A few years ago, a skier in Utah injured himself at Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort and decided to sue the company, saying the waiver he signed was invalid. Now the case will be going before the Utah Supreme Court, and recreational companies in Utah are afraid of the possible consequences.
The plaintiff's argument sounds silly to me. With my limited knowledge of the case and of the evidence, it seems like the guy fully "assumed the risks inherent in the sport of skiing" when he signed the waiver, a waiver that every skier must sign before getting lift tickets. It is only natural for a ski resort to expect their skiers to be aware of and mitigate the risks of skiing, and putting that expectation down in writing only serves to protect the resort. The skiers should already be wary enough to take care of themselves, and when dangerous situations occur, only then is there the issue of due diligence with the resort.
Due diligence in this case means the resort did everything within reason and the best of their ability to prevent injuries to their customers. If they had left a steep, snowless trail open to beginners without any notice, that would be a case for negligence. If there is a fence marking the boundaries of a course, one can reasonably expect people to avoid it. Really, when you see a wall come at you, the only logical course of action is to avoid the wall. If you can't stop in time, then you were going too fast or otherwise skiing beyond your ability to control your skis, in which case the injury would have been your fault. Remember, all skiers are taught from the very beginning to know their limits and to ski within those limits.
This case should just be an issue of weighing the evidence to see whether or not the resort did enough to warn skiers of danger. Even if the plaintiff wins, the case would be based on evidence alone and probably wouldn't have that much impact on the recreational industry. I really don't see why the case made it all the way to the state Supreme Court.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
Questions of Philosophy
I dugg this up a while ago. I don't know if philosophers are so much geniuses and innovators as they are just good at phrasing metaphysical observations that all us of entertain at some point in our lives. Or maybe the impact these philosophers have had on our lives is so great that their ideas have penetrated our psyche to the point where we are unaware of it happening.
Either way, the link makes you think.
Either way, the link makes you think.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Addicting Game
Short post. Busy day. Having found this great flash game doesn't help, either. It's called Dice Wars, and it's a simplified version of Risk. The rules are pretty straightforward, actually. When you attack another space, both sides roll dice and the greater sum wins. At the end of your turn, you are randomly distributed a number of dice equal to the largest number of connected territories you have. Simple.
The game is really conducive to learning simple battle strategies and game theory. Because there's so much benefit to keep territories connected, you start fighting to have one continuous blob of purple on the map. After playing a few games, I found it easier not to look at the individual territories so much, but rather to look at the whole board to see the shapes of the colors and the control of the field.
Another thing to do is to envision the board to be a map of a battlefield, much like one is supposed to do when playing Go. You start imagining capital cities and supply lines, and you might start anthropomorphizing the colors. One could almost cheer when Purple overtakes a critical Green bastion in the heat of skirmish.
My best game so far was going from two dice on one territory in an 8-player game, to end up eventually winning the game. It was a happy day for the people of Purple.
The game is really conducive to learning simple battle strategies and game theory. Because there's so much benefit to keep territories connected, you start fighting to have one continuous blob of purple on the map. After playing a few games, I found it easier not to look at the individual territories so much, but rather to look at the whole board to see the shapes of the colors and the control of the field.
Another thing to do is to envision the board to be a map of a battlefield, much like one is supposed to do when playing Go. You start imagining capital cities and supply lines, and you might start anthropomorphizing the colors. One could almost cheer when Purple overtakes a critical Green bastion in the heat of skirmish.
My best game so far was going from two dice on one territory in an 8-player game, to end up eventually winning the game. It was a happy day for the people of Purple.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Goodbye Chief
Ahh, the Chief. The University's silence on the issue has been dividing the campus for long enough. On Friday, Board of Trustees Chairman Lawrence Eppley finally issued a press release and broke that silence.
To those unfamiliar with the issue, Chief Illiniwek has been the mascot for the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign since he was invented in the early 1920's. He is meant to embody the "indomitable human spirit," and his halftime dance has been performed since 1926. It is hard to deny that the Chief is not part of UIUC history and tradition. As a mascot, it has represented the University for almost a century, and it has presented an image for people to rally around when supporting sporting events. It is easy to see why students and alumni could be so attached to the image.
