In the movie title Return of the Jedi, is Jedi singular or plural?
UPDATE: Further research suggests that no one is really certain, not even the official translators. The French version of the movie is called Le Retour du Jedi, which is singular. (If it were plural it would be Le Retour des Jedi(s). Unless of course Jedi is a collective noun in French, but I don't know if a borrowed word in French can automatically be a collective noun referring to human beings without it meaning ALL the Jedi, ever, which would be a bit inaccurate). The German version of the movie is called Die Rueckkehr der Jedi-Ritter, which is plural. If it were singular it would be Die Rueckkehr des Jedi-Ritters, assuming Jedi as a modifier doesn't decline. (And pardon my umlaut-free spelling - I can't always get diacritics to appear with any consistency in this blog).
Unfortunately I don't know where to find international titles of Star Wars movies other than on international Amazon sites, and the only international Amazon sites I can read are the French and German ones. Any further thoughts on the matter are most welcome.
Monday, January 31, 2005
A poll: how much did you learn in school about the origins of life?
I've been noticing in my perhipheral vision that people are still debating whether or how evolution or creationism should be taught in schools.
This raises a question, and I'd like the feedback of anyone who might be reading this:
Exactly how much instruction on the origins of earth and the origins of life did you receive in school?
Because in my experience, there simply wasn't enough time devoted to it to make it worthy of such a debate.
I remember we watched a video on the Big Bang in grade 5. I was religious at the time, and at first I was moderately perplexed that it differed from the biblical account, but by the end of the video I was able to reconcile the two in my head. I simply decided that this whole Big Bang thing was how God had created the universe. I seem to recall that at the end of the video there was a brief mention of the fact that no one knows this for certain and it disagrees with some religious teachings, and I remember thinking (although not in such grown-up words) "Why? This is perfectly compatible with religion, it's simply science's best speculation on God's methodology."
Sometime after that I internalized the whole evolution and Darwin thing. I don't think it was taught in school, I don't know where I picked it up, but by the time it came up in class I was already quite familiar with Darwin and natural selection and that diagram of a thing crawling out of the sea and becoming a lizard and becoming an ape and becoming a person (who was always using a walking stick for some reason).
The next time it came up in school was in grade 11 Ancient Civilizations. We touched briefly on Lucy the Australopithecus and other findings of pre-human ancestors, and the whole problem of the Missing Link was mentioned. We didn't look at this in any great depth - perhaps two days were spent on it - because it was basically a tee-up to the fact that the earliest humans lived in the fertile crescent between the Tigris and the Euphrates. We did touch on various ancient civilizations' creation myths at various points throughout the year, but that was mostly to help contextualize their religions. Any creation myths of any religions practised by any of the students in the class were beyond the scope of the course.
Anyway, my point is that no more than three class periods of my educational career (in Ontario public schools in the 80s and 90s) were spent on anything that might touch on evolution vs. creationism, so I'm wondering if my experience was vastly different than average, or vastly different from the American experience.
So my poll for anyone reading this: where and when did you go to school, and how much attention was given to the origins of the universe and/or human life in your curriculum?
This raises a question, and I'd like the feedback of anyone who might be reading this:
Exactly how much instruction on the origins of earth and the origins of life did you receive in school?
Because in my experience, there simply wasn't enough time devoted to it to make it worthy of such a debate.
I remember we watched a video on the Big Bang in grade 5. I was religious at the time, and at first I was moderately perplexed that it differed from the biblical account, but by the end of the video I was able to reconcile the two in my head. I simply decided that this whole Big Bang thing was how God had created the universe. I seem to recall that at the end of the video there was a brief mention of the fact that no one knows this for certain and it disagrees with some religious teachings, and I remember thinking (although not in such grown-up words) "Why? This is perfectly compatible with religion, it's simply science's best speculation on God's methodology."
Sometime after that I internalized the whole evolution and Darwin thing. I don't think it was taught in school, I don't know where I picked it up, but by the time it came up in class I was already quite familiar with Darwin and natural selection and that diagram of a thing crawling out of the sea and becoming a lizard and becoming an ape and becoming a person (who was always using a walking stick for some reason).
