Responses – Due in 10 hours

MGMT Pricing the “Line-Up”

Harlei’s

I chose to discuss the various products provided by Focusrite, a computer hardware provider that sells audio interfaces. An audio interface is an external sound card that translates analog audio into a configuration that your computer can read more clearly. The kind of audio interface you need depends on what you will be recording, keyboard, microphone, guitar, etc., and the volume of audio you will be recording. Focusrite is a market leader in studio recording equipment with options available from the beginner to the sound engineer, products ranging from $100 to $660.  While Focusrite is branded for selling audio interfaces exclusively, starter kits that include their headphones and microphones are also available at around $250. The Focusrite audio interface line, formally named “Focusrite Scarlett”, makes products that are widely revered as “first choice for a studio starter”. Pricing is fairly competitive with other brands, and when compared to the volume of reviews left on the Focusrite products, it’s an easy decision to make. The Scarlett Solo, available for $100 refurbished, is the entry level interface equipped with a .25 in jack plug, XLR jack plug, gain knobs, microphone preamp, and digital audio workstation demo made available upon purchase. All of the basics are provided for a podcaster or solo recording artist that uploads daily videos to social media. This is a stark comparrison to the Scarlett 18i20, their most prestigious audio interface with multiple microphone preamps, input and output options, and account registration workstations with a combined value of several $100. Lastly, the Scarlett OctoPre Microphone Preamplifier is a kit item that adds 8 extra input lines to an audio interface, equipped with even more software, for $660. While there are many more sophisticated options for multi-platinum award winning recording studios, the look, brand, and capabilities of Focusrite make a great entry level recording equipment line. Focusrite fans, along with their constant backorder log, warrant a slightly suspended price compared to the market. The iconic crimson colored product line makes for an outstanding piece of recording equipment and aesthetically appealing item to your computer workplace.

John’s

Today i am going to discuss playstations line up of consoles. I will talk about the most recent PS5 releases as well as the past PS4 models since there were different ones.
For starters this year was the first year Playstation released 2 different versions on launch day, one was a digital version with no disc insert, and the other was a version with a disc insert. While its true we are in an age of digital downloads and you might think oh that works out because now i dont have to buy discs and keep them laying around the house, while its the less expensive version at 399$ it is also hindered by the fact that it doesnt have a disc insert and will be mainly dependent on internet and download speeds from your provider, i mean who wants to purchase a game for download and then wait 3 days for it to fully download because you are still rocking DSL internet and fiber isnt available in your location? I think Playstations market and pricing plan are very fair in terms of what they are offering hardware wise, right now they are having a hard time keeping up with production but as history has told us once they have enough produced the price will begin to drop and you will see upgraded versions come out maybe a slimmer design or maybe a larger HD, which will keep buyers interested in the original price point opposed to buying the 1st gen versions we are currently getting on the market now. So basically the 1st gen versions will drop in price but they will release better upgraded versions and keep the original asking price. Great buisness tactic if you ask me. For the disc insert version its going to cost you 100$ more, at 499$ its totally worth it and heres why. With a disc insert option you still have the option of playing your old PS4 games if you have the physical copy of the games. Not only that but even with the disc insert you still have the option to download games as well but also have the luxury of going out and buying the physical copy of the game. What happens if your HD gets corrupted or something happens to it now all your saved games are now gone but not with a physical copy. Another caveat is buying pre used games, there are tons of people who just play games once and turn them in for money at their local game store, what better way to get a great deal on a heavily discounted physical version of a game youve been wanting to play for a few months but never had the money to buy it at full price or maybe the digital version was priced to high for your liking and didnt warrant the price tag, with a disc version you have that option to purchase discount pre played games.

HUMN Current Events

Kennet’s

Man accused of strangling ‘I-5 Strangler’ won’t face death penalty

This article from FOX News narrates the events and the results of Jason Budrow’s actions after killing Roger Reece Kibbe. Budrow was accused of strangling his cellmate at Mule Creek State Prison in Sacramento, California. Budrow is already serving life without parole for strangling his significant other in 2011. Budrow is facing charges of first-degree murder. Budrow will not face the death penalty as a result of the killing of Kibbe. Roger Reece Kibbe was incarcerated for the death of a 17-year-old female in 1991. In 2009 he was found guilty of six other murders of six additional victims. Kibbe pleaded guilty to the six additional killings expecting not to seek the death penalty. In a letter, Jason Budrow expressed his reason for killing his cellmate. Budrow killed Kibbe on the same day they became cellmates; his principal purpose of killing Kibbe was to obtain the cell for himself. Yet, he changed his goal of the killing into a form of vengeance for Roger Kibbe’s victims.
The ethical dilemma related to this periodical article is if the killing of Roger Kibbe can reach justice. Many will argue that he deserved to be killed, and his killer should not be punished because he favored the system. Others will say that his killing or death penalty does not make up for the victim’s loss (MacKinnon & Fiala, 2017, pp. 386).

Jeffery’s

This week I chose to write about the article from reuiters.com on the Asian Hate Crime Bill.

This article is about the US Senate passing an anti-Asian hate crime bill.  Given the rise of violent crimes against people of Asian decent since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, I believe this is a much-needed bill. 
According to a NBC new article, hate crimes against Asians has risen over 150% in 2020, mostly in the largest cities (Yam, 2021).  In March of this year, 8 people were murdered in Atlanta, only because they were Asian or in an Asian business. 
While all crime is wrong, using violence against someone solely due to their race, or religion, or sexual preference or identity is the heinous.  Politicians have been trying to pass meaningful legislation for years to add hate labeling to crimes against specific classes of people.  It is good to see that both political parties finally can get past their differences to make positive movement. 
Adding a hate crime rider onto a crime will allow the judicial system to make stride to helping stem racism and deter some people from committing these types of crimes that normally wouldn’t.

HUMN The Death Penalty

Anita’s

What are the basic issues and main themes addressed in the videos?
The basic issues presented in the video Children in Prison for Life Sentence is the system has allowed children to be trialed as adults. The system is not allowing the kids to grow up and learn from their mistakes. Kenneth received a higher sentence than the 24-year-old who had a gun and threatened to use it. Kenneth did not even have a gun and he was 14 years old.
Were the issues addressed from a biased or unbiased perspective? Were the presenters operating with an underlying agenda?
I think that the video was unbiased because it showed Kenneth’s past and how he grew up in a hard lifestyle. The victims also had a chance to tell their stories about how the robbery went down. Both sides were able to speak up.
Was there agreement or disagreement among presenters regarding the main issues addressed?
During Kenneth’s trial the judge decided that Kenneth has been rehabilitated but for his actions he must still pay. He thinks that Kenneth should take full responsibility and not blame others for what he did. In the end the judge gave him 30 years reducing his sentence.
What were the major moral/ethical issues related to these topics?
 To me it was crazy that the amount of time in prison he is to be sentenced is based off other people who have the same skin color and who have previously been in prison. Racism is a huge factor when deciding what Kenneth’s sentencing will be. People are being categorized by their skin.
How does the concept of ethical relativism relate to this topic?
In the U.S laws are different than other places when it comes to children committing a crime. The U.S allows children to be trialed as adults. Other places do not allow that. This is morally right in the U.S but in other places it is wrong.

Jennifer’s

The death penalty is a topic that raises numerous ideas where every person has a feeling about the case. The main issue with the death penalty is whether it is right or wrong. Some people argue that the death penalty is another wrong that can’t make a right, while others view it as paying for the mistakes committed (Meranze2011). Does a man have the ability to take another man’s life? This kind of discussion raises numerous ideas from different parties, especially religion. Several journalists have tried to unfold death penalties in documentaries that raise different reactions because the reporters may cover on the side of the story. 
The death penalty documentaries contain different basic issues: crime and poverty, civil rights, and civil rights discrimination. All people convicted, there was a crime committed to the extent of being jailed. Most inmates committed the crimes when they were young, and they regret not caring about the consequences that follow crime. In almost all cases, there are cases of drug abuse involving an act that remains a problem to date. People are punished depending on the crime committed. Murder and assaults are considered among the worst crimes, and a criminal may face the death penalty or life in prison. 
The main themes in the documentaries are death and justice. Most inmates are charged with homicide, and the penalty is death. Inmates who don’t receive the death penalty end up spending their whole life in prison. On the other hand, justice is also a major theme in the documentary. All the people who committed crimes are judged and punished depending on the type of offense committed. No crime goes unpunished, and suspects are fast taken to a court that determines whether they are guilty or not guilty. Before being convicted, one is given a chance to defend himself. 
The issues are addressed in an unbiased manner; the presenter covers different sides of a story and tries to uncover why a crime was committed and the events that unfolded. The presenter also gives inmates a chance to express how they feel about the judgment given, and most are satisfied with the punishment (Stetler2020). Did the presenter have an underlying agenda? He seemed interested in some stories that were special and not obvious. For example, in a case of a guy in prison for more than thirty years to commit homicide at thirteen. 
Different presenters agreed that cases about murder never go unpunished and that numerous people in prison regret their crimes. If given another chance, most inmates would not repeat the mistake. The presenter was much interested in uncovering the mental status of people waiting for execution. It is challenging living and knowing that at any moment, you will be executed. The presenter’s main aim was to establish a feeling of what it is to face the death penalty and spend life in prison. 
The primary moral issue related to the problem is justice. One will always pay for crimes committed, so people should live a life free from crime. The main moral issue is that crime always pays negatively, and it may go to the extent of death. In the death penalty, ethical relativism is related to this topic because killing is wrong. In society, a person with a significant crime can be sentenced to death and executed. The death penalty will remain a discussion because people hold different beliefs of what is right and wrong.

