I'm in the same part of NJ as you (half an hour from the city), and I can count the number of calls I've had dropped around here on one hand. I did worse in Philadelphia, but not by much.
I had not read about that case, and while I think the court made the wrong decision from a societal standpoint (discouraging bystanders), it was probably the right decision for this case.
Let me explain: "I thought I saw smoke" is not enough of a reason, and the potential (and actual) damages were severe enough, that she should not have moved the woman. It sounds like the woman was conscious but *not* asking for help... in which case you can't start doing stuff because you think it's a good idea.
Had the woman been unconscious, or screaming for help, this would've been simple. Had the car actually been on fire, this would've been simple. But as it was, the friend got a little too gung-ho.
The standard for liability is most precisely 'gross negligence'. If I were to attempt CPR with my feet, or misidentify a diabetic emergency as being drunk, I could be successfully sued. But if a patient died through no *negligent* fault of my own (say, I took too long to get them to the ambulance when I had no obvious reason to expedite) then the case would be thrown away. I've seen some pretty stupid actions by EMS people get dismissed, so at least in NJ the law is interpreted quite widely.
Another key part of good samaritan laws is that rescuers are to render assistance to the capacity of their training, and no more. My capacity is EMT stuff, but if I were to try to intubate somebody or attempt a Cesarean, I'd lose. A civilian trained in CPR shouldn't be administering nitroglycerin or his own Epi-Pen (fine to use the victim's own). And a completely untrained bystander shouldn't be attempting CPR.
Basically, you want to protect the guy running up and starting CPR, or the guy dragging the unconscious person out of a burning car. Unfortunately though, well-intentioned but untrained bystanders will usually cause more damage than doing nothing. The case in California is an example of this. But these laws, and their navigation, require the potential rescuer to know the limits of their skills, and most people are terrible at that.
IANAL, this is not legal advice. If you know CPR, please use it if the case arises. If you don't, please learn.
Well, volunteer rescuers are protected by good samaritan laws - nearly every state has them. Professional rescuers (paid fire or EMS) are a little more liable, but unless they ripped the arm off or injured someone when it was clearly unnecessary, it'll still be thrown out.
I do volunteer EMS and I've been named in suits a half dozen times so far. The only time I hear about it is the note saying I was named and it was dismissed - the ambulance chasers sue everybody all the way down.
Actually it will, but it won't let you use it. You can actually install any game you want, it'll just say "pre-load complete" so if you do buy it, you're all set.
Counter-Strike: Source, Half-Life 2, Portal, Team Fortress 2 all run fine. CS:S and TF2 are two of the most popular multiplayer games in the world at the moment.
Are you too lazy to read his paragraphs, or just too stupid to understand? He just explained *why* it's silly.
Here, let me try. Gold standard can't work, fiat currency can. That's why it's silly to use the gold standard, because it's literally impossible to keep it viable. With a fiat currency, it's at least a theoretical possibility - we can argue about whether it's happened.
In short, I'll go with the thing that hasn't conclusively been shown to be impossible
Yes and no. If you process a "check card" (I have a Visa one) as credit, it takes a few days to work through (they show up as grey in my e-banking register, instead of black). And if you report a lost/stolen card within 2 days of noticing it, you're limited to $50.
So your AMEX will probably protect you better, but check cards aren't exactly unsafe. I'd rather have chip-and-PIN than a magstripe, but if I want to spend any significant amount of money I still need either a PIN, CVV or a signature.
That's understood from the context, but otherwise obvious from the line "could be construed as allegations of research misconduct, which would constitute a violation of Penn State policy".
Funny, yes - but unfortunately absolutely true. In literal years of honest searching, I've met only one solitary conservative smart enough to intelligently defend his ideas. I have a tremendous amount of respect for him, and anybody like him, because the 'loyal opposition' is a dying breed.
Well I think it's weird how one group of experts (man causes global warming) will label another group of experts (global warming is natural) as "idiots" and "deniers" and other childish retorts. The first group doesn't even allow the second group to publish papers
[citation needed]
Who are these supposed experts? Names and works, please.
In all of the examples I've ever seen, when I've asked this before, there were real flaws with the articles people wished to publish, and the peer-review process pointed them out. Obvious errors even to me, with my basic study of statistics, or just logical holes. There's a lot of problems with scientific journals, but accuracy almost always isn't one of them.
That's stupid. This came up in an earlier article: Let's say you're fascinated in climatology. You spend years studying it as a hobby, and feel like that makes you qualified to talk about. Sure, it probably does, to some extent.
But the climatologist was most likely fascinated by climatology too, to the point where they went to school for it, got a PhD, and did a post-doc. That was their life, for many many years. Having such a substantial degree and respect in a subject is very very hard to do if you don't know anything.
Point is, the degree still serves exactly the same purpose it always did - it certifies that you've spent a tremendous amount of time and effort to understand something as completely as possible.
In any case, that's all hypothetical. Can you name *anybody* who's studied climatology as a hobby, who's respected as an authority?
The thing is, only one of those sides is supported by scientific consensus. What do you think about left-wing pundits railing against creationists? They're not even evolutionary biologists!
In the US, part of the 2.4GHz band is actually a ham band, so if this guy is unlucky enough to have a neighbor who messes around with some of the higher frequencies he's SOL.
Wrong. He's talking about crypto *signing*, not encryption.
Alice is playing Bob's game, and storing some game-state data. Bob signs the data with his private key, and Alice can read the data no problem. But were she to modify it, the signature would no longer be valid (which anybody can check) and the state would be re-downloaded.
The game state isn't a secret, it just needs to be invalidated if modified. Signatures are perfect for this, just sign any changes that your server accepts.
For the record, Chase was probably the least reckless. They didn't play with any of those risky derivatives, and they didn't need a bailout. They only took money (and paid it back ASAP) so that it wouldn't look taboo to take TARP funds...
Lotta blame to go around, but Chase is probably not your target.
To be fair, the US FBI probably *should* be US-centric. We already have a whole group of people who do the same thing, but specifically *not* US-centric.
I was a kid, and it was (ironically) a cellphone antenna.
I'm also a HAM and play around with 50-100W all the time. That kind of power actually can burn you (RF burns hurt), but it's pretty minor - like a hot-water scald. So the idea of getting burned by a max of 2W is pretty stupid.
Are you fucking serious?? I hope you don't seriously believe that touching an antenna on a device with few-watt or less output power is dangerous.
First of all, internal antennas are the new part. For the longest time, every cellphone had a telescoping, exposed antenna. You can even still get them, if you want.
Second of all, the phone transmits at an outside maximum of 2W - usually much less. You can literally suck on an antenna broadcasting at 2W and not feel a thing (I've done it)
Third of all, tons of other things that you use all the time transmit over exposed antennas: Old cordless phones, many walkie-talkies, baby monitors... etc. The reason you cover up an antenna has to do with protecting the antenna and, as it happens, protecting it from detuning.
Oh, wow, 20k. That's like what the hole puts out in a few hours.
The reason it's a no-go is because it's roughly akin to mowing Central Park with a hand-push mower. "But I'm cutting grass!", I might say. Well, yes, but so insignificantly that it's basically a waste of effort.
And that decision is BP's decision, but you seem awful eager to nail Obama to the wall over this. What, exactly, should Obama be doing differently? That's an honest question - I've spent the last month trying to figure it out.
SSL has always been tricky for those filtering appliances. If you deny it, you prevent things like legitimate credit card orders for, say, classroom supplies - or checking a bank account balance regarding a paycheck. If you allow it, kids/employees will just use one of the dozens of SSL proxy sites.
And the nature of SSL is it's pretty much all-or-none.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it doesn't often happen but the law provides for prosecution as perjury - which is no joke.
I'm in the same part of NJ as you (half an hour from the city), and I can count the number of calls I've had dropped around here on one hand. I did worse in Philadelphia, but not by much.
Perhaps you have a phone issue?