The next time it came up in school was in grade 11 Ancient Civilizations. We touched briefly on Lucy the Australopithecus and other findings of pre-human ancestors, and the whole problem of the Missing Link was mentioned. We didn't look at this in any great depth - perhaps two days were spent on it - because it was basically a tee-up to the fact that the earliest humans lived in the fertile crescent between the Tigris and the Euphrates. We did touch on various ancient civilizations' creation myths at various points throughout the year, but that was mostly to help contextualize their religions. Any creation myths of any religions practised by any of the students in the class were beyond the scope of the course.
Anyway, my point is that no more than three class periods of my educational career (in Ontario public schools in the 80s and 90s) were spent on anything that might touch on evolution vs. creationism, so I'm wondering if my experience was vastly different than average, or vastly different from the American experience.
So my poll for anyone reading this: where and when did you go to school, and how much attention was given to the origins of the universe and/or human life in your curriculum?
Insomnia update
I was all awake and energetic early this morning. I did an hour of yoga, half an hour of cardio and half an hour of weights, and I was feeling great. As I took a shower, it occurred to me that perhaps I had dreamed my insomnia and was, in fact, well-rested. I had big plans to watch Sesame Street at 10:30, but I wasn't quite hungry for breakfast yet. So I wandered into my bedroom around 10:00, pondering whether to get dressed even though my hair was still wet. I decided to lie down on my bed to see if it felt as hateful as it did last night.
It was like falling into the arms of an old friend.
I had the most fascinating series of dreams, and woke up just now. And NOW I'm tired!
It was nice to know that I CAN sleep, even if just out of sheer exhaustion. So my new plan is to stay home all day, stay awake, do whatever I'm up to doing, and then go to sleep for the night around 5:30-6. No going to class tonight! Hopefully this will get me a nice 12 or so hours of sleep, and then I'll be ready to deal with real life tomorrow.
It was like falling into the arms of an old friend.
I had the most fascinating series of dreams, and woke up just now. And NOW I'm tired!
It was nice to know that I CAN sleep, even if just out of sheer exhaustion. So my new plan is to stay home all day, stay awake, do whatever I'm up to doing, and then go to sleep for the night around 5:30-6. No going to class tonight! Hopefully this will get me a nice 12 or so hours of sleep, and then I'll be ready to deal with real life tomorrow.
Insomnia
I haven't slept. So I guess I'm calling in sick tomorrow, i.e. today. I lay in bed for hours doing breathing exercises, but it didn't help. Right now I'm more comfortable in my computer chair than in bed anyway, so I'm revisiting all the web-based games I haven't played in a while. Then I'm going to make myself exercise, then I'm going to have a shower and let myself lie in bed and listen to the radio until 10, then I'm going to force myself to get up and do stuff so I dno't become completely nocturnal. I hope to go to class tonight, but I don't know if that will work or not. Bleh.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
An Aesthetic Underground: A Literary Memoir by John Metcalf
I did not enjoy this book at all. I picked it up because I had heard it was witty, but I think it caused a total of one chuckle and two small smiles. I find the author's writing style tedious, particularly his habit of listing things in the middles of sentences and paragraphs (e.g. People Who Were There, Books the Author Read During This Time, The Food on the Menu). To me, this comes across as pretentious name-dropping.
More significantly, based on the information in this book and no prior conceptions, I found the author to be a thoroughly unpleasant person. I found him to be so unpleasant that after the first couple of chapters, I was holding the book horizontally in the subway instead of vertically as is my custom, so that people wouldn't see that I was reading this author's memoirs.
Now here's a strange reaction: I was going to enumerate the precise reasons why I found this author to be such an unpleasant person, but then I thought "That wouldn't really be fair. After all, we don't know his side of the story." Then I realized this is a strange reaction to an autobiography. After all, the book is the author's own word. Why would I think, even for a moment, that I don't know his side of the story? Upon reflection, I realized that I was subconsciouly getting the impression that the author isn't really the person he's portraying himself as. I was getting the impression that he was pretending to be more crotchety and curmudgeonly and closed-minded than he really is. Of course, I have no way of knowing this since the only impression I've ever had of Metcalf is from this book.
So I won't comment on what kind of a person Metcalf actually is, but I will tell you that he succeeded in representing him self in a way that caused me to have the following two reactions:
1. When Metcalf mentioned that he couldn't fathom why someone would accuse him of misogyny, the first thought that popped into my head was "Perhaps they'd read your work?"
2. When Metcalf described experiencing chest pains and getting diagnosed with angina, my immediate gut reaction was "What do you expect?"
I was also disappointed to see that Metcalf is involved with Porcupine's Quill. I've enjoyed every Porcupine's Quill book I've ever read and I find that their books tend to be physically beautiful, with well-chosen paper and attractive covers and binding. (Not that this is hugely important, mind, but there is something heartening about reading a book that is beautiful.) However, knowing that Metcalf is involved in Porcupine's Quill makes me less likely to buy any of their books, because I find him so unpleasant that I don't want to help him earn any royalties.
In all fairness, I shouldl say that the book is less dull and less tiresome as you get closer to the end, but by that point the author has already eliminated any possibility of my seeing him in a pleasant or sympathetic light. Perhaps it sounds harsh, but no matter. It is quite clear from the contents of this book that Metcalf would feel the same way about me.
More significantly, based on the information in this book and no prior conceptions, I found the author to be a thoroughly unpleasant person. I found him to be so unpleasant that after the first couple of chapters, I was holding the book horizontally in the subway instead of vertically as is my custom, so that people wouldn't see that I was reading this author's memoirs.
Now here's a strange reaction: I was going to enumerate the precise reasons why I found this author to be such an unpleasant person, but then I thought "That wouldn't really be fair. After all, we don't know his side of the story." Then I realized this is a strange reaction to an autobiography. After all, the book is the author's own word. Why would I think, even for a moment, that I don't know his side of the story? Upon reflection, I realized that I was subconsciouly getting the impression that the author isn't really the person he's portraying himself as. I was getting the impression that he was pretending to be more crotchety and curmudgeonly and closed-minded than he really is. Of course, I have no way of knowing this since the only impression I've ever had of Metcalf is from this book.
So I won't comment on what kind of a person Metcalf actually is, but I will tell you that he succeeded in representing him self in a way that caused me to have the following two reactions:
1. When Metcalf mentioned that he couldn't fathom why someone would accuse him of misogyny, the first thought that popped into my head was "Perhaps they'd read your work?"
2. When Metcalf described experiencing chest pains and getting diagnosed with angina, my immediate gut reaction was "What do you expect?"
I was also disappointed to see that Metcalf is involved with Porcupine's Quill. I've enjoyed every Porcupine's Quill book I've ever read and I find that their books tend to be physically beautiful, with well-chosen paper and attractive covers and binding. (Not that this is hugely important, mind, but there is something heartening about reading a book that is beautiful.) However, knowing that Metcalf is involved in Porcupine's Quill makes me less likely to buy any of their books, because I find him so unpleasant that I don't want to help him earn any royalties.
In all fairness, I shouldl say that the book is less dull and less tiresome as you get closer to the end, but by that point the author has already eliminated any possibility of my seeing him in a pleasant or sympathetic light. Perhaps it sounds harsh, but no matter. It is quite clear from the contents of this book that Metcalf would feel the same way about me.
Random thought
As I've mentioned before, I have remarkably low novelty-seeking. This doesn't bother me at all - in fact it's quite convenient. The funny part is how much it bothers certain other people. Not even people who are terribly close to me - random acquaintances mostly. I've had people get actually offended because I'm sufficiently amused in a situation that they deem to have insufficient amusement value. Which is quite amusing in and of itself.
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Some visual effects don't stand up to time so well
I'm watching Return of the Jedi, and I just noticed that they keep using different wipes whenever they change scenes. It reminds me of someone just learning to use PowerPoint playing with transitions: "Look what I can do!" Of course, all of Star Wars, as much as it comforts us and makes us run around pretending to be Jedi, is really just George Lucas going "Look what I can do!"
Friday, January 28, 2005
How to improve political discourse
I think general global political discourse could be much improved if various opinions on the situation in the Middle East were not automatically considered to be "left-wing" or "right-wing". We all have a general idea of what constitutes being left-wing or right-wing in the areas of social and economic policy, but the Middle East has nothing to do with any of this. It's even a bit different from general foreign policy. It's a complex situation with a lot of history where both parties have been wronged to a certain extent and both parties have wronged others to a certain extent, and equating "left-wing" and "right-wing" with enthusiastic support for one side or the other simply trivializes the whole situation. I think the best thing those of us who are not directly involved can do is encourage our political parties (and, to a slightly lesser extent, our governments) not to make this a major part of their policy at all but rather assess every individual sub-issue and new occurrence on its own merit and only speak out or act on the most serious, worthy occurrences.
Is this really appropriate attire for Auschwitz survivors?
In the newspapers they were showing photos of Auschwitz survivors marking the 60th anniversary of the camp's liberation. The weird thing is that they had them wearing blue and white prisoner-striped hats and sashes made of the same material with their numbers and badges on them. Is that really appropriate? I haven't heard anyone speak out about it, but it seems a touch undignified for Holocaust survivors.
Edit: Here is a close-up of the sash with the number and badge and the gentleman on the right in the first picture on this page is wearing the hat. Does it bother anyone else that someone actually manufactured these things, then looked up each survivor's number and classification to make them a personalized sash? That seems really creepy to me.
Edit: Here is a close-up of the sash with the number and badge and the gentleman on the right in the first picture on this page is wearing the hat. Does it bother anyone else that someone actually manufactured these things, then looked up each survivor's number and classification to make them a personalized sash? That seems really creepy to me.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
A formula for evaluating age differences in a relationship
We all know about the formula to measure social acceptability, where you take the age of the older party, divide it by two, and add seven years to determine the minimum age of the younger party. This is all well and good, but there are age differences that may fall within the socially acceptable range, but that you yourself might be uncomfortable with. I've come up with a formula to solve that.
Simply take the other party's age and divide it by your own age so you get a fraction (which can be proper or improper). Then multiply the fraction by your age, and think about how you'd feel about dating someone of the resulting age.
I'll give a few examples. These are not intended to reflect any real-life couples, they are chosen for pure mathematical simplicity.
Suppose you are 25, and you're considering a relationship with someone who is 30.
Take your own age and divide it by the other party's age: 25/30 = 5/6
Then multiply the fraction by your own age: 25*5/6=20.8333
Then think about how you'd feel about a relationship with someone who is not quite 21. If that seems too young for an equal partner, you can wait a bit until you're both older and the gap between your ages is less significant. If it doesn't seem like a significant difference, then you can reasonably assume that your partner considers you an equal (or if they don't it's not for reasons of age).
It also works if you're the older party. Suppose you're 50, and you're considering a relationship with someone who's 40.
Take your own age and divide it by the other party's age: 50/40=5/4
Then multiply the fraction by your own age: 50*5/4=62.5
Then simply ask yourself how you would feel about having a partner who's 62.5. Old fogey or peer?
Note that if you run this formula for an age difference of x years over the course of a hypothetical lifetime (e.g. 18 and 20, 28 and 30, 58 and 60, 98 and 100) the result of the formula doesn't seem to change that much with respect to the two ages. That's because it's designed to be run only right now. For example, an 18-year-old considering dating a 20-year-old can easily imagine how they might feel about dating a 16.2-year-old. And a 28-year-old considering dating a 30-year-old can easily imagine how they might feel about dating a 26.1333-year-old. But an 18-year-old can't imagine how they'll feel in ten years about dating a 26.1333-year-old. It's simply intended to give the user some perspective on how the other party might consciously or subconsciously assess their age and/or maturity.
Simply take the other party's age and divide it by your own age so you get a fraction (which can be proper or improper). Then multiply the fraction by your age, and think about how you'd feel about dating someone of the resulting age.
I'll give a few examples. These are not intended to reflect any real-life couples, they are chosen for pure mathematical simplicity.
Suppose you are 25, and you're considering a relationship with someone who is 30.