HUMN The Trolley Problem

Liew Shan’s

Original problem – you are the trolley driver; the decision is to pull switch or not.
If I was the trolley driver I would pull the switch and sacrifice that one individual instead of the 5 workers ahead. To me it feels more logical to save 5 instead of 1. If the situations are unavoidable and by switching the tracks, I am able to save more people, it would be the more ethical to do so.
Fat man variant – you are an observer on a bridge; the decision is to push fat man or not.
I would not do it, similarity to what was being said in the first video. In the first scenario, the 5 workers and 1 workers, they were a choice to make either to save 5 or save 1. Whereas the fat man is not on the tracks and he would not be killed if no one has pushed him. Therefore it is morally wrong for the fat man to be pushed to save the 5.
Fat man/villain variant – you are an observer on a bridge; the decision is to push fat man or not; fat man is the villain who put the five people in danger on the tracks.
This changes the circumstances, as the fat man is the one that orchestrated this events and to most people’s point of view, he should be punished for what he have done. Based on the categorical ethical theory, pushing the fat man would be an ethical decision.
Loved one variant – you are the trolley driver; the decision is to pull the switch or not; the one person that would die if you pull the switch is a dear loved one of yours (parent, child, spouse, etc.)
In this case, saving the individual (the love ones) would be the decision made by me. It is like saving 5 strangers versus saving 1 individual that has deep relationship and connection with you. The value of the relationship and value of the individual overpowers the 5 strangers. Therefore, I would not pull the switch.
Man sleeping in his yard variant – you can divert trolley’s path by colliding another trolley into it, but if you do, both will be derailed and go down a hill, and into a yard where a man is sleeping in a hammock. He would be killed.
I would not pull the switch as it involves people that are not in the ‘equation’ to suffer for the consequences and it is simply just unfair for another party to suffer for something that was not caused by him.
What if instead of killing one person to save five, your action would result in killing four people to save five? Would you change your behavior in any of the situations? Why or why not?
Nope my situation to pull the switch would still be the same. 5 people meaning 1 more extra live to save. If both parties are on the track and it’s the decisions to either turn or keep on the track. The choice of saving 1 more additional life, would lead me to sacrifice the 4 people.
Transplant variant – This version addresses some of the same core issues as the Trolley Problem but with the following scenario: A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor. Should the doctor to kill that tourist and provide his healthy organs to those five dying persons to save their lives? How is this the scenario the same, and how does it differ from the Trolley Problem?
In this case, it is different. This is based on the categorical theory. Whereby, the healthy young traveller should not ‘suffer’ for something he has not committed. It is ethically wrong to ‘yank’ out him organs to save the 5 other patients. Without the consent of the traveller, it is morally wrong to do so.

