Showing posts with label weird. Show all posts
Showing posts with label weird. Show all posts
5/14/2007
What Should Have Been...
Let it be said, I hate the wikinazis.
I had previously developed some strong feelings about them when the "Casey Serin wikipedia" page was under contest. At the time, "R-boy" single-handedly took the lead and kept that page from being deleted entirely. In my mind, the wikinazis were acting as uninformed asses, because there was nothing in the "Casey Serin wikipedia" page that he himself had not put forth on "I Am Facing Foreclosure."
But I just recently did my own battle with the wikinazis, and I have to tell you, what a load of horseshit.
As a part of my Mother's Day prezzie, I wanted to add/create some information on a family member who had designed some significant architecture. Mi madre is a huge fan of genealogy, and she's fascinated by the internets, so I thought this would be a really cool topper to her Mother's Day gift.
Now, as a family member of the individual that I wanted to detail, I have a wealth of source materials at my disposal. Many are, literally, at hand. But the wikinazis were not satisfied with my offer to scan and transmit the original blueprints (at a hefty fucking fee for the oversize behemoths)....nor were they happy with my willingness to scan and post them online so that a proper i-net source was documented. Nope. They were having none of it.
Instead, I had a three-day marathon 'conversation' on my wiki 'talk page' about the topic. During this time, I bowed and scraped like never before...this was, after all, a Mother's Day gift that I was desperately trying to make happen.
There were issues with my topic, my formatting, my credibility. When I raised the slightest 'tone' in my post pages, wiki editors threatened to ban me from the site. And I chewed the inside of my face raw in holding myself back from screaming "Ban me, bitches!!! DO IT!!! I fucking hate all of you!!!!"
People who couldn't create basic noun-verb agreement in their arguments against my edits told me that my additions had no credibility. Even though I was calling and speaking with the topic's source as I typed.
Blagh...sputter....I have no credibility?!?!
For a glimpse inside the mind of a typical wikipedia editor, PLEASE click here. The interminable pages you will find are typical wikispeak, where "editors" gather to breathe in the gases of their own pontificating.
Personally, I have a long-standing professional ban on anything that resembles a 'task force,' 'brainstorming session,' or similar mutual mental masturbation. Wikipedia not only embodies this; it takes it to levels heretofore unknown, even for a former Hill consult.
After three days of playing nice, bitching, begging, threatening, and acquiescing, I managed to add sixteen words to the wiki edits. Honestly, if I hadn't blown those billable hours on wikipedia, I could have sent maman on a very pleasant overseas holiday.
While Wikipedia has become some sort of international standard as a reference source, I just can't take Wikipedia at face value any longer. Because just beneath the surface lies a little wiki human, with just a little bit of wiki power, who's gagging to wield a mighty wiki sword.
Wikipedia pages encourage its users to "Be Bold!" in wiki edits. But the reality couldn't be further from the truth. Wikipedia "editors" truly are little trolls crouched on top of computers who are gagging to control every syllable that crosses their paths.
5/11/2007
"Fair" to Whom?
Liabilities and restrictions on property owners have been continually litigated in U.S. courts. Perhaps the most severe law that affects property owners is the so-called "Fair Housing" Act.
By definition, Fair Housing prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability)."
Last week, a friend in the midwest went to post a "for rent" ad in the local weekly. As he included the specifics of that property to the newspaper office, he included, "no pets," thinking of his expensive hardwood floors. The classifieds operator quickly corrected him, saying, "No pets except for service animals." Because, obviously, his town has decided that pet urine/feces/scratching is endemic to discriminating against the "differently abled."
Several years ago, I rented out one of our properties to a military family with two hyperactive toddlers. When they broke their lease due to an overseas transfer, I walked through the building to find the toddlers had taken a black permanent marker to no fewer than ten white walls and two wood doors.
When I deducted the re-paint (it takes three coats to cover Sharpie, BTW) and door replacement from their security deposit, I received over a dozen phone calls from a military lawyer at their overseas base, who was threatening to sue my family if his clients did not receive a full refund. Of course, I had to pay our attorney hundreds of dollars to tell me, "It's not worth it. Return the money." I was also inadvertently paying for their attorney, who, courtesy of the U.S. military system, was representing the couple on the tax dime.
