First, she wouldn't need to break into the mall for obvious reasons unless the mall was locked up in which case her daughter or anyone else wouldn't be in there to begin with. The mall is a public venue so a disguise wouldn't be necessary. Usually visiting friends homes and/or sleepovers would not require a disguise either.

It's just speculation on your part where mom lets her child hang out and what safety precautions the child might take before and while visiting those places.

However, schools are becoming more secure in light of school shootings but more needs to be done and this was the point she was making. She was able to bypass the lax security at the school and was willing to pay the price for putting it to the test.

She wasn't there to kill anyone, just the poor security measures. If anything the school board or whoever should be fined.

This was not about her having "the right" to do what she did. She knew she didn't have "the right" but she did have the guts and a plan to expose the hole in the dam. Do you think a school shooter gives a shit about their rights to be in a school?

With my job I've picked up a few children on crime scenes that have been shot or stabbed to death and it's the hardest thing to witness and live with.

I hope you are able to refocus your priorities.

I see we're doing the whole unfamiliar planet & zero safety precautions thing again. Ehhhh, I'm sure it'll all turn out fine.

Yes, my teenage years were irresponsible, and a main reason I often chime in to suggest at least having serious knowledge about what you're doing and safety precautions before going this route.

Yes, because it is different for different people, and even different for the same person dependent on their mindset when they take it, it's impossible to be totally 'safe' when taking it, even with full knowledge. You can't know for sure how it will react with you, or how you'll react to it until it's too late.

Making your own, if you're a decent chemist, at least gives you a good idea of WHAT you're taking, but without spectral analysis, you can't know the strength of the psychoactives for certain. Also, that probably leaves you open to more legal trouble for manufacturing a schedule 1 narcotic...more reason to not go in public and take it and get caught.

The fear is that, when someone is having a bad trip, they aren't likely to think straight enough to take something to counter act the effects...even if they're smart enough to have that handy. Unfortunately, a clinical setting is probably also not conducive to a great experience, so 'under a doctor's supervision' isn't really totally helpful or practical.

The quantum mechanics part can be understood, he seemed to have just miss-stated/miss-understood what the experiment was about in his wish to find some science that explains his experience, which may not be understandable.

if they fell, would it be a tragedy?
because to me, a tragedy is something negative, but unexpected

skyscraper construction is similar, but they (usually) plan for things like slips/falls/etc... and try to mitigate the situation through safety equipment and procedures... hopefully to the benefit of not just the worker's lives themselves, but their families and friends

that's not to say high altitude construction doesn't have it's share of deaths by accident, but those to me are actual tragedies... because most likely steps were taken to prevent whatever happened from happening

no safety equipment used by these adrenaline junkies

and when looking at the phenomenon of adrenaline junkies, I believe one must look further than just the safety precautions taken to determine whether the term "tragedy" is applicable... what is the reasoning behind taking the endeavor at hand? is it solely personal (selfish) reasoning, or are others included in the reasoning (especially friends and family who have no option but to watch and hope for the best)?

that statement is the reason that "tragedy" is applicable when a father from some tribe in africa gets attacked by a lion while hunting for game... and it isn't applicable when it's a lion tamer putting his head in the mouth of a lion for show...

in fact, the more one "tempts fate" solely for selfish/personal reasons... the less I think "tragedy" applies

these guys in the vid, if they fell, it wouldn't be a tragedy... it's kinda weird to expect people to care more about your own safety, than you yourself do... and I'm not saying people caring is a bad thing... its a good thing... in fact, it shines a more selfish light on the original person in the first place... ESPECIALLY if these people caring more than they do themselves, are known... such as friends/family

Bison Costanza: "I was trying to lead the way. We needed a leader! Someone to lead the way to safety!"

Bison #2: "But you yelled 'GET OUT OF MY WAY'!"

Bison Costanza: "Because! Because, as the leader...if I die...then all hope is lost! Who would lead? Instead of castigating me, you should all be thanking me. What kind of a topsy-turvy world do we live in, where heroes are cast as villains? Brave bison as cowards?"

Bison #2: "But I saw you push the women and children out of the way in a mad panic! I saw you knock them down! And when you ran, you left everyone behind!"

Bison Costanza: "Seemingly. Seemingly, to the untrained eye, I can fully understand how you got that impression. What looked like pushing...what looked like knocking down...was a safety precaution! In a wolf attack, you play dead, am I right? And when I ran, I was not leaving anyone behind! Oh, quite the contrary! I risked my life making sure that the path was clear. Any other questions?"

Bison #3: "How do you live with yourself?"

Bison Costanza: "Its not easy."

Football is really headed downhill. But you gotta admit, it's been heading downhill for a long, long time. Just compare it to rugby, and you'll see how it is being driven into the ground by safety precautions and rules against having fun.

That being said, I have no problem with rules against showboating. But a player has the right to celebrate a little! There's a big difference between raising your arms and doing a chicken dance.

Being a physicist doesn't really give you the expertise to run a nuclear power plant, that's more engineering work. Kaku may be a good physicist, but he may not have a clue as to how you actually run the plant and what safety precautions are there.

Well, you know, he doesn't need to be sued for lack of safety precautions now.

How would that argument not apply to regular, consensual sex. Or any other basic human behavior such as coughing, washing hands, going outside while sick, etc?

It sounds as though you wish to make "risk" illegal?

I mean...talk about a slippery slope.

>> ^jwray However, the government can and should require safety precautions because one person's negligence can increase risks to others despite the others' vigilance.

>> ^imstellar28:
would have a hard time finding victims here. girls who like sex being paid to have sex with guys who want to have sex.
still..start the argument in the right place. people should be free to have sex with whomever they want under whatever conditions they want. taxes regulations, etc. are all unnecessary and unjust. you don't need a federal law to mandate condom usage or dick checks...businesses and individuals can and should choose to engage in those same safe practices without government regulation.
you probably use condoms and at least make a quick check for any giant oozing sores when you have one night stands, no reason you shouldn't do it if you were buying a hooker...


I agree that the government should not be in the business of outlawing victimless "crimes".

However, the government can and should require safety precautions because one person's negligence can increase risks to others despite the others' vigilance.

Well, it would be the ultimate joke if, of all people, the Swiss would overlook a tiny safety precaution and cause the end of the world as we know it.

In a lot of his early films they simply did not have the budget or expertise for safety gear and equipment. In his later films, there generally are safety precautions taken. During the slide down the building in "Who am I?", for example, he was attached to a winch.

I was thinking the same thing about the cable that you catch a glimpse of when the snow-tired car finally gets going, and then again when it reaches the top. I'd expect it's just a safety precaution. Otherwise the car would have made it without needing to resort to studded snow tires. I don't think it was "edited out", though - just hidden beneath the snow. You see it pop up out of the snow as the car gets close, and I think that's the black line you see behind the car from the aerial shots after it reaches the top.
I'd be curious what cars couldn't make it up the ramp equipped with the same snow tires, though.

the safety precautions on that battery are more than are on a regular gas tank of a car, even if it blows up, it will still stay in it's casing. the battery is also under warranty, so 5 years from now, when the battery dies, they will replace it.

gluomim: Do your research. It's a safety precaution, all buildings over 4 stories tall are to be designed that in the case of earthquakes, explosions, etc. They will fall in on themselves So as to minimize casualties and damage to surrounding structures. As per Universal Building Code.