Lately I've noticed a lot of podcasts where there really don't need to be podcasts. Harry Potter fansites are doing podcasts, Dear Ellie is doing a podcast, election campaigns are podcasting, it's ridiculous. And frankly, not only is it unnecessary, I find it less user-friendly than just posting in text. A podcast I have to download, which means I have to wait. No, I don't have to wait very long, but it is significant compared with the negligible load time of a text webpage. Then I have to listen instead of reading, which means that I have to turn off the TV and the music and listen to the phone, as compared with just idly scanning a page of text without pausing in anything else I'm doing. If I miss something I have to "rewind," if I get an instant message or an email I automatically miss something, and it's just generally more trouble than simple reading. And then once I do go to this trouble, I find that the content of the podcast does not actually require an audio medium. It would be just as easy to type it out and post it (especially since a typed-out soft copy of the script probably already exists), and easier for me to absorb in text form. In some cases, text form would be even more preferable. It's ridiculous to have Dear Ellie podcast a straight-out advice column, unless she engages in actual dialogue with the actual person who's asking for advice. SQ's Goblet of Fire in 8.7 minutes suffered from the podcast format, because it was done in the voices of the SQ people, and you couldn't tell by voices alone which character was meant to be which - you had to resort to your knowledge of the plot. Prisoner of Azkaban in 15 minutes, by comparison, was in text form, so I could read it and imagine the lines being spoken by the movie actors or by my mental version of the characters. There's just no point in using a new medium unless that medium is actually going to improve the user experience in a way that straight text can't. For almost every podcast I've heard, I'd rather have read a transcript than listened to the podcast.
In addition to all this, there's the fact that podcasts are not searchable. In my professional life, as well as for personal research, I use the internet as a corpus. If something is posted on the Web in HTML or any other searchable text format, it shows up in Google's index and I can use it to research terminology and collocations or look up random facts or find out the general opinion about something. A podcast just shows up as the presence of an mp3 to be downloaded, thus contributing nothing to my use of the internet as a language and research tool.
I think before anyone makes a podcast, they should ask themselves "What benefits will the users get from this audio medium that will justify their having to download a file and turn off their background music to listen to it." If they can't come up with anything better than "But it's cool!" they should just post a normal article or blog entry and save us all some trouble.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
The Meaning of Wife by Anne Kingston
I love the cover of this book. I think people should do this in their wedding pictures.
The book is a sort of general overview of the role of the wife in society. As with many general overviews, I found parts of it interesting and parts of it irrelevant to my reality. The interesting parts didn't really stand up and say "LOOK AT ME, I'M INTERESTING," but some of the shortcomings did stand up and say "LOOK AT ME, I'M A SHORTCOMING!" so I'll touch upon them here.
First of all, I think the book could have benefitted from greater separation between the concepts of "wife" and "mother". I realize they do tend to overlap, but I can identify with wife but not with mother, so it just felt like gratuitous alienation to me. Non-childfree people might not feel this way.
A rather strange reaction I had to the book was that in a few places I found myself wishing that they would give a father's perspective on the situation. A strange thing to wish for in a book about wives, especially in a book about wives that I felt was focusing too much on mothers. But at one point the book was dealing with the stay-at-home wives vs. working-outside-the-home wives (by which it really meant mothers - it did not mention stay-at-home wives without children, probably because that's an archaic concept in the 21st century), and it never dealt with the subject of why fathers might not be staying at home with the kids. In another chapter dealing with domestic violence, the book lamented the fact that domestic violence patterns can start as early as adolescence, when some girls are "flattered" that their boyfriends are possessive, controlling and isolating. But the book didn't even give the slightest mention to the fact that fathers are often possessive, controlling and isolating of their daughters, and the daughters are told by the grownups around them and society in general that this is a sign of love and they should be grateful for it. It can even start earlier than adolescence - I've seen other men tell the father of a beautiful female infant "Wow, you'd better lock her up and buy a shotgun," with the full intention that this horrible comment was a compliment. In this context, it's no surprise that some girls and women accept similar treatment from their boyfriends and husbands, but the book doesn't even mention this. I realize paternal attitudes is somewhat beyond the scope of a book on wives, but in these two cases the book really suffered from not having included mentions and explanations of these attitudes.
