Okay, I want to hear everyone in the auditorium this time, okay? Even all of you folks there in back! I want it loud, and I want it proud! Ready? And . . . UNEXPECTEDLY!!! Truly, it was a flabbergasting, never-to-be-repeated freakish turn of events that absolutely no one could have anticipated. A lighting bolt out of a clear blue sky, as it were. The asymptote just raced off to infinity, leaving only gobsmacked surprise in its wake.
Monty, “Friday Financial Briefing”, Aces of Spades HQ, 2010-07-02
July 2, 2010
QotD: Overworked word of the year
Comments Off on QotD: Overworked word of the year
June 15, 2010
Instead of “Car!” they yell “Bylaw Officer!”
Did you know that it’s against Toronto bylaws to play road hockey?
Ball hockey is played on streets across the city, but many people may be surprised to learn it’s not allowed.
Councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker certainly was. He looked around the room today at the public works and infrastructure committee, which he chairs, and pointed out that he was likely surrounded by “bylaw violators”.
He said banning the sport on roads is “just plain silly”.
“I don’t want to fill up our jails with ten and 11-year-old children whose great crime was to run around with hockey sticks and orange balls, yelling the word car all the time,” he said. “Kids can play hockey on the Internet but then they stay inside by themselves and eat marshmallows.” Violating the city bylaw won’t get you thrown in jail, but it could net you a $55 fine.
The only good news about the bylaw is that it (to date) has never been enforced.
Comments Off on Instead of “Car!” they yell “Bylaw Officer!”
June 10, 2010
OTF threatens to punish students for ‘sins’ of the university
Spite and malice are the only reasons for this kind of blatant blackmail attempt by the Ontario Teachers’ Federation:
Nipissing University and the Ontario Teachers’ Federation may be headed for a full-blown confrontation over the institution’s decision to confer an honorary degree on former Ontario premier Mike Harris, a polarizing politician largely abhorred by the teaching community for his education reforms.
The federation warned the university in a May 12 letter that it “cannot predict how teachers may demonstrate their displeasure” if the ceremony goes ahead, but university president Leslie Lovett-Doust said on Wednesday Mr. Harris will, indeed, receive the honorary Doctor of Letters on Thursday afternoon.
[. . .]
The teachers’ organization has already hinted some of its members may choose not to place Nipissing students in highly coveted student-teacher positions, and the federation may add teeth to that veiled threat.
“The OTF executive could, as an option, inform Nipissing that we are going to recommend to our members that they not take teachers for practicum placement from Nipissing University,” said Sam Hammond, president of the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, one of four affiliate organizations under the OTF.
Mike Harris has been out of politics for (effectively) the entire time the Nipissing students were in high school and university, yet their future careers are now being explicitly threatened by the OTF. What possible way can these young adults be held responsible for the actions of a long-retired politician? Clearly, even the idiots at the OTF don’t think this is reasonable . . . but they do think it’s worth ruining their public image to prevent Mike Harris from being given an honorary degree.
Update: Matt Gurney scrawls his illegible “x” on the dotted line of the protest petition:
Former premier Mike Harris personally and single-handedly destroyed my childhood. Just ask the Ontario Teacher’s Federation and its other, affiliated unions. They will happily confirm that Mr. Harris did indeed, knowingly and willfully, set out to ruin everything in this province that was pure and good. And they will not let that go unpunished.
The article, which must have been dictated and then painstakingly transcribed, is finished with this bio note: “Matt Gurney is a member of the National Post editorial board, even though, having been educated during the Harris years, he is, of course, illiterate.”
June 9, 2010
Glee as piracy central
Christina Mulligan points out that a popular mainstream TV show is not only encouraging illegal behaviour, it’s actually indulging in it:
The fictional high school chorus at the center of Fox’s Glee has a huge problem — nearly a million dollars in potential legal liability. For a show that regularly tackles thorny issues like teen pregnancy and alcohol abuse, it’s surprising that a million dollars worth of lawbreaking would go unmentioned. But it does, and week after week, those zany Glee kids rack up the potential to pay higher and higher fines.
In one recent episode, the AV Club helps cheerleading coach Sue Sylvester film a near-exact copy of Madonna’s Vogue music video (the real-life fine for copying Madonna’s original? up to $150,000). Just a few episodes later, a video of Sue dancing to Olivia Newton-John’s 1981 hit Physical is posted online (damages for recording the entirety of Physical on Sue’s camcorder: up to $300,000). And let’s not forget the glee club’s many mash-ups — songs created by mixing together two other musical pieces. Each mash-up is a “preparation of a derivative work” of the original two songs’ compositions — an action for which there is no compulsory license available, meaning (in plain English) that if the Glee kids were a real group of teenagers, they could not feasibly ask for — or hope to get — the copyright permissions they would need to make their songs, and their actions, legal under copyright law. Punishment for making each mash-up? Up to another $150,000 — times two.
I’ve never watched Glee, but I find this quite an amusing juxtaposition, as the corporate owners of Fox are among the loudest and most active copyright enforcement goons around.
June 1, 2010
This is a solution in search of a problem
The wise heads at the Gloucester Dragons Recreational Soccer league have decided to stamp out all the evils of competitive soccer once and for all:
In yet another nod to the protection of fledgling self-esteem, an Ottawa children’s soccer league has introduced a rule that says any team that wins a game by more than five points will lose by default.
The Gloucester Dragons Recreational Soccer league’s newly implemented edict is intended to dissuade a runaway game in favour of sportsmanship. The rule replaces its five-point mercy regulation, whereby any points scored beyond a five-point differential would not be registered.
Kevin Cappon said he first heard about the rule on May 20 — right after he had scored his team’s last allowable goal. His team then tossed the ball around for fear of losing the game.
I coached children’s soccer for more than a decade, and my teams sometimes lost by more than five goals (and occasionally won by similar margins). That’s inevitable, given that recreational soccer teams are not balanced for skill or experience, just for age level. Sometimes random selection puts together three or four very good players (who are not, for whatever reason, playing competitive soccer). Sometimes, otherwise good teams have bad games.
As a parent and as a coach, you know within the first few minutes of a game whether the kids are “in to the game” or if they’re just counting the minutes ’til the final whistle. There’s one thing worse than being beaten by an opposing team by lots of goals . . . and that’s the other team obviously, ostentatiously, not scoring the goals.
I’ve only had it happen against my team once, about six years ago. We were the last-place team in the division and we were facing one of the top teams. It was late in the season, and my kids didn’t have much hope to win, but were still trying. The other team had a higher proportion of bigger players, in addition to having a few really good players. We were down six goals by halftime, and although we were still playing hard, they were out-playing us.
If the second half had gone the same way, it would have been just a bad loss. But the other coach decided to “take it easy” on my team, and loudly and repeatedly directed his players not to score. My players were humiliated for another 30 minutes of “play”. I was surprised we didn’t have fights breaking out on the field: it was that bad.
Next week, I barely had enough players show up for the game. Ironically, even with the few we had, we won that game handily.
Update, June 11: The league has decided to modify the rule:
In response to the feedback, the league decided to get rid of the rule, which will be rescinded starting June 14.
In its place, a new mercy rule will be instituted under which a game will be called once one team has a lead of eight goals. Whichever team is ahead at that time will be credited with the win, Cale said. Teams can then play on if they wish for player development, wrote Cale.
Comments Off on This is a solution in search of a problem
May 28, 2010
Is it too late to cancel?
Chris Selley rounds up the (almost unanimous) pundits’ opinions about the billion-dollar-boondoggle-summit-set:
Is it too late to cancel the G8 and G20 summits?
The National Post‘s Don Martin for the win: “No amount of righteous government bluster about living in post-9/11 protection paranoia, last week’s bank firebombing in Ottawa or the precedent of hosting two back-to-back summits can explain how an $18-million security tab for the G20 in Pittsburgh last September, which involved 4,000 police, must balloon to a billion dollars in Toronto requiring 10,000 cops on the ground.” Yup. It’s outrageous, and the government seems very oddly . . . proud of it. We can hardly wait for the Auditor-General and Parliamentary Budget Officer to find out just where this money went. Especially in a climate where Canadians are thoroughly cheesed off about government spending in the first place, it’s not too much of a stretch to say this is the sort of issue that might bring down a government.
“A case of bureaucracy gone wild,” is Jeffrey Simpson‘s uncontroversial verdict in The Globe and Mail, “or planning gone crazy, of fear sinking itself into every official’s and security person’s heart.” Imagine what we could have bought with that $1-billion! A bunch more Canada Research Chairs, or a whack of “clean-energy projects,” or assistance for “cultural groups” — so sleepy — or, hey, now we’re talking, a massive injection of cash for infrastructure on aboriginal reserves. Or, as Simpson says, “whatever.” Almost literally anything would be better. We’d arguably be better off flushing the $1-billion down the john.
For those of you looking forward to suffering through the event, here’s the official map of the restricted area around the Metro Convention Centre:
The best advice — unless you’re hoping for a run-in with the police — is to avoid Toronto for that weekend (plus a few days in either direction).
May 27, 2010
The absurdity of spending $1 Billion for G20 meeting security
Hard to disagree with anything Rex Murphy says here:
Summits are useless, expensive and potentially dangerous anachronisms.
Let’s take the G20 summit, which will be held June 26-27 in Toronto. No one from the general public will be meeting with the world leaders — summits are not for mingling. So why are the leaders gathering in the middle of Canada’s most populous city when the very idea of interacting with any of the city’s population is absolutely impossible?
