Beastie's Babbles part 3

[Beastie]

Ok so absolutely NO ONE replied to last week's topic. Maybe people were sick of the ordeal, as it was also discussed in other parts of the forums. I can deal. So this week I go to something completely different. While I love this little problem, it is more a mind game than a debate. Still, check it out!

Three sales-people are out on business and stop in at a local hotel for the evening. The bell hop takes their bags and also takes care of the fee for their stay. He tells them that the price for three people is $30. He collects an even thirty dollars, runs the bags to the room, and takes the money to the boss.
The boss is angry, for he is running an advertised sale. The cost for three people over-nite is $25, not $30. He scolds the bell hop and tells him he needs to go refund the remaining $5. The bell hop, pouting on his way back to the room thinks to himself 'I am no dummy, hell they didn't even TIP me, I am only refunding them a buck each', and places the remaining into his pocket. He gets away with the loot, punishment-free.

So I ask you all this...
How much did each guest pay for his/her room?
Well, each originally paid $10, however each was refunded a dollar, so $9.

The bellhop kept $2 for himself.

3 x $9 = $27
Add the $2 in the bell hops pocket and we get $29.

Where is the missing dollar?

[GRITS]

you must have been a carnival barker in a previous life...or a politician:D
I will let it go for a day or two...you fast talker you but I hope others catch on... I bet Wha? will be the first to answer hehehehe

[GRITS]

threatened by my comment about Wha? I see....friendly competition is always good for the soul.

[Wha?]

I wasn't going to answer because I had solved it before (I love MindTrap, screw the suggested game, just sit and read/solve each card by yourself). I was lucky to be fresh out of an accounting class, so I saw the error rather quickly. It would just kill everybody else's fun.

Not that that old chestnut would have lasted long anyway.

::PostScript::
If anybody has mindtrap (maybe even mindtrap 2) on them, that would make a great thread.
I've forgotten most of the answers by now anyway.

[Wha?]

A game that you're *supposed* to play with other people, in which they have to answer questions on little cards that are read aloud to them, and stuff like that. Lots of lateral thinking involved.

[PIX]

Screw the math...where can you get a room for $8.33????
Sounds like a per-hour deal here. :wub:

[Beastie]

It's called Beastie's Apartment. It's decked out with an extra room featuring an air matress, an empty bar, and a working Vintage Full Size Quarter Taking 1986 Arkanoid Video Game Machine!

For an extra few bucks I will drive around and point out all of the more expensive rooms in town. I will even tell you about what they run on most weekends :D I had to know that for a job I had when I got out here.




Most of you have an open invite.

Beastie

[Beastie]

Beastie's Babbles tipic #iamnotsure.

Did you know that there is a rich woman in New York?
Did you know that the city made her that way?
Did you know that you can jump in front of a train and then sue the city?

I first learned of this a year or so ago, and I question the system since.

This woman decided her life was no longer worth living, and that she would commit suicide. Since it's always good to go out with a bang, she decided to throw herself out onto a subway track as a train came towards her at near full speed.

The damn train did not kill her.

Instead, while severely injured some jackal (lawyer) approached her and convinced her that since the train was going faster than city guidelines allowed, she was entitled to a settlement. She was awarded almost 8 million dollars at city expense, for the train was indeed a little fast.

She wanted to end it all and now her life is easier than mine! Not to sound like a tyrant here, but couldn't we just award her what she wanted to begin with? Yeah, let's kill her with a train!! And her lawyer, too the way I see it.

1. Is this woman truly entitled to anything?
2. Can we put faith in our justice system?
3. How can we dampen the overabundance of senseless lawsuits?

more to come later in the week on this topic.

[jabbahunt]

or should they put fences up so people cant jump,push or fall in front of the train.
Probably the best advice is the same if you shoot a burglar in your yard, make sure he is dead and drag him back in the house, so maybe the train driver should have back up>

[g-boy]

Yeah, frivolous lawsuits suck... there was a guy who repeatedly shot his neighbor's dog with a BB gun, tortured the poor thing (which was chained up in the lawn). He got too close to the dog, it attacked him, and he sued the owners and won. There was another guy who crashed his Winnebago because he set it on cruise control and went in back to take a leak... he won that case of course, because they apparently didn't specify that cruise control is not autopilot. We are rewarding people for stupidity? Come on!

[jabbahunt]

I remember that bago incident in texas, stupid, stupid.

[Wha?]

WARNING: Not for the sarcastically challenged. For external use only. Post is not a food product and should not be ingested. In the event of ingestion, consult a medical professional. Keep away from children. Post may cause suffocation in infants and should not be used to line a crib or other place where you store your children while they ripen.

Those with eyes thet don't like moving back and forth A LOT should turn back now. You have been warned. (ie. now I can't be sued for anything but slander, though doing so would be an admittance of incompetance and a dash of intrafamily gene mixing) Alternately, you can use that thingy waaaay over there ---> It's called a "scroll bar", and you can use this "scroll bar" to "scroll" to the bottom of the post, where the answers to the actual questions lie. This top bit is more of a rant.

Remember: YOU=WARNED

I don't know how some of these people walk out of the court room alive: those benches have sharp corners, and I'm not sure, but I hear the scissors are infact NOT of the safety kind (*gasp!*). Not only that, but the cycle of litigation from sueing the court for the neglegent allowance of paper capable of paper cuts in the court room, not having a proportionate jury of the stupids to normals, and futile beatings by the balif who screams while their brain trys to commit seppuku with a ballpoint pen. Somewhere, somebody must've decided to make a high-publicity prank out of something stupid, and asked a friend to act as a random person being sued, while the first guy makes up some really ludicrous story to present to the court. Unfortunately, instead of demonstrating a fictional low of intelligence, the pair just uncovered a somehow self-sustinant society of beings who sold their intelligence for a slice of pie. Rumor has it that whoever sold them the pie (bill gates?) just asked them a question, and while they tried to remember how to remember an answer, took the slice, and sold it to the next sucker-to-be. Had this kickass prank never happened, the sub-intelligent would have never taught their young how to sue, instead of self-preservation. Now whenever one trips, they sue the city for having things protruding from the ground, instead of sticking their hands out. Choking on their breakfast cereal, they would sue the dairy farmers and the cereal company for producing products without labels decreeing "CHOKING HAZARD", but they're too busy suffocating to gag, or otherwise indicate that they happen to be in dire need of a Heimlich maneuver.

I don't see the real point of allowing cases like this go anywhere. If it were up to me (and it should be<_<) I would have every court room put up a sign at the exit after the Moronic Side of The Force (plaintifs is it? bah, I'll just call them Captain Stupid and the Idiots of the Future!) wins, declaring exit of the room to cost a toll of however much they won. What are they gonna do? Sue the people who decide whether they win anything or get sentenced to a lifetime of greeting people outside a Wal-Mart? Since they only know how to sue or pay money for things, nobody loses anything, and the world is a happy place.

Although, with a cool 8,000,000 US dollars, a member of the genetic wading pool (next to the real one) could buy an intellect on eBay, and could leave their current one on cinder blocks in the front yard. Or they could get scammed by the people who lost the money the next time they go pay their subway fare or buy some chicken nuggets (now with 100% less whole chicken heads!!) at McDonalds.
*knock knock*
"Hello?"
"Hi there, I'm Mr. Guy from your power company, this months consumption was.. let's see here... ah! eight million dollars."
"Will you take a cheque?"
See? Easy as a blonde backstage at a rock show. I'm sure if you looked in their local newspaper, they would be trying to sue the neighbours kid for cutting their grass when they distinctly asked for it to be mowed, or for putting ice in the lemonade purchased at the card table 'stand', because it lodged in their throat when they forgot it's not possible to breathe while swallowing. They may even be sueing the credit card company for not issueing the new, upgraded card after the guy on the phone needed the number on their current one to properly convert the account. A fool and their money are soon parted, so somebody who'd sue over spilt coffee ought to lose the money so fast, they're in debt before they get paid.



To answer the questions,
1. No. You try to die (and fail), all you should get is psychiatric help.
2. No. No one can until there is some way of replacing defective (ie. stupid) judges (the real culprits, they make the rulings, and could easily have the lawyer put up in an asylum) with good ones (the kind who put the lawyers in asylums) like you would do to a burnt out light bulb. Hold on, a memory is surfacing... they don't use judges? Only juries composed of WHAT?! PEERS?? Well then you should be able to sue the city/state/country as often, and for as much as you want. They were obviously not only stupid first, but a whole new LEVEL of stupid first. To me, that sounds like a challenge.
Well, whatever they use,
3. Wait, didn't I answer this already?

