Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
I really don't understand why someone who is supposedly interested in leading a "bon vivant" lifestyle is eating at mcdonalds. that's just plain sad. you sound like you need both a slap upside the head and a hug.
"Bon vivant" means different things to different people. Simply traveling and enjoying culture (ones that interest me) is bon vivant enough for some. I use frequent flyer tickets which I accumulate from domestic travel to go overseas, I stay in 3 and 4 star hotels, preferably newer ones belonging to chains, and I eat in the dive type places locals patronize. You would be surprised what amazing food you can find if you throw away the upmarket travel books and roll up your sleeves. I am always scouring for specials and usually find them.
Also, when the "2 Big Macs for $4" special is on, how can you beat that?
And, thanks, s-d-d, but I don't need a father figure.
shoot - I thought I scared you off. ;-)
around here mcdonalds is called "mcshameburger" - you only go in there if you are down on your luck. maybe it isn't such a huge social faux pas in your neck of the woods, but around here it's were you go for lunch after you've been pan-handling all morning.
It's not a social faux pas. If you are on the interstate, rural interchanges in the middle of nowhere typically only have fast food options or cheap chain coffee shops, as opposed to coffeehouses. Is this London you speak of? If so, it's much more pretentious than the U.S. A suit can go get a fast food burger in NY, LA, or Atlanta for lunch without thinking twice about it.
About Asiana, some pictures now shown on-line are also disturbing. They currently show images at SFO of United heavies, for which the airport is a huge UA nonstop hub to Asia and Oceania, taxiing next to the wreckage. Asiana and United are both members of Star Alliance. I hope they move the wreck sooner than later.
McDonald's invariably makes me ill but I still have this insane pattern of eating there once or twice a year. It's like cut-me-own-throat dribbler and his pies, that place.
I've been to a few in USA that sound like what toaster descr
...what toaster describes (stupid iPhone). Not so surprising but not normal I think ?
Watch Morgan Spurlock's film Supersize Me.
I'm in new england...
there's also the disdain for non-local chains which might be feeding into it - but people generally know that places like McDs are bad for you and try not to eat there - it's the "food" of last resort. we do love our dunkin' donuts (which is based here) - however I rarely see people get the food there - only coffee.
Observant...I was thinking Grand Father....Figure...or Christ Like Figure...Cartoon Legend Figure....
If I recall correctly the last time I ate at a Mc Dee's I tossed my cookies. Think it was the girl working behind the counter. She knew me and musta tossed something on the bun. We had a bad breakup, and I should have seen it coming.
Like Observant I like to eat with the Locals, but I do have a stomach of Iron. My Thai high school friend used to cook up the wildest things in his dorm room which I of course always tried.
I also love Indian Food
I also love Greek Food
I can't say I'm Crazy about beeef and kidney pie.
I'm Crazy about home cooked Chinese Food. My neighbor is a Chinese Chef and she is a killer cook...but I still haven't done the Chicken Feet thing. But she is always ask with a big smile.
I really don't look up to anyone. I never have. On this forum, I learned the term architectural atheist. That's a stretch. But I like the term architectural agnostic. I was one of those from the day I began a-school. I realized there were good architects or, should I say, good work done by some architects, but that they too sit on the toilet bowl and use tissue to wipe themselves, thus precluding them from being gods.
observant looks up to me. he just doesn't want to say it because he thinks it would embarrass me. that's ok.
No, curt, I find the way you process most things and your general sensibilities to be sharply dichotomous from mine, so I find you entertaining in that way. Or, I could be completely off in my read of you over cyberspace.
Yo mommas wooden leg gots stole by Mies VanDeRohe
observant: Wiping is for interns.
I hope I'm entertaining...cause I always told myself when I became registered I would bag it and go back to Painting and Sculptor. It has not happened. I dabble but nothing to knock your socks off kind of great. So now I have become a dimensioning addict. All Architects know what that is. So I have no room to judge anyone else in the profession except when my design wins over their design. Then I feel good, Hell it even feels good when you come in the top ten in a design competition when over a thousand have been submitted. You know the winner is always rigged. On the other hand they are seriously looking at what your doing. Carry on Yo mommas...I thought he was the Cello guy.
Mais non. Ce n'est pas vrai. Tout le monde a un cul sale.
save! [TC almost fell off...]
i saw donna yesterday. she's awesome.
Not as awesome as you, Steven. Today I was crabby because we had to bust ass all day to get the gallery hung, and the students were horseplaying and generally being teenagers. But it all got done and I am reminded that teens are fleeting and lovely. And the gallery looks great.
i had fun talking to donna's students.
got to show off this project: http://archinect.com/studiokremer/project/moremen-chapel-renovation-and-addition
...one of the few for which we've ever actually hired a photographer!
we're excited about it.
looks great, sw. didn't you have sd's of this when we were at the idea fest in 2008?
yep, probably. cds were complete in 2009 and then (economy) it SAT for 2+yrs. then they came back and said 'GO!'
Oh my god. Trayvon Martin's murderer found not guilty. He walks. And Trayvon's poor parents suffer forever, not as if they weren't already, but now they've been denied justice as well. What a fucking disappointment.
I hereby nominate Bradley Manning, who will no doubt spend the rest of his life in jail, for the Nobel Peace Prize. But I doubt he'll get it after they gave one to BO for ramping up the war in Afghanistan.
Adolf Eichmann was prosecuted for and convicted of crimes against humanity. Eichmann's defense? He was following orders. Manning is being prosecuted for failing to participate in crimes against humanity and more pointedly for exposing those crimes.
Nuremberg Principle VII: Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
Expose the systematic violation of the law and the constitution (Manning & Snowden) and you're a dead man, but expose an undercover CIA agent (Valerie Plame) for political gain and you go scot-free (Dick Cheney) or get a slap on the wrist and have your sentence commuted by the president (Scooter Libby).
George Zimmerman getting off is less shocking than OJ Simpson, to me, getting off in his criminal trial in the 90s. That angered me far more. Juries are instructed to decide based on the tenets of the law. They came back for more clarification on the crime of manslaughter, meaning that they were deliberating the ingredients of the crime and their applicability toward that crime. Zimmerman's fate lay in the hands of all female jury, all of whom were mothers, I believe, so they know how losing a child is life's number 1 stressor. One could play the race card, and say 5 of them were white, but why bother? Sure, a teenager is gone, but it's not a clear story, given some (perceived) degree of antagonism, from what I've read. I'm just glad it's over and didn't became a media circus, like OJ Simpson and Scott Peterson, where even Gloria Allred got her fingers in the pie by representing Amber Frey. I guess the boredom in California's Central Valley leads to some crazy things. I once heard a radio commentary on the absurd teen pregnancy rate in the CV, because when it's 104, dry, and desolate, there's nothing to do besides boink.
on meet the press this morning it sounded like there was no chance he would ever be found guilty, cuz the burden of proof is to show the killer didn't feel like his life was in danger. no one could prove that. crazy.
so now as long as there are no witnesses its totally cool to chase some guy down for no good reason, start a fight, and then when it looks like you might lose, shoot the dude dead. and the law and precedent will say all is cool. amazing. what kind of country thinks thats the way things should be?
Exactly, Will. I can attack some random guy, and as soon as I feel like I might lose the fight I can shoot him to "protect" myself.
On another topic, I've identified a major reason my job is challenging: I don't get to have any contact with the actual client. This is distressing for an architect.
Gotta support the gun industry. This does it in multiple ways: increases fear and demonstrates legality of use.
If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot 'em?
that sounds frustrating, donna (the client thing - the gun stuff is plain incomprehensible)
it was national holiday here today. i went to office for meeting and was glad to have made the time for it. I can't tell if the hard times are easing up at all but things at least are becoming more interesting. More confusing is whether our current situation has anything to do with us, or if its the government stimulus stirring things up...