It is equally difficult to deny that the Chief presents a stereotyped, and some would say racist, image. When the very Native Americans that the image is supposed to portray are decrying its use as a mascot, one must question whether it represents an accurate portrayal of their culture. Think of things like the "authentic" Fancy Dance, which has been said to be a perversion of traditional dances. Think of things like the regalia that the Chief wears, which the Oglala Tribe has asked to be returned by the University. Realize that organizations like the Peoria Tribe of Indians, the NAACP, the NEA, and pretty much every cultural group on the UIUC campus are all opposed to the continued use of the Chief.
The biggest problem on campus is just the prevalence of apathy to these, and many other, issues. Compounded with the administration's silence on the issue, most people aren't aware there is a problem and subscribe to a "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. But the campus is broken, and something needs to be fixed. People need to know that Native Americans are not all ululating, combative casino owners. However, this is not only a problem for the Native American community. The use of the Chief is a symptom of a larger problem on campus: a lack of cultural awareness causing the fragmentation of our campus along cultural lines. When people don't take the time to fully understand a cultural they are relating with, both cultures risk alienating themselves from one another. This is why all the minority student groups that I know of are opposed to the Chief.
I'm glad the Board of Trustees finally broke their silence on this issue. To tell the truth, I expected them to end or severely limit the use of the Chief this semester, but I had no idea it would be so soon. During the STOP forum, President White could not have made a statement but clearly said that his conscience was clear on the issue, which I took to mean an opposition to the Chief. I firmly support the University's decision to end the Chief as a step in the right direction. At the same time, I still believe that a compromise could have been possible if people had spent more time communicating and less time pointing fingers, calling each other racists or muckrakers.
In the end, even though one might lament the loss of a part of University history, we just have to realize that a mascot is meant to unite a campus and to represent it in the best light. Clearly, the Chief was not accomplishing either of those two things, and we are better off without it.
To those unfamiliar with the issue, Chief Illiniwek has been the mascot for the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign since he was invented in the early 1920's. He is meant to embody the "indomitable human spirit," and his halftime dance has been performed since 1926. It is hard to deny that the Chief is not part of UIUC history and tradition. As a mascot, it has represented the University for almost a century, and it has presented an image for people to rally around when supporting sporting events. It is easy to see why students and alumni could be so attached to the image.
It is equally difficult to deny that the Chief presents a stereotyped, and some would say racist, image. When the very Native Americans that the image is supposed to portray are decrying its use as a mascot, one must question whether it represents an accurate portrayal of their culture. Think of things like the "authentic" Fancy Dance, which has been said to be a perversion of traditional dances. Think of things like the regalia that the Chief wears, which the Oglala Tribe has asked to be returned by the University. Realize that organizations like the Peoria Tribe of Indians, the NAACP, the NEA, and pretty much every cultural group on the UIUC campus are all opposed to the continued use of the Chief.
The biggest problem on campus is just the prevalence of apathy to these, and many other, issues. Compounded with the administration's silence on the issue, most people aren't aware there is a problem and subscribe to a "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. But the campus is broken, and something needs to be fixed. People need to know that Native Americans are not all ululating, combative casino owners. However, this is not only a problem for the Native American community. The use of the Chief is a symptom of a larger problem on campus: a lack of cultural awareness causing the fragmentation of our campus along cultural lines. When people don't take the time to fully understand a cultural they are relating with, both cultures risk alienating themselves from one another. This is why all the minority student groups that I know of are opposed to the Chief.
I'm glad the Board of Trustees finally broke their silence on this issue. To tell the truth, I expected them to end or severely limit the use of the Chief this semester, but I had no idea it would be so soon. During the STOP forum, President White could not have made a statement but clearly said that his conscience was clear on the issue, which I took to mean an opposition to the Chief. I firmly support the University's decision to end the Chief as a step in the right direction. At the same time, I still believe that a compromise could have been possible if people had spent more time communicating and less time pointing fingers, calling each other racists or muckrakers.
