Regulations are sometimes couched as being required for safety, and the inevitable tradeoff between what you can't do and someone else's safety trotted out center stage.
Then sometimes it's just the government exercising more control because it can. This is an example of the latter -- Colombia has effectively made flying drones a violation of several civil regulations. That means if you upset someone you will get fined and the government will be enriched.
No matter how corrupt or inept our government is, I'm happy that the US FAA takes a more laissez faire approach until something becomes an exigent danger. Their process, which includes NPRMs, hearings, etc. is more reasoned than the European or South American or Colombian methods.
No. College campuses are not made up of the systems and processes to properly evaluate a legal claim, investigate it, and then lead to a conclusion.
That is why most of them will hand these things off to a law enforcement agency to do a proper (legal) investigation and follow it up. A LACK of a charge and a LACK of a conviction is not a failure of the process.
Here's an article with statistics about 80% of the claims being false: blog.simplejustice.us/2015/09/11/a-round-of-applause-for-congressman-jared-polis/
The assumption that a "student is ignored" is a false one. There's nothing in any primary source indicating the student was ignored. There were no criminal convictions in this matter. Anything else is pure speculation... and a prejudging of the other victim -- the alleged sexual assaulter.
The other assumption that someone "barely 3 months out of high school" gets to have magic-bullet rights is ludicrous. Take another look at the 14th Amendment. If you're a US Citizen you have EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. There's no magic bullet for being "3 months out of high school." Maturity is expected and legally granted at 18 years.
The article doesn't fail on cyanide sales. The article correctly points out that the LAWSUIT FAILS by conflating the cyanide sale with the suicidal teen with the sexual assault. The lawsuit is defective because the reason for the suicide is unproven BUT arguendo is irrelevant to the matter of the purchase of the cyanide.
This case is about a mother hurt so badly because she wasn't available to her suicidal daughter, that she wants to sue everybody.
I'm sorry her daughter felt she had nobody to turn to. Likely if her mommy had been available... there would be no lawsuit today.
However, from a legal point of view...
I know it's tough for people outside the United States to understand but we here have laws. Part of those laws is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
When we say "we don't blame the victim" this is true of those who report alleged assault as well as the person they report about.
In this case there is no conviction. That means NOBODY is guilty of sexually assaulting her.
That sexual assault thing is a red herring. This case is about mommy suing Amazon because butthurt.
It is NOT germane to Amazon being named in the lawsuit as to WHY the girl was allegedly suicidal. The whole "sexual assault" thing and suing the University is just an attempt to get more bites at the insurance-coverage umbrella-policy cash apple.
Simplifying, these are two unrelated cases thrown into one: 1. Nobody was found guilty of sexual assault but mommy thinks university should have moved the alleged perpetrator to a different dorm (or killed him?). Scott Greenfield writes about this horrid non-justice phenomenon at blog.simplejustice.us. Basically universities are creating extrajudicial proceedings lacking justice, fairness, protection of rights, and allow the accused to be vilified while the accuser has free reign without regard to law or evidence.
But this did not happen here. Nobody was found guilty of sexual assault. Any discussion of sexual assault is an attack against the victim of these accusations.
2. An adult went on Amazon.com and purchased a product. Amazon is not responsible that the adult later used that product to kill herself. The depressed teen could have bought a Ghost 400 crossbow, a sharp kitchen knife, or Tide With Bleach and Windex and made mustard gas. The only responsible person for her death is... the teen.
If her mother would like to find someone living to point the finger at... she should look in the mirror. Obviously this poor teenager felt she was assaulted (but the law did not agree with her conclusion) and she felt she had nobody to turn to (I guess Mommy wasn't so ever reachable)... and that she couldn't live with the guilt or shame and so she spent DAYS buying a product, waiting for it to be delivered, getting it, and using it.
There's suicide through depression. That happens instantly. There's suicide through PLANNED death. That's what this teenager did.
Mommy should get help. She has no case against any of the parties... and this won't make her feel better for how badly she failed her daughter.
I'm sorry an eighteen year old girl felt everything was so hopeless and she bought cyanide and killed herself.
The only person responsible for that is the girl. Not Amazon. Not the university. Not some guy that was not found to have assaulted her.
The article at the top of this page is insightful in its research, fascinating in its composition, and eloquently constructed. You who have come to here, the bottom comment, to see what people are still talking about should jump back up there and read it.
Walter O'Brien is a fraud. You can't help but get that understanding from reading the article.
The article is not about the show. Like the show, hate the show, it's still not about the show.
There are many many forums to discuss the show. This is not one. Coming here to discuss the show is like overhearing someone saying "the parm is cheesy" and walking right to their dinner table, plopping your fat ass down, and saying "I love to play parcheesi!" and no matter how much they try and be polite and explain that no, we're just eating really cheesy parm you insist on staying, talking about parcheesi, and calling them rude for not listening to you.
Etiquette is important, and being tone-deaf to the dozens of people who have said "this is not about the show" reflects well on this forum that censors noone and on those who show courtesy and civility in the face of blatant disregard for all manners.
I close by adding one more thing. The article at the top (you *did* read it, right?) is about Walter O'Brien being a fraud. It is now about who YOU are or how old you are nor is it about me.
Yes, microwaves. It's a word people throw out as a lifeline to sinking sailors. Sadly the word is so obsolete because almost everything we do with radios now *is* microwaves.
Any frequency between 300MHz (100cm wavelength) and 300GHz (0.1cm wavelength) is a microwave frequency.
That includes every WiFi and Bluetooth device you have. It even includes those old 900MHz phones you threw out when you upgraded to DECT. Even garage door openers - the dumbest radio devices out there - are in the microwave band (315MHz).
You don't have to get gear from Ubiquiti (although I use their gear and like it) or Motorola's Canopy (although I've used that and like it) or ...
Pringles-can antennas and standard WiFi will work great. Or there's always the Ubiquiti radios.
The original program started in 1985 and back then the US portion of the Internet was the NSFnet and it did have one backbone. In 1993 the commercial Internet started and then there were multiple backbones.
Today there are unrelated long-distance fiber-optic Internet connections that link all sorts of cities and data centers. There is no "backbone" and there are no "backbones". All there are are tier-1 carriers, their links, and their interconnections.
Here, for example, is how AT&T transits IPv4 traffic to other providers. Note how many they are connected to. That means any traffic to or from those other providers are immediately shunted off AT&Ts network at the closest peering points. If you follow those other providers to their providers, peers, and customers, you'll see that the Internet of today --unlike 1985 or 1993 or 2002-- is very much just a spiderweb of interconnected networks.
Walter O'Brien is a fraud, and it's funny to see his supporters jump in here and ignore that the article is NOT about the TV SHOW. Surprised, right?
Then there are those who want to denigrate the posters on this forum. We have too much time. We're obsessed. We are socially inept. Except, of course, that by posting on this forum that same denigration applies to the poster.
Walter O'Brien is a fraud. His company is built on selling his fraudulent reputation. In an alternate world hypothetically speaking if he had died of a bad mosquito bite at birth, NOTHING would be safer, or better, except the TV show might have been affected. Good thing we're not talking about that, right?
Thank you, Anonymous Coward. Both your first name and last name are 100% correct. You are a coward. For you will not put your lackluster reputation behind your brilliant twit: > Wow [comma missing] someone has way too much time on their hands! Um [fragment]
Fortunately this shall not detract from the ultimate thread on how Walter O'Brien is a fraud. I hear that's now trending on google. In my opinion honesty is a good thing.