Wednesday Highlights

Good morning. Verbose?

  1. Desk jockey special forces.
  2. Identifying a group by its fruitcakes, not the best of ideas at any time.
  3. Market forces and education? Is that’s what in play here? 
  4. Standing to let go? Jobs have physical requirements. Sometimes height is one of them.
  5. The waiver in return for political contributions. There will be more favoritism in medical insurance/industry as the new bill takes effect. Those defenders (of the bill) might keep in that their party will not be in the White House forever.
  6. AGW and CO2 hitting like “the atmosphere a sledgehammer“. Uhm, dude. When you hit air(!) with a sledgehammer the effect is not as spectular as you might wish. And the innumeracy doesn’t help your case either.
  7. We’ve had “life imitates art” and the converse. How about “geography imitates art”?
  8. Conservatives need to be less passive when hit by the “where are your intellectuals” jab
  9. $50? I think the whole green movement is misguided in their attempt to foist less effective more expensive technologies on others by fiat and force of law. Make it better and then … It will sell. If you can’t make it better, keep working at it till you do. 
  10. Having some fun with long multiplication
  11. Speaking of academic subjects, this puts to point a common misconception of what Physics (modern) is about. It’s not about discovering the “what” of reality. Just the what about that which we can measure. That tree in the forest with none to listen? The answer isn’t “yes or no” … to borrow from Hofstadter, the answer is mu. That is that we have nothing to say about that except what would be measured if we did listen.
  12. Of evil and evolution.

2 Responses to Wednesday Highlights

  1. Identifying a group by its fruitcakes, not the best of ideas at any time.

    Aren’t you the guy that routinely leaps on something one liberal/Democrat/actual Marxist/crazy person says and labels it something like “The Left believes…”?

    Standing to let go? Jobs have physical requirements. Sometimes height is one of them.

    Yeah, but Starbucks? I’m pretty sure the legal standard requires “reasonable accommodations.” I can’t imagine that they couldn’t accommodate this person in a reasonable way.

  2. JA,
    In the remarks, one of the first thing noted was as a barrista this person would need a stool, which in turn could be a tripping hazard for everyone else. “Standard” height is not a unreasonable requirement for employment in a shared workspace. At least that seems so to me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>