Cowabunga, Dude.

It's a heady combination of a coming election with my own mercurial literary ambitions, getting me into that frame of mind in which I want to have arguments with big words and big ideas.

I get excited about elections. It's probably not a good habit, though - these things are expensive. It's also perplexing; I don't think I have ever in my life cast a vote for a winning candidate. Depending on your metrics, I have wasted every single vote I've ever cast. That's in three years of being legal voting age - just imagine the poor blokes for whom this has been a reality for thirty! Why all the excitement, why the nervous energy and the hope for changes that will never come? It would be too easy to become despondent, and perhaps I would have more reason than most. Well, if we're being technical, more reason to do so than a plurality of the Canadians who even bother to vote.

It's at a time like this when perspective can be, for lack of a better word, handy. Dandy, even. Why should this election's failure to produce radical, progressive change in this country bother me? Human history is a long chronicle of justice mostly prevailing over injustice. I realize that I run the risk of sounding positively panglossian when I write this, and I would like to qualify this statement. Progress has been erratic, fundamentally un-equal, and above all else it will never be complete. That does not mean that progress has not happened, nor does it excuse us from trying to extend the rights, freedoms, and quality of life that "we" (i.e., the kind of people who are affluent enough to spend their monday evenings blogging for no pay) possess to as many people as possible.

I should be careful to define my terms. "Progress" is a vague and loaded term, but I shall do my best to reach an agreeable definition. Progress may be scientific, technological, social, or spiritual. Progress can be said to have happened when we reach a new, or more complete understanding of an object, a process, or a concept than we previously had. Progress can also be innovations or insights gained from such understanding. I think that some people question this sort of definition, because some innovations are not "good" in their eyes. I don't think it should matter that a novel design of coal plant is an environmental nightmare; it merely offers us the ability to accomplish a task in a different way than we have before. When we come to understand that burning coal is not desirable - for any number of reasons - that, too, is a kind of progress. It is our responsibility to apply the new wisdom we have gained, and in this case, to stop building coal-fired power plants. At least, it is if we believe in the cause of environmentalism. I should add, finally, that progress can be said to have happened when humans meet the goals they have set for themselves.

I think that while it has taken "us" a very long time to come to a more complete understanding of what constitutes a human being and a citizen, that the definition has nevertheless been continuously expanding. From the exclusive club of propertied Athenian men, how our definitions have grown. Grown from white men to encompass men of every colour and creed. Grown from men exclusively to include women. Grown to encompass notions not only of belonging to a city-state, but to states and provinces, counties, countries, and even now the notion of global citizenship gains traction. We talk about citizenship and participation in online communities, which cross national boundaries (although linguistic ones may prove harder to breach...). Our notion of rights is expanding, too: we can conceive of rights to reproductive choice, to sexuality - healthy sexuality, to fresh drinking water, to education, to privacy...rights that have never existed comprehensively and for entire populations before in the whole history of our species.

The Harper Government has not been a stellar one. It can even be argued that they have tried to back-pedal on some of these crucial liberties. But always remember that it is we, we who side with the greater measure of liberty, inclusiveness, and tolerance who surf atop the inexorable wave of history. Let Harper build his sand-castle prisons; the tide is coming.

An Open Letter to Stephen Harper (In Progress)

To the Right Honourable Stephen Harper:

Two recent pieces of news have caused me considerable consternation with regards to the policies advanced by your government; these being - in no particular order - your intent to bring "stronger" copyright law to Canada, and the intimidation of those feminist/womens' advocacy groups in Canada which have come out in opposition to your frankly contemptable decision not to support safe access to abortion for women in impoverished countries. Although these two issues aren't of themselves related, your government's adoption of these policies speaks to a perilous disconnect between the values of the Conservative party and those of the general Canadian public.

On the matter of copyright, our country has been very fortunate that circumstances have conspired against your previous attempts to reform the law, which were met with much resistance by consumers, educators, and even creators themselves. The copyright consultations held by your government last year seemed a show of good faith, a willingness to seek a superior balance between the needs of consumers and creators. Please, do not disregard the will of the people on this matter; it is in their name and their interests that you are supposed to govern. What the media conglomerates are demanding of the Canadian government (and others) is not merely protection for artists, it is support for business models that are dying. It is an end to privacy and even the presumption of innocence, the so-called "three-strikes" policy that would institute widespread monitoring of internet use and automatically disconnect citizens merely accused of copyright infringement without so much as a chance to defend their innocence. It is a lockdown on culture that simply does not make sense in an age of sharing. I do not, Mr. Prime Minister, mean "illegal file sharing" when I say sharing; I refer to a more general set of cultural phenomena. Networks and software aren't only making "theft" easier; they are also giving the means for creative self-expression to more people than ever before in history. People are chosing to create, and in many cases they are choosing to share: whether it's the Free/Libre Open Source Software movement, or the Creative Commons.