Particularly offensive to me was that I couldn't get a handyman to come paint in time to rent the following month. So I spent three evenings after work doing the work myself, charging them only for the necessary materials. If I had hired someone, their deposit would not have covered the entire cost of the work.
Since then, I am loath to rent to families with children. They're hard on properties. Same with pets. But I can't come out and say that, and the whole process frustrates me so that I've offloaded that part of my obligation to a family member with more free time.
But with the numerous restrictions that property owners experience, why should we be hampered with this Fair Housing nonsense? After all, in jurisdictions around the country, property owners are held liable for gang and drug activity conducted on their premises; it is becoming increasingly common for communities to pass legislation that forbids property owners from renting to illegal immigrants.
Ironically, except for a handful of states and cities with sexual discrimination laws, it is still acceptable to print "no gays." Personally, I find this highly offensive.
While the government wants to induct us into some sort of citizen police patrol, there are no guidelines for this. How would I know if the charming "student" that I might rent to is actually planning to cook meth in the basement? How would I know if the seemingly normal young couple are gang members? If the lady with an accent is a legal citizen?
So, in reality, various governments are forcing me to discriminate against housing applicants. But I can't say that one house is "within walking distance to a prominent synagogue" because it somehow implies that I'm looking for a Jewish tenant.
Now, the left-wing nation of Kalifornia wants to expand Fair Housing to roommate and house-share situations. As of today, it is still legal for me to write an ad that says just about any damn thing if I'm looking to share my own space with another human.
Enter bureaucrats and lawsuits:
"The Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley and the Fair Housing Council of San Diego are suing the popular website roommates.com for violating federal anti-discrimination law by allowing ads that express roommate preferences. The ads cited in the lawsuit—presumably the worst of the bunch—include one requesting “no drugs, kids, or animals” and one that specifies “no psychos or anyone on mental medication.” Another advertiser writes that he would “prefer a Christian male, no women allowed in home, living for Christ.'"
While a similar lawsuit against Craigslist was dismissed by the U.S. District Court in Chicago, this new suit is headed through the notoriously left-wing Ninth Circuit. So I'm guessing there's a 60-40 chance the plaintiffs will win.
Why??? WHY?!?!? I don't want to even consider sharing my home with a nineteen-year old ecstacy-popping nightclub DJ. Similarly, I don't want to rent any of our properties to crazed breeders with an overwhelming sense of entitlement.
And why should I?!?!? I'm liable for their behavior; I'm liable if they hurt themselves on the property; I'm liable for the damage and destruction they may cause. So why do the legislative and judicial branches continually hamstring property owners?
In short, rather than expanding Fair Housing, I'd prefer to see the courts strike down Fair Housing. Because this isn't a national issue. It's a homeowner issue. And, as the Ninth Circuit will decide, it's an issue of how we live our lives in peace and security behind closed doors.
The government can't have it both ways. They can't decide that those who hold legal liability, whether a homeowner or lease holder, cannot mitigate said liability.
By definition, Fair Housing prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents of legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18), and handicap (disability)."
Last week, a friend in the midwest went to post a "for rent" ad in the local weekly. As he included the specifics of that property to the newspaper office, he included, "no pets," thinking of his expensive hardwood floors. The classifieds operator quickly corrected him, saying, "No pets except for service animals." Because, obviously, his town has decided that pet urine/feces/scratching is endemic to discriminating against the "differently abled."
Several years ago, I rented out one of our properties to a military family with two hyperactive toddlers. When they broke their lease due to an overseas transfer, I walked through the building to find the toddlers had taken a black permanent marker to no fewer than ten white walls and two wood doors.
When I deducted the re-paint (it takes three coats to cover Sharpie, BTW) and door replacement from their security deposit, I received over a dozen phone calls from a military lawyer at their overseas base, who was threatening to sue my family if his clients did not receive a full refund. Of course, I had to pay our attorney hundreds of dollars to tell me, "It's not worth it. Return the money." I was also inadvertently paying for their attorney, who, courtesy of the U.S. military system, was representing the couple on the tax dime.
