Interesting point on language use. I'll have to watch that in media coverage in the future.
I don't think the word "looting" should apply to taking food, water, batteries, and other necessities for oneself and one's dependents (in the functional sense of the word rather than the legal sense). That should be forgiven. Ideally one should anonymously send a bit of cash and an apologetic explanation to the store owner afterwards, but even if one doesn't it's easily forgiveable. This is "finding."
Then we need another level called "taking". This is for things that aren't necessities, but are quite important to help in the crisis. One of those solar/crank-powered radios, deodorant, a toy or book to amuse the kids, even a toy or book to amuse yourself if you're in a position where you have nothing else to do but wait. To do this in a civilized manner, you shouldn't break and enter (enter somewhere that's already broken into and don't do any further property damage) and make sure to leave some money or send some money as soon as possible. And, of course, if any stores are open, you should buy from them in the normal manner.
The word "looting" should only count when taking something for pure profit or to take advantage of the situation. Home electronics, jewelry, designer clothing that is not strictly needed, huge quantities of food or other necessities with the intent to set up a black market, etc. This one should be looked upon shamefully.
It's one thing to steal necessities when all the stores are closed and there's no way to buy them legitimately. It's quite another thing to approach a natural disaster with the attitude "How can I profit from this?"
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
How to evacuate in style
Hurricane Katrina has me wondering what I'd do if I had to evacuate the city. Neither I nor any of my friends in the city have cars, and I really can't see hitchhiking.
Then I realized I'm going about it all wrong.
Assuming there's a day or two warning, I would pack a suitcase, grab my emergency credit card, and head straight to the domestic terminal of the airport. I would then get on the first available flight to anywhere. Land in some city, check into a decent hotel for a couple of nights, and wait out the storm with movies and room service.
Yes, I know not everyone has the means to do that, but now this is off my "to worry about" list.
Then I realized I'm going about it all wrong.
Assuming there's a day or two warning, I would pack a suitcase, grab my emergency credit card, and head straight to the domestic terminal of the airport. I would then get on the first available flight to anywhere. Land in some city, check into a decent hotel for a couple of nights, and wait out the storm with movies and room service.
Yes, I know not everyone has the means to do that, but now this is off my "to worry about" list.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Killed and injured or wrongfully detained?
In a Letter to the Editor in the Globe and Mail, one Teck Yap asks: "Would you rather see some people wrongfully detained or many people killed or injured?" [That is the entire text of the letter as it appeared in print.]
I cannot answer that question unless someone can first clearly demonstrate to me that this is an either/or situation - that detaining people without full proof etc. actually does prevent people from being killed an injured. Then it's a question of the details of how many people are detained vs. killed and injured, and the exact conditions of the detentions, deaths and injuries.
However, I can tell you that I, personally, would rather be killed or injured than wrongfully detained.
Why? Well, if I were wrongfully detained it is quite likely that I would be sexually humiliated, maybe even sexually assaulted, and kept in a cell where bugs would crawl all over me, all this for an indefinite period of time. I would come out permanently damaged psychologically, unable to support myself or contribute effectively to society, and would spend the rest of my days looking for an opportunity to commit suicide, if I were not tortured to death during my wrongful detention.
I would find it a much more desireable fate to come to a quick and painless end, or even a bloody and dirty end without ever having to be sexually humiliated, sexually assaulted, or have bugs crawl all over me.
I cannot answer that question unless someone can first clearly demonstrate to me that this is an either/or situation - that detaining people without full proof etc. actually does prevent people from being killed an injured. Then it's a question of the details of how many people are detained vs. killed and injured, and the exact conditions of the detentions, deaths and injuries.
However, I can tell you that I, personally, would rather be killed or injured than wrongfully detained.
Why? Well, if I were wrongfully detained it is quite likely that I would be sexually humiliated, maybe even sexually assaulted, and kept in a cell where bugs would crawl all over me, all this for an indefinite period of time. I would come out permanently damaged psychologically, unable to support myself or contribute effectively to society, and would spend the rest of my days looking for an opportunity to commit suicide, if I were not tortured to death during my wrongful detention.