I am not so naive as to think that in some ideal future, all creators will work for free. What I do think is that the way to ensure that creation continues in this country is not to use heavy-handed legislation to lock Canadians into the old ways, old businesses whose practices are no longer suited to the current market. Apple and Amazon have demonstrated that what your legislation would call "digital locks" are not necessarily the only way forward for digital commerce: both have been selling music without such encumberances for some time now. You have children, and so I imagine that you are not unaware of the artistic medium that is the videogame (I have a bone to pick with Roger Ebert on this matter, but that is for another time and place). Stardock Studios and the website "Good Old Games" sell such products without digital locks, and they do not seem to be in dire straits. Conversely, EA Games' "Spore", a hotly anticipated title, suffered a PR nightmare when it was released with particularly strict digital locks upon it. The fact of the matter is that the more entrenched these locks become, the better (comparatively) the experience of piracy will become. A pertinent example can be seen here: commercial DVDs when played in a standard DVD player assail the viewer with often unskippable previews and warnings. The content of commerical DVDs is scrambled, making it difficult for end-users to make archival copies, or even simply watch the DVD on operating systems such as Linux. A pirated film, by contrast, simply begins playing the film when placed in a DVD player. It is simple to make copies for use in case the original becomes damaged, it can be played almost anywhere, and it can be converted to many different formats to be played on many different kinds of player. Paradoxically, the kind of broad functionality that I and many other Canadians would be interested in paying for is NOT the kind offered by the industry. It is that same industry which has been framing the choice in this debate as between Canadians (and others) being offered their very limited, highly controlled packages...or nothing at all. I wish that your party would take a stand against this, not just from a consumer rights angle, but also because we should not encode into law this caste-like distinction between producer and consumer. We are not passive; I don't believe that culture exists without interpretation, criticism, parody and remixing. These are not valueless acts, but the content industry seeks in law to make crimes of some or all of these!

I have not been very forthcoming with positive suggestions, but as a start there is perhaps NDP MP Charlie Angus'proposal to extend Canada's existing private copying levy to a new range of devices. Here, at least, is found the spirit of true compromise: the industry wants money, and Canadians want relative freedom to format-shift their media once they have legally obtained it. Rather than criminalizing the latter, the private copying levy allows both sides to enjoy what they say they want to enjoy. But if the content industry insists instead on tighter controls, you must ask yourself; if they thumb their nose at money, what is it that they really want? Do they want fair compensation for creative works, or do they want a frankly unrealistic and unfair level of control over our culture?

On the issue of your government's lack of funding support for abortion abroad, and the subsequent cutting of funds to women's advocacy groups I urge even more strongly that you reconsider your position. DVDs are one thing, but your party is endangering human lives in the hopes that it can simultaneously adopt fundamentalist values re: abortion and still somehow stay in the good graces of Canadians by maintaining the status quo on the homefront. With all due respect, Sir, just how stupid do you think Canadian feminists (both women and men) are? At best, what your policy decision indicates is that your government either does not believe in a universal standard of human rights (reproductive and otherwise) or that you intend at some later time to mount a campaign against abortion at home. Either of these conclusions should send chills down the spine of respectable Canadians, Mr. Harper. Women who are denied access to safe abortions will often seek them from less reputable sources. This can kill them, Mr. Prime Minister. I believe in providing and promoting contraceptives in places where women wish for a greater control over their reproductive lives, but if you have been following the issue you will know that it is sometimes difficult to get men to wear condoms reliably. There is an effort to produce a simple, easy-to-use, easy-to-distribute female contraceptive cream (or some similar unobtrusive substance), but this is not at present a reality. The reality is that a balanced approach to the reproductive health of women must include abortion, even if only as a last line of defence against unwanted pregnancy! That you have chosen not only to stand against abortion, but also against those groups who have lawfully and dutifully protested your choice in this matter speaks to an even greater evil than neglect, however. These groups do not exist to stroke your ego, and they will not always agree with you. Disagreement and debate are principal foundations of democratic society, and while I suppose there's no law that says you MUST fund these groups, it rather seems as though you are cheating. Quieting the debate with fear tactics and then claiming that you have won by virtue of being the loudest (or perhaps the only) voice is poor sportsmanship - and I am being generous. What is it that your government fears from these groups? That they might take a stand against what they perceive as injustice? Is that not an invaluable practice in a free society, or do you believe that all of our checks and balances and our Constitution itself are just so much window dressing for your new brand of tyranny? Well this Canadian will have none of that, and will have none of you if this is the most reasoned and mature manner in which you see fit to conduct public discourse in this once-proud nation!


Sincerely,


A Concerned Citizen.



I intend to send this letter in paper form at some point in the near future, but not quite in this present form. The final work will obviously need less of the spleen that makes blogging so delicious, but I'm curious to know what you think could be improved. Yes, I am outsourcing my proofreading. I'll be doing some of my own over the next day or two...but I won't catch everything!

First, they came for the...

