If you have ever thought about working for Wal-Mart, read this before making your decision.
Wal-Mart has a team of lawyers and regulation writers who change the rules for Wal-Mart as state laws change. This way they are always legal on everything they do. But I have found one thing of interest.
Recently, a person at a local Wal-Mart got fired. The reason they stated was "under performing". This person had worked for Wal-Mart for years, and this came without warning. But Wal-Mart has a policy that they can hire and fire whenever they want to, and without reason. It was just odd that they fired this person the day he came to work as a her.
After a little research, I found out something a little interesting. It is written in their rules that someone working for Wal-Mart cannot judge on race, color, religion, sex, or "in some states, sexual orientation." Basically saying, if you live in a state that does not have gay rights as a state law, then Wal-Mart can use sexual orientation against you, either in promotions, raises or employment.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Bill: Houston, I have an Issue
"The world is in trouble and we must fix it. We must do something now." This seems to be the current trend. "Go Green" or "Help the Environment". Everyone seems to care. The only problem I have, where was all of this years ago? This is something I followed years and years ago. I remember the debate back in the late 70s and early 80s. Plastic bags were first being introduced. You were given the option of paper or plastic. Most people chose paper. Paper was stronger and could hold more groceries than the plastic bags. But even back then, there were rumblings about how plastic won't degrade and fill up our landfills. There was discussions of how this could cause more problems than it would fix. But how do you rank the world against corporate greed? Plastic bags were cheaper to buy than paper. It wasn't long before paper bags were placed under the counter and out of sight. Instead of being asked "Paper or Plastic?", you were asked "Is plastic alright?" It was easier to say yes, than to make the request for paper. It didn't take long for the question to be dropped completely. Then the paper bags left the stores. All choices taken away, but still the debate about the dangers of plastic remained.
Through my college years, I attended seminars about the environment, saving the wetlands, global warming, and the dangers of plastic. Here it is 20 years later and now more people are becoming concerned. The problem is that it has become worse than the experts predicted. With plastic invading the food chain, litter everywhere, and the North Pacific Gyre, AKA The Plastic Vortex, AKA Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which has a density of 6 times to 1 of plankton. In case you missed it:
But yet, our society is a disposable society. For us, it is easier to throw things away, than it is to recycle or reuse. Manufacturers have it more convenient for us to be disposable. Overpackaging became an issue. More trash. It was the easiest way. But after 30 years, what have we learned? We are still talking about what needs to be done, instead of doing something about it. Yes, grocery stores are beginning to bring in reusable bags just to say they are green. Making you purchase bags to save the environment. Is that still helping? It's still like hiding the paper bags under the counter. Instead of the manufacturers or the retailers taking any of the responsiblity, they have shifted the responsibility to the consumer and said that they are "going green". It is still up to you to buy the bags, and remember to bring them in. Plastic is still the readily available weapon of choice. What has that brought us?
Even if we can think of changing our ways, can we get away from making the same mistakes. SciFi's "Battlestar Galactica" had it right when they said, "All this has happened before, it will happen again." Thirty years of warnings and no changes. But just throwing away and littering doesn't stop there. Living this close to NASA, where all the top minds work, what have I learned?
As the Space Shuttle program comes to an end, a new beginning is starting, or is it? Back in the late 70s, NASA wanted to create a ship that was reusable. To a degree, they accomplished their mission. A vessel that is about 2/3rds reusable. But now is time for the shuttle to retire, and we want to go back to the moon and beyond. But the problem is how? NASA is still full of people from our disposable society, and they can't think of anything different. So, what have they come up with? The Constellation project with the main powerhorse being the Ares rockets. Bigger than the Saturn rockets that first took us to the moon, but now it will require two rockets.... One Saturn put up the Lunar Excursion Module and the Command Module. Now it will take the Ares I to take up the people and the Orion Crew Vehicle. Then the Ares V will blast off unmanned with the Altair Lunar Lander. Now granted, the Ares V has the reusable shuttle solid rocket boosters, but all in all, a majority of both rockets will be destroyed before leaving Earth's orbit. And again, only a size slightly larger than the Apollo Command Module will be returning to Earth. Lots of waste. Then you have the Altair Lunar Lander. It is bigger than the Apollo Landers, but again, less than a third of the ship will return to from the Moon's surface. Not only are we littering Earth, we have plans to return to the Moon to begin littering there once again.
To top everything off, one of the astronauts once said something about sitting on top of a machine to propel him into space with 1000s of parts being assembled by the lowest bidder. The new moon missions will have EVERYONE on the ship land on the moon. The Crew Module will stay up in orbit, unmanned, on remote. I remember one of the last automated Mars missions that crashed into the surface. If that is a possibiltiy, why would you want to have your only chance for survival being left in the hands of someone who can't see what's going on? Or why trust that nothing can go wrong with the lowest bidder? I would leave someone behind for emergencies.
After 25 years of reusable ships, we have returned to waste. Why? And on the subject, why haven't they thought about how to use some of the waste they have made over time. The shuttle is getting ready for it's 126th flight, with 134 flights planned before retirement. That is 134 destroyed external tanks. At 153 feet tall, and almost 3 stories thick, you are talking about 20,502 feet if you lined them up end to end. 553,554 cubic feet of wasted space. Couldn't there have been some way to keep them up in orbit, linked them together for something? You would think with a little modifications after taking the tank up, you could design something. And even Skylab's main laboratory was just an open tank. Seems like a lot of lost planning and opportunities.