That's not as bad as 'for all intensive purposes' which doesn't even make sense.
I had not read about that case, and while I think the court made the wrong decision from a societal standpoint (discouraging bystanders), it was probably the right decision for this case.
Let me explain: "I thought I saw smoke" is not enough of a reason, and the potential (and actual) damages were severe enough, that she should not have moved the woman. It sounds like the woman was conscious but *not* asking for help... in which case you can't start doing stuff because you think it's a good idea.
Had the woman been unconscious, or screaming for help, this would've been simple. Had the car actually been on fire, this would've been simple. But as it was, the friend got a little too gung-ho.
The standard for liability is most precisely 'gross negligence'. If I were to attempt CPR with my feet, or misidentify a diabetic emergency as being drunk, I could be successfully sued. But if a patient died through no *negligent* fault of my own (say, I took too long to get them to the ambulance when I had no obvious reason to expedite) then the case would be thrown away. I've seen some pretty stupid actions by EMS people get dismissed, so at least in NJ the law is interpreted quite widely.
Another key part of good samaritan laws is that rescuers are to render assistance to the capacity of their training, and no more. My capacity is EMT stuff, but if I were to try to intubate somebody or attempt a Cesarean, I'd lose. A civilian trained in CPR shouldn't be administering nitroglycerin or his own Epi-Pen (fine to use the victim's own). And a completely untrained bystander shouldn't be attempting CPR.
Basically, you want to protect the guy running up and starting CPR, or the guy dragging the unconscious person out of a burning car. Unfortunately though, well-intentioned but untrained bystanders will usually cause more damage than doing nothing. The case in California is an example of this. But these laws, and their navigation, require the potential rescuer to know the limits of their skills, and most people are terrible at that.
IANAL, this is not legal advice. If you know CPR, please use it if the case arises. If you don't, please learn.
Well, volunteer rescuers are protected by good samaritan laws - nearly every state has them. Professional rescuers (paid fire or EMS) are a little more liable, but unless they ripped the arm off or injured someone when it was clearly unnecessary, it'll still be thrown out.
I do volunteer EMS and I've been named in suits a half dozen times so far. The only time I hear about it is the note saying I was named and it was dismissed - the ambulance chasers sue everybody all the way down.
Actually it will, but it won't let you use it. You can actually install any game you want, it'll just say "pre-load complete" so if you do buy it, you're all set.
Counter-Strike: Source, Half-Life 2, Portal, Team Fortress 2 all run fine. CS:S and TF2 are two of the most popular multiplayer games in the world at the moment.
I, for one, haven't started Windows in months.
Are you too lazy to read his paragraphs, or just too stupid to understand? He just explained *why* it's silly.
Here, let me try. Gold standard can't work, fiat currency can. That's why it's silly to use the gold standard, because it's literally impossible to keep it viable. With a fiat currency, it's at least a theoretical possibility - we can argue about whether it's happened.
In short, I'll go with the thing that hasn't conclusively been shown to be impossible
Yes and no. If you process a "check card" (I have a Visa one) as credit, it takes a few days to work through (they show up as grey in my e-banking register, instead of black). And if you report a lost/stolen card within 2 days of noticing it, you're limited to $50.
So your AMEX will probably protect you better, but check cards aren't exactly unsafe. I'd rather have chip-and-PIN than a magstripe, but if I want to spend any significant amount of money I still need either a PIN, CVV or a signature.
That's understood from the context, but otherwise obvious from the line "could be construed as allegations of research misconduct, which would constitute a violation of Penn State policy".
Are you being serious?
Funny, yes - but unfortunately absolutely true. In literal years of honest searching, I've met only one solitary conservative smart enough to intelligently defend his ideas. I have a tremendous amount of respect for him, and anybody like him, because the 'loyal opposition' is a dying breed.
To paraphrase: You will never be able to get a man to understand something, when his worldview and convenience depends on him not understanding.
Who could possibly be high up in those organizations that would try to discredit global warming?
Why? How so? Give details and examples.