This is shaping up to be a bad week for civil liberties, and it's really getting me down. I've been kicking ass these past few days, so this bad news tempering my excitement? NOT appreciated! I refer primarily, of course, to the complete and utter failure of the state of Maine to uphold the right of same-sex couples to marry. I know only two people from Maine (and only one of them well at all), but I wish that as a sample they had proved to be more representative of the whole (they were both decidedly against the same-sex marriage ban)! My position on marriage is surely well-established by now, so I'll keep any reiteration short and to the point: I...I do and do not understand the idea that same-sex marriage could be threatening or offensive to a person. I mean, sure it might be against the tenets of your religion or something, but did you forget to read the damned bits of your constitution that address the separation of church and state? I mean, yes you could find an idea repulsive on a personal level, but I'm pretty sure that's not how laws work (well, it shouldn't be anyhow). I mean, Etarran hates zucchini, but I can at best imagine him joking about a legal crusade to outlaw its cultivation!

No, the whole miserable business is indefensible. One cannot pretend to live in an open and free society whilst all the while denying his or her countrypeople the same rights he or she enjoys. At best, that can be called hypocrisy. I think I call it tyranny, which is a good segue into another troubling assault on personal freedoms: the recent ban on violent video games in Venuzuela. This has also been an issue in the US, and I guess that it is fitting for a country which is more at ease with making war than making love that their citizens and courts should uphold the right of citizens to simulate all manner of slaughter, but not to marry whomsoever they choose. Wonderful, isn't it?

There's a wonderful essay written by a Venuzuelan on the topic, which can be read here. I'm not sure if I agree that banning violent videogames is tantamount to making protest illegal (although making the expression of views contrary to those of the government a crime? Yeah, there we go!). I think it might be something different, something more than just silencing protest. I think it's entirely possible that the Venuzuelan government is trying to silence an entire generation, regardless of what it is they are saying. If you're incredulous, simply imagine [insert your government here] bans text messaging, facebook, or twitter (hey, wait, hasn't that HAPPENED ALREADY SOMEWHERE?) It could be - at least on the surface - a move to silence particular voices of dissent, but you would realize soon enough I think that the real effect of such a ban would be to effectively evict our generation from home turf. "oh, POOR YOU, you'd have to resort to communications in person, how terrible!" I hear the parents droning sarcastically. No, for serious: That was your way, we have our own way now! It would be like taking away paper and quills before people had phones in their houses, or killing all the troubadours in medieval Europe. Back to videogames, though: I don't think they really express "dissent" of themselves, but they provide our generation with cultural anchors of a sort. Weirdly, I think that the backlash from gamers might be the source of more dissent than games themselves could ever be.

I think that for too long I assumed that 'socialist' meant 'good', and that Hugo Chavez was simply the victim of the kind of slander you're liable to hear about socialists when you live next to one of the most heartless capitalisms the world has ever known. Now, I'm not so sure what I believe. It would be too easy to say "well, now I know the opposite to be true", but I don't think that would actually bely a better understanding of the situation. What I do know is that I want to live in Venuzuela even less than I did before...

...and there's the rub. This is all very well and far away for me, but it's terrifying to think that it IS TRUE somewhere. My hard drive and collection of optical disks? VENUZUELAN CONTRABAND?!?! Weird stuff!

I wonder if there are any gaming speakeasies already in operation in Venuzuela?

Loud!

Madness? n-no, this is Sparta. Madness is in Corinth...Over There

Although I may be a sucker for a gorgeous autumn, I'm not what you'd call a guy with a particularly strong seasonal preference. When it's too hot in summer I wish for winter, when it's too cold in winter, well...you get the idea. Seasonal opportunist, perhaps? I think I may not be anywhere near smooth enough an operator to deserve such a title, regardless of whether or not it's a technically correct description. So, what I'm NOT going to tell you all now is why summer is my favourite, or the best season, 'cause I'd be lying to you if I said I thought so. Summer isn't really better or worse as a season than any other, it just so happens to be when tradition slapped down a really big fat gap in the school year. There's something comfortable about the summer stasis, when you can forget the upcoming changes and challenges, until at least the final month or so. Vacations happen, birthday parties, midnight snacks, more parties, bike rides, still more parties. The necessity of getting a job has put something of a kibosh on the anytime, anywhere parties, but I've been managing pretty well so far, if I do say so myself. In short, Summer is pretty much what I live for. This is problematic, but I'll discuss that later.

Case in point: after something of a slow start, I managed to get together with Daydream Believer, Gold, and Sphinx, and we spent a marvelous afternoon essentially walking back and forth around downtown with no real agenda other than “see stuff, and maybe buy it if it is cool enough”. I suppose Sphinx's customary pilgrimage to Venus Envy counts as an agenda of sorts, but then that's really just her doing what comes naturally (and all power to her!). Having been making altogether too much use of the car and my house lately, I relished the chance to put rubber to the road (see, I have these shoes, right? And because their soles are made of recycled tire, I put rubber to the road when walking AND driving!). To top it off, a former classmate of mine was singing at the Elephant and Castle's open mic, so after sending poor oppressed Sphinx home on a bus, those remaining dropped in to have a listen, and as a bonus also enjoyed a number of remarkably solid acts. The former classmate was every bit as good as I recall from her standout performances at a school coffee house years ago, being in the possession of a voice whose caliber can be crudely approximated by the word “enchanting”. Other notables of the night were local band Distant Society, and what must have been Amanda Rheaume, although I am not 100% certain. It's funny, but I really had no idea that the Ottawa music scene had any kind of vibrancy, but what I saw and heard really did restore some of my faith in this city that fun forgot. Definitely something to go see again.

