j17davis, the last line of the article is referencing the DeKalb County incidents. The female student mentioned as being "barely able to walk" was a Florida A&M student. She was hospitalized with a cracked femur and blood clots. Three FAMU students were recently arrested in that hazing case, and were in court this week. See here:
For those calling this article "BS" or suggesting that it isn't credible because it's from a university in the UK, I suggest you take a look here:
While the article specifically addresses the Keele University study mentioned above (though it references a study published two years prior in the journal NeuroReport), there are many experts that agree with the study. Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker addresses this issue in his book The Stuff of Thought.
If you feel like reading the actual study, you can read the abstract (and subsequently subscribe to the journal or just purchase the study) here:
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. -- Ghandi
This may seem somewhat nit-picky considering the subject matter of the article, but I wish people would stop using the term "flash mob" as a description of these occurrences. A flash mob, by definition, is a group of people that gather for a matter of seconds/minutes for the purposes of satire or entertainment meant to amuse and/or confuse those around them.
An example of a flash mob would be if these youths had gathered, did the chicken dance for 60 seconds, and then dispersed. That is a flash mob. What happened outside of the UTC library before exams in spring of 2009, that was a flash mob (albeit, one that was spoiled by a few stupid students and ended poorly).
If you want to read on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_mob
On a more serious note, posting signs would likely have little effect in deterring violence. All this will do is move these problems from Coolidge Park to another part of town. What are we going to do to violators? Slap them on the wrist and pass out fines to the parents? There needs to be a realistic look taken at the problems this city faces, gang-related or otherwise. Whatever the solution is, I don't know. More police? Intervention in the lives of our youth? Cameras? All I know is that the mayor, along with other city officials, have promoted growth Chattanooga, but seem to be too focused on the business aspect and have paid too little attention to the social issues facing this flourishing city.
High-speed rail is an inevitable requirement for infrastructure. With both automobile and air travel at such huge levels, HSR would relieve congestion in both avenues. A rail system would allow users to travel short distances quicker than by car or air (in part because of shorter security wait), as well as moving people more efficiently (more people can be moved by HSR in a set amount of time relative to the number that could travel a similar distance in a car).
Either way, HSR is going to be a necessary expense for the federal government in the coming years, much the same way the interstate system was a necessary expense. Private companies are not likely to invest the hundreds of billions of dollars that it will take to make a feasible network. This is where the government steps in; pay the cost of building the infrastructure, then either sell off the track to private companies (subsequently, they can lease the track to other companies for use) or place a (small) surcharge on each train ticket to offset the original cost of construction, or both.
Urban sustainability theorist J.H. Crawford has suggested using the existing infrastructure of the interstate highways as a base for construction. While there are some points I disagree with him on (decreasing the highway speed limit, conversion of 4-lane highways to 2-lanes), it is a good starting point for finding a cheaper way to construct a high-speed rail system using existing infrastructure. (See: http://www.jhcrawford.com/energy/interstaterail.html)
How in the world did you guys derive the government funding this project from the article? The closest thing to the government spending any taxpayer money on this is the anticipated cooperation with UTC's SimCenter. Maybe we should make UTC a private university and eliminate all state/federal funding for it (and do the same for all public universities in the state), because, heaven forbid, the government use any of MY money on something potentially beneficial to society.
cannonball, it is about the drug companies. It's not about them making more money, however (though they do stand to see a potential financial benefit, should this work prove successful). This "computer network" will allow researchers to quickly rule drugs either potentially effective or ineffective, shortening a lengthy and very costly ("15-year, $1 billion process") procedure. Will cheaper methods of testing widen their profit margin? Probably. But with a cheaper method of testing, they can also lower the cost of drugs and still turn just as large of a profit. It doesn't stop there, though. This technology will allow further research into not only the drugs to treat illnesses, but the primary causes through the study of genetic data as well.
Besides, even if the project received federal grant money, $6.25 million pales in comparison to the billions spent on worthless projects in the name of "defense" or "security."
I would like to say, though, I hope this research center builds a strong partnership with UTC and gets students involved. Students studying computational engineering, biology, or chemistry could all benefit from interaction with the research institute.