Difference between revisions of "User talk:Jdjoiner"

From InfoPreserver
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Undo revision 542 by Jamatthews (talk))
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
'''The facts of the case:'''
 
−
 
−
The factory fire in Bangladesh last November killed 112 people. The fire was largely the result of the government's lack of oversight.
 
−
 
−
'''My conclusions:'''
 
−
 
−
Due to the Bangladesh government's history in cases like this, I blame them for what occurred. The government in Bangladesh has a large hand in all its business, and they should have stepped up and enforced safety protocols that had already been established. My guess is that they didn't want to risk interfering with any possible profits, and so rather than pose new expenses for the company they simply overlooked the safety issue entirely.
 
−
 
−
'''Future environment:'''
 
−
 
−
I would like to think that in the future technology will prevent anything like this from happening. Governments should develop large-scale software programs that have to have all their safety requirements fulfilled to be accepted into the system. I also hope that future societies will place a higher value on safety and will be less accepting of governmental failures.
 
−
 
−
'''Future scenario:'''
 
−
 
−
In the future, all buildings purchased and constructed will be subitted to a safety evaluation. The evaluation will be computer-based, and only special overrides should be accepted by the government in special circumstances. In this way, all buildings will have fire escape routes and necessary procedures in place for handling similar disasters. These safety features will prevent any similar instances to the Bangladesh fire from occurring.
 
−
 
−
== HW 4 ==
 
−
 
 
'''The facts of the case:'''  
 
'''The facts of the case:'''  
  
Line 32: Line 14:
  
 
In the future I described above, the world will be laden with cutting-edge technology. Because DNA testing is already prominent across the United States, it would be improved greatly by the future world, and would likely be the most common method for identifying criminals as it would be more acceptable to a future society.
 
In the future I described above, the world will be laden with cutting-edge technology. Because DNA testing is already prominent across the United States, it would be improved greatly by the future world, and would likely be the most common method for identifying criminals as it would be more acceptable to a future society.
 +
 +
'''Source:'''
 +
 +
http://engineeringethicsblog.blogspot.com/2013_02_01_archive.html

Latest revision as of 14:55, 23 April 2013

The facts of the case:

This week's case concerns DNA testing in the United States. This method of testing is popular in crime labs, but its accuracy is debatable. Should the government implement it on a broader scale, and what are the implications if they do?

My conclusions:

I concluded that the U.S. government should wait to implement any kind of DNA testing until the method is nearly 100% reliable. Even once the testing is perfected, the government should still wait to use it on a broad scale if the public is not approving of it.

Future environment:

In the future, technology will dictate even more aspects of our lives. The criminal justice system will have come up with newer technology and it is likely that DNA testing will be improved to the point that it is used much more commonly than today.

Future scenario:

In the future I described above, the world will be laden with cutting-edge technology. Because DNA testing is already prominent across the United States, it would be improved greatly by the future world, and would likely be the most common method for identifying criminals as it would be more acceptable to a future society.

Source:

http://engineeringethicsblog.blogspot.com/2013_02_01_archive.html

Retrieved from "https://lifeboat.com/InfoPreserver/index.php?title=User_talk:Jdjoiner&oldid=608"