Hey, Mister! Get Your Laws off my Sister!

I really do have a sister, for any hypothetical readers who don't know me. So, yeah: get your filthy bill C-484 the hell away from her!

Daydream Believer and I had a bit of a debate on the nature of said bill, after Sphinx and I signed a petition against it. Essentially, it was her opinion that since the bill specifically exempts abortion, it shouldn't be a problem. Fair enough, but there's more to be upset about than just that.

For one, if anyone physically abuses a woman, and the fetus is lost, the damage is done. If the woman wanted to have a child, in particular the one developing in her before said assault, is more jail time going to make things any easier for her? I for one agree with the voices calling for more preventative measures against abuse of women, a project which would keep wanted fetuses alive, and not pose a threat to a woman's right to choose. Let's have a look at what the bill is saying, shall we?

“(5) It is not a defence to a charge under this section that the child is not a human being. “

This is an unnecessary clause. Something does not have to be declared a human in order to make harming it wrong under the law. For that matter, why not just make “fetus” its own entity under the law? Then you could make new rules for the fetus-entity, and avoid the whole issue of what a fetus being human implies

“(6) An offence referred to in this section committed against a child is not included in any offence committed against the mother of the child. “

It's not a child, not until it's born, morons! Also, why separate these charges if the idea is to protect women? The crime is against the woman, the fetus is A PART OF THE WOMAN until it becomes autonomous. I suggest that were it not for the horrible ramifications to the field of assisted reproduction that we could instead consider the death of a fetus an act of theft against the woman, so instead I propose we treat it as if he, say, destroyed/stole one of her kidneys, or a lung. I mean, doesn't it make sense to just put the fetus somewhere on a scale of “things that a woman can be deprived of through assault” table, which stipulates that the loss TO THE WOMAN represents the need for greater punishment. The child is entirely dependent upon the mother, and in fact exists at her discretion, and so should be seen as a legal extension of HER PERSON, and no separate entity.

What I see here is a missed opportunity. Instead of trying to have mature deliberations about how to improve the reproductive and sexual health and well-being of the country, bill C-484 comes across as a little patronizing, and a lot scary to women who like things like, you know, rights. Also scary to men who like women who like their rights. What we should be doing is looking at ways to make contraception MORE affordable, MORE widely available, to make sure that groups like Insight Theatre continue to bring a pro-choice, non-judgmental education

about Pro(phylactic)s and Con(traceptive method)s, to eradicate gender discrimination and violence (I refrain from saying that we need only teach men not to be violent towards women, because women – however rarely – sometimes abuse men. I ain't saying the problems are in any way equal, but you've gotta deal with a problem in every form). We need to look at our glaring lack of regulation on abortion, and decide if maybe the right to choose should have some attached responsibilities. Before anyone jumps on me for embracing the same kind of ambiguous statement that could be used to justify an abrogation of that right, I will tell you straight away that I'm pro-choice. Now, as my paternal grandfather (Grootvader, as I call him – it's Dutch, you know*) likes to say, Western culture focuses too much on rights and too little on responsibilities. We have the right to free speech, but the responsibility to say things that enrich, that provoke thought, and to not propagate hate and irrationality. We have the right to a fair trial, and the responsibility to be fair when we judge others, and so on. To claim that any right should or can exist without any attached conditions on how it should be used is wishful thinking. Regulations on abortion in the past put too many limits on the practice, but I would like to see some healthy debate on what reasonable, formally-defined conditions of the right should be. And before you hit me with the “easy for you to say, you don't have a uterus!”, allow me to point out that men have to pay child support for children they father. Sure, it's not anywhere near the same burden, but our sexual freedom is NOT without consequences, should we fail to use adequate protection. Please note that I am open to the idea that no limits on abortion are justifiable, but you'll have to convince me.

To summarize: Bill C-484 addresses NONE of the actual concerns that we should have, and does NOTHING to help women. If the Conservative government were actually concerned about saving women or fetuses, it would be trying to break the cycle of abuse, and not playing a dangerous game with womens' rights!

-LOUD!

4/7

*Technically we could also call him “Opa”, but the literal translation was used for a few reasons: a) it's not an incorrect or made-up term, b) it helped our generation learn the Dutch “G” sound, and c) because my great-Grandmother was still alive and “Oma” when my generation came around, and having Opa, Oma, and Oma would have been confusing for everyone.'

It was 20 years ago today/

Morgentaler got the courts to say/

That abortion wasn't out of style/

And the feminists, it made them smile!