Which brings us to the overall problem with this book: it simply cannot serve any purpose because the role of wife is unique to each wife. In several places the author condemns society/the bridal-industrial complex/the magazine industry/feminism for painting all women with the same brush, as though they have the same goals and wishes in life, when in reality every woman's goals depend on her context, just as every role of wife depends on her context, and specifically on her spouse. The book acknowledges this, but doesn't address it itself. This makes the book no better than the things it criticizes, thus fulfilling no real purpose.
I didn't mind reading it, but I wouldn't actively recommend it to others.
The book is a sort of general overview of the role of the wife in society. As with many general overviews, I found parts of it interesting and parts of it irrelevant to my reality. The interesting parts didn't really stand up and say "LOOK AT ME, I'M INTERESTING," but some of the shortcomings did stand up and say "LOOK AT ME, I'M A SHORTCOMING!" so I'll touch upon them here.
First of all, I think the book could have benefitted from greater separation between the concepts of "wife" and "mother". I realize they do tend to overlap, but I can identify with wife but not with mother, so it just felt like gratuitous alienation to me. Non-childfree people might not feel this way.
A rather strange reaction I had to the book was that in a few places I found myself wishing that they would give a father's perspective on the situation. A strange thing to wish for in a book about wives, especially in a book about wives that I felt was focusing too much on mothers. But at one point the book was dealing with the stay-at-home wives vs. working-outside-the-home wives (by which it really meant mothers - it did not mention stay-at-home wives without children, probably because that's an archaic concept in the 21st century), and it never dealt with the subject of why fathers might not be staying at home with the kids. In another chapter dealing with domestic violence, the book lamented the fact that domestic violence patterns can start as early as adolescence, when some girls are "flattered" that their boyfriends are possessive, controlling and isolating. But the book didn't even give the slightest mention to the fact that fathers are often possessive, controlling and isolating of their daughters, and the daughters are told by the grownups around them and society in general that this is a sign of love and they should be grateful for it. It can even start earlier than adolescence - I've seen other men tell the father of a beautiful female infant "Wow, you'd better lock her up and buy a shotgun," with the full intention that this horrible comment was a compliment. In this context, it's no surprise that some girls and women accept similar treatment from their boyfriends and husbands, but the book doesn't even mention this. I realize paternal attitudes is somewhat beyond the scope of a book on wives, but in these two cases the book really suffered from not having included mentions and explanations of these attitudes.
Which brings us to the overall problem with this book: it simply cannot serve any purpose because the role of wife is unique to each wife. In several places the author condemns society/the bridal-industrial complex/the magazine industry/feminism for painting all women with the same brush, as though they have the same goals and wishes in life, when in reality every woman's goals depend on her context, just as every role of wife depends on her context, and specifically on her spouse. The book acknowledges this, but doesn't address it itself. This makes the book no better than the things it criticizes, thus fulfilling no real purpose.
I didn't mind reading it, but I wouldn't actively recommend it to others.
Lowering the voting age to 16
The Star is soliciting reader feedback on the possibility of lowering the voting age to 16.
Some of the reasons people are giving about why 16-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote are really disturbing. Because random people outside their demographic things their demographic does not care about politics? Because random people think they have too many other things to worry about? Because not all the issues will necessarily affect them immediately and directly? Perhaps those are reasons why an individual may exercise their own choice not to vote, but they certainly aren't good reasons to deny an entire identifiable group of people the right to vote.
People become interested in politics at different ages, and now there is far more information available than ever before, so anyone who knows how to use Google and has the patience and interest for a bit of reading can make an informed decision. I'd say let anyone vote who wants to vote, regardless of age, and people will self-select. Those who aren't interested in politics won't vote, and those who are interested, and therefore make the effort to become informed and engaged, will vote.
I would also propose giving the vote to anyone who can correctly answer the following questions:
1. Name all four political parties who currently have party status in the house of commons, and identify the leader of each party. State which of these leaders is prime minister and which is leader of the opposition.
2. Name any current cabinet minister and their portfolio.
3. Name any two candidates in your riding, and the party each one belongs to.
4. Name your riding's current MP and the party they belong to.
5. State any two parties' positions on any issue.
So if you can show that you're aware of who the key players are and that you've at least gone to the trouble to look at the parties' or candidates' websites to see what their platforms say about your favourite issue, you're in. If a 12-year-old can answer all these questions, let them vote. If some 60-year-old thinks Ernie Eves belongs to the Liberal party (as someone in Lindsay, Ontario, so famously did in a Toronto Star interview during the last provincial election), then they don't get to vote.
Some of the reasons people are giving about why 16-year-olds shouldn't be allowed to vote are really disturbing. Because random people outside their demographic things their demographic does not care about politics? Because random people think they have too many other things to worry about? Because not all the issues will necessarily affect them immediately and directly? Perhaps those are reasons why an individual may exercise their own choice not to vote, but they certainly aren't good reasons to deny an entire identifiable group of people the right to vote.
People become interested in politics at different ages, and now there is far more information available than ever before, so anyone who knows how to use Google and has the patience and interest for a bit of reading can make an informed decision. I'd say let anyone vote who wants to vote, regardless of age, and people will self-select. Those who aren't interested in politics won't vote, and those who are interested, and therefore make the effort to become informed and engaged, will vote.
I would also propose giving the vote to anyone who can correctly answer the following questions:
1. Name all four political parties who currently have party status in the house of commons, and identify the leader of each party. State which of these leaders is prime minister and which is leader of the opposition.
2. Name any current cabinet minister and their portfolio.
3. Name any two candidates in your riding, and the party each one belongs to.
4. Name your riding's current MP and the party they belong to.
5. State any two parties' positions on any issue.
So if you can show that you're aware of who the key players are and that you've at least gone to the trouble to look at the parties' or candidates' websites to see what their platforms say about your favourite issue, you're in. If a 12-year-old can answer all these questions, let them vote. If some 60-year-old thinks Ernie Eves belongs to the Liberal party (as someone in Lindsay, Ontario, so famously did in a Toronto Star interview during the last provincial election), then they don't get to vote.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Tales from the grocery store
1. Instant soup was on sale, 2 for $3, multiples of two only. Unfortunately, it happened to be on the top shelf, and the frontmost boxes had already been bought, leaving the remaining items a ways back from the front of the top shelf. Therefore, they were diffiult to reach if you aren't tall. The lady in front of me tried and failed to reach them, so she moved away and started looking around for a store employee to help her. Despite the fact that I'm only a bit taller than her, I decided to try to reach them. Holding onto my cart for balance, I stood on my very tippy-toes, far higher on my tippy-toes than you'd expect someone without ballet training to be able to stand, and blindly flailed my arm in the general direction of the boxes I wanted. I stretched out my hand and managed to curl my disproportionately-long fingers over some boxes. I pulled them down, unable to see what they were from my precarious position, and it turned out they were the ones I wanted.
Unfortunately, they were also the ones the lady in front of me wanted, and she was standing there expectantly. I tried to reach some more boxes, but they were all out of my reach. I had just grabbed the last two that I could reach. Fortunately, a very tall man came by and helped us a moment later, and everyone went home with two boxes of soup.
This makes me wonder what the etiquette would have been if no one had come along to help us. The sale was multiples of two only, so there would be no point in sharing the bounty. The other lady wouldn't have deserved to have to go soupless just because she happens to be a couple of inches shorter than me. However, neither should I have had to go soupless when I did all the work. It's quite the ethical dilemma.
2. Despite the fact that I went grocery shopping at 3 pm on a Monday, the lines for the checkout were crazy. There were so many people waiting to be checked out taht you couldn't always tell where a line ended. I spent like twice as much time standing in line as I did walking around the store. The dreadful irony of all this is that my grandparents emigrated for the express purpose of not having to wait in line for food. "Hi, Babcia? Guess what? Your struggle to immigrate and years of hardship were all in vain!" I do realize the difference is that the food is available, but functionally it seems to be a difference between standing in line before you have the food in hand, and standing in line after you have the food in hand. I still think there should be a rule that if you can eat all the food before you get to the checkout, you should get the food for free.
3. There are these people canvassing on the sidewalk for Sick Kids, and I always seem to encounter them when I have a particularly heavy load of groceries. Regardless of how worthy a cause Sick Kids is, I can't really just sit there and listen whiel carrying loads and loads of bags. It occurred to me a few minutes too late that I should ask these Sick Kids people to help me with my bags in exchange for a donation.
Unfortunately, they were also the ones the lady in front of me wanted, and she was standing there expectantly. I tried to reach some more boxes, but they were all out of my reach. I had just grabbed the last two that I could reach. Fortunately, a very tall man came by and helped us a moment later, and everyone went home with two boxes of soup.
This makes me wonder what the etiquette would have been if no one had come along to help us. The sale was multiples of two only, so there would be no point in sharing the bounty. The other lady wouldn't have deserved to have to go soupless just because she happens to be a couple of inches shorter than me. However, neither should I have had to go soupless when I did all the work. It's quite the ethical dilemma.
2. Despite the fact that I went grocery shopping at 3 pm on a Monday, the lines for the checkout were crazy. There were so many people waiting to be checked out taht you couldn't always tell where a line ended. I spent like twice as much time standing in line as I did walking around the store. The dreadful irony of all this is that my grandparents emigrated for the express purpose of not having to wait in line for food. "Hi, Babcia? Guess what? Your struggle to immigrate and years of hardship were all in vain!" I do realize the difference is that the food is available, but functionally it seems to be a difference between standing in line before you have the food in hand, and standing in line after you have the food in hand. I still think there should be a rule that if you can eat all the food before you get to the checkout, you should get the food for free.
3. There are these people canvassing on the sidewalk for Sick Kids, and I always seem to encounter them when I have a particularly heavy load of groceries. Regardless of how worthy a cause Sick Kids is, I can't really just sit there and listen whiel carrying loads and loads of bags. It occurred to me a few minutes too late that I should ask these Sick Kids people to help me with my bags in exchange for a donation.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Cataclysm: The First World War as Political Tragedy by David Stevenson
I picked up this book because I know very little about WWI, but I'm afraid it did not meet my needs at all. The only reasion I finished it is because I make an effort to finish every book I start.
I was hoping to find out in general historical terms why and how the war started (but more specifically than "the Archduke was assassinated"), plus some human interest details on everyday life during the war for the soliders and the people back at home. Unfortunately, this book falls into a middle ground that completely missed what I was hoping to get out of it. The best way I can describe its focus is that it is similar to what I'd imagine the focus of the newspapers at the time to be. It was smaller than the general historical context because they didn't yet know the historical context at the time, but it ignored the details of human interest because people at the time didn't need their newspapers to tell them what they wore and how they occupied their time and what kinds of shortages there were. The book does a battle-by-battle play-by-play, name-dropping generals and politicans left and right. All of which is perfectly valid, but not what I hoped to get out of it.
This problem is exacerbated by several annoyances introduced by the publishers and editors. The typeface is slightly smaller than usual, so there are more words on the page than in most books. This discourages me from reading further; it is rather disheartening when you've only finished five pages in your 13-minute subway ride. I also found the copy-editing conventions hindered readability. I don't know whether it was a matter of author or editor preference, but the book ended up using commas only when strictly necessary, as though commas were a non-renewable resource, thus causing me to have to reread sentences and make a concerted effort to parse them. They also had the annoying habit of writing "nevertheless" as "never the less," thus making me want to stop reading, fish for a pen in my purse, and insert proofreader's marks indicating that I think it should be written as a single word.
