility can be done by drones who hate their job and life. However, other jobs are picked only for certain people who are both stable and willing. I'm sure some may have fallen through the cracks but there are other safeguards in place to override their mistakes.
as for the scenario above, I doubt anything would be presented as a real life scenario without everyone knowing it is a drill of some sort. Even if they attempted to sneak one in, they would have to intercept all of the electronic controls somehow and then present you with artificial readouts accurate enough to simulate everything you have seen in the last 20 years. In other words, we would almost have to be at star fleet and your scenario would be a simulation training test where the entire plant was simulated. I'm sure they have dummy rooms availible that can simulate the controls and feedback but I doubt they have entire plants where you can go to a valve and check it's position and all.
Are you sure those weren't Pictures of Cartman's ass?
I hear it looks like a set of hot boobs that aren't easily distinguished from real ones.
There really isn't any data on stoned people driving in the first place. First, the present of THC in the system does not directly coordinate to how high someone is or if they are under the influence or pot in anyways. Second, the THC is absorbed by your fat cells relatively fast then re-released at a much slower rate which could take days or weeks. This means you hit a joint, have a high for an hour or so, then it isn't able to be detected in concentrations enough to assume a psychoactive influence. Often, if you were to smoke a joint, then get into an accident, the 4 hours to collect evidence that most states have would be longer then any concentrations in your system would stay to show an influence. Even the time it takes to get EMS out, transport you to the hospital, and then take a blood sample would be longer then the time that could be needed to remove any evidence of concentrations large enough to determine an influence factor. What we end up with is no useful or meaningful statistics on people under the influence of marijuana and the coordination to accidents unless the driver or someone in the car tells on themselves.
So this means that we do not know what would be "more" in the first place because we don't have an accurate baseline. For the most part, THC being present in the system skews all the results and everyone knows that presence doesn't mean under the influence like with alcohol. This is why work place rules and other testing disqualify for the mere presence.
There are campaigns but not explicit to getting high from pot. But, without the ability to create an accurate baseline, there are no hard figures to be bandied about like there is with alcohol. There are national groups fighting driving while impaired and yes, that does include drunk drivers who aren't legally drunk too. But it also includes tired drivers, people on prescription drugs and so on. This is probably why you aren't noticing it like you do groups like MADD which are very vocal about drunk driving. You have to realize though, the lack of someone shouting at the top of their lungs doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist, it doesn't mean a false dichotomy where it imply support otherwise, it means that no one is shouting loud enough to get your attention as with other people and substances.
The three mile island incident happened because a stuck valve ended up restricting or losing coolant and the result was something that indicated another situation entirely. This same situation used to be the downfall of cars too and the fix was pretty much the same.
In the cars, there was simply a temperature gauge that measured coolant temp. when the coolant was missing, it wouldn't show the engine over heating and you didn't know anything was wrong until damage started happening. Now they put coolant level sensors in place plus sensors that detect both the coolant temp and the engine block temp. The result is that is anything gets too hot, it shows an alarm, if the coolant level is too low, it shows an alarm.
In the three mile island incident, there was nothing to ensure coolant was moving through the pipes so when the temp sensors indicated that it wasn't over heating at several locations, they incorrectly assumed the core sensors were faulty until the next shift came in and took a different approach. Now we measure not only the temps, but the amount of flow in and out of the core and at several stages of the supply and exhaust pipe. This was the simple fix that ensures three mile island won't happen again.
Now I agree that some accident or incident at a reactor could very well happen again. That was never my intent to deny. But a three mile island incident will not happen because of the placement of sensors, redundant lines and pumps, and changes in protocols that close the lack of information loop you were mentioning as well as turns the error to the side of safety.
Lol.. Yep, I agree that's bad. But running them in VMs on the same hardware but separate OS's seems rather acceptable.
In this instance, it isn't as much about control as it is responsibility.
The current drug tests check for the presence of THC, but doesn't have the ability to measure a concentrated amount that would indicate beyond a legal point that you were intoxicated at any specific point in time. Basically, what this means is that they can't tell the difference between you getting high while watching TV, and you driving to the store to get munchies 4 hours later.
I imagine you would disagree with the premise of someone getting high and driving, especially if they cause an accident with a fatality is wrong and not consistent with what you stated as acceptable usage. Without being able to tell the difference between you sitting in front of the TV verses driving down the road while high is the reason they will not legalize it. If you are the responsible person, you shouldn't be blamed for the accident, and if your not, you should be if being high decreased your ability to avoid it. That's the conundrum we are in, how can we tell if a person is high or not, and how to we hold them accountable for their impaired actions. Currently, prescription drug can get you a DUI/DWI if they impair your ability mental or motor skills.
BTW, this really has little to do with US congress. At the levels of possession and all that most people will come into contact with at one point in time, Marijuana laws are largely left to state and local penalties. It takes a certain amount in order to provoke federal penalties. These amounts are measured either by weight or number of whole plants which create a bulk amount limit that moves the offense into a higher class and penalty.
It's common knowledge and scientific fact that Marijuana produces immediate, temporary changes in thoughts, perceptions, and information processing. The cognitive process most clearly affected by marijuana is short-term memory. reflex and response time. (*Marijuana Intoxication," Psychopharmacology 76 (1982): 278-81. *Deadwyler, S.A. et al., "The Effects of Delta-9-THC on Mechanisms of Learning and Memory." Neurobiology of Drug Abuse: Learning and Memory. Ed. L. Erinoff. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse 1990. 79-83. *Block, R.I. et al., "Acute Effects of Marijuana on Cognition: Relationships to Chronic Effects and Smoking Techniques." Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 43 (1992): 907-917.)
At some doses, marijuana affects perception and psychomotor performances- changes which could impair driving ability. This hasn't been linked to highway driver safety but it does have the same requirement meeting most state DWI standards where even under a legal limit, if you are impared, you can be cited. (*Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. "Legalization: Panacea or Pandora's Box". New York. (1995):36. *Swan, Neil. "A Look at Marijuana's Harmful Effects." NIDA Notes. 9.2 (1994): 14. *Moskowitz, Herbert and Robert Petersen. Marijuana and Driving: A Review. Rockville: American Council for Drug Education, 1982. 7. *Mann, Peggy. Marijuana Alert. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985. 265.)
These impairments have also been shown in testing samples of MS patients using Pot. It found that in some instances, being high increased the response time compared to patient who weren't high. They were on average 50 percent slower. Granted, this was a look at people with MS, but I have personally witnessed the same behavior in perfectly fine people. When I used to work with people that got high on the job, they would rail about how good they were doing and all I could think of was how much bullshit it was because I had to work harder to keep things going smooth. And yes, I worked with these people sober where they performed much better at their assigned tasks.
Now, it is true that none of the information I presented showed a specific link between the driving abilities of a person who is high and their likelihood of getting into an accident. But I also don't need specific links to any action to know the sun will rise in the morning and set in the evening. I don't care how pedantic you want to be, it is obvious that being high presents more of a danger then not being high does. It should also be noted that there is no test that can be performed to tell if someone is high or not. All they can do is look for THC concentrations being released from fat cells. THC is released slower then it is absorbed so it doesn't always rise to the concentration required for detectable psychoactivity. There is also no standard baseline for concentration levels in the brain that would allow detectable psychoactivity or evidence someone was high. So unless someone openly admitted to being high on an illegal drug after having an accident, the statistics simply won't be there in the first place.
Three mile island was a design failure that has been addressed and fixed. The coolant leak which resulted in low coolant causing resulted in the wrong procedures being implemented and the suspect of faulty sensors. We now measure coolant levels not only in the feed, but in transition through the piping before and after the reactor. There are backup coolant lines to boot.
The entire issue that was behind TMI has been addresses and implemented into all other facilities and the type of incident has never been repeated.
I think the big picture is that once they realized the sensors wasn't at fault and the problem was a lack of coolant verses ineffective coolant-bad readings, figured out a plan, vented for safety and enacted the plan to control the reactor, the biggest problem was the lack of ability to evacuate the surrounding and potentially effected population. Roads were jammed, many people had no immediate transportation and the traffic problems was making it difficult to get buses into the area. The Three mile Island accidence is pretty much impossible to happen again, but it showed how impossible it was to protect the people at the same time.