:)

I thought I'd do just a little something to celebrate the 20th anniversary of legal, safe access to abortion in Canada. It literally has to be "little", because I have to leave for class with all due alacrity, but perhaps I will add some more to it upon my return home. So, to all the women out there who still bother to read this, my condolences: it took our society until just 20 years ago to figure out that you had the right to reproductive freedom, so I expect today might be a little bittersweet when put in larger perspective. To the dissenters - the so-called "pro-life" camp - my condolences: it's 2008 and you still haven't figured it out yet.

On a final note, I still think it's best to just use brains and birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancy altogether, with special emphasis on the use of the former. This is not only proactive, I'm pretty sure it's less expensive as well.

You go, grrrrls!

-LOUD

Spartan

(Don't get the title? Here's a clue: this is post #117)

Wha-Wha-What?

Here in my fortress of generic computer desk with chair and two monitors, I have a set of Firefox tabs that allows me to survey all of my friends' blogs for updates. Usually there is little change from day-to-day, but I have noticed an auspicious abundance of additions made to said blogs over the past week or so. All of these links can be found in the appropriate side-bar, but that's hardly enough of a shout-out to people who have made my internet browsing all the more interesting by providing delicious content for me to devour, therefore I shall create a....

Gratuitous Link List!

NEW CONTENT DETECTED, EDIT IN PROGRESS...

HER SOFT LAUGHTER ABSORBED INTO THE LIVING EARTH
...EDIT COMPLETE

FURIOUS FISTS of PHILOSOPHICAL FURY!

FIERY HOW TO PLAY CONFUSION!

THE WHOLE THING JUST NEEDS A KICK / THAT USUALLY FIXES EVERYTHING

VIVE L'IMPROV LIBRE!

JUST A TWINKLE IN YOUR EYE, OR A BALL OF FUSION IN THE SKY?

SHE'S MY PRIESTESS, I'M YOUR PRIEST, YEAH! YEAH!

Deadman Switch

(The new volume in a series of "from the files of the Citizen!" posts)

I'll say this for Ronald Smith: He's no Steven Truscott. He may not be Paul Bernardo, either, but his approaching execution isn't exactly a compelling case against capital punishment. Mr. Smith has spent 25 years - half of his natural life - awaiting death at the hands of the US justice system for a double murder he committed while on an "alcohol and drug-fueled road trip". He is a Canadian citizen, and the usual policy of the Canadian government is to request that such a prisoner be extradited here, in protest of the death penalty South of the border. In this case, the Harper Conservatives have not elected to continue that process, leaving Mr. Smith to his own devices. He cries foul on this, of course. He has "grown as a human being" he says, he wants to be reuinited with family, he wants to be released...in Canada. To be honest, the remorse just doesn't seem to be there. Is this the reporter's doing, his or her selection of quotes? It's a possibility, but my personal theory is that Mr. Smith would score decidedly higher than the general population on a psychopathy test. Do I think he should die for his crimes? As a Judge, I would be reluctant to sentence anyone to that fate. That being said, I think that the Federal government is justified in their decision to allow him to be executed.

In the interview, Mr. Smith wonders why his fate is different from that of other Canadian murderers, simply because he killed someone (actually, two someones) in the US and not here. Should he even have to ask? I don't imagine that the US minces words when they list death as a potential sentence for murder, and I don't imagine that Mr. Smith was unaware that it was a potential consequence of his actions. Whether or not the death penalty is morally justifiable is immaterial here: when you travel abroad KNOW THE LAW! It may not be good law, it may not be fair law, but should you rely on the Canadian government to spring you, should you commit a criminal act in another country? There's only so much pressure that one government can exert on another. Do I believe that you should be allowed to wear a "Gay Pride " T-shirt in Tehran, for example? I think you should be allowed to wear that shirt anywhere you please, but is it a good idea to wear it in Tehran? Fuck no! I may be idealistic, but I'm not an idiot, or a martyr. In the case of Robert Smith, I see no great injustices: He committed a crime - he killed two fellow human beings - in a country where the death penalty still exists. He committed this crime in a country where a person accused of wrongdoing has the right to a fair trial, and his trial was not fair, the Citizen article made no mention of it. In fact, Smith's statements in court were apparently made so that the Judge would have no choice but to give him the death he supposedly sought at the time. Did he lie then? Is he lying about it now? He claims to have "grown as a human being" since then, and I'm in no place to confirm or deny that claim, but the facts of the case do not point to him being a victim in any way!

There are a great many injustices in the world: there is war, there is poverty, there is sexism, there is racism, there is homophobia, there is oppression, and that's just off the top of my head. Here is a man who kills two US aboriginals in cold blood, and here he is wondering why the Canadian government doesn't seem to care if the Americans kill him or not. I'm not certain of the Harper governments motivations for what they have done here, but I cannot disagree with their conclusion. Does this sound a little heartless, coming from a self-described leftist? It probably does, but allow me to clarify: I don't believe that the death penalty is humane or effective, however, I don't think that the government of Canada should be sticking its neck out for people like Mr. Smith, especially given the heinous nature of his crime. Except in cases in which there has likely been a miscarriage of justice, I think that we should only oppose capital punishment on moral and political grounds. Intervening in specific cases is essentially offering amnesty to murderers who should have considered the consequences of their actions. That's hardly something to be proud of as a country.

I really look forward to seeing your responses to this one, because It's a touchy issue with people. Am I being to hard and uncaring, or does this make sense to you?

"Cry Baby, Cry...Make Yo' Mother Sigh!"

After Far Cry, Half-Life 2 Episode 1, Prey, Unreal Tournament 2004, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Bioshock, Orange Box, and the Unreal Tournament 3 beta demo, I was almost ready to take a break from FPS games on my PC (to speak nothing of my impulse-buy of Killzone for PS2). Well, then there was the Crysis pre-release demo. Having now acquired the somewhat tragic moniker "the PC's 'Halo'", I was beginning to expect that the game would be fun, but generally uninspiring and over-hyped. I tried to stay away from the demo, I told myself that I should start looking for some variety in my games, that I should give the genre a rest. Well, curiousity (and nothing better to do with my 1TB RAID array) finally got the best of me, and I made the nearly-2GB download. My initial impression is actually quite favourable, with a delicious twist of irony. Crysis, you see, is published by EA games, but the "Far Cry" brand apparently remained with Ubi Soft (the publisher). Far Cry 2 is being developed in-house at Ubi (if I'm not mistaken) and from the PC Gamer preview, is shaping up to be a very different game, with a landlocked setting and Conrad-esque "darkest-depths-of-the-human-soul" angle. Crysis, however, is an open-ended shooter set on (you guessed it) ISLAND(S?)!!! So there are aliens, and more technology available to both the game engine and the player...this game is still everything that Far Cry was, but with a giant heaping of awesome sauce applied liberally, and with extreme prejudice. There's nothing wrong with that, but (and this is the irony I referred to earlier) Crysis is a lot more like Far Cry 2 than Far Cry 2 will be!

Running out of time, here, so I'll wrap it up.

Keep on posting, keep on commenting, keep on truckin'!

LOUD!

Balance?

Yin and Yang

Yet another Great Fear has been realized, as Nicolas Sarkozy ascends to the French Presidency. I respect that his rule is the result of free and democratic elections, and that he may yet prove himself to be a fair and competent leader...but the fear remains that his "tough stance" on immigration is the first step down a dark path. There have already been rioter/police clashes, and not a one of Sarkozy's policies has been implemented yet! The Citizen printed a little sub-story with interview snippets from immigrants living in France, entitled "With Sarkozy, the riots will be permanent"... I imagine that - if nothing else - the news from France in the coming months will be colourful. Personally, I stand by what I said here.

On the plus side, a newly-published report could be a nice BITCHSLAP to the Right-Wing: The Justice Department of Canada has found that Same-Sex couples raise children just as well or better than their Heterosexual counterparts. From what I have just read, it seems that our not-new-anymore Conservative government wasn't all that keen on publishing this study (what a surprise!). I'm sure there will be all manner of "explanations", or "secret bias" hypothesis floated by the diehard homophobes, but maybe, just maybe this will permit everyone to settle down and live as equals, as it is written in the Charters and Constitutions of this world (some of it, at any rate).

Some Dumbass won't let that happen, but it's a good hope while it lasts :)

Again, with the limited time imposed by internet cutoff. I hope to post more later.

-Loud

Betrayal From Within

A Not Inconsequential Co-Incidence

This is my 88^th post, and I'm going to be talking about some of the racist scum that litters our planet. It wouldn't strike many of you as eerie, but that's because you may not be aware of what 88 can mean. The 8^th letter of the alphabet is 'H', and 2 of them together (88) is some Neo-Nazi code for “Heil Hitler”. In case you are wondering how I know this, I believe it was in a Citizen article about a worrying rise in Neo-Nazi activities. Anyhow, it is rather appropriate that my 88^th post be dedicated to denouncing this blight upon our societies.

It all began when I wanted to listen to one of my favourite political songs of all time; “George Bush Don't Like Black People”, I believe it is called. Well, I decided to look for it on Youtube, because...umm...I'm a bit of a sellout that way, I suppose. It is common knowledge that Youtube commenters are perhaps the least intelligent people on the web this side of Myspace or LJ. Well, in with the n00bz, and the genuinely deficient, there are also the mentally challenged AND racist folk, too. I will not quote any of the filth that was posted below, but if you follow the link you WILL be appalled by some of what you read. Now, I have no idea what comments will be on page 1 by the time you read this, but chances are there will be a good enough example. No need to dig down, your imagination can surely conjure the utter vitriol that some have thrown.

Well, some mention of the BNP – British National Party – in one comment or other on a video jogged a vague memory of a video seen in World Issues class last semester. It was NOT a good memory. Ah, yes, I thought, the genuinely frightening skinhead party in Britain. I was not amused by suggestions that this party sounded like “Reasonable People who want their country back”, even though it's par for the course given the average intelligence of a Youtube commenter (as discussed in the previous paragraph). This was a victim of PR, clearly. A little reading later, and I was in full-on panic mode. This morning brought further bad news, which is that France's mainstream political parties are adopting forms of the extreme-right's immigration control, no, reversal. I'm not talking “ooh, spooky” afraid here, I felt the kind of dread I feel when contemplating a mass extinction by asteroid impact!