Particularly offensive to me was that I couldn't get a handyman to come paint in time to rent the following month. So I spent three evenings after work doing the work myself, charging them only for the necessary materials. If I had hired someone, their deposit would not have covered the entire cost of the work.
Since then, I am loath to rent to families with children. They're hard on properties. Same with pets. But I can't come out and say that, and the whole process frustrates me so that I've offloaded that part of my obligation to a family member with more free time.
But with the numerous restrictions that property owners experience, why should we be hampered with this Fair Housing nonsense? After all, in jurisdictions around the country, property owners are held liable for gang and drug activity conducted on their premises; it is becoming increasingly common for communities to pass legislation that forbids property owners from renting to illegal immigrants.
Ironically, except for a handful of states and cities with sexual discrimination laws, it is still acceptable to print "no gays." Personally, I find this highly offensive.
While the government wants to induct us into some sort of citizen police patrol, there are no guidelines for this. How would I know if the charming "student" that I might rent to is actually planning to cook meth in the basement? How would I know if the seemingly normal young couple are gang members? If the lady with an accent is a legal citizen?
So, in reality, various governments are forcing me to discriminate against housing applicants. But I can't say that one house is "within walking distance to a prominent synagogue" because it somehow implies that I'm looking for a Jewish tenant.
Now, the left-wing nation of Kalifornia wants to expand Fair Housing to roommate and house-share situations. As of today, it is still legal for me to write an ad that says just about any damn thing if I'm looking to share my own space with another human.
Enter bureaucrats and lawsuits:
"The Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley and the Fair Housing Council of San Diego are suing the popular website roommates.com for violating federal anti-discrimination law by allowing ads that express roommate preferences. The ads cited in the lawsuit—presumably the worst of the bunch—include one requesting “no drugs, kids, or animals” and one that specifies “no psychos or anyone on mental medication.” Another advertiser writes that he would “prefer a Christian male, no women allowed in home, living for Christ.'"
While a similar lawsuit against Craigslist was dismissed by the U.S. District Court in Chicago, this new suit is headed through the notoriously left-wing Ninth Circuit. So I'm guessing there's a 60-40 chance the plaintiffs will win.
Why??? WHY?!?!? I don't want to even consider sharing my home with a nineteen-year old ecstacy-popping nightclub DJ. Similarly, I don't want to rent any of our properties to crazed breeders with an overwhelming sense of entitlement.
And why should I?!?!? I'm liable for their behavior; I'm liable if they hurt themselves on the property; I'm liable for the damage and destruction they may cause. So why do the legislative and judicial branches continually hamstring property owners?
In short, rather than expanding Fair Housing, I'd prefer to see the courts strike down Fair Housing. Because this isn't a national issue. It's a homeowner issue. And, as the Ninth Circuit will decide, it's an issue of how we live our lives in peace and security behind closed doors.
The government can't have it both ways. They can't decide that those who hold legal liability, whether a homeowner or lease holder, cannot mitigate said liability.
4/21/2007
Whackaloonery or Wave of the Future?
On any given day, there are perhaps two dozen daily and weekly papers that cross my desk. What this ultimately serves to do is reinforce my worldview that people are strange.
The area where this is typically most evident is in different technological developments. Of course, this comes from the fact that, in creating new technologies, shooting the moon can result in either public ridicule or serious jumbo juice.
One such article leaped to the forefront of my consciousness as the nuttiest idea of the week--the result of what two guys can create when they ponder the age-old question, "How to combine scuba diving with death?"
The two had previously developed a new artificial reef technology. By designing cast-concrete structures that would be sunk to the ocean bed, they found that sea life would inhabit the artificial reefs within months.
Great idea. Terrific technology. But here's where it gets weird. The two started mixing the cremated remains of humans into their concrete structures before sinking them into the sea, thereby creating a company they call "Eternal Reefs".
CEO George Frankel says that this resolves the conflict between the deceased who want their ashes spread at sea, versus families who don't want to dump the loved one into the drink. He says they create a "particular place where thier family can visit." Particular, indeed.