Overall, I would say that this book is not worth the aggravation unless you already have a good understanding of WWI and need the book for academic research.
I was hoping to find out in general historical terms why and how the war started (but more specifically than "the Archduke was assassinated"), plus some human interest details on everyday life during the war for the soliders and the people back at home. Unfortunately, this book falls into a middle ground that completely missed what I was hoping to get out of it. The best way I can describe its focus is that it is similar to what I'd imagine the focus of the newspapers at the time to be. It was smaller than the general historical context because they didn't yet know the historical context at the time, but it ignored the details of human interest because people at the time didn't need their newspapers to tell them what they wore and how they occupied their time and what kinds of shortages there were. The book does a battle-by-battle play-by-play, name-dropping generals and politicans left and right. All of which is perfectly valid, but not what I hoped to get out of it.
This problem is exacerbated by several annoyances introduced by the publishers and editors. The typeface is slightly smaller than usual, so there are more words on the page than in most books. This discourages me from reading further; it is rather disheartening when you've only finished five pages in your 13-minute subway ride. I also found the copy-editing conventions hindered readability. I don't know whether it was a matter of author or editor preference, but the book ended up using commas only when strictly necessary, as though commas were a non-renewable resource, thus causing me to have to reread sentences and make a concerted effort to parse them. They also had the annoying habit of writing "nevertheless" as "never the less," thus making me want to stop reading, fish for a pen in my purse, and insert proofreader's marks indicating that I think it should be written as a single word.
Overall, I would say that this book is not worth the aggravation unless you already have a good understanding of WWI and need the book for academic research.
Fun with election predictions
First, go to the Globe and Mail's Poll Tracker to get the latest split numbers.
Then, plug those numbers into the Hill and Knowlton Election Predictor to see how they affect each riding and the total number of seats.
Then, plug those numbers into the Hill and Knowlton Election Predictor to see how they affect each riding and the total number of seats.
My Sims can't seem to wrap their brains around the concept of death
Dina and Nina Caliente started out in the same fully-furnished house.
While playing another house, I got one of my own Sims to marry Nina, thus moving her out of the Caliente house.
Then Dina died of some illness while at a party in a third house.
This should leave the Caliente house unoccupied but fully-furnished, right?
The problem is the neighbourhood screen seems to think that the house is still occupied, so I can't move a new family into it - but if I enter the house from the neighbourhood screen, it is fully furnished but unoccupied.
I suppose I could go into the neighbourhood screen and move the non-existant Caliente family out of the house, but I really want to move a new family into a fully-furnished house so I don't have to bother with furnishing it myself.
Did the EA programmers really not consider the possibility that all the members of a family might die outside of their own house?
While playing another house, I got one of my own Sims to marry Nina, thus moving her out of the Caliente house.
Then Dina died of some illness while at a party in a third house.
This should leave the Caliente house unoccupied but fully-furnished, right?
The problem is the neighbourhood screen seems to think that the house is still occupied, so I can't move a new family into it - but if I enter the house from the neighbourhood screen, it is fully furnished but unoccupied.
I suppose I could go into the neighbourhood screen and move the non-existant Caliente family out of the house, but I really want to move a new family into a fully-furnished house so I don't have to bother with furnishing it myself.
Did the EA programmers really not consider the possibility that all the members of a family might die outside of their own house?
Friday, December 02, 2005
Tax cuts
I have been asked for my opinion on cutting the GST (as proposed by the Conservative party) vs. cutting income tax.
Extrapolating from my own experience of being at the very bottom of the taxation scale, I think cutting the GST would put more actual dollars back in the pockets of the very poorest. However, I do not know whether this would be enough money to be significant - I suppose it depends on the individual situation.
GST cuts, like income tax cuts, would save disproportionately more money for the very richest, because they have more disposable income to spend on GST-taxable items. However, I don't think this disproportionality can be avoided when you're doing tax cuts.