Once inside the summit venue the leaders — and their insanely bloated retinues — will be almost antiseptically sealed off from every other bit of Toronto. It’s all fortified meeting rooms and security-proofed hotels for them. Effectively, they will come to Toronto, stay behind a shield of impassable security and talk to leaders they’ve already met. It makes zero sense.
If you’re of a Toronto-centric, anti-Stephen Harper mindset (that would be most Toronto voters), you might attribute it to Harper recreating the famous pacification policy of Henry II: imposing the costs of supporting the royal court by visiting the powerful nobles (that is, the victim can’t refuse the honour of hosting the King, and then has no money or time to plot or scheme against same).
Update: Kelly McParland makes another good point:
Hard as it is to fathom, the Conservatives appear to have successfully created a bigger waste of money than the Liberal gun registry. It took a long time — they’ve had 15 years to study how the Liberals went about wasting so much money on an agency that costs a lot and doesn’t work — but they’ve managed.
In doing so, they’ve disqualified themselves from ever complaining again about money-wasting Liberal schemes, or the gun registry itself for that matter. If Tories can blow a billion forcing everyone in Toronto to find somewhere else to spend the weekend of June 26-27, Liberals can force farmers to get shotgun licences.
Comments Off on The absurdity of spending $1 Billion for G20 meeting security
Canada’s positive experience of US Prohibition
I knew that individual Canadians did well out of supplying booze to thirsty Americans during the period of Prohibition, but I didn’t realize how well:
. . . Prohibition — perhaps the maddest of mad American dreams [NR: in a dead heat with the current War on Drugs, I think] — did pretty well by our nation from 1920 to 1933. As American writer Daniel Okrent points out in his fine social history of the era, Last Call, the rivers of Canadian booze that flowed south enriched not only the Bronfman liquor empire, but our federal government. Canadians did make and smuggle illegal liquor, evading both Canadian taxes and American law, but we also made millions of litres of the legal, taxed stuff, the ultimate destination of which was of no concern to Ottawa. The amount of alcohol subject to excise tax — most of which went south one way or another — went from 36,000 litres in 1920 to five million 10 years later, and the excise tax on it rose to a fifth of federal revenue, twice as much as income tax.
Few in Canada had the slightest inclination to aid the American government in cracking down on alcohol use. When a U.S. Coast Guard cutter in pursuit of a Lake Erie rum-runner ran aground near Port Colborne, Ont., locals looted the vessel, then filled its engines with sand. About the only Canadians Okrent could unearth who thought the Dominion should help Uncle Sam seal his border were those making a fortune selling alcohol to American visitors. One way or another, most Canadians agreed with the smug satisfaction of CNR president Sir Henry Thornton, whose railway was growing fat off liquor tourism: “The dryer the U.S. is,” opined Sir Henry, “the better it will be for us.”
If there was an upside to what was known — at first, without a trace of irony — as “The Noble Experiment” in the U.S. itself, Okrent is hard-pressed to find it. America had always been awash in alcohol. (Johnny Appleseed’s fruit was inedible, but Americans still embraced his trees — virtually every homestead kept a barrel of hard cider by the door for visitors.) During the sodden 19th century, adult Americans downed 27 litres of pure alcohol each annually. That kind of demand wasn’t going to disappear no matter what the law said.
And yet the lesson has been forgotten. When drug prohibition finally comes to an end, historians will have a field day drawing the obvious comparison between the War on Drugs and the “Noble Experiment”. The theses practically write themselves . . .
Comments Off on Canada’s positive experience of US Prohibition
May 21, 2010
Your iPod is even more valuable than you think
Comments Off on Your iPod is even more valuable than you think
May 19, 2010
Military bureausclerosis, explained
Like many bureaucracies, the US Army has a plethora of generals running an organization that is far from its maximum historical size. Those generals all need staff, the staff need working space, transportation, support staff of their own, etc. Multiply that a few times and you get stories like this:
Gates rattled off examples of costly bureaucracy inside the military, as well. A simple request for a dog-handling team in Afghanistan must be reviewed and assessed at multiple high-level headquarters before it can be deployed to the war zone. “Can you believe it takes five four-star headquarters to get a decision on a guy and a dog up to me?” Gates said to reporters Friday.
The Armorer gets to the real point of the story, rather than the one Gates thinks he’s making:
I’ll just take this statement: “Can you believe it takes five four-star headquarters to get a decision on a guy and a dog up to me?”
And say — “Gee, Mr. Secretary, I can’t believe that a decision on a guy and a dog has to get to you.”
If you’re making those kinds of decisions, that’s just another reason the Services have put that many Generals in the loop.
This is what, in the private sector, is called micromanagement and it’s generally thought to be a bad thing, and a sign of incompetent leadership. What’s it called in the US Army?