8 of the 9 final shuttle missions will be dedicated to finishing the International Space Station. All of this work to finish supplying materials to the station by 2010, so the station could be completed by 2011...to be abandoned by 2015. There is a plan in effect for the destruction of the space station. Again, waste. With thoughts of going back to the moon, why not find a way to get this deeper into space? Then if a event like Apollo 13 happens again, there is a safe haven, say close to half way. A safe place to stop until help arrives. But again, no one thinks of things like this. It is easier to throw away than to plan to keep.
Finally, in a time when Star Trek and Star Wars are big. Why hasn't anyone gotten inspiration on these? Why not build a ship that stays in orbit? Why not have this ship go back and forth? That way you would only need small ships to get you from surface to ship and vice versa? It is more reusable. It could have modules that could easily be switched (hey, you have big arms on the station), that way you could customize the missions. You could carry more payload in one trip, taking less trips to build the moon base. Once the design was completed and proven, you could build a second one with more shielding for the missions to Mars.
I don't know, maybe it's just wishful thinking. Wanting it all, wanting the world to be safe, and wanting people to think.
Through my college years, I attended seminars about the environment, saving the wetlands, global warming, and the dangers of plastic. Here it is 20 years later and now more people are becoming concerned. The problem is that it has become worse than the experts predicted. With plastic invading the food chain, litter everywhere, and the North Pacific Gyre, AKA The Plastic Vortex, AKA Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which has a density of 6 times to 1 of plankton. In case you missed it:
But yet, our society is a disposable society. For us, it is easier to throw things away, than it is to recycle or reuse. Manufacturers have it more convenient for us to be disposable. Overpackaging became an issue. More trash. It was the easiest way. But after 30 years, what have we learned? We are still talking about what needs to be done, instead of doing something about it. Yes, grocery stores are beginning to bring in reusable bags just to say they are green. Making you purchase bags to save the environment. Is that still helping? It's still like hiding the paper bags under the counter. Instead of the manufacturers or the retailers taking any of the responsiblity, they have shifted the responsibility to the consumer and said that they are "going green". It is still up to you to buy the bags, and remember to bring them in. Plastic is still the readily available weapon of choice. What has that brought us?
Even if we can think of changing our ways, can we get away from making the same mistakes. SciFi's "Battlestar Galactica" had it right when they said, "All this has happened before, it will happen again." Thirty years of warnings and no changes. But just throwing away and littering doesn't stop there. Living this close to NASA, where all the top minds work, what have I learned?
As the Space Shuttle program comes to an end, a new beginning is starting, or is it? Back in the late 70s, NASA wanted to create a ship that was reusable. To a degree, they accomplished their mission. A vessel that is about 2/3rds reusable. But now is time for the shuttle to retire, and we want to go back to the moon and beyond. But the problem is how? NASA is still full of people from our disposable society, and they can't think of anything different. So, what have they come up with? The Constellation project with the main powerhorse being the Ares rockets. Bigger than the Saturn rockets that first took us to the moon, but now it will require two rockets.... One Saturn put up the Lunar Excursion Module and the Command Module. Now it will take the Ares I to take up the people and the Orion Crew Vehicle. Then the Ares V will blast off unmanned with the Altair Lunar Lander. Now granted, the Ares V has the reusable shuttle solid rocket boosters, but all in all, a majority of both rockets will be destroyed before leaving Earth's orbit. And again, only a size slightly larger than the Apollo Command Module will be returning to Earth. Lots of waste. Then you have the Altair Lunar Lander. It is bigger than the Apollo Landers, but again, less than a third of the ship will return to from the Moon's surface. Not only are we littering Earth, we have plans to return to the Moon to begin littering there once again.
To top everything off, one of the astronauts once said something about sitting on top of a machine to propel him into space with 1000s of parts being assembled by the lowest bidder. The new moon missions will have EVERYONE on the ship land on the moon. The Crew Module will stay up in orbit, unmanned, on remote. I remember one of the last automated Mars missions that crashed into the surface. If that is a possibiltiy, why would you want to have your only chance for survival being left in the hands of someone who can't see what's going on? Or why trust that nothing can go wrong with the lowest bidder? I would leave someone behind for emergencies.
After 25 years of reusable ships, we have returned to waste. Why? And on the subject, why haven't they thought about how to use some of the waste they have made over time. The shuttle is getting ready for it's 126th flight, with 134 flights planned before retirement. That is 134 destroyed external tanks. At 153 feet tall, and almost 3 stories thick, you are talking about 20,502 feet if you lined them up end to end. 553,554 cubic feet of wasted space. Couldn't there have been some way to keep them up in orbit, linked them together for something? You would think with a little modifications after taking the tank up, you could design something. And even Skylab's main laboratory was just an open tank. Seems like a lot of lost planning and opportunities.
8 of the 9 final shuttle missions will be dedicated to finishing the International Space Station. All of this work to finish supplying materials to the station by 2010, so the station could be completed by 2011...to be abandoned by 2015. There is a plan in effect for the destruction of the space station. Again, waste. With thoughts of going back to the moon, why not find a way to get this deeper into space? Then if a event like Apollo 13 happens again, there is a safe haven, say close to half way. A safe place to stop until help arrives. But again, no one thinks of things like this. It is easier to throw away than to plan to keep.
Finally, in a time when Star Trek and Star Wars are big. Why hasn't anyone gotten inspiration on these? Why not build a ship that stays in orbit? Why not have this ship go back and forth? That way you would only need small ships to get you from surface to ship and vice versa? It is more reusable. It could have modules that could easily be switched (hey, you have big arms on the station), that way you could customize the missions. You could carry more payload in one trip, taking less trips to build the moon base. Once the design was completed and proven, you could build a second one with more shielding for the missions to Mars.
I don't know, maybe it's just wishful thinking. Wanting it all, wanting the world to be safe, and wanting people to think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