I think the jury did what they were supposed to do in the trial. They followed the lay. I'm not sure why he wasn't found guilty of some other sort of accidental death thing, like when you hit someone with a car, or something, though. It does suck that there will be no repercussions for his actions.
anyone else work most of Sat? getting ready for big project go-live/upgrade this Friday at work...
nice looking project Steven!
Thanks, Nam. It's nice to feel proud of one like this. What I like best about it is that it's pretty simple and quiet.
i bet zimmerman becomes a fox news correspondent now. i can't see anyone else willing to associate with someone like him.
amazing. what kind of country thinks thats the way things should be?
Imagine if the state did not have to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a way to limit wrongful convictions. The state dropped the ball on this one by over charging him. They should have went for negligent homicide.
I do agree that as the aggressor (Zimmerman) he should have either had the ability to handle a possible physical confrontation (as any reasonable person could assume that a physical confrontation could have occurred) or he should have never engaged this kid in the first place. He clearly acted negligently by confronting someone when he knew that he was armed, and that he may have to resort to his gun because he was unable to handle a physical altercation with out lethal force. The fact that he had some martial arts training, and that he was really bad at it, is also evidence that he understood his physical limitations.
there was never a question of whether zimmerman killed martin, so that wasn't part of what the prosecutor had to prove.
i'm sure someone will correct me if i'm wrong, but florida law was interpreted in this case to mean the prosecution had to prove zimmerman was not afraid, or some other word similar to 'afraid.' zimmerman shot martin because losing the altercation was scary, and he thought he could get hurt, and in florida that means deadly force is allowable.
i believe the case should have factored in the surrounding events, such as zimmerman leaving his car in the rain with a gun after a police dispatcher told him it was unnecesary to pursue his suspect. what else was he going to do with the gun? seems to me that shows some intent to kill, but then i wasn't on the jury or the prosecutor's team.
rather than 'convicting' martin in absentia, shouldn't they also have considered whether he was afraid and therefore eligible to stand his ground?
my understanding of this interpretation of florida law was that you can kill someone if you're afraid you will get hurt, or something like that. i would assume that means if trayvon martin was afraid, they both have a right to kill the other. i suppose zimmerman was just more capable of standing his ground due to the fact he was armed and had the general disposition that killing kids is an OK thing to do.
of course, there have been cases where people were sent to jail for discharging a firearm, even when scared. you can't have a civil society or community of any sort that says it's ok to murder each other, even if you might be afraid.
I don't know, Curt. If a man was in my house, threatening me and my son, I would hope that would justify me shooting him, if I had to. That said, I am a runner and a hider when it comes to my flight or fight response. I think about situations like this all the time. You can't have a civil society if people feel powerless.
If it had been the other way round and the one holding the gun at the end was black I get the feeling the trial would have come out differently.
How the guy got into the situation is not so important to the law I am sure but there seems little common sense in the whole deal. Seems perfect set up for gang hits and other bouts of murder.
Ie All those crazy celebrity murders could be redone. You killed John Lennon? Was he scaring you? Was he looking all scruffy when you started stalking him? Sounds like you needed to stabd your ground. No problem.
Punch a cop in the face and when he pulls a gun you needed to blast away? No problem. That's called standing your ground.
There must be rules that make all the above impossible. It sure seems like pretty much the deal in this case though. Pretty befuddling.
in your cases will, the other person isn't there to testify. you can make up anything you want, unless someone was nearby with google glass and willing to share (or other evidence).
sarah, i think there is an important difference between being somewhere, and then being threatened, and having to defend yourself compared to arming yourself and then going out looking for trouble. in this case, zimmerman created the problem.
you shouldn't be able to walk up to a person, claim to be threatened, and kill them. even if you taunt them to draw them into a fight (especially when you have a firearm and you know the other person doesn't), and use that as an excuse to murder them. its just wrong.
The one thing that bothers me the most about this is why he didn't just fire a warning shot? How could anyone just shoot an unarmed person without at least trying to scare them away first?
Agreed. Zimmerman totally created his issue. The cops even told him to stand down, and leave it to him. He went all vigilante. I do wonder if there will be any sort of blow-back from this. I mean, we need laws that say you have to PROVE the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We also need laws that allow someone to protect themselves, even if deadly force is the only option. But we need laws that prevent people from picking fights, killing someone, and then claiming self-defense.