Comments Off on Military bureausclerosis, explained
May 14, 2010
Defence minister denies that the Navy to be cut by half
Canada’s Minister of National Defence Peter MacKay claims that the following operational changes to Canada’s naval forces do not constitute a serious cut:
The directive was sent to maritime forces on the west and east coasts, as well as to senior officers in charge of naval reservists.
The letter says:
– The fleet of Kingston-class maritime coastal defence vessels will be reduced to six ships from 12.
– Three frigates, HMCS Montreal, St John’s and Vancouver, will now be conducting domestic and continental missions to a “limited degree.”
– Combat systems on HMCS Toronto and HMCS Ottawa, as well as on HMCS Athabaskan, will be “minimally supported to enable safe to navigate sensors and communications only.”
– A key weapon system on board the Protecteur-class supply ships designed to destroy incoming missiles “will not be supported.”
Jedi Master MacKay is attempting a mind trick: “these are not the defence cuts you’re looking for”.
May 1, 2010
April 20, 2010
QotD: Food porn and subversive humour
The KFC Double Down makes me despair. Not because of the “sandwich” itself but because of the predictable reaction; in general, if you didn’t know that the thing was made of chicken, bacon, and processed cheese, you would get the impression that it was lovingly constructed from scorpions and poison. [. . .]
But which side in the war between soulless conglomerates and food puritans has irony on its side? KFC has literally rearranged the same ingredients that go into most every other grab-and-go entrée it serves, and gotten rid of the bread, which, guess what, might not be that good for you anyway. The sinister Elders of Tricon, who were surely lit unflatteringly from above in an austere modernist boardroom when they made the decision to create the Double Down, knew perfectly well that it would create panic and horror for no other reason than its configuration. The Double Down is, explicitly and unapologetically, a piece of food comedy.
And all the horrible people — for it seems virtually impossible to talk about food without being horrible — are reacting exactly as planned. The unapologetically paternalistic healthitarians, the grease-sweating Warcraft-playing fast-food reverse-snobs, the one-idea-in-their-whole-head theorists of food salvation, the paleos and the Pollanites, the narcissistic Nietzscheans who look at cheese as though it was about to go critical any second but will buy whatever’s new on the shelves at the GNC without so much as looking at the label . . . all the people, in short, who routinely insist on adulterating the pleasure of eating, and that includes, most of all, the types who’ve imbibed too much M.F.K. Fisher and who write pornographically about the “pleasure of eating” as if they were zooming a powerful camera in on an open mouth furiously masticating a mouthful of gnocchi.
Colby Cosh, “The Double Down: your move, America”, Macleans, 2010-04-20
Comments Off on QotD: Food porn and subversive humour
April 16, 2010
QotD: Blog Post EULA
READ CAREFULLY. By reading this blog post, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (“BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
Cory Doctorow, “Video-game shoppers surrender their immortal souls”, BoingBoing, 2010-04-16
Comments Off on QotD: Blog Post EULA
April 15, 2010
The technical term is “totally insane”
Cory Doctorow has a horrible dystopian future in mind. No, it’s not the background to his next science fiction novel — it’s what the MPAA and RIAA think our future should be like:
The MPAA and RIAA have submitted their master plan for enforcing copyright to the new Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Richard Esguerra points out, it’s a startlingly distopian work of science fiction. The entertainment industry calls for:
* spyware on your computer that detects and deletes infringing materials;
* mandatory censorware on all Internet connections to interdict transfers of infringing material;
* border searches of personal media players, laptops and thumb-drives;
* international bullying to force other countries to implement the same policies;
* and free copyright enforcement provided by Fed cops and agencies (including the Department of Homeland Security!).There’s a technical term for this in policy circles. I believe it’s “Totally insane.”
I find the audacity of (as Cory calls ’em) “Big Content” to be breathtaking: it’s as if they’ve never heard of fairness or privacy. If they get their wish, we’ll never hear of ’em again either.
As Greg Sandoval points out, there’s almost no reliable data to quantify the problem all this draconian lawmaking and enforcement is supposed to address:
“Three widely cited U.S. government estimates of economic losses resulting from counterfeiting cannot be substantiated due to the absence of underlying studies,” the GAO said. “Each method (of measuring) has limitations, and most experts observed that it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the economy-wide impacts.”
In what appears to be a setback for Hollywood and the recording industry, the government said that it sees problems with the methodology used in studies those sectors have long relied on to support claims that piracy was destructive to their businesses. The accountability office even noted the existence of data that shows piracy may benefit consumers in some cases.
[. . .]
“Consumers may use pirated goods to ‘sample’ music, movies, software, or electronic games before purchasing legitimate copies,” the GAO continued. “(This) may lead to increased sales of legitimate goods.”
Comments Off on The technical term is “totally insane”