As a society, the West has a well-documented history of violence and oppression. If it wasn't being done to outsiders, we were visiting both upon our brothers and sisters! Apologizing for what was done by our ancestors is meaningless, on so many levels. We should not shoulder the blame for actions which are not our own. What we should do is ensure that nothing of their like should ever occur again. It's so easy to apologize to the Acadians for deporting them, when no one is alive to stare you in the face, and tell you just how they suffered. It's easy to be removed. It would be another thing if George Bush looked an ordinary Iraqi man or woman in the eyes, and tried to explain to them why their son/daughter/father/brother is dead. It may sound, it may even BE cliché, but we can only change the future! Groups like the BNP threaten to drag us back into near-barbarism.

We cannot look at the problems in our society, and point to a single cause. The world doesn't work like that. Everyone running the BNP surely knows this, but they understand that people can be made to accept such a declaration as truth. The shepherd leads the sheep, and this shepherd wants the white sheep to fight the black ones. Why? Perhaps because some people get their rocks off creating conflict, and watching the gory aftermath...the greatest snuff film of all, in a way. Determining the real reason can wait until we have these white-trash warlords thrown into one of those convenient Guantanamo-style prison camps (where they can be subjected to the very humiliations they would visit upon the Other). What is important is that they be stopped NOW.

We can start by making immigrants feel welcome in our societies, by following the one rule we all have in common. Welcome others as you would be welcomed, extend them the courtesies you would wish extended. It may be presumptuous to assume they will enjoy or make use of either, but a misinterpreted overture of goodwill is better than no overture at all, in my mind. When people are uneasy, they will look for the familiar, and we end up with ghettos. Add a little poverty to the mix, and you have a recipe for crime. If you knew that a handshake, or a friendly word to a newcomer might save their child from a life of violence, you would give that man or woman the warmest handshake you'd ever given! It may not be so simple, but again, the best course is to act. Handshakes may not cure poverty, but they go a long way towards solving the problem of alienation.

To say that “poverty is a tougher nut to crack” would be rather akin to saying “Robbing Fort Knox will be more than your average stickup”. I sure as hell know what the solution ISN'T, however: deport 'em all, and enforce 'cultural purity'. Even if immigrant groups are statistically more likely to commit crimes, it makes no sense to halt immigration, deport them, or anything of the like. The Fact is that males are FAR more likely to be serial killers than women. Should we ban all men from society for this reason? I hope not...I'm rather fond of my social contract, thankyouverymuch. If groups like the BNP were actually intent upon preserving Western society, they would use REAL logic and reason. There are number of cause-and-effect relationships between poverty, and things Unpleasant. Remove the cause, and we remove the effect. It could conceivably be argued that Immigrants are the cause, and that they should be removed. Sure, if you like forcing people from their homes, dividing families, and otherwise destroying millions of lives, in order to improve others. Even if we decide that the “Greatest Good” is morally right, no matter what evil is done to obtain it, I imagine that the negative consequences of a mass deportation VASTLY outweigh any positive impact upon the “indigenous” Caucasian population. Why is it that arrogant, self-centered right-wing bastards would spend tax money to evict immigrants, when that very same money could go towards enhancing EVERYONE'S quality of life? Perhaps the same reason that the US has publicly-funded killing, and privatized life-saving...whatever that reason is.

I firmly believe that if ANY Western country elects a government in the vein of the BNP - for that matter, any state or province – it is the solemn duty of every other country in the West to declare all-out War against that country (or state, or province), until every single party member or supporter, every single soldier sympathetic to the cause, lies broken, bleeding or dead at our feet (ok, ok...Imprisoned works too, if we must). Why should we indulge in such bloodshed, you ask? Because we fought Hitler in World War II, and these...calling them “people” elevates them above their due...are no better. We could hold our noses, hold our tongues, and say to ourselves “peace in our time”, no matter how repulsive we would find a xenophobic government...or we could learn from history, and waste no time in ERASING THAT GOVERNMENT FROM THE FACE OF THIS EARTH!

Fortunately, there is an alternative. Westerners possessed of the franchise in their country can fight intolerance, injustice, and inequity with the most fearsome weapons of all: their votes. What if you support hatred and intolerance? See above paragraph.

Volcanic

I’ve Had Enough Of:

UNENLIGHTENED ATTITUDES TOWARDS SEX.

This one speaks for itself, but I have a recent example. In the latest New Scientist, there is a comment upon plans in Texas to blanket-vaccinate pre-pubescent girls against several types of HPV. The argument was that increased testing services would be more cost-effective in terms of saving lives, but that’s not what I want to dispute. I want to talk about the “heat from religious groups and concerned parents” stemming from the proposed immunization policy. Before you scroll to the bottom of this post, and make the obligatory comments (ie. “Parents/Religious groups will NEVER learn”) let it be known that I am aware of this situation. I don’t expect those two sorts of people to condone the proper course of action. I DO expect that someone will eventually find a way to muzzle them, and get on with what must be done.