I would find it a much more desireable fate to come to a quick and painless end, or even a bloody and dirty end without ever having to be sexually humiliated, sexually assaulted, or have bugs crawl all over me.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Academic year conspiracy theory
I think universities begin their school year in early September because the campuses are still lush and green and the weather is quite pleasant. One can sunbathe and enjoy the outdoors and sit on patios into the long evenings enjoying one's newfound right to imbibe freely.
Then the air becomes cool and crisp and the leaves turn, invoking cultural nostalgia for archetypal academia - sweaters, coffee, stimulating intellectual discussion. The very act of going to a lecture or writing a paper seems somehow glamorous.
Then, by the time the leaves fall and daylight savings time ends and the cold drives students from the lush, manicured campus grounds into their tiny, bleak res rooms, it is too late to drop the whole thing and get one's money back.
Then the air becomes cool and crisp and the leaves turn, invoking cultural nostalgia for archetypal academia - sweaters, coffee, stimulating intellectual discussion. The very act of going to a lecture or writing a paper seems somehow glamorous.
Then, by the time the leaves fall and daylight savings time ends and the cold drives students from the lush, manicured campus grounds into their tiny, bleak res rooms, it is too late to drop the whole thing and get one's money back.
Sunday, August 28, 2005
Questions arising from New Orleans
1. Apparently the roads heading out of New Orleans are all gridlocked. Question: How, logistically, does that happen? Everyone is trying to go a very long distance in the same direction at the maximum speed possible. So how does that lead to everyone being stuck?
2. When a city must be fully evacuated, is there some provision for people who don't have cars?
2. When a city must be fully evacuated, is there some provision for people who don't have cars?
It's not a bridge!
We (or at least the Torontonians among us) have all seen the picture of that section of Finch Ave. that collapsed during that crazy rainstorm a couple weeks back.
I always thought the collapsed section was a bridge.
Turns out it wasn't a bridge! Check out these before, during and after photos! It may have been a culvert, I'm not sure, but from the perspective of someone standing on the street, it looked like perfectly ordinary street that was level with the ground!
I never thought I'd have to worry about apparently solid ground collapsing beneath my feet like a bridge!
I always thought the collapsed section was a bridge.
Turns out it wasn't a bridge! Check out these before, during and after photos! It may have been a culvert, I'm not sure, but from the perspective of someone standing on the street, it looked like perfectly ordinary street that was level with the ground!
I never thought I'd have to worry about apparently solid ground collapsing beneath my feet like a bridge!
Saturday, August 27, 2005
How much I hate radio commercials
Despite the huge drop in programming quality resulting from the CBC lockout, I still find it a better radio station to listen to in the morning simply because it doesn't have any commercials! I can't stand radio commercials! I'm not sure whether it is ethical for me to be listening to it during the lockout (I'm a union member myself and I don't want to scab), but I have listened to it a few times, and despite the sheer mediocrity and lack of the usual interesting and informative programming, it is still far better than the aggravation of listening to the commercials on commercial radio.
Parents and respect: a reality check
One of the things I find most unpleasant about parents (and, I would like to emphasize, by "parents" I'm not referring to anyone specifically; I am thinking more of a generalized aggregation of all the parents, real and fictional, with whom I am familiar) is that many of them - or perhaps a very vocal minority - seem to think they deserve an inordinate amount of respect, from their children and from societym just for being their parents.
Of course, everyone deserves a certain amount of respect. We all start at the "basic human respect" level, and then gain or lose points based on our actions. However, some parents don't seem to have an accurate notion of how many respect points they deserve. Therefore, in the shower this morning, I created this handy guide:
Bringing a child into the world: No points by default, although the child has the discretion to grant you as many points as they wish. "But but but..." No. See, the thing is, the child didn't ask to be born. I know that for some people being alive is a great wonderful exciting privilege. If that is the case, I envy you your joyful life. But for others it isn't particularly positive, and may even be negative. A great many people, if asked "How would you feel if you had never been born?" would reply "Well, I really wouldn't care, would I?" So it is possible that you might get points for this, but it is entirely up to your child, so don't depend on it.
Providing a child with the necessities of life: For succeeding in providing the child with all the necessities, you get exactly as many points as you get for providing yourself with all the necessities, because this is simply the most basic of duties, not some great heroic action. However, if you fail to provide the child with all the necessities, you lose more points than you would lose for failing to provide for yourself, because the child has even less control over the situation than you do.
Doing things that are not necessary, but that you think are good for the child: The level of respect you get from society will increase or decrease based on how good society thinks these things are. The level of respect you get from the child will increase or decrease based on how much benefit the child feels they are getting. This means that if the child doesn't like eating a diet completely free of fat or sugar or going on month-long camping trips during mosquito season to build character, you are going to lose respect points from the child, no matter how valuable you believe these actions are.
Actions or parenting policies that lose the child respect from their peers: Society will judge this on a cost-benefit basis, but the child will judge it solely based on what they have to put up with in the playground. I will explain this with an analogy. Several times I have heard people (both parents talking about their children and non-parents talking about their future children) say something along the lines of, "In principle, don't mind the idea of them indulging moderately in various minor controlled substances, but there is the tricky matter of my being held legally accountable for whatever goes on in my own home." Similarly, whatever parenting policies you implement, your child is going to have to pay for on the playground. For example, you might think it's good and frugal to buy clothes only at the discount store, and, after all, your kids should be taught not to set great store by appearances anyway, but the fact remains that if your child's classmates have decided that wearing discount store clothes is a spit-worthy offence, your child is going to be spat on. Their respect for you will decrease accordingly, because they see you as the one who put them into this situation. Society will be a little more lenient, however, and will likely forgive you if you could not reasonably have known.
Teaching your child stuff: This depends on what you are teaching your child. If you are teaching them skills, or stuff that is generally considered by society as a whole to be "good", you gain points - both from child and from society. If you teach them stuff that is generally considered by society to be bad, you lose points for brainwashing your child - and you lose extra points from your child for making them into a social misfit against their will. If you teach your child a skill that they would have been taught anyway, you only get points for the extra period of time that they know this stuff. For example, if you teach your child to read at age 3, but in normal school they would have been taught to read at age 5 anyway, you only get two years' worth of points, rather than a lifetime's worth. But if you teach them a skill they would never have learned otherwise, you gain a lifetime's worth of points. This category also includes situations where you arrange to have your child taught by a trained professional.
Paying for your child's post-secondary education: This really depends on the situation. Any points gained are automatically lost if you use the fact that you are paying for their education to attempt to control the minutiae of your adult child's everyday life. Points are gained if you paid for it unconditionally. However, you gain fewer points - and it moves closer to "providing for the necessities of life" - if you have in any way, intentionally or unintentionally, hindered your kid's ability to pay for it themselves. It then becomes less a source of extra respect and more basic human decency. For example, if you insisted upon taking long family vacations every year and would not allow your kids to stay home over the summer to work, you are then obligated to make up for the difference and chip in yourself. If you make so much money that your child cannot get student loans, you'll have to either co-sign on a private loan or help them out yourself. Intentionally hindering your child's education loses more points than contributing to your child's education gains.
There were more things I wanted to put, but I forgot.
Of course, everyone deserves a certain amount of respect. We all start at the "basic human respect" level, and then gain or lose points based on our actions. However, some parents don't seem to have an accurate notion of how many respect points they deserve. Therefore, in the shower this morning, I created this handy guide:
Bringing a child into the world: No points by default, although the child has the discretion to grant you as many points as they wish. "But but but..." No. See, the thing is, the child didn't ask to be born. I know that for some people being alive is a great wonderful exciting privilege. If that is the case, I envy you your joyful life. But for others it isn't particularly positive, and may even be negative. A great many people, if asked "How would you feel if you had never been born?" would reply "Well, I really wouldn't care, would I?" So it is possible that you might get points for this, but it is entirely up to your child, so don't depend on it.
Providing a child with the necessities of life: For succeeding in providing the child with all the necessities, you get exactly as many points as you get for providing yourself with all the necessities, because this is simply the most basic of duties, not some great heroic action. However, if you fail to provide the child with all the necessities, you lose more points than you would lose for failing to provide for yourself, because the child has even less control over the situation than you do.
Doing things that are not necessary, but that you think are good for the child: The level of respect you get from society will increase or decrease based on how good society thinks these things are. The level of respect you get from the child will increase or decrease based on how much benefit the child feels they are getting. This means that if the child doesn't like eating a diet completely free of fat or sugar or going on month-long camping trips during mosquito season to build character, you are going to lose respect points from the child, no matter how valuable you believe these actions are.
Actions or parenting policies that lose the child respect from their peers: Society will judge this on a cost-benefit basis, but the child will judge it solely based on what they have to put up with in the playground. I will explain this with an analogy. Several times I have heard people (both parents talking about their children and non-parents talking about their future children) say something along the lines of, "In principle, don't mind the idea of them indulging moderately in various minor controlled substances, but there is the tricky matter of my being held legally accountable for whatever goes on in my own home." Similarly, whatever parenting policies you implement, your child is going to have to pay for on the playground. For example, you might think it's good and frugal to buy clothes only at the discount store, and, after all, your kids should be taught not to set great store by appearances anyway, but the fact remains that if your child's classmates have decided that wearing discount store clothes is a spit-worthy offence, your child is going to be spat on. Their respect for you will decrease accordingly, because they see you as the one who put them into this situation. Society will be a little more lenient, however, and will likely forgive you if you could not reasonably have known.
Teaching your child stuff: This depends on what you are teaching your child. If you are teaching them skills, or stuff that is generally considered by society as a whole to be "good", you gain points - both from child and from society. If you teach them stuff that is generally considered by society to be bad, you lose points for brainwashing your child - and you lose extra points from your child for making them into a social misfit against their will. If you teach your child a skill that they would have been taught anyway, you only get points for the extra period of time that they know this stuff. For example, if you teach your child to read at age 3, but in normal school they would have been taught to read at age 5 anyway, you only get two years' worth of points, rather than a lifetime's worth. But if you teach them a skill they would never have learned otherwise, you gain a lifetime's worth of points. This category also includes situations where you arrange to have your child taught by a trained professional.
Paying for your child's post-secondary education: This really depends on the situation. Any points gained are automatically lost if you use the fact that you are paying for their education to attempt to control the minutiae of your adult child's everyday life. Points are gained if you paid for it unconditionally. However, you gain fewer points - and it moves closer to "providing for the necessities of life" - if you have in any way, intentionally or unintentionally, hindered your kid's ability to pay for it themselves. It then becomes less a source of extra respect and more basic human decency. For example, if you insisted upon taking long family vacations every year and would not allow your kids to stay home over the summer to work, you are then obligated to make up for the difference and chip in yourself. If you make so much money that your child cannot get student loans, you'll have to either co-sign on a private loan or help them out yourself. Intentionally hindering your child's education loses more points than contributing to your child's education gains.
There were more things I wanted to put, but I forgot.
Friday, August 26, 2005
Brilliant Ideas that will Never Work: rapprocher toutes les langues du monde
In order to make it easier for future generations to learn foreign languages, whenever a new object or concept is invented, it should be given the same name in every language. Overcoming the millions of sociopolitical barriers to this policy is left as an exercise for the reader.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
The problem with updating live
Click on the image above to see a screenshot of the CP24 website as it appeared on August 23, 2005, at 12:28 p.m. EDT.
I have not altered the picture at all - any forensic graphics geeks out there can confirm that. I think blogger converted it a .jpg, but I uploaded it as a bitmap.
This shows the problem of updating your website live instead of updating the whole thing then uploading all at once.
(For those who don't follow Toronto current events: the blonde woman is convicted - and recently released - rapist and serial killer Karla Homolka. The caption does not refer to her - it linked to a story about a completely unrelated sexual assault case.)
"I wish I hadn't given it up"
I've heard tell of grownups who took music lessons when they were a kid, then gave it up, and then as grownups were all regretful that they'd given it up. When I was young, I was not allowed to stop taking piano lessons because an aunt or some other random relative regretted having given it up as a kid.
So why don't these grownups just take up music again and stop complaining? It's not that hard - your starter keyboard or guitar can be had for a few hundred dollars, and sheet music is readily available commercially, on the internet, and in public libraries.
So why don't these grownups just take up music again and stop complaining? It's not that hard - your starter keyboard or guitar can be had for a few hundred dollars, and sheet music is readily available commercially, on the internet, and in public libraries.
Philosophizing
Something I was pondering today. While I've tried to phrase it so that it's more universally applicable, I'm afraid my roots are still showing:
Self-control and "good"ness are often associated with each other, the conventional wisdom being that human beings are not naturally "good" and we need to apply self-control in order to be "good". (For the purpose of this example "good" means precisely whatever the reader thinks it does.)
Suppose for a moment there is a person who requires no self-control whatsoever to be "good". They simply wander through life, doing whatever it occurs to them to do at any given time, and the results are entirely, without exception, "good". There's no self-control, no self-discipline, no self-denial, no effort. Everything they do is "good" because it simply does not occur to them to do anything that's considered less than perfectly "good".
Now suppose there's another person who is also "good" for their entire life, every word and every deed. However, this person has to make a continuous, concerted, deliberate, conscious effort to be "good". If they did whatever it occurred to them to do - like the first person does - everything they did would be completely "bad". However, they want, for whatever reason, to be "good", so they exercise self-control, self-discipline, self-denial at every turn, and as a result their actions all end up being "good".
So which of these two people is ultimately more "good"?
Self-control and "good"ness are often associated with each other, the conventional wisdom being that human beings are not naturally "good" and we need to apply self-control in order to be "good". (For the purpose of this example "good" means precisely whatever the reader thinks it does.)
Suppose for a moment there is a person who requires no self-control whatsoever to be "good". They simply wander through life, doing whatever it occurs to them to do at any given time, and the results are entirely, without exception, "good". There's no self-control, no self-discipline, no self-denial, no effort. Everything they do is "good" because it simply does not occur to them to do anything that's considered less than perfectly "good".
Now suppose there's another person who is also "good" for their entire life, every word and every deed. However, this person has to make a continuous, concerted, deliberate, conscious effort to be "good". If they did whatever it occurred to them to do - like the first person does - everything they did would be completely "bad". However, they want, for whatever reason, to be "good", so they exercise self-control, self-discipline, self-denial at every turn, and as a result their actions all end up being "good".
So which of these two people is ultimately more "good"?
Youthful hijinks
In cases where respectable, well-established older/middle-aged people committed minor crimes or misdemeanours (in the general sense of the word) in their youth, these incidents are often casually written off as "youthful hijinks". This is not always unjustified, as I'm sure everyone would agree that decades of positive contributions more than make up for, say, an isolated pre-teen shoplifting incident.
However, there are some problems with this attitude.
The first problem is that the fact that a misspent youth is so easily, so casually written off, that it completely devalues a person's youth itself. So people whose youth was productive and respectable get no credit for it! I'm not saying that we should all live or die by our high school years, but it's got to be frustrating to see, say, your adolescent tormentor get treated as just as much of a good person as you are, despite the fact that they made everyone's life a living hell for 10 years while you put up with that living hell to be a model student and citizen.
The second problem is that writing off the behaviour of youth of the past also writes off the value of youth of the present. The tacit assumption of the "youthful hijinks" excuse is "they didn't know what they were doing because they were young." This then leads to the assumption that young people in general don't know what they are doing, thus immediately devaluing the actions and thoughts and ideas and goals of young people. If someone's youthful criminal record can be dismissed with a wave of the hand as inconsequential because they didn't know what they were doing, then a young person's desire to start a business or get married or pursue an unorthodox career path can be dismissed just as readily, as a young person who doesn't know what they're doing. Just a phase.
