Alright, this entire post should be in capitals to emphasize my joy, but I was informed by the grammar police that I can no longer do that. I will also refrain from "type-speaking."
But Segway has launched its new line of scooters! I found this while browsing [WizBang!] blog. Kevin always has an interesting blog, and this definitely hit my interest. How does this affect you? Well it really doesn't. Considering most of the scooters cost more than a semester at Wayne, we aren't talking about Segway's target audience here.
I sort of like the Golf version though. Being a golfer, I have always wanted an individual mode of transport on some of the "Cart Required" courses. This may be a market that the company is trying to break into, considering how Kevin explains that they have had poor sales since their introduction.
On a side note, while in D.C. last month, I went to a newly opened Segway showroom at the mall in Georgetown. The things are quite cool, just a little out of my price range.
Some people seem to think that this a Photshop deal, but I went to the Segway site and confirmed that they are indeed the new models.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Why can't we file suit against IDIOTS?!
All right, seriously, I think that Armageddon is upon us. I found this story, linked from Drudge... "Garage Jumping."
So pretty much a bunch of genius kids decide to thrill seek by jumping from parking structure to parking structure. A kid falls 6 stories, and sues the city and the owner of the parking company for not putting up fences to keep him from jumping. Shouldn't he throw God in the suit to and file suit for the whole GRAVITY THING?
More below..
Alright, here is the part that kills me: the News station is writing its story from the view that the city IS AT FAULT. Look at the words they use:
-"There are no safety fences in place on the parking garage."
-"... making little effort to correct a potential deadly risk."
-"refused to comment about their responsibility"
Since Bargfrede fell, the City of Orlando erected a partial fence but there's still room for someone to take a dangerous dive." So this whole thing is from a segment or series called "PROBLEM SOLVERS." Their lead title is "GARAGE JUMPERS."
The problem is not that someone was hurt but instead that this can take place or does take place really. SHOULDN'T the problem be that people do it and then file SUIT?!? Shouldn't the rest of the city be PISSED that tax dollars, time, money, and resources are going to be spent to prevent and pay for kids jumping gaps where they can fall 6 stories?!?! Ok I know there are plenty of other instances of more insane suits filed than this, but this is one example. I mean, they are mad because the city offers parking and yet they don't build fences with tax dollars to keep their KIDS from jumping across them.
I wonder if they can throw the suit out because the boys didn't pay to enter the structure. Wouldn't that be a doozey. Sorry, case dismissed you didn't pay entrance therefore you can't claim damages because you were trespassers. Hot Coffee? WHAT? High Parking Garages that hurt when you fall from them? WHAT?
I wonder if I can file suit against a city if while Car Surfing??
The idiocy of some people... and the people that support them... Sometimes I wonder why God doesn't just hit "Force Quit" on some people... (For you windows users that would be Ctrl-Alt-Delete.)
So pretty much a bunch of genius kids decide to thrill seek by jumping from parking structure to parking structure. A kid falls 6 stories, and sues the city and the owner of the parking company for not putting up fences to keep him from jumping. Shouldn't he throw God in the suit to and file suit for the whole GRAVITY THING?
More below..
Alright, here is the part that kills me: the News station is writing its story from the view that the city IS AT FAULT. Look at the words they use:
-"There are no safety fences in place on the parking garage."
-"... making little effort to correct a potential deadly risk."
-"refused to comment about their responsibility"
Since Bargfrede fell, the City of Orlando erected a partial fence but there's still room for someone to take a dangerous dive." So this whole thing is from a segment or series called "PROBLEM SOLVERS." Their lead title is "GARAGE JUMPERS."
The problem is not that someone was hurt but instead that this can take place or does take place really. SHOULDN'T the problem be that people do it and then file SUIT?!? Shouldn't the rest of the city be PISSED that tax dollars, time, money, and resources are going to be spent to prevent and pay for kids jumping gaps where they can fall 6 stories?!?! Ok I know there are plenty of other instances of more insane suits filed than this, but this is one example. I mean, they are mad because the city offers parking and yet they don't build fences with tax dollars to keep their KIDS from jumping across them.
I wonder if they can throw the suit out because the boys didn't pay to enter the structure. Wouldn't that be a doozey. Sorry, case dismissed you didn't pay entrance therefore you can't claim damages because you were trespassers. Hot Coffee? WHAT? High Parking Garages that hurt when you fall from them? WHAT?
I wonder if I can file suit against a city if while Car Surfing??
The idiocy of some people... and the people that support them... Sometimes I wonder why God doesn't just hit "Force Quit" on some people... (For you windows users that would be Ctrl-Alt-Delete.)
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
A Voice of Reason?
I have deep rooted feelings about academia being underminded. Ward Churchill is a great example of academia gone wrong and unchecked. The South End article in today's edition is shockingly observant, intelligent, and right on target. Great job!
Friday, February 18, 2005
CPAC...blogging.
A quick note:
For those that want to read up to the minute blogging from CPAC... go here:
http://www.cpacbloggers.com/
Everyone else go here: The Red Button.
For those that want to read up to the minute blogging from CPAC... go here:
http://www.cpacbloggers.com/
Everyone else go here: The Red Button.
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Pro-what?
Howard Dean, the man is a walking news story.
The New York Post reported recently that Dean wants Dem's to stop referring to themselves and the party as "Pro-Choice." Here is his quote:
Umm What?
Right Wing News talks about the Dean statements from the post article in their recent post: Howard Dean's Abortion Subterfuge
RWN lists various reasons why this is just absurd. But the best comment, actually came in the form of a 'comment' from Christopher Taylor on RWN blog:
"It's almost as if he's admitting that the Democrat Party's primary problem is that people are accurately perceiving their true nature." -- Christopher_Taylor
I don't know what to make of Dean's statement More below...once I figure this out...
I guess that Dean is worried that with this "shift" to the 'right' that this country displayed in the last election, that he wants to deflect attention from some hot button issues. Maybe, it is the old idea that if you say it enough times, you will start to believe it. Maybe if Dean can convince Democrats that they aren't "Pro-Choice" then they are simply something else... and therefore innocent of all attacks from the "Pro-Life" crowd.
I don't know, it seems to me that this is style over substance. Changing the meaning of Word's is clearly Clintonesque though, so who knows, maybe he can work wonders. I used to have some respect for him, but I guess I wish the big "D" could get people in their party like they used to... (i.e. Truman, Kennedy, etc...)
The New York Post reported recently that Dean wants Dem's to stop referring to themselves and the party as "Pro-Choice." Here is his quote:
I don't think we should use 'pro-choice.'The Post explains that Dean said this because he feels the term implies that the party and it's members are "too pro-abortion."
Umm What?
Right Wing News talks about the Dean statements from the post article in their recent post: Howard Dean's Abortion Subterfuge
RWN lists various reasons why this is just absurd. But the best comment, actually came in the form of a 'comment' from Christopher Taylor on RWN blog:
"It's almost as if he's admitting that the Democrat Party's primary problem is that people are accurately perceiving their true nature." -- Christopher_Taylor
I don't know what to make of Dean's statement More below...once I figure this out...
I guess that Dean is worried that with this "shift" to the 'right' that this country displayed in the last election, that he wants to deflect attention from some hot button issues. Maybe, it is the old idea that if you say it enough times, you will start to believe it. Maybe if Dean can convince Democrats that they aren't "Pro-Choice" then they are simply something else... and therefore innocent of all attacks from the "Pro-Life" crowd.
I don't know, it seems to me that this is style over substance. Changing the meaning of Word's is clearly Clintonesque though, so who knows, maybe he can work wonders. I used to have some respect for him, but I guess I wish the big "D" could get people in their party like they used to... (i.e. Truman, Kennedy, etc...)
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
FIREFOX.... please.
It has come to my attention that anyone who uses INTERNET EXPLORER has been missing out on half of the WEBsite. The right side, which contains quite a bit of info... is missing.
Now I thought that everyone had switched from Explorer but I guess not. If you havent... go here:
Everyone I know that switches loves Firefox...it blocks pop-up's very nicely, loads faster, and is just a much cleaner browser.
Plus you get our whole site :)
Now I thought that everyone had switched from Explorer but I guess not. If you havent... go here:
Everyone I know that switches loves Firefox...it blocks pop-up's very nicely, loads faster, and is just a much cleaner browser.
Plus you get our whole site :)
Lights OUT Hockeytown!
Well, it is official. The NHL season has been cancelled by Communist Party Leader Gary Bettman. After several concessions by the NHLPA, the league (Read: upper echelon of the NHL) were unable to understand economics well enough to strike a deal. This was a clash between philosophical takes on economic markets. Unfortunately for now, we as fans lose, the players lose, and the owners lose. Read more below...
What has been lost in all of this "LOCK-OUT" talk, is that many of the owners are at odds with the whole situation. There are a few teams, teams that run their business well, that did not want this lock-out or much of a structure change. The players, they simply want their fair share. Sure you can call them greedy, and yes many of them make more than you or I put together, but that is not the point.
Generally I am not a union person, but in this situation, it is not a typical union situation. In fact, it is reversed. The union is asking to keep a free market free, while the league is looking for a more pluralistic or egalitarian (if you will) market. Gary Bettman simply screwed up a long time ago, and now that the league is in a whole, or should I say, part of the league, he is trying to use this lock-out to strong arm the players to fix his damage. Luckily the players have someone like Mr. Goodenow to protect their interests and their fair share at a free and open market.
It's just sad that it had to come to this...
What has been lost in all of this "LOCK-OUT" talk, is that many of the owners are at odds with the whole situation. There are a few teams, teams that run their business well, that did not want this lock-out or much of a structure change. The players, they simply want their fair share. Sure you can call them greedy, and yes many of them make more than you or I put together, but that is not the point.
Generally I am not a union person, but in this situation, it is not a typical union situation. In fact, it is reversed. The union is asking to keep a free market free, while the league is looking for a more pluralistic or egalitarian (if you will) market. Gary Bettman simply screwed up a long time ago, and now that the league is in a whole, or should I say, part of the league, he is trying to use this lock-out to strong arm the players to fix his damage. Luckily the players have someone like Mr. Goodenow to protect their interests and their fair share at a free and open market.
It's just sad that it had to come to this...
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Privatizing Social Security
I was doing some cleanup to my various websites and fixing some of the RSS feeds (all very technical) when I came across this gem from the South End. As most people know I'm not on campus that often (being a graduate student and working F/T and all) so I hardly ever read The South End, but now I'm reading it on-line.
Nevertheless, the writer of this story just doesn't have any of the facts straight. Allow me to correct some of his inaccuracies: Social Security will no longer exist if something isn't done (the warning comes from both sides of the aisle as well as independents); the stock market can be quite volatile at times, however, there are safe places to invest your money, including mutual funds, government bonds, and so on; nobody said there wasn't risk involved, life is a risk; I fail to see how social security is the Democratic Party's greatest achievement; when we pay into social security we are paying in for ourselves not other people (at least that was the plan); Al Gore couldn't find a nickel in the U.S. Mint let alone a lock box, as senator he approved for funds to be removed just as everyone else did; one Republican? that's it?; no one said it was foolproof; finally, maybe he should actually read the proposal and history of social security.
CNN (gasp) has a good sum up of Bush's plan so far.
Facts, not muckracking... now that's good journalism.
Nevertheless, the writer of this story just doesn't have any of the facts straight. Allow me to correct some of his inaccuracies: Social Security will no longer exist if something isn't done (the warning comes from both sides of the aisle as well as independents); the stock market can be quite volatile at times, however, there are safe places to invest your money, including mutual funds, government bonds, and so on; nobody said there wasn't risk involved, life is a risk; I fail to see how social security is the Democratic Party's greatest achievement; when we pay into social security we are paying in for ourselves not other people (at least that was the plan); Al Gore couldn't find a nickel in the U.S. Mint let alone a lock box, as senator he approved for funds to be removed just as everyone else did; one Republican? that's it?; no one said it was foolproof; finally, maybe he should actually read the proposal and history of social security.
CNN (gasp) has a good sum up of Bush's plan so far.
Facts, not muckracking... now that's good journalism.
Prop. 2.... going to court.
While scanning The Michigan Review I found a post about this article: "Same Sex Benefits In Court"
Many people said before they voted on Nov. 2, that as soon as it passes, it will be in court. They were pretty much right. It will be interesting to see how this goes, considering the challenge is to the interpretation of the reach of the law, and not directly to the core of Prop. 2.
This affects Wayne State, in that, WSU has a policy of giving "domestic partnership" benefits to same sex couples who are employees. Wayne State has also filed an amicus brief along with other Universities due to their coverage statements. This could serve to be an interesting little case.
This is Wayne States statement of coverage:
The link for that is: http://www.hr.wayne.edu/ben/basum.htm
Wayne State's Domestic Partnership Definition
Definition of Domestic Partner
Domestic partners are defined as two individuals of the same gender:
* who are both 18 years or older and,
* who are not related by blood and,
* who have resided together continuously for at least six months and,
* who have agreed to be jointly responsible for each other's welfare.
The link: http://www.hr.wayne.edu/ben/badompol.htm
Many people said before they voted on Nov. 2, that as soon as it passes, it will be in court. They were pretty much right. It will be interesting to see how this goes, considering the challenge is to the interpretation of the reach of the law, and not directly to the core of Prop. 2.
This affects Wayne State, in that, WSU has a policy of giving "domestic partnership" benefits to same sex couples who are employees. Wayne State has also filed an amicus brief along with other Universities due to their coverage statements. This could serve to be an interesting little case.
This is Wayne States statement of coverage:
Same Sex Domestic Partner Benefits
Employees represented by the AAUP-AFT, Staff Association and Professional & Administrative unions; the Graduate Employees Organizing Committee and all non-represented employees may add their same-sex domestic partner to their medical and dental plans. Eligible employees may also take advantage of the reduced tuition benefit for your partner.
The link for that is: http://www.hr.wayne.edu/ben/basum.htm
Wayne State's Domestic Partnership Definition
Definition of Domestic Partner
Domestic partners are defined as two individuals of the same gender:
* who are both 18 years or older and,
* who are not related by blood and,
* who have resided together continuously for at least six months and,
* who have agreed to be jointly responsible for each other's welfare.
The link: http://www.hr.wayne.edu/ben/badompol.htm
The Towers... Which ones?
Alexandra Cervenak makes some really good points in Thursdays edition of The South End. Her Op-Ed: OPINION : No kitchens in new dorms is a deal-breaker is a good critique of the new dorm building, the TOWERS. I would agree with her critique of the facilities.
There are a lot of problems with this new facility, Ms. Cervenak lists a few of them, and isn't simply being picky. For the most part, Wayne has done a good job recently of trying to create a modern and traditional campus, yet with the Towers project, they seem to forget where they were going.
More Below...
Lets take the name. Alexandra says:
She is right, there isn't much more to say. I mean, couldn't Wayne State have found SOME Alum. or donor to name the building after? Or maybe (Insert Conspiracy Music Here) they named it sooooo horribly as to prompt someone to donate a bunch of money to change it?
Next, the fitness facilities on every other floor. Ok I haven't measured the distance from the doors of the new TOWERS building to the Student center, which you can walk through, and then to the Rec. & Fitness center... but we are talking what, a mile, at most two from door to door? (Note to non-WSU people: the distance from the new dorm to the state of the art Rec. & Fitness center is negligible. We are talking a 30 sec. walk if that.) WHAT IS THE POINT OF FACILITIES ON EVERY OTHER FLOOR? Seriously? Like Alexandra said, why not laundry or kitchen, or even pool tables and ping-pong tables... something anything, but not facilities the students already have EASY EASY access to!
I just feel that Wayne missed on this one. They are wasting time and money on things that they THINK will draw people in, but in actuality, won't. If you want students to stay on campus and relate to one another, make campus a place that they can call home...
"So which towers do you live in again? 'Cuz I went to Room 345 in the Towers.. and it wasn't you? ... Oh not UT, but just T? Why didn't you say that!"
There are a lot of problems with this new facility, Ms. Cervenak lists a few of them, and isn't simply being picky. For the most part, Wayne has done a good job recently of trying to create a modern and traditional campus, yet with the Towers project, they seem to forget where they were going.
More Below...
Lets take the name. Alexandra says:
Before I continue, I need to clear something up. Of all the names in the world, Wayne State University decided to name its new development the Towers, which is of course horribly similar to the already existing apartment building University Towers.
She is right, there isn't much more to say. I mean, couldn't Wayne State have found SOME Alum. or donor to name the building after? Or maybe (Insert Conspiracy Music Here) they named it sooooo horribly as to prompt someone to donate a bunch of money to change it?
Next, the fitness facilities on every other floor. Ok I haven't measured the distance from the doors of the new TOWERS building to the Student center, which you can walk through, and then to the Rec. & Fitness center... but we are talking what, a mile, at most two from door to door? (Note to non-WSU people: the distance from the new dorm to the state of the art Rec. & Fitness center is negligible. We are talking a 30 sec. walk if that.) WHAT IS THE POINT OF FACILITIES ON EVERY OTHER FLOOR? Seriously? Like Alexandra said, why not laundry or kitchen, or even pool tables and ping-pong tables... something anything, but not facilities the students already have EASY EASY access to!
I just feel that Wayne missed on this one. They are wasting time and money on things that they THINK will draw people in, but in actuality, won't. If you want students to stay on campus and relate to one another, make campus a place that they can call home...
"So which towers do you live in again? 'Cuz I went to Room 345 in the Towers.. and it wasn't you? ... Oh not UT, but just T? Why didn't you say that!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)