Yesterday was the start of this years bookfest, and like any cheap bibliophile, I went along to see what I could find. I came out with a rather mixed bunch of different things that caught my interest as I scanned the many tables filled with books. In no particular order (well, the order I pull them out of the bag) they are
The Bachelor Home Companion by P.J. ORourke ($2.50). I mainly picked this up because P.J. O'Rourke is a common guest Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, an NPR Radio show I listen to as a podcast.
The Magic Goes Away by Larry Niven ($2.50). Niven is a big name that I haven't read anything by, so I thought I should change that.
Rising Son by S.D. Perry ($3.50). A Deep Space Nine novel set after the series focusing on Jake Sisko. Deep Space Nine has a good share of the good Star Trek novels, although I may be biased as I think Deep Space Nine was the best of the Star Trek series.
Battlestar Galactica 11: The Nightmare Machine Glen A Larson and Robert Thurston ($2.50). A novel that follows on from the old Battlestar Galactica, this will probably suffer from being no 11 in a series I haven't read and not living up to the new series.
The Fortress of the Pearl by Michael Moorcock ($3.00). Moorcock is another big name in fantasy that I've not read anything of. My recognition of the name was enhanced by a piece in Neil Gaiman's "Smoke and Mirrors" called "One Life, Furnished in Early Moorcock". I've just noticed that it is the 7th in a series, so I may have to visit the library soon if it turns out to be good.
A Dagg At My Table by John Clarke ($3.50). A collection of stuff written by John Clarke, whom I know best for The Games, but he's been doing a lot for a long time. Since I've yet to come across anything by him I haven't liked, it was an easy pick.
That's all from the priced section. The rest are from the unpriced section, where at the checkout they have some rectangles of various sizes drawn up, and the price of the book is determined by which rectangle it fits in.
The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle. I'm pretty sure Nethack quotes this in the entry for Unicorns, and I think nearly anything quoted by Nethack is worth a look (I say anything because it does quote the bible).
Laying Down the Law 4th Ed. Morris, Cook, Creyke, Geddes, Holloway. This was purchases as something to look at in line with the finance course I'm doing as regulation is a part of what gets studied.
So Sue Me by John O'Grady. An Australian humourist from a few decades back whose work is always enjoyable.
Gone Gougin' By Nino Culotta. Actually by John O'Grady this book is the third sequel to "Their a Weird Mob".
Australian Corporations Legislation 2004. Another finance course inspired purchase. Admittedly it's a little out of date. The contents include such hits as Corporations Act 2001, Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001
Corporations (Fees) Act 2001, Corporations Regulations (2001), an extract from the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, and more. The physically biggest item by a good margin.
An Introduction to Australian Foreign Policy by J.A. Camilleri. Well out of date having been published in 1973, was purchased out of desire to know more of Australian politics.
The Penguin Dictionary of Quotations. Although missing all of the pop culture stuff I've filled my head with (I can identify an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer from nearly any 30 second scene), it should be an interesting reference piece.
How to Lie with Statistics by Darrell Huff. The title says it all I think.
Even Gods Err Book One by F.A. Gourley. I believe the Author and Von Daniken would have gotten along well. I bought this mainly as a debunking exercise and to protect the more vulnerable from it.
How To Win Friends & Influence People by Dale Carneggie. A book everybody has heard of, picked up under the nagging thought at the back of the head that I do need to improve my social interaction skills. The true test will be to see if I actually read it or not.
And there ends the list. I'll also mention another recent acquisition picked up at the weekend markets in the Valley, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. So far it's interesting, but not as informative on zen or motorcycle maintenance as I'd expected, although I've still got a way to go.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Please and Keys
Near the place I live there's a church with a sign out front on which they put up various sayings about life that range from cute and pointless to subtle attempts to convert. As you might expect I tend to disagree with the things they put up, or agree for what they might consider the wrong reasons.
The latest bit of wisdom to go up on the sign is "You can open more doors with 'Please' than with keys." I presume that this is meant to imply something positive about humanity and how being nice is good and all that. This is not however the lesson I draw.
For me, this is really just a statement of the obvious. Consider the facts for a moment. There are a bajillion doors out there (maybe not a bajillion, but lots), and a fair whack of those have locks. Now at the moment I possess four different keys. Between them they open half the doors in my house, a post office box, the glove box of my bike (it also turns the bike on), and 4 doors at work. So the percentage of doors that my keys open is, oh roughly, 0. And while I haven't tried it, I'm sure if I went knocking on doors asking people to please open the door I'd manage to get more doors to open. I might not be able to go in, but I'm sure the doors would open. So, yes, of course you can open more doors with 'please' than with keys.
This also suggests another thing. Human security is much less reliable than the mechanical security provided by locks. If a door is locked and there's no one there, my ability to get in is pretty slim. Add a person and it's easier to get in. The person is the weak point there. So perhaps the message is actually to be more aware of your security procedures. That's a message I could get behind, but they really should be more to the point.
The latest bit of wisdom to go up on the sign is "You can open more doors with 'Please' than with keys." I presume that this is meant to imply something positive about humanity and how being nice is good and all that. This is not however the lesson I draw.
For me, this is really just a statement of the obvious. Consider the facts for a moment. There are a bajillion doors out there (maybe not a bajillion, but lots), and a fair whack of those have locks. Now at the moment I possess four different keys. Between them they open half the doors in my house, a post office box, the glove box of my bike (it also turns the bike on), and 4 doors at work. So the percentage of doors that my keys open is, oh roughly, 0. And while I haven't tried it, I'm sure if I went knocking on doors asking people to please open the door I'd manage to get more doors to open. I might not be able to go in, but I'm sure the doors would open. So, yes, of course you can open more doors with 'please' than with keys.
This also suggests another thing. Human security is much less reliable than the mechanical security provided by locks. If a door is locked and there's no one there, my ability to get in is pretty slim. Add a person and it's easier to get in. The person is the weak point there. So perhaps the message is actually to be more aware of your security procedures. That's a message I could get behind, but they really should be more to the point.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Abbott's Paradox
Does anyone else find it odd that Tony Abbott's statement that we should only take his scripted statements to be 100% correct was not scripted, and so shouldn't be taken as 100% accurate?
Monday, May 24, 2010
On Contacts
Most people who know me have only seen me while wearing glasses. In fact, there is a decent bunch of people who have only seen me in one specific pair of glasses. In fact the only time I've seen myself without glasses since I was in high school was either as a blur or from about 15cm away from the mirror, neither of which give the greatest perspective. So going to contact lenses was kind of a big step.
I had tried contact lenses once in university when the optometrist on campus was offering one day trials (I guess this must have been when daily lenses were a new thing) and they were all right then, but I didn't have to put them in or take them out myself, and being a broke uni student with a relatively new pair of glasses at the time, I didn't follow it up further.
So why did I decide to try sticking pieces of soft plastic directly on my eyeballs instead of just continuing to wear glasses? The answer is pretty easy, my bike. Glasses and a helmet don't work well. Neither do glasses and peripheral vision.
Getting the lenses didn't turn out to be too tricky. I made an appointment with an optometrist, and after an eye test it turned out my eyes were just bad enough that medicare would cover some trial lenses to see what worked best for me. So then I waited for a week for a pair in my prescription to arrive, and the next Friday I was back to learn how to put them on and take them out.
Now putting a piece of plastic on your eyeball, much like putting anything one your eyeball is not something you generally want to do, and the body has a whole bunch of automatic systems that try and stop you doing this. And these even interfere with trying to take the damn thing off as well. So it started out with the optometrist putting the contacts in. Then I had to take them out. This involves holding your top eyelid open with one hand while first sliding the lens down the eye so as to form a fold, and then grabbing the fold and pulling the lens out. sounds easy when you say it, but you try poking yourself in the eye and see how easy it is.
Next I had to put them in myself. This proved even trickier than taking them out. You need to hold both eyelids close, and then stick the lens straight onto your eye. And if you don't hold your eyelids tight enough and blink halfway through, well then you just have to start again. I think it took about twice as long to get them in as to take them out. But get them in I did, and with a few other pieces of advice I was sent on my way.
I hung around the city for a little while to give my eyes some time to adjust to the presence of these intruders on my eyeball before riding out to Chermside for games night.
This first pair was meant to be a fortnight pair, but I stopped wearing them after about a week. After getting them on the Friday, I think on Wednesday night while they were meant to be soaking in contact lens fluid the right lens got stuck on the lid of teh container and so stayed out of the fluid. In the morning it had a bend in it and I couldn't get it in, and so wore my glasses and let it spend the day soaking in fluid. The next day I was able to get it in, but on the Saturday I was reading when the right lens fell out. I didn't notice immediately, but after a while noticed that the focus of my two eyes was different, and assumed that the right lens was a bit out of place. Close my eye and rubbing the eyelid did not do much to restore vision in the right eye, and so I decided to just take them out for the night. Only when trying to take off the lens and getting a more than normally unpleasant sensation did I realise the lens was actually not there. I did manage to find where it fell out, but decided that that was that for that pair of lenses.
At the follow up appointment on the next Tuesday I got two pairs of daily lenses and a monthly pair. Unfortunately I only got to wear one pair of the dailies as I managed to drop one while trying to put it in, and it ws then that I truly began to appreciate how helpful it was that the first pair I'd got were actually blue (it didn't seem to affect my perception of colour, but it did make seeing the things a lot easier). As a lens in just the left eye isn't much use, after get one day out of the daily, I started using the monthly pair, which I'm still using now.
In general the contacts are best while I'm out and about, either walking around or riding the bike, although riding the bike tends to dry them out a bit. Sitting in front of the computer gets a bit uncomfortable after a while, and when I play on my Wii I tend to lose focus a bit, forcing me to close my eyes for a little bit, which during most games can be a disadvantage. If I'm at home I stick with the glasses, as my routine has become such that I put the lenses in after taking a shower (I should ask if it's ok to wear them in the shower. I was told to use a daily pair if I was going to go swimming or such so I'm not sure), so when they go in depends a bit on my schedule.
I'm going to have to make a decision soon on if I want to keep going with them, as medicare will only pay for so much trying out different things. I think I'll continue using them, even if they are a bit uncomfortable at times (I presume that that will change with time). The improvement in vision is pretty good. It does avoid the hassles of the glasses not fitting in the helmet well, although it does introduce the whole eyeball poking as an alternative hassle.
I was also surprised by the general lack of comment brought about by switching to contacts. It was about two weeks before anyone commented on the fact, and in the month I've been wearing them there have been only 4 comments, and one was asking why I had gone back to the glasses on that day. I guess like a few other circumstances I've tried applying it to, Daria episodes are not a suitable guide for life. I guess perhaps its not so big a change from other people's perspectives. I have had two people not recognize me straight away, but one is understandable since I hadn't seen her in about 4 years and have a beard now as well (although given my irregular shaving habits back then that's not such a big change) although the other person had no such excuse.
Here endeth the stream of consciousness
I had tried contact lenses once in university when the optometrist on campus was offering one day trials (I guess this must have been when daily lenses were a new thing) and they were all right then, but I didn't have to put them in or take them out myself, and being a broke uni student with a relatively new pair of glasses at the time, I didn't follow it up further.
So why did I decide to try sticking pieces of soft plastic directly on my eyeballs instead of just continuing to wear glasses? The answer is pretty easy, my bike. Glasses and a helmet don't work well. Neither do glasses and peripheral vision.
Getting the lenses didn't turn out to be too tricky. I made an appointment with an optometrist, and after an eye test it turned out my eyes were just bad enough that medicare would cover some trial lenses to see what worked best for me. So then I waited for a week for a pair in my prescription to arrive, and the next Friday I was back to learn how to put them on and take them out.
Now putting a piece of plastic on your eyeball, much like putting anything one your eyeball is not something you generally want to do, and the body has a whole bunch of automatic systems that try and stop you doing this. And these even interfere with trying to take the damn thing off as well. So it started out with the optometrist putting the contacts in. Then I had to take them out. This involves holding your top eyelid open with one hand while first sliding the lens down the eye so as to form a fold, and then grabbing the fold and pulling the lens out. sounds easy when you say it, but you try poking yourself in the eye and see how easy it is.
Next I had to put them in myself. This proved even trickier than taking them out. You need to hold both eyelids close, and then stick the lens straight onto your eye. And if you don't hold your eyelids tight enough and blink halfway through, well then you just have to start again. I think it took about twice as long to get them in as to take them out. But get them in I did, and with a few other pieces of advice I was sent on my way.
I hung around the city for a little while to give my eyes some time to adjust to the presence of these intruders on my eyeball before riding out to Chermside for games night.
This first pair was meant to be a fortnight pair, but I stopped wearing them after about a week. After getting them on the Friday, I think on Wednesday night while they were meant to be soaking in contact lens fluid the right lens got stuck on the lid of teh container and so stayed out of the fluid. In the morning it had a bend in it and I couldn't get it in, and so wore my glasses and let it spend the day soaking in fluid. The next day I was able to get it in, but on the Saturday I was reading when the right lens fell out. I didn't notice immediately, but after a while noticed that the focus of my two eyes was different, and assumed that the right lens was a bit out of place. Close my eye and rubbing the eyelid did not do much to restore vision in the right eye, and so I decided to just take them out for the night. Only when trying to take off the lens and getting a more than normally unpleasant sensation did I realise the lens was actually not there. I did manage to find where it fell out, but decided that that was that for that pair of lenses.
At the follow up appointment on the next Tuesday I got two pairs of daily lenses and a monthly pair. Unfortunately I only got to wear one pair of the dailies as I managed to drop one while trying to put it in, and it ws then that I truly began to appreciate how helpful it was that the first pair I'd got were actually blue (it didn't seem to affect my perception of colour, but it did make seeing the things a lot easier). As a lens in just the left eye isn't much use, after get one day out of the daily, I started using the monthly pair, which I'm still using now.
In general the contacts are best while I'm out and about, either walking around or riding the bike, although riding the bike tends to dry them out a bit. Sitting in front of the computer gets a bit uncomfortable after a while, and when I play on my Wii I tend to lose focus a bit, forcing me to close my eyes for a little bit, which during most games can be a disadvantage. If I'm at home I stick with the glasses, as my routine has become such that I put the lenses in after taking a shower (I should ask if it's ok to wear them in the shower. I was told to use a daily pair if I was going to go swimming or such so I'm not sure), so when they go in depends a bit on my schedule.
I'm going to have to make a decision soon on if I want to keep going with them, as medicare will only pay for so much trying out different things. I think I'll continue using them, even if they are a bit uncomfortable at times (I presume that that will change with time). The improvement in vision is pretty good. It does avoid the hassles of the glasses not fitting in the helmet well, although it does introduce the whole eyeball poking as an alternative hassle.
I was also surprised by the general lack of comment brought about by switching to contacts. It was about two weeks before anyone commented on the fact, and in the month I've been wearing them there have been only 4 comments, and one was asking why I had gone back to the glasses on that day. I guess like a few other circumstances I've tried applying it to, Daria episodes are not a suitable guide for life. I guess perhaps its not so big a change from other people's perspectives. I have had two people not recognize me straight away, but one is understandable since I hadn't seen her in about 4 years and have a beard now as well (although given my irregular shaving habits back then that's not such a big change) although the other person had no such excuse.
Here endeth the stream of consciousness
Thoughts on an empty blog
So it seems my life has become boring. This is the only conclusion I can come to after considering the fact that I have only written one blog post in the last almost two months, and that 2010 was already shaping up to be a record slow year as far as the blog went.
There have been a few things I've meant to write up but haven't for various reasons. Something on wearing contacts should have been written a few weeks ago to be timely, but I just haven't done it yet. There was something I wanted to write about involving an incident with some people I know, but since I was felt there was a pretty decent chance of at least one involved person reading it, I didn't put it up. Given that this blog started out as an emotional outlet for me to try and work stuff out by writing it up and putting it out on the interwebs shows that that has changed.
My current job is less exciting than my old ones. No exotic (or at least foreign) locales. No adventures on the weekends. The biggest thrill that's happened was a systems crash today that meant I got to sit around bludging for two and a half hours or so while getting paid.
I considered writing something for my birthday, now a month gone, but felt that it would probably end up to whiny and emo, much as this one seems to be trending.
Perhaps this situation has developed because my current situation is what one could describe as safe. I've got a place where I get room and board pretty cheap, I've not worried about money since I've got back to Australia, although being on the dole was frustrating, my current job is modestly lucrative but not challenging, and in general I've got a pretty regular schedule going with a mix of new friends and old.
There are a few things that by previous standards of notability would have gone up on my blog. These include buying a motorbike and getting my motorbike license, being a bridesmaid at a friends wedding, comments on various news pieces the most recent of which being the situation regarding the alleged sinking of a South Korean navy ship by North Korea, getting a new job, tests for my finance course, learning to play go and a whole bunch more.
I do see this lack of writing to be problematic. I've had times where I've aimed to put something up every day. Now my goal of something every three days has a massive backlog. I guess I need to make more of an effort.
There have been a few things I've meant to write up but haven't for various reasons. Something on wearing contacts should have been written a few weeks ago to be timely, but I just haven't done it yet. There was something I wanted to write about involving an incident with some people I know, but since I was felt there was a pretty decent chance of at least one involved person reading it, I didn't put it up. Given that this blog started out as an emotional outlet for me to try and work stuff out by writing it up and putting it out on the interwebs shows that that has changed.
My current job is less exciting than my old ones. No exotic (or at least foreign) locales. No adventures on the weekends. The biggest thrill that's happened was a systems crash today that meant I got to sit around bludging for two and a half hours or so while getting paid.
I considered writing something for my birthday, now a month gone, but felt that it would probably end up to whiny and emo, much as this one seems to be trending.
Perhaps this situation has developed because my current situation is what one could describe as safe. I've got a place where I get room and board pretty cheap, I've not worried about money since I've got back to Australia, although being on the dole was frustrating, my current job is modestly lucrative but not challenging, and in general I've got a pretty regular schedule going with a mix of new friends and old.
There are a few things that by previous standards of notability would have gone up on my blog. These include buying a motorbike and getting my motorbike license, being a bridesmaid at a friends wedding, comments on various news pieces the most recent of which being the situation regarding the alleged sinking of a South Korean navy ship by North Korea, getting a new job, tests for my finance course, learning to play go and a whole bunch more.
I do see this lack of writing to be problematic. I've had times where I've aimed to put something up every day. Now my goal of something every three days has a massive backlog. I guess I need to make more of an effort.
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.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Your not really making the point you think you're making
Thanks to Media Watch I found out about a little bit Alan Jones did reading out another of those chain emails that gets certain types of people going. This particular one was on the topic of refugees. As Alan read out
The point I think Alan wants us to take away from this little monologue is that we need to be tougher on refugees coming to Australia illegally.
That's not the message I take away from this. The message I take away from this is "and that's one of the reasons why Australia is a better country than those other countries."
Now I know that the problem of a higher than desired number of refugees arriving through improper channels is complex and will require a multi-facted solution, there are two things I'm reasonably sure are not part of that solution.
One, a race to the bottom between nations for who can treat such people the worst (and trust me, Australia will lose on this one anyway),
and Two, not helping the countries the refugees are coming from become better and safer countries to live in will just keep them coming.
Alan Jones: The smugglers know the rules. The new ones. They know you don't have to go to Nauru now. You don't have detention in the desert now. You don't have a temporary protection visa now... There's an email doing the rounds at the moment which is most probably a bit apocryphal and a bit inventive but it's instructive and it says that:
"If you cross the North Korean border illegally you get 12 years hard labour.
If you cross the Iranian border illegally you are detained indefinitely.
If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you'll get shot...
If you cross the Chinese border illegally you may never be heard from again...
but" as the email says, "if you cross the Australian border illegally you'll get a job, a driver's licence, a social security card, welfare..."
The point I think Alan wants us to take away from this little monologue is that we need to be tougher on refugees coming to Australia illegally.
That's not the message I take away from this. The message I take away from this is "and that's one of the reasons why Australia is a better country than those other countries."
Now I know that the problem of a higher than desired number of refugees arriving through improper channels is complex and will require a multi-facted solution, there are two things I'm reasonably sure are not part of that solution.
One, a race to the bottom between nations for who can treat such people the worst (and trust me, Australia will lose on this one anyway),
and Two, not helping the countries the refugees are coming from become better and safer countries to live in will just keep them coming.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Margin Pricing
McDonalds has the following interesting price scheme.
Mighty Muffin $3.95
Mighty Muffin + Hash Brown $5.45
Mighty Muffin + Hash Brown + small coke $4.10
Effective price of a small coke -$1.35
A similar pattern was seen at a Night Owl as well
600ml coke $3.90
1.25l coke $4.50
2l coke $3.00
I think the main point to take away from this is that the amount we pay for some stuff depends not on the costs of production but more what they think people are willing to pay for something.
