Cell phone use while driving: Should it be legal?

Cell phone use while driving: Should it be legal?
Originally uploaded by kmichaels97

"This essay was an assignment for a Composition class I took which required me to pick a side on a controversial topic and defend it. My true oppinion is that we should have laws prohibiting the use of cell phones while driving. Here is my argument for the other side."

With constant technological advances and the increased need to be mobile, cell phone use while driving should be not become yet another citation. An attempt to legally prohibit this type of driver distraction infringes on the personal rights of motorists. Being on the other end of a cell phone traffic ticket may negatively reflect on your driver record and can increase your insurance premiums. This law is just not enforceable. How will officials know if the driver is texting or changing a song on an MP3 player? Holding a conversation on a cell phone while driving is no more distracting than being engaged with a passenger or rowdy kids in the back seat, eating fast food or messing around with the radio.

Motorists know that using a cell phone while driving is distracting and therefore one should not do it. Do we have to place a law on all "unacceptable" behaviors? Currently text messaging is banned for all drivers in 26 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, novice drivers are banned from texting in 8 states (Alabama, Delaware, Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas, and West Virginia) and school bus drivers are banned from text messaging in Oklahoma and Texas (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety [IIHS], 2010). California, one of the states which currently have laws in place prohibiting texting and the use of hand held devices while driving, is even debating extending the violation to people riding bicycles (Miranda, 2010). How far can we allow the government to legislate our lives?

In Wisconsin, the fine for a first time so-called “Moving violation” offense is from $20 to $400 and four points on the diving record of the offender. Second time offenders will face a fine from $200 to $800 (State of Wisconsin, 2009). A single ticket will most likely not cause your car insurance rate to go up but since it is classified as a “moving violation”, multiple violations could increase your insurance premiums. In California, this type of violation is punishable by a base fine of $20 for a first offense and $50 for each subsequent offense (State of California, 2008). Each state has its own penalty and certain restrictions.

Have these state by state laws truly helped? In some cases yes, but when reporter Nannette Miranda from ABC investigated the cell phone prohibition law implemented in the state of California back in 2008, she found that “Collision claims in California were no different than in surrounding states that don't have the hands-free mandate” (Miranda, 2010). Currently, California State senator Joe Simitian is proposing to triple the current fine in an attempt to further dissuade drivers from using their cell phones while driving. He also proposes increasing the magnitude of the offense, making it a moving violation that adds points to a person's driving record (Miranda, 2010). The law is not effective because it’s not identifying the true problem; anything that is distracting to the driver could have the same effect as using a cell phone.

The GPS that sits on my dashboard and displays beautiful 3D renderings of my virtual surroundings isn’t distracting? The state of Wisconsin says they’re okay to use (State of Wisconsin, 2009). Checking your iPhone behind the wheel can get you fined across half of the country, but many states are more than happy to tweet you with up-to-the-minute directions on how to steer clear of a traffic jam. At least 22 states that ban texting while driving offer some type of service that allows motorists to get information about traffic tie-ups, road conditions or emergencies via Twitter (DeMillo, 2009).

Technology will soon minimize distracting methods of communication while driving as they are identified. In fact, there is an iPhone application available now called “Text’n Drive” which allows you to listen to your text and email messages and reply with your voice. Technologies will yet again, make these laws obsolete and another device will then take the cell phone’s place as the main distraction while driving.