Take your own age and divide it by the other party's age: 25/30 = 5/6
Then multiply the fraction by your own age: 25*5/6=20.8333
Then think about how you'd feel about a relationship with someone who is not quite 21. If that seems too young for an equal partner, you can wait a bit until you're both older and the gap between your ages is less significant. If it doesn't seem like a significant difference, then you can reasonably assume that your partner considers you an equal (or if they don't it's not for reasons of age).
It also works if you're the older party. Suppose you're 50, and you're considering a relationship with someone who's 40.
Take your own age and divide it by the other party's age: 50/40=5/4
Then multiply the fraction by your own age: 50*5/4=62.5
Then simply ask yourself how you would feel about having a partner who's 62.5. Old fogey or peer?
Note that if you run this formula for an age difference of x years over the course of a hypothetical lifetime (e.g. 18 and 20, 28 and 30, 58 and 60, 98 and 100) the result of the formula doesn't seem to change that much with respect to the two ages. That's because it's designed to be run only right now. For example, an 18-year-old considering dating a 20-year-old can easily imagine how they might feel about dating a 16.2-year-old. And a 28-year-old considering dating a 30-year-old can easily imagine how they might feel about dating a 26.1333-year-old. But an 18-year-old can't imagine how they'll feel in ten years about dating a 26.1333-year-old. It's simply intended to give the user some perspective on how the other party might consciously or subconsciously assess their age and/or maturity.
The benefits of unique headwear, and other stories
Today at work I felt like the crappitiest crap ever crapped. I was tired and grumpy and couldn't concentrate or focus. My eyes were tired and breathing was way too much work. I'd decided that I was going to go home sick. I could hear that my boss was on the phone, so I closed my eyes for just a moment while I waited for him to get off the phone so I could tell him I was going home sick. An epic saga then unfolded before my eyes involving waterfowl and catholicism and preposition usage. Battles were won and lost, dynasties rose and fell, the history of a galaxy played itself out. Suddenly the beep of someone swiping a security card startled me out of my REM sleep. It was 10 minutes later, and I felt bright-eyed and re-energized, like I could take on the world. Most efficient nap ever! (Although I still decided to skip class today anyway).
This winter I'm wearing a red wool cloche hat. It's been really cold for quite a long time, so I've been wearing this had for many days in a row. Because of this hat, the people in stores and stuff are starting to recognize me. I'm all "The Lady With The Funny Hat" now.
I inadvertently bought $8 nail polish today (I didn't see the price, assumed it was similar to the price of the other polishes, and didn't find out how much it cost until I got to the checkout). I'm so going to hell for that. To add insult to injury, it's only 11 mL (compared with 14 mL for my usual polish), and you need two THICK coats to get decent colour! On the bright side, my toenails are now the most fascinating shade of blue ever!
I got this ad in the mail "Why rent when you can own?" It was advertising mortgage rates from some bank. They had done their audience targeting well - on the list of mortgage rates and the corresponding monthly payments, the highlighted amount was the base cost of some of the new condos they're builing in this area, and the monthly payment was very close to what I'm paying in rent. However, the asterisks next to the amount of the principle (or is it principal in this case?) led to a footnote that said "Including the cost of private mortgage insurance." So I can't get ~$150,000 worth of condo for what I'm paying in rent, I could only get less than that because of the mortgage insurance thing. And people wonder why I'm waiting to save up for a 25% downpayment!
One more thing I forgot: this salon near me is advertising how they can give you Donald Trump's hairdo. And they're trying to sell it in that it's sexy! GAH! Let me make this perfectly clear: Donald Trump is not capable of being sexy! Even if he were, all the sexiness potential he might have had would have been eliminated completely by the whole serial trophy wife thing. (It's times like this I wish we had a proper subjunctive in English). Let this be a warning to anyone who was even considering this: emulate Donald Trump, and you will be like a north magnet in a sea of north magnets.
This winter I'm wearing a red wool cloche hat. It's been really cold for quite a long time, so I've been wearing this had for many days in a row. Because of this hat, the people in stores and stuff are starting to recognize me. I'm all "The Lady With The Funny Hat" now.