In the end, even though one might lament the loss of a part of University history, we just have to realize that a mascot is meant to unite a campus and to represent it in the best light. Clearly, the Chief was not accomplishing either of those two things, and we are better off without it.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Quantum Theory and Mutant Powers
Here is a topic that I've had floating around in the back of my head for a while. I wrote it back in September 2003, and I thought it was worth bringing up again now. There have been a few revelations on this topic since then, but I think the general ideas are still valid. There will undoubtedly be a post in the future that deals with these thoughts in more detail, but I would like to talk to more people about these ideas before then. Hereis what I posted:
So I was sitting in physics today, thinking about the wave properties of the world and everything in it. The general idea of it all is that when you get to the quantum level, whether or not a person is observing what is happening can change the result of the experiment. It's not even the watching that changes things, but the fact that a person is conscious of what's happening that changes it. This is more obvious in the shrodinger's cat example, where a cat is kept in a locked box. The question is whether the cat is dead or alive. (yeah, i'm oversimplifying here but that's the general point of it, isn't it?) The answer is that the cat is both alive AND dead, at least until the box is opened. Whether the cat is alive or dead can be called its wave function, albeit a simple one, and looking at it collapses its wave function. Weird stuff.
All that lead me to thinking about how exactly i can use this information to develop superpowers and rule the world. Yeah, that's the kind of stuff I think about in class. Anyways, apparently everybody has a wave function, an uncertainty to who they are, where they came from, and where they are going. I could be on Mars right now! But I'm not, because I am always thinking and observing myself to be here. Collapsing my wave function.
Even if I could go to Mars, I wouldn't, because there's nothing there. Besides, it would be very hard to do, because my probability of being on Mars right now is very small. What about if I tried collapsing the wave function of something else? Something not quite as big. Something like individual atoms and molecules. There's an idea...
Y'know all that stuff you were taught while you were little, saying how as long as you believe it can happen, it can happen? I guess there is some merit to that statement. As long as you collapse an event's wave function in the right way, that event could happen. The problem is making everyone else believe that it can happen. This is why science is such a useful tool. More on that in another post, I'm sure.
What if I want telepathic powers? Being able to do what Professor X and Jean Grey do could be very useful, to say the least. Let's approach these powers individually:
Telekinetics- Probably the easiest to understand, but the hardest to accomplish. Continually collapse an object's wave function in the direction you want it to go, and it goes there. Hardest to do because of the continued effort required and the fact that others think to themselves 'thats impossible' and collapse the wave function in the other direction.
Telepathy- This might not fall entirely in the realm of quantum physics. It probably has more to do with interference and diffraction patterns, and reading those patterns to determine the sources. What sources, you ask? The neurons and the atoms that make them up possess wave functions, too!
Mind Control- This, I think, is the most interesting of the bunch. Collapse the wave function of certain atoms in a person's brain, and you can change what they think. Of course, this leads to a debate over what exactly the human mind is, so I'm just going to assume that it's an intricate web of neurons that determines a person's thought processes. The thing about this is that you cannot control a person's mind to the extent shown on TV and in movies, but small-scale things are plausible. Like if a person's deciding between two things and you prod them in the 'right' direction. Like if you instill some weak emotions in a person at the right time to get them to do a certain thing. That way, nobody can tell you are controlling a person's mind. YOU may not even know. This brings new insight onto common perceptions of charisma and persuasiveness.
Friday, February 9, 2007
General Tso's Chicken
We live in such an interconnected world. The other day, I saw an interesting article about General Tso's chicken; apparently there is much more to the little dish than just garlic, soy sauce, sesame, and chicken. After the Chinese Civil War, the Hunan dish was taken to Taiwan by Chinese chefs, from where it travelled to the US and was enjoyed by the likes of Henry Kissinger. It eventually made its way back to East Asia, taking with it a western spin to an eastern dish. The dish is now understood to be a fusing of various cultures and cooking styles. (see the article for a much better explanation).
Who knew that a simple dish could have such a complex history? It makes you think about all the other foods that we eat, and how they are connected to our past. Why is the fortune cookie so prevalent at Chinese restaurants in the US? Is the pizza as we know it really Italian food? This is one of the reasons why I'm such a Food Network addict.
