Seriously?
I love the conclusion drawn from this article:
http://www.boingboing.net/2011/07/20/suppressed-report-on.html
Basically, what it says is that people who download files (like movies etc) illegally are amongst the big spenders of legitimate entertainment consumption.
"The study concluded that Kino.to's users were among the entertainment industry's best customers, using filesharing as a sampling method to determine which media to purchase, spending premiums to attend weekend showings of new films, and generally outspending average consumers in their media consumption."
Go figure.
I mean, who would have thought that people would actually go SEE movies as well as download them? It's as if they are fans or something. Weird.
And exactly how the f*ck did you deduce that these folks were using the site to sample media that they might later purchase? Surveymonkey?
I'm pretty sure the big bad entertainment industry is aware that these folks aren't downloading stuff instead of buying it all the time, but when they do download instead of buying, the rights holder is being deprived of potential profit (not all movies make money, you know).
And you wonder why it costs $15 to see a movie...
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
To Serve and Protect
I don't really have the energy to write much today, but I felt compelled to share/vent the disappointment I am feeling this morning. Depression, really. Aren't I a nice guy?
I was visiting my normal sites today - The Star, Boing Boing, Facebook etc and came across a few stories that related to the police. All were negative and related to alleged abuses by police forces - not just in one city or related to one case, but in three different cities (Toronto, Vancouver and Rochester). This makes me both angry and sad. Seriously: what the fuck is going on around here?
In Toronto, the fall-out continues with regards to the absolutely insane G20 fiasco. No, not the fact the great Canadian Government (The "Harper Government" you say? Kiss my ass - but that's another post) hoodwinked Parliament and misappropriated funds so that they could line the pockets of Conservative-friendly ridings (for which someone ought to be sent to jail - not re-elected!), but the violence that occurred in the city's core. How anyone would think holding a powder keg of a meeting in a busy metropolis as opposed to at the top of a fucking mountain is beyond me. Did the leaders really get a good look at the city? From behind those fences, I doubt it. So what was the point of having it here, exactly?
What is REALLY upsetting about this stupid adventure was the way the police behaved. Not only did they let vandals run amok and uncontested in the city streets, smashing windows and burning cars, they then proceeded to rough up ordinary citizens, violating their rights left right and centre. WHAT THE FUCK?!?! When did the police lose sight of their purpose of existence? It's unbelievably depressing. The police are supposed to be the good guys. They're supposed to protect us. They're supposed to be role models. When you kettle innocent people wandering on Queen Street in the rain, when you beat up people who are gathered peacefully at Queen's Park, when you arrest, strip search and manhandle guys for saying, "good luck with Saturday" you are NOT doing your job. You are FAILING the public. You have LOST our faith.
But at least finally - FINALLY - the chief admits that maybe they didn't do such a bang up job (despite what was being said previously). Of course he blames the fact that they were not prepared. Responding to emergencies is part of the job description, you dunce! You had time to arrange transportation and overtime for cops from all over the province to arrive in Toronto but couldn't figure out - in six months - how to get some of them to Yonge Street when the shit went down? STFU.
In Vancouver, they were a bit more effective, even though they had - what - two days notice that there would be a game 7 in town? Stores got smashed, cars got lit up, but the whole thing was dispersed in 4 hours and at least they TRIED to go after the troublemakers. Oh, but they STILL managed to fuck that one up. Rule #1 - when trying to disperse a violent crowd, do NOT strike the unarmed couple to the ground with your shield and continue to harass them after they are clearly subdued and injured. Oh, and when you realize you've fucked up? Maybe call for a medic instead of just running away to catch up with your buddies. This one was actually caught on video. The initial reports may have been of a "kissing couple" but the true story is far less romantic.
But we can forgive the cops for screwing up a little when they are under pressure in these massive demonstrations, right? I mean, adrenaline is pumping, threats are everywhere... Oh, but then there are stories like this one to remind us of how police can sometimes make the wrong, petty move even when they've had time to think about it. See, first, the police overreacted to a citizen recording a traffic stop. When the shit hit the fan there, did the cops apologize and nip the situation in the bud? Nope, they compounded the issue and embarrassed themselves even further. When citizens gathered to support this poor lady, the cops decided that would be a good time to send out a few patrol cars to ticket any supporters' car that was parked more than a foot from the curb.
To serve and protect.
For years, I have given the police the benefit of the doubt when stories arose that were critical of the way a situation was handled. I've even done so on this blog. I don't think I'm willing to do that anymore. My faith in the force has been rattled too often. Have I changed or has the police culture changed? Is this a sign of the times or the way it has always been?
What the fuck is going on?
Whatever it is, it has to change. The police have GOT to be the role models. They have to be held to a higher standard. They have to be our protectors. They have to be strong, vigilant and just. We have to be able to believe in them. That does not mean closing ranks when one of them does wrong. That means identifying the problem and kicking it off the force asap. You don't tolerate a cancer, you eradicate it.
Is "To Serve and Protect" too complicated? Try this: "Do Right."
UPDATE: Apparently, the charges against the Rochester woman were dropped "for lack of evidence". Considering the whole thing is on FUCKING TAPE, I'm hesitant to buy that reasoning and am even more depressed about the lack of transparency in the justice system.
I was visiting my normal sites today - The Star, Boing Boing, Facebook etc and came across a few stories that related to the police. All were negative and related to alleged abuses by police forces - not just in one city or related to one case, but in three different cities (Toronto, Vancouver and Rochester). This makes me both angry and sad. Seriously: what the fuck is going on around here?
In Toronto, the fall-out continues with regards to the absolutely insane G20 fiasco. No, not the fact the great Canadian Government (The "Harper Government" you say? Kiss my ass - but that's another post) hoodwinked Parliament and misappropriated funds so that they could line the pockets of Conservative-friendly ridings (for which someone ought to be sent to jail - not re-elected!), but the violence that occurred in the city's core. How anyone would think holding a powder keg of a meeting in a busy metropolis as opposed to at the top of a fucking mountain is beyond me. Did the leaders really get a good look at the city? From behind those fences, I doubt it. So what was the point of having it here, exactly?
What is REALLY upsetting about this stupid adventure was the way the police behaved. Not only did they let vandals run amok and uncontested in the city streets, smashing windows and burning cars, they then proceeded to rough up ordinary citizens, violating their rights left right and centre. WHAT THE FUCK?!?! When did the police lose sight of their purpose of existence? It's unbelievably depressing. The police are supposed to be the good guys. They're supposed to protect us. They're supposed to be role models. When you kettle innocent people wandering on Queen Street in the rain, when you beat up people who are gathered peacefully at Queen's Park, when you arrest, strip search and manhandle guys for saying, "good luck with Saturday" you are NOT doing your job. You are FAILING the public. You have LOST our faith.
But at least finally - FINALLY - the chief admits that maybe they didn't do such a bang up job (despite what was being said previously). Of course he blames the fact that they were not prepared. Responding to emergencies is part of the job description, you dunce! You had time to arrange transportation and overtime for cops from all over the province to arrive in Toronto but couldn't figure out - in six months - how to get some of them to Yonge Street when the shit went down? STFU.
In Vancouver, they were a bit more effective, even though they had - what - two days notice that there would be a game 7 in town? Stores got smashed, cars got lit up, but the whole thing was dispersed in 4 hours and at least they TRIED to go after the troublemakers. Oh, but they STILL managed to fuck that one up. Rule #1 - when trying to disperse a violent crowd, do NOT strike the unarmed couple to the ground with your shield and continue to harass them after they are clearly subdued and injured. Oh, and when you realize you've fucked up? Maybe call for a medic instead of just running away to catch up with your buddies. This one was actually caught on video. The initial reports may have been of a "kissing couple" but the true story is far less romantic.
But we can forgive the cops for screwing up a little when they are under pressure in these massive demonstrations, right? I mean, adrenaline is pumping, threats are everywhere... Oh, but then there are stories like this one to remind us of how police can sometimes make the wrong, petty move even when they've had time to think about it. See, first, the police overreacted to a citizen recording a traffic stop. When the shit hit the fan there, did the cops apologize and nip the situation in the bud? Nope, they compounded the issue and embarrassed themselves even further. When citizens gathered to support this poor lady, the cops decided that would be a good time to send out a few patrol cars to ticket any supporters' car that was parked more than a foot from the curb.
To serve and protect.
For years, I have given the police the benefit of the doubt when stories arose that were critical of the way a situation was handled. I've even done so on this blog. I don't think I'm willing to do that anymore. My faith in the force has been rattled too often. Have I changed or has the police culture changed? Is this a sign of the times or the way it has always been?
What the fuck is going on?
Whatever it is, it has to change. The police have GOT to be the role models. They have to be held to a higher standard. They have to be our protectors. They have to be strong, vigilant and just. We have to be able to believe in them. That does not mean closing ranks when one of them does wrong. That means identifying the problem and kicking it off the force asap. You don't tolerate a cancer, you eradicate it.
Is "To Serve and Protect" too complicated? Try this: "Do Right."
UPDATE: Apparently, the charges against the Rochester woman were dropped "for lack of evidence". Considering the whole thing is on FUCKING TAPE, I'm hesitant to buy that reasoning and am even more depressed about the lack of transparency in the justice system.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Inspirational photography
While suffering through my 9-5 work week, I sometimes wonder what it would be like to have a more interesting career, such as that of a pro athlete, a comic book artist or a photographer. Photography is something that I've long been interested in but have never really pursued. It's hard to make any sort of money at it, especially if you aren't willing to commit to a life of wedding photography. (I value my weekends!)
Sometimes, though, I'll come across a website or news story about really cool photography and I second-guess my 9-5 existence.
I came across one such link via Boingboing. (where else?)
This is photographer Brian McCarty based in California. He has a book coming out collecting some of his very nifty work involving placing toys in real backgrounds to create a sort of "optical illusion" style of art. I kinda like the underwater ones, myself.
Seeing this makes me question whether sitting in front of a f***ing computer is really what I want to be doing with my life.
I wonder what the stork would say... (warning: this is quite possibly the most depressing commercial EVER.)
Sometimes, though, I'll come across a website or news story about really cool photography and I second-guess my 9-5 existence.
I came across one such link via Boingboing. (where else?)
This is photographer Brian McCarty based in California. He has a book coming out collecting some of his very nifty work involving placing toys in real backgrounds to create a sort of "optical illusion" style of art. I kinda like the underwater ones, myself.
Seeing this makes me question whether sitting in front of a f***ing computer is really what I want to be doing with my life.
I wonder what the stork would say... (warning: this is quite possibly the most depressing commercial EVER.)
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
CRAZY GUN-TOTING COP!!! ...Not so crazy?
Boingboing strikes again.
So I'm perusing the site, which is usually pretty interesting, and come across this post that seems to relate the story of a crazy, gun-waving cop caught on video pointing his firearm at a motorcyclist who was speeding. The story goes on to tell of the crazy lengths the DA is going to to back the officer.
The DA part of the story is one thing, and yes it sounds a bit out of touch with reality ("wiretapping"? Really?) but what pissed me off was the way the officer was portrayed and the way the biker's actions were overlooked.
The picture seems damning, but watch the video. In it, we see the biker speeding and driving recklessly. We even see him pull a wheelie. That's f***ing insane. Right there, this guy loses any sympathy from me. The guy should have his licence revoked for life. Honestly. WTF?
The video shows the speeder passing a police car, and the bubble pops up: "69 MPH" as if that was the speed he was doing when the cop caught him on radar. Less than half a minute earlier he was doing 127 MPH.
ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY SEVEN MILES PER HOUR.
That's some 205 km/h for us Canadians.
So do you really think the cop caught him at only 69 mph? Do you think radar only works the moment you are passing the cop car? Really?
STFU.
The guy starts checking his mirrors repeatedly, then speeds up to at least 82 mph (132 km/h), and takes the first exit he can. At this point, he knows he could be in trouble and he's CLEARLY trying to elude any police vehicle that may be pursuing him.
Now we don't know if he knows the cop is chasing him because there's no sound and we can't see what he sees in the mirrors. But once he gets on the ramp, we see him check his mirrors and then turn his head - that's when we can see the police vehicle in pursuit, lights flashing (notice there's still no sound at this point). Does he pull over immediately? Nope. He rides up to the light where the traffic is stopped and then stops.
This is where we see the unmarked cruiser (a gray sedan) pull up alongside. The officer gets out and unholsters his gun as he says "get off the motorcycle". What was the biker doing at the time? BACKING UP. So even before the cop can get out and say anything, the biker is making a move away. Where the heck is he going? Is it possible the cop sees this as a potential fleeing manoeuvre? Could that be why he draws his weapon? Notice that at no point does the officer actually raise his firearm at the biker. He puts his hand on the bike to arrest the biker and identifies himself.
Crazy cop? I dunno. Seems pretty calm and in control to me, especially since he's facing a biker who was endangering the lives of others.
And let's get something straight: this guy was not just "speeding", he was stunt driving and weaving dangerously around traffic. The guy is lucky the cop had that much patience with him. Had someone been hurt the public would be asking for the biker's head on a stick.
But who is the bad guy here? The police officer. The "out of control" cop. Are you kidding me? This guy was super calm.
I watched the video again, trying to find where the unmarked car might have seen the biker. Look back at the car in the passing lane next to the bus at the 0:34 mark. Think that might be him? I don't know where else it might have been. So was the cop really pulling his gun out for a guy doing a measly (?!) 69 mph on a highway, or had he been trying to catch up to the idiot who had passed him doing a wheelie at 127 mph?
Check out this news story about the incident. Regardless of the recording felony charge, the "victim" makes the disingenuous statement that he thought someone might be stealing his bike or trying to shoot him when the officer unholstered his weapon. ...Really? You KNOW you are being pulled over by a vehicle with flashing lights and you figure maybe you're being mugged? Really?
But the media outlet eats it up and paints the cop as the bad guy.
FAIL.
So I'm perusing the site, which is usually pretty interesting, and come across this post that seems to relate the story of a crazy, gun-waving cop caught on video pointing his firearm at a motorcyclist who was speeding. The story goes on to tell of the crazy lengths the DA is going to to back the officer.
The DA part of the story is one thing, and yes it sounds a bit out of touch with reality ("wiretapping"? Really?) but what pissed me off was the way the officer was portrayed and the way the biker's actions were overlooked.
The picture seems damning, but watch the video. In it, we see the biker speeding and driving recklessly. We even see him pull a wheelie. That's f***ing insane. Right there, this guy loses any sympathy from me. The guy should have his licence revoked for life. Honestly. WTF?
The video shows the speeder passing a police car, and the bubble pops up: "69 MPH" as if that was the speed he was doing when the cop caught him on radar. Less than half a minute earlier he was doing 127 MPH.
ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY SEVEN MILES PER HOUR.
That's some 205 km/h for us Canadians.
So do you really think the cop caught him at only 69 mph? Do you think radar only works the moment you are passing the cop car? Really?
STFU.
The guy starts checking his mirrors repeatedly, then speeds up to at least 82 mph (132 km/h), and takes the first exit he can. At this point, he knows he could be in trouble and he's CLEARLY trying to elude any police vehicle that may be pursuing him.
Now we don't know if he knows the cop is chasing him because there's no sound and we can't see what he sees in the mirrors. But once he gets on the ramp, we see him check his mirrors and then turn his head - that's when we can see the police vehicle in pursuit, lights flashing (notice there's still no sound at this point). Does he pull over immediately? Nope. He rides up to the light where the traffic is stopped and then stops.
This is where we see the unmarked cruiser (a gray sedan) pull up alongside. The officer gets out and unholsters his gun as he says "get off the motorcycle". What was the biker doing at the time? BACKING UP. So even before the cop can get out and say anything, the biker is making a move away. Where the heck is he going? Is it possible the cop sees this as a potential fleeing manoeuvre? Could that be why he draws his weapon? Notice that at no point does the officer actually raise his firearm at the biker. He puts his hand on the bike to arrest the biker and identifies himself.