Some more tales (well, flaming) of stupidity can be found here, at The Seanbaby Probe. For more sarcasm, be sure to check out The Best Page In The Universe

[Beastie]

Beastie's Babbles topic #..... idunno... 7?

Ok I didn't get the full story on this, for they were simply talking about it on Howard Stern a few mornings ago. But I feel the definite need to bring it up on my little babbles deally.

Apparently some professor had filed a complaint with her Community College's board where she worked with a colleague she felt uncomfortable working with. She was uncomfortable because when her colleague interacted with her, he would never make any eye contact with her, and instead speak with his eyes on her chest!!

When news leaked of this complaint, a number of other women spoke up about similar discomfort. Staff and students alike piled on and this gained the school some bad publicity. The offending professor was deemed a problem. He was fired from his position at the community college with no recourse, and now will have trouble getting any sort of job at all. Unless maybe he pursues radio, a phone job, or research from his own home maybe. How could this guy have defended himself? What violation did he break?

In any case... what does this all mean? I certainly can see both sides, but I see trouble in each.

As a speech communications major I understand the importance of eye contact. Also that in some cultures it is considered rude to make eye contact during conversation. As a male, I also know that I like looking at women's chests. Call this guy a pervert if you want, but he and I may just head down to the titty bar if he ever makes it to Vegas! If I have to defend my natural urge to look at girls, then maybe we should all wear giant cloaks to hide our body features. Maybe we should all live like the iraqu's pre-war GUYS TOO!

Back to this fired professor ..... it may be his unusual inability to contain himself, it may be a communications disorder, it may be something else altogether. In any case, does this guy deserve to be fired?

What ever happened to the idea that as long as you look but don't touch, you will be ok? They did say on Howard that he had no record of any previous harassment or sexual deviance. He was simply let go because his eyes wandered a bit too much. Maybe it's just me, but I think perhaps this woman should have sought a transfer if she was uncomfortable. How do we draw this line? Do I have to stare at the floor now at work?

Before I rant any further about this, I will open it up to you all. I will probably voice a bit more later on.

Beastie

[GRITS]

Give me a link I wanna read the article before I reply about that incident and his firing. I will say it becomes very distracting in a professional setting if you dont feel like someone is paying attention to what you are saying.....it is hard to believe someone is thinking about budget cuts when they have elevator eyes.
Its a matter of respect...seriously think how you would feel if a woman stared at your crotch the whole time you were speaking...would you feel as if she had your problem on her mind? I will tell you something I find very uncomfortable is when a man grabs himself while I am speaking with him....yeah I know its a habit for most but by a certain age you should have learned that it isnt going anywhere so stop checking to see if it is still there. :blink:

[g-boy]

Well, it's one of those gender biases. It is also that neither sex understands the other at all. For a woman to say she's uncomfortable and he needs to control himself is sort of naive, you have to understand how guys work. We look... it is really hard not to, and it's not even a sexual thing for the most part. That being said, if a dude just stands and stares very obviously during the whole conversation, then it is more about a problem with attention than perversion. If he keeps looking every so often, especially if she has a decently sized chest, then I don't necessarily blame him.

The problem lies in the fact that girls/women can look at a guy without looking like they are looking. Guys, on the other hand, are obvious, and will turn their whole head and even the body. I will notice when I'm walking with friends at Six Flags that the girls will suddenly say "damn, he was hot" and they didn't even seem to move their eyes. Guys, on the other hand, will have to search, and I noticed a hot chick walk by these two guys, they turned their heads, and as she walked past them, they turned around and watched for a few seconds.

Anyway, no, he shouldn't have been fired, it could have been looked into more. Just the fact that this woman made a stink over it gives me the idea that she's a bit uptight. One of those women who thinks every man is a pig (or beast for that matter). My question is, if he was like making an effort not to look, like at the lights or a table or something, would she have felt uncomfortable? And by the way, no matter how much men like body parts, the face is still the number one priority, and especially the eyes and lips. So if he stares at her eyes and thinks "wow, what beautiful eyes" and then probes her face, and has sexual thoughts, is that any worse than staring at her chest just because he is marvelling at the size and shape? Obviously it's a cultural thing, it's not impolite to look at someone's face when talking to them, but you get my point. You also have to look at intent... this guy was not doing it to make her feel uncomfortable, or to make any advances. By the way, grits, I don't think a guy would mind a woman staring at any of his body parts, he'd be flattered. It's one of those things where if a guy tells a girl she has a nice ass, he'll get slapped or something, whereas if a girl did it to a guy, he'd say thanks and be on his way, enjoying the compliment. Although I get your point, it may seem like she's not listening. But here's the important thing... people will never talk. Talk about bad communication, I get the interpretation that she never expressed her problems with him. He could have apologized, said he'd try harder not to look, he was listening though, and next time she shouldn't show so much cleavage.

