Why Was This A Violation

Is this a violation of Quora Policy?

Mr. Garcia — Thank you for asking.We had a busy weekend. I noted this occurrence and…used the excuse of being busy to intentionally delay responding. I honestly felt that allowing some small time to pass might ameliorate feelings on both sides.I think I was right (at least for me).I just completed re-reading the entire original thread and all commentary from all.Could Mr. Halliday have elected to portray himself in a more mature and rational fashion? Absolutely.Was there anything “personal” (directed at a single individual) in his several posts on that thread? Not in a context that would violate BNBR.I believe the real value in the original dialogue is that it clearly illustrates how — on this late 10/3/16 date — “poorly” the Democratic party has performed in closing ranks around their fractious candidate. And — how threatened many are feeling as a result.Note: Preceding paragraph as equally valid if one substitutes any political party name.I am thinking I have been abysmally slow on the uptake.Whose interests are best served by abetting the establishment of an environment in which good people of many backgrounds and current beliefs are driven to be unable to discourse without resort to obscenities, half truths or “cheap shots”?I feel a lot of study pending in my near term future….Best wishes.

Is this a violation of basic human rights?

No, I would not say it is not. There's a difference between something being unethical and violating human right. Never before have I thought of it being a violation of human rights if someone was separated by their family member. Although, this could be considered very unethical. Who in a good heart would ever want to separate a young child and their mother? It's just not considered right. Short answer but hopefully you understand my point.

What constitutes a HIPAA violation?

Under the law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, baby photos are a type of protected health information, no less than a medical chart, birth date or Social Security number, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Even if a parent sends in the photo, it is considered private unless the parent also sends written authorization for its posting, which almost no one does.Above is a prime example of how something that seems so innocent can be so wrong, according to the letter of the law. And if displaying baby pictures in a waiting room can constitute a HIPAA violation, what else do you have to watch out for, as a nurse, to avoid causing trouble for yourself and your employer?In addition to restricting the ways PHI can be shared between providers, payers, and consumers, HIPAA set security standards for how data is stored and transmitted, whether electronically or on paper. We usually think of HIPAA rules as applying mainly to the patient record, but the law actually covers patient information in any format – including patient photographs on a bulletin board, computer screens that face public areas, fax and copy machines, whiteboards used at nursing stations or in patient rooms, and even conversations between providers in a hallway or elevator. As a nurse, you’re expected to safeguard any patient information you acquire during the course of providing care – you may only share it with other providers who are directly involved in the patient’s care.HIPAA violations come in two broad categories: negligent and intentional. An example of an intentional violation is snooping – and we’ve all heard stories about hospital employees being fired for looking at the charts of people they did not directly care for, perhaps out of curiosity regarding a celebrity or local public figure, or through the temptation to “just browse” to pass the time.

When a match burns, its mass decreases. Is this a violation of the law of conservation of mass?

The burning of a match is a very complex process, but no, it does not violate the conservation of mass-energy.But first things first. The law of conservation of mass is only approximately valid. We live in an environment in which most physical processes have energies that are many orders of magnitude smaller than the rest mass-energy of the objects or materials involved, so we do not see dramatic changes in mass, except in nuclear reactions or particle accelerator experiments. But if I want to be pedantic about it, I need to note that there is no “mass conservation”, only mass-energy conservation.OK, so then… what happens with that match? It contains combustible molecules. What those molecules are is really irrelevant, what matters is that they combine with molecules of oxygen from the air, to produce combustion products. So right there, you can see that the mass-energy of the match is not conserved, since it “imports” mass, in the form of those oxygen molecules.Some of those combustion products, however, are gaseous and they escape the match. So there is obvious mass loss, as mass is transferred from the match to the environment. Once again, there is no reason to expect the mass of the match to be conserved.So perhaps now is the time to realize that conservation laws describe closed systems. Or, if we apply them to open systems, we must take into account the exchange of the conserved quantity with the environment.So then… we start with a match, whatever its mass happens to be, and ignite it. It will import a considerable amount of mass-energy in the form of oxygen drawn from the air. It will export a considerable amount in the form of escaping combustion products. And it will export additional (very small, comparatively speaking) amounts of mass energy in the form of heat transferred to the environment. It will also retain a tiny amount of heat mass-energy as it, too, will be slightly warmer when all is said and done.If you were to calculate it all and add it up, you would find that Nature perfectly balances the books: Whatever the difference is between the initial and final mass-energy of the match will be matched exactly by an equal but opposite change in the mass-energy of the environment.In short, if you did this experiment inside a closed box containing the match and air, completely sealed from the environment, the mass of that box will not change as the match burns.

In Star Trek, why was it not considered a violation of the Prime Directive when humans chose to benefit from alien technology and knowledge?

The Prime Directive has not been very well explained or defined.A commonly used wordage of it, which I cannot find an original source for (it occurs in books like Lonely Minds in the Universe which analyse Star Trek as a case study) as well as on some fan websites is:“As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Star Fleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.”Without a liberal interpretation of ‘wisely,’ it would be impossible to even make contact with another civilisation unless they had developed completely equally.In Star Trek, we see that the total noninterference part of the Prime Directive goes out the window once a species discovers Warp. At that point, the Federation (or before the Federation, the Vulcans), slowly give that species access to technology in exchange for an alliance and becoming part of the Federation.So, the operational interpretation of ‘handling advantages wisely’ is simply the ability to build warp drive.On the other hand, we hear the Prime Directive quoted with regards to noninterference with other space-faring civilisations. This is not exactly consistent with the Federation interfering in other space-faring civilisations all the time.In TNG, we see the Federation play an instrumental role in defeating House DuraS (with a capital S in Klingon) using every means short of war with the Romulans. The Federation did not engage DuraS directly, but they did go as far as sending ships into Klingon space, and then blockading the border with Romulus, while at the same time authorising a Federation officer, Worf, to participate in a civil war.In Voyager, we see Captain Janeway remove two Ferengi from the surface of a primitive planet, in the name of the Prime Directive despite the fact that it clearly interfered with the primitive civilisation, as the Ferengi pointed out.And those are just some examples off the top of my head.