Apple watch burns guy's wrist

On 11/30/2015 6:20 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

snip


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident

An accident is an undesirable incidental and unplanned event that could have been prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence.


So if a car is thrown off of a road because of an earthquake, you would
not call it an accident.
This subject has less and less to do with photography. I will continue
any discussion off line.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:


So if a car is thrown off of a road because of an earthquake, you would
not call it an accident.

having driven in earthquakes before, cars are not thrown off the road
during a quake.

what actually happens is consistent with a flat tire or very high
winds, something which is not at all hard to control, at least for
someone who knows how to drive.

unfortunately, not everyone knows how to handle emergency situations.

pilots are *required* to learn emergency maneuvers so that when
something goes wrong, they know exactly what to do. they don't just say
'oh ****, my engine failed' and then crash in a field.

unfortunately, no such requirement applies to drivers, so when
something does go wrong, drivers often make it worse (e.g., hit the
brakes in a skid) or just panic and hope for the best. often, the
situation that caused the problem in the first place is their own
fault, such as not maintaining their vehicle and then wondering why the
brakes failed.

back to quakes, a bigger problem with quakes are structural failures,
such as bridge collapses. that's unquestionably *not* an accident.

we know how to build structures to withstand quakes and other natural
disasters, and anything that collapses in a quake is the fault of those
who designed and/or built it.

in the 1989 loma prieta earthquake, the nimitz freeway in oakland
collapsed because the concrete supports were not reinforced and
crumbled causing the structure to collapse.

we know earthquakes will happen, especially in the san francisco bay
area and other parts of california, and to build a structure that can't
sustain a quake is clearly negligent. that's why there are earthquake
building codes.

although not due to a quake, the bridge collapse in minnesota was not
an accident either. it had been found to be structurally deficient on
multiple occasions, yet traffic was allowed to cross. guess what
happens when a structurally deficient bridge continues to carry
traffic. hint: it's not good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-35W_Mississippi_River_bridge
In internal Mn/DOT documents, bridge officials talked about the
possibility of the bridge collapsing, and worried that they might
have to condemn it

in other words, they knew the risks yet allowed people to use it.

This subject has less and less to do with photography. I will continue
any discussion off line.

sure you will.

On 11/30/2015 1:42 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN

snip


This subject has less and less to do with photography. I will continue
any discussion off line.

sure you will.


I have not received any email transmissions on this subject. Have you
sent any?

--
PeterN