[GRITS]

I am still not going to reply to the specifics until I know them...for all I know she had no clevage...he might be insecure and was looking 'down' not really at her breasts. But we are not talking about 'glances' or 'checking her out' I believe they are making it out like he may have had a habit of this if so many people complained...while I believe it should have followed regular protocol and he be given a warning not fired if this is the first infraction...it does not appear that this is a matter of just admiring these women with a glance....I agree men will look..... so will women..... but as a professional he should be able to 'control' himself...a glance is one thing staring to where it makes a woman uncomfortable is another....lets remember these are professionals in the work place... why would you believe that a man would appreciate me staring at his crotch as we discussed how the data that I had for him on his research project...I dont believe he would trust that I was serious about his research if my mind was wondering around below the belt. I do agree men tend to be more flattered than women with eye compliments...but immaturity is not a good excuse..there is a time and place to be in control of your urges....a work environment....... if for no other reason than all the shit that comes back on you guys like this, should be one of those times you make the effort. Just because a woman dresses to accent her figure does not mean she wants to be oggled....and it does not mean she is uptight if she becomes uncomfortable...I dont know the specifics on this story so I am trying to generalize...
This is a new millenium lets try to work past the stereotypes and show a little mutual respect to the opposite sex.

[jabbahunt]

Both women and men only want to be looked at by those they want to be noticed by.

[PIX]

You look her in the eyes when she's talkin not at her noobers. Women HATE that! It's gonna be funny when alot of you
young guys have to go out into the real world and get real jobs and your boss is a ball breaking woman. Just try that
noober staring thing with her and see how well your performance review goes. I think professional women with corporate power
are HOT and I actually wanna hear wut they have to say.

[GRITS]

Both women and men only want to be looked at by those they want to be noticed by.

I agree...but since we can not put blinders on the other people we have to learn to show respect.
No one is saying a person who dresses nicely, doesnt want to be 'noticed'. Still not real sure what this woman wore...maybe it wasnt 'professional' attire, but it happens enough to women who dress appropriately too. it does not condon the mentality.......if she is dressed provocative she is asking to be raped..... I know some women show little respect for themselves with the way they dress, these are psychological issues she has to deal with. I am not sure I can defend some 'outfits' that I have seen at the work place. But it still does not give a professional the right to gawk....yeah I have seen women do it to other women even....doesnt make it ok...it is still wrong in the work place.
I dress appropriately at work...but have had roving eyes on more than one occassion...I demand that a man pay attention to what I am saying, which means I dont let my eyes wander...not even to the lights or a table and I pause until I know I have his attention and his eyes have stopped wandering.....then I guess that could lose me my job because I can tell that it makes the guy uncomfortable....the most times I have ever had to do it was twice....most guys catch on without verbally having to tell them they are being rude. Then again if I walk out of a cold room and it is obvious through my shirt that it was a cold room...I put my lab coat on....it is not fair to expect things to be ignored either...but that is where the respect for myself comes in...as wrong as I think it is for a man to 'stare' it is also my responsibility to maintain a professional work environment.
Learn a little covert glancing earn a little respect for yourself.:thumb:

[Beastie]

Article


Well it took a while to track down, but this is what I found. It's fairly unbiassed in nature as far as it can go. They tend to focus on the compliants of course, but they did try and get the offendor, who is not a professor but a chancellor. This of course does make it more sensetive since he is in an authority position.

Talk amongst yourselves, I will remain out a bit longer B) I like and wait to take my stances. On these babbles, I often will try and argue the underdog side just for sake of discussion. I may only give my inner most beliefs if asked in private.

[jabbahunt]

And its not just that he does this, its that and other problems, which in any chancellor position can be blown up depending on how the school is doing financially. I do like the quote "alignment of vision" having fallen. The dude as a chancelor should be able to keep his eyes up at school and with $235,000 a yr save it for the strip clubs.