Crazy cop? I dunno. Seems pretty calm and in control to me, especially since he's facing a biker who was endangering the lives of others.
And let's get something straight: this guy was not just "speeding", he was stunt driving and weaving dangerously around traffic. The guy is lucky the cop had that much patience with him. Had someone been hurt the public would be asking for the biker's head on a stick.
But who is the bad guy here? The police officer. The "out of control" cop. Are you kidding me? This guy was super calm.
I watched the video again, trying to find where the unmarked car might have seen the biker. Look back at the car in the passing lane next to the bus at the 0:34 mark. Think that might be him? I don't know where else it might have been. So was the cop really pulling his gun out for a guy doing a measly (?!) 69 mph on a highway, or had he been trying to catch up to the idiot who had passed him doing a wheelie at 127 mph?
Check out this news story about the incident. Regardless of the recording felony charge, the "victim" makes the disingenuous statement that he thought someone might be stealing his bike or trying to shoot him when the officer unholstered his weapon. ...Really? You KNOW you are being pulled over by a vehicle with flashing lights and you figure maybe you're being mugged? Really?
But the media outlet eats it up and paints the cop as the bad guy.
FAIL.
Friday, July 16, 2010
This and That - July 16, 2010
Just some thoughts on things I came across today:
Beaver kills dog, beaver to be killed
There's something missing in this story, surely. I mean, why is there an off-leash in that particular spot? Why not just move the off-leash area instead of killing the beavers? And I don't buy the "if we move the beavers they'll just fight to the death with another beaver for their territory" argument. I mean, surely there are places suitable for beavers where there isn't already a beaver. WTF?
New Superman to be made, without Brandon Routh
This is too bad. I can understand not casting Routh if they want to completely re-boot the franchise again, but Routh was terrific in Superman Returns, I thought. He channeled Christopher Reeves and was a suitable Man of Steel, physically. Making a feature with Tom Welling would be another option, but I guess he comes with the baggage of the tv series - see re-boot of the franchise idea. Casting Chuck's Zachary Levi would be bizarre, though, seeing as Routh had an extended run on the series and Levi comes with the comedic baggage. I can't see him as Supes.
Bionic legs allow paralyzed man to walk
Wait...why hasn't this happened before? Some guys in a garage came up with this? Seriously? Is there not enough money to be made in the development of this device that it hadn't been created before? I'm confused. Great for this guy, though. Great friends. If enough of these can be made and the system improved, I'm sure the price will come down even from the $150K projected price. I wonder what insurance companies think of this? These devices would have their own issues, but if it saves people the cost of special houses, ramps, etc, maybe that price tag doesn't seem so high?
Mel Gibson's lawyers say tapes were doctored
If the tapes were edited, ok, then that's a pretty serious charge. But unless they were doctored in such a way as to make it sound like he said things that he didn't, well, I'm not sure it's gonna matter in the public eye. I'm thinking of things, like, I dunno... "If you get raped by a pack of n***ers", you know, that sort of thing. Still, you gotta wonder about someone who would record and leak phone conversations. Use 'em in court, sure, but making them available to the public? Maybe they deserve each other.
Jarvis losing a lane to bikes
Not sure how I feel about this yet. I’m all for bike lanes, don’t get me wrong, but I question whether Jarvis is really the right street for them. It’s a major arterial road for cars, that’s for sure. But if you wanted to get around the city on a bike, would Jarvis really be your street of choice? First of all, it runs from Rosedale to east downtown; who is riding their bike down fromRosedale ? For those coming from north of Rosedale, that’s probably not your route of choice since Mount Pleasant Yonge Street Yonge Street Montreal
Beaver kills dog, beaver to be killed
There's something missing in this story, surely. I mean, why is there an off-leash in that particular spot? Why not just move the off-leash area instead of killing the beavers? And I don't buy the "if we move the beavers they'll just fight to the death with another beaver for their territory" argument. I mean, surely there are places suitable for beavers where there isn't already a beaver. WTF?
New Superman to be made, without Brandon Routh
This is too bad. I can understand not casting Routh if they want to completely re-boot the franchise again, but Routh was terrific in Superman Returns, I thought. He channeled Christopher Reeves and was a suitable Man of Steel, physically. Making a feature with Tom Welling would be another option, but I guess he comes with the baggage of the tv series - see re-boot of the franchise idea. Casting Chuck's Zachary Levi would be bizarre, though, seeing as Routh had an extended run on the series and Levi comes with the comedic baggage. I can't see him as Supes.
Bionic legs allow paralyzed man to walk
Wait...why hasn't this happened before? Some guys in a garage came up with this? Seriously? Is there not enough money to be made in the development of this device that it hadn't been created before? I'm confused. Great for this guy, though. Great friends. If enough of these can be made and the system improved, I'm sure the price will come down even from the $150K projected price. I wonder what insurance companies think of this? These devices would have their own issues, but if it saves people the cost of special houses, ramps, etc, maybe that price tag doesn't seem so high?
Mel Gibson's lawyers say tapes were doctored
If the tapes were edited, ok, then that's a pretty serious charge. But unless they were doctored in such a way as to make it sound like he said things that he didn't, well, I'm not sure it's gonna matter in the public eye. I'm thinking of things, like, I dunno... "If you get raped by a pack of n***ers", you know, that sort of thing. Still, you gotta wonder about someone who would record and leak phone conversations. Use 'em in court, sure, but making them available to the public? Maybe they deserve each other.
Jarvis losing a lane to bikes
Not sure how I feel about this yet. I’m all for bike lanes, don’t get me wrong, but I question whether Jarvis is really the right street for them. It’s a major arterial road for cars, that’s for sure. But if you wanted to get around the city on a bike, would Jarvis really be your street of choice? First of all, it runs from Rosedale to east downtown; who is riding their bike down from
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Awesome journalism
I read those "commuter" papers on my way to work. They're convenient and free.
But, man, do they suck.
24 is by far the greatest offender, but Metro is filled with errors, omissions and nonsense every single day. I fear for the minds of those who take this stuff at face value.
This may or may not be related, since I saw the same story reported in The Star, but I thought I'd share this interesting tidbit of info that I came across and made me shake my head.
There was this study, see (you know how much I love those!), and in it a bunch of would-be researchers looked at immigrants to Canada versus those born here to see how they compared in terms of water safety. The headline reads: "Research compiled by the Lifesaving Society shows a strong need for water safety education targeted at Canada's immigrants."
Followed by stats.
Issue #1: "The Lifesaving Society’s survey polled 433 Canadian-born adults and 599 Canadian immigrants from the Chinese, South Asian, Southeast Asian and Muslim communities." So, basically, not immigrants from the other 70% of the world. That's thorough. I'm not sure this really represents an accurate reflection of "immigrants", but ok...
Issue #2: Metro, who published the story on their front page, says, "Even though 20% of immigrants said they cannot swim, 79% reported to the study that they planned to spend time around or on the water this summer." *GASP!* Someone warn these people!!!
...Hold on... 20% can't swim... 79% plan to be around the water... that means 21% won't be even near the water... 20% can't swim...
Wait...
Wow. Way to be alarmist. This, ladies and gentlemen, is front page news.
But, man, do they suck.
24 is by far the greatest offender, but Metro is filled with errors, omissions and nonsense every single day. I fear for the minds of those who take this stuff at face value.
This may or may not be related, since I saw the same story reported in The Star, but I thought I'd share this interesting tidbit of info that I came across and made me shake my head.
There was this study, see (you know how much I love those!), and in it a bunch of would-be researchers looked at immigrants to Canada versus those born here to see how they compared in terms of water safety. The headline reads: "Research compiled by the Lifesaving Society shows a strong need for water safety education targeted at Canada's immigrants."
Followed by stats.
Issue #1: "The Lifesaving Society’s survey polled 433 Canadian-born adults and 599 Canadian immigrants from the Chinese, South Asian, Southeast Asian and Muslim communities." So, basically, not immigrants from the other 70% of the world. That's thorough. I'm not sure this really represents an accurate reflection of "immigrants", but ok...
Issue #2: Metro, who published the story on their front page, says, "Even though 20% of immigrants said they cannot swim, 79% reported to the study that they planned to spend time around or on the water this summer." *GASP!* Someone warn these people!!!
...Hold on... 20% can't swim... 79% plan to be around the water... that means 21% won't be even near the water... 20% can't swim...
Wait...
Wow. Way to be alarmist. This, ladies and gentlemen, is front page news.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Cory Doctorow misses the point again
I haven't been over to Boingboing in quite a while. I blame the twitchy bookmarks feature on my browser since they updated the servers at work.
Did I say work? I meant home. Since they updated the servers at home.
Right.
Anyway, it didn't take long to come across a post by my fav contributor, Cory Doctorow, in which he aimed his vitriol at "The Man" and missed completely.
In this article, Cory links to another article wherein the author claims that the recording industry in America is wasting its money suing peer-to-peer users who download/share music files, presumably at the expense of CD sales. See, the numbers suggest the RIAA is spending way more in lawyers' fees ($16M) than they recoup in litigation wins ($400K). Bad investment, right? Losers, right?
Uh...not so fast. Do you seriously believe the primary objective of the RIAA is to get their money back via litigation? Come on...
Of COURSE it's "litigation terrorism" as one comment poster put it. The RIAA clearly thinks it's worth it in deterrence or they wouldn't be doing it. These guys are all about profits, remember?
Piracy may still be thriving (as many comment posters seem to be pointing out with glee), but I'm sure that there is SOME portion of the population out there that is just a bit freaked out by the threat of being singled out - maybe even $16M worth? Hell, even the UFC is jumping on that bandwagon.
The fact is that as long as the internet exists, piracy will exist. There are tons of people who feel they shouldn't have to pay a dollar for something they can potentially access for free (legal or no). Does that mean these rights holders should lie back and take it? Hell no. Is it good PR? Hell no, but they're banking on the fact that you like the artist on the front of the CD enough to ignore the name in the small print on the back of the CD.
Now stop stealing shit! Geez...
Did I say work? I meant home. Since they updated the servers at home.
Right.
Anyway, it didn't take long to come across a post by my fav contributor, Cory Doctorow, in which he aimed his vitriol at "The Man" and missed completely.
In this article, Cory links to another article wherein the author claims that the recording industry in America is wasting its money suing peer-to-peer users who download/share music files, presumably at the expense of CD sales. See, the numbers suggest the RIAA is spending way more in lawyers' fees ($16M) than they recoup in litigation wins ($400K). Bad investment, right? Losers, right?
Uh...not so fast. Do you seriously believe the primary objective of the RIAA is to get their money back via litigation? Come on...
Of COURSE it's "litigation terrorism" as one comment poster put it. The RIAA clearly thinks it's worth it in deterrence or they wouldn't be doing it. These guys are all about profits, remember?
Piracy may still be thriving (as many comment posters seem to be pointing out with glee), but I'm sure that there is SOME portion of the population out there that is just a bit freaked out by the threat of being singled out - maybe even $16M worth? Hell, even the UFC is jumping on that bandwagon.
The fact is that as long as the internet exists, piracy will exist. There are tons of people who feel they shouldn't have to pay a dollar for something they can potentially access for free (legal or no). Does that mean these rights holders should lie back and take it? Hell no. Is it good PR? Hell no, but they're banking on the fact that you like the artist on the front of the CD enough to ignore the name in the small print on the back of the CD.
Now stop stealing shit! Geez...
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Michael Bryant - Darcy Sheppard Incident Follow-up
Whoa.
I was out of town on Tuesday, so I missed this bit of news. Seems the charges against former Attorney General Michael Bryant were dropped when the prosecution decided it had no reasonable chance of conviction.
See, back in September of aught-nine, I posted this. It got the most comments, I think, of anything I've posted on this blog. I was trying to make the point that everyone should take a deep breath and wait for the facts to come out before passing judgement (not just in this case, but in all cases) and holding pro-cyclist/anti-car sit-ins. Seems some folks missed that message, though, and accused me of supporting Bryant and being a car-loving douchebag.
Although I'm sure many will doubt the story (I have my own questions), it seems that some facts have indeed come to light that helped get Bryant off the hook. You can catch most of the story here, but here are some highlights:
- Sheppard was drunk. He had a blood alcohol of 0.183, over twice the legal driving limit (not sure how that limit applies to impaired cycling).
- He had been acting somewhat oddly (to be kind) moments before the incident, throwing traffic cones and junk onto the street and doing figure eights in front of a car.
- He cut in front of Bryant's car at a light, passing on the driver's side.
- Bryant did not, as the video suggested to many, deliberately lurch at and then strike Sheppard with his car, but rather this sequence was the result of the car stalling and Bryant nervously attempting to restart it. (Bryant should have realized the danger when the car lurched the first time, but, hey, I didn't interview the witnesses.)
- The car did not speed off at a rate of 60-100 km/h, but rather hit about 35 km/h.
- Sheppard struck Bryant in the forehead as Bryant drove in a panic.
- Forensic evidence proves Bryant did not mount or touch the curb at all (as some had suggested, in an effort to squish Sheppard like a bug) but rather Sheppard's outstretched body struck a fire hydrant no more than a foot from the curb and caused him to fall off, strike his head on the curb or roadway and suffer fatal injuries.
- Sheppard had a history of outrageous behaviour involving vehicles, including one caught on camera that shows that Sheppard also had a history of latching onto cars. The story is here.
As for all the other stuff regarding violence earlier in the evening, it seems that was neither proven nor dismissed.
The bottom line is that Sheppard's own father accepts the decision and applauded the thoroughness of the investigation.
Did Bryant err that evening? Obviously. He apparently couldn't get this car started and then tried to do so in a not-so-safe manner. But the story goes that he panicked. Was Sheppard justified in being pissed at what appeared to be a reckless if not aggressive act? Of course. Was Bryant equally justified in fearing for his safety and that of his wife in the face of Sheppard's reaction? I'd say so. Was this an example of human failures and unusual circumstances coming together with tragic consequences? You bet your ass.
Is this the rallying cry for cycling advocates? Not on your life. People who want to see more bike lanes should be distancing themselves from "troubled" folk like Sheppard. "Bad month" or not, this was not the poster-boy for bikes in the city.
I'm hoping that now that the facts are out, people will make their arguments in a more intelligent manner, rather than simply jumping to conclusions and breaking out the pitchforks and torches, all the while lauding Sheppard as an angel.
That's the end of this post. Bike lanes will be another post - just as it should be.
I was out of town on Tuesday, so I missed this bit of news. Seems the charges against former Attorney General Michael Bryant were dropped when the prosecution decided it had no reasonable chance of conviction.
See, back in September of aught-nine, I posted this. It got the most comments, I think, of anything I've posted on this blog. I was trying to make the point that everyone should take a deep breath and wait for the facts to come out before passing judgement (not just in this case, but in all cases) and holding pro-cyclist/anti-car sit-ins. Seems some folks missed that message, though, and accused me of supporting Bryant and being a car-loving douchebag.
Although I'm sure many will doubt the story (I have my own questions), it seems that some facts have indeed come to light that helped get Bryant off the hook. You can catch most of the story here, but here are some highlights:
- Sheppard was drunk. He had a blood alcohol of 0.183, over twice the legal driving limit (not sure how that limit applies to impaired cycling).
- He had been acting somewhat oddly (to be kind) moments before the incident, throwing traffic cones and junk onto the street and doing figure eights in front of a car.
- He cut in front of Bryant's car at a light, passing on the driver's side.
- Bryant did not, as the video suggested to many, deliberately lurch at and then strike Sheppard with his car, but rather this sequence was the result of the car stalling and Bryant nervously attempting to restart it. (Bryant should have realized the danger when the car lurched the first time, but, hey, I didn't interview the witnesses.)
- The car did not speed off at a rate of 60-100 km/h, but rather hit about 35 km/h.
- Sheppard struck Bryant in the forehead as Bryant drove in a panic.
- Forensic evidence proves Bryant did not mount or touch the curb at all (as some had suggested, in an effort to squish Sheppard like a bug) but rather Sheppard's outstretched body struck a fire hydrant no more than a foot from the curb and caused him to fall off, strike his head on the curb or roadway and suffer fatal injuries.
- Sheppard had a history of outrageous behaviour involving vehicles, including one caught on camera that shows that Sheppard also had a history of latching onto cars. The story is here.
As for all the other stuff regarding violence earlier in the evening, it seems that was neither proven nor dismissed.
The bottom line is that Sheppard's own father accepts the decision and applauded the thoroughness of the investigation.
Did Bryant err that evening? Obviously. He apparently couldn't get this car started and then tried to do so in a not-so-safe manner. But the story goes that he panicked. Was Sheppard justified in being pissed at what appeared to be a reckless if not aggressive act? Of course. Was Bryant equally justified in fearing for his safety and that of his wife in the face of Sheppard's reaction? I'd say so. Was this an example of human failures and unusual circumstances coming together with tragic consequences? You bet your ass.
Is this the rallying cry for cycling advocates? Not on your life. People who want to see more bike lanes should be distancing themselves from "troubled" folk like Sheppard. "Bad month" or not, this was not the poster-boy for bikes in the city.
I'm hoping that now that the facts are out, people will make their arguments in a more intelligent manner, rather than simply jumping to conclusions and breaking out the pitchforks and torches, all the while lauding Sheppard as an angel.
That's the end of this post. Bike lanes will be another post - just as it should be.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Something Immediately
Let it never be said that I don't listen to my future wife.
Happy now?
Now let me get back to work! I have to work twice as much if I'm gonna give you half my sh*t! :P
Love,
-Philip.
Happy now?
Now let me get back to work! I have to work twice as much if I'm gonna give you half my sh*t! :P
Love,
-Philip.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Bogus Air Miles
I don't have the time nor the inclination to get nto this too much today, but thought I'd comment on this link I noticed today.
When the whole Bonus Air Miles thing was launched (which, to me, was back in university, I believe) I was left scratching my head. How can this possibly work? If everyone starts collecting air miles and getting free flights, well, won't the airlines lose revenue and be forced to add crazy restrictions? If enough people earn enough points to start seriously redeem them, won't they just jack up the number of points needed to get a flight? What's to stop them once they have all these people invested?
Looks like I was right. Although this is supposedly the first increase in 5 years, the fact of the matter is that the air miles you've been collecting over x amount of time are simply not as valuable as they once were. Oh, but keep collecting, dear loyal customer - they'll pay off EVENTUALLY.
And when you want to redeem your BAM points or whatever other loyalty point card thingamabopper, we have this one ticket on this one flight at this one time...to Orlando. Congrats!
That's why I've never been one to look for BAM deals. I whip out my card as a matter of course when I hand over my credit card to pay for groceries, but that's about it. I am NEVER lured by an offer that promotes BAMs. In fact, when I see ads that say "earn 50 BAMs with every purchase" it just turns me off more. If they can just hand out 50 points just like that, what's the point of me earning 1 or 2 points every time I buy groceries? (If that) I've been whipping out my card as a matter of course for some 15 years now and the last time I looked I had squat for points. Yippee.
Forget the BAM offer. I'll take 10% off the sticker price every time.
When the whole Bonus Air Miles thing was launched (which, to me, was back in university, I believe) I was left scratching my head. How can this possibly work? If everyone starts collecting air miles and getting free flights, well, won't the airlines lose revenue and be forced to add crazy restrictions? If enough people earn enough points to start seriously redeem them, won't they just jack up the number of points needed to get a flight? What's to stop them once they have all these people invested?
Looks like I was right. Although this is supposedly the first increase in 5 years, the fact of the matter is that the air miles you've been collecting over x amount of time are simply not as valuable as they once were. Oh, but keep collecting, dear loyal customer - they'll pay off EVENTUALLY.
And when you want to redeem your BAM points or whatever other loyalty point card thingamabopper, we have this one ticket on this one flight at this one time...to Orlando. Congrats!
That's why I've never been one to look for BAM deals. I whip out my card as a matter of course when I hand over my credit card to pay for groceries, but that's about it. I am NEVER lured by an offer that promotes BAMs. In fact, when I see ads that say "earn 50 BAMs with every purchase" it just turns me off more. If they can just hand out 50 points just like that, what's the point of me earning 1 or 2 points every time I buy groceries? (If that) I've been whipping out my card as a matter of course for some 15 years now and the last time I looked I had squat for points. Yippee.
Forget the BAM offer. I'll take 10% off the sticker price every time.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Au revoir, Le Marche
On my lunchtime stroll I noticed that Le Marche, a long-standing restaurant at the corner of Yonge & Wellington, had closed. It caught me - and a number of would-be lunchtime patrons - by surprise. There was a sign in the lobby thanking customers for their patronage.
Guess it's gone for good.
Now I'm not exactly shedding a tear for the place. I hated eating there. It was an overpriced buffet that actually charged an automatic 15% gratuity. (WTF?)
I also didn't like the social aspect of it. You get seated, then have to get up and walk around looking for food. It was like a giant menu that you had to walk through and you and your friends would have to go your separate ways to get your stuff (unless you happen to be eating the same thing). Then you get back to your table with your food, possibly minutes apart, and eat. This means there's no time between ordering and being served to talk with your meal partner(s). That's crap.
Then, when you check out, they charge you the gratuity for the pleasure of having served yourself. Thanks. If it's automatic, why not simply add it to the posted price of the food?
So, yeah, I hated the place. But it was a bit of an oasis in the midst of the downtown core. It looked nice, at least, and it often played French music - particularly Joe Dassin - inside the restaurant and out on the street.
I wonder what's going to take its place?
UPDATE: Spoke too soon? Yes and no. What will replace the Marche? Well, a Marche, of course!
Guess it's gone for good.
Now I'm not exactly shedding a tear for the place. I hated eating there. It was an overpriced buffet that actually charged an automatic 15% gratuity. (WTF?)
I also didn't like the social aspect of it. You get seated, then have to get up and walk around looking for food. It was like a giant menu that you had to walk through and you and your friends would have to go your separate ways to get your stuff (unless you happen to be eating the same thing). Then you get back to your table with your food, possibly minutes apart, and eat. This means there's no time between ordering and being served to talk with your meal partner(s). That's crap.
Then, when you check out, they charge you the gratuity for the pleasure of having served yourself. Thanks. If it's automatic, why not simply add it to the posted price of the food?
So, yeah, I hated the place. But it was a bit of an oasis in the midst of the downtown core. It looked nice, at least, and it often played French music - particularly Joe Dassin - inside the restaurant and out on the street.
I wonder what's going to take its place?
UPDATE: Spoke too soon? Yes and no. What will replace the Marche? Well, a Marche, of course!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Our Wedding Blog
Sorry I've been ignoring you so much, blogosphere, but, you see, I've been very busy this Christmas season.
I even (gulp) got engaged.
Zoinks, yo.
No, to be honest, I haven't been sweating it in the least (yet) because my bride-to-be is so incredibly utterly fantastic. I know that we're gonna have a great time together.
...Forever.
...
Zoinks, yo.
We've been discussing various wedding options/details and first up seems to be venue (which, of course, is paired with guest list, since the size of the wedding considerably narrows the list of suitable venues). It appears we're looking at about 150-200 guests. And that would be just family and close friends.
Zoinks, yo. (@ 8:07)
To help us on our journey and in order to capture advice (mostly) in one place, we've set up a wedding blog. You can find it here. We thought about sites like eWedding, etc, but they either cost money or expire. Eff that.
So, please, faithful reader, drop by the new blog and give us your two cents.
Or, better yet, enough to cover the cost of your plate.
I even (gulp) got engaged.
Zoinks, yo.
No, to be honest, I haven't been sweating it in the least (yet) because my bride-to-be is so incredibly utterly fantastic. I know that we're gonna have a great time together.
...Forever.
...
Zoinks, yo.
We've been discussing various wedding options/details and first up seems to be venue (which, of course, is paired with guest list, since the size of the wedding considerably narrows the list of suitable venues). It appears we're looking at about 150-200 guests. And that would be just family and close friends.
Zoinks, yo. (@ 8:07)
To help us on our journey and in order to capture advice (mostly) in one place, we've set up a wedding blog. You can find it here. We thought about sites like eWedding, etc, but they either cost money or expire. Eff that.
So, please, faithful reader, drop by the new blog and give us your two cents.
Or, better yet, enough to cover the cost of your plate.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Punishment should fit the crime, not the damage - Liambas vs Fanelli
Earlier this week, an OHL hockey player was injured after a crushing bodycheck from an opponent.
I hadn't seen the hit until just now, but I'd heard about it from others.
I don't know the players involved, but from what I can tell through a brief search, the hitter - Michael Liambas - is a bit of a douchebag on the ice as this ridiculously dirty hit on John Tavares demonstrates.
The recent incident resulted in a match penalty for boarding to Liambas and a trip to the hospital for Ben Fanelli, who was upgraded from critical to serious condition at last report.
Today, Liambas was suspended by the OHL for the remainder of the season, including the playoffs. This would make it one of the harshest suspensions ever handed down.
And it is completely b.s.
The hit was devastating, no doubt about it, but it should have resulted in a two minute charging penalty at most.
With all due respect to Ben Fanelli - and I'm sure EVERYONE wishes him a speedy recovery - the injury (skull and facial fractures) was a result of his head hitting the glass and the metal divider and not from the hit itself. Liambas did not leave his feet, nor was this a "head shot" (not every head injury is a result of a "head shot", the expression-du-jour in contact sports these days). Minus the debatable charge, the hit was clean.
Boarding is typically the result of a hit from behind, and some will argue that that is the case here. Bull. Liambas catches Fanelli in the back shoulder, but only because Fanelli turns to fire the puck the other way and possibly to protect himself at the very last moment.
As any experienced hockey player will tell you, this is exactly what NOT to do. Bracing yourself against the boards is the best way to minimize the impact of a hit. Turning your back is suicidal. It's hard to tell from the video if Fanelli protected himself at all or was simply getting rid of the puck.
Unfortunately, Fanelli's positioning resulted in him being spun violently into the boards where his head hit the glass and divider. The force of the impact with the glass knocked him unconcious and he fell to the ice, his helmet having been dislodged in the process.
Lesson number two in this situation is that players should be required to have their chin straps secured firmly.
It appears the OHL is not punishing the hit, but rather the damage. If Fanelli gets up, there's likely no match penalty, never mind a suspension. But when a player is seriously hurt, there's this sense that something drastic has to be done to balance the scales of justice - even when no crime was committed. The suspension is often in proportion to the injury, rather than the act.
Why is that?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: attempted murder should be punishable in the same way as murder. It isn't because you failed in the attempt that you should be "rewarded" with a lighter sentence. In other words, we should judge the act and intent, not the damage. In this case, the hit was essentially clean, though devastating.
So why the massive suspension?
The league talks about "respect" and "sending a message". But what's the message? What's the lesson to be learned here? Since there was nothing really wrong with the hit, and hits will happen in the future, what "message" does the league hope to convey and have heeded by the players?
This is a punishment based on politics and perception, and not on the facts or the acts.
It's tragic that Fanelli was injured on the play, but it isn't Liambas' fault.
I hope Fanelli has a full and speedy recovery.
I hadn't seen the hit until just now, but I'd heard about it from others.
I don't know the players involved, but from what I can tell through a brief search, the hitter - Michael Liambas - is a bit of a douchebag on the ice as this ridiculously dirty hit on John Tavares demonstrates.
The recent incident resulted in a match penalty for boarding to Liambas and a trip to the hospital for Ben Fanelli, who was upgraded from critical to serious condition at last report.
Today, Liambas was suspended by the OHL for the remainder of the season, including the playoffs. This would make it one of the harshest suspensions ever handed down.
And it is completely b.s.
The hit was devastating, no doubt about it, but it should have resulted in a two minute charging penalty at most.
With all due respect to Ben Fanelli - and I'm sure EVERYONE wishes him a speedy recovery - the injury (skull and facial fractures) was a result of his head hitting the glass and the metal divider and not from the hit itself. Liambas did not leave his feet, nor was this a "head shot" (not every head injury is a result of a "head shot", the expression-du-jour in contact sports these days). Minus the debatable charge, the hit was clean.
Boarding is typically the result of a hit from behind, and some will argue that that is the case here. Bull. Liambas catches Fanelli in the back shoulder, but only because Fanelli turns to fire the puck the other way and possibly to protect himself at the very last moment.
As any experienced hockey player will tell you, this is exactly what NOT to do. Bracing yourself against the boards is the best way to minimize the impact of a hit. Turning your back is suicidal. It's hard to tell from the video if Fanelli protected himself at all or was simply getting rid of the puck.
Unfortunately, Fanelli's positioning resulted in him being spun violently into the boards where his head hit the glass and divider. The force of the impact with the glass knocked him unconcious and he fell to the ice, his helmet having been dislodged in the process.
Lesson number two in this situation is that players should be required to have their chin straps secured firmly.
It appears the OHL is not punishing the hit, but rather the damage. If Fanelli gets up, there's likely no match penalty, never mind a suspension. But when a player is seriously hurt, there's this sense that something drastic has to be done to balance the scales of justice - even when no crime was committed. The suspension is often in proportion to the injury, rather than the act.
Why is that?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: attempted murder should be punishable in the same way as murder. It isn't because you failed in the attempt that you should be "rewarded" with a lighter sentence. In other words, we should judge the act and intent, not the damage. In this case, the hit was essentially clean, though devastating.
So why the massive suspension?
The league talks about "respect" and "sending a message". But what's the message? What's the lesson to be learned here? Since there was nothing really wrong with the hit, and hits will happen in the future, what "message" does the league hope to convey and have heeded by the players?
This is a punishment based on politics and perception, and not on the facts or the acts.
It's tragic that Fanelli was injured on the play, but it isn't Liambas' fault.
I hope Fanelli has a full and speedy recovery.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Correlation Without Causation
Ever heard that expression? (or "Correlation does not imply causation"?) I heard it in Psych 100, I think. I remembered it because it was so true of so many statements one reads in the press, especially when it comes to scientific studies and the like.
Don't get it? Ok, here's a simple example:
Red car sales increased last year.
The police issued more speeding tickets than ever last year.
Therefore, owning a red car causes a person to speed.
That's a retarded statement, and yet I can't tell you how many times I've read something similar in a newspaper or somesuch. There are any number of reasons the number of speeding tickets increased that have nothing to do with the colour of the cars on the road (though there's always the possibility that it IS caused by just that).
I came across this today and it made me laugh:
I'm such a geek.
Don't get it? Ok, here's a simple example:
Red car sales increased last year.
The police issued more speeding tickets than ever last year.
Therefore, owning a red car causes a person to speed.
That's a retarded statement, and yet I can't tell you how many times I've read something similar in a newspaper or somesuch. There are any number of reasons the number of speeding tickets increased that have nothing to do with the colour of the cars on the road (though there's always the possibility that it IS caused by just that).
I came across this today and it made me laugh:
I'm such a geek.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Tradition! (of the egg nog variety)
I have an annual tradition. Every year, I buy the first carton of egg nog that I see.
I like egg nog. Some people think it's revolting, but those people are ugly.
Egg nog with rum? YUM!!! I look forward to that every Christmas. Of course, I usually have way too much and need a year to recover.
So guess what I saw when I dropped by the grocery store the other day? Sure enough, there was a shelf full of egg nog. This year, it was the "Irresistibles" version. I quite like the President's Choice Premium egg nog (in the black carton) but the tradition doesn't care - whatever's first wins.
So I picked up a carton, went home, and enjoyed my first egg nog of the season.
...in OCTOBER!!!!!!!!
What the fudge?!
It's OCTOBER.
I used to think having my first egg nog in November was a bit odd. I'm gonna be sick of rum & egg nog before Hallowee'n!
I like egg nog. Some people think it's revolting, but those people are ugly.
Egg nog with rum? YUM!!! I look forward to that every Christmas. Of course, I usually have way too much and need a year to recover.
So guess what I saw when I dropped by the grocery store the other day? Sure enough, there was a shelf full of egg nog. This year, it was the "Irresistibles" version. I quite like the President's Choice Premium egg nog (in the black carton) but the tradition doesn't care - whatever's first wins.
So I picked up a carton, went home, and enjoyed my first egg nog of the season.
...in OCTOBER!!!!!!!!
What the fudge?!
It's OCTOBER.
I used to think having my first egg nog in November was a bit odd. I'm gonna be sick of rum & egg nog before Hallowee'n!
Monday, October 05, 2009
Get off the phone!!
Jim Kenzie is a columnist for The Toronto Star and a tv personality who works the automotive beat.
He's a smart guy and I often agree with his points of view.
Perhaps that's a redundant statement. :P
Anyhow, his latest article tackles the recent legislation effectively banning the use of cell phones while driving.
Or, rather, the use of hand-held cell phones.
Note the problem here?
See, while the legislation is no doubt a step in the right direction (though Jim seems to think it actually makes matters worse if people think it endorses the hands-free option), it doesn't quite address the issue. The act of holding a cell phone to one's head is no doubt dangerous. I have seen drivers nearly collide with me and/or other objects because they had limited their field of vision. The ban will help curb this occurence. But, see, this approach has cellphone apologists using the same old ridiculous argument that radios and the like are just as distracting. I mean, they're all items that require physical dexterity and keep our hands off the wheel, right?
*sigh*
You would have to be a complete moron not to agree that the real danger of cell phones is not the physical presence of the item but the mental distraction they cause.
And no, you putz, a phone conversation is not at all the same as listening to the radio.
See, listening to the radio is passive. Sometimes you don't even notice the song playing - it's ambience. But when you're on the phone, engaged in a conversation, it's a completely different use of the mind and draw on your attention. Do I have a science degree? No, but what I do have is half a brain. It's as obvious as obvious can be that when you are participating in a phone conversation, you "retreat" mentally, even if just a little. There's no way that you are as aware of your environment. That's a dangerous frame of mind when operating a vehicle in traffic.
If you haven't seen it yourself, then you either don't drive enough or your lack of perception skills has me thinking - cell phone or no - you already shouldn't be driving. I've been in cars with people who go absolutely retarded once they pick up the phone. They slow down, miss exits, lose track of cars around them, or even become panicked and edgy.
A hands-free device will not cure this. Drivers will still be distracted as they retreat psychologically in order to converse intelligently. Yes, even the "good" drivers.
I have long refused to talk to friends on the phone if I know they are driving. The fact they they may be using a hands-free device will not change that.
The legislation does not ban hands-free communication because, as I understand it, it would be difficult if not impossible for an officer to determine that someone is using a hands-free device. The legislation should not be seen as an endorsement of hands-free. My solution? Ban all cell phone communication while driving. Pull over the folks who use hand-held devices, sure, but add a charge for people caught using a hands-free device when involved in an acident. Determining that a hands-free device was being used in that instance would not be impossible to prove and just might discourage some use.
Wanna make/answer a call while driving? Pull over or get off the phone!
He's a smart guy and I often agree with his points of view.
Perhaps that's a redundant statement. :P
Anyhow, his latest article tackles the recent legislation effectively banning the use of cell phones while driving.
Or, rather, the use of hand-held cell phones.
Note the problem here?
See, while the legislation is no doubt a step in the right direction (though Jim seems to think it actually makes matters worse if people think it endorses the hands-free option), it doesn't quite address the issue. The act of holding a cell phone to one's head is no doubt dangerous. I have seen drivers nearly collide with me and/or other objects because they had limited their field of vision. The ban will help curb this occurence. But, see, this approach has cellphone apologists using the same old ridiculous argument that radios and the like are just as distracting. I mean, they're all items that require physical dexterity and keep our hands off the wheel, right?
*sigh*
You would have to be a complete moron not to agree that the real danger of cell phones is not the physical presence of the item but the mental distraction they cause.
And no, you putz, a phone conversation is not at all the same as listening to the radio.
See, listening to the radio is passive. Sometimes you don't even notice the song playing - it's ambience. But when you're on the phone, engaged in a conversation, it's a completely different use of the mind and draw on your attention. Do I have a science degree? No, but what I do have is half a brain. It's as obvious as obvious can be that when you are participating in a phone conversation, you "retreat" mentally, even if just a little. There's no way that you are as aware of your environment. That's a dangerous frame of mind when operating a vehicle in traffic.
If you haven't seen it yourself, then you either don't drive enough or your lack of perception skills has me thinking - cell phone or no - you already shouldn't be driving. I've been in cars with people who go absolutely retarded once they pick up the phone. They slow down, miss exits, lose track of cars around them, or even become panicked and edgy.
A hands-free device will not cure this. Drivers will still be distracted as they retreat psychologically in order to converse intelligently. Yes, even the "good" drivers.
I have long refused to talk to friends on the phone if I know they are driving. The fact they they may be using a hands-free device will not change that.
The legislation does not ban hands-free communication because, as I understand it, it would be difficult if not impossible for an officer to determine that someone is using a hands-free device. The legislation should not be seen as an endorsement of hands-free. My solution? Ban all cell phone communication while driving. Pull over the folks who use hand-held devices, sure, but add a charge for people caught using a hands-free device when involved in an acident. Determining that a hands-free device was being used in that instance would not be impossible to prove and just might discourage some use.
Wanna make/answer a call while driving? Pull over or get off the phone!
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Viewpoint Film Challenge
My friend Russ is a very talented artist. You may have seen some of his work on some PC video game boxes or on the Canadian version of Monopoly.
About a year ago, he started a mini film fest called the Viewpoint Film Challenge. The premise is fairly simple: give filmmakers a script that they more or less have to stick to (just dialogue) and see how each one interprets it differently. The script, of course, is purposely vague.
The rules are simple:
- You cannot add dialogue.
- You can remove dialogue.
- You can move dialogue around, but not words or letter within dialogue.
- The film has to be under 10 minutes.
The first time around, the entries included not just the standard stuff, but animations and films filled with green screen effects. You can see them here.
Based on what I've seen of the second incarnation, recently holding its screening at the Arcacia Centre in Chinatown , the films are even more ambitious. Russ's film in particular is unbelievably awesome with its special effects.
It's incredible that you can do this kind of film on a home computer!
The films from the second screening should all be posted soon, so keep an eye out. Viewpoint Film Challenge 3 seems to be a given, so if you're interested keep an eye on the site or join the VFC Facebook group.
About a year ago, he started a mini film fest called the Viewpoint Film Challenge. The premise is fairly simple: give filmmakers a script that they more or less have to stick to (just dialogue) and see how each one interprets it differently. The script, of course, is purposely vague.
The rules are simple:
- You cannot add dialogue.
- You can remove dialogue.
- You can move dialogue around, but not words or letter within dialogue.
- The film has to be under 10 minutes.
The first time around, the entries included not just the standard stuff, but animations and films filled with green screen effects. You can see them here.
Based on what I've seen of the second incarnation, recently holding its screening at the Arcacia Centre in Chinatown , the films are even more ambitious. Russ's film in particular is unbelievably awesome with its special effects.
It's incredible that you can do this kind of film on a home computer!
The films from the second screening should all be posted soon, so keep an eye out. Viewpoint Film Challenge 3 seems to be a given, so if you're interested keep an eye on the site or join the VFC Facebook group.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Stop crime, get arrested II
*sigh*
Another one of these.
So let me get this straight: guy gets his place burglarized TWICE IN ONE DAY. He catches the guy in the act the second time and, in the process, kills the guy and the police are debating whether to charge the burglary victim?
*sigh*
This is bullshit.
The article says:
How about the right to defend your property? I mean, I'm big on that myself, but I thought they were really big on that in the States. I thought you could shoot trespassers down there.
A friend of mine recently had his place broken into in the middle of the night. The burglars(s) clearly did not realize he was home, asleep in the basement. My friend (wisely) escaped out the side door and ran to a neighbour's to call police.
Now, let's imagine that my friend had a kid. Let's imagine that the kid is asleep in another room and that my friend cannot escape with the child unnoticed. Can he confront the burglar with a weapon then? (the fact that the burglar dies from their wounds should never be a consideration - you either believe in defending something with force or you don't - you can't always control the outcome of using that force)
You can bet your ass that I'd be standing there with my samurai sword or Ginsu knife or rocket launcher. Whatever I could get my hands on.
Honestly: fuck the burglar.
What? The guy was supposed to let the guy just walk off with his stuff? No? Then how the hell was he supposed to stop him? By threatening him with force? What if he had to actually USE that force to stop the guy? Is that ok? He had a SWORD. How many different ways are there to use a fucking sword?!
And, besides, does he really have to give the guy the opportunity to surrender before using the force to incapacitate the burglar? I mean, isn't losing the element of surprise just increasing the odds the burglar will do you harm? Just because the guy hasn't seen you yet doesn't mean you aren't in danger. This guy could have run the sword through the burglar's back and I still wouldn't have a problem with it.
Bottom line: the burglar isn't the victim. You break into someone's house, you take your chances.
John Pontolillo shouldn't get arrested, he should get a pat on the back.
Another one of these.
So let me get this straight: guy gets his place burglarized TWICE IN ONE DAY. He catches the guy in the act the second time and, in the process, kills the guy and the police are debating whether to charge the burglary victim?
*sigh*
This is bullshit.
The article says:
University of Maryland law professor David Gray said prosecutors must weigh
whether Pontolillo thought he was in danger or became the aggressor. If he
thought he might be severely harmed, then he was within his rights to protect
himself, Gray said. "It doesn't matter if he used a gun, a sword or a frying
pan."
How about the right to defend your property? I mean, I'm big on that myself, but I thought they were really big on that in the States. I thought you could shoot trespassers down there.
A friend of mine recently had his place broken into in the middle of the night. The burglars(s) clearly did not realize he was home, asleep in the basement. My friend (wisely) escaped out the side door and ran to a neighbour's to call police.
Now, let's imagine that my friend had a kid. Let's imagine that the kid is asleep in another room and that my friend cannot escape with the child unnoticed. Can he confront the burglar with a weapon then? (the fact that the burglar dies from their wounds should never be a consideration - you either believe in defending something with force or you don't - you can't always control the outcome of using that force)
You can bet your ass that I'd be standing there with my samurai sword or Ginsu knife or rocket launcher. Whatever I could get my hands on.
Honestly: fuck the burglar.
What? The guy was supposed to let the guy just walk off with his stuff? No? Then how the hell was he supposed to stop him? By threatening him with force? What if he had to actually USE that force to stop the guy? Is that ok? He had a SWORD. How many different ways are there to use a fucking sword?!
And, besides, does he really have to give the guy the opportunity to surrender before using the force to incapacitate the burglar? I mean, isn't losing the element of surprise just increasing the odds the burglar will do you harm? Just because the guy hasn't seen you yet doesn't mean you aren't in danger. This guy could have run the sword through the burglar's back and I still wouldn't have a problem with it.
Bottom line: the burglar isn't the victim. You break into someone's house, you take your chances.
John Pontolillo shouldn't get arrested, he should get a pat on the back.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Music Video Awards
Another video awards ceremony, another Kanye West outburst.
I hate it when tv is predictable.
I didn't see the ceremony, actually. I watched maybe 5 seconds of it, just as Serena Williams, fresh of her own outburst at the U.S. Open, got a somewhat mixed welcome.
So I missed the "lowlight" of the show when Kanye West interrupted Taylor Swift's acceptance speech for Best Female Video for "You Belong To Me" to announce to the crowd that, while he was happy for Taylor and would let her finish, Beyonce had made one of the best videos of all time.
You stay classy, Kanye.
Swift, understandably, didn't finish her speech - not until Beyonce invited her up on stage to do so when she herself won Video of the Year for "Single Ladies".
Ok, so I think we can all agree that Kanye is a complete douche. Here's the part I don't get: Kanye thinks this was one of the best videos of all time and should have certainly beaten this. Am I missing something? A video where three ladies do a choreographed dance on a bare set is one of the best videos of all time - in this day and age - and is leaps and bounds better than a video with an actual story to it?
Now I'm not saying Swift's video is great. It's pretty cliche and simple, really. I think it's depressing that it would win a video award. I mean, what happened to innovative videos? Don't we live in an era of CGI where incredible artistic visions can come true? What happened to pushing the envelope and making cool/original works like this or this or this? Is choreographed dancing all we need these days?
It's best video - not best SONG.
And while we're at it, can someone please explain to me how Beyonce can not have the Best Female Video and yet have Video of the Year? Isn't Beyonce female? Or does she have a sprinting career I don't know about?
I hate it when tv is predictable.
I didn't see the ceremony, actually. I watched maybe 5 seconds of it, just as Serena Williams, fresh of her own outburst at the U.S. Open, got a somewhat mixed welcome.
So I missed the "lowlight" of the show when Kanye West interrupted Taylor Swift's acceptance speech for Best Female Video for "You Belong To Me" to announce to the crowd that, while he was happy for Taylor and would let her finish, Beyonce had made one of the best videos of all time.
You stay classy, Kanye.
Swift, understandably, didn't finish her speech - not until Beyonce invited her up on stage to do so when she herself won Video of the Year for "Single Ladies".
Ok, so I think we can all agree that Kanye is a complete douche. Here's the part I don't get: Kanye thinks this was one of the best videos of all time and should have certainly beaten this. Am I missing something? A video where three ladies do a choreographed dance on a bare set is one of the best videos of all time - in this day and age - and is leaps and bounds better than a video with an actual story to it?
Now I'm not saying Swift's video is great. It's pretty cliche and simple, really. I think it's depressing that it would win a video award. I mean, what happened to innovative videos? Don't we live in an era of CGI where incredible artistic visions can come true? What happened to pushing the envelope and making cool/original works like this or this or this? Is choreographed dancing all we need these days?
It's best video - not best SONG.
And while we're at it, can someone please explain to me how Beyonce can not have the Best Female Video and yet have Video of the Year? Isn't Beyonce female? Or does she have a sprinting career I don't know about?
Friday, September 11, 2009
Tag! You're a douchebag.
Ok, so I'm kinda bored - it's the calm before the storm - so I thought I'd kill a minute or two by throwing up another post. I'm tired of all the Bryant-Sheppard bull and wanna get that post off the top of this page. :P
So here's something I came across on Boingboing : "Daredevil LA tagger 'Buket' of YouTube fame gets nearly 4 years in jail".
Four years seems more than a bit much but I don't know the circumstances of the charges. A little jail time to sober this moron up doesn't seem extreme to me, though.
Some people may say I'm getting old, what with my beard and all, but the truth is that I have always detested graffiti and "tagging". It's juvenile, rude, inconsiderate, ugly (usually), disrespectful and mean - and in this jerk's case, dangerous.
If you think this guy is anything but a "reckless egomaniacal douchetard", then I'm not sure we can be friends anymore.
.
So here's something I came across on Boingboing : "Daredevil LA tagger 'Buket' of YouTube fame gets nearly 4 years in jail".
Four years seems more than a bit much but I don't know the circumstances of the charges. A little jail time to sober this moron up doesn't seem extreme to me, though.
Some people may say I'm getting old, what with my beard and all, but the truth is that I have always detested graffiti and "tagging". It's juvenile, rude, inconsiderate, ugly (usually), disrespectful and mean - and in this jerk's case, dangerous.
If you think this guy is anything but a "reckless egomaniacal douchetard", then I'm not sure we can be friends anymore.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