I doubt that most parents are ecstatic at the prospect of their child(ren) exploring their sexuality. I’m not the only one who sees the only real answer: remove the ‘experimentation’, by giving children detailed, complete information. I’m sure it can be proven that young adults who have had extensive sexual education will not only be more responsible in their choices (which is what parents SHOULD want, because I sincerely doubt you can stop teens from following their, uhhh....noses, yeah.), but those individuals will also enjoy their first experiences more. Anyhow, I’m sure I’ve said this before, but every time I hear something about know-nothing jackasses trying to raise children in ignorance, it makes me furious!

Encouraging young people not to have sex is one thing. Leaving them unprotected because they “shouldn’t be having sex” is criminal neglegence, to my mind. Vaccinations, tests, access to contraception, it doesn’t matter to me how the protection angle is handled. I just wish grown-ups would stop acting like children.

APPLE “PC vs. MAC adds”

Ok, I’m not going to waste time on this one:

5. PC is not synonomous with Windows

4. 3^rd party software can do most things OSX can do, oftentimes for free

3. Macs don't get malware because they don't have enough market share

2. If Macs are for fun, where are the fucking Mac games?

1. You can't really upgrade a Mac.

DRAMA (the sort which is liable to strike within social circles)

I'm not sure if I mean this one. For all the strife it brings, it can certainly be amusing...but then very often it isn't. All in all, it's at least something to talk about, something to work through. As if we didn't have enough puzzles to solve anyhow. Right now I am leaning towards the side of “not a good thing”, mostly because of certain events on the way home today. Being less of an active participant, I'm not going to speculate, but suffice it to say I have a bad feeling about this. More later, if anything comes of “this thing”.

That's it for tonight. I'll be on the lookout for more to rage about tomorrow. I think it's a David Warren day in the paper on Saturdays, so the outlook on that front is pretty good.

Fair is Fair

One Week Since I Posted Here....

You can certainly sing the Barenaked Ladies song, if you must. Me, I was never a huge fan of theirs back when it was new. I did, however, enjoy the Weird Al parody...but that's a story for another day.

“The basement is closed at 11” Fuck that! It's bad enough that the internet connection gets axed at 11:30, but now I'm no longer allowed to write up my blog on this computer up until then? It's but a trifle to type up a second half, and post it as an edit, but should I really have to? I have been living under the assumption that I will be able to go to university and live at home for at least a while, but that seems less and less possible. I know that it's probably for the best, as I will get a lot more sleep this way, but that does not mean that I appreciate it in the least

But enough winging about that, because I promised myself that I would never let my Blog get bogged down with whiny self-pity and the like.

Fortunately...

I have something worthwile to talk about: DOING SOMETHING. Those of you familiar with philosophy (existentialism, in particular) will get a kick out of this URL here. You don't need to sign up to browse a short list of actions (I went this route), so take a gander at it. The long and short of it is that a lot of them are “small acts of kindness”, or even “random acts of kindness”, or simply “easy acts of kindness”. What do you do now? Uh, try 'em out, perhaps? If any sumbitch wanders across that page, and decides that there is no place in their schedule for such superfluous niceness, I want to bitchslap them; we all have the time, we just find it easier to ignore that fact.

At this point, I must also link you to the site from which I linked to the above. At a bus stop today, I happened upon a few of those lovely people who stand out in the cold, for the sole purpose of informing you with some free literature. No, not those Freaky Fanatics with their mini-gospels! These were the happy, orange-clad, Engineers Without Borders types, and they were handing out a ficticious newspaper, dated this day 2025. The headline? “Worldwide celebrations: End of extreme poverty declared”. It may be optimistic, it may be unfeasable...but why say such things? “Extreme poverty” is defined as living on less than $1 per day. There are currently 1.2 Billion people (according to this lovely paper here). You would think that those of us who comprise the other ~5 Billion could scare up AT THE VERY LEAST enough to double that figure. That would cost maybe $300 per person per year. Compare that to tuition of as much as $20K a year (which is, I will grant, more than is strictly necessary, but if you want to go to certain schools, there is a price you pay). It's not a solution that would work all that well, but I meant it as a springboard. For a mere pittance ($7 a week), you could DOUBLE someone's income. Imagine what you could do for that person with some REAL money, and some volunteers, maybe some generous equipment donations. Yes, yes, this is what 'they' have been doing for years...why isn't poverty gone already? Perhaps it's because 'they' have been doing it, and not YOU. After all, if you want something done right...

It might be a small start, but I'm going to see what else besides coffee and chocolate can be bought fair-trade. Nothing tastes better than a fair deal. Nothing. (This is actually true. Fair trade, Organic chocolate is every bit as good as the regular stuff. Sure it costs more, but imagine someone was paying YOU less than $1 a day to break your back working. Fair trade starts to sound a little better, doesn't it?)

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?