I inadvertently bought $8 nail polish today (I didn't see the price, assumed it was similar to the price of the other polishes, and didn't find out how much it cost until I got to the checkout). I'm so going to hell for that. To add insult to injury, it's only 11 mL (compared with 14 mL for my usual polish), and you need two THICK coats to get decent colour! On the bright side, my toenails are now the most fascinating shade of blue ever!
I got this ad in the mail "Why rent when you can own?" It was advertising mortgage rates from some bank. They had done their audience targeting well - on the list of mortgage rates and the corresponding monthly payments, the highlighted amount was the base cost of some of the new condos they're builing in this area, and the monthly payment was very close to what I'm paying in rent. However, the asterisks next to the amount of the principle (or is it principal in this case?) led to a footnote that said "Including the cost of private mortgage insurance." So I can't get ~$150,000 worth of condo for what I'm paying in rent, I could only get less than that because of the mortgage insurance thing. And people wonder why I'm waiting to save up for a 25% downpayment!
One more thing I forgot: this salon near me is advertising how they can give you Donald Trump's hairdo. And they're trying to sell it in that it's sexy! GAH! Let me make this perfectly clear: Donald Trump is not capable of being sexy! Even if he were, all the sexiness potential he might have had would have been eliminated completely by the whole serial trophy wife thing. (It's times like this I wish we had a proper subjunctive in English). Let this be a warning to anyone who was even considering this: emulate Donald Trump, and you will be like a north magnet in a sea of north magnets.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Fuzzy, grey, and...sexy?
For my birthday, my mother got me these fuzzy charcoal-grey pants. They're just comfy warm fleece loungewear, not intended to be seen at all by the general public. The purpose of them is basically so I can have something comfy to wear if I'm sick or lazy but want to duck outside to the store, because charcoal is a lot less obtrusive than my fuzzy red pants.
I'm wearing these pants right now, and I just happened to walk past a mirror and I noticed...they look HOT! I have no idea why, but I look sexier in these pants than in any other pants I own. They aren't particularly fitted, and the fabric is thick and chunky, but somehow they hang just right.
They're from Old Navy, which prompts me to wonder whether Old Navy also has women's dress pants...
I'm wearing these pants right now, and I just happened to walk past a mirror and I noticed...they look HOT! I have no idea why, but I look sexier in these pants than in any other pants I own. They aren't particularly fitted, and the fabric is thick and chunky, but somehow they hang just right.
They're from Old Navy, which prompts me to wonder whether Old Navy also has women's dress pants...
The Group of Seven and Tom Thomson by David P. Silcox
I was first introduced to the Group of Seven (which, incidentally, had ten members) as a young child. I didn't like their work at the time because I knew it wasn't as realistic as painting could possibly be, and this coloured my attitudes towards their work right up to the moment when I read this book.
It's a huge-ass coffee-table book on archive-quality paper, presenting a wide assortment of the Group's paintings (not just the most famous ones) and providing some background and context. It was fascinating to read, for example, that the Group of Seven very deliberately went about trying to establish a Canadian identity (when country was only a few decades old), and, through their art, defined Canada as The North. While I identify Group of Seven paintings primarily as slightly abstract nature scenes using a bold impressionistic style with larger strokes - almost hurried sketches in oil paint - this book also showed some of their paintings of portraits and city scenes. The portraits are so realistic that if they were about 4x6" I could mistake them for photographs, and the portrayal of the buildings in the city scenes are also perfectly accurate and realistic. This made me realize that they can do realism, so when the paintings are not perfectly realistic, it must be for a reason. With this knowledge, I can appreciate their work much better. Their abstract portrayal of nature (which is sometimes juxtaposed against rigidly realistic portrayals of buildings) is alluding to movement and light. The painting is trying to represent the clouds scrolling by over time, for example, or the mottles of light streaming through the tree canopy. These are things that can't be captured by a camera, so therefore cannot be painted using realism. It's remarkable what they can do through allusion - the goldish tints make the scene an autumn sunset, the blue alludes to the long shadows of a winter afternoon. It's particularly effective when I take my glasses off and let my astigmatism help me.
