Weekend Wrap-up
Just got a few items from this weekend to get to this morning, all coming courtesy of the Boston Globe.
First, from the "If you give it away for free, they will come" files:
Wi-Fi wars
The best line from the story:
Ah, yes, the inalienable right to have somebody else pay for your internet access. I suppose it just depends on your definition of "the pursuit of happiness".
OK, so maybe that sentence was referring to those customers who actually pay a monthly fee for the internet access and refuse to buy a bagel to go with it, but it was too good a quote to pass up, regardless. Mainly, because there are people out there who actually feel that way, that they are, in fact, entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor.
Coffee Shop Marxism: coming soon to a streetcorner near you.
Next up, from the "Why is it called "common-sense" if it's so friggin' uncommon?" files:
Life-away-from-home 101
OK, I don't see these as "street smarts", per se. These are just plain old-fashioned "smarts", as in, "If you do these things, you're just plain stupid." Yet, every year, it seems, we read about another drunk kid from MIT or Harvard who thought it would be "wicked cool" to walk across the "frozen" Charles River.
Oops.
And, when did driver education classes in this country start leaving out the part about reading bridge clearance warning signs? If there's one thing you can set your calendars to, it's the Ryder trucks getting jammed under the Mem. Drive overpasses on the first weekend in September.
I liked this one...
Nice.
And, finally, from the Letters to the Editor:
Just kidding.
I won't presume to have any knowledge as to Mr. Martin's position on the issues of concealed carry and armed self-defense, but his line of reasoning here is used constantly by those on the left fighting for "equal rights", yet is ignored completely when it can be used to by their political opponents for exactly the same purpose.
As much as I support the right to marry for same-sex couples, it's the abject hypocrisy shown by the liberal establishment in this state, when it comes to protecting individual rights, that makes it hard for me to get all worked up over the issue.
You want "rights"? Well, guess what. So do we. As I've said before, the Bill of Rights is not a Chinese take-out menu, from which you get to choose the numbers you find most appealing. It's all or nothing.
I'll take "ALL" for $400, please, Alex.
First, from the "If you give it away for free, they will come" files:
Wi-Fi wars
Some wireless users sneak in their own food with their laptops. Others buy one cup of coffee at 9 a.m. and surf the Net until closing time. And the truly audacious sit for hours without making any pretense of a purchase.
In and around Boston, cafe owners who installed wireless signals to draw customers say they also are drawing Internet users who tie up seats for hours, buy little or nothing, and make coffee shops feel like the office as they tap away at their laptops. Now some owners are fighting back by charging for wireless access, shutting off their signal at peak business hours, or telling loitering laptoppers to shell out or ship out.
The best line from the story:
Some frequent customers at Wi-Fi cafes believe they have a right to surf without purchasing.
Ah, yes, the inalienable right to have somebody else pay for your internet access. I suppose it just depends on your definition of "the pursuit of happiness".
OK, so maybe that sentence was referring to those customers who actually pay a monthly fee for the internet access and refuse to buy a bagel to go with it, but it was too good a quote to pass up, regardless. Mainly, because there are people out there who actually feel that way, that they are, in fact, entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor.
Coffee Shop Marxism: coming soon to a streetcorner near you.
Next up, from the "Why is it called "common-sense" if it's so friggin' uncommon?" files:
Life-away-from-home 101
Don't try to cross the icy Charles River in winter. For heaven's sake, don't hang out on the train tracks. Or put compromising pictures of yourself on Facebook.com. Or succumb to the addictive powers of Texas Hold'em poker.
These warnings for entering college freshmen have popped up at area college orientations during the last couple of years. Officials say that they keep adding new "don'ts" partly because the online world has brought new temptations. But they also say they've become more intent on reviewing every conceivable danger because today's college students, known as the millennial generation because they came of age in the 21st century, have been so coddled by parents that many of them lack basic street smarts.
OK, I don't see these as "street smarts", per se. These are just plain old-fashioned "smarts", as in, "If you do these things, you're just plain stupid." Yet, every year, it seems, we read about another drunk kid from MIT or Harvard who thought it would be "wicked cool" to walk across the "frozen" Charles River.
Oops.
And, when did driver education classes in this country start leaving out the part about reading bridge clearance warning signs? If there's one thing you can set your calendars to, it's the Ryder trucks getting jammed under the Mem. Drive overpasses on the first weekend in September.
"We say [to ourselves], `Wow, what else are we going to have to warn them about? We thought they'd know not to walk across the icy river,' " said Kenneth Elmore , Boston University's dean of students. "They have had their lives very structured and a lot of people hand-holding them. There's a level of recklessness that can occur based on inexperience."
I liked this one...
[Daryl J. DeLuca, director of judicial affairs at Boston University] recalled the two guys who knew to use a towel when they pulled a fire alarm as a prank, to avoid being hit with invisible dye coating the alarm. But then they left the towel in the hall -- with one of their names sewn into the label by a thoughtful mother.
Nice.
And, finally, from the Letters to the Editor:
IT CONTINUES to astound me that individuals think they have a right to tell me or my friends how we should live our lives. If I choose one day to carry a concealed weapon to protect my wife from harm, it truly is of no concern to anybody but the two of us -- period.
We can argue this point over and over, but I know, with all my being, that history will capture the true essence of all those who oppose such a basic and fundamental thing. And won't that be sad.
Just kidding.
IT CONTINUES to astound me that individuals think they have a right to tell me or my friends how we should live our lives. If I choose one day to marry my partner, it truly is of no concern to anybody but the two of us -- period.
We can argue this point over and over, but I know, with all my being, that history will capture the true essence of all those who oppose such a basic and fundamental thing. And won't that be sad.
ROBERT A. MARTIN
Amesbury
I won't presume to have any knowledge as to Mr. Martin's position on the issues of concealed carry and armed self-defense, but his line of reasoning here is used constantly by those on the left fighting for "equal rights", yet is ignored completely when it can be used to by their political opponents for exactly the same purpose.
As much as I support the right to marry for same-sex couples, it's the abject hypocrisy shown by the liberal establishment in this state, when it comes to protecting individual rights, that makes it hard for me to get all worked up over the issue.
You want "rights"? Well, guess what. So do we. As I've said before, the Bill of Rights is not a Chinese take-out menu, from which you get to choose the numbers you find most appealing. It's all or nothing.
I'll take "ALL" for $400, please, Alex.
