Lunch With Idiots

My story begins last week when the fridge at work went kaput in the public kitchenette.  The boss decided to replace that one with the working fridge in the staff room.  OK, not a problem...until....
One very nice lady was put in charge of cleaning out the staff fridge to make room for our shiny new one.  My lunch (with my name on it) almost ended up in the trash, but was saved by my super.  However, my cheese chunk wasn't saved.  Now I have pita crackers, but no cheese.  This was easily remedied by a trip to the store to replace the tossed cheese chunk with fresh.  Today I decided to have some fresh fruit, pita crackers, and cheese for lunch.  I set my spot at the table nicely with crackers, cheese, sliced fruit, water, and my book.  I got up to place my knife in the dishwasher, turned around, and saw a staff member eating my pita crackers!  Hello, didn't you notice ALL of my stuff sitting there?  Then she started to complain about "how salty" the crackers were, said "I don't eat salt, so that's what it tastes like", and "where did these come from?"  I sat down in my chair and picked up a piece of fruit FROM THE SAME PLATE and picked up my book.  I told her I had bought those to go with my cheese and fruit.  They were called "pita chips with sea salt".  She then picked up another one made a face, ate it and complained some more.  Whoa...didn't I just say I bought those to go with my cheese????  I'm sitting here with my lunch and you're eating it!  She didn't even notice I had sat down in that spot WITH THE PLATE IN FRONT OF ME everything nicely sliced and arranged for me to enjoy.  She walked over to the "communal counter" where everyone leaves snacks to share, grabs a handful of Doritos eats one and says "that's better" and walks out of the break room.  What the HELL....

Ms. Kitty Plays Tag

My story begins with a promise to the girls to let them outside while I was weeding yesterday. True to my word, I let them out while I was pruning shrubs and pulling weeds. They were content to roll around on the sidewalk and sniff the clippings from the shrubs. However, Cloe decided she was hot (she's covered in black fur and it was 80++ degrees) and found a cool spot under a shrub with a good view of the birds overhead. What more could a cat ask for?
Ms. Kitty had other plans for her outdoor time. Ms. Kitty, the adventure seeker she is, found something new in the flowerbed. A few years ago, a small garter snake made its home there. Ms. Kitty wanted to introduce herself and possibly make friends. Who better to make friends with than Gertie the snake? Gertie, however, wasn’t feeling neighborly and tried to escape from Ms. Kitty. Ms. Kitty would have no part of this and insisted that Gertie come out and play. She flushed her out of hiding and followed her as she slithered under Cloe's resting place. Poor Cloe, nothing's worse than dozing in the shade then finding a snake slithering over your paw. She shot from beneath the shrub with all of her hair standing on end. Gertie was hot on her heels trying to escape. Or were they playing tag? Ms. Kitty couldn’t decide and tagged them both. Both Gertie and Cloe hit back. Ms. Kitty thought this was great fun because she managed to attract Cloe's attention, make her fur poke out all funny, and have a game of tag all at once. This would be a wonderful day for Ms. Kitty.
Unfortunately, it was not for Gertie or Cloe. Poor Gertie had now attracted the attention of not one, but two cats. The first wanted to play tag and the second wanted revenge for disturbing her nap. No matter which way Gertie turned there was a furry beast blocking her path. She curled up in her defensive position ready for the attack. Ms. Kitty made the first move and was rewarded with a nip on her nose. This only made Cloe's hair stand up more (she had a squirrel tail now!) Cloe circled around the two taking it all in and absent-mindedly walked into the grass (see Ms. Kitty Catches a Bird to understand what an important piece of information this is.). I calmly looked on to see how far she would go before she noticed. She didn't. Apparently, there is a difference between freshly weed-eated terrifying grass and regular terrifying grass. As soon as she crossed the line into the regular terrifying grass, her hair poked out even more (if that’s possible) and she darted to the safety of the driveway glaring at Ms. Kitty. She knew this was all Ms. Kitty’s fault.
When Gertie glanced in my direction, I could see the look in her eyes. We had an agreement and I had broken it. She was welcomed into the flowerbed in turn for keeping mice and other creepy crawlies out. My end of the bargain was to leave her in peace to sun herself on the rocks and hibernate under her favorite shrub. I immediately picked both cats up and apologized to Gertie for my blunder. Today, she is happily sunning herself on her favorite rock. I let the girls have outdoor time by the patio. Gertie deserves a rest.