All in all, it was a very interesting and educational book. Unfortunately, it's too expensive to buy and too big for reading on the subway, but interesting and educational nonetheless.
It's a huge-ass coffee-table book on archive-quality paper, presenting a wide assortment of the Group's paintings (not just the most famous ones) and providing some background and context. It was fascinating to read, for example, that the Group of Seven very deliberately went about trying to establish a Canadian identity (when country was only a few decades old), and, through their art, defined Canada as The North. While I identify Group of Seven paintings primarily as slightly abstract nature scenes using a bold impressionistic style with larger strokes - almost hurried sketches in oil paint - this book also showed some of their paintings of portraits and city scenes. The portraits are so realistic that if they were about 4x6" I could mistake them for photographs, and the portrayal of the buildings in the city scenes are also perfectly accurate and realistic. This made me realize that they can do realism, so when the paintings are not perfectly realistic, it must be for a reason. With this knowledge, I can appreciate their work much better. Their abstract portrayal of nature (which is sometimes juxtaposed against rigidly realistic portrayals of buildings) is alluding to movement and light. The painting is trying to represent the clouds scrolling by over time, for example, or the mottles of light streaming through the tree canopy. These are things that can't be captured by a camera, so therefore cannot be painted using realism. It's remarkable what they can do through allusion - the goldish tints make the scene an autumn sunset, the blue alludes to the long shadows of a winter afternoon. It's particularly effective when I take my glasses off and let my astigmatism help me.
All in all, it was a very interesting and educational book. Unfortunately, it's too expensive to buy and too big for reading on the subway, but interesting and educational nonetheless.
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Help?
I'm looking for this video I found a while ago. It has these guys in robot-like outfits acting out little skits demonstrating the difference between real life and the internet. Has anyone seen this? Does anyone know where I might find this thing, or have any suggestions of what I can Google to find it? (Other than difference between real life and the internet).
Then I was inspired...now I'm sad and tired...
Logically I know that what I need to do to learn a new language is steadily work ahead. I've formally studied four other languages before, and I've got this down to a science. I need to read the material we'll be covering in class before class, and do some work, reading or studying every day. I also need to be constantly reviewing for the next test, so all the material on the test will seem blatently obvious to me come test time.
The problem is I don't wanna!
I just can't motivate myself to do the work I need to do. It isn't that hard, just reading my notes aloud to myself so I can internalize them, but I don't wanna. Since I'm not pursing a degree, it really doesn't matter how well or poorly I do, and really I'd rather read or play computer games.
I guess that's the problem with full-year courses. If this were two half-courses, I would still be motivated by the bright optimism that comes with starting a brand new class. But as it is, we're halfway through, it's the dead of winter, I'm doing okay as it is (thanks mostly to bonus marks), and aren't there just so many wonderful and fascinating things on the internet to get distracted by! And I guess the fact that I have a job has something to do with it too. When you've already put in an eight-hour day, some of which was spend doing the impossible, you don't feel like as much of a slacker even if you do completely neglect your studies.
The problem is I don't wanna!
I just can't motivate myself to do the work I need to do. It isn't that hard, just reading my notes aloud to myself so I can internalize them, but I don't wanna. Since I'm not pursing a degree, it really doesn't matter how well or poorly I do, and really I'd rather read or play computer games.
I guess that's the problem with full-year courses. If this were two half-courses, I would still be motivated by the bright optimism that comes with starting a brand new class. But as it is, we're halfway through, it's the dead of winter, I'm doing okay as it is (thanks mostly to bonus marks), and aren't there just so many wonderful and fascinating things on the internet to get distracted by! And I guess the fact that I have a job has something to do with it too. When you've already put in an eight-hour day, some of which was spend doing the impossible, you don't feel like as much of a slacker even if you do completely neglect your studies.
Saturday, January 22, 2005
One tonne challenge
So I went to the One Tonne Challenge website to see what it has to say. Turns out my emissions are 3.17 tonnes (out of a national average of 5ish). When I do all the reductions they recommend, it goes down to 3.14. The problem is that I have no control over my heating/cooling systems and the energy efficiency of my home and major appliances because I rent. So if I seriously wanted to reduce my emissions I'd have to move. Which wouldn't actually help the environment, because someone else would just move into my apparently and keep using the same HVAC and appliances. If they actually want me to reduce my emissions by one tonne, they should come up with some advice that's better for renters.