The most interesting questions to me, though (because you can't find the answer on Wikipedia), are about the homemade comfort foods that we all had as children. Does anyone really know how those dishes were made? Did your mother come up with the recipe? Did one of your grandparents invent it? Or does its history go back several more generations than that? How is it that of the vast number of possibilite events in the past, the events that eventually played out came together to form the one perfect dish for you?
There is a saying that says, "You are what you eat." To realize the significance of this saying, you only have to contemplate the dishes that you eat and enjoy. Contemplating our past is never too far removed from contemplating our favorite foods.
As a side note, you can probably tell that I was hungry when writing this entry... I always end up writing about food.
Who knew that a simple dish could have such a complex history? It makes you think about all the other foods that we eat, and how they are connected to our past. Why is the fortune cookie so prevalent at Chinese restaurants in the US? Is the pizza as we know it really Italian food? This is one of the reasons why I'm such a Food Network addict.
The most interesting questions to me, though (because you can't find the answer on Wikipedia), are about the homemade comfort foods that we all had as children. Does anyone really know how those dishes were made? Did your mother come up with the recipe? Did one of your grandparents invent it? Or does its history go back several more generations than that? How is it that of the vast number of possibilite events in the past, the events that eventually played out came together to form the one perfect dish for you?
There is a saying that says, "You are what you eat." To realize the significance of this saying, you only have to contemplate the dishes that you eat and enjoy. Contemplating our past is never too far removed from contemplating our favorite foods.
As a side note, you can probably tell that I was hungry when writing this entry... I always end up writing about food.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Picture
Check out this picture I found on Digg. The book on the left is from before Katrina. The one on the right was made after Katrina.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Take Care of your Eyes
It's always sad when something like this happens. A person permanently loses sight in one eye after wearing a novelty contact lens for three days straight. He used to have perfect vision. People really should exercise more caution when it comes to something as sensitive as an eye. Regardless of how comfortable they feel or how well they've been engineered, contacts are still foreign objects to a person's eye.
In a normal eye, tear ducts pump out tears to lubricate the eye, and the shape of the eyes and eyelids are evolved in a way that lets the tears be distributed to keep your eyes healthy. When anything gets into your eyes (e.g. soap or sand), it disturbs the distribution of fluids in your eyes and irritates it. Contacts are special in that they are designed to not disturb this balance, at least too much. Being foreign objects, they will still mess with the natural flow of fluid in your eyes and will increase the chances of other irritants getting stuck there. In addition, if the contacts are used improperly or if something else goes wrong, all bets are off.
This doesn't mean that contacts shouldn't ever be used; to be sure, contacts are a great convenience sometimes, they just need to be dealt with carefully. Did you know that most contact users have accretions in their eyes from infections that have developed? They're usually harmless, but that's the kind of information that made me switch to glasses. Nowadays, I only wear them when playing sports or doing other physical activities, or when drinking soup. This past week, I've been wearing them because after walking in the cold for a few minutes, it takes several minutes for my glasses to defog.
It's interesting how far a pair of glasses goes to affect the appearance of a person. Because I switch between glasses and contacts a lot, a lot of times people would say to me things like, "I didn't recognize you without your glasses." Does this mean that when people see me, they only see a pair of glasses? Do I suddenly turn into another person without the glasses on? Of course not. However, statements like that do point to other opinions that people may hold about a person with glasses. For example, the stereotype of the nerd with thick glasses could have permeated our psyche with the idea that glasses indicate intelligence but also weakness. Unfortunately for a lot of people, cosmetics is the only factor when deciding between one method of vision correction over another when in truth, issues of health, sanitation, and convenience should be greater factors.
I do hope that people are intelligent enough to operate beyond cosmetics and appearances, but sometimes a person can't help but wonder how much these stereotypes affect our lives.
In a normal eye, tear ducts pump out tears to lubricate the eye, and the shape of the eyes and eyelids are evolved in a way that lets the tears be distributed to keep your eyes healthy. When anything gets into your eyes (e.g. soap or sand), it disturbs the distribution of fluids in your eyes and irritates it. Contacts are special in that they are designed to not disturb this balance, at least too much. Being foreign objects, they will still mess with the natural flow of fluid in your eyes and will increase the chances of other irritants getting stuck there. In addition, if the contacts are used improperly or if something else goes wrong, all bets are off.
This doesn't mean that contacts shouldn't ever be used; to be sure, contacts are a great convenience sometimes, they just need to be dealt with carefully. Did you know that most contact users have accretions in their eyes from infections that have developed? They're usually harmless, but that's the kind of information that made me switch to glasses. Nowadays, I only wear them when playing sports or doing other physical activities, or when drinking soup. This past week, I've been wearing them because after walking in the cold for a few minutes, it takes several minutes for my glasses to defog.
It's interesting how far a pair of glasses goes to affect the appearance of a person. Because I switch between glasses and contacts a lot, a lot of times people would say to me things like, "I didn't recognize you without your glasses." Does this mean that when people see me, they only see a pair of glasses? Do I suddenly turn into another person without the glasses on? Of course not. However, statements like that do point to other opinions that people may hold about a person with glasses. For example, the stereotype of the nerd with thick glasses could have permeated our psyche with the idea that glasses indicate intelligence but also weakness. Unfortunately for a lot of people, cosmetics is the only factor when deciding between one method of vision correction over another when in truth, issues of health, sanitation, and convenience should be greater factors.
I do hope that people are intelligent enough to operate beyond cosmetics and appearances, but sometimes a person can't help but wonder how much these stereotypes affect our lives.
Friday, February 2, 2007
I Like Pizza
Pizza is great. It's a fast meal, it's easy to get, and it can come in such a variety of flavors. Of course, it might just be due to overexposure to the food while at college, but I think it's more than that. I can remember when, as a child, having pizza from our neighborhood pizza place was considered a treat. So image my delight when someone opened a restaurant here on campus that served pizza just like they did at home.
When I say 'like home', I mean slices that are large (so you can load on the toppings), are thin (so you can hold and fold the slice), are non-oily (so your hands don't get messy), and have crunchy crusts. This kind of pizza is the best for socializing, and to me, that's what makes pizzas so great. I just love those moments when a person would bring in some pies and everyone would gather round to find their favorite toppings and grab them before others could.
Mm... Toppings... There are so many varieties that I don't know where to begin. Sausage? Mushroom? Peppers? Hawaiian? Meat lovers'? Barbeque chicken? Avocado quesadilla? Let's get them all! If you don't like one, chances are you'll like another. And if you don't like any of them, chances are they'll come up soon with a new one that you will. Just the other day, I found out that Papa John's makes a vegan pizza. Vegan! How awesome is that?
I know there are many of you out there that like other styles of pizza that are foreign to me (inside-out pizza with cheesy crusts, anyone?). Each kind is conducive to their own method of eating. For example, when eating Chicago-style pizza, many people would make it a fork and knife affair; to them, one would sit down to and make a meal of one slice. Although I'm not quite comfortable with this kind of pizza, I am just glad that other people are enjoying pizza as well. So to all of you enjoying your own styles of pizza, I say: "To each his own. There's a pizza out there for everyone."
When I say 'like home', I mean slices that are large (so you can load on the toppings), are thin (so you can hold and fold the slice), are non-oily (so your hands don't get messy), and have crunchy crusts. This kind of pizza is the best for socializing, and to me, that's what makes pizzas so great. I just love those moments when a person would bring in some pies and everyone would gather round to find their favorite toppings and grab them before others could.
Mm... Toppings... There are so many varieties that I don't know where to begin. Sausage? Mushroom? Peppers? Hawaiian? Meat lovers'? Barbeque chicken? Avocado quesadilla? Let's get them all! If you don't like one, chances are you'll like another. And if you don't like any of them, chances are they'll come up soon with a new one that you will. Just the other day, I found out that Papa John's makes a vegan pizza. Vegan! How awesome is that?
I know there are many of you out there that like other styles of pizza that are foreign to me (inside-out pizza with cheesy crusts, anyone?). Each kind is conducive to their own method of eating. For example, when eating Chicago-style pizza, many people would make it a fork and knife affair; to them, one would sit down to and make a meal of one slice. Although I'm not quite comfortable with this kind of pizza, I am just glad that other people are enjoying pizza as well. So to all of you enjoying your own styles of pizza, I say: "To each his own. There's a pizza out there for everyone."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)