I'll write you a $100 check if they're not easily refuted with a minute's time on Google.
Well I think it's weird how one group of experts (man causes global warming) will label another group of experts (global warming is natural) as "idiots" and "deniers" and other childish retorts. The first group doesn't even allow the second group to publish papers
[citation needed]
Who are these supposed experts? Names and works, please.
In all of the examples I've ever seen, when I've asked this before, there were real flaws with the articles people wished to publish, and the peer-review process pointed them out. Obvious errors even to me, with my basic study of statistics, or just logical holes. There's a lot of problems with scientific journals, but accuracy almost always isn't one of them.
That's stupid. This came up in an earlier article: Let's say you're fascinated in climatology. You spend years studying it as a hobby, and feel like that makes you qualified to talk about. Sure, it probably does, to some extent.
But the climatologist was most likely fascinated by climatology too, to the point where they went to school for it, got a PhD, and did a post-doc. That was their life, for many many years. Having such a substantial degree and respect in a subject is very very hard to do if you don't know anything.
Point is, the degree still serves exactly the same purpose it always did - it certifies that you've spent a tremendous amount of time and effort to understand something as completely as possible.
In any case, that's all hypothetical. Can you name *anybody* who's studied climatology as a hobby, who's respected as an authority?
The thing is, only one of those sides is supported by scientific consensus. What do you think about left-wing pundits railing against creationists? They're not even evolutionary biologists!
In the US, part of the 2.4GHz band is actually a ham band, so if this guy is unlucky enough to have a neighbor who messes around with some of the higher frequencies he's SOL.
Wrong. He's talking about crypto *signing*, not encryption.
Alice is playing Bob's game, and storing some game-state data. Bob signs the data with his private key, and Alice can read the data no problem. But were she to modify it, the signature would no longer be valid (which anybody can check) and the state would be re-downloaded.
The game state isn't a secret, it just needs to be invalidated if modified. Signatures are perfect for this, just sign any changes that your server accepts.
For the record, Chase was probably the least reckless. They didn't play with any of those risky derivatives, and they didn't need a bailout. They only took money (and paid it back ASAP) so that it wouldn't look taboo to take TARP funds...
Lotta blame to go around, but Chase is probably not your target.
To be fair, the US FBI probably *should* be US-centric. We already have a whole group of people who do the same thing, but specifically *not* US-centric.
I was a kid, and it was (ironically) a cellphone antenna.
I'm also a HAM and play around with 50-100W all the time. That kind of power actually can burn you (RF burns hurt), but it's pretty minor - like a hot-water scald. So the idea of getting burned by a max of 2W is pretty stupid.
Are you fucking serious?? I hope you don't seriously believe that touching an antenna on a device with few-watt or less output power is dangerous.
First of all, internal antennas are the new part. For the longest time, every cellphone had a telescoping, exposed antenna. You can even still get them, if you want.
Second of all, the phone transmits at an outside maximum of 2W - usually much less. You can literally suck on an antenna broadcasting at 2W and not feel a thing (I've done it)
Third of all, tons of other things that you use all the time transmit over exposed antennas: Old cordless phones, many walkie-talkies, baby monitors... etc. The reason you cover up an antenna has to do with protecting the antenna and, as it happens, protecting it from detuning.
Oh, wow, 20k. That's like what the hole puts out in a few hours.
The reason it's a no-go is because it's roughly akin to mowing Central Park with a hand-push mower. "But I'm cutting grass!", I might say. Well, yes, but so insignificantly that it's basically a waste of effort.
And that decision is BP's decision, but you seem awful eager to nail Obama to the wall over this. What, exactly, should Obama be doing differently? That's an honest question - I've spent the last month trying to figure it out.
SSL has always been tricky for those filtering appliances. If you deny it, you prevent things like legitimate credit card orders for, say, classroom supplies - or checking a bank account balance regarding a paycheck. If you allow it, kids/employees will just use one of the dozens of SSL proxy sites.
And the nature of SSL is it's pretty much all-or-none.