Brilliant Ideas that will Never Work: food price controls that make the healthiest food the most affordable
Some countries (I think France is one of them) have price controls on basic staple foods to ensure that things like bread and milk remain affordable to even the poorest citizens. I don't know exactly how this words, but obviously there is a mechanism for the state to put a ceiling on the price of food. The state can also make goods prohibitively expensive by taxing them (c.f. alcohol, tobacco). So what they should do is harness this power to make the healthiest foods the most affordable, and the least healthy foods the least affordable.
You would calculate how healthy a food is by working out the nutrition per calorie. Take the percentage recommended daily intake of each good nutrient, and divide it by the number of calories in a serving. This ratio could then be weighted so that foods with less bad fats and other bad things get a lower score than healthier foods. It's complex and I'm not a nutritionist so I can't come up with the formula myself - they'd need to take into consideration things like the fact that some fat is necessary, but too much is bad, and trans fat is unconditionally bad, or that some sodium is necessary but too much sodium is bad. Or fibre is good, but it isn't a nutrient strictly speaking. The formula would also have to be adjusted so it doesn't favour food that's low calorie, but has very few nutrients.
Anyway, my point is they work out a system so that healthier foods have a higher score and less healthy foods have a lower score. A big old tub of pure trans fat with no redeeming qualities would have a score of 0, and the single most efficient food in the world would have a score of 100. Then they put a cap on the amount that one serving of the healthiest foods cost, with the price cap being lower the healthier the food is. They would do this for, say, foods with a healthiness score of 65 and over. They could pay for this by incrementally increasing the taxes on foods with a healthiness score of, say, 35 and under. Since the price cap is per serving, using the standard Food Guide servings, you wouldn't have to worry about the fact that yes, one apple is cheap, but it won't fill you up nearly as much as one bag of chips.
They'd obviously need to check a few things first (like what if all the foods that were price-capped ended up being fruits and vegetables, with no protein in the mix?) but if they could implement this it would ensure that even the poorest can afford a healthy diet, and may help improve the health of the population as a whole.
You would calculate how healthy a food is by working out the nutrition per calorie. Take the percentage recommended daily intake of each good nutrient, and divide it by the number of calories in a serving. This ratio could then be weighted so that foods with less bad fats and other bad things get a lower score than healthier foods. It's complex and I'm not a nutritionist so I can't come up with the formula myself - they'd need to take into consideration things like the fact that some fat is necessary, but too much is bad, and trans fat is unconditionally bad, or that some sodium is necessary but too much sodium is bad. Or fibre is good, but it isn't a nutrient strictly speaking. The formula would also have to be adjusted so it doesn't favour food that's low calorie, but has very few nutrients.
Anyway, my point is they work out a system so that healthier foods have a higher score and less healthy foods have a lower score. A big old tub of pure trans fat with no redeeming qualities would have a score of 0, and the single most efficient food in the world would have a score of 100. Then they put a cap on the amount that one serving of the healthiest foods cost, with the price cap being lower the healthier the food is. They would do this for, say, foods with a healthiness score of 65 and over. They could pay for this by incrementally increasing the taxes on foods with a healthiness score of, say, 35 and under. Since the price cap is per serving, using the standard Food Guide servings, you wouldn't have to worry about the fact that yes, one apple is cheap, but it won't fill you up nearly as much as one bag of chips.
They'd obviously need to check a few things first (like what if all the foods that were price-capped ended up being fruits and vegetables, with no protein in the mix?) but if they could implement this it would ensure that even the poorest can afford a healthy diet, and may help improve the health of the population as a whole.
Fun with headline semantics
Globe and Mail headline:
"Martin threatens same-sex election"
My first thought upon seeing this:
"NO NO NO! God intended an election to be between a man and a woman!"
"Martin threatens same-sex election"
My first thought upon seeing this:
"NO NO NO! God intended an election to be between a man and a woman!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)