MS. KITTY CAUGHT A BIRD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     Ms. Kitty and Cloe were on the front porch with me. The birds were taunting them on the low branch of the tree. They would take turns flying onto the porch, into a bush, then back to the tree. Ms. Kitty saw this pattern and took advantage of it. A bird landed on the porch and she raced and pounced on it. It managed to escape to a bush, but she dove into the bush, snatched it up and ran to the driveway with it. It was squawking and flapping its wings trying to get away. The other birds flew down and circled her squawking and flapping their wings. She held the bird down with her paw and looked at all the birds surrounding her trying to decide what to do. <> She finally decided to keep the one she caught and ran to the porch with it (and we thought she was the stupid one). Of course Cloe was amazed that Ms. Kitty had a bird and wanted to see it. Ms. Kitty hissed and the bird escaped into a bush. Ms. Kitty was convinced that the bird was under the bush when in fact it had escaped out the other side--which Cloe saw. While Ms. Kitty was occupied sniffing for her lost bird under the bush, Cloe was poised to make her move. However, the bird was squawking and flapping its wings about 3 feet away an IN THE TERRIFYING GRASS. What should she do? As she weighed her options--terrifying grass/catch bird--sidewalk safety/wait for bird to come to her--the bird recovered and flew into the tree. All the birds then flew to the tree and squawked for a very long time. Now every time the girls go out onto the porch, the birds fly away to the pine trees and squawk--but only when Ms. Kitty is out. In fact, if she sits in the window or front door they fly away terrified that she will come out and catch them again. Cloe doesn't strike the same fear in them--yet. If only we would remove the terrifying grass, she could catch them all and KILL...KILL...KILL them for taunting her.

Messin with things we shouldn't

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 (EPA, 2011) establishes minimum standards to protect tap water in the US. It includes protection for both surface and underground sources of established drinking water and also potential sources of drinking water. First, I'd like to address storing natural gas in empty gas wells in the Marcellus Shale bed in PA. This shale bed is found throughout the Allegheny Plateau region in North America and contains potential natural gas reserves. This was once the main oil producing region in the US and currently an area where fracking is controversial. (Trivia time: PA is the "Quaker State", which explains the motor oil's name. PAs peak oil production was in 1891 and could produce enough oil to power the US for 7 months. Of course now it would only last 3 hours.)



What is really interesting about this area is that people are concerned with well water contamination around this storage site. The USGS studied this after problems were noted as early as 2001 (Breen, et al., 2007, p. 12). In the Tioga River Valley the USGS team identified isotopes unique to the stored natural gas in wells that drew water from the aquifer underlying the area. These aquifers are an important drinking water source in this region and partially recharged by the Tioga River. It turns out the stored gas migrated through fault lines unique in the Marcellus Shale to people's drinking water sources. It took several years for the USGS to determine the impact of storing the natural gas in depleted wells something the project team may not have considered during the NEPA process or even had this time-frame in mind. It is also interesting to note how closely related the geology of this region is with its water sources. Because of the fractures in the Marcellus Shale unusual things can happen like this example.


I bring this up because if stored natural gas can migrate to a well or aquifer, what is hydraulic fracturing doing? If an area is over-pressurized a fracture in the bedrock occurs and the natural gas/methane follows a route of least resistance. Something to think about.

I probably shouldn't post this here before it is graded, but I couldn't resist.

Since I'm all for limited copyrights, I've decided to post one of my AU discussion board Q & A.  Even though I am the original author, the Turnitin Police will flag my DB as not being original.  I like to play fast and loose with my education.  I wonder if it will flag my own work as not being my own work?  A question for my Philosophy class:  When is your original work not your original work?  When you post it in your personal blog before its graded!

• Do you think the law should allow these kinds of creative expressions? Why?

The law should allow for the mashups and remixes that many people post in places like YouTube. They are creating something to express themselves, not to profit from someone else's work. Creative works and intellectual advances are a part of the creative commons. This means they are a part of our culture and should be shared and enjoyed by everyone. The commons are a part of our collected resources (natural, creative, or intellectual) and define us as a nation. We all share and benefit from these commons which are the basis of future creative and technological advancements from members of our society. Stifling people's creativity stifles us as a nation. We fall behind other countries not only in the arts, but in other areas. We are holding back a whole generation's ability to learn, create, and imagine something new that could benefit us all. We are placing a roadblock in their way, and we'll be the poorer for it.

•  How can creative culture of user generated content be revived? Why is it important? Or not?

First of all, the US Constitution has protected creative works since 1790 (Library of Congress, Circular 1a) with a limited copyright law. This law ensured that intellectual and/or creative works were protected for a short period of time; originally it was 14 years. The key word is limited copyright protection. During this time period the creator had "exclusive rights" (¶ 1) to protect and profit from their work. Over time, this law has been extended from about 14 years to a person's lifetime plus 70 extra years (Heins, 2011, ¶ 4) for their family. This extended time period should be scaled back to a more reasonable timeframe to allow the current population to use and expand our knowledge base.

• Is Creative Commons good for copyright holders and market competition? Why? Or not?

One of the worst enemies of the creative commons is privatization and monopolies. This is most pronounced with the extended copyright laws. Our laws have limited creative use that can last a person's entire life plus another 70 years (Heins, 2011, ¶ 4)--that’s about three generations being limited by a copyright law. These laws are designed to protect the creator and allow them to make a profit, but at what cost to society? In the video-cast, an opinion was stated: "If we're only focused on how to maximize the supply of one, I think we risk suppressing [an] even more important one." (Lessig, 2010, video-cast). By extending copyright laws over such a long period of time, we may protect the copyright holders, but we also enable a monopoly. The US Constitution clearly states:

"Perpetual monopolies of every sort, are forbidden

not only by the genius of free Governments,

but by the imperfection of human foresight."

By perpetuating the copyright laws for so long, market competition shrinks and out goes open access to information. In comes a few/one entity controlling the markets, which the Constitution forbids.

• How should these intellectual property rights of people who create images, videos, and music be protected? Why is it necessary?

To protect intellectual property rights there should be copyright laws. However, there should be a reasonable limit to these laws. As stated above, stifling creativity for an extended time period harms our ability to build on and expand the current intellectual base. It also creates an unequal playing field where a few entities control the marketplace limiting a person's right to choose, create, innovate, and expand our intellectual base.

• Should digital rights management (DRM) technologies be utilized? Why?

As far as DRM technologies, if I buy a DVD/CD/MP3/ebook I should be able to convert it to the format I choose. If I buy a CD, but want to listen to the music on my MP3, I should be allowed to move it to my computer then convert it to my MP3. If I want to download a few tracks to my Kindle to listen to while I read, that should be OK, too. I really don't appreciate companies who try to limit my ability to use a product I've already paid for. That's what DRM is all about, limiting an individual's choices. I understand that there are copyrights laws, but moving it from one device to another isn't my attempt at making a profit from someone else's work. It's me choosing to listen to music in my car, on my computer, on my treadmill, or with my eBook while I read. I shouldn't have to buy one product four times to enjoy it throughout my day.

References:

Heins, M. (2011, April 28). The delecate balance between copyright and free expression. Retrieved from http://www.fepproject.org/commentaries/eldredcomment.html

Lessig, Lawrence. (2010, May). Re-examining the remix [Video-cast]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html

Library of Congress. (n.d.). United States copyright office: A brief introduction and history; Circular 1a. Retrieved from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html

Turnitin Experiment

This is already graded and turned in.  Now I want to see if anyone steals my work that I posted here for all to see if they only put in the correct key words.  For any who stumble on this, it isn't the final copy, but I did receive a 100%.  Feel free to use any part of it, but beware, it will be flagged.  Use caution and change a few words here and there if you are desperate enough to recycle an old paper.

Project Study Area:  Offshore Windfarms in Lake Erie--

Recent research by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) shows that the Great Lakes region has a potential more than 250 gigawatts (OWWG, 2009, p. 1) in offshore wind power. Cleveland, Ohio has chosen to go forward with a small offshore wind farm to study the feasibility of wind power generation in Lake Erie. This area is unique in the respect that it is shallower than the other Great Lakes which will make it easier to install and maintain wind turbines. Since the Project Study Area (PSA) for offshore wind farms are placed in the Waters of the United States, the site chosen for this project falls under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). An environmental impact statement (EIS) was filed and approved before the PSA could move forward. However, stakeholder concerns with this plan were potential real estate impact, infrastructure support for prospective growth, and impacts on bird and bat populations.


Since the Project Study Area (PSA) is the first of its kind in the Great Lakes region, there are not many examples to compare the real estate impacts with. However, it is still important to address this issue since homeowners have questioned this aspect of the planned project. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducted a study in 2009 funded by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to address concerns of communities in regards to wind project impact on property values. The U.S. DOE (Hoen et al., 2009) studied sales of single-family homes located within ten miles (p. iii) of wind farms in nine different states (p. iii). This study showed that compared to similar homes outside the visual range of wind farms that the "impacts...are either too small and/or too infrequent" (p. iii) to determine any observable impact on the resale or property values of these homes. In fact, the results of the study found that an announcement like the Lake Erie's PSA would not have an adverse effect on property values (Hoen, et al., 2009, p. 76). Since this study was conducted with on-land turbines, the only adverse finding suggested that property values within a one-mile radius (Hoen, et al., 2009, p. 74) were affected. However, the PSA wind turbines are located three miles offshore where no homes are located.

Another aspect of this project, if plans proceed to develop beyond the PSA, is the cumulative impact on infrastructure and secondary development from an employment in-migration. As Marriott (1997) suggests housing, roads, and public transportation (pp. 96-97) come into play when projecting employment impacts. If the PSA succeeds and more wind farms are built offshore, it will have a direct and secondary employment impact in the region, because part of the appeal of offshore wind farms in Lake Erie is rebuilding NE Ohio's manufacturing base. If the PSA is successful, future wind farms would use local suppliers to provide components to build and supply parts for ongoing maintenance. However, bringing more jobs to the area will bring an influx of workers that need a place to live. If the projected secondary employment is large, team members must consult local officials to address the possible need for homes in a variety of price ranges (Marriot, 1997, p. 96).

While housing and manufacturing businesses in the immediate area is studied, another aspect to consider is increased commutes from surrounding suburbs. There will be a new demand placed on local roads and public transportation that may require changes and updates to the existing infrastructure. This may have adverse effects on local funds that some stakeholders would like to spend elsewhere. However, with the current economic slump the Cleveland area is experiencing, these types of economic impact may seem positive.

Finally, as with most wind farms there is always controversy surrounding the impacts on bird populations. If stakeholders are concerned enough about environmental impacts, a project may never be realized no matter how positive the economic impact may be. First, there are one billion bird deaths in the U.S. each year, but only 0.01% (Erin, 2009, p. 2) is from wind turbine collision. However, it is still a concern for many stakeholders and needs to be addressed. For the PSA, Guarnaccia and Kerlinger (2009) were chosen to present an informational brochure for the public. Their study showed that in the PSA there are a large number of birds that use Lake Erie during migrations. However, many of these species use inshore migration routes where they feed and rest in marsh areas (Guarnaccia & Kerlinger, 2009, p. 2) not in the PSA. While some species do migrate over Lake Erie, these birds fly at altitudes above the wind turbine heights. This information is supported by five years (Guarnaccia & Kerlinger, 2009, p. 23) of archived NEXRAD data. Also, to support their study, Guarnaccia and Kerlinger (2009) consulted the Audubon Ohio. Their information states that the Cleveland Lakefront Important Bird Area (IBA) only extends one mile into Lake Erie (Guarnaccia & Kerlinger, 2009, p. 24) short of the PSA. The only significant finding were gulls that forage for food around wind turbine bases.

An Old Rant

Tonight I'm going to wallow in the world of plagerism.  This is a post that I copied (felony 1) and pasted onto my jump drive (felony 2), and now am going to repost here (felony 3).  I don't remember who this guy was, but I love what he had to say.  If he stumbles across this (highly unlikely), I'd like to give him a KUDOS for seeing what the average, ignorant, unable to think analytically person does see AND put it into words.  We're not as stooopid as they think we are.  They just have more money to side-step everything we have to plow through and try to survive.  I'll highlight my favorite parts.
     
I don't think it matters who is in office; All of them are driven by self interest, not by a sense of duty to the people! I don't know who or what to believe anymore. I'm just a blue collar guy. I don't have the time to do an indepth personal research on the issues. I wish I had the time, but wouldn't know where to start if I did! I listen to NPR alot and that is where I get most of my information with which I form an opinion. But how bias is that information? Much of my time is currently spent trying to find employment, not researching issues. A few folks in here seem to think that the lack of education of the general population is part of the problem and we are ignorant and incapable of analitical thinking because of this. I would like to point out that the captains of industry, investors, and our government officials are the most educated people in the world; It doesn't seem to have done them much good! They are the ones that have created this mess we find ourselves in!  It's going to be up to the common,ignorant,uneducated majority of the population to do the work and dig our way out of this, just as we always have! Our government, corporations, and investors seem to forget that it was the hard work of the common people that put them in the position of power, wealth and privilige that they currently enjoy. It's time they started giving some back! Instead, investors are pouring money into "emerging" economies, corporations are moving the jobs overseas to take advantage of less oversight and lower wages, and not only is our government allowing this to happen, it passes the financial burden on to the common average citizen in the form of financial bail outs to the investors, banks, and corporations that created this crisis and now turned their backs on us! It seems to me that our government, investors, and corporations are deliberately dismanteling our economy and infrastructure.


While listening to NPR the other night, they were talking about the economic recovery. It was pointed out that there are two seperate economies in the U.S.,the corporate and investor economy, and the worker economy. The corporate/investor economy is looking great! Corporations are recording record profits! The worker economy....ah...not so good; And things aren't projected to be that much better in 2011. Even a common, undereducated, ignorant person incapable of analitical thought, such as myself, understands that in a parasitic/host relationship once you suck the life blood from one host, it's time to find another host and start the whole process over again.

So now you see why I couldn't resist the plagerism part.  Technically it wasn't plagerism, I did give him credit and didn't repost it as my own.