Paul's Here

John Galt Corp involved in accident

14 posts in this topic

2 Hurt by Falling WTC Skyscraper Debris

Workers from John Galt Corp. were cutting the pipe at around 7 a.m. when it dislodged and fell through the firehouse roof below, officials said. Two firefighters were treated for minor injuries and released, fire officials said. The firefighters weren't hit by the pipe, the department said.

The city Buildings Department issued John Galt Corp. a violation for failure to safeguard the public and property, spokeswoman Kate Lindquist said. A message left with the company wasn't immediately returned Thursday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think the article gives a full description of what happens which makes it difficult to determine who or what is at fault. But accidents do happen, especially in the type of field that they are in. The nature of certain jobs such as this type are always going to bring a higher risk than other jobs and that is just the way it is.

Military special forces units have some of the most highly trained people in the military and they still die while training. When you jump out of planes at 50,000 feet, dive to extreme depths, do extractions from helicopters hanging only by a rope and so much more, your chances of risk and injury increase. Staff Sergeant Donald Hamblim of the Unithed States Marine Corps was doing routine training/parachuting over Camp Pendleton when he ran right into a high voltage (69,000), line. The wind increased while he was coming down for a landing and blew him right into a high voltage line that put a deep cut into his leg. Then he was stuck more than 40 feet above the ground attached to high voltage lines with the possiblity to get shocked again. He actully cut his parachute lines and dropped the more than 40 feet to the ground. In the end the accident cost him his leg, but he stayed on in the Marine Corps and in Recon for another 8 years and obtained the rank of First Sergeant. What I as trying to show is that certain jobs are going to bring a higher risk and I am sometimes amazed that people seem to expect no hazards or injuries in life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
----------

What I as trying to show is that certain jobs are going to bring a higher risk and I am sometimes amazed that people seem to expect no hazards or injuries in life.

I agree, but that is one reason why insurance is available for those working in environments were accidents can happen.

What is very sad about the state of our society today is that people are unwilling to accept that there are situations beyond human control and responsibility. It is the view expressed by "Someone's got to pay for this." There was a recent news story I saw on local TV where a worker in McDonald's had hid some drug material in an area where the children's toys were given out in Happy Meals. Another worker apparently put the drug material in a meal and gave it to kids. Of course the parents were upset when finding it, but no one was hurt and the person who hid the drug material was captured and fired. The last sentenece of the reporter at the end of the news story was, "The parents haven't decided whether or not to sue McDonald's." Why would anyone consider suing an innocent party in an event where no damage to anyone occurred?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, but that is one reason why insurance is available for those working in environments were accidents can happen.

I like Cornelius Vanderbilt's idea on how he insured his fleet of transport ships. Cornelius Vanderbilt was once asked why he did not insure his ships as most do? His reply to the questioner was, my insurance comes from the men I hire. Unfortunately in todays sue happy world, most are forced to carry different insurances for incidents that will most likely never happen to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, but that is one reason why insurance is available for those working in environments were accidents can happen.

I like Cornelius Vanderbilt's idea on how he insured his fleet of transport ships. Cornelius Vanderbilt was once asked why he did not insure his ships as most do? His reply to the questioner was, my insurance comes from the men I hire. Unfortunately in todays sue happy world, most are forced to carry different insurances for incidents that will most likely never happen to them.

Very good point. Additionally, insurance was not conceived as a way to recover all costs in a loss, but mainly to cushion the blow of a major loss. When I was a kid, my parents had health insurance for major surgery or long hospital stays. Now, we have insurance for doctor visits to remove splinters. Life insurance, a misnomer if ever there was one, is meant to cover loss of income from a significant source of earnings. Nowadays, little babies and kids in school are offered life insurance. Totally absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Few Wanted Job at Ground Zero Tower

Wanted: A demolition company willing to tear down a building contaminated with asbestos that some say is the most difficult project in the most difficult construction city in the world.

----------------------

A fire killed two firefighters on Saturday, and falling construction equipment injured two more on Thursday.

Officials said a pallet jack fell off a hoist elevator outside the building and plunged 23 stories through a shed, hitting the two firefighters. The firefighters were hospitalized Friday in stable condition, one with a head injury.

Authorities blamed the accident on a worker for John Galt Corp., a troubled contractor that was on notice that it was about to be dropped from the project for safety problems. Messages left for Galt on Thursday weren't immediately returned.

-----------------------

Before the accident, the name John Galt was known largely as a central character in the Ayn Rand novel "Atlas Shrugged."

It may take another fictional hero to complete the demolition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is very sad about the state of our society today is that people are unwilling to accept that there are situations beyond human control and responsibility. It is the view expressed by "Someone's got to pay for this."

What's also sad is how many of these situations arise from government interference, and how many of our fellow citizens think they can minimize such accidents by increasing the size and scope of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

My first post here.

I thought that "John Galt" is a trademark of the estate of Ayn Rand. Is the John Galt Corporation associated with Ayn Rand, ARI, or Objectivism? Is it mere coincidence that they chose the name "John Galt" for their company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello,

My first post here.

I thought that "John Galt" is a trademark of the estate of Ayn Rand. Is the John Galt Corporation associated with Ayn Rand, ARI, or Objectivism? Is it mere coincidence that they chose the name "John Galt" for their company?

As far as I know, fictional character names cannot be trademarked unless they were to stand for a physical product. I have no idea as to why the company has that name. It may be a coincidence or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who is John Galt? I mean, besides the shadowy male hero of the Ayn Rand novel "Atlas Shrugged", which manages to convince thousands of teenagers every year that greed is good?

If only that were true...

More on the story can be found here.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/23/...in3196976.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello,

My first post here.

I thought that "John Galt" is a trademark of the estate of Ayn Rand. Is the John Galt Corporation associated with Ayn Rand, ARI, or Objectivism? Is it mere coincidence that they chose the name "John Galt" for their company?

As far as I know, fictional character names cannot be trademarked unless they were to stand for a physical product. I have no idea as to why the company has that name. It may be a coincidence or not.

Actually, that's a great point. I don't think ARI has trademarked the name John Galt; though they hold the copyright to the text. Compare it to Mickey Mouse ™, a flagship character of Walt Disney Corp ™ one of the most aggressively protective companies around, when it comes to its products and its image. You, legally, can't even use the name Mickey Mouse ™ without acknowledging the trademark ™. But, Paul's point is an interesting one: MM's ™ image is used as an actual identifying logo on Disney ™ products, not just as the name of a character in a story. It's a continuing, actively used image (in all its developmental forms from Steamboat Willy to the present). John Galt is physically described in the book, but there is no actual image. I imagine, if the Ayn Rand Institute were The John Galt Institute and the name itself, with a unique typface and font, perhaps, were part of the logo of that organization, and they trademarked the name, that would hold up. Any use of that name without permission might damage the company that used that name as a trademark.

But copyright won't protect the "fair use" of a character from a work of fiction. And trademark means that that characters image or name is being used to identify a product or a company. You can't even copyright a title: "Atlas Shrugged" could be used as the title to any number of books or films or poems, or paintings, or whatever.

alann ™

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-------------

I imagine, if the Ayn Rand Institute were The John Galt Institute and the name itself, with a unique typface and font, perhaps, were part of the logo of that organization, and they trademarked the name, that would hold up. Any use of that name without permission might damage the company that used that name as a trademark.

--------------

alann

Even if there were a trademark on that name, it would only be effective within the industry and within the particular format of the logo. People with the name McDonald cannot open up a restaurant serving hamburgers with the name McDonald's. But a construction company could certainly use the name McDonald's as long as the logo was clearly distinguishable from the trademarked version.

--------------

Paul's Here ™©® :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-------------

I imagine, if the Ayn Rand Institute were The John Galt Institute and the name itself, with a unique typface and font, perhaps, were part of the logo of that organization, and they trademarked the name, that would hold up. Any use of that name without permission might damage the company that used that name as a trademark.

--------------

alann

Even if there were a trademark on that name, it would only be effective within the industry and within the particular format of the logo. People with the name McDonald cannot open up a restaurant serving hamburgers with the name McDonald's. But a construction company could certainly use the name McDonald's as long as the logo was clearly distinguishable from the trademarked version.

--------------

Paul's Here ™©® :D

Well that makes it clearer for me, thanks.

So does this mean it is possible to open up a restaurant serving John Galt burgers?

Don't stop the motor of your stomach! Shrug off your hunger with a John Galt burger! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So does this mean it is possible to open up a restaurant serving John Galt burgers?

Don't stop the motor of your stomach! Shrug off your hunger with a John Galt burger! :P

Probably possible but if one respect's Ayn Rand's wishes about her creations, a bad thing to do. She expressly stated that she did not approve of the use of her fictional creations in such names; having John Galt associated with an incompetent construction company is one concrete example of a reason not to do so, since it forms a bad association in people's minds.

In that regard, after having played the video game Bioshock on my Xbox 360 almost all of the way through - which is heavy in allusions to Atlas Shrugged - the association is particularly vile. I am still organizing my thoughts about it, and will probably write some review on the game, but so far, I would say that the script was written by somebody who: 1) Has a very superficial and mistaken knowledge about Objectivism, 2) has created characters which are pretty uniformly despicable, including "Andrew Ryan", the creator of the undersea city of the game, a clear allusion to the valley in Atlas (there's a nemesis to Ryan who goes by the moniker of Atlas himself.) To the degree that Ryan is intended portray John Galt, it's the most grossly inaccurate and vicious attack on Objectivism that's ever been created, unfortunately in a game that's selling like crazy. Technically the game is excellent, including the game effects and the sometimes beautiful artistry that went into the "art deco" theme of the city, but that doesn't redeem it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites