Jenksismyhero

We've had a dyson for 6-7 years now. Spent like $500 on it, plus a bunch of attachments. I use it sparingly and couldn't tell you if its great or not compared to other brands/models. It does the job. We have a dog and 2 cats and it deals with pet hair fine and doesn't seem to struggle to pick things up. And we've never had an issue with anything breaking or not working properly. My wife will tell it was worth every penny and then some. She loves that thing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 11:57 AM) There were 28 school shootings reported in 2013. Counting Purdue, there have been 7 so far in 2014, with schools in session for ~14 days. Instant media coverage and notoriety has to be a part of that increase.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 11:52 PM) Looking like another 36+ hour stretch of negative temps next Mon- Wed. Even the best summer city in the world makes it hard to justify this winter This is the first year that I've thought enough is enough. Normally I love winter. I like the look of snow. I like to drive in snow. I prefer 30 degree weather over 90. Maybe i'm getting older now, I dunno. But it's no longer fun. Walking to/from the union station to get to work is downright painful.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jan 23, 2014 -> 10:02 AM) Id hit it. +1

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 04:19 PM) The offense sucks because they have no shooters and no post threat. There is no effective offense to run when you have a center who can't make shots, can't catch the ball and finish on the pick and roll and can't post up and you have no wings that are good 3 pt shooters to space the floor. If I was to complain about Groce's coaching it would be on the other end of the floor where the defense has been really bad during the 4 game losing streak. Ekey is a good shooter. He should shoot a minimum of 10 times a game. There have to be designed plays available to get him some open shots. He's completely underutilized in this offense. Groce keeps calling that stupid high ball screen. It never works. Only 2 of the 5 guys on the floor move - the guy with the ball and the guy setting the pick. Try something else. Try some ball reversals. Try some back door cuts. f***ing try anything. Running Egwu up to the top of the key for a pick in roll works once in 40 tries during a game. Also, teach them to pass the ball. They're 322nd in the country in assists with a little over 10/game. That's pathetic. They're the Weber offense from 3-4 years ago - have one guy stand beyond the 3 pt line, dribble for 30 seconds, and then chuck up a contested jumpshot. If that's their offense, take the Creighton approach and just quickly jack up as many 3's as you can and maybe you get hot and make a bunch. And the defense has been good enough. They sucked at Wisconsin, but 49 against NW, 66 against Purdue and 78 against MSU is good to respectable.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Jan 22, 2014 -> 03:33 PM) Well this year our roster is pretty bad, just way too much turnover to have a real legitimate chance to compete (and none of the freshmen are stepping up to be big time contributors at this point). Going forward we will be much more talented then KSU. My honeymoon with Groce & Co. is just about over. He's not a miracle worker. And there's no guarantee that he'll (a) land the game changing players or (b) coach em up. After the NW and Purdue games i'm questioning just how good of an X's and O's guy he is. Yes, he's relying on a combo guard as a PG, and a incredibly low rated true freshman PG, but still. The fact that we're 4 months into the season and they still can't execute on offense really annoys me. I would actually like to borrow Weber for a game and have him scream "MOVE! MOVE! MOVE!" all game. Maybe that would make a difference. Right now their offense sucks because no one but Egwu moves on offense. And once teams figured out they could clog the lane and Illinois would run no plan B offense, well, we started to lose. Their offensive rankings nationally are atrocious. Given how the season has been going, do they even have what can be considered a quality win?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:37 PM) There are a number of Trans people who would say that the time of their life when they were lying was the part before the gender-change. I acknowledged this. But that still makes it a half truth. And I still think it's just another relevant piece to her back story.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:27 PM) Where she worked and what degrees she had were fabrications she told other people. Not telling other people that she was trans is not a lie or a half-truth. Well, agree to disagree. I don't think someone can just change the past because of their gender issues. She lived a period of her life as a man. That's a fact. To claim in the same period of time that she was female is not telling the truth. It was all part of the fabricated back story that she created.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:27 PM) So if someone asks where he's from in passing conversation, what should he do? He can do whatever he wants to do. A reporter verifying his past should report what he finds.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:25 PM) Hannan could have looked into all of that without 1) divulging it to the investor or 2) including the specifics (she used to be Steven Krohl). Like I said above, I think there is a dilemma there because vetting her claims is what led him to discover this, and then he did have to research who Krohl was in order to fully vet the claims. But the piece really went from "does this putter work, is the science valid?" to "this woman who invented this putter is actually a trans gendered person" and never actually resolved any of the questions about the putter itself. You're the second person to say this. I don't think the story was ever written to verify the science behind it and/or to ask if the putter worked. It was always "where did this putter come from and whats the story behind the person that created it." And the more he dug, the more twists and turns he encountered.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:18 PM) Identifying herself as E. Vanderbilt was not a lie. Her claimed credentials were a lie. The other day I was watching something about Jeffery Dahmer, so I ended up on his wiki page. It said that his brother changed his name and lives in anonymity. Is he telling a "lie" if he goes by his new name? Would it be ethical for a reporter investigating a story unrelated to his brother but who discovered his original name to publish that information? I understand that in this case, the reporter uncovered Dr. V's past identity while trying to trace down Dr. V's credentials (and failing to do so). I think there is an interesting dilemma here, because validating these claimed credentials really was a part of the story and getting the information to check under her former identity is part of the research that he did. It's not a simple issue, and I think it's wrong to dismiss any of the concerns of the transgendered community because they still face very real discrimination and violence for being who they are. I think if he's actively going around telling people lies about his past, yes, anything someone finds in trying to verify that past is fair game.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:12 PM) She was not lying when she called herself a woman. She had the power to self-identify as a woman, and did so. Saying she had these family connections, that she worked on the B-2, that she graduated from MIT were lies. Is she had explicitly denied having been Steven Krohl in the past, that would have been a lie (though a very understandable one in most contexts). Identifying herself as a woman was not a lie. At best it's a half-truth. She lived her life as a man to the world for a period of time, even if she considered herself to be a woman internally. That's still a lie in my book in the context of fabricating her past. If you were going to go back and try to find her, as this reporter did, you wouldn't be able to, because the records are of her as a man, not a woman.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:08 PM) She claimed to be E. Vanderbilt, and she was. For a period of her life. Not when she lived her life as Stephen Krohl or whatever the name was (at the time she was claiming to be a female scientist).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 03:02 PM) that's a remarkably insulting thing to say. So transgendered people have the power to rewrite their past? She never applied for 2 marriage licenses as a man? That never happened?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 02:56 PM) The relevant point in your first paragraph is that she was a mechanic for years... not a scientist. Whether she was male or female when doing that job is irrelevant to her qualifications to make a magic putter. What? It's incredibly relevant. The whole point of the story ended up being "this person is not who she claimed to be." Her gender is just one fact out of many that leads to that conclusion.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 02:48 PM) There's quite a disconnect with your feelings and how the whole transgendered community feels. I guess, but that doesn't really change the fact that she did live as man for a period of her life even if she later became a woman (or even consciously thought of herself as a woman).

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 02:40 PM) How is Dr. V being transgendered relevant to the lies she made about her credentials/the science behind the putter? It may be an interesting hook for a story, but the fact that Dr. V is transgendered is not relevant to whether or not the putter works... unless you think that Dr. V being transgendered was somehow a deception in itself. Accordingly, it's not the reporters role to out Dr. V to an investor. Maybe it would have been discovered and become public knowledge down the road, but it's not relevant to the story itself (Vanderbilt created an elaborate web of deception about the magic putter). It's not the reporter's job to out her to anyone. Period. I thought Simmons handled this well. It's clear that the article wasn't malicious (and some of the reaction to the reporter is reprehensible - death threats, outing public information about the reporter, etc.), but there was a significant amount of misunderstanding/ignorance of transgender issues that led to mistakes being made here. Being a woman was just as much of a "lie" as having those degrees/job history. Even if she thought of herself as a woman her entire life, she didn't live as a woman all of her life. She was a male mechanic for years. Not a female scientist. And again, it's the truth! Why would we want reporters to suppress the truth just because it might embarrass someone? When has that ever been a good reason?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 02:28 PM) Wait. What? You are completely missing the point. Said person was not "out" when the author "outed" said person. Yes she was, the lawyer from the town that sued her knew about it. As did the risk manager involved. That's how this guy was tipped off that she wasn't a woman her entire life. And wasn't she dating her business partner at Yar? She clearly knew as well. As did most of her family (i'm assuming) because they wouldn't talk to the reporter about her.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 12:59 PM) Outing her to the business partner was certainly the worst part -- luckily, we think (and I emphasize the uncertainty in this) that he seemed to have taken that information in stride. On the other hand, I almost feel that this is the most forgivable part. This was, like much of it, a person with good intentions doing something dumb out of ignorance. I can understand how Hannan didn't realize that he needed to out her lies to this businessperson without outing her transgender status. The more I think about it, the more I believe he could have convinced that guy that she was a fraud and that her name had been changed without making it clear that the former name was a male name. Much of the rest happens in the same vein, but was largely preventable. Many of the contentious points in the article, while plausibly benign and presumably of benign intention, were not presented in a manner that befits contentious points. The article that went to print, ultimately, was careless. The gendered pronouns late in the article were not horrible -- Hannan never referred to Essay Vanderbilt as "he" -- but he could have simply added a footnote or parenthetical comment that he isn't sure if Essay would have felt referring to her previous identity as "he" was appropriate. This is another case of editorial failure, as well, since one would hope these details would be picked up by an editor. The AP style book has recommendations on this. When the chills go up his spine, he could easily have made it clear that they weren't chills because "ew, it's not a girl!" but because this was the moment he realized Essay was a fraud. Instead, it is ambiguous. Why the hell didn't an editor do something about this? It would have been quite simple to clarify what exactly the significance of that moment was. Overall, it is a very good thing that this article has triggered a productive conversation about trans issues among a demographic that doesn't normally entertain these things. Trans people are quite clearly invisible, as we see in the article, but the article has in effect made their issues visible. This isn't without negative effects, obviously, since Essay's dignity indubitably suffered posthumously and possibly, the prying drove her more quickly to her death. Many people will fortify transphobic positions. Many others, who have not ever thought about these things, will now think about them. Caleb Hannan never realized the significance of outing someone. Now all of us do. I think all of us now would be much more judicious with that kind of knowledge and that's a good thing. This is the part of the story that cracks me up - it's great we're having an open, productive conversation BUT NEVER TALK ABOUT SOMEONE BEING TRANSGENDERED OPENLY AND PUBLICLY. THAT'S WRONG!

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 12:38 PM) Well, let's be honest, the author did out her to a business partner. That's f***ed up. Frankly I don't see a problem with that. That's the truth. And I don't remember since I read the story a few days ago, but wasn't it in the context of "hey btw did you know your business partner doesn't have the degrees/job history she said she did? Oh and speaking of the "she" part of that..." It's not like he called the guy up and said "that woman is a man, hold onto your balls!"

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 12:31 PM) How many of those 15 people have any experience with or exposure to transsexualism such that they'd recognize the problems? In fact, Simmons explicitly makes this point: To me that's more of a sign of people creating a problem versus it being an actual problem. As iamshack said previously, the story was fine for 2 days and then someone complained and the snowball to criticize began. And what's funny is the criticism started as "outing" this person, and then it was improper pronoun usage, and then it was that the writer killed her, and then.... at some point people are just too f***ing sensitive in this country.

I caught Oblivion over the weekend. I thought it was pretty solid actually. A little surprised I liked it as much as I did. The story is a little empty, and the Morgan Freeman/Jamie Lannister side-plot didn't get enough screen time to handle the emotion it was supposed to carry, but wow was it cool to watch. Visuals were great. And Cruise wasn't all that annoying.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 21, 2014 -> 09:10 AM) I would love to see the rugby try rules implemented, where you kick from where you scored. If it's in the middle of the end zone, it's a straight shot. But if you score near the sideline, then you have to kick from the weird angle. That would be awesome.

Frankly I think the extent Simmons went to apologize is a bit nauseating. 15 smart, intelligent, long-time editors/journalists peer-reviewed that piece, and not one of them thought of the 10 things he's apologizing for. That to me is a sign that this story is a non-story. It's a sign that a guy born out of the internet has clearly over-valued and over-estimated the internet. Yeah, apologize for using the wrong pronoun. I can support that. Apologize for maybe not editing a few lines that make it seem like the guy is creeped out about a tranny (as if that's not a normal reaction for most people, regardless of the opinion of acceptability). I still can't get behind not reporting the truth. If this is the standard, I don't know how reporters are supposed to do their jobs. They shouldn't care how the subject, especially a subject that voluntarily talked, might feel about it.

First to 50 wins