Aaron’s

Original problem- you are the trolley driver; the decision is to pull switch or not.
It is hard to say what a person would do in a situation like this. I would like to say that I would be able to pull the switch to take one life over the 5, but I would probably try and find another way to stop the train all together and let time expire on the 5 people knowing I did the best I could do.
Fat man variant- you are an observer on a bridge; the decision is to push fat man or not.
I am not going to sacrifice a person to save others. I believe pushing the man onto the track would be cold blooded murder.
Fat man/villain variant- you are an observer on a bridge; the decision is to push fat man or not; fat man is the villain who put the five people in danger on the tracks.
Depends on the situation of the fat man putting the 5 guys on the track. If it was the boss that kind of put them in a bad situation he would get a pass. If the fat man had them tied up knowingly that they would be hit by a trolley, then fat man probably needs to go over the bridge.
Loved one variant- you are the trolley driver; the decision is to pull the switch or not; the one person that would die if you pull the switch is a dear loved one of yours (parent, child, spouse, etc.)
It doesn’t make it right and I would have to live with the decision the rest of my life, but I am saving my loved one. I know a lot more lives would be affected, but I think I could live with that more than I could knowing I killed a loved one.
Man sleeping in his yard variant- you can divert trolley’s path by colliding another trolley into it, but if you do, both will be derailed and go down a hill, and into a yard where a man is sleeping in a hammock. He would be killed.
I think in this scenario I am going to take the sacrifice of one person over the other two full trolleys. But again I would probably try and stop the trolley until the 5 men at the end of the tracks time expires. At the end of the day it would be a split second decision and the person wouldn’t be able to make a well thought out decision.

AVIA Airline Liability

Tami’s

The liability will differ slightly between the two passengers as one passenger is bound for Key West, Florida – making them a domestic passenger. The other passenger is traveling to the Bahama’s and, therefore, would be classified as an international traveler.
The domestic passenger would first need to determine if the airline was acting as a common carrier. In this case, the airline was acting as a common carrier. Second, the passenger needs to assess if they were within the window that an airline assumes responsibility for, which is from the time a passenger leaves a safe space within the terminal to board an aircraft up until the passenger reached another safe place inside another terminal. The injury did take place within this timeframe. Common law states that all common carriers are held to have the legal duty to exercise the highest degree of care to avoid injuring a passenger (Hamilton & Nilsson, 2020). This was not upheld in this scenario; thus the airline is likely to be found liable for the injury to the passenger.
The international traveler is deemed an international traveler as their ticket shows a flight originating in a particular country and landing in a different country. In this case, The Warsaw Convention would come into play. The Warsaw convention is a treaty that was originally put into place in 1929. Many revisions have been adopted since the inception of the treaty but the treaty essentially aims to protect international airlines and, instead, allows the passenger to bring a lawsuit against one of four options – the home country of the airline, the country where the airlines performs its principal place of business, the country where tickets were purchased, or the country that is the destination for the traveler.  In most cases, the limit injured passengers are eligible for is $8300. However, the United States is part of the Montreal Agreement – a mutual agreement between several airlines and the United States Government which places responsibility back on the airline and increases the amount that international injured passengers are eligible for to $75,000.   

Jimmie’s

To establish Beach Air’s potential liability for each of the two passengers, we must first identify if the passengers are Domestic or Internal passengers. The passenger traveling directly from Orlando, FL. to Key West, FL. is a domestic passenger. According to Hamilton and Nilsson (2020), a ticketed passenger “…whose ticket shows an origin and destination within the United States and whose planned routing does not include any stops outside the United States…,” is considered a domestic passenger. The passenger whose ticket has a destination in Nassau, Bahamas, is regarded as an international passenger since the departure and destination locations are in different countries (Hamilton & Nilsson, 2020).
As noted in the transcript, the Beach Air ramp worker was traveling too fast and lost control of the tug he was driving, and Beach Air may be held liable for the injuries. For the domestic passenger, the airline must exercise the “greatest degree of human care and foresight possible to ensure the passenger’s safe conveyance” (Hamilton & Nilsson, 2020). Since Beach Air is a common carrier in this scenario, there are no artificial limits on the amount of liability for personal injury caused to the domestic passenger. In other words, it would be up to the judge and/or jury to decide the amount to award. There may also be a defined amount, or tariff, of personal property that the airline is liable for as well. Often, this level of coverage is posted on the airline’s baggage website. For the international passenger, the level of liability has changed over the years.
Because international passengers are covered under the Warsaw Act, the airlines are strictly liable for passengers while embarking, disembarking, or flying. The initial level of liability was limited to $8,300 (USD) for injury or death and $16.50 (USD) per kilogram for property/cargo (Hamilton & Nilsson, 2020). With the changes from the Montreal Agreement, the level of liability increased to $77,000 (USD), per passenger, for flights touching the US (Hamilton & Nilsson, 2020). With the latest Montreal Convention of 1999, the limits rose again, for provable damages to $138,000 (Hamilton & Nilsson, 2020). As of April 23, 2021, the liability limit is $143,528.03 )USD) injury or death, and $24.40 (USD) for cargo, according to the CoinMill.com currency converter (n.d.) for the international passenger.
Clarification on the international passenger. If the airline is proven at fault, then there is no limit to the level of liability for Beach Air. In this case, the Beach Air ramp worker was at fault; therefore, Beach Air’s liability is unlimited.

