Rapper +sleeping pills = Jay-Zzzzzzzzz?

I'm almost certain I know who you are. I hope you have better luck at keeping your blog updated than I have had of late.

You know, it's funny that they find it necessary to have a literacy test in Grade 10, but no kind of sexuality test. I'm not saying it should be the school board's job, but wouldn't it be helpful to a great many people to learn something about THEMSELVES for once? All I learned from the EQAO was that the lowest common denominator is pretty fucking LOW (actually, I may have learned that from Ed the sock first). I think this may evolve into a full-blown topic later on, as school boards everywhere have a lot to answer for these days.

Hybrid Theory

Recently, my mother and father completed their quest to find a replacement for their now 8-year-old '99 Mazda Protégé (thus earning a reward of 30 Gold and 1200 EXP :p ). They had agreed to look for something more environmentally friendly – a hybrid car...

After some research on the EnerCan website, my father decided that there were only 2 real options: The Toyota Prius, or the Honda Civic Hybrid (1^st and 2^nd on the emissions list, arranged lowest – to – highest). I'm a little distressed that there isn't more competition for the top spot, but on the bright side it greatly simplified the decision-making process. The Prius was his first choice, and so off to the dealership my parents went. On one occasion, I accompanied my dad to test-drive the car (my lowly G1 allows me to do this, which is pretty cool). The car was loaded with tech, and the all-electric drive at low speeds was a neat (also quiet) feature. There was the minor issue of a sound input jack being part of a $4000 upgrade package, but all 3 current drivers in the family were sold on the car itself. The price? Not so much; although my parents tried their best to negotiate.

This left the Civic Hybrid as the remaining option. Although unable to power itself solely on electric power, it features all the other energy-saving features of a hybrid, the most important of which is that the electric motor is powerful enough to spin up the motor, which can be turned off when the car is stopped. I found the steering far more satisfying on the Honda, and an audio input jack came standard. The price was right, and so my parents hashed out a deal and committed to buy one. As I write this, we are still waiting for one to arrive. Depending on which colour we decide to take, we could have one as soon as next month. I'm rather excited...although my left foot mourns the loss of a cutch pedal. I'm a manual kinda guy, but I gotta hand it to the CVT (Continuously Variable Transmission): it's the more efficient system.

I'm happy to say that I've begun to see more and more Priuses, Smart cars, and the like on our streets here, but I wonder if there isn't more automakers could be doing to push energy-efficient vehicles. The current attitude seems to be that these cars are a niche interest (which indeed they are), as evidenced by the Civic Hybrid, which is available in only 4 “colours” (silver, blue-silver, white, metallic gray. Exciting!). The solution - in my opinion - is to make hybrids good for everyone: make every car a hybrid by a certain year. It sounds like a difficult undertaking, but the reality is that Honda could make any car it sells a hybrid with ease. The electric motor is jammed in between the engine and the drive shaft, which – according to the salesman we talked to – could be employed without any redesign. This being done, the next step is to NOT MARKET most of the new hybrids as such. Sure, you can have “IMA” (Integrated Motor Assist, what Honda calls its hybrid motor setup) on the features list, but all you have to say is “it improves acceleration, and also braking”. People would probably figure it out in time, but the point is not to draw attention to the feature, so the dumbasses who think that hybrids are “for pussies” will one day find themselves driving one. Anyone interested in the planet will either not own a car, or own a hybrid, or an electric car of some sort if driving is unavoidable. The rest won't care, one way or the other, unless they are the aforementioned haters, in which case what they don't know can be the cause for much laughter among more educated populations.

The biggest challenge that I can see in the above strategy is creating an entry-level hybrid car. The batteries, alternators, and control hardware for the electric motor are costly, and there isn't any real way around it...or is there? I have heard of a near-hybrid design, which uses an overpowered starter motor, rather than a separate entity. The real fuel-saving in a hybrid probably comes from the motor being turned off when the car is immobile or coasting. An overpowered starter could have the power to spin up the main engine fast enough to permit this. I wonder if either the starter or the alternator could be used for regenerative braking in a pinch? One can dream, I suppose. Add a CVT, and in a small car, you'll probably save more than enough fuel to make it worth buying. It won't be a proper hybrid, but it's the fuel savings which are important, not the precise methods by which they are achieved.

And then there's this. Granted, the base price tag of $92 000 USD isn't going to attract mainstream buyers, I imagine that you could build a small, efficient exclusively in-city electric car which would be quite affordable. It might not “glorify driving” to the extent that the electric roadster does, but it could easily do more than glorify a golf cart. In a similar category, I'd love to see a hybrid smart car. Sure, the batteries would add weight, but if a “watermelon sized” engine weighing less than 35 Kg can accelerate the roadster 0-100Km/h in ~4 seconds, I doubt it would be a problem finding a suitable electric motor for the job. The Smart's turbo-diesel is something like 799cc. Either the electric motor could be used to increase performance and mileage on the existing car, or an even smaller gas or diesel motor could be employed.

So instead of pissing and moaning, GM and the rest of you bastards complaining about the Government's new tax on polluting vehicles / credit for low-emissions vehicles can shut the FUCK up and go make some cleaner cars. If you're not going to play ball, then we should find someone to set up auto plants here who will...

I'd like to know if you, dear readers, would buy a hybrid car, electric car, or other alternative-energy vehicle (besides the obvious bicycle, which everyone should own) were you in the market for one.

More tomorrow, I'm signing off for now

Shout-Outs be to all my Gloucester peeps in Japan!

Around the World in 80 Posts! -UPDATED x3

-This post has been heavily added to -

The Squeaky Wheel...

What did I tell you?

Attempt to hold the world hostage, and your punishment is? One million or more barrels of fuel oil! Take heart, terrorists: this could be your lucky day. If a promise to halt Nuclear weapons development netted North Korea such a l3w7 h4ul, imagine how much a one-year moratorium on jihad would be worth! All silliness aside, the North Korean settlement is a puzzling development. What happened to "we don't negotiate with terrorists"? Where is the drive to rid the world of "communist evil"? Why do we make no mention of "liberation" for the destitute and brainwashed civilians of North Korea? It seems that if anyone is backing down, it is the US itself. Confrontation and conflict have served as the vanguard of "free markets" and "democracy" since the right to keep and bear arms was entrenched in the US constitution. Why now does the Hegemon repent? I can only surmise that – as seems to be the case with the Iraq war – Republican senators' desire for re-election has supplanted their thirst for blood and/or oil as priority #1. The entire state of affairs distresses me, for a number of reasons.

The first is that this “deal” - or any “deal” - is a loss for us, and it is a loss for humanity. Kim Jong-Il wins, for what profit could he find in maintaining a Nuclear Weapons program save that which he has now achieved? The world has been blackmailed into rewarding the supposed end of that which should not have happened in the first place. Does the West profit? Mr. Jong-Il would face no better an outcome had he made use of a nuclear weapon than (Iranian President) Ahmadinejad (sp?) in a similar situation. It may be that we have averted death and bloodshed, but we have also allowed ourselves to be blackmailed. Had we ignored the threat, had we called North Korea's bluff, the situation would be no better. There seems to be enough desire for combat on both sides, certainly enough to send us once again on the path to war with no hope of an end. The only positive solution I can see is one that should have happened years ago. In order to lead by example, the West should have abandoned both the development and maintenance of nuclear weaponry. Every last warhead should have been dismantled, and the contents useful to science or industry used for said purposes. The critical elements for initiating fission should have been pulverized into fine dust. What of leaving ourselves “defenseless”? There is no defense from total obliteration, There is only the potential for retribution before the end.

It isn't too late, though. Disarmament means that Iran (another one of those "rogue states") can no longer justify a nuclear program with “we have just as much a right as you do”. Perhaps they would continue to seek nuclear warheads, regardless. Would a nuclear reprisal be necessary? Does there not exist within the US alone the ordinance to devastate a thousand Irans? Speaking of problems of our own making, it was the West meddling in Iran which led to it's present state as a shining example of why theocracy is NOT a pleasant form of government. As glad as I am to see that we are not following the same path with North Korea (to my knowledge), there is one concern which overshadows all others. I have yet to tell you who the real losers are in this deal. The North Korean citizens who will spend their lives in ignorance because of their government. The North Koreans whose children will be raised to worship Kim Jong-Il and his successors. The North Koreans who in all likelihood who will go on starving, no matter how much fuel oil we send to keep their funny-haired Great Leader at bay.

The bottom line is that any time we buy now is time to formulate a better plan to deal with the situation. The only downside is that 'solutions', in the Western political lexicon, seems to mean “resolution of an unsavoury situation in a manner characterized by a maximization of both short-term gain, and long-term backlash”. Perhaps the US did not start a war this time because they had already lost.

Did you Know That...?

Canadian Conservatives, unlike their US counterparts DON'T seem to want to be re-elected. In response to a bill passed in the House of Commons which would hold the Cons to abide by Canada's Kyoto commitment, John Baird said that if it clears the Senate, he would ask his department how to meet Kyoto “without spending any money” (the Bill does not mandate any expenditures). The Conservatives come into office without a clue that the Environment would become an important issue. They re-instate Liberal programs in response to demand for climate-change legislation. They spend all this time chastising the Liberals for inaction on the Environment. I now consider the failure cake to be fully iced and decorated. First, now the Conservatives can be accused of lacking even the DESIRE to attain Kyoto goals. Second, the Liberals can cook up some BS about them “taking action” to ensure that Canada's government met its targets. Third, John Baird, instead of graciously accepting the fact that he had been PWN'D, he decides to go on record sounding like a complete asshole. I humbly suggest a slogan for the eventual Conservative election campaign: Canada's New Government: hey, we sucked in new and different ways!

That's all for now. Coming soon are my thoughts on Intel's 80-core processor demo, Supreme Commander, and Rise of Legends. Also, HDTV/computer frustrations!

Explore Expand Exploit Exterminate

Well, it's mostly the first two which you are likely to find within my blog. The latter two generally decline to make appearances, due to some bad publicity of late. “Exploit” in particular has fought against negative connotations among the public for several years now. At the time of writing, “Exterminate” could not be reached for comment, instead issuing a pre-recorded statement vowing to fight all slanderous accusations brought against him by “unscrupulous parties desperate for a soap box”

The “Four Xs” can be found together mainly in galactic-scale strategy, with other strategy games offering various (often, sadly, lacking) mixtures. From my experience with the Supreme Commander demo, I can say that the final 3 will be taking up most of your time, which is quite condusive to intense combat. The campaign missions are solid, but ever since Warcraft 3 set the bar for story-character-mission interplay somewhere around the orbit of Pluto's moon, almost no strategy game has managed to satisfy on the campaign front. Ground Control 2 is an exception, as it lacks base building. Supreme Commander's base-building is fun (although having different levels of engineer unit which LOOK THE SAME is kinda daft), but combined with sparse narrative and lack of hero units, campaign missions never feel as cinematic as those in Warcraft 3 or GC2 did. The game shines almost entirely on technical merits, namely that the controls are useful (although the lack of an in-game tutorial in the demo annoys me, I sincerely hope the full game has one for at least the unique features), the graphics are stellar, and the battles are positively epic.

SupCom is alleged to have incredible graphics, but since I cannot run the game with the settings any higher than 'low', I suspect I do not know the half of it . Explosions (pretty and satisfying when its their ship or giant robot what gets deep-sixed) are plentiful, and unit caps are very high. I suppose I should also mention that I can run the game across two screens, which is every bit as cool as any previews you have seen or read make it out to be. My one complaint is that by the end game, both (independant) cameras, and therefore monitors will be very close in zoom level, until your giant army enters combat (at which point you use one for the sheer pleasure of watching shit explode). I think that with more practice, I could be using both monitors to their fullest effect at all times, but until then it is at least worth the marvelling at. Two screens of game. Fucking AWESOME!

Obviously having only played the demo thus far, I cannot produce a final verdict on the game. From what I have played, though, it seems to be a very solid RTS. It has a few unique features, but in the end it's C&C or Warcraft, but with robots, more eye candy, and a little sophistication. Maybe I need to play the original Total Annihilation before I understand how great this game must be for Chris Taylor fans. That, or maybe someone besides Blizzard or Massive or Relic (the middle developed GC2, the latter Homeworld) needs to learn how to tell a story in an RTS!

I gate in 30, Dostya out (SupCom reference)

Double Kill!

It's Sunday, which means that it has come time to score the above with respect to my Blog here and my homework...somewhere here. I have a pretty ridiculous amount for being scant few weeks into the new semester. Not one, not two, but THREE group projects due at various times, two book reports, and I have the ISU for one of my classes. This does not bode well for me if I enjoy having leasure time.

So I looked up the serial number on a then-unidentified 3dfx-based board that I scored for $5 at a used computer parts shop in Langley, BC. Turns out that it's a Creative Labs Voodoo 2 board of some description. I'm not yet sure if it has 8 or 12 MB of vRAM, but what I do know is that he day I bought that card was one of my luckiest ever. That was the day I acquired my Abit BP-6, a piece of Geek history, and possibly legend. The 3dfx card was a throwaway buy, because I thought it might be an also-legendary Voodoo 2. Well, so it is. Now all I need is another one. I wonder if a pair of these suckers in SLI could run a 3^rd display in WinXP. Unlikely, but hey, I have enough PCI slots to do it.

If you are wondering why I keep editing post 80 as opposed to creating new posts, it is because I fully intend to talk about Intel's recent demonstration of an 80-core processor. And doing that in the 81^st or 82^nd post would just be really lame. So there you have it.

It Takes a Child to Raze a Village

I can't believe I hadn't previously thought of such a perverse twist on the old saying. I ought to Google it, see if anyone else thought of it first. I wonder if it's as true as the original. Something about it rings false, to me at least. I suspect as many – if not more - vilages have been burned by the calculated malice of an adult conqueror than have fallen to angry children. In a metaphorical sense, suppose a 'village' represents all of the worst aspects of said: A village is small, it can feel restrictive, it may have an entrenched order. Who but a child would dare to upset the fragile balance of pastoral life? Clearly this statement requires further investigation...

Moving on...

Poetic Injustice

You may have noticed two new links over to this side ---->. Try to look past the fact that they are Livejournals, and see the often-fantastic work of two very good friends of mine. I just finished reading poems written by each, and I have to say that by comparison, I am a total poetry hack. Most of my work in that area rhymes, which immediately lends an air of silliness to the work that oftentimes it would be better off without. In the case of satirical/angry poetry it can be very satisfying to have such a quality, but if I were to attempt writing something prettier, it would cause complete and utter failure.

Perhaps my problem is that I am too quick to compare my achievements with others'. I'm not what you would describe as a competitive person, but I do have an intense desire for validation. The problem is that I invariably come across as a pale imitator, a cheap taiwanese knock-off, if you will, of whatever greatness to which I aspire. Case in point: Some weeks ago I recorded a podcast with some friends (if it ever gets edited properly, it may end up here), and one friend in particular is a very funny guy. Listening to the recording again, it becomes painfully obvious that I would die to possess his comic genius, because I try endlessly to be funny, to riff off his jokes...but I fail, rather miserably. Applied to the current situation, it means that now I should not be writing poetry, because whatever I created, no matter how good on its own merits, would be nothing more than the dull shadow of a vibrant original. The problem is that I have the greatest urge to do something when I have seen how successfully someone else has done it. I want to make that greatness my own, I want to prove that I can be just as good as they are. The only problem is, I can't, and I'm not.

Perhaps the worst, the least healthy place in which this damnable trait has reared its head is in my relationship with Star. Whether or not it is the truth, I see my friends in far more stable-looking, far happier relationships than my own...and I want that for myself. I want to be part of a couple that looks great to the world around, that jokes, laughs, plays around...but then if I had that it would all be a show. It would be there TO be there, not to make me any happier by what it would be. Being with Star is one thing I actually decided to do for myself, I had the desire to make her happy and to be happy with her. Now two years on and I'm threatened with the prospect of it being turned into a status symbol by my desire to be seen as being worth something. I hate the prospect, I hate the desire, and I hate having so little power to change either.

To round off this lovely deconstruction of my self-confidence, I am presented with an identity crisis. After all, if I am characterized by a desire to emulate the successes of others, what does that say about me? I don't think I can get away with saying that I have no identy period (such a statement would be rightly and harshly contested), but I can certainly wonder if I am not void of true personal aspirations. Am I the aspirational equivalent of the guy who says nothing but “I'll have what he's having” when out to eat? Am I one of those pathetic people who will swear allegiance to whoever looks poised to win, and who hopes every day to be recognized by that person? Or worst of all, am I simply cursed with a creative void, which I seek to fill by distilling the best of others' work and integrating that into my own, a plagiarist on the basest of levels?

That's enough introspection for now, what is there already encroaches upon the realm of fishing for sympathy – yet another form in which my desire for personal validation manifests itself.

And Getting to the Point

I suppose I had better get around to doing the thing for which I have been consitently postponing post #81: Speak my mind about Intel's demonstration of an 80-core processor (which must have been last week by now, but that's ok):

Intel's demonstration of an 80-core processor is an audacious and auspicious achievement, yet I find myself as much apprehensive as I am astounded. Intel now seems hell-bent to push the limits on the number of processor cores which can be loaded onto a die, just as it was with clock speed during the Pentium 4 era – an infatuation which did not end until it became impractical to pursue further. Initially, some may recall, the P4 was supposed to scale to 10GHz. What I am getting at here is that no matter how many cores Intel can cram into a processor today, there will be a ceiling past which the thermals become too great, or he circuits too small. Multi-core processing was one unexpected contributor to the downfall of high-clocked single-core processors, it would be foolish to believe that some comparable design change will come out of the blue to strike down multi-core as we know it. AMD seems to have an idea of what this will be, and should their product come to fruition, it could very well play the more efficient Athlon to the P4-like brute force approach of “as many cores as possible” (If such a comparison makes any sense).

There are a few variables yet unresolved in the equation. Number one is Intel's supposed plan to release a new microarchitecture every 2 years (beginning with Core 2). This could either prolong the lifetime of a many-cores approach, or allow Intel the flexibility to jump ship should it's current approach show any signs of slowing down in terms of performance increase. AMD's potential integration of ATI graphics hardware into a CPU core might begin life in the lower-end integrated-graphics type market, but as we are seeing with the current x1900 and Nvidia 8800 lineups, an ultra-powerful set of floating-point processors can be harnessed to achieve supercomputer-like number-crunching power with a vastly smaller number of computers. Should AMD take the lead in this respect, its processors may gain the upper hand in terms of raw FPU power. I'll reserve judgement on that until I see the performance nubers on their Quad-core parts later in the year. If AMD cannot regain at least parity in the enthusiast market, it may not be the end, but it will certainly put AMD out of the game for yet another generation of processors, which is something that company cannot afford.

Until such a time as AMD releases new procs, the field is Intel's to play. With their 80-core proc putting out a maximum of 62W of heat (3W less than a current core 2 Duo), Imagine the potential for overclocking newer Intel parts from 4 to 80 cores in future! If power consumption and heat output scale in a linear fashion, imagine how little power a dual-or quad-core processor might require inside of a year. It may become possible to build a computerized toaster with more power in it than an entire Xbox 360 (ok, hyperbole)!

I want the A.I. Toaster from Red Dwarf. I actually enjoy toast, so he'd whine less.

I believe this is the 80^th post's last hurrah, look out for #81, coming your way soon!

The Rant Came Back!

What Will It Cost Me....

To have safe streets?

To have proper urban design?

To have rapid transit which deserves the name?

This is what the people of Ottawa should be asking, before they go on record as saying that the cost of not having a car is “too high”. Now, I enjoy driving with my G1, but I also make extensive use of the bus system here, and with the exception of a few routes (true Ottawans will no doubt cringe at the mere mention of the infamous Route 14), the service is very good. I agree that past a certain hour, it can be pretty intimidating to wait around at even well-lit Transitway stops (and I'm a guy, no less), but this can most often be attributed to my healthy paranoia, rather than the presence of an actual threat. According to the Ottawa Police, the 5 year average for violent crime is just under 6000 incidences per year. Greater Ottawa having a population of 1 million means that the number of violent crimes per person is 0.006. Meaningless statistic? This I will concede. Still, I think it's fair to say that the average Ottawan is not in imminent danger of being beaten or killed on the street. The fear of kidnappings, swarmings, rape? Media-induced. These things do happen, but as with acts of terror, you cannot allow the worst elements of society to paralyze you in your daily life.

I think there exists a solution, one that will cost perhaps more time than money. The Guardian Angels are supposedly starting up a chapter in Ottawa this year. I think it will be great for Ottawa, because it's an agressive response, without the agression per se. It is advance, rather than retreat. It is an assertion that we have a right to walk on our streets at any time we like without fear. Call it vigilante justice if you want, but for all the hot air about “if it saves one life, it's worth it”, you'd think that the police forces of the world would see the Guardians for what they represent: a powerful ally in fighting crime. It stands to reason that much crime is based on the assertion that “they can't see me”. The presence of a man or woman in uniform patrolling the street might be enough to dissuade the less pathologically criminal from nocturnal banditry. And if not, someone is there to see, to call the police, perhaps intervene before the situation escalates. Unlike hiding inside the tonne of steel and rubber we like to think of as “convenience”, this goes some length to solving the problem. The letter-writer to the citizen is a father who obviously cares for the safety of his children. A man (or woman) of such a disposition should be one of the first in line to volunteer when the call comes from our new Guardian Angels chapter. I'll bet that all the training, uniform costs, and all are still cheaper than buying gas for a car to feel safe!

The second part of the solution is far costlier, at least for the moment. Ritzy, SUPREMELY convenient condos are coming to downtown Ottawa...and a penthouse can be yours for something like a cool $Million. Damn, if I had the money, I'd do it too. The ones at 700 Sussex are quite literally at the heart of this city. Hopefully, like other fads of the rich have done in the past, living downtown will trickle down to those with less money to burn. Failing that, I hope I can be rich long enough to set myself up in a swank pad somewhere downtown. Yeah, that's going to happen. The problem is the allure of cheap housing elsewhere. I imagine that it is far more profitable to buy land in fallowfield, or worse, along one of the regional highways out of town (this happens, and it's pathetic to see the malaise of suburbia rising above the distant plains). The houses I see are obscenely large (to be fair, one might consider my present abode to be gluttonous. I would tend to agree), usually having attached garages for two cars...well, a car, and all the workshop junk that invariably clogs sheds, garages, and basements. So long as young couples decide that an affordable house and an SUV is worth what they pay in gas and maintenance, things will not change, and there will be those who will see the SUV or sedan as obligatory. Well, if you live a half-hour from the edge of what actually constitutes Ottawa, no shit! This would be bad enough of itself, but as (bad) luck would have it, there's more fuel on this fire: have you seen how they build these houses? Plywood, plaster, and then some hasty brick-like exterior. Some new houses went up not too far from here, and the complete illusion is staggering. It looks as if there is a real house, probably even feels like it, too. But take away the brick facade, and what you're left with is a wooden box and the ubiquitous pink panther insulation, near as I can tell. At least my house has been standing for 50 years or more. Houses in the glebe, and other neighbourhoods just outside of downtown must have houses approaching 100 years old. I know Mutchmor school has been around for a century or more by now...it's not so much of a stretch to imagine that some houses must be of a similar vintage. Somehow, I see the future of modern housing looking more like scrap heaps than quaint neighbourhoods. On an “up” note, there may be an alternative to both expensive yet chic condos and crappy housing: The nascent “eco-community” (well, as-yet-nonexistent would be more like it) at the former rockliffe base site. The plans may be just that, but I can't think of a better way to reconcile a pleasant lifestyle with ecological responsibility.

One other argument which pops up in the letter upon which this rant is loosely based is that giving up a car means giving up activities (ie. Horseback riding, sailing) which require frequent commutes to outlying areas of the city. Supposing a resurgence of central urban population, it is easy to imagine rapid transit to distant parts of the city. With reduced automotive traffic, street-level light rail becomes a real possibility, and - more importantly – actually useful. Before someone points out that the relatively low numbers of hobbyists hardly justify transit expenditures and emissions, imagine this: central living = less $$$ on Gas and Car repair + less transit time = more free time and money = more time for hobbies.

None of this will happen overnight. In all likelihood, no one will become all that richer financially. What will be regained is community. People without lawns and fences to separate themselves, people who live and work, and relax together. Grocery stores not a two-minute jaunt from your appartment building door, other shopping another five minutes away...Eventually, space once used for inefficient housing could become parkland, or maybe return to it's original purpose as farmland. Add the odd urban garden, and you've got a solid local food supply. Ok, this is total utopian BS at this point, but it's something to aim for. Even half of the above would be damn fine in my book. It's easy to start...repeat after me: “I do not need a car all the time. Walking, biking, and bussing are safe alternatives 99% of the time. Sustainable living is not only possible, but desirable. I bow before the staggering wit and insight of Loud the Magnificent”...

Did it work? No?

Nuts.

I Am Not A Number, I Am A Free Man!

Guess who just took the cSAT?

The Cotton Gin? What the hell-ass crunk juice are YOU sippin'?

Anyhow, the SATs are not half as frightening as the literature would have you believe. Perhaps that's easy to say when my academic future does not entirely hinge upon nearly four hours of test...but really. I cannot (under obligation) release specific question details, but let me lay it out for you: 9 out of 10 “math” questions are pure logic, and your biggest foe on the reading comprehension segments is the wording of some possible answers. In fact, I found myself answering the question “what do THEY want here?” more than “what IS here?” when considering my answers to many a question. I was writing a meta-exam, or something! I finished a good number of the sections with time to spare. Should any readers be taking the SATs in future, and find themselves doing the same, I offer the following advice: Use the 4-2-4 breathing meditation technique. Being rather untrained, I really can't seek nirvana, nor anything remotely along that path. What I can do is at least breathe calmly, and keep my mind clear. Anyhow, my swordhandling instructor taught it to my class thus: Breathe in for a count of 4 (4 seconds works nicely). Hold for 2. Breathe out another 4. Repeat. Usually, concentrating on keeping the rhythm is enough to keep my mind from going too far astray, but it helps to try and clear your mind. Eyes closed when you are meditating, and I recall that your head should be bowed. Ideally, you should be in a proper position, but I had to make do sitting in a chair. Anyhow, I hope this helps...incidentally, the same breathing technique may have helped me get to sleep on occasion.

Back to the test itself, I am going to be worried for ages now. A friend of mine scored very well on SATs last year, and as much as I should only worry about doing well for myself, I know in my heart of hearts that I will feel hopelessly inadequate should none of my scores enter the realm of 'phenomenal'. My future may not rest on the scores I receive, but my pride will. I realize that this is a __________ position, but it is human nature to abandon the way of _____ in matters of 'honour'

A. terrible, generousity

B. hypocritical, medecine

C. foolhardy, reason

C. morose, spirituality

D. stupid, science

E. onion, rings

Speaking Of "Matters of Honour"...

Honour Killings. I *could* have another SAT joke, but all I can think of is a nice list of disparaging adjectives, with "All of the above" at the very bottom. Every so often, there will be another story about a nice girl, who has the *nerve* to have a (gasp!) platonic male friend, or maybe a boyfriend of a different race, or maybe one from a family which originates from across some forbidden line in the sand back home. For whatever reason, some nutjob father, brother, uncle, aunt, grandmother (I think it's happened) will either pay for or commit her murder. But you're read the stories, you know this. You know that the barbarism has to stop, and it has to stop NOW.

This is just another way in which multicultural society is often abused. The murder to which Saturday's Citizen editorial referred to was in Jordan, but there have been so-called "honour killings" in the West as well. In countries where these foul deeds are accepted, only massive cultural reform can help. But here, there can be progress. The message has to be sent that coming to Canada does not have to mean the loss of your cultural identity, but at the same time presents the end of your hatred. It's a fine line, but it can be drawn fairly, I believe. Art, music, stories, literature, cuisine, dance, language, clothing...these are all positive cultural elements that add to the richness of our country. Hate, vengeance, prejudice...however deep-seated they may be cannot be allowed to enter our country with immigrants. These can be separated from the components of the first list (albeit with great effort). This is not to say that immigrant populations are the only ones with work to do. One look at David Warren's unmasked avarice and it is clear that every single one of us could stand to leave our hateful baggage behind.

$3000 of Gyro-Stabilized...Foot Replacement?

Sadly, I do not own a Segway. What I do possess, however, is what some might call an uncanny ability to create the topic-shifting sort of Segway in today's post. Dear readers, look upon the cost of hateful baggage:

"I've come to realize that the past year may simply be a phase induced by stress and curiosity."

I will not tarry long on the source of this quote. The important knowledge for you is that this is the doing of HORRID parents. The recipient is a dear friend of mine (no, not the "friend" who gets viruses on "their" computer while surfing porn. This is, in fact, a friend of mine we are talking about here).

I can imagine how awful I would feel, had Star's parents (or my own) found our courtship dissatisfactory. Not so much now, given that it is 3 AM, but I know it's bad enough when we have our own problems, so parental intervention could only ever be worse. What would really drive the blade into the wound would be an obviously forced email, detailing how our "explorations" or "flirtations" were meaningless in any grand sense. Suppose, through repetition, and sheer force of volume, that such a message became ingrained belief (How terribly Orwellian). How could we ever face each other again, after being broken in the deepest and most humiliating way? Parents who perform, attempt, much less consider this kind of torture, after years of supporting a child are the worst of scum. If their love proved so ephemeral in a delicate time, they should never have pretended to love at all. They should have simply said "you receive sustenance at our pleasure" each night, before school, at sports games...never "I love you". The more I think about it, the more I am disgusted that parents could ever hate their children. I have never been the best child, but my parents have weathered the worst I have to dish out, and still their wind is in my sails...should the parents responsible for the bold quotes ever read this, I can say only this: my parents managed with a slacker/gifted/picky eater/ADHD kid, and a perfectionist with severe Allergies. What's your excuse for not being able to handle a simple confession of Love?

A Greener shade of Blue?

There is No Alternative Answer!

Kudos to my fellow Canadians, according to the Citizen 60% of us do not believe that the ruling conservative party is concerned about the Environment. Upon further reflection, I am actually disappointed that the number isn't higher, I mean, what will it take to tip people off? The Conservatives have yet to treat the Environment as anything more than a PR vehicle. They appoint an unproven Bimbo to the ministry in charge, talk about “meeting commitments” for Kyoto, while missing our goals...and who do they blame their bad hand of cards on? Canada's “old” government. What they weren't counting on was Global Warming becoming the “hot” topic (pardon the pun), being the “it” thing to be concerned about. What are they to do now? Submit to the will of the people, and establish clear goals now, or in the immediate future? Take action to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from industry and individuals? Of course not! They're generating more PR, which seems to be what they do best. BeSt, I should say.

Harper begins by announcing $1.5B in financial support for renewable energy, while in Victoria no less. In fact, the highest percentage of Green party votes in the last election came from Alberta (I heard this from my mother, who is a civil servant). Also, “renewable energy” is procrastination, not action. No matter how clean, how affordable the technologies get, the problem is how to make sure everyone gets one, not to mention dismantling EVERY last vestige of our current oil-fired intrastructure over what we must assume to be a period perhaps as small as 10 years (and that is if fusion, say, could be brought past the break-even point at this very moment). Renewable energy will have to take the place of our current sources over a far longer time in reality, and is therefore a post-solution solution. I do not pretend to be an expert on global warming, but it is fairly certain that we are approaching a point of no return, an Event Horizon, if you will. Renewable energy has to be there to take over once we have passed (or even failed, I mean, why waste the investments?) this hands-on exam.

Worse still is that no one yet knows if renewable energy will be environmentally friendly. Corn – used to make ethanol – is supposed to ravenously absorb ground nutrients, leading to poorer and poorer soil quality (and chemical fertilizers to replenish it are by no means going to help its environmental impact). It also takes energy to grow corn, to harvest it, process it, and so on. In a New Scientist (which may be new, but I have read a lot of old issues lately, so I am not sure), there is an article where a Wind farm has caused damage to the land upon which it was built (the boggy ground actually emitted methane or carbon dioxide when disturbed by the turbines). Photovoltaic cells have maybe 25% efficiency, and are not clean to manufacture, although solar thermal power is a more-efficient alternative. Even if these problems could all be overcome, there is still the cost of completely overhauling our economy and power generation structure.

For the moment, the Conservatives should preoccupy themselves with eking out EVERY last drop of efficiency from existing sources of power. It may never be 100% clean to burn oil, but as the new Environment minister says (of the new $5000 credit for efficiency-enhancing home renovations) “The largest source of untapped energy is the energy that we waste”.

If only they could do more than talk the talk.

Take the red pill, not the red meat

Food For Thought

S.M.O. Recently posted a plea for people to stop idling their cars on her blog. It may be 2 or 3 down on the page by the time you read this, but it's there. I would like to advocate another small change that almost anyone can make, which could vastly decrease one's environmental impact. Eat less meat. That is all. I will justify this from both moral, and practical standpoints.

It is not inhumane to kill and eat another creature, supposing one kills it to enjoy sustenance, and not sadism. Predators and prey are central to creating balance in an ecosystem, since long before humans evolved. It is true that animals experience pain, and that we may comprehend this suffering. Does that not make it immoral to knowingly cause an animal pain? At the very least, we should limit the amount of suffering inflicted upon the prey. The food of all life is either in whole or in part derived from other life. Unless all eating is made immoral, killing an animal to eat it is not wrong...unless one values life based upon complexity, and our traditional food animals are protected. I dismiss that as logic of convenience, as the acceptable definition varies by culture. You might not kill and eat a dog or cat, but there are people who do.

If eating meat is not wrong, per se, why should you eat less? Because animals are not killed in any humane fashion (insofar as such a thing can exist). They have been (and according to the news today, still are) fed the ground remnants of their own predecessors in their food! They are kept in enclosed conditions, and given far too many drugs. I have no problem with the use of medicine, but overuse of antibiotics is dangerous. You can free your mind from any delusions you have about the meat industry here.

Ah, yes, and the environmental impact. If you didn't take grade 11 biology (and I won't blame you if you haven't!) I'll sum it up like this: plants are about 10% efficient at transforming solar energy into stored (ie. food) energy. Animals are 10% efficient at converting that energy into stored energy. 10% = .1, and .1 x .1 = .01. When you buy meat, it contains only one one-hundredth of the energy required to produce it (even less, taking into account transportation and packaging costs). You, too, are nearly 10% efficient, so in a best-case scenario, eating meat will render one one-thousandth of the input energy available to your body. The added costs of meat are exacted upon the earth in the burning of rainforest for pastures, use of fresh water we can ill afford to spare, and use of grain we could eat direct, the use of electricity and gas in the farming industry, and what must be 10x the food required to feed a person directly. Humans are Omnivores, emphasis on the OMNI. We do not have to eat meat, certainly not as much as we do. If anyone reading this has ever looked down on someone for being a vegetarian, or for not eating meat daily and in abundance...fuck you. Go and get eaten by a bear, or lion, or tiger, if meat is so fucking good. Oh, right...it's only good when you aren't the one being eaten. If all of Canada, say, ate even one-tenth less meat than we do now, that would be something. Less cruelty, less pollution, and less greenhouse gases.

Sinter Klaas – Booty* in your boots!

Tonight is essentially Dutch Christmas, or as I like to call it “ha ha, I -get-some-presents-before- the-rest-of-you-with-winter-holidays-later-in-the-month eve”. On the thought of presents, I already said to give money to charity, instead of buying me swag this year. How's about we go a little farther with that one. To my circle of friends, and beyond: let's do some real giving this season, and I'm not talking about sex (although the Christmas/holiday season is an excellent time for that, too). No, I speak of pooling some cash, and buying a goat for a village in a country less developed than our own. Sure, it's great to get new games, hardware, all that junk...but we give those out on birthdays already. This might sound preachy, and it might sound less fun (I would counter the latter, because it would be pretty cool to say “I gave goats for Christmas/Hanukkah/etc. This year”, don't you think?)...but in the end, we would have made a real difference. If you are interested, take the time to leave a comment, MSN me, call me, email me...your choice. I want to get this organized ASAP. Oh, and we don't have to do goats...although I hear that's all they had last year. Specific decisions as to the nature of the gift will be made in due time.

*As in 'Loot', geniuses. As for the boots, the Dutch version involves wooden shoes, as opposed to our traditional stockings.

Remember, Remember...

Some Good News:

Finally, there are Core 2 Duo/Quadro SLI boards out. The one I've seen is on the expensive side, though. I don't know if or when there will be a new system purchase in the household, but I know that things just got easier for me. SLI might be a little much for a single purchase, but as an upgrade option that can double performance for the (much reduced) cost of a second card at a later date? Smashing.

AMD has apparently produced a modified ATI graphics board to serve as an FPU-intensive co-processor. The thing costs well over $2K, so I don't have my hopes up. Still, what a way to fill up the third PCI-e slot that some motherboards are now including for a third vid card to run physics calculations. I wonder if that is a possible application of the new AMD product. Time will tell...

And I got 28/28 on my World Issues quiz.

ROCK!

V for Verdant

Reading a passage from a report on sustainable industry, my mind wandered to a potential future, and it was unnerving at first. The report itself was very welcome, suggesting that envronmentally friendly, sustainable business is not only possible, but highly profitable. One suggestion for the future was to move from providing a product to providing a solution. This entails renting out and re-using materials, rather than selling disposable products over and over. The companies would be responsible for the maintenance of the equipment, and would reap the benefits of energy and resource efficiency. The renter would pay for the service. Everyone is happy, right? Perhaps not so.

It is easy to blame large industries for the looming ecological crisis, but individual actions add up to quite a bit. Do you eat at McDonalds? You're supporting the destruction of forests to make room for more meat production. Do you drive a car? You're pumping C0₂ into the atmosphere. It may soon be the case, if businesses see reason, that individuals will be doing the least to prevent catastrophic ecological damage. Suppose businesses start renting everything, providing and maintaining their 'solutions', which you pay a fee to use. Imagine if businesses control what you have access to, what you should be allowed to rent from them. “You should not have a car” they might say “it is an inefficient transportation solution...but for $199 a month, we could have a carpool driver pick you up on his rounds.”. For your own protection, your choice may be limited. After all, look what you did with your so-called 'freedom': pollute the planet without a care! I will admit that the potential for this hobbesian corporate fascist utopia is small, but I cannot discount it. You have a choice now: get involved on your own terms!

I'm not trying to be anti-corporate here, so much as anti-complacent. I think that if we will not willingly become green, then we deserve the boot of eco-fascism. I'm not talking about Nazism here, mind you. Just to play devil's advocate here, I think the idea is not without merit. Voter turnout these days is around 50%, if I recall correctly. That means that HALF the eligible population does not feel the need to elect a government. That is as good as saying you would be just as happy under a dictator. I know that if you asked a non-voter, they would say otherwise, but we all know what speaks louder than words. Besides, if they won't take action now, why would they take action to resist a dictator? If awareness and willingness to act on environmental issues is similar in this society, it may be necessary to de-value the individual, and emphasize a sustainable state.

At the very least, movement to solve environmental issues will have to be a collective effort. We can work as a group of individuals with a common goal, or as faceless automatons of corporate hegemony. Your Choice. Our Choice.

I'm sure someone is curious about the paper I was reading. Well, I read 2 or 3 this evening, and they were encouraging, for the most part. We have been the victim of a great lie, of unknown motivation, it seems. There exists today the capacity to make a greener future, is what I am being led to believe. It will save money, and the side-effects will include increased productivity. One paper cited a factory where two small changes resulted in higher efficiency and lower costs. The designer used a fatter pipe than normal, decreasing friction. Second, they laid out straight pipes, and then put all the components in place. These two changes reduced the required strength of the pump by 95%. Over the course of several years, the savings add up. Furthermore, the authors contend that many commonplace practices are rooted in faulty logic: lower overhead costs are better. Savings over time are either not counted, or expected too soon from more efficient - yet initially pricier – solutions. Essentially, when businesspeople try to dissuade the public from demanding higher environmental standards, they are lying. They are lying through their teeth when they say it will hurt the economy. Perhaps they are unaware: perhaps the short-term expenditures blind them to all further benefit. On the other hand, maybe they know the truth all too well. Are we bearing witness to the rape of the planet, of GAIA herself? Have a particular set of people decided to destroy her self-esteem, shred every last vestige of her dignity, strip her naked, and display her battered, broken body to all? Such malice is not beyond human capacity, for certain. It is not to late to stop this crime: let the truth be known: Green is Lean, not Mean!

Owned!

This is a bit of a spinoff from my comments on the potential for corporate eco-fascism. I wanted to ask the question:

Should Consumer Rights Exist?

Suppose you want to watch a movie, and you have the option of buying a DVD, or downloading that same movie from iTunes (or another online service). If you purchase the movie, you would be able to make copies for your own personal use. You could store it on your mp3 player, store a copy on your laptop's hard drive, and leave the disc at home. Copy protection and the DMCA have made this difficult of late (this is more US legislation, so I'm not sure how it applies to me). The iTunes copy might be downloadable to your iPod, but forget transferring it around without a little hacking first. The reason that consumer rights exist is to prevent this kind of situation. When you buy a car, you can choose who fixes it, who insures it, etc. Imagine if this were not so.

Property is an imperfect concept, but it has advantages. Obviously, the #1 problem is inequality, where money creates the illusion of superiority and inferiority. There are billions of hard-working people in the world who are not billionaires. One might assume that those people simply don't work hard enough, which is wrong. The right circumstances are not presented for all people to become successful. Even if they were, our current system requires that only the few become rich, exploiting the efforts of many subservients. Are the workers truly less capable than the rich? It's not a given, but we may see it as such. The discrepancy between who has 'stuff' and who does not is enormous. If property did not exist as such, people would not judge or be judged by their 'things'. Why should a the value of a person's TV speak more to their character than their viewing habits seem to?

Money, and by extension, the acquisition of personal property is a driving force, there is no doubt. People have a certain pride in their things, especially those they have created, modified, and/or mastered. As a computer hardware junkie, I like to feel a certain attachment to my computers. It is not that I do not ever wish to share them with others, but I want to upgrade, tweak, and tinker to my heart's content. If I do not own the computer, this is not possible. I know that it is a selfish impulse, and you might assume that my desire is to have the best computer, to beat out the others. In some cases, I'm sure that's true. For me, it boils down to gaming: I want framerates smooth as butter, with graphics more opulent than most palaces. Speakers that shake the Earth, and sound quality that would put live orchestras to shame. Of course, of these I have none, but even contemplating them is a flight of fancy in and of itself. Sometimes, as Calvin's father tells him, the anticipation of having something is better than actually having it. The thing you want is finite, but your imagination can make it boundless, unreal. Can you imagine the thought of renting something the same way?

What has this to do with 'Solutions-Based Economics'?

The thought of a solutions-based economy brings to mind the possibility that DRM will not remain Digital. Your right to control the services you use may be compromised, if you hold no ownership over them. Look at the EULA for most software. The first thing they tell you is that you do not own the software. You just use the stuff. Imagine if everything were like that, and you can see why it is a scary thought. “Property is theft” used to mean that private ownership was counter-productive to freedom. Someday, it might mean that the consumer should not own what rightfully belongs to the Corporation. That will be a dark day.

Finally, there is one quote that I wish to share:

“Governments that make it hard for business to do business and that try to take the place of business in meeting the people's needs keep their people poor.”

It is not explained what place business is to fill, but I would rather that my services came from a body beholden to all citizens, not to a select group of stockholders and consumers.

The Greatest Show On Earth!

I wore my AWESOME HAT to school today. It is roughly one foot tall, all told, and it looks kinda magickal. I need a suit to match, or perhaps contrast with it. I'll be honest and say that it was as much about the attention as any kind of expression. Mostly, I think it was just too cool. I need to mix things up more often, be a little different. It feels more human to be noticed, on occasion.

This post is about to fill 3 pages in OpenOffice, and I haven't added any preamble yet. I think I'll stop soon.

Notes:

Gold, should you read this: The firefly RPG does indeed have you create your own characters. You can use the Serenity crew, but that would be l4mz0r. Also, I understand your haste with the silver cat, but be mindful: courtship can be a long process. You do not have to wait, but sometimes it carries a reward.

This Dragon has gotta fly for the roost. Disturb at your peril.

Roar.