Today, there are about 700 people who have been sunk to the ocean floor to become a playground for the fishies. Should you or a loved one like to be number 701, here's how it works:
The company will send you a map of locations for its reef ball placement and you pick a site. They then take the cremated remains and mix them with marine-grade concrete. If you like, friends and family can impress handprints into the concrete as it cures.
Brass rubbings can be attached to the reef ball if you like. Then, the ball is available for a memorial viewing. Next step is out to the boat, where CEO Frankel reads JFK's speech "To the Sea" as the reef ball is dropped into the ocean.
The interesting technology involved is that the reef is designed to last for over 500 years, and withstand pressure up to 10,000 pounds per square inch. I'm not entirely sure why that's important, particularly after someone has been cremated, but it's a nifty stat, nonetheless.
Prices for Eternal Reefs range from $995 to the deluxe package at $6,495. Services range from the casting itself to transporting it to the site, bronze plaque(s) and inscription(s), final placement and dedication, a GPS survey that records the exact latitude and longitude of the reef, and two memorial certificates.
Right now, Eternal Reefs is only licensed to imbed reefs on the east coast of the United States, and they report that the most frequently requested final resting places are off the coasts of Sarasota, Fort Lauderdale and Miami, Florida. If all progresses according to plans, they will expand to the west coast in the future.
Just to cover every possible scenario, the duo reports that they offer military honors, as well as pet burials. If you like, they will withhold a bit of your ashes (if you die first) to later mix with your partner's ashes in their reef ball.
I don't know...it all sounds pretty wacky to me. But I imagine that this is precisely what appeals to folks who want to do something like this. As you can see, Eternal Reefs customers seem to have a sense of humor.
The area where this is typically most evident is in different technological developments. Of course, this comes from the fact that, in creating new technologies, shooting the moon can result in either public ridicule or serious jumbo juice.
One such article leaped to the forefront of my consciousness as the nuttiest idea of the week--the result of what two guys can create when they ponder the age-old question, "How to combine scuba diving with death?"
The two had previously developed a new artificial reef technology. By designing cast-concrete structures that would be sunk to the ocean bed, they found that sea life would inhabit the artificial reefs within months.
Great idea. Terrific technology. But here's where it gets weird. The two started mixing the cremated remains of humans into their concrete structures before sinking them into the sea, thereby creating a company they call "Eternal Reefs".
CEO George Frankel says that this resolves the conflict between the deceased who want their ashes spread at sea, versus families who don't want to dump the loved one into the drink. He says they create a "particular place where thier family can visit." Particular, indeed.
Today, there are about 700 people who have been sunk to the ocean floor to become a playground for the fishies. Should you or a loved one like to be number 701, here's how it works:
The company will send you a map of locations for its reef ball placement and you pick a site. They then take the cremated remains and mix them with marine-grade concrete. If you like, friends and family can impress handprints into the concrete as it cures.
Brass rubbings can be attached to the reef ball if you like. Then, the ball is available for a memorial viewing. Next step is out to the boat, where CEO Frankel reads JFK's speech "To the Sea" as the reef ball is dropped into the ocean.
The interesting technology involved is that the reef is designed to last for over 500 years, and withstand pressure up to 10,000 pounds per square inch. I'm not entirely sure why that's important, particularly after someone has been cremated, but it's a nifty stat, nonetheless.
Prices for Eternal Reefs range from $995 to the deluxe package at $6,495. Services range from the casting itself to transporting it to the site, bronze plaque(s) and inscription(s), final placement and dedication, a GPS survey that records the exact latitude and longitude of the reef, and two memorial certificates.
Right now, Eternal Reefs is only licensed to imbed reefs on the east coast of the United States, and they report that the most frequently requested final resting places are off the coasts of Sarasota, Fort Lauderdale and Miami, Florida. If all progresses according to plans, they will expand to the west coast in the future.
Just to cover every possible scenario, the duo reports that they offer military honors, as well as pet burials. If you like, they will withhold a bit of your ashes (if you die first) to later mix with your partner's ashes in their reef ball.
I don't know...it all sounds pretty wacky to me. But I imagine that this is precisely what appeals to folks who want to do something like this. As you can see, Eternal Reefs customers seem to have a sense of humor.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)