I don't know what the answer will be.
Well yeah curtkram that's the point. As long as Lennon ends up dead and no one was there to witness the actual fight all they need to do is bloody their face a bit before the cops show up. It can't be that simple can it? In Florida the killer doesn't even have to testify for fcuk's sake. It's amazing.
Hm maybe that's why dexter is in Florida (isn't he?)?
I don't think that if the skin color were reserved, it would have mattered. I was on a jury within the last handful of years and the defendant was black, though it was not a serious crime, relatively speaking. He was not convicted. It comes down to interpretation of the ingredients of the actions versus the definition of the crime. The issue was, again, *beyond a reasonable doubt.* Keep in mind that most of the jurors were mothers, and their maternal instinct to protect a teenager would have superseded their interest in getting a white guy off the hook. The first thing you learn in a university commercial law course is IRAC: issue, reasoning, application, and conclusion. That's how they are theoretically supposed to move forward jury deliberations.
Stopping the traffic on the freeway in L.A. or doing "two wrongs to make it right" elsewhere doesn't work. There have been questionable verdicts, such as the ones dealing with Rodney King and O.J. Simpson, both black men - they both went in opposite directions from what was expected by most. What about Casey Anthony's acquittal in Florida? That was pretty recent. No race card was involved. Yet most seem to have forgotten that. We weren't sitting in the jury room for that one, either.
Something like this, which made national news, hasn't happened in at least a decade. We shouldn't focus on this, because of media hype such as "The View," and move on.
In law, the only color that really matters is green.
Hello, Thread Central!
Remember me? Well, it's been about 2 years since I was an active participant on Archinect's forum. And, well, I just missed you guys so have decided to make my return.
I believe the last comment I wrote was right before I was leaving for Cuba for my M. Arch thesis research. Needless to say when I returned to the US, I was knee deep in finishing my M.Arch and my MSRE (Real Estate Development and Investment) degree. The last two years have been...ummmmm...sleepless. But, alas, I now have two degrees and am working in the development + construction world.
I've realized one thing (for better or worse) - I love architecture and am very passionate about design; however, I can't see myself ever working at an architecture firm again. I feel my strengths are better served in real estate development. So, it's now my MO to make sure we build responsibly, respond contextually, and construct some damn fine buildings. I'm making slow steps but everyone has to start somewhere.
I've also decided to forego the ARE exams. All that meticulous documentation of IDP for nothing. I know, I know. I just don't have it in me to get licensed when it will have little impact on my long term goals at this point.
Anyway, I look forward to becoming an active user again and talking design/shit talking NCARB.
n_______________________________________________________________!!! i was just listening to a copy of the cd i sent you. i have the vado retro bird you made me on my desk!
Ah, man! I want something made by an archinector!
N_, you left out the most important part of your story. HOW WAS CUBA?!
n_, I still think you should do the license. Why not? But you can do it when you're 50, like Orhan did. Don't we all want to be more like Orhan?!?! I know I do.
I'm glad you're back.
Vado- put a bird on it!
Sarah- Cuba was the best. Honestly, it was one of the most wonderfully unique places I've experienced. I met so many wonderful people, researchers, architects, and academics in such lovely country. And, more importantly, it aided in my passion for my thesis.
Donna (no more Liberty Bell!)- I know, I know. I was determined to become licensed to add a small percentage for the Latina women demographic that is barely (and sadly) represented in the architecture profession. However, I am just wildly disillusioned with the profession and the process as a whole. <sigh> Plus if I'm going the owner/developer route, I could be exposing myself to more liability. Granted, my plan was never to stamp/sign any projects I work on but I have been advised against it because the 'you should have known that flashing detail would leak overtime because you're a licensed architect' argument could hold some weight. We live in such a litigious culture that a few of my mentors recommended against licensure at this time in my career. Maybe when I'm 50.
Hmmm, get licensed at 50, maybe I'll do that too. Just in time for retirement.