Also, please don't take this as an endorsement of any of the products mentioned. I'm just looking at the pricing anomalies.
Mighty Muffin $3.95
Mighty Muffin + Hash Brown $5.45
Mighty Muffin + Hash Brown + small coke $4.10
Effective price of a small coke -$1.35
A similar pattern was seen at a Night Owl as well
600ml coke $3.90
1.25l coke $4.50
2l coke $3.00
I think the main point to take away from this is that the amount we pay for some stuff depends not on the costs of production but more what they think people are willing to pay for something.
Also, please don't take this as an endorsement of any of the products mentioned. I'm just looking at the pricing anomalies.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Legislation, we hardly know ye.
One of the subjects I'm currently studying is Law, Regulations and Ethics. Since it's part of a finance course, the law part of it is pretty much the Corporations Act 2001 (Aust), and a few other related bits and pieces like the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Aust) and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Funding Act (2006), but it's given me more of an understanding of how legislation reads.
The first thing is that law is confusing. This is the main reason lawyers make big bucks. They need to know this stuff inside and out and they need to know a lot of it. I barely dented Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act, let alone the whole thing.
There are a number of reasons why the law is confusing. The main reason for this is the fact that so much of it is indirect. Take the Corporations Act. Section 1311 starts out by saying that anyone who does something that is prohibited by the act or doesn't do something required by the act is guilty of an offense. But then it goes on to say that they're guilty of an offense for some things only if a penalty is listed in schedule 3. Fortunately schedule 3 is pretty straightforward.
Then there's the language used. From what I've seen every act has a list of definitions in there somewhere. This is because words don't always mean what they normally do. Sometimes this is because the normal meaning is a bit vague in what it covers, or sometimes they want a word to cover other things like it, but not quite the same.
There's also a lot of language that makes you wonder just how pedantic the people writing this are. Take for example this lovely bit of prose
(1) A margin lending facility is:
(a) a standard margin lending facility; or
(b) a non‑standard margin lending facility; or
(c) a facility of a kind that has been declared by ASIC to be a margin lending facility under subsection (8);
unless the facility is of a kind that has been declared by ASIC not to be a margin lending facility under subsection (9).
So a margin lending facility is either a standard or a non-standard margin lending facility, or something ASIC has said is a margin lending facility, unless ASIC has said it isn't. All very clear. Fortunately it does go on to give a bit more detail as to what a standard and non-standard margin lending facility are, but still.
This also makes me think about the idea that ignorance of the law is no excuse. There are great swathes of the law I'm completely ignorant about, and likely the bits I think I know about I have huge misconceptions about. We all know the basic stuff like don't steal, don't kill, don't run red lights, etc, but what does the average person actually know of the law? Now, I'll admit there's not much chance the average person is going to commit an offense under the Corporations Act without knowing it, but what other laws are lurking out there that we don't know of.
There are certainly expectations that people who want to do certain things are aware of the relevant laws. People need to prove they know the rules of the road to be able to get a license. To get a financial services license you need to show that you know the relevant laws. But there's no requirement to know other sorts of laws to get by in everyday life. I think this is definitely a gap that needs to be filled. High school would probably be a good place to teach this, but I'm not sure how interested kids would be in it then, or how you would fit it in with all the other things schools have to teach. The more cynical part of me thinks maybe make it and stuff about our system of government part a course you have to pass to enroll to vote, although I don't think that would go down well, especially if you required everyone already enrolled to vote to go through it as well (maybe give them 10 years to pass the test or their off the roll)
The first thing is that law is confusing. This is the main reason lawyers make big bucks. They need to know this stuff inside and out and they need to know a lot of it. I barely dented Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act, let alone the whole thing.
There are a number of reasons why the law is confusing. The main reason for this is the fact that so much of it is indirect. Take the Corporations Act. Section 1311 starts out by saying that anyone who does something that is prohibited by the act or doesn't do something required by the act is guilty of an offense. But then it goes on to say that they're guilty of an offense for some things only if a penalty is listed in schedule 3. Fortunately schedule 3 is pretty straightforward.
Then there's the language used. From what I've seen every act has a list of definitions in there somewhere. This is because words don't always mean what they normally do. Sometimes this is because the normal meaning is a bit vague in what it covers, or sometimes they want a word to cover other things like it, but not quite the same.
There's also a lot of language that makes you wonder just how pedantic the people writing this are. Take for example this lovely bit of prose
(1) A margin lending facility is:
(a) a standard margin lending facility; or
(b) a non‑standard margin lending facility; or
(c) a facility of a kind that has been declared by ASIC to be a margin lending facility under subsection (8);
unless the facility is of a kind that has been declared by ASIC not to be a margin lending facility under subsection (9).
So a margin lending facility is either a standard or a non-standard margin lending facility, or something ASIC has said is a margin lending facility, unless ASIC has said it isn't. All very clear. Fortunately it does go on to give a bit more detail as to what a standard and non-standard margin lending facility are, but still.
This also makes me think about the idea that ignorance of the law is no excuse. There are great swathes of the law I'm completely ignorant about, and likely the bits I think I know about I have huge misconceptions about. We all know the basic stuff like don't steal, don't kill, don't run red lights, etc, but what does the average person actually know of the law? Now, I'll admit there's not much chance the average person is going to commit an offense under the Corporations Act without knowing it, but what other laws are lurking out there that we don't know of.
There are certainly expectations that people who want to do certain things are aware of the relevant laws. People need to prove they know the rules of the road to be able to get a license. To get a financial services license you need to show that you know the relevant laws. But there's no requirement to know other sorts of laws to get by in everyday life. I think this is definitely a gap that needs to be filled. High school would probably be a good place to teach this, but I'm not sure how interested kids would be in it then, or how you would fit it in with all the other things schools have to teach. The more cynical part of me thinks maybe make it and stuff about our system of government part a course you have to pass to enroll to vote, although I don't think that would go down well, especially if you required everyone already enrolled to vote to go through it as well (maybe give them 10 years to pass the test or their off the roll)
Friday, March 12, 2010
Assignment Aftermath
This week two assignments for my finance course were due in. I think I made a tactical error in doing two subjects with mid session assignments and final exams rather than one with a mid session assignment and one with a final assignment, but we live and learn.
I don't think what I submitted was the best I could have done as I did leave it quite late in the process to get serious about working on them. A three day weekend is not really enough time for two 4500 word assignments, even if you have been thinking about the questions for a few months.
I put most of my time into what I though would be the easier assignment and where I thought I'd be able to do better, the subject on economic principles, but I didn't do so great. The last few questions where we had to back up opinions on a few different things I did a huge rush job on and didn't include any references or such, which will cost me a bit. I'm mainly hoping I pass so as not to put too much pressure on me for the final exam.
I'm more happy with the second assignment for Law, Regulation and Ethics. I now realize why lawyers make so much money. Laws are very hard to understand. Convoluted references, finicky definitions, references to regulations made and listed elsewhere, mean working out what is and isn't in the law quite a challenge. I have another post brewing about legislation, so more will come out there on that topic.
The last minute approach to the assignments also made life a bit less fun last week. I had to miss the Richard Dawkins talk on Thursday, and on Monday and Tuesday night I only got about 4 or 5 hours sleep. On Wednesday I was absolutely useless at work, barely able to keep one thing in my head at a time, which is really bad because you need to at least keep a name and a location to avoid having to keep asking the person to repeat things. Thursday after about 9 hours sleep I was more my normal self, although I still fell asleep watching TV around 5 o'clock after work.
I don't think what I submitted was the best I could have done as I did leave it quite late in the process to get serious about working on them. A three day weekend is not really enough time for two 4500 word assignments, even if you have been thinking about the questions for a few months.
I put most of my time into what I though would be the easier assignment and where I thought I'd be able to do better, the subject on economic principles, but I didn't do so great. The last few questions where we had to back up opinions on a few different things I did a huge rush job on and didn't include any references or such, which will cost me a bit. I'm mainly hoping I pass so as not to put too much pressure on me for the final exam.
I'm more happy with the second assignment for Law, Regulation and Ethics. I now realize why lawyers make so much money. Laws are very hard to understand. Convoluted references, finicky definitions, references to regulations made and listed elsewhere, mean working out what is and isn't in the law quite a challenge. I have another post brewing about legislation, so more will come out there on that topic.
The last minute approach to the assignments also made life a bit less fun last week. I had to miss the Richard Dawkins talk on Thursday, and on Monday and Tuesday night I only got about 4 or 5 hours sleep. On Wednesday I was absolutely useless at work, barely able to keep one thing in my head at a time, which is really bad because you need to at least keep a name and a location to avoid having to keep asking the person to repeat things. Thursday after about 9 hours sleep I was more my normal self, although I still fell asleep watching TV around 5 o'clock after work.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Really? You're Surprised by this Development?
The story on the front cover of yesterdays MX was about high school students, who, having been given a free laptop by the government to use for schoolwork have managed to get around the filters and install games, MSN, and are breaking the administrator password.
Now I just have to say, who didn't expect something like this to happen? I mean really, you give a kid a computer and say you can't play games on it and expect them not to try and play games? This is ignoring basic human nature.
I mean if the government had really wanted the kids to not play games on their laptops, why give them a Windows machine? Give them a laptop with Linux installed, an ordinary user account, and a copy of OpenOffice. I can bet you now the number of kids doing stuff you don't want them to on that will be a bajillion times less.
Anyway, a tip of my hat to the kids who worked out how to get around the filters, a wag of my finger to the ones who just followed the directions they found in the facebook group (I endorse initiative and learning, not getting around the filter just for the sake of playing games) and a sterner wag of my finger to the relevant governments for putting in place an inadequate system that they knew the kids were going to try to break.
Now I just have to say, who didn't expect something like this to happen? I mean really, you give a kid a computer and say you can't play games on it and expect them not to try and play games? This is ignoring basic human nature.
I mean if the government had really wanted the kids to not play games on their laptops, why give them a Windows machine? Give them a laptop with Linux installed, an ordinary user account, and a copy of OpenOffice. I can bet you now the number of kids doing stuff you don't want them to on that will be a bajillion times less.
Anyway, a tip of my hat to the kids who worked out how to get around the filters, a wag of my finger to the ones who just followed the directions they found in the facebook group (I endorse initiative and learning, not getting around the filter just for the sake of playing games) and a sterner wag of my finger to the relevant governments for putting in place an inadequate system that they knew the kids were going to try to break.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Economics Bullshit 101: Co-insurance Clauses
Over the past few years I've been trying to build up my understanding of economics, and along the way I've come across a few things that are apparently standard practice that just seem like bullshit. Since I've just started a course on finance and such, I'm coming across a few more, and I feel like sharing. So here's the first installment of Economics Bullshit 101, Co-insurance.
Co-insurance is a practice that mainly affects insurance policies on big ticket items, like homes. Lets say I have a home that's worth $1,000,000 (sure, it's not going to happen anytime soon, but this is a hypothetical), and insurance to cover that much seems a bit too expensive to me. So, I cut a few corners, and insure the house for up to $800,000. Sure, I'll take a big hit if the house gets totaled, but I live in a pretty safe area and I'm not too worried.
So I've got my insurance, and while it doesn't cover the whole value, I'm feeling pretty safe. But then something bad happens. Nothing too major, but still pricey. All up, the bill comes to $100,000. No big deal, I'm insured up to $800,000, so that's well under my limit, no problemo.
Actually, problemo. Here's where the co-insurance clause kicks in. What it says is that when I said I wanted $800,000 worth of coverage on a $1,000,000 house, what I meant was that I wanted coverage of 80% on any damage. This means that when I put in my claim on the $100,000 worth of damage, they go "Fine, sure, $100,000 damage, 80% of that is $80,000, here's your cheque, have a nice day" and I look bamboozled and wonder where the hell the other $20,000 is. And I'm willing to bet they work that bit out before factoring in your excess, so there's another hunk of cash you don't get back.
Now, sure, I knew I was underinsured, but if I have coverage for up to amount X, and I claim for an amount Y that is less than X, I expect to get amount Y back from the insurers, regardless of whether amount Z, the value of the property insured, is greater or less than amount X. That's why I pay the insurer amount W every month.
So today's lesson is, like I guess many of these will be, read the god damn contract and make sure you understand it. And be sure you can afford the insurance if you buy a house.
Co-insurance is a practice that mainly affects insurance policies on big ticket items, like homes. Lets say I have a home that's worth $1,000,000 (sure, it's not going to happen anytime soon, but this is a hypothetical), and insurance to cover that much seems a bit too expensive to me. So, I cut a few corners, and insure the house for up to $800,000. Sure, I'll take a big hit if the house gets totaled, but I live in a pretty safe area and I'm not too worried.
So I've got my insurance, and while it doesn't cover the whole value, I'm feeling pretty safe. But then something bad happens. Nothing too major, but still pricey. All up, the bill comes to $100,000. No big deal, I'm insured up to $800,000, so that's well under my limit, no problemo.
Actually, problemo. Here's where the co-insurance clause kicks in. What it says is that when I said I wanted $800,000 worth of coverage on a $1,000,000 house, what I meant was that I wanted coverage of 80% on any damage. This means that when I put in my claim on the $100,000 worth of damage, they go "Fine, sure, $100,000 damage, 80% of that is $80,000, here's your cheque, have a nice day" and I look bamboozled and wonder where the hell the other $20,000 is. And I'm willing to bet they work that bit out before factoring in your excess, so there's another hunk of cash you don't get back.
Now, sure, I knew I was underinsured, but if I have coverage for up to amount X, and I claim for an amount Y that is less than X, I expect to get amount Y back from the insurers, regardless of whether amount Z, the value of the property insured, is greater or less than amount X. That's why I pay the insurer amount W every month.
So today's lesson is, like I guess many of these will be, read the god damn contract and make sure you understand it. And be sure you can afford the insurance if you buy a house.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Justice, Bangladeshi Style
So here's the situation: A 16 year old girl gets raped, to cover it up gets quickly married off by her parents, and it turns out she got pregnant from the rape. How do you think things go from here?
If you said the bastard who raped the poor girl gets dealt with harshly, guess again. He got pardoned by the village elders.
How did the husband react to finding out about his wife was pregnant with another man's unwanted child? He divorced her.
And the parents, how are they faring? Not so great. The fathers been fined with the threat of being outcast if he refuses to pay up.
And what do the village elders propose to do with the girl, who surely has already suffered more than enough? After letting off the man who raped her, threatening her family with ostracism, this poor girl was forced into isolation until her family accepted her punishment of 101 lashes.
101 lashes. With a whip. For getting raped.
That's one hell of an incentive to not get raped. Although I'm sure you have to weigh it up against the hell she'd have had to pay if shed kneed the guy in the balls or sprayed mace in his face. It's a bad choice either way.
Just what the hell were these village elders thinking? How is this in any way just? By what sort of messed up view of the world does this girl deserve punishment? And how is it that the rapist gets off free?
We like to think that just because our little corner of the world is pretty decent, things must be OK, but the sad truth is that for too many people, the world is not a very nice place at all. This is just one more reminder of this sad truth.
If you said the bastard who raped the poor girl gets dealt with harshly, guess again. He got pardoned by the village elders.
How did the husband react to finding out about his wife was pregnant with another man's unwanted child? He divorced her.
And the parents, how are they faring? Not so great. The fathers been fined with the threat of being outcast if he refuses to pay up.
And what do the village elders propose to do with the girl, who surely has already suffered more than enough? After letting off the man who raped her, threatening her family with ostracism, this poor girl was forced into isolation until her family accepted her punishment of 101 lashes.
101 lashes. With a whip. For getting raped.
That's one hell of an incentive to not get raped. Although I'm sure you have to weigh it up against the hell she'd have had to pay if shed kneed the guy in the balls or sprayed mace in his face. It's a bad choice either way.
Just what the hell were these village elders thinking? How is this in any way just? By what sort of messed up view of the world does this girl deserve punishment? And how is it that the rapist gets off free?
We like to think that just because our little corner of the world is pretty decent, things must be OK, but the sad truth is that for too many people, the world is not a very nice place at all. This is just one more reminder of this sad truth.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
China's Love Hate Relationship with Avatar
China just can't seem to make up its mind about the film Avatar. First, it banned screenings of the 2D version because it thought the movie was hitting a bit too close to home with China's own forced eviction of millions of people so that some mining can get done.
But soon after, in an attempt perhaps to catch some of the megabucks that Avatar has raked in, some Chinese provincial officials have said that the Hallelujah mountains in the movie were inspired by a more grounded mountain in their province, and have renamed the mountain from The Southern Sky Column (a translation I'm sure) to Avatar Hallelujah Mountain.
I guess this is part of the Chinese duality. Rigid totalitarianism mixed with cash hungry pseudocapitalism.
Finally, a slightly tangential factoid, apparently China only allows 20 foreign films to be shown in cinemas each year.
End Post
Writing time: 14 minutes
Time since last post: 12 days
Current media: none
But soon after, in an attempt perhaps to catch some of the megabucks that Avatar has raked in, some Chinese provincial officials have said that the Hallelujah mountains in the movie were inspired by a more grounded mountain in their province, and have renamed the mountain from The Southern Sky Column (a translation I'm sure) to Avatar Hallelujah Mountain.
I guess this is part of the Chinese duality. Rigid totalitarianism mixed with cash hungry pseudocapitalism.
Finally, a slightly tangential factoid, apparently China only allows 20 foreign films to be shown in cinemas each year.
End Post
Writing time: 14 minutes
Time since last post: 12 days
Current media: none
Friday, January 15, 2010
Not Everything Needs to be 3D
According to the Times Online, Avatar, in addition to making people depressed, is causing movie makers to want to go back and upgrade their movies to 3D.
Now I can understand why. 3D is cool, and a number of the movies mentioned would have been awesome if done in 3D, but the fact is that they weren't. And regardless of the amount of computer jiggery-pokery that gets done, it's not going to change the fact that going from 3D to 2D is really easy, but going from 2D to 3D is very tough.
The movies discussed are action movies that relied on lots of special effects the first time round, and depending on how much of the computer models still exist, you might even get some pretty good 3D in parts, but the more everyday scenes with just people and sets won't have that advantage, and will diminish the effect.
Such upgraded movies will also lack in comparison to made for 3D movies. Avatar does 3D well because it was planned as such from the beginning, and this gave the creators new tools to use when composing scenes and designing locations. Upgraded 2D films will not have these benefits and it will show.
All this improving of old movies to fit with new technology is not unprecedented. Classic black and white films have had color added to them later, to a generally negative reception. One of Orson Welles last requests a few weeks before he died was to not let Citizen Kane be colourised.
Now before you go calling me a neo-luddite or what not, let me sum things up on a positive note. Great 2D films, like great black and white films are great because of the art that went into them, the direction, the design, the acting, the writing, all of it. No one denigrates Citizen Kane because it's not in colour (no one with sense, anyway), they praise it for its merits. And so to if movie making transitions to 3D as a standard, people aren't going to mock today's greats for their lack of a third dimension. They will still praise the stories, the art, the greatness for what it is. Movie makers don't need to go add the latest gimmick to their movies.
On a final note, let it be said that no one should be surprised that George Lucas is one of those movie makers who can not wait to do this, and to be fair to him, if he does, I will go (to episodes III-VI at least)
Now I can understand why. 3D is cool, and a number of the movies mentioned would have been awesome if done in 3D, but the fact is that they weren't. And regardless of the amount of computer jiggery-pokery that gets done, it's not going to change the fact that going from 3D to 2D is really easy, but going from 2D to 3D is very tough.
The movies discussed are action movies that relied on lots of special effects the first time round, and depending on how much of the computer models still exist, you might even get some pretty good 3D in parts, but the more everyday scenes with just people and sets won't have that advantage, and will diminish the effect.
Such upgraded movies will also lack in comparison to made for 3D movies. Avatar does 3D well because it was planned as such from the beginning, and this gave the creators new tools to use when composing scenes and designing locations. Upgraded 2D films will not have these benefits and it will show.
All this improving of old movies to fit with new technology is not unprecedented. Classic black and white films have had color added to them later, to a generally negative reception. One of Orson Welles last requests a few weeks before he died was to not let Citizen Kane be colourised.
Now before you go calling me a neo-luddite or what not, let me sum things up on a positive note. Great 2D films, like great black and white films are great because of the art that went into them, the direction, the design, the acting, the writing, all of it. No one denigrates Citizen Kane because it's not in colour (no one with sense, anyway), they praise it for its merits. And so to if movie making transitions to 3D as a standard, people aren't going to mock today's greats for their lack of a third dimension. They will still praise the stories, the art, the greatness for what it is. Movie makers don't need to go add the latest gimmick to their movies.
On a final note, let it be said that no one should be surprised that George Lucas is one of those movie makers who can not wait to do this, and to be fair to him, if he does, I will go (to episodes III-VI at least)
Saturday, January 09, 2010
When Boogeymen Collide
In response to the guy who attempted to blow up a plane but only managed to blow up his groin on Christmas day, various countries have stepped up their "security" in an attempt to prevent this exact type of scenario happening again. The US have cracked down on people doing things in flight, forcing you to stay in your seat for the last hour and not have anything in your lap.
The Brits are beefing up preflight security (again). And their doing this with fancy new full body scanners that can see through your clothes and provide something that is a lot closer to a nude image of you than a clothed one. These images exist in a very fine line between decent and indecent, and are more likely to fall on the indecent side, as I'm sure the photos released to the press are not as clear as what is actually produced (it's a standard tactic to understate your capabilities).
And now the Brits want to use these machines on everyone, which is causing a problem. For most people, while they don't like have indecent images taken of them by low paid security guards and feel like it's an invasion of privacy, it's not actually illegal to do so. But there is a subsection of the population for which it is illegal to make an indecent image of. Who? Children.
That's right. Terrorism is butting heads with Child Pornography. Won't somebody think of the children? When the two biggest boogeymen of our day butt heads, who will win? Right now, Terrorism is losing as the suggestions for dealing with this is to just not scan children with the machines, but I expect Terrorism will come back strong once an under-18 terrorist wannabe pops up somewhere.
I think a better solution would be not to use these $150,000+ machines and not make indecent images of anyone, but then what would I know?
The Brits are beefing up preflight security (again). And their doing this with fancy new full body scanners that can see through your clothes and provide something that is a lot closer to a nude image of you than a clothed one. These images exist in a very fine line between decent and indecent, and are more likely to fall on the indecent side, as I'm sure the photos released to the press are not as clear as what is actually produced (it's a standard tactic to understate your capabilities).
And now the Brits want to use these machines on everyone, which is causing a problem. For most people, while they don't like have indecent images taken of them by low paid security guards and feel like it's an invasion of privacy, it's not actually illegal to do so. But there is a subsection of the population for which it is illegal to make an indecent image of. Who? Children.
That's right. Terrorism is butting heads with Child Pornography. Won't somebody think of the children? When the two biggest boogeymen of our day butt heads, who will win? Right now, Terrorism is losing as the suggestions for dealing with this is to just not scan children with the machines, but I expect Terrorism will come back strong once an under-18 terrorist wannabe pops up somewhere.
I think a better solution would be not to use these $150,000+ machines and not make indecent images of anyone, but then what would I know?
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Around the World in 5 Stories
A few small items I'd like to comment on. Going in order of geographic proximity we have
1) Malaysian police had a busy new year's eve, raiding hotels to find unmarried couples there. Since Islamic citizens aren't allowed to be alone with members of the opposite sex, those caught are looking at up to two years in jail and a fine. Of course, the non-Islamic population of course are free to get jiggy with it.
2) The chairman of Thai Airways has resigned after getting caught avoiding excess baggage fees. Surely a perk of the job you'd think. But he took it too far when instead of the meagre allowance of 150kg for himself and his two companions got in first class, he brought 398kg back with him from a trip to Japan. Apparently a friend gave him some fruit for a temple in Bangkok. In addition, he got the fruit sent to the lost property office in Bangkok, conveniently skipping customs in the process. It's fair enough that he resigned, but he clearly wasn't trying hard enough to profit from his position. All this netted him only $5,000 dollars or so. If Thailand wants to improve its economy, it needs it's businessmen to take greater liberties with their companies. Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff couldn't have done what they did without huge companies to take advantage off.
3) Burma news now. The military leader of Burma has spoken to his people about the election happening some time this year. He has called on the people to make the "correct choice" when voting. I have no doubts about what he'd consider the right choice, and I'm pretty sure making the "correct choice" won't necessarily be the best for the people. Although given what happened last time the military allowed an election, I wouldn't bet on a freedom loving government coming to power. However the military has rigged the game a little, with the constitution requiring a quarter of the parliament being military members appointed by the head of the military so there's a little bit more of a chance they'll play nice after the election.
4) Out of Asia and into Africa now. A tribal king in South Africa facing 15 years in jail for charges including kidnapping, arson, assault and more is threatening to secede and take more than half the country with him in an attempt to get out of jail free. The king's supporters have called for the charges to be dropped and he be paid over ten billion US dollars in compensation for humiliating him. President Zuma has said that the claim the king can declare a new country in South Africa is ridiculous which is perhaps the best way to deal with such things, and a surprisingly sane reaction from a man with three wives.
5) And finally, a surprisingly sensible and rational policy from a political party. The French Socialist Party has announced that even though they are opposed to the burka, they are going to oppose efforts by the government to introduce a legal ban on people wearing them. It is good to see a party that is willing to say that they don't like something, but realize that legislating against said thing is not the best way to deal with the problem. Kudos to them for this.
1) Malaysian police had a busy new year's eve, raiding hotels to find unmarried couples there. Since Islamic citizens aren't allowed to be alone with members of the opposite sex, those caught are looking at up to two years in jail and a fine. Of course, the non-Islamic population of course are free to get jiggy with it.
2) The chairman of Thai Airways has resigned after getting caught avoiding excess baggage fees. Surely a perk of the job you'd think. But he took it too far when instead of the meagre allowance of 150kg for himself and his two companions got in first class, he brought 398kg back with him from a trip to Japan. Apparently a friend gave him some fruit for a temple in Bangkok. In addition, he got the fruit sent to the lost property office in Bangkok, conveniently skipping customs in the process. It's fair enough that he resigned, but he clearly wasn't trying hard enough to profit from his position. All this netted him only $5,000 dollars or so. If Thailand wants to improve its economy, it needs it's businessmen to take greater liberties with their companies. Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff couldn't have done what they did without huge companies to take advantage off.
3) Burma news now. The military leader of Burma has spoken to his people about the election happening some time this year. He has called on the people to make the "correct choice" when voting. I have no doubts about what he'd consider the right choice, and I'm pretty sure making the "correct choice" won't necessarily be the best for the people. Although given what happened last time the military allowed an election, I wouldn't bet on a freedom loving government coming to power. However the military has rigged the game a little, with the constitution requiring a quarter of the parliament being military members appointed by the head of the military so there's a little bit more of a chance they'll play nice after the election.
4) Out of Asia and into Africa now. A tribal king in South Africa facing 15 years in jail for charges including kidnapping, arson, assault and more is threatening to secede and take more than half the country with him in an attempt to get out of jail free. The king's supporters have called for the charges to be dropped and he be paid over ten billion US dollars in compensation for humiliating him. President Zuma has said that the claim the king can declare a new country in South Africa is ridiculous which is perhaps the best way to deal with such things, and a surprisingly sane reaction from a man with three wives.
5) And finally, a surprisingly sensible and rational policy from a political party. The French Socialist Party has announced that even though they are opposed to the burka, they are going to oppose efforts by the government to introduce a legal ban on people wearing them. It is good to see a party that is willing to say that they don't like something, but realize that legislating against said thing is not the best way to deal with the problem. Kudos to them for this.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Life is Hard for Beautiful People
Life is hard for the beautiful. All those online social networking and dating sites are full of people who are, well, not beautiful. And it wouldn't do to be seen online associating with someone of the non-beautiful inclination.
You might think BeautifulPeople.com might be an answer to this horrible, unfair dilemma. An online dating and social networking site where to join you have to be judged beautiful enough by the existing members sounds like just the thing for beautiful people wanting to avoid slumming it with the beautifully challenged masses.
But even with this great aid, life is still difficult for the beauties who walk among us. Apparently, over this Christmas/New Years period some members indulged a little too much and might have put on a little weight. Not too unusual an occurrence, but it was enough to get 5000 members kicked out for getting too fat. Those poor people. Being judged like that. It's so unfair.
Of course, once my application for the site gets approved, this post and any related disparaging remarks will disappear into the ether.
You might think BeautifulPeople.com might be an answer to this horrible, unfair dilemma. An online dating and social networking site where to join you have to be judged beautiful enough by the existing members sounds like just the thing for beautiful people wanting to avoid slumming it with the beautifully challenged masses.
But even with this great aid, life is still difficult for the beauties who walk among us. Apparently, over this Christmas/New Years period some members indulged a little too much and might have put on a little weight. Not too unusual an occurrence, but it was enough to get 5000 members kicked out for getting too fat. Those poor people. Being judged like that. It's so unfair.
Of course, once my application for the site gets approved, this post and any related disparaging remarks will disappear into the ether.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Some Last Words
Not from me of course. I'm sure I have many more words to come (the second half of 2009 not withstanding). The last words in question come from a subset of the population of Texas, namely those who were executed by the state.
I initially came across this while browsing through the Popular Items in Google Reader, and curious as to where it came from, followed the link and explored a bit, soon arriving at this page, which gives info on almost three decades of executees.
Going through such a collection may seem a bit grim or morbid, but also an interesting look into the state of mind of these people. The main thing that stands out amongst them all is the acceptance of imminent death. None I've read try and stop the execution, even those proclaiming their innocence. I'm not sure of how long before the execution they are told of the exact day that will be their last, the time on death row nonetheless gives plenty of time to come to terms with the idea. (While writing this I thought of perhaps a cruel way to schedule executions. Once the death sentence is confirmed, and all the appeals and such are done, apply some random chance (about 1 in 100 sounds like the right ball park. 1 in 10 is too low and 1 in 1000 is too high), and each day the prisoner either told "not today" or taken off to be executed. This could perhaps be calculated beforehand to aid in scheduling, so long as the actual day of execution is not communicated to the inmate)
Other themes that come through include remorse and denial, although these never come together. The remorseful seem genuine, and there's not much to be gained by them. The deniers are hard to judge just from the words, but knowing the statistics it seems likely that there were some innocent men in there.
I'm still not sure what exactly to make of the site. I'm pretty sure it's been put online purely as part of making public records more available, but such documents have more meaning than just that they exist. Capitol punishment is mostly something that happens in the distance, as an abstract thing. Few people see it as it happens, and fewer still would be there in circumstances of their choosing. So the chance to see that the people executed are real and to read their words brings it home that it is flesh and blood humans that are facing their end here, and that is something that should not be lost.
I initially came across this while browsing through the Popular Items in Google Reader, and curious as to where it came from, followed the link and explored a bit, soon arriving at this page, which gives info on almost three decades of executees.
Going through such a collection may seem a bit grim or morbid, but also an interesting look into the state of mind of these people. The main thing that stands out amongst them all is the acceptance of imminent death. None I've read try and stop the execution, even those proclaiming their innocence. I'm not sure of how long before the execution they are told of the exact day that will be their last, the time on death row nonetheless gives plenty of time to come to terms with the idea. (While writing this I thought of perhaps a cruel way to schedule executions. Once the death sentence is confirmed, and all the appeals and such are done, apply some random chance (about 1 in 100 sounds like the right ball park. 1 in 10 is too low and 1 in 1000 is too high), and each day the prisoner either told "not today" or taken off to be executed. This could perhaps be calculated beforehand to aid in scheduling, so long as the actual day of execution is not communicated to the inmate)
Other themes that come through include remorse and denial, although these never come together. The remorseful seem genuine, and there's not much to be gained by them. The deniers are hard to judge just from the words, but knowing the statistics it seems likely that there were some innocent men in there.
I'm still not sure what exactly to make of the site. I'm pretty sure it's been put online purely as part of making public records more available, but such documents have more meaning than just that they exist. Capitol punishment is mostly something that happens in the distance, as an abstract thing. Few people see it as it happens, and fewer still would be there in circumstances of their choosing. So the chance to see that the people executed are real and to read their words brings it home that it is flesh and blood humans that are facing their end here, and that is something that should not be lost.
Monday, December 14, 2009
An Open and Shut Case
The religious types in Ashevile, North Carolina are raising a ruckus over a matter that they really can't expect to win. Recently an atheist (the horror) was elected to the Asheville city council, and people are claiming that he is barred from serving by the North Carolina constitution.
The specific section of the North Carolina constitution that they are referring to is Article 6, section 8 which is as follows:
The answer to this claim that an atheist is ineligible to serve comes in two parts and comes straight from the grand old US constitution.
First we have Article VI, Section 3 that states
So now we have to ask, given directly contradicting clauses between the US and North Carolina constitutions, who wins. The answer is again in the US constitution. Article VI, Section 2 states
And so it is now, and has been for many years (decades even), clear that yes an atheist can be an elected official (regardless of what a pesky state constitution might say), and so all that is left is to say "Well done, Cecil Bothwell, and make sure you do a good job."
The specific section of the North Carolina constitution that they are referring to is Article 6, section 8 which is as follows:
The following persons shall be disqualified for office:Naturally, it is the first of those conditions that is being cited in this case.
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
Second, with respect to any office that is filled by election by the people, any person who is not qualified to vote in an election for that office.
Third, any person who has been adjudged guilty of treason or any other felony against this State or the United States, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of a felony in another state that also would be a felony if it had been committed in this State, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of corruption or malpractice in any office, or any person who has been removed by impeachment from any office, and who has not been restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law.
The answer to this claim that an atheist is ineligible to serve comes in two parts and comes straight from the grand old US constitution.
First we have Article VI, Section 3 that states
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.It is pretty clear that under this section that requiring people to believe in any god to be able to get a job in any level of government, elected or otherwise, is not on.
So now we have to ask, given directly contradicting clauses between the US and North Carolina constitutions, who wins. The answer is again in the US constitution. Article VI, Section 2 states
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.Clearly, this states that the US Constitution beats the North Carolina Constitution.
And so it is now, and has been for many years (decades even), clear that yes an atheist can be an elected official (regardless of what a pesky state constitution might say), and so all that is left is to say "Well done, Cecil Bothwell, and make sure you do a good job."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
