Black and White cabs did not make me a happy chappy this morning. So far, I've been using them when I needed to call a cab because their number is easier to remember, but from now I'm going to take the effort to remember the other cab companies number.
I've been catching taxis to work since the buses in the morning are 1) crowded, and 2) really inconveniently timed for the shifts I've got at the moment. And since I'm still getting about on crutches, when I call up, I ask them to get the driver to drive into the yard, as I go down the back stairs. So far, this has about a 30% success rate of actually getting the driver to come into the yard, but so long as they at least park on the driveway I can get around to the driver's side to get in (getting in this side lets me sit with my injured leg on the seat, and I'm not sure I can bend the leg enough yet to get in the front seat).
This morning the cab pulls out in front of the house, and the driver got out and called to me from the gate that he can't get his car into the yard (I'm not sure if he's got some randomly variable width car or something, or he's just scared that a few leafs might ruin his pretty cab). Anyway, I'm wasn't too upset, as I can actually walk out to where the cab is. I do so, and when I get there I ask the driver if he can back the car into the driveway because I have to get in on his side of the car. I asked this because he had parked on the street, and to get in on the drivers side I'd have to hobble onto a reasonably busy road to get into the taxi.
The driver however simply reverses the cab back parallel with the curb, in no way solving the problem of me not wanting to hobble on a busy road. So I gestured to him to show that he should back into the driveway. I'm not sure what went through the driver's mind at this point, but his next action was to jam the cab into gear and drive off at a quite rapid pace.
I wasn't too impressed. My mind briefly toyed with the notion that he might have been going to the roundabout up ahead to do a uturn to get a better turn into the driveway, but that was soon proved false.
And so Black and White Cabs has invoked my wrath. This is perhaps painting a broad brush, as I have had a few good drivers along the way, and a few less than good ones, but this was just ridiculous (the guy who parked out the front where I couldn't see or get to him and caused me to be late at work is another stand out example). I really don't think it's too much to ask that a cab driver give a bit of consideration to a guy on crutches.
As an epilogue, after an angry call to Black and White cabs demanding another taxi, and after waiting I called Yellow cabs who got a taxi to me in a few minutes with driver who was willing to back into the driver so that I could get in the car without risking being on the road, and even was going to open the door for me before I told him I could do it myself.
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
A message for Greece and Germany
So I'm sure most people are aware of the slightly sticky situation Greece has got itself into lately. And I'm sure that the people who already want to know more about the causes already do so. I just want to give a brief statement on how I think certain parties involved in the situation should be acting.
Firstly, Greece. Man the fuck up. You've dug yourself into a whole, and now it's time to start fixing shit up. Cut back on the budget. Fix the god damned civil service. Don't give people 14 months pay each year. Don't let them retire on generous pensions at 50 (The only way someone should be able to retire comfortably at 50 is if they've made a fortune somewhere, not just held a job for 30 years). Change the constitution so you can fire the crappy ones.
Next, the Greek People. Man the fuck up. You voted for the fools who got you into this position. Recognise that you are not entitled to retire at 50, get cheap credit and cushy jobs. Rioting against cuts in government spending does not make people want to lend your government more money, or visit your country and you need all the tourism euros you can get. Don't get uppity when the countries trying to pull your asses out of the fire make strong suggestions about what you do with their money. And pay your god damn taxes.
Germany. Man the fuck up. You are the big dog of the Eurozone, and naturally the place people are going to look to when the shit hits the fan. Yes, you've done the tough things that the Greeks haven't. You've kept wage growth low, saving high, debt low, you've raised the pension age, and a raft of other things that have made your economy pretty strong. But you've also committed to a common currency with a bunch of other people, and if some of those other countries self implode, it will hurt. It's not going to be fun handing over sackfuls of cash to ungrateful, whiny, Greeks who show no signs of changing their ways, but it is the lesser of two evils.
Finally, to every other country, person, corporation and any other kind of entity who deals with money. Learn from this. Don't spend more money than you god damn have, and don't think that easy credit is yours for the taking with nary a care. And expect a rough time if you don't.
PS This is a rather simplistic rant at some of the main groups involved in the whole Greek Crisis thing. The causes and solutions are nowhere near as simple or straightforward as what I've just said, although I think it would be a good start.
Firstly, Greece. Man the fuck up. You've dug yourself into a whole, and now it's time to start fixing shit up. Cut back on the budget. Fix the god damned civil service. Don't give people 14 months pay each year. Don't let them retire on generous pensions at 50 (The only way someone should be able to retire comfortably at 50 is if they've made a fortune somewhere, not just held a job for 30 years). Change the constitution so you can fire the crappy ones.
Next, the Greek People. Man the fuck up. You voted for the fools who got you into this position. Recognise that you are not entitled to retire at 50, get cheap credit and cushy jobs. Rioting against cuts in government spending does not make people want to lend your government more money, or visit your country and you need all the tourism euros you can get. Don't get uppity when the countries trying to pull your asses out of the fire make strong suggestions about what you do with their money. And pay your god damn taxes.
Germany. Man the fuck up. You are the big dog of the Eurozone, and naturally the place people are going to look to when the shit hits the fan. Yes, you've done the tough things that the Greeks haven't. You've kept wage growth low, saving high, debt low, you've raised the pension age, and a raft of other things that have made your economy pretty strong. But you've also committed to a common currency with a bunch of other people, and if some of those other countries self implode, it will hurt. It's not going to be fun handing over sackfuls of cash to ungrateful, whiny, Greeks who show no signs of changing their ways, but it is the lesser of two evils.
Finally, to every other country, person, corporation and any other kind of entity who deals with money. Learn from this. Don't spend more money than you god damn have, and don't think that easy credit is yours for the taking with nary a care. And expect a rough time if you don't.
PS This is a rather simplistic rant at some of the main groups involved in the whole Greek Crisis thing. The causes and solutions are nowhere near as simple or straightforward as what I've just said, although I think it would be a good start.
Friday, December 11, 2009
A Thought on Tony Abbot
"I don't claim to have immersed myself deeply in all of these documents," Mr Abbott told Lateline host Tony Jones.
"I'm a politician ... I think I am as well-versed on these matters as your average politician needs to be."
These quotes are from Tony Abbott talking about his knowledge of important reports regarding climate change.
My response to these statements is pretty much as follows. "You're not an average politician any more. You're the god damned leader of the opposition and you need to know this shit or else you'll just look like an god damned idiot. You can do better, you should do better, and we deserve better."
"I'm a politician ... I think I am as well-versed on these matters as your average politician needs to be."
These quotes are from Tony Abbott talking about his knowledge of important reports regarding climate change.
My response to these statements is pretty much as follows. "You're not an average politician any more. You're the god damned leader of the opposition and you need to know this shit or else you'll just look like an god damned idiot. You can do better, you should do better, and we deserve better."
Monday, July 13, 2009
I have a rant
At the moment, since I'm job hunting, I'm sending a lot of emails to recruitment agencies. These are the companies that have taken over pretty much the whole hiring process (and in some cases the actual employment bit as well).
I tend to feel that these companies are a kind of leech, as they do a job that used to be done by people inside a company, but now they pay some outsider to do it for them. For a start this does not make much financial sense to me, as instead of paying an employee to do this, they pay another company to pay an employee to do this, and of course the other company has to make a bit of profit on the deal, so overall it should be a bit cheaper to hire yourself a good recruiter, make sure they know your company well, and get them to do your hiring for you.
But it is not this that has roused me to typing. Today I came across a whole new kind of beast in the recruitment industry. Recruitment for recruitment. Companies that recruit recruiters. Uber-vampires who suck blood from regular vampires.
Now, I may not be in the best place to say, but surely a company whose job it is to find employees for other companies should already be well set up to find good employees. I mean, if they can't find good people for themselves, why should I believe they can find good employees for me.
Now hopefully no recruiters find this and decide to completely blacklist me (although at times it seems they've already done this), but quite frankly they are at best an unnecessary evil
I tend to feel that these companies are a kind of leech, as they do a job that used to be done by people inside a company, but now they pay some outsider to do it for them. For a start this does not make much financial sense to me, as instead of paying an employee to do this, they pay another company to pay an employee to do this, and of course the other company has to make a bit of profit on the deal, so overall it should be a bit cheaper to hire yourself a good recruiter, make sure they know your company well, and get them to do your hiring for you.
But it is not this that has roused me to typing. Today I came across a whole new kind of beast in the recruitment industry. Recruitment for recruitment. Companies that recruit recruiters. Uber-vampires who suck blood from regular vampires.
Now, I may not be in the best place to say, but surely a company whose job it is to find employees for other companies should already be well set up to find good employees. I mean, if they can't find good people for themselves, why should I believe they can find good employees for me.
Now hopefully no recruiters find this and decide to completely blacklist me (although at times it seems they've already done this), but quite frankly they are at best an unnecessary evil
Friday, October 03, 2008
A Point I Think Needs Making
First you need to watch this video.
For me, the answers given in this interview are completely and totally inadequate. I do not care what her personal position on the subject of abortion is, I do not care what she would advise someone in that situation to do. What I care about is what legislation she would endorse and advocate. This is what will affect people's lives, and on this matter she was silent and evasive.
The question was not about how she would advise someone in that situation, it was what sort of legislation she would pursue as vice-president. This sort of question is not complicated. It could be simply answered as a yes or no question. Not answering the question shows either a lack of comprehension or deception about the real answer, neither of which is a desirable trait in anyone running for office.
And while this may seem like me joining in on the Palin bashing, the fact is that this type of crap is spouted by most politicians. Palin just seems to be the most egregious case right now.
End Post
Writing time: longer than you would expect
Time since last post: bleh
Current media: None
For me, the answers given in this interview are completely and totally inadequate. I do not care what her personal position on the subject of abortion is, I do not care what she would advise someone in that situation to do. What I care about is what legislation she would endorse and advocate. This is what will affect people's lives, and on this matter she was silent and evasive.
The question was not about how she would advise someone in that situation, it was what sort of legislation she would pursue as vice-president. This sort of question is not complicated. It could be simply answered as a yes or no question. Not answering the question shows either a lack of comprehension or deception about the real answer, neither of which is a desirable trait in anyone running for office.
And while this may seem like me joining in on the Palin bashing, the fact is that this type of crap is spouted by most politicians. Palin just seems to be the most egregious case right now.
End Post
Writing time: longer than you would expect
Time since last post: bleh
Current media: None
Monday, July 14, 2008
Just How Useless is the Security Council?
A few days ago the UN Security Council considered a resolution applying sanctions to Zimbabwe including an arms embargo and personal restrictions on Mugabe and a number of his cronies. This sounds like a very sensible thing considering the shit that went down during the last election. Indeed the resolution got nine votes for compared to four against with one country, Indonesia, abstaining.
Notice I didn't say the resolution passed nine votes to four. That's because it didn't pass. Two of the four countries that voted against the idea were Russia and China, both of which are permanent members of the security council with the power of veto. And because of them, international pressure on Mugabe to actually stop being a dickwad has been greatly reduced.
The justification the Chinese and Russians gave for the decision not to support sanctions against Zimbabwe in the wake of their so-called elections is that so far it has been a domestic issue, and so a Security Council resolution, which is meant to deal with international issues, is inappropriate.
While the matter is certainly so far a purely domestic issue, I still think the Security Council is within it's jurisdiction to apply pressure in this situation. Firstly, it is one of the few international organizations with some teeth that is able to do so. This is not a particularly great reason, but it does place some responsibility on the council, and particularly the permanent members to be responsible members of the community of nations.
Secondly, action needs to be taken against Mugabe to prevent the precedent he appears to be setting. If other tin-pot dictators see that they can use such tactics to ensure that they retain power with little or no real consequence, they will be much more willing to do so. And then when we have a bunch of countries run by power mad crazies with little or no concern for anything or anyone but themselves, I can almost guarantee there will be international problems. Action needs to be taken against Mugabe to show that his antics are not acceptable in the modern world.
China's track record on such matters is particularly poor. Their position of non-interference in internal affairs means that a number of less than savory administrations have gotten a lot of necessary support when it would have been better for everyone concerned if they were under pressure to change their ways.
Combine this with the Security Council's somewhat outdated voting system and China is causing a lot of hassles for those of us who want to encourage unpleasant governments to change their ways. If someone is giving away carrots for free and stopping others from using the stick, it's a lot harder to have a positive effect.
End Post
Writing time: 45 minutes
Time since last post: a while
Current media: Arrested Development
Notice I didn't say the resolution passed nine votes to four. That's because it didn't pass. Two of the four countries that voted against the idea were Russia and China, both of which are permanent members of the security council with the power of veto. And because of them, international pressure on Mugabe to actually stop being a dickwad has been greatly reduced.
The justification the Chinese and Russians gave for the decision not to support sanctions against Zimbabwe in the wake of their so-called elections is that so far it has been a domestic issue, and so a Security Council resolution, which is meant to deal with international issues, is inappropriate.
While the matter is certainly so far a purely domestic issue, I still think the Security Council is within it's jurisdiction to apply pressure in this situation. Firstly, it is one of the few international organizations with some teeth that is able to do so. This is not a particularly great reason, but it does place some responsibility on the council, and particularly the permanent members to be responsible members of the community of nations.
Secondly, action needs to be taken against Mugabe to prevent the precedent he appears to be setting. If other tin-pot dictators see that they can use such tactics to ensure that they retain power with little or no real consequence, they will be much more willing to do so. And then when we have a bunch of countries run by power mad crazies with little or no concern for anything or anyone but themselves, I can almost guarantee there will be international problems. Action needs to be taken against Mugabe to show that his antics are not acceptable in the modern world.
China's track record on such matters is particularly poor. Their position of non-interference in internal affairs means that a number of less than savory administrations have gotten a lot of necessary support when it would have been better for everyone concerned if they were under pressure to change their ways.
Combine this with the Security Council's somewhat outdated voting system and China is causing a lot of hassles for those of us who want to encourage unpleasant governments to change their ways. If someone is giving away carrots for free and stopping others from using the stick, it's a lot harder to have a positive effect.
End Post
Writing time: 45 minutes
Time since last post: a while
Current media: Arrested Development
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Just What is Their Malfunction?
I've just read this rather harrowing tale of an unfortunate 14 year old girl in Poland.
This young girl is currently pregnant. She is pregnant because she was raped. This is a terrible thing in and of itself. With her family she decided to get an abortion, which is allowed in cases like this under an exception to Poland's strict anti-abortion laws.
Unfortunately she has been unable to undergo the procedure. Originally, she had wanted to have the abortion done in her home town, but a priest barged in on the family while they were discussing the matter with the hospital director, telling her she should give birth. There has also been pressure from various anti-abortion groups on the family and hospitals as well. Both hospitals in her home town refused to perform the procedure.
When the family tried to discretely organise an abortion at a hospital in Warsaw, her harassers somehow found out (a privacy violation worth investigating) and turned up to intrude upon the family once more. They swarmed on the hospital, attacked staff and occupied the office.
These people have continued to harass this unfortunate family, even to the point of submitting a request to police to investigate the coercion of a minor to have an abortion, which is a crime in Poland, and trying to take her away from her mother and put in emergency foster care.
Now is where I get all righteous about this. Just who the hell do these people think they are? This is an extremely traumatic time for this unfortunate young girl, and all they are doing is making things worse. Do they really think that taking this girl away from her family is going to help this girl? Do they really think that persecuting her and following her around telling her what to do will make her feel better?
There is only one person who gets to decide what this girl should do, and only a few people who are allowed to advise her. The ultimate decision is the girls, and only the family, her doctor and those they ask to be involved (this could include a priest, pro-life or pro-choice supporters or whoever else they choose to ask) should be talking to this girl about things1. For everyone else, it's none of their business and they should leave the poor girl alone.
The involvement of all these anti-abortionists in this case has been despicable. It is harassment plain and simple, and the family should be able to get protection from it.
I think it also shows which side on this debate has the crazies and the nut jobs. I've never seen pro-choice activists harassing someone saying they should have an abortion. They agree that the decision lies with the woman, they just want her to have the freedom to decide what they want to do and the ability to carry out their decision. This is a position which is a lot harder to get very fundamentalist about, since it's essentially "You choose", compared to the anti-abortionists "You can't".
The people in this story really got to me because they have caused a lot of grief for this unfortunate girl who has already had a terrible experience and doesn't deserve this. Have they no decency? Are they so self-righteous that they have to further traumatize this young girl? Can't they let her have some peace?
1) In general, two people get to make the decision about abortion. These two people are the couple involved. A doctor should of course be involved for medical advice. Family, friends or others such as a priest may get involved if asked to by the couple, although in the case of minors the family should be more involved. For anyone else it's none of their business and they have no business telling the couple what they should do. In cases like this one, the father obviously does not get a say in the matter.
End Post
Writing time: 45 minutes
Current media: George Carlin's Class Clown
This young girl is currently pregnant. She is pregnant because she was raped. This is a terrible thing in and of itself. With her family she decided to get an abortion, which is allowed in cases like this under an exception to Poland's strict anti-abortion laws.
Unfortunately she has been unable to undergo the procedure. Originally, she had wanted to have the abortion done in her home town, but a priest barged in on the family while they were discussing the matter with the hospital director, telling her she should give birth. There has also been pressure from various anti-abortion groups on the family and hospitals as well. Both hospitals in her home town refused to perform the procedure.
When the family tried to discretely organise an abortion at a hospital in Warsaw, her harassers somehow found out (a privacy violation worth investigating) and turned up to intrude upon the family once more. They swarmed on the hospital, attacked staff and occupied the office.
These people have continued to harass this unfortunate family, even to the point of submitting a request to police to investigate the coercion of a minor to have an abortion, which is a crime in Poland, and trying to take her away from her mother and put in emergency foster care.
Now is where I get all righteous about this. Just who the hell do these people think they are? This is an extremely traumatic time for this unfortunate young girl, and all they are doing is making things worse. Do they really think that taking this girl away from her family is going to help this girl? Do they really think that persecuting her and following her around telling her what to do will make her feel better?
There is only one person who gets to decide what this girl should do, and only a few people who are allowed to advise her. The ultimate decision is the girls, and only the family, her doctor and those they ask to be involved (this could include a priest, pro-life or pro-choice supporters or whoever else they choose to ask) should be talking to this girl about things1. For everyone else, it's none of their business and they should leave the poor girl alone.
The involvement of all these anti-abortionists in this case has been despicable. It is harassment plain and simple, and the family should be able to get protection from it.
I think it also shows which side on this debate has the crazies and the nut jobs. I've never seen pro-choice activists harassing someone saying they should have an abortion. They agree that the decision lies with the woman, they just want her to have the freedom to decide what they want to do and the ability to carry out their decision. This is a position which is a lot harder to get very fundamentalist about, since it's essentially "You choose", compared to the anti-abortionists "You can't".
The people in this story really got to me because they have caused a lot of grief for this unfortunate girl who has already had a terrible experience and doesn't deserve this. Have they no decency? Are they so self-righteous that they have to further traumatize this young girl? Can't they let her have some peace?
1) In general, two people get to make the decision about abortion. These two people are the couple involved. A doctor should of course be involved for medical advice. Family, friends or others such as a priest may get involved if asked to by the couple, although in the case of minors the family should be more involved. For anyone else it's none of their business and they have no business telling the couple what they should do. In cases like this one, the father obviously does not get a say in the matter.
End Post
Writing time: 45 minutes
Current media: George Carlin's Class Clown
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Boom Times at Gloucester High
A baby boom that is. The number of students having babies this year has quadrupled and it turns out that this is no accident. A group of girls have made a pact to all get pregnant and raise their children together. They've been so successful that the school has opened up a day care center for student's children.
They don't quite seem to get what they're getting into with all this, and don't seem to be taking the whole process very seriously. One of the girls child is fathered by a 24 year old homeless. I'm pretty sure he's not going to contribute much to raising the child.
Another example of why they shouldn't be doing it comes from a schoolmate explaining why they're doing it. She says "They're so excited to finally have someone to love them unconditionally." This is wrong for many reasons. First, they should think back to how they were as kids, which shouldn't be too hard since it wasn't so long ago, and try and remember if they unconditionally loved their parents all the time. Then someone should tell them that the way babies show their unconditional love is by waking you up at 3am with their crying and then puking over your shoulder.
Human life is a precious thing, and those who bring a new baby into the world should be sure that they are aware of and ready for the responsibilities that go with it. By their attitude and actions, these girls have shown that they have done neither.
I just hope these girls get their act together and start treating life more seriously.
End Post
Writing time: 15 minutes
Time since last post: about a day
Current media: iTunes shuffle
They don't quite seem to get what they're getting into with all this, and don't seem to be taking the whole process very seriously. One of the girls child is fathered by a 24 year old homeless. I'm pretty sure he's not going to contribute much to raising the child.
Another example of why they shouldn't be doing it comes from a schoolmate explaining why they're doing it. She says "They're so excited to finally have someone to love them unconditionally." This is wrong for many reasons. First, they should think back to how they were as kids, which shouldn't be too hard since it wasn't so long ago, and try and remember if they unconditionally loved their parents all the time. Then someone should tell them that the way babies show their unconditional love is by waking you up at 3am with their crying and then puking over your shoulder.
Human life is a precious thing, and those who bring a new baby into the world should be sure that they are aware of and ready for the responsibilities that go with it. By their attitude and actions, these girls have shown that they have done neither.
I just hope these girls get their act together and start treating life more seriously.
End Post
Writing time: 15 minutes
Time since last post: about a day
Current media: iTunes shuffle
Saturday, June 21, 2008
And So It Spreads
It appears that the creationist dogma is spreading from its heartland of middle-America to the colder climes of the British Isles. Fortunately, a response is being made to this villainy.
The worst part though is a quote about religious students in subjects like medicine. According to Professor Steve Jones of University College London, "They want permission not to come to those lectures and sit those exam questions."
This is just ridiculous. I honestly expect better from those seeking to become doctors, or those studying any sort of anything, really. If I was their lecturer, I'd say "Sure, you don't have to attend those lectures or do those questions on the exam, but don't expect me to give you any credit for it." For anyone working in the biological fields, evolution is a fundamental concept and denying that is to ignore nearly all the knowledge gained in the field since the mid 1800s.
Dear oh dear oh dear.
End Post
Writing time: 15 minutes
Time since last post: 3 days (I ran out of stuff I preposted)
Current media: iTunes shuffle
The worst part though is a quote about religious students in subjects like medicine. According to Professor Steve Jones of University College London, "They want permission not to come to those lectures and sit those exam questions."
This is just ridiculous. I honestly expect better from those seeking to become doctors, or those studying any sort of anything, really. If I was their lecturer, I'd say "Sure, you don't have to attend those lectures or do those questions on the exam, but don't expect me to give you any credit for it." For anyone working in the biological fields, evolution is a fundamental concept and denying that is to ignore nearly all the knowledge gained in the field since the mid 1800s.
Dear oh dear oh dear.
End Post
Writing time: 15 minutes
Time since last post: 3 days (I ran out of stuff I preposted)
Current media: iTunes shuffle
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Some things should be taken seriously
A rather large trial in NSW has had to be aborted because several of the jurors were playing soduku instead of listening to the evidence.
I don't know where to start with this one. Don't these people understand that jury duty is serious business. Someones future is in your hands. Justice is in your hands. This is not something you can do half-assed.
I certainly agree with the defense lawyer for pulling them up on this, and am glad the judge agreed. The jury has been dismissed and the trial will restart when a new jury is established.
The only bit I don't disagree with is the fact that the jurors can not be penalized for this. Because of their lack of seriousness, this case will go longer, which will mean increased costs for the defendants, the prosecution and the courts. In cases like this where the jury is dismissed for blatantly not doing their job, there should be some sort of consequence. Not the full cost, but they should be made to realize that they have screwed up.
As a hint to anyone who is on a jury and wants to get away with this, avoid two dimensional puzzles. At first people thought these jurors were making notes, but suspicions were aroused when it was noticed that they were writing vertically, a somewhat unusual method of note taking.
End Post
Writing time: 11 minutes
Time since last post: nominally 24 hours, but who knows
Current media: None
I don't know where to start with this one. Don't these people understand that jury duty is serious business. Someones future is in your hands. Justice is in your hands. This is not something you can do half-assed.
I certainly agree with the defense lawyer for pulling them up on this, and am glad the judge agreed. The jury has been dismissed and the trial will restart when a new jury is established.
The only bit I don't disagree with is the fact that the jurors can not be penalized for this. Because of their lack of seriousness, this case will go longer, which will mean increased costs for the defendants, the prosecution and the courts. In cases like this where the jury is dismissed for blatantly not doing their job, there should be some sort of consequence. Not the full cost, but they should be made to realize that they have screwed up.
As a hint to anyone who is on a jury and wants to get away with this, avoid two dimensional puzzles. At first people thought these jurors were making notes, but suspicions were aroused when it was noticed that they were writing vertically, a somewhat unusual method of note taking.
End Post
Writing time: 11 minutes
Time since last post: nominally 24 hours, but who knows
Current media: None
Thursday, May 29, 2008
I was wrong
A short while ago I wrote about how it seemed that some people who had been less than considerate to their fellow man had changed their mind and were going to be more helpful.
Well, I was wrong.
I know, I know. It's not a common occurrence. But, I thought that in the face of vast human suffering, not even the most cold-hearted, power-hungry egomaniacs would actually refuse to let people help their country. For some reason my natural cynicism, which is the closest thing I have to a superpower, failed me. Well, no more. I'm back to the position that if the Myanmar government isn't going to help it's people, we should do so anyway.
End Post
Writing time: 10 minutes
Time since last post: 3 days
Current media: None
Well, I was wrong.
I know, I know. It's not a common occurrence. But, I thought that in the face of vast human suffering, not even the most cold-hearted, power-hungry egomaniacs would actually refuse to let people help their country. For some reason my natural cynicism, which is the closest thing I have to a superpower, failed me. Well, no more. I'm back to the position that if the Myanmar government isn't going to help it's people, we should do so anyway.
End Post
Writing time: 10 minutes
Time since last post: 3 days
Current media: None
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
They Made This Guy Prime Minister?
Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has proposed that the United Kingdom government create a database that contains records of every phone call, email, and time spent online by people in the United Kingdom.
This is a bad thing.
This is a ridiculously bad thing.
This is such a bad thing that it makes other bad things look like good things.
Such a scheme is a massive invasion of privacy. It is a completely unwarranted surveillance of the population as a whole. It is compiling a massive amount of data that the government does not need and should not have. Such a massive quantity of data will be a tempting target for those who use information for nefarious purposes. While it reeks of losing via Godwin's law, it is not incorrect to suggest that this is reminiscent of Big Brother.
I'll finish by pointing out that not everyone in the government agrees with this and hope that there is an outbreak of common sense and this gets squashed before it sees the light of day.
End Post
Writing time: 17 minutes
Time since last post: two days
Current media: The Office
This is a bad thing.
This is a ridiculously bad thing.
This is such a bad thing that it makes other bad things look like good things.
Such a scheme is a massive invasion of privacy. It is a completely unwarranted surveillance of the population as a whole. It is compiling a massive amount of data that the government does not need and should not have. Such a massive quantity of data will be a tempting target for those who use information for nefarious purposes. While it reeks of losing via Godwin's law, it is not incorrect to suggest that this is reminiscent of Big Brother.
I'll finish by pointing out that not everyone in the government agrees with this and hope that there is an outbreak of common sense and this gets squashed before it sees the light of day.
End Post
Writing time: 17 minutes
Time since last post: two days
Current media: The Office
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The Great Firewall of Korea
Yesterday I wanted to play online poker so I fired up my online poker program but it wouldn't connect. I tried a few times and it still wouldn't work. So then I tried to check the website. Which is when I was presented with this.
From the picture you can get the general idea of what is going on. I painstakingly typed (why do people put large chunks of important text in images) the Korean into Google translate and got told it meant this
From the picture you can get the general idea of what is going on. I painstakingly typed (why do people put large chunks of important text in images) the Korean into Google translate and got told it meant thisIllegal information (site) for blocking guide
Your party is trying to access illegal content sites are prohibited by law, and it has been blocked access to sites that let you know
This information is information and communication via the ethics committee's deliberation according to the Telecommunication Business Act, it is blocked due to questions regarding the sludge under the charge of the insti
(copied from a chat log from MSM which limits the size of messages, hence the abrupt cut off.)
This really annoys me for a few reasons. First, I haven't been stopped from doing this for the first five months I've been in Korea, so why is it a problem now. Second, nine out of the top ten Google results for "online poker" are not blocked (my site of choice is the only one blocked). Now one of those is Wikipedia, so probably wouldn't get blocked, but the others are sites to play poker and I have indeed since downloaded a different online poker program and used it without incident.
The main reason I'm upset is because I feel this is the action of an overreaching government reaching into an area they have no right to act in. The government is not a nanny meant to look out for each and every one of us. It is not the governments role to decide which web sites and which services I can and can not visit, just as it is not the governments role to decide who I can and can not talk to, nor what I can talk about with those people. I oppose this blocking of access to parts of the internet just as I'm opposed to the great firewall of China and the plans to try and implement such a system in Australia.
When a government creates such restrictions, it is restricting the freedom of it's citizens. It is denying them the freedom to choose what they want to do, who they want to associate with, how they want to associate with others. It is denying them their responsibility for their actions.
Also, when a government creates the means to enforce such restrictions, it is giving itself a great weapon that can be used against the people. Who gets to decide what is not appropriate for the people. The government. I think all would agree that China's massive restrictions on internet access are reprehensible. Why would any democracy want to take it's lead from China of all countries. To those who say that there are things that should be blocked, I tell you that they fall into one of three categories.
One, things that some people who like to enforce their world view on others find offensive, for example, Christians opposing online gambling or internet pornography. This is easily refuted by the fact that this is a free country, where people are free to do what they like. Or more childishly, you're not the boss of me (Senator Fielding please take note).
Two, things people claim are dangerous to some people, such as online gambling (again) or advice on how to commit suicide. This is ultimately a ridiculous argument that generally gets given an easy ride because of the emotions of the people making the claim. However its weakness is shown by changing its focus a little. Everyone would agree that hamburgers are unhealthy, contribute to high cholesterol and thus to increased chances of heart disease, heart attack, and other health risks. So for the benefit of us all, we should ban hamburgers. And while I would be glad to be rid of the red headed clown, I think we can all agree on the ridiculousness of such a claim. It is the responsibility of the individual to control themselves and not make excessively unwise choices, and only if they do, should we as a society then consider temporarily restricting the individual in question. And who knows, maybe someone contemplating suicide would be disturbed by the visceral description of how to slit your wrists and decide that life is worth enduring.
The third category of things that people want blocked on the internet are the truly terrible. Things like child pornography, snuff films and the like. These are terrible, and should be eradicated. However, never take opposing censorship with endorsing these things. The reason this should not be used as an argument for internet censorship is that we already have laws prohibiting this. These are the laws we should use when dealing with the purveyors and consumers of these atrocities. This is true of many situations where we already have laws covering things, and governments use emotional issues to convince people that giving them more power is a good and necessary thing where it is really unneeded and unwise.
On top of all these reasons based on principle, there is also the practical aspect that such restriction never cover everything. Note that I was easily able to visit other sites offering exactly the same services and was playing online poker again in under half an hour, although admittedly the new program is not as sleek as the one I used to use. Blocking only one site of its type is not only pointless, it's stupid. I mean really, when you block only one out of the top ten sites in Google, what's the point. You're really not trying. I'm tempted to try out Tor and see if I can get back onto Full Tilt poker that way.
End Rant
Writing time: 56 minutes
Time since last post: seven days
Current media: iTunes shuffle, currently Sleepy Seven by Bonobo
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Mecca Mean Time
Some Muslim scientists have suggested that we should replace Greenwich as the prime meridian with Mecca, because Mecca is the true center of the Earth (unless Mecca is about 6400 kilometers underground, I very much doubt that).
This is a pointless endeavour that just makes these people look small minded and petty. Yes, the reason Greenwich was picked as the prime meridian was due to British supremacy and imperialism in the 19th century. However, after a little over thirty years after England formally adopted the Greenwich as the prime meridian, an international conference approved it as the universal prime meridian by a vote of 22-1 with two abstains (France in a spat of cross channel rivalry continued to use Paris as the prime meridian for a few decades).
This is besides the point though. Nowadays there is no difference between any two locations as a choice of a prime meridian except in one case. The exception is the Greenwich meridian, because all the maps we use today, all our atlases, all our books, all our GPS systems are set up to use the Greenwich meridian as the prime meridian. Changing the prime meridian will serve no useful purpose, and will make millions, perhaps even billions of books outdated and force unnecessary upgrades to all the electronic devices that deal with locations.
There are a number of aspects of how we talk about the world which originated due to the cultural, military or other supremacy of one group out of many. The use of the Greenwich meridian. The birth of Christ as the basis for numbering years. The imperial system of measures. twenty-four hour days. New years day on January first.
These things should not be replaced just because someone feels that they are being discriminated because they're not part of the group that is the origin of those terms. For this reason I don't like the use of CE and BCE instead of AD and BC. In some cases, such as which year is zero, there is no obvious choice of which alternative to pick, so again we should just stick with the one we use now.
The only time we should make the change is when the new is objectively better than the old. Thus we now use the metric system instead of the imperial system. The metric system is much simpler than the imperial system and so is easier to learn and use. It is much better than the imperial system and so we made the change.
Anyway, back to the original topic, with all due respect to the Muslims suggesting this, this is posturing. This is chest beating. It is roaring so that you're heard above the crowd. It's not going to change things. Your arguments are flimsy. For example, the suggestion that Mecca is a better meridian because true north and magnetic north align is not unique to Mecca. The Alaska-Canada border can make the same claim. And the magnetic north pole is not a fixed point. It's motion can be detected and measured. Over the history of the Earth it has moved all over the place, even so far as being at what is now the south pole.
Sure, good on you for being proud of your religion, but don't go suggesting changes that don't actually make things better and just are a lot of trouble to implement. Your preferred sites are no more special than ours, and everyone, not just us, is used to using ours.
End Post
Writing time: 43 minutes
Time since last post: about an hour and a bit
Current media: The Office
This is a pointless endeavour that just makes these people look small minded and petty. Yes, the reason Greenwich was picked as the prime meridian was due to British supremacy and imperialism in the 19th century. However, after a little over thirty years after England formally adopted the Greenwich as the prime meridian, an international conference approved it as the universal prime meridian by a vote of 22-1 with two abstains (France in a spat of cross channel rivalry continued to use Paris as the prime meridian for a few decades).
This is besides the point though. Nowadays there is no difference between any two locations as a choice of a prime meridian except in one case. The exception is the Greenwich meridian, because all the maps we use today, all our atlases, all our books, all our GPS systems are set up to use the Greenwich meridian as the prime meridian. Changing the prime meridian will serve no useful purpose, and will make millions, perhaps even billions of books outdated and force unnecessary upgrades to all the electronic devices that deal with locations.
There are a number of aspects of how we talk about the world which originated due to the cultural, military or other supremacy of one group out of many. The use of the Greenwich meridian. The birth of Christ as the basis for numbering years. The imperial system of measures. twenty-four hour days. New years day on January first.
These things should not be replaced just because someone feels that they are being discriminated because they're not part of the group that is the origin of those terms. For this reason I don't like the use of CE and BCE instead of AD and BC. In some cases, such as which year is zero, there is no obvious choice of which alternative to pick, so again we should just stick with the one we use now.
The only time we should make the change is when the new is objectively better than the old. Thus we now use the metric system instead of the imperial system. The metric system is much simpler than the imperial system and so is easier to learn and use. It is much better than the imperial system and so we made the change.
Anyway, back to the original topic, with all due respect to the Muslims suggesting this, this is posturing. This is chest beating. It is roaring so that you're heard above the crowd. It's not going to change things. Your arguments are flimsy. For example, the suggestion that Mecca is a better meridian because true north and magnetic north align is not unique to Mecca. The Alaska-Canada border can make the same claim. And the magnetic north pole is not a fixed point. It's motion can be detected and measured. Over the history of the Earth it has moved all over the place, even so far as being at what is now the south pole.
Sure, good on you for being proud of your religion, but don't go suggesting changes that don't actually make things better and just are a lot of trouble to implement. Your preferred sites are no more special than ours, and everyone, not just us, is used to using ours.
End Post
Writing time: 43 minutes
Time since last post: about an hour and a bit
Current media: The Office
Friday, April 04, 2008
The Mimimum Acceptable Level
I get my news from a number of sources. The BBC, Crikey, The International Herald Tribune, Slashdot, Groklaw, The Bartlett Diaries, The Chaser, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Butterflies and Wheels, and News.com.au. This exposes me to a number of sources of a range of views, although mostly leftish, and a range in the level of quality. And one of the sad facts that comes from all this is that News.com.au and the newspapers it feeds from are really lacking when it comes to quality journalism. In fact, they are probably the least respectable news source I use and generally the least interesting.
There was one article though today which drew my ire and caused this criticism to be written. The article is this. You don't necessarily need to read it as I'm going to quote the two lines that so infused me with rage. The headline for this article reads "Rents to double over four years". Scary, especially for those of us whose employers are not obligated by immigration law to provide accommodation (finally, a second good point about Korea). This in and of itself does not cause me to question in any way the journalistic quality of the writer, nor indeed their quality as a human being. But then I read the first sentence of the story "Rents in major cities will rise by 50 per cent over the next four years, a new report predicts." Now, I'm infuriated. Now I have to question just what this person is doing as a journalist, for I am presented with one of two possibilities. One, the journalist lacks the basic mathematical knowledge to realise that a rent increase of 50% is not the same as doubling the rent paid. Or two, the journalist does not have sufficient command of the English language to realise that the word they used does not mean what they think it means (I wish I'd been able to phrase that so I could quote Inigo Montoya there, but my style and his don't quite mesh. Inconceivable, you might say, but it is so. Anybody want a peanut?) In either situation, this person should not be writing in a major (or even a minor) news source. When there is a contradiction this big in the first two lines of a story, one has to wonder just how much effort was put into the research and writing of the story.
I'm sure this is not exactly news to my small band of readers, but I felt the need to vent on this particular article, and to disparage News.com.au as a newsource. It provides the chicken mcnugget of news. Blech.
End Post
Writing time: 24 minutes
Time since last post: writing time plus a half hour or so
Current media: still none
There was one article though today which drew my ire and caused this criticism to be written. The article is this. You don't necessarily need to read it as I'm going to quote the two lines that so infused me with rage. The headline for this article reads "Rents to double over four years". Scary, especially for those of us whose employers are not obligated by immigration law to provide accommodation (finally, a second good point about Korea). This in and of itself does not cause me to question in any way the journalistic quality of the writer, nor indeed their quality as a human being. But then I read the first sentence of the story "Rents in major cities will rise by 50 per cent over the next four years, a new report predicts." Now, I'm infuriated. Now I have to question just what this person is doing as a journalist, for I am presented with one of two possibilities. One, the journalist lacks the basic mathematical knowledge to realise that a rent increase of 50% is not the same as doubling the rent paid. Or two, the journalist does not have sufficient command of the English language to realise that the word they used does not mean what they think it means (I wish I'd been able to phrase that so I could quote Inigo Montoya there, but my style and his don't quite mesh. Inconceivable, you might say, but it is so. Anybody want a peanut?) In either situation, this person should not be writing in a major (or even a minor) news source. When there is a contradiction this big in the first two lines of a story, one has to wonder just how much effort was put into the research and writing of the story.
I'm sure this is not exactly news to my small band of readers, but I felt the need to vent on this particular article, and to disparage News.com.au as a newsource. It provides the chicken mcnugget of news. Blech.
End Post
Writing time: 24 minutes
Time since last post: writing time plus a half hour or so
Current media: still none
Friday, February 29, 2008
Three Strikes Against Sharia
These are all a little bit old, but I would like to point these out. The following are a few items of Sharia law being applied in ways that should strike most people as being ridiculous. They are by no means the worst applications of sharia law, but still, the best way to get people to stop taking something seriously is to make them laugh at it (it's all well and good to say something is terrible, but when is the last time you took a clown seriously?).
The first item is about the unfortunate plight of a woman locked up in a Saudi jail. Her crime? Witchcraft. That's right. Witchcraft. Let's hope Emma Watson never goes to Saudi Arabia. And what vile act of witchcraft did she perform? Her accuser says she made him impotent.
Human rights groups have declaimed this conviction because of the undefined nature of the crime, the lack of representation for the woman in legal hearings, beatings by the police, forced confession and the extreme unfairness of a death sentence. It is a good point, and I thank them for making it. I wish to declaim this situation for the sheer stupidity of it. I mean really, witchcraft? This is the twenty-first century guys. This is the sort of thing that makes people look on the sharia as a backwards, middle ages code of laws. And rightly so in this case. Witchcraft is a backwards, middle ages idea. Witchcraft these days is for goths who want a bit of a ritual that may involve killing an animal and seeing real blood. It's for pagan wannabes. No one seriously thinks that there are women who make deals with the devil for power and go about bringing havoc on mankind (please tell me there is no one who seriously thinks this). Executing a woman for such a thing is ridiculous.
Next on our tour, Nigeria. Land of the scammer. Home of the 419-ers. The country full of people who die with no next of kin leaving behind only a pile of money and a less than scrupulous lawyer. And now, to top all of that, 18 cross dressing men. This group of men went out on the town in ladies clothes, and they were arrested. Originally they were going to be charged with sodomy, but the charges were dropped to indecent dressing and vagrancy. Much to the relief of the 18 men as sodomy is a capital offense in Nigeria (why can't they make fraud a capital offense? That would make the internet a much nicer place). Again, this is something most of the world has accepted is really no one's business but those involved, and so long as they do it in private, whatever floats their boat is OK (a few of the more conservative parts of America haven't got the memo yet, but it's in the post).
Lastly, we return to Saudi Arabia. In this case 57 men have been arrested for that most despicable crime of flirting. The men are accused of wearing indecent clothes, playing loud music and dancing in order to attract the attention of girls. Now honestly, you have to admire their audacity. I mean this is right up there with trying to move an immovable object. Trying to stop men trying to get women to be interested in them. Hell, even I've tried (and failed) to do that on occasion, and I am by no means the king of the lewd. If the music is ridiculously loud get them to turn it down. Arresting people for flirting is not so much out of date as just plain stupid. It will happen. No power on heaven or earth has a chance of stopping it.
So that's a look at the lighter side of the bad joke that is sharia law. It makes crimes out of that which is not a crime. It makes crimes out of that which is a natural part of being human. It imposes punishments that are severe out of proportion with the supposed crimes. It is old, it is out of date, and it needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century.
End Post
Writing time: 40 minutes
Time since last post: 3 days
Current media: None
The first item is about the unfortunate plight of a woman locked up in a Saudi jail. Her crime? Witchcraft. That's right. Witchcraft. Let's hope Emma Watson never goes to Saudi Arabia. And what vile act of witchcraft did she perform? Her accuser says she made him impotent.
Human rights groups have declaimed this conviction because of the undefined nature of the crime, the lack of representation for the woman in legal hearings, beatings by the police, forced confession and the extreme unfairness of a death sentence. It is a good point, and I thank them for making it. I wish to declaim this situation for the sheer stupidity of it. I mean really, witchcraft? This is the twenty-first century guys. This is the sort of thing that makes people look on the sharia as a backwards, middle ages code of laws. And rightly so in this case. Witchcraft is a backwards, middle ages idea. Witchcraft these days is for goths who want a bit of a ritual that may involve killing an animal and seeing real blood. It's for pagan wannabes. No one seriously thinks that there are women who make deals with the devil for power and go about bringing havoc on mankind (please tell me there is no one who seriously thinks this). Executing a woman for such a thing is ridiculous.
Next on our tour, Nigeria. Land of the scammer. Home of the 419-ers. The country full of people who die with no next of kin leaving behind only a pile of money and a less than scrupulous lawyer. And now, to top all of that, 18 cross dressing men. This group of men went out on the town in ladies clothes, and they were arrested. Originally they were going to be charged with sodomy, but the charges were dropped to indecent dressing and vagrancy. Much to the relief of the 18 men as sodomy is a capital offense in Nigeria (why can't they make fraud a capital offense? That would make the internet a much nicer place). Again, this is something most of the world has accepted is really no one's business but those involved, and so long as they do it in private, whatever floats their boat is OK (a few of the more conservative parts of America haven't got the memo yet, but it's in the post).
Lastly, we return to Saudi Arabia. In this case 57 men have been arrested for that most despicable crime of flirting. The men are accused of wearing indecent clothes, playing loud music and dancing in order to attract the attention of girls. Now honestly, you have to admire their audacity. I mean this is right up there with trying to move an immovable object. Trying to stop men trying to get women to be interested in them. Hell, even I've tried (and failed) to do that on occasion, and I am by no means the king of the lewd. If the music is ridiculously loud get them to turn it down. Arresting people for flirting is not so much out of date as just plain stupid. It will happen. No power on heaven or earth has a chance of stopping it.
So that's a look at the lighter side of the bad joke that is sharia law. It makes crimes out of that which is not a crime. It makes crimes out of that which is a natural part of being human. It imposes punishments that are severe out of proportion with the supposed crimes. It is old, it is out of date, and it needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century.
End Post
Writing time: 40 minutes
Time since last post: 3 days
Current media: None
Friday, January 25, 2008
Why won't other people do what I want
I recently paid for something over the internet. And as it happened, because two different groups didn't do what I wanted them to, it's ended up costing me 50% more. And right now, I feel like ranting.
The first troublesome group is paypal. I have a paypal account. I set it up when I first started buying a few items off of ebay. When I buy stuff on the internet, I use my credit card. One because it's easier, and two, the things I buy on the internet are usually luxuries, not essentials and my wants don't always mesh exactly with my pay cycle. Even when I use paypal, I want to use my credit card. This shouldn't be a problem, except I also have my bank account linked in to paypal. Why would I do this? Because I have occasionally been paid by people via paypal, and while you can send money through paypal by credit card, to get it out you need a bank account.
OK. I can handle that. Money goes out of paypal into my bank account and when I pay by paypal they take the money from my credit card. No Problem. But wait, if you have a bank account linked in the default payment method is they take the money from your bank account. If you want to use another payment method, then you have to choose it for every single purchase. While you have a bank account linked in, you can not change your default payment method (I wonder what happens if you link in two bank accounts. Surely you must be able to choose between bank accounts. Why not bank accounts and credit cards?).
So they took the money out of my bank account instead of my credit card. What's the big deal. Why am I so angry? Well, I don't live in the same country as my bank account and credit card. I mainly still have a bank account so I can pay the credit card easier. If other people could deposit money into my credit card and I could deposit funds from overseas into my credit card, I wouldn't use the bank account at all (Also, it will be handy having an existing bank account if and when I return to Australia). For the last year or so the typical balance of my bank account has been $0.
So, when paypal decided I wanted to pay from my bank account instead of my credit card, guess how much money was in my bank account. $0. Now what should happen when someone tries to take money out of a bank account with no money in it. They should tell them fuck off. Indeed, that's what I want my bank to do when I try to take money out of my bank account that I don't have (I have different expectations of my bank account and credit card. They are different beasts and should be treated differently.) What I don't want my bank to do is to is to give the people asking for money I don't have is to give it to them and then charge me a $40 fee for doing so.
So now I have to sort out what I'm going to do to avoid this problem in the first place. I think I shall take my bank account off of paypal (If I need it again in the future I'll set up a separate account for payments received), and Westpac is going to get an annoyed call demanding I have a $0 overdraft on my regular bank account.
God damn it.
End Post
Writing time: 34 minutes
Time since last post: 2 days
Current media: Eurotrip (it has Michelle Trachtenberg in it)
The first troublesome group is paypal. I have a paypal account. I set it up when I first started buying a few items off of ebay. When I buy stuff on the internet, I use my credit card. One because it's easier, and two, the things I buy on the internet are usually luxuries, not essentials and my wants don't always mesh exactly with my pay cycle. Even when I use paypal, I want to use my credit card. This shouldn't be a problem, except I also have my bank account linked in to paypal. Why would I do this? Because I have occasionally been paid by people via paypal, and while you can send money through paypal by credit card, to get it out you need a bank account.
OK. I can handle that. Money goes out of paypal into my bank account and when I pay by paypal they take the money from my credit card. No Problem. But wait, if you have a bank account linked in the default payment method is they take the money from your bank account. If you want to use another payment method, then you have to choose it for every single purchase. While you have a bank account linked in, you can not change your default payment method (I wonder what happens if you link in two bank accounts. Surely you must be able to choose between bank accounts. Why not bank accounts and credit cards?).
So they took the money out of my bank account instead of my credit card. What's the big deal. Why am I so angry? Well, I don't live in the same country as my bank account and credit card. I mainly still have a bank account so I can pay the credit card easier. If other people could deposit money into my credit card and I could deposit funds from overseas into my credit card, I wouldn't use the bank account at all (Also, it will be handy having an existing bank account if and when I return to Australia). For the last year or so the typical balance of my bank account has been $0.
So, when paypal decided I wanted to pay from my bank account instead of my credit card, guess how much money was in my bank account. $0. Now what should happen when someone tries to take money out of a bank account with no money in it. They should tell them fuck off. Indeed, that's what I want my bank to do when I try to take money out of my bank account that I don't have (I have different expectations of my bank account and credit card. They are different beasts and should be treated differently.) What I don't want my bank to do is to is to give the people asking for money I don't have is to give it to them and then charge me a $40 fee for doing so.
So now I have to sort out what I'm going to do to avoid this problem in the first place. I think I shall take my bank account off of paypal (If I need it again in the future I'll set up a separate account for payments received), and Westpac is going to get an annoyed call demanding I have a $0 overdraft on my regular bank account.
God damn it.
End Post
Writing time: 34 minutes
Time since last post: 2 days
Current media: Eurotrip (it has Michelle Trachtenberg in it)
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Overkill
Heath Ledger is dead. I'm sure everyone has heard this news.
This is an unfortunate event.
It is not important enough that more than half (32 out of 63) of the news articles in my RSS feeds are about it (news.com.au is mostly to blame).
The death is news. Kevin Rudd's reaction to the death is not news. Mel Gibson's reaction to the death is not news. How his family is grieving is not news. You get the idea.
Something happening to a celebrity is not automatically news.
Journalists please take note of that. I don't want to hear about Britney's latest fuck up or the new hairdo Jennifer Aniston got after breaking up with Brad Pitt (I know that's old but I don't pay attention to this shit). It's not news. Celebrities doing token charity work is not news. Ordinary people dedicating themselves to charity work is news.
Anyway, apologies to Heath Ledger for using his untimely death as an opportunity to rant about the news industries obsession with celebrity.
End Post
Writing time: 10 minutes
Time since last post: 4 days
Current media: None
This is an unfortunate event.
It is not important enough that more than half (32 out of 63) of the news articles in my RSS feeds are about it (news.com.au is mostly to blame).
The death is news. Kevin Rudd's reaction to the death is not news. Mel Gibson's reaction to the death is not news. How his family is grieving is not news. You get the idea.
Something happening to a celebrity is not automatically news.
Journalists please take note of that. I don't want to hear about Britney's latest fuck up or the new hairdo Jennifer Aniston got after breaking up with Brad Pitt (I know that's old but I don't pay attention to this shit). It's not news. Celebrities doing token charity work is not news. Ordinary people dedicating themselves to charity work is news.
Anyway, apologies to Heath Ledger for using his untimely death as an opportunity to rant about the news industries obsession with celebrity.
End Post
Writing time: 10 minutes
Time since last post: 4 days
Current media: None
Saturday, January 05, 2008
There must be violence against women
I came across this rather unenlightened piece of writing from the Yemen Times the other day. Entitled "There must be violence against women", it is a collection of rationalisations, flawed arguments that to my mind completely fails to achieve what the author aimed to say. Rather than just comment on the article, I'm going to do a paragraph by paragraph commentary, copyright be damned.
There must be violence against women
Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy
This title may sound strange, but it’s actually not just a way to attract readers to the topic because I really do mean what it indicates. Violence is a broad term, especially when used regarding women. In this piece, I want to shed light on those instances where violence against women is a must.
Yes, the title is strange and will draw a crowd. The same sort of a crowd that stops to look at a car crash or some other disaster, but still, a crowd.
First, we should know the meaning of the word violence. Longman’s Dictionary of Contemporary English defines violence as “behavior that is intended to hurt other people physically.” However, the term violence mustn’t be confused with other concepts and terms such as gender inequality or absence of women rights.
This definition of violence seems to be a bit narrow, concentrating on only physical harm, but I'll let it slide. What I won't let slide is this idea that there is a confusion between violence, gender equality and the absence of women's rights. Violence can be used to continue the other two, and they can be used to justify violence, and all are deplorable, but few people would confuse them.
Occasionally – if not daily – we hear about events occurring in Islamic and Arab societies. Some human rights organizations recently have attacked violent acts against women, standing against any type of violence – even that between a father and daughter – and citing the cases of some women as examples.
Good on these organisations. Violence is wrong, and should be stood against in all circumstances. This includes man against woman, woman against man, woman against woman, man against man, etc, etc.
Consequently, they offer solutions such as complaining to the police, taking revenge or leaving them men, who are either their husbands, fathers or brothers – with no exceptions.
Of course, doing nothing and being beaten again and again is much better than any of these solutions. Wait. No, it's actually a pretty shit solution.
One such case involved a woman whose husband allegedly had beaten her. Without revealing the husband’s reasons for doing so, such human rights organizations immediately urged the wife to complain to the police and the courts, while at the same time generalizing the instance and other similar solutions to any type of violence.
I'm sorry. What reasons justify beating your wife? Let me see, I'm thinking, I'm thinking. No, none. Wife beating is wrong, and the wife is right to seek to prevent further beatings. And this does generalise to other types of violence. Violence is wrong, it should be prevented, victims should be protected and offenders punished.
If a man and woman are husband and wife, the Qur’an provides solutions, firstly reaffirming any logical and acceptable reasons for such punishment. These solutions are in gradual phases and not just for women, but for men also.
For men, it begins with abandoning the marital bed, by opting to sleep elsewhere in the house. After this, they may discuss the matter with any respected person for the husband’s or the wife’s family, who could be in a position to advise the wife. If this also does not work, then the husband yields to beating the wife slightly. They do this because of a misunderstanding in the Quran, as the word says Darban, which is commonly understood today as beating. However, in Classic Arabic it means to set examples or to announce and proclaim. The more accurate meaning of this last one is that the husband finally has to set forth, to make a clear statement or proclamation, and if these measures fail, then divorce is preferable.
So start by talking about things. Good idea. This works for me too. Talking I have found is actually pretty good at solving problems even if the solution isn't exactly to your liking. If direct communication doesn't work, getting the help of a trusted individual can also help. The next step however shouldn't be slightly beating your wife though.
The next bit though is a outstanding piece of work. Remember, the aim of this article is to show when violence against women is appropriate. And here we have the claim that the reason the next step is a beating is because most people have misread the Quran. The word that most people see as beating, actually means to proclaim. So the next step is actually that the husband tells his wife to "shape up or ship out." The important thing to note is that this means beating your wife is not a good thing. I'm glad we agree on something.
Similarly, wives may take actions such as abandoning the marital bed, following by leaving the husband’s home for that of their parents, brothers or any other relatives. They may do this more than once, but if such action fails, they may not continue to live with their husband and via their relatives, they may request a divorce.
Glad to see women have equal rights on this score. Now if only they didn't have to still live with a male relative after the divorce, or get lashes for adultery after being raped.
Despite such instructions, beating is considered a type of violence, according to human rights organizations, which urge women to complain to the police. I just wonder what kind of families our societies would have if Muslim women started doing this regarding their husbands.
Beatings are considered a type of violence by human rights organisations because they are a type of violence (those wacky human rights organisations and their crazy ideas. Whatever will they think of next? Freedom to choose your own faith?). And I too wonder what would happen to Muslim society if women actually stopped putting up with abuse from husbands, brothers and fathers.
Relationships between fathers and daughters or sisters and brothers also provoke argument from human rights organizations, which propose the suggested solutions for all relationships. Personally, I don’t think fathers or brothers would undertake such behavior unless there was a reason for it.
At the risk of repeating myself, there is no justification for violence. Whatever reason a father or brother may have for beating a woman, it is not a good reason.
Fathers are responsible for their daughters’ behavior, but human rights organizations deny this too. Brothers also should take action regarding their sisters’ behavior, especially if their parents are too old or dead. If a daughter or sister makes a mistake – especially a moral one – that negatively affects the entire family and its reputation, what’s the solution by such organizations?
Once a person is an adult, they and only they are responsible for their actions. While I want my sister to live a good and proper life (she does, but I'm making a point here), I am not responsible for her actions and have no right to tell her what to do or not do. And, if I were to disagree with her on a matter, discussion is the solution.
According to them, women should complain to the courts about any type of violence against them. Likewise, should fathers and brothers complain to police if their daughters or sisters violate moral, Islamic or social norms?
There is a significant difference between the harm caused by violence against a person and the harm caused by someone doing something you disagree with. The former is much, much worse than the latter.
Fathers should handle their daughters via any means that suits their mistake; thus, is it better to use violence to a certain limit or complain to the police? Shall such women then complain to the police against their fathers or brothers? It’s really amazing to hear this.
In some cases, violence is necessary, but there must be limits. Those “good human rights organizations” don’t make any exceptions in their solutions because their aim is to serve society. Will it be a better society once we see wives, mothers, sisters and daughters going from one police station and one court to another, complaining against their husbands, fathers, brothers and even sons?
It will be a better society when we see women who are not beaten by the men in their family.
As the proverb goes, “If the speaker is mad, the listener should be mindful.” This proverb is good advice for every man and woman not only to keep their ears open, but also to avoid the misleading propaganda of such organizations, whose surface aims hide other destructive ones to destroy society’s religious, social and moral norms. This matter requires consideration.
And I am indeed mindful of the words you have spoken. And I will be quite blunt. If a society's religious, social and moral norms condone beating and killing women then those norms should and must be destroyed.
Dear readers – especially women – don’t think that I hate or am against women; rather, I simply mean to preserve the morals and principles with which Islam has honored us.
I hope my message is clear, since it’s really quite relevant to the future of our societies, which must be protected from any kind of cultural invasion.
The message I have received from you is that you are a unenlightened little man trying to justify the unjustifiable, and trying to protect an outdated set of values that should be changed. You have not provided any specifics on when you believe violence is acceptable other than a rather vague notion of going against religious, social and moral norms, which quite frankly could be just about anything. You have not provided any justification for this claim that violence is necessary. In fact, you have provided arguments against violence in your piece.
End Post
Writing time: 1 hour 55 minutes
Time since last post: 5 days
Current media: season three of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
There must be violence against women
Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy
This title may sound strange, but it’s actually not just a way to attract readers to the topic because I really do mean what it indicates. Violence is a broad term, especially when used regarding women. In this piece, I want to shed light on those instances where violence against women is a must.
Yes, the title is strange and will draw a crowd. The same sort of a crowd that stops to look at a car crash or some other disaster, but still, a crowd.
First, we should know the meaning of the word violence. Longman’s Dictionary of Contemporary English defines violence as “behavior that is intended to hurt other people physically.” However, the term violence mustn’t be confused with other concepts and terms such as gender inequality or absence of women rights.
This definition of violence seems to be a bit narrow, concentrating on only physical harm, but I'll let it slide. What I won't let slide is this idea that there is a confusion between violence, gender equality and the absence of women's rights. Violence can be used to continue the other two, and they can be used to justify violence, and all are deplorable, but few people would confuse them.
Occasionally – if not daily – we hear about events occurring in Islamic and Arab societies. Some human rights organizations recently have attacked violent acts against women, standing against any type of violence – even that between a father and daughter – and citing the cases of some women as examples.
Good on these organisations. Violence is wrong, and should be stood against in all circumstances. This includes man against woman, woman against man, woman against woman, man against man, etc, etc.
Consequently, they offer solutions such as complaining to the police, taking revenge or leaving them men, who are either their husbands, fathers or brothers – with no exceptions.
Of course, doing nothing and being beaten again and again is much better than any of these solutions. Wait. No, it's actually a pretty shit solution.
One such case involved a woman whose husband allegedly had beaten her. Without revealing the husband’s reasons for doing so, such human rights organizations immediately urged the wife to complain to the police and the courts, while at the same time generalizing the instance and other similar solutions to any type of violence.
I'm sorry. What reasons justify beating your wife? Let me see, I'm thinking, I'm thinking. No, none. Wife beating is wrong, and the wife is right to seek to prevent further beatings. And this does generalise to other types of violence. Violence is wrong, it should be prevented, victims should be protected and offenders punished.
If a man and woman are husband and wife, the Qur’an provides solutions, firstly reaffirming any logical and acceptable reasons for such punishment. These solutions are in gradual phases and not just for women, but for men also.
For men, it begins with abandoning the marital bed, by opting to sleep elsewhere in the house. After this, they may discuss the matter with any respected person for the husband’s or the wife’s family, who could be in a position to advise the wife. If this also does not work, then the husband yields to beating the wife slightly. They do this because of a misunderstanding in the Quran, as the word says Darban, which is commonly understood today as beating. However, in Classic Arabic it means to set examples or to announce and proclaim. The more accurate meaning of this last one is that the husband finally has to set forth, to make a clear statement or proclamation, and if these measures fail, then divorce is preferable.
So start by talking about things. Good idea. This works for me too. Talking I have found is actually pretty good at solving problems even if the solution isn't exactly to your liking. If direct communication doesn't work, getting the help of a trusted individual can also help. The next step however shouldn't be slightly beating your wife though.
The next bit though is a outstanding piece of work. Remember, the aim of this article is to show when violence against women is appropriate. And here we have the claim that the reason the next step is a beating is because most people have misread the Quran. The word that most people see as beating, actually means to proclaim. So the next step is actually that the husband tells his wife to "shape up or ship out." The important thing to note is that this means beating your wife is not a good thing. I'm glad we agree on something.
Similarly, wives may take actions such as abandoning the marital bed, following by leaving the husband’s home for that of their parents, brothers or any other relatives. They may do this more than once, but if such action fails, they may not continue to live with their husband and via their relatives, they may request a divorce.
Glad to see women have equal rights on this score. Now if only they didn't have to still live with a male relative after the divorce, or get lashes for adultery after being raped.
Despite such instructions, beating is considered a type of violence, according to human rights organizations, which urge women to complain to the police. I just wonder what kind of families our societies would have if Muslim women started doing this regarding their husbands.
Beatings are considered a type of violence by human rights organisations because they are a type of violence (those wacky human rights organisations and their crazy ideas. Whatever will they think of next? Freedom to choose your own faith?). And I too wonder what would happen to Muslim society if women actually stopped putting up with abuse from husbands, brothers and fathers.
Relationships between fathers and daughters or sisters and brothers also provoke argument from human rights organizations, which propose the suggested solutions for all relationships. Personally, I don’t think fathers or brothers would undertake such behavior unless there was a reason for it.
At the risk of repeating myself, there is no justification for violence. Whatever reason a father or brother may have for beating a woman, it is not a good reason.
Fathers are responsible for their daughters’ behavior, but human rights organizations deny this too. Brothers also should take action regarding their sisters’ behavior, especially if their parents are too old or dead. If a daughter or sister makes a mistake – especially a moral one – that negatively affects the entire family and its reputation, what’s the solution by such organizations?
Once a person is an adult, they and only they are responsible for their actions. While I want my sister to live a good and proper life (she does, but I'm making a point here), I am not responsible for her actions and have no right to tell her what to do or not do. And, if I were to disagree with her on a matter, discussion is the solution.
According to them, women should complain to the courts about any type of violence against them. Likewise, should fathers and brothers complain to police if their daughters or sisters violate moral, Islamic or social norms?
There is a significant difference between the harm caused by violence against a person and the harm caused by someone doing something you disagree with. The former is much, much worse than the latter.
Fathers should handle their daughters via any means that suits their mistake; thus, is it better to use violence to a certain limit or complain to the police? Shall such women then complain to the police against their fathers or brothers? It’s really amazing to hear this.
In some cases, violence is necessary, but there must be limits. Those “good human rights organizations” don’t make any exceptions in their solutions because their aim is to serve society. Will it be a better society once we see wives, mothers, sisters and daughters going from one police station and one court to another, complaining against their husbands, fathers, brothers and even sons?
It will be a better society when we see women who are not beaten by the men in their family.
As the proverb goes, “If the speaker is mad, the listener should be mindful.” This proverb is good advice for every man and woman not only to keep their ears open, but also to avoid the misleading propaganda of such organizations, whose surface aims hide other destructive ones to destroy society’s religious, social and moral norms. This matter requires consideration.
And I am indeed mindful of the words you have spoken. And I will be quite blunt. If a society's religious, social and moral norms condone beating and killing women then those norms should and must be destroyed.
Dear readers – especially women – don’t think that I hate or am against women; rather, I simply mean to preserve the morals and principles with which Islam has honored us.
I hope my message is clear, since it’s really quite relevant to the future of our societies, which must be protected from any kind of cultural invasion.
The message I have received from you is that you are a unenlightened little man trying to justify the unjustifiable, and trying to protect an outdated set of values that should be changed. You have not provided any specifics on when you believe violence is acceptable other than a rather vague notion of going against religious, social and moral norms, which quite frankly could be just about anything. You have not provided any justification for this claim that violence is necessary. In fact, you have provided arguments against violence in your piece.
End Post
Writing time: 1 hour 55 minutes
Time since last post: 5 days
Current media: season three of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
Monday, November 12, 2007
There is a lesson to be learnt here
Over the past week or so I've noticed a toy coming up in the news a lot. Unfortunately it has not been for a good reason. Bindeez, or Aquadots as the seppos call them were until recently the toy to have. As a one use item I can see there appeal to retailers and manufacturers, but I think lego beats them hands down.
The reason these things are in the news is because of what they're made of. These things are coated in a chemical that when digested turns into a rather nasty drug that has some rather nasty effects and is known colloquially as Grievious Bodily Harm (the actual name has the initials GHB, which in my glossing over of articles had always read as GBH).
The lesson here is don't make toys that are essentially a collection of small dots out of chemicals that will react in an adverse way with the human body when ingested. Ideally, pick something that is either completely non-toxic or completely inert.
And another lesson. If you are going to build a business that involves customers paying a large amount of cash upfront for a service that may last many months, do not spend all that money straight away. Have some sort of investment fund that provides a moderate return, and invest a part of the money they pay. That way, if customers do dry up for a while, you won't be completely fucked trying to pay for everything your still obliged to provide.
I'm sure I could come up with numerous other quite obvious ideas that a business should use if they do not desire to become a synonym for disaster, but I will save them for another time
End Post
Writing time: 15 minutes
Time since last post: 5 days
Current media: None
The reason these things are in the news is because of what they're made of. These things are coated in a chemical that when digested turns into a rather nasty drug that has some rather nasty effects and is known colloquially as Grievious Bodily Harm (the actual name has the initials GHB, which in my glossing over of articles had always read as GBH).
The lesson here is don't make toys that are essentially a collection of small dots out of chemicals that will react in an adverse way with the human body when ingested. Ideally, pick something that is either completely non-toxic or completely inert.
And another lesson. If you are going to build a business that involves customers paying a large amount of cash upfront for a service that may last many months, do not spend all that money straight away. Have some sort of investment fund that provides a moderate return, and invest a part of the money they pay. That way, if customers do dry up for a while, you won't be completely fucked trying to pay for everything your still obliged to provide.
I'm sure I could come up with numerous other quite obvious ideas that a business should use if they do not desire to become a synonym for disaster, but I will save them for another time
End Post
Writing time: 15 minutes
Time since last post: 5 days
Current media: None
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