Works Cited

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute. (2010, May). Cellphone Laws. Retrieved from http://www.iihs.org/laws/cellphonelaws.aspx



Miranda, N. (2010, January 29). Calif cell phone law not reducing car accidents. Retrieved from ABC 7 News, Los Angeles, CA website: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/state&id=7247321



State of Wisconsin 2009-2010 Legislature. (2009). 2009 Assembly Bill 496. (2009, October 15). State of Wisconsin: Author. Retrieved from http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/AB-496.pdf



State of California, Department of Motorized Vehicles. (2008). Hand-Held Wireless Telephone: Prohibited Use. (2008, July). State of California DMV: Author. Retrieved from http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23123.htm



DeMillo, A. (2009, Sept 20). Mixed Messages on Texting and Driving. Retrieved from Associated Press and ABC News website: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=8614972

Recycling Plus Interest

Recycling Plus Interest
Originally uploaded by kmichaels97

Recycling Plus Interest

My son comes to me with his MP3 player in hand and says “Dad, its dead.” I promptly take the battery out, turn to the junk drawer and grab yet another one from the package of fresh, new batteries. “There you go buddy” I say, “Now don’t leave it on okay? Turn it off when you are done listening to it.” I grab the so-called “dead battery” and toss it in the garbage and return to other fatherly duties. What’s wrong? Sounds like a normal scenario. It was to me anyway. My wife notices the toss. “What are you doing?” she asks. I guess I’m supposed to recycle those.

Who knew? I’ve always thrown them in the garbage. Recycling to me was making sure I crush my soda can and toss it into a plastic bag in the garage. When that becomes full, I gather my four bags and make a trip down to the recycling semi truck to get a few dollars. I usually spend it by the time I get back home. Recycling has been turned into a complicated process. It’s pushing the limits of the consumer’s willingness to “save the planet.” In order to “save the planet” and “go green” a consumer and proper citizen must learn extensive recycling rules that eventually costs them valuable time and money. I do not understand why there must be a recycling effort in place for just about every type of manufactured item.

Recycling is not a single simple process. For example, my city only collects plastics that have a number one or a two on them. What do I do with plastics three, four, five and six? I think I have to toss them in the trash. Glass must be from only food and beverage containers and well cleaned. Cardboard cannot be from soda or cereal boxes. Break those boxes down and put them next to the paper bundled in that brown paper bag. I keep a gallon zip lock bag in my kitchen for old batteries now. Battery recycling drop off is offered in my city only twice a year. Do I feel good about recycling now? I better.

Wisconsin law requires me to recycle cell phones, DVD players, computers and many other electronic devices. While I understand these devices contain hazardous materials, collection of these items seldom occurs and it costs me a significant amount of money to drop them off. A television set will cost me thirty dollars to dispose of. Even though most states require these items to be recycled only about 12% actually are (Grossman, 2006). United States recyclers like Basel Action Network (BAN) estimate that 50% or more of the United States’ used computers, cell phones, and televisions sent to recyclers are shipped overseas for recycling. But much of this obsolete equipment ends up as toxic waste, burned or allowed to degrade in landfills in third world countries (Grossman, 2006). Why recycle these materials when we just ship them overseas to sit in other countries’ landfills? In a world of “stuff” there’s got to be a better solution. My garage is now jammed with items that are outdated or broken, and I will have to spend more money to throw them away “correctly.”

Is all this effort needed? Do we or do we not have the room to simply just throw this stuff away? “A. Clark Wiseman of Spokane’s Gonzaga University figures that, at the current rate, Americans could put all of the trash generated over the next 1,000 years into a landfill 100 yards high and 35 miles square (Bandow, 1997).” Currently, there is not a problem relating to gross space requirements. Most landfills are small and designed for about ten years of operation and that is why environmentalists dwell on the horrors of antiquated landfills. The relevant consideration is new landfill capacity, rather than the number (Wiseman, 1997). “If landfills were truly in short supply, then the cost of dumping waste would quickly rise. I would then see the financial benefit to reducing my waste volume (Fedako, 2005).”