The result of these two problems is that it disenfranchises the youth of today. They see that by the time everyone is 35 nothing they did will "count" any more, and they see that anything they do now will be written off as "they don't know what they're doing". So why make the effort? People with a very active desire to be a good person and a good citizen will still make the effort - although they might not get the credit for it that they should - but people who favour the path of least resistance certainly have no motivation to better themselves.
However, there are some problems with this attitude.
The first problem is that the fact that a misspent youth is so easily, so casually written off, that it completely devalues a person's youth itself. So people whose youth was productive and respectable get no credit for it! I'm not saying that we should all live or die by our high school years, but it's got to be frustrating to see, say, your adolescent tormentor get treated as just as much of a good person as you are, despite the fact that they made everyone's life a living hell for 10 years while you put up with that living hell to be a model student and citizen.
The second problem is that writing off the behaviour of youth of the past also writes off the value of youth of the present. The tacit assumption of the "youthful hijinks" excuse is "they didn't know what they were doing because they were young." This then leads to the assumption that young people in general don't know what they are doing, thus immediately devaluing the actions and thoughts and ideas and goals of young people. If someone's youthful criminal record can be dismissed with a wave of the hand as inconsequential because they didn't know what they were doing, then a young person's desire to start a business or get married or pursue an unorthodox career path can be dismissed just as readily, as a young person who doesn't know what they're doing. Just a phase.
The result of these two problems is that it disenfranchises the youth of today. They see that by the time everyone is 35 nothing they did will "count" any more, and they see that anything they do now will be written off as "they don't know what they're doing". So why make the effort? People with a very active desire to be a good person and a good citizen will still make the effort - although they might not get the credit for it that they should - but people who favour the path of least resistance certainly have no motivation to better themselves.
"It's just a phase!"
Parents say this all the time about children, and the implication is that the things that are important to the child shouldn't be taken seriously because the child might outgrow them. Sometimes the implication is even that it's wrong for the child to be interested in something because they won't necessarily be interested in it forever.
That's utterly ridiculous. Just because a person won't be AS enthusiastically interested in something for their entire life doesn't mean that it's of no value right now!
Think of the music you listened to in high school. Think how important it was to you then, how much it contributed to your life, how much value it had. Is that same music still as important to you right now? Maybe, maybe not. But if it isn't, that doesn't negate the fact that it was important back in high school. Just because your musical needs were different then doesn't negate the fact that certain music filled those needs.
Grownups go through phases too. My father goes through phases about what beverage he drinks with his meals. For a while he drank milk, then orange juice, then tomato juice, then water...I don't know what he's drinking now because I no longer live with him, but in general he drinks one thing exclusively for a while, then changes. I'm sure that if he asked for a glass of water no one would say "Pshhh! That's just a phase!" in a tone that implies that he really shouldn't be asking for a glass of water because when he's older he's going to want something else to drink with his meal. Even if he never feels like a glass of water again in his life, that does not negate the fact that he would like one right now.
That's utterly ridiculous. Just because a person won't be AS enthusiastically interested in something for their entire life doesn't mean that it's of no value right now!
Think of the music you listened to in high school. Think how important it was to you then, how much it contributed to your life, how much value it had. Is that same music still as important to you right now? Maybe, maybe not. But if it isn't, that doesn't negate the fact that it was important back in high school. Just because your musical needs were different then doesn't negate the fact that certain music filled those needs.
Grownups go through phases too. My father goes through phases about what beverage he drinks with his meals. For a while he drank milk, then orange juice, then tomato juice, then water...I don't know what he's drinking now because I no longer live with him, but in general he drinks one thing exclusively for a while, then changes. I'm sure that if he asked for a glass of water no one would say "Pshhh! That's just a phase!" in a tone that implies that he really shouldn't be asking for a glass of water because when he's older he's going to want something else to drink with his meal. Even if he never feels like a glass of water again in his life, that does not negate the fact that he would like one right now.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Cool thing about Sims 2
In Sims 2, if a child gets taken away from a family by a social worker, then another family asks to adopt a child, they'll get the kid that was taken away from the first family!
Monday, August 22, 2005
Because I like this quiz
You are Samwise Gamgee
A brave and loyal associate full of optimism, you remain true to your friends and their efforts, to whatever end.
But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer.
Samwise is a character in the Middle-Earth universe. You can read more about him at TheOneRing.net.
Ethical dilemmas
1. Living alone and eating out for five meals a week, I cannot eat a head of lettuce before it goes bad. Is it more ethical to buy salad in a bag, thus increasing my ecological footprint and creating demand for imported and packaged produce, or to buy lettuce in heads and end up throwing away food on a regular basis?
2. In the summer, I close my curtains so that the sunlight doesn't warm my apartment. However, sometimes I need light to see what I'm doing. Is it better to open my curtains, thus causing my apartment to heat up and creating more work for the air conditioner, or to turn on a light, thus using electricity by having a light on in the middle of the day?
3. Sometimes I can't finish a library book by the due date, and the overdue fine amounts are painless to me. Does the fact that I am giving money to the library - a very worthy cause! - compensate sufficiently for the inconvenience I am causing to my fellow citizens by keeping books too long? Is there a threshold number of days/amount of money at which this changes?
4. I have distributed computing software on my computer that is working to cure cancer. Does this justify the increased environmental footprint of leaving the computer on when I'm not using it? Is there a threshold in the balance between electricity demand and computing power where this changes?
5. I've injured my foot slightly. It's basically the minimum injury that would cause me to take care of it and attend to it - any less injury and I would be blithely ignoring it. However, the injury hasn't done much damage to my pace - I'm still passing the majority of the able-bodied people I'm sharing the sidewalk with. The only visible manifestations of my injury are a slight limp and the fact that I'm wearing runners instead of heels. However, I do need to take care of my foot so it doesn't get worse. Does this make me more entitled to a seat on the subway than the average able-bodied person?
2. In the summer, I close my curtains so that the sunlight doesn't warm my apartment. However, sometimes I need light to see what I'm doing. Is it better to open my curtains, thus causing my apartment to heat up and creating more work for the air conditioner, or to turn on a light, thus using electricity by having a light on in the middle of the day?
3. Sometimes I can't finish a library book by the due date, and the overdue fine amounts are painless to me. Does the fact that I am giving money to the library - a very worthy cause! - compensate sufficiently for the inconvenience I am causing to my fellow citizens by keeping books too long? Is there a threshold number of days/amount of money at which this changes?
4. I have distributed computing software on my computer that is working to cure cancer. Does this justify the increased environmental footprint of leaving the computer on when I'm not using it? Is there a threshold in the balance between electricity demand and computing power where this changes?
5. I've injured my foot slightly. It's basically the minimum injury that would cause me to take care of it and attend to it - any less injury and I would be blithely ignoring it. However, the injury hasn't done much damage to my pace - I'm still passing the majority of the able-bodied people I'm sharing the sidewalk with. The only visible manifestations of my injury are a slight limp and the fact that I'm wearing runners instead of heels. However, I do need to take care of my foot so it doesn't get worse. Does this make me more entitled to a seat on the subway than the average able-bodied person?
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Zonin Terre Palladiane Soave
This is the first Soave I've ever tried. I read that the word Soave means "smooth" in Italian. The wine is mostly smooth, but it has a bit of a taste at the end that I can only describe as "nutty" - nutty in the way Swiss Cheese is nutty, not nutty like actual nuts. It's pretty decent, but I didn't find it really superlative.
Sleep poll
This is a poll. Please respond in the comments. Anonymous comments are welcome in polls.
Apparently, it takes the average person seven minutes to fall asleep. I find this difficult to believe.
How long does it take you to fall asleep?
It takes me like 2 hours.
Apparently, it takes the average person seven minutes to fall asleep. I find this difficult to believe.
How long does it take you to fall asleep?
It takes me like 2 hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)