AVIA Government Liability

Tami’s – Scenario 1

In 1946 Congress passed the Federal Tort Claim Act. This act allowed the United States government to be sued – a stark contrast to the Sovereign Immunity under which the country was previously ruled which would not allow such a thing. The FTCA gave Americans the right to sue for injury loss of property and/or death if they were caused by negligence or wrongdoing on the part of government employee. The government could now be held liable if a government employee acts in a negligent manner.
Government employees are held responsible to exercise the ordinary degree of care of the reasonably prudent person (Hamilton& Nilsson, 2020) and if they do not act in accordance with that, they could be held liable. When there is question as to the actions of an Air Traffic Controller, the Air Traffic Controller’s handbook is often consulted. The ATC’s actions are measured against the instructions in the handbook to determine fault. If a specific incident is not covered in the handbook, the question of how would another ATC in this scenario have acted? What would they have done? Would others have responded the sane way? In order for the government to be held liable, there must be negligence on the part of the Air Traffic Controller. If an ATC makes a judgment call and it turns out to be the wrong one, the government cannot be held liable. It must strictly be a negligent act to hold the government accountable.
In this scenario explained above, the Air Traffic Controller was clearly negligent by falling asleep on the job, resulting in the crash of the two aircrafts so the government could certainly be held liable for this. There would be no personal accountability on behalf of the controller as the government aims to protect federal employees. If an individual is named as a defendant in a court case, the United States Attorney will substitute the individual’s name for the United States. Any money exchanging will all be handled by the government and will not have a personal impact on the federal employee.

Eric’s – Scenario 1

For scenario one in early Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) cases government attorneys claimed that the government should not be liable for an air traffic controllers mistakes because the work as they say is a continuous “discretionary function”. The ATC controller must always have the situational awareness and make good judgement on calls for aircraft instructions such as altitudes, speeds and headings. The court however disagreed claiming that Congress meant to protect its planners and policy makers from being sued from legislation that in the future proved to be bad policy. Controllers in the eyes of the courts are “mere operational details” which means that they are not covered. Meaning if a controller employed by the government is negligent the government can be sued. Privately employed controllers that are not federal employees can be sued. (Hamilton & Nilsson, 2020, p. 236)
So the private aircraft does have a case against the government because of the negligence of the air traffic controller but the Navy helicopter is not subject to these rights. The military members aboard the helicopter that perished can not legally able to sue the US government because they are “activities incident to military service” this is to include if a military members killed or injured at a time engaged in military service. So if a military member is on board an aircraft due to military service like in the helicopter or on a commercial airline flying due to military service and they are injured or killed during the flight due to ATC, cannot press charges due to that reason, that they wouldn’t have been on that flight but are because they are on orders and moving due to that military engagement. (Hamilton & Nilsson, 2020, p. 238)

AVIA Accident Reporting

Tami’s

Scenario 2 – An incident, in aviation terms, refers to a mishap that occurs but is not an accident.  More specifically, an incident is when an occurrence takes place associated with the operation of the aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operations (Hamilton & Nilsson, 2020). Not all incidents require notifying the NTSB, but some do. In the case described above, the aircraft’s flight control system malfunctioned, so this would warrant a notification to the NTSB although you would want to notify them with as little information as possible. Once notification is given to the NTSB, they will respond with the forms needed to file a report, if they would like the pilot to do. In order to report an incident, a written report is required from the aircraft pilot within 10 days.  
Scenario 3 – Yes, you would certainly want to notify the NTSB because your aircraft has been involved in an accident. If an accident occurs and there is no loss of life or serious injury and the aircraft does not sustain substantial damage, then there is no need to notify anyone. However, in this instance, because the pilot was unconscious for four days, we can assume, at the minimum, that there was a serious injury.
The pilot would want to ensure that he or she is fully recovered and off of all medications as the side effects of the medications could cloud the judgement of the pilot. A pilot is required to cooperate with any ongoing investigations but should do so cautiously. If the FAA asks to see the pilot’s certifications, they must comply, but should never say or do anything that would jeopardize their job.  Furthermore, if the NTSB conducts an investigation, the pilot can and should ask the FAA to put into writing that whatever is said to aid the investigation not be used against them.

Arnoldo’s

Scenario 2- I am not required to report accidents or incidents to the FAA or NTSB. The same …