Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Holiday Plans!

I am currently in the last week of work for the term. I'm not used to being so busy on the last week, but I've had a lot to do here lately!

Right now the plan is to head to Denver on Saturday to have lunch with some of the family, then to Grand Junction after that. Once I get in I dont' know what I'm doing, but the rest of the week seems pretty full. Things to do with people as of right now are:

1. Hang out with JJ and Donnie ... not sure of exact things, but we'll be hanging out for sure
2. Movie night, club, archery and more with Kim
3. Hang out with all the speech kids
4. Party it up with Brenna and them
5. HANG OUT WITH FAMILY
6. Whatever else anyone wants to do

On the 26th I'm flying back to Detroit...still looking for a place to stay when i get there.

On the 27th I'm flying to Amsterdam

On the 5th I'll be back in Detroit

No specific plans from there on out other than starting school on the 8th, which should turn out to be pretty easy this term. I'm taking marketing, management, accounting, computer aided engineering, and machine design.


Let me know if you want to do something next week!

Friday, December 08, 2006

Answer to the question in the prevous post



The answer is clear when you think about the problem. Since the wheels are not what powers the plane forward, the treadmill has no effect on the plane moving. The jets are what push forward and there is nothing to counteract their force. If you're not convinced, I can post some examples of what I'm trying to explain.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Airplane on a Treadmill

Here's a quick brain teaser for all of you that some how found yourself at my blog:

A plane equipped with fixed horizontal engines and wheel landing gear is placed on a huge treadmill runway. The treadmill has a clever design and always matches the speed of the plane, but runs in the opposite direction. Will the plane take off and fly or not?

I'll post the answer in a day or two.

Oh yeah...new news...I'm planning on heading back to GJ on the 16th rather than the 19th. Hit me up if you want to hang out!

Monday, December 04, 2006

Wow...now this is bullshit

Associated Press
Supreme Court Looks at Race and Schools
By MARK SHERMAN 12.04.06, 12:07 PM EST

The Supreme Court on Monday wrestled with voluntary integration plans in public schools, asking whether Seattle's "Open Choice" program is an acceptable move toward student diversity or another name for illegal racial quotas.

At the start of two hours of argument, the justices referred repeatedly to a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that permitted the limited consideration of race to attain a diverse student body on the college level.

Does Seattle's program go too far in assigning some students to schools they didn't request? the justices wanted to know in questioning lawyers for the school district, the Bush administration and white parents whose children were assigned to high schools with heavy minority enrollment.

Justice Anthony Kennedy was among those expressing deep skepticism about Seattle's program.

The district seems to be telling its students that "everybody can get a meal," but that only certain people can get "dessert," Kennedy said. Justice Antonin Scalia said it was as though the district was saying "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs."

The justices were referring to the fact that some students have been assigned based on their race to schools they didn't ask to attend. The question, said Kennedy, is whether a student can get into the school the student really prefers.

Chief Justice John Roberts expressed concern about making school assignments "based on skin color" and not "any other factor."

Attorney Michael Madden, representing the school district, said race is but one factor, that it is relied on only in some instances and then only at the end of a lengthy process.

Madden drew a distinction between the Seattle school program and the subject of the court's 2003 decision, which narrowly approved the University of Michigan law school affirmative action admissions program.

"This is not like being denied admission to a state's flagship university," Madden told Roberts. The Seattle students are "not being denied admission, they are being redistributed."

Parents in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle are challenging school assignment plans that factor in a student's race in an effort to have individual school populations approximate the racial makeup of the entire system. Federal appeals courts have upheld both programs.

Amid the oral arguments, pro-affirmative action demonstrators bearing "Fight For Equality" placards marched on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court in a brisk wind. A parent-teachers group from Chicago and several civil rights groups were among those sponsoring the demonstration.

Demonstrators chanted "Equal education, not segregation" and "We won't go to the back of the bus, integration is a must." Some held signs that read "Stop racism now." Among the crowd were representatives of the National Organization for Women, the NAACP and students from Howard University.

Though outnumbered, there were some in the crowd from the other side.

"Regardless of how well-motivated, allowing the state to engineer racial mixing only creates racial stereotypes and increases racial tension," said Terry Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights, a public interest law firm. "The court needs to put an end to state-mandated tinkering with race."

The school policies in contention are designed to keep schools from segregating along the same lines as neighborhoods. In Seattle, only high school students are affected. Louisville's plan applies systemwide.

"The plan has prevented the resegregation that inevitably would result from the community's segregated housing patterns and that most likely would produce many schools that might be perceived as 'failing,'" the Seattle school district said in its brief to the high court.

The Bush administration has taken the side of the parents who are suing the school districts, much as it intervened on behalf of college and graduate students who challenged affirmative action policies before the Supreme Court in 2003.

In 2003, the court upheld race-conscious admissions in higher education in a 5-4 opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

The cases are Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 05-908; and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 05-915.

__

Associated Press reporter Matthew Daly contributed from Washington

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed