l33tminion: (Conga!)
Last weekend, I went to visit Julie's family, and it was a rare white Christmas in Lubbock, Texas (enough to give the yards and rooftops a uniform coat of white, little enough to vanish without a trace the moment the sun came out on the 26th). It was good to see her folks under less-hectic circumstances, and it was a very pleasant and relaxing weekend. We watched Cats (the musical, on DVD), played catch with the most energetic German shepherd I've ever met, and had a fantastic Christmas dinner. I kept Julie company, reading while she continued to grind out the last bit of her thesis, and I played some games of cribbage with her dad and brother (wasn't nearly as rusty as I expected).

The flight there was smooth, but the flight home was marred by a 4.5 hour delay and subsequent missed connection. At least American put me up in a hotel nice enough to almost make me forgive them for the delay (the Grand Hyatt at DFW).

Then back home and back to work. Trying to wrap up end-of-year stuff and get some good work done in the quiet office.

Winter has been delayed here, but seems to be dragging itself in the door.

Can't believe 2011 is almost over.
l33tminion: (Default)
ITA's company dinner cruise was nice and relaxing.

The vegetarian tasting menu at Oleana is amazing.

The movie Primer is amazing if you love time travel stories and being confused. Which I do, apparently.

Ames is still awesome.

My first batch of beer (which I'm helping ODan and EHawk make) seems promising, and is now in bottles. Will be carbonated and done in two weeks or so.

We might have a new housemate for the end of the month, fingers crossed.

Bouldering after a few weeks off is a pain (specifically, in the hands), but I was able to pull myself up a v0 (and almost a v1) after much effort.

A non-crackpot published a paper allegedly proving P!=NP. It's interesting, but still probably not correct.

Don't know what's up with this story, about Google being in back-room anti-net-neutrality talks with Verizon. What the hell, Google? I hope they're up to something clever...

Ted Stevens is feared dead in a plane crash. If it's any comfort, he died doing what he loved.

Bank of America inadvertently charged me for someone else's check. I talked to online support, who told me to call check fraud (not 24/7), who (after determining the cause of the error) referred me to standard customer service, who pushed the issue to their error resolution department and told me to wait two days. It's a good thing the check didn't bounce (and that I had enough to not inadvertently overdraw on something else as a result). Still, I feel like the money should be restored to my account as soon as the error is confirmed, I shouldn't have to wait while they sort the rest of it out.
l33tminion: Sporktacular (Spork)
Via The Consumerist:

After it broke last week that Stamford Marriott Hotel & Spa was claiming it was the fault of the victim and her two toddlers that she was raped in their parking garage, the hotel has decided to withdraw the claim. They also apologized for the rape in a general sort of way—but not for subpoenaing her friends and professional acquaintances who otherwise would not have known about the crime.

Marriott has yet to:
1. Settle the case.
2. Issue a real apology, especially for violating Jane Doe's privacy by subpoenaing her acquaintances. (Edit: Trying to, anyways, the subpoena's have not yet been issued.)
3. Do something meaningful about their safety policies (not necessarily saying those policies are insufficient, but if such policies exist and are sufficient, communicating that might be a good idea).

A comment: Organizations make a habit of running PR documents by legal, but they really should also make a habit of running legal documents by PR. At least one commenter at the Consumerist post suggested that Marriott's in-house counsel was not responsible, that it was their insurance company's lawyers. But that doesn't change matters, businesses will be held responsible for those they allow to argue on their behalf.

Don't know if this will be the extent of their actions. It's certainly not enough to convince me that I shouldn't avoid them.

ETA: The AP has a more detailed writeup. Includes some interesting bits:

The defense claim was made before attorneys finished taking the victim's deposition, Derrico [introduced as "Marriott lawyer", so working for Marriott, not the specific hotel or some insurance company?] said, "so as not to waive a potential defense." He said that Marriott officials asked his law firm to withdraw the claim in July, but that his associate had not done so because his mother died. [?!]

They also get a legal perspective:

Defenses that blame the victim to some extent are not uncommon, as insurance companies try to minimize their losses. But Jim Nugent, chairman of the litigation section of the Connecticut Bar Association, said doing so in this case would be odd, given the especially horrific nature of a rape witnessed by the victim's children.

"It's just not going to sit well with a jury," Nugent said. "How in the world could this poor woman contribute to that?"


So maybe they planned to introduce that argument and then withdraw it before having to present it to a jury. That fits with the proposal (or is "threat" a better word?) to use subpoenas to remove the victim's anonymity. Maybe a judge wouldn't approve those, either, but make things traumatizing enough for the woman and maybe she'll just drop the lawsuit. Given that perspective, I'd hope that the legal team was simply incompetent.
l33tminion: Sporktacular (Spork)
A woman raped and robbed at gunpoint in a paid parking garage at the Stamford, CT Marriott Hotel & Spa filed an anonymous lawsuit against the hotel, alleging negligence. The hotel's response:

1. Alleges that the woman herself was responsible. Evidently, the paid parking garage of a Marriott hotel is the sort of place where one should be taking exceptional measures to ensure one's safety, and walking from your car to the hotel with your children is something you just shouldn't do.

2. Violates the woman's privacy by subpoenaing acquaintances unrelated to the incident (presumably as "character witnesses", (hopefully) unwilling accessories to the victim-blaming highlighted in point 1).

In light of the above, it would be a good idea to avoid Marriott and affiliated hotels* until they realize that they should spend some reasonable amount of effort on keeping hotel grounds safe and that being misogynistic jerks, even in the course of a legal defense, is unacceptable. If you do decide to change your hotel-related decisions based on this story, it might be a good idea to tell Marriott, too.

(Story via here and here.)

* That includes the ones with Marriott in the name, but also Renaissance Hotels & Resorts, Ritz-Carlton, Bulgari Hotels & Resorts, Courtyard, Fairfield Inn, SpringHill Suites, Residence Inn, and TownePlace Suites.

ETA: Marriott's Response )
l33tminion: (Default)
I have a new bank card, all of a sudden, with a different number and expiration date. Evidently, a bunch of credit card data was compromised, Bank of America blames some unnamed third party but doesn't say who. Blah.

On an unrelated note, tonight is evidently the night for sending bunches of email.
l33tminion: Emotopia Needs Hope (Emotopia)
Olin College, by consent of the remaining former directors of the Franklin W. Olin Foundation and a majority vote of the College Trustees, has amended the Founding Precepts of Olin College, item six, to reduce the Olin Scholarship by 50% starting for the class of 2014 (entering in Fall 2010).

I would like to say that I totally called the current crisis in my letter to President Miller back in 2004. I wish I had taken a less alarmist tone in that letter, maybe if I had, it wouldn't have been ignored. But let's be honest, it probably would have been ignored anyways.

What really saddens me isn't the abandonment of the founding precepts or the charging of tuition (although that's plenty sad, too). It's the lost opportunity to respond to the crisis with an experimental, innovative, radically creative solution. By responding with a conventional business solution, the administration has dealt a real blow to the Olin ethos, one that will likely remain even if scholarships are eventually restored.

Early Olin was a risk, and the students who signed on reflected that. Now, as the memory of that time begins to fade from the minds of the student body, Olin is in a critical time of transition. But just when leadership was most needed, the administration has wimped out.
l33tminion: ...you're &%$@ing kidding me, right? (Jon Stewart)
The current shareholder meeting for Fidelity includes a proposal for the board to implement procedures to avoid investing in companies complicit in genocide. The proposal is pretty straightforward and very minimal:

RESOLVED:
Shareholders request that the Board institute procedures to prevent holding investments in companies that, in the judgment of the Board, substantially contribute to genocide or crimes against humanity, the most egregious violations of human rights.


But the Board (which gives their recommendation for every proposal) is against it:

[... repetitive bit about how they comply with the letter of the law ...] The Fidelity Funds Board of Trustees recognizes and respects that investors, including those investing in this Fund, have other investment opportunities open to them should they wish to avoid investments in certain companies or countries. Shareholders of the Fund, however, have chosen to invest in this Fund based on its specific stated investment policies. If adopted, this proposal would limit investments by the Fund that would be lawful under the laws of the United States. For this reason, the Board of Trustees recommends that you vote AGAINST this proposal.

In other words, if you want the fund to have even the most minimal ethics restrictions on its investments, go elsewhere. Some people like profiting from genocide, and it would be wrong to ruin things for them.

Needless to say, this gives me a very low opinion of the Fidelity trustees.
l33tminion: I'm literally angry with rage (Angry)
Quoted verbatim from an email to their customer service:

Since you were unable to reach an advisor earlier, to help you with this I have included the instruction as to how to reach an advisor through Alex [the bot]. Once you call us at 1-888-322-1122 (or *vm on your virgin mobile phone):

1. Press 1 to choose English
2. Press 6 to ask a question
3. Press 7 to select troubleshoot
4. Press 1 and then Key in your Phone Number
5. Press 2 and you should reach a live advisor.


Note that the bot does not mention the numerical options (poor voice recognition is the way of the future!), and if you have a problem with something other than making calls, you basically have to lie about it if you want to talk to a human (say "no" to "do you have problems making calls?" and the robot will spit out a canned answer with no option to continue if that's in fact totally unrelated to your problem).

Hey, Virgin Mobile, if your email tech support has a form letter about how to circumvent the front-end for your phone tech support, you just might be doing something wrong!

(Prior to my angry email, I tried the advice of gethuman, but their instructions appear to be out of date in this instance. Also, I wrote this post while on hold.)
Page generated May. 28th, 2025 04:32 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios