Voting ends Friday noonish...
Student #1 has left a new comment on your post "Fall Protection vs. Fall Prevention: A New Approac...":
I knew that ladders led to jobsite injuries, but I had no idea how bad the statistics were. I had to reread the line about 2000 incidents a day because I was sure that I had misread it. I mean, 2000 incidents seems high to me even for a week. Safety on ladders is really important, but it's not something that I have ever really thought about. I guess I have the same attitude as the ladder companies, that the design that we've been using for decades is fine, why bother changing it. Of course, I've done my fair share of highly idiotic things on ladders. I really liked the part of the article that outlined types of ladder injuries, and the just a little bit higher is my favorite. I'm fairly guilty of it, though for me I only do it if it's just a bit higher; if it's at the same level of me, I'll get down and move the ladder a couple feet though.This summer people at my work were talking about tying to genies, but to me that seems like a terrible idea because if that thing is going down I don't not want to be going down with it. That being said, the ladder that clamps onto poles seems like a great idea that avoids that problem' if the ladder can't fall, then it's perfectly safe to tether off to it. Also, I think that people just need to be more scared. If they are, they're more likely to follow the rules. I was at a lighting focus and I was pushing someone on a genie, and they hated being pushed while it was up. They came down every time. Yes, it wasn't as efficient as it could of been, but they felt safe and that's all that really matters. Lastly, I really like how the article ended, talking about the fence at the top of a mountain. That's such a great quote, and it's really an accurate statement that more people should listen to.Student #2 has left a new comment on your post "How the Lowe's 2x4 Case Has Affected Its Labeling":
Why Lowe’s? Why is California just picking on one vendor? Why didn’t they go after Home Depot? Why aren’t they going after other hardware stores and lumber companies? I can only assume that those other stores were labeling their products in a similar fashion, you know…like everyone else in America. When I call my vendor’s to order lumber (almost a daily task here in Carnegie Scenic) I don’t ask my sales rep for one hundred and ninety-two inch by one and a half inch by three and a half inch sticks of number two pine. It’s almost as ridiculous as the fact that I just wrote those measurements out like that… No. I’m going to ask for No2 grade 2” x 4 “ x 16’s. Now I can maybe understand labeling products with ft. and in. abbreviations instead of the ‘ and “ markers, I can see how that might be reasonable. I’ve also been wondering where the Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and American Lumber Standard Committee fall on this. Have the People of the State of California and their lawyers read the Voluntary Product Standard PS 20-10, American Softwood Lumber Standard? Does this document that outlines and establishes accepted standard sizes have no weight in a court of law? I would think that since the American Softwood Lumber Standard clearly states that the nominal size of 1.5in x 3.5in lumber is in fact 2in x 4in Lowes would be protected against a lawsuit claiming “unlawfully advertising the building materials. Now I understand that Lowes settled out, probably to avoid the costs that could be incurred from fighting this ridiculous claim, but had they fought it I can only hope they would have won.Student #3 has left a new comment on your post "Addicted To Praise? How It May Affect Your Career":
"It shouldn't really surprise us some managers don't see giving out praise, awards and other incentives as part of their job."Student #4 has left a new comment on your post "My role in de-skilling the arts":
This is so important to realize, but very difficult to accept. We are raised to believe that we are special, that we are great for putting in effort, when really we are heading into a world that demands results. Effort is important, as is being a hard worker, but effort doesn't get you rewarded. No one rewards shoddy results.
Everyone seeks approval in their lives. It's one of our basic human needs; the need of positive recognition and a sense of belonging--that our role in society matters and our contributions are well worth our troubles.
Still, this is a world where our roles are really only worth what we can give back to our community. The age-old question "What is my purpose?" is used to generate results that benefit society.
I hate it, but there's no real way to change the need to get things done, and if one isn't "intrinsically motivated," they won't last very long.
As one of the students that this article is talking about, I absolutely agree with everything the author is saying. One of the things I've always wanted to improve about myself is my ability to work with my hands. In public school they don't let you touch anything more dangerous than a drill because of liability issues, let alone teaching you how to use more complicated tools. Some kids have access to opportunities to learn outside of school- many do not. This means that once we get to college, many students are so far behind in terms of skill level that they get relegated to jobs like cleaning steel in the shop. This makes sense in the moment- the crew heads don't want to waste time teaching basic skills- but it also means the few students who come in to school with skills get to exercise those skills and learn new things, while the rest of us are stuck at a level of basic labor. Since we have amazing technology like the CNC machine, we can work around this, but I feel like sometimes it does a real disservice to our students. It comes down to what the final goal of stagecraft is. Is it to get the show built, or to educate the students? If we build a beautiful show, but none of the students did anything more complicated than screwing together platforms that were pre-cut by a computer program, are we really meeting the goals of an educational program, or are we using our students as unskilled labor in an assembly line?Student #5 has left a new comment on your post "energy efficiency, green products":
I talked to a DP student while on crew as I was looking at all of the 2x4s in the hallway and the plywood that was being tossed onto the loading dock, awaiting its dump truck. I asked what happened to the materials stripped from the set at the end of each production, and they said that the department and designers tried to save as much of the set as they could, i.e. stairs, railings, and other pieces of wood and metal that had not been cut or formed into a specific shape, unique for that show.
But as the Drama School and the Design and Production department have such cutting edge and unique designs, a lot of the components are cut so specifically that they are not able to be used for another production.
I'm not entirely sure what CMU's recycling policy is, or how they dispose of materials, (if they go to Habitat for Humanity, or become materials for Carnival, Booth and Buggy) but if CMU were to start using materials like the reclaimed, snow fencing, then our carbon footprint would be significantly lower.
As it is important to have interesting and cutting edge design, it is equally important to make sure our art is not hurting our environment, especially when theatre is such an able body to communicate the necessity for change.