I was shooting photos for a class of mine last weekend and I didnt have time to eat breakfast. I am going to say that was one of my worst decisions ever. It was early in the morning and I did not leave myself ample time.
You see, I was photographing a climber and we had to hike through the woods of Swanzey to get to the cliff. It was snowing and pretty darn cold. The hike through the woods took about 15 minutes and they climbed for about two hours.
Because I hadnt eaten my hunger was hindering my ability to focus. I imediatly cursed myself for at least not eating a granola bar, which I have plenty of back in my room. The climber told me I could get some shots of them climbing from on top of the cliff all I had to do was walk around and hike up.
At this point my concentration was so hindered that after I hiked to the top, took the pictures and walked down, I lost the cliffs edge, and had a sinking feeling in my already empty stomach. I was lost. My brain wasnt fueled, my glucose sugar levels were low, and i spaced out just long enough to get lost. A frantic marco polo game got me out of that situation but, it was still a very scary moment.
So let my blunder be a lesson to you, if your going hiking in the woods, or anything where you need to be focused, eat your breakfast.
Anyone else have any stories like this? I think it is important to higlight this issue, focus is everything.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Its pretty easy being green
The green movement is in full swing and everyone is striving to be more energy and cost effective. Not harming the environment as much as we used to and saving some dough in the process is something people are wrapping their heads around more easily these days.
The only downside is the usual amount of money you have to pay up front is more expensive. So some people are still wary these days to spend more money on something they can get cheaper in a different way. But once that initial investment has been made, you usually start saving money on different things along the way.
Bio-diesel for example, a little more costly up front, but it saves on costs of maintenance because of its cleaning effect on the mechanical innards. There is always a bright side to spending more up front. Especially when the product your trading in for is not only better for the environment, but you as well.
Bio-diesel wont give you the headaches and exhaust induced light-headedness that the petroleum based stuff will. Although the bio-diesel also has its drawbacks, so does the regular stuff, and these drawbacks are far easier to make up for.
What do you think about the cost effectiveness of using green products verses the stuff we have been using, like petroleum based diesel?
Is it worth it in the end, or is it just as easy as buying a different style of shoe and trying them on?
The only downside is the usual amount of money you have to pay up front is more expensive. So some people are still wary these days to spend more money on something they can get cheaper in a different way. But once that initial investment has been made, you usually start saving money on different things along the way.
Bio-diesel for example, a little more costly up front, but it saves on costs of maintenance because of its cleaning effect on the mechanical innards. There is always a bright side to spending more up front. Especially when the product your trading in for is not only better for the environment, but you as well.
Bio-diesel wont give you the headaches and exhaust induced light-headedness that the petroleum based stuff will. Although the bio-diesel also has its drawbacks, so does the regular stuff, and these drawbacks are far easier to make up for.
What do you think about the cost effectiveness of using green products verses the stuff we have been using, like petroleum based diesel?
Is it worth it in the end, or is it just as easy as buying a different style of shoe and trying them on?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Lost and Fined
A new trend has made itself known in the news recently for New Hampshire. It became more well-known when a Massachusetts eagle scout was lost for three days at Pinkham Notch, but when they found him, the situation turned from jubilant back to worry.
You see they fined the kid $25,000 for the search efforts for him. Some other states do charge for the search but, according to this USA Today article, places like Oregon cap their charge at $500. Many other states don’t even charge the rescued.
Should this change in NH? I'm going to go with yes, and here is why. People don’t want to be lost, if they could help it, they would know where they are at all times relative to everyone else. The fine makes matters worse, after a while people may not even want to be found.
If they survive in the wilderness for a few days and know they have accrued a certain total to pay back to the state, they may not even want to be found. They may not have the funds or children may be so worried about the charges brought on their parents they would rather go on hiding when a search party comes around, unless the will to survive is at the breaking point of course.
But I think this would add so much more stress on the party that has lost someone. A mother is worried sick when her son doesn’t return from a hike with his friends. She spends days worrying about his safety; often times thinking maybe he is not coming back. Then the day comes, he is found, the stress the family has been under for the past few days doesn’t stop. Now they have to pay a fine of $25,000 or so. There goes the family’s nest egg and the last shred of composure they have.
So I say reduce the fine to a payable amount, one that won’t tare a family apart when the lost party is found, or get rid of it all together. Someone shouldn’t get fined for something they can’t help; getting lost doesn’t always mean they wondered off on purpose.
Anyone else have any arguments for either side of this?
You see they fined the kid $25,000 for the search efforts for him. Some other states do charge for the search but, according to this USA Today article, places like Oregon cap their charge at $500. Many other states don’t even charge the rescued.
Should this change in NH? I'm going to go with yes, and here is why. People don’t want to be lost, if they could help it, they would know where they are at all times relative to everyone else. The fine makes matters worse, after a while people may not even want to be found.
If they survive in the wilderness for a few days and know they have accrued a certain total to pay back to the state, they may not even want to be found. They may not have the funds or children may be so worried about the charges brought on their parents they would rather go on hiding when a search party comes around, unless the will to survive is at the breaking point of course.
But I think this would add so much more stress on the party that has lost someone. A mother is worried sick when her son doesn’t return from a hike with his friends. She spends days worrying about his safety; often times thinking maybe he is not coming back. Then the day comes, he is found, the stress the family has been under for the past few days doesn’t stop. Now they have to pay a fine of $25,000 or so. There goes the family’s nest egg and the last shred of composure they have.
So I say reduce the fine to a payable amount, one that won’t tare a family apart when the lost party is found, or get rid of it all together. Someone shouldn’t get fined for something they can’t help; getting lost doesn’t always mean they wondered off on purpose.
Anyone else have any arguments for either side of this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