Have you ever compared the amount of trash of a “home prepared meal” versus a “fast food” one? You’ll find that fast food meals generate less trash per person then do home-cooked meals due to packaging (Bandow, 1997). A study from the Reason Foundation, “Packaging, Recycling, and Solid Waste,” concludes that recycling, though sometimes beneficial, all too often wastes resources. For instance, producing paperboard burger containers yields more air and water pollution and consumes more energy than manufacturing the polystyrene clamshells that most fast food restaurants used to use. “Polystyrene items are cheap because they require so little energy and material to manufacture-without reading a chemist's analysis, you could deduce from the cup's low price that it's an efficient use of natural resources (Tierney, 1996).” While fast food changes are complying to offer consumers a “green” meal, they do so simply because of the society mindset that green is better (Bandow, 1997).

What John Tierney wrote in the New York Times nearly 10 years ago is still true: "Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America." Is “going green” just another marketing ploy? Recycling costs money. In fact, it costs New York City $200 more per ton to collect recyclables than it would to just bury them and another $40 per ton to pay a company to process them. Think of the time it takes to rinse, take off labels and sort your own recyclables. That time would also add to the cost of about one hundred more dollars per ton (Bandow, 1997). While the Natural Resources Defense Council believes we should recycle as much as possible, there are anti-environmental interests that believe recycling is not “saving” resources. When people say that one management option is more costly than another, we are saying that it uses more resources than the other. One must weigh in the cost of human resources when considering landfills versus recycling (Wiseman, 1997). The dollar signs are telling us that recycling is an inefficient and wasteful activity and that it makes no sense for either the waste worker, or the homeowner. It’s as if time, our most precious resource, the thing we cannot make more of, has no value whatsoever. I have actually witnessed family and friends place glass and plastic containers into the dishwasher before placing them into the recycling bin. This cannot be an efficient use of resources. Disguising the costs by forcing citizens to do the labor changes nothing, it just reduces the explicit budget of the recycling program, and raises implicit taxes on the people (Munger, 2007).

Society is obsessed with “going green” and the manufacturer marketers see this opportunity to create “green” products and offer them at an increased price. They should be creating these products green in the first place. I’ve noticed that “green” products cost me more than their original predecessors, why do consumers still choose to pay more for these products? It’s because we believe that we are helping save the planet and to feel good about their “green” purchase. We consumers have our hearts in the right place. We want to be good people, but are we being brainwashed? We are being trained to believe that recycling is the reward for over consuming (Lilienfeld & Rathje, 1998).

Consumers such as myself have little interest in learning about local recycling restrictions. I do want to save the Earth and recycle, but I’m the one that ends up paying for it. I pay for the product, I pay for the disposal and I pay for the time it takes me to sort my garbage. I pay for the weekly garbage pickup, I pay more for “green” products and I pay gas to transport recyclable goods to a center. I’m not seeing any fiscal benefits for me to recycle. While fiscal downfalls may just be one negative reason to recycle, it’s an important one as the country is in a recession. If it came down to saving money and making sure I buy “green” products, I’ll end up buying cheaper, non- “green” ones.

We need to give more incentives to the consumer for their money, time and effort spent on the recycling process. If the process were less complicated, less incentive would be expected. If batteries in the garbage hurts the environment there should be an easy dispense method offered, free of confusion and that is immediate. I don’t call hoarding hazardous waste inside your home until a twice a year collection date a viable nor healthy solution. Consumers get paid when they recycle cans because metal is worth a lot more than plastic and it’s simpler to sort and recycle. If we were to focus on plastic recycling methods, we could expect significant increase in recycling participation. Saving and making money is something that everyone likes to do. Recycling starts and ends with the producers and manufacturers. Producers should encourage recycling by giving us, the consumers, more incentives for time, resources and good faith to return their materials to be reused once again.

So, what is wrong with recycling? The answer is simple; it does not pay. In addition, since it does not pay, it is an inefficient use of the time, money, and scarce resources. Let’s fix recycling so that we will all enjoy feeling good about ourselves and padding our wallets at the same time.




Works Cited
Bandow, D. (1997) Mandatory Recycling Wastes Resources. In H. Cothran (ed.), Garabage and Recycling: Opposing Viewpoints Series (P.91-92). New York: Greenhaven Press, 2003.
Fedako, J. (2005, September 22). Recycling: What a Waste! Retrieved from http://mises.org/daily/1911
Grossman, E. (2006) Electronic Waste Is a Major Recycling Problem. In H. Cothran (ed.), Garabage and Recycling: Opposing Viewpoints Series (P.42-43). New York: Greenhaven Press, 2003.
Lilienfeld, R. & Rathje, W. (1998) Recycling Does Not Solve Environmental Problems. In H. Cothran (ed.), Garabage and Recycling: Opposing Viewpoints Series (P.78). New York: Greenhaven Press, 2003.
Munger, M. (2007). The Costs of Recycling Outweigh the Benefits. In E. Des Chenes (ed.), Recycling: Issues that Concern You (P. 28). Michigan: Greenhaven Press, 2009.
Tierney, J. (1996, June 30). New York Times. Recycling is Garbage .
Wiseman, C. (1997) Current Recycling Programs Are Too Expensive. In H. Cothran (ed.), Garabage and Recycling: Opposing Viewpoints Series (P.87-88). New York: Greenhaven Press, 2003.

Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking
Originally uploaded by kmichaels97

The definition of “critical thinking” is defined at dictionary.com as “the mental process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating information to reach an answer or conclusion.” Regular thinking is just rational thought and reasoning. The separation of the two could be simply be that critical thinking is reflective thought, a higher level of thinking. Critical thinking is combining everything you know mentally and formulating a synthesized, well thought out conclusion. The importance of the critical thinking leads us to the saying “Think before you speak.” I believe that critical thinking is very important for a professional. Communicating with others using critical thought will change the way people communicate to you. People will respect what you have to say and know that what you said has value.

Critical thinking is a skill that needs to be practiced and taught to others. I did an internet search on using keywords “learn critical thinking” and I found a website that is a “How to” on critical thinking. (criticalthinking.org) they offer books, articles, conferences, events, testing and online learning to help others learn the skill. I would like to learn more about “Distinguishing Between Inferences and Assumptions”

“Rational decisions maximize the quality of your life and your chances of happiness, successful living, and fulfillment.” (criticalthinking.org) Critical thinking enables you to take control of the thinking you are doing in every part of your life. You are able to solve problems more effectively, make better decisions and bring your decisions to life. Global Citizenship is becoming a citizen of the world and to achieve that status you must use critical thinking to understand everything that is thrown at you from a global perspective.

Video Games are Good for You

Video Games are Good for You
Originally uploaded by kmichaels97

Despite the negative connotations video games have received throughout the years, children truly benefit from them. Video game manufacturers create more than just violent video games. They create games that have physical, educational and social benefits. Scientific tests prove certain video games have positive effects on children. Parents just need to be able to identify the “right” kind of games to create this positive influence.

If you own a Wii or if you’ve seen someone playing it, you can understand why video games can have physical benefits. Kids, as well as adults and even seniors, enjoy the physical aspect of the Wii. It requires them to be moving to interact with the game. This alone is better than sitting on the couch, staring at the television. When my youngest child plays a video game he likes to jump in place during game play. This is great exercise. Add arm and body movements that are required to play a Wii game and we are looking at a full body workout. Research also proves that gaming improves vision and reaction time. Regular gamers are fast to react and they process information quickly, not only when they are playing a game, but in real-life situations as well (www.kidsandcomputers.co.uk). That’s a benefit everyone could use.

Teachers even use video games in their classrooms. When I was a kid, back in the glory days of Atari and the Apple IIG, computer time was playing a game called “Oregon Trail” or “Number Munchers” both extremely educational games. Video games have come a long way since then and some game manufacturers have stayed on that educational track. My oldest son plays games which require him to read to understand the story line. He likes playing this game because he enjoys the story and character development. It’s an animated, interactive book. Some games are actually based on past world events such as “Sid Meier's Gettysburg.” The game allows players to recreate the famous Civil War battle and apply a variety of different strategies and interesting twists to the development of the conflict. There are also educational games that are as simple as playing with virtual Legos. These types of games keep kids interested and encourage hobbies. I asked my six year old, “What do you like about playing video games?” He said to me “Making costumes and new places.” He was referring to a Playstation 3 game called “Little Big Planet.” Everything in this game is geared towards creativity, from your character to the environment the game is played in, right up to a full-blown level creator. This game also connects to an online game community where other users can post the levels they have created for others to play.

Almost 60 percent of frequent gamers play with friends which provide positive social benefits. Thirty-three percent play with siblings and 25 percent play with spouses or parents (Jenkins, 2003). I have found that single player games are often played with someone else giving advice and the other holding the remote. Games that are defined as “Massive multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG)” have a very large number of players from all over the world that interact with one another within a virtual gaming world. This type of interaction strengthens communication and leadership skills. Games that are multiplayer games, meaning two or more players, can teach teamwork skills and encourage good sportsmanship.

Some games are not meant to be played by children. To make sure that children benefit from gaming, parents need to be aware of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) rating scale. Similar to the movie industry's rating system, all major game companies submit their products for rating to specially trained raters at the ESRB. The ratings are well explained at www.esrb.org . On top of making sure the game rating is acceptable, parents should visit game review websites such as www.ign.com and gamespot.com. If you don’t have access to the internet, video game department employees are a good source to ask for a quick game review or referral. The Federal Trade Commission has found that 83 percent of game purchases for underage consumers are made by parents or by parents and children together (Jenkins, 2003). Doing your homework will benefit you and your child. It will also be better for your wallet since once you open a video game, many department stores will not allow you to return them.

When an age appropriate game has been purchased, parents should have a video game time limit rule in place. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that kids spend no more than two hours each day on screen time — watching TV or movies, or playing computer or video games. I have found that using video games as a reward goes a long way. Try rewarding your child with thirty minutes of extra game play on the weekend. Like a lot of things, the healthiest approach to video gaming is to enjoy with moderation.

Video games are not only for kids. Over sixty percent of game players are over eighteen years old (Jenkins, 2003). In a research study conducted at Iowa State University, results found that surgeons who spent three hours a week playing video games made 37 percent fewer mistakes in laparoscopic surgery and could perform the task 27 percent faster than those that didn’t. These types of surgeries involve placing a tiny camera in the patient and watching the process on a screen. The surgeon moves small remote controls to operate the surgical tools inside the patient. These surgeries are now practiced by surgeons through video simulations (Dobnik, 2004). Video games are also used as a tool for pain distraction. Results of new study from Wheeling Jesuit University suggest video games can distract someone's attention from a painful activity, and can help people with chronic pain problems (The Science of Mental Health, 2003).

Given the choice, many children would rather play games than read a book, so why not capitalize on that enthusiasm and take advantage of the available video game benefits? Remember, the kid who is punching a toy designed for this purpose is still within the "magic circle" of play and understands her actions on those terms. Such research shows us only that violent play leads to more violent play (Jenkins, 2003). Video games, like anything else, are tools. It's all about how you use them.


References
1.www.kidsandcomputers.co.uk (2010) Can Computer Games help Improve Reaction Times? Retrieved from www.kidsandcomputers.co.uk/can-computer-games-help-improv...
2.Jenkins, Henry (2003) Reality Bytes: Eight Myths About Video Games Debunked. Retrieved from www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html
3.Dobnik, Verena. “Surgeons may err less by playing video games.” 7 April 2004.
MSNBC. 26 February 2009 www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4685909/
4.Wheeling Jesuit University (2003, March) The Science of Mental Health. Retrieved from mentalhealth.about.com/library/sci/0303/blpain303.htm

This is my first

Test pic
Originally uploaded by kmichaels97

I've tied flickr to Blogspot to streamline my posts.

Good Morning America features IDEXX Canine SNAP cPL test as one of the best pet products of 2009

"Good Morning America features IDEXX Canine SNAP cPL test as one of the best pet products of 2009. Marty Becker, DVM, a frequent contributor to this ABC-TV morning newsmagazine and host of 'The Pet Doctor With Marty Becker' on PBS, named the IDEXX SNAP® cPL™ Test to measure lipase levels for the presence of pancreatitis in dogs as one of the most innovative pet products introduced in 2009. http://tinyurl.com/y8nll7p "

Setup Flux Inc. Print Driver to DICOM Send into Cornertone

Summary

IDEXX is continually researching technology solutions to help aid workflow efficency and obtain a complete electronical medical record within IDEXX Cornerstone. The solution suggested in this document is a solution discovered and tested by IDEXX Laboratories however it is not a supported configuration. This solution alows users to print something to a pseudo printer that can DICOM send the printed material directly into the patient's medical record within IDEXX Cornerstone. This is extremely handy by printing ECG graphs and other reports stored outside of Cornerstone directly into the patient's medical record without even having to open Cornerstone.

The DICOM Print Driver is a third party product that has no warranty of fitness. The user must assume the entire risk of uing this program. The user must always validate the quality of the produced information. This print driver was never designed to be used for diagnosis purposes. The print driver installs in "Demo Mode" which reflects on all output until the driver is registered with Flux inc.

The following document explains the following:

-Prerequisites

-Install of the Flux Inc. Print Driver

-Flux Inc. Print Driver Setup

-Printing and sending a document


Prerequisites

-IDEXX Cornerstone Diagnostic Imaging Module Installed

-IDEXX DICOM Services Setup and Running on the Cornerstone Server

-Flux inc. Print Driver Install File


Install of the Flux Inc. Print Driver

Download the Flux Inc. Print Driver from
http://download.cnet.com/DICOM-Printer/3000-10743_4-10637785.html?tag=mncol

to your Desktop on any computer within the Cornerstone Network.

Note: This computer does not need to have Cornerstone loaded on it.

Double-click the install file now located on your Desktop called dicomprinter1651554_setup.exe

Once the Flux Inc. Print Setup-DICOM Printer window appears, click Next

Check the box I Read and Accept License Terms

Click Next again after reading the release notes.

Click Next again to agree to the default install path

Click Next again to place an icon on your desktop (comes in handy later)

Click Install


Flux Inc. Print Driver Setup

After the install completes, the DICOM Printer - Options Window appears

Fill in your Institution Name, address and department

Set the Series UID Behaviour field to "One Series UID per document"

Set the Image Bit Depth to "RGB"

Set the Image Compression to "JPEG-4 Lossy" and the JPEG Quality to "High (Q = 0.8)"

Enter the following information in the dark gray area:
-Device Name: Cornerstone
-Client Name: (automatically fills in)
-Default Search type: Study (Patient ID)
-Result header format: Name, Modality, Accession
-All Server Address fields: IP address of the Cornerstone Server (usually 192.168.0.2)
-All Port fields: 104
-All Client AE Title fields: IDEXX-DICOM (or whatever you call your Cornerstone DICOM Server - usually IDEXX-DICOM)
-All Modality fields: "SC" then click the close button.

Printing and Sending a Document

Now that it is all set up, it's time to print a document. Simply print the same way you would print any other document.

Select the DICOMPrinter printer in the printer drop down list and click OK

The document prints, double click on the "DICOM Printer" icon located on your desktop.

This is the holding place for all your DICOMPrinter documents. (This is nice when you want to mass send a bunch of documents)

Select a document on the left

Enter in the Patient ID from Cornerstone in the Patient ID field (you can also type in a series description and alter the capture date)

Click Send to PACS

After about 30 seconds or so, the document should show up in the Cornerstone patient medical record.