In my current situation, the maximum amount of money I could save with the proposed GST cuts is about $400 per year (calculated with the assumption that all of my net income that is not earmarked for savings is spent on GST-taxable purchases; IRL this is not the case).
In my situation in 4th year university (not my poorest year, but the one for which I can best remember the specifics of my financial situation) the maximum amount of money I could have saved with the proposed GST cuts is about $30 per year (working with the assumption that there is no GST in tuition or res fees).
$30 was more significant to me in 4th year uni than $400 is now, because I have more job security now. (I wouldn't say, objectively, that I have job security, but my current position is permanent, while in uni my job ended when I graduated, so I knew for sure that and when it would end). However, in both cases I would be more comfortable with the money being in government coffers, where it could be spent on income security programs. I don't know if it will be used for income security, but I know that it cannot be used for income security if it's in people's pockets, and I know that an extra $400 will not provide me with any meaningful additional income security.
I have become accustomed to paying the level of taxes that I am currently paying. They do not present any sort of hardship in my current incarnation as a middle-class professional, and they did not present a hardship in my previous bouts with unemployment and student life. I would rather continue paying taxes at my current level, and if the government finds it's collecting more money than it needs, have the government use the money to improve pensions, employment insurance, social assistance, etc. I fully expect to be unwillingly unemployed at some point in my life, and I would very much rather have enough income support in my unemployment that I don't have to live somewhere infested than have a few hundred extra dollars in my pocket now.
So, in summary, I do think a GST cut is more beneficial than an income tax cut.
However:
- this does not necessarily mean a GST cut would be a good idea
- this does not mean that a GST cut would be more beneficial than investing the money in income security
- this does not necessarily mean the Conservative platform as a whole is good.
I will be reviewing the party platforms this weekend if they've been posted on the websites, so I may come back to this later.
Extrapolating from my own experience of being at the very bottom of the taxation scale, I think cutting the GST would put more actual dollars back in the pockets of the very poorest. However, I do not know whether this would be enough money to be significant - I suppose it depends on the individual situation.
GST cuts, like income tax cuts, would save disproportionately more money for the very richest, because they have more disposable income to spend on GST-taxable items. However, I don't think this disproportionality can be avoided when you're doing tax cuts.
In my current situation, the maximum amount of money I could save with the proposed GST cuts is about $400 per year (calculated with the assumption that all of my net income that is not earmarked for savings is spent on GST-taxable purchases; IRL this is not the case).
In my situation in 4th year university (not my poorest year, but the one for which I can best remember the specifics of my financial situation) the maximum amount of money I could have saved with the proposed GST cuts is about $30 per year (working with the assumption that there is no GST in tuition or res fees).
$30 was more significant to me in 4th year uni than $400 is now, because I have more job security now. (I wouldn't say, objectively, that I have job security, but my current position is permanent, while in uni my job ended when I graduated, so I knew for sure that and when it would end). However, in both cases I would be more comfortable with the money being in government coffers, where it could be spent on income security programs. I don't know if it will be used for income security, but I know that it cannot be used for income security if it's in people's pockets, and I know that an extra $400 will not provide me with any meaningful additional income security.
I have become accustomed to paying the level of taxes that I am currently paying. They do not present any sort of hardship in my current incarnation as a middle-class professional, and they did not present a hardship in my previous bouts with unemployment and student life. I would rather continue paying taxes at my current level, and if the government finds it's collecting more money than it needs, have the government use the money to improve pensions, employment insurance, social assistance, etc. I fully expect to be unwillingly unemployed at some point in my life, and I would very much rather have enough income support in my unemployment that I don't have to live somewhere infested than have a few hundred extra dollars in my pocket now.
So, in summary, I do think a GST cut is more beneficial than an income tax cut.
However:
- this does not necessarily mean a GST cut would be a good idea
- this does not mean that a GST cut would be more beneficial than investing the money in income security
- this does not necessarily mean the Conservative platform as a whole is good.
I will be reviewing the party platforms this weekend if they've been posted on the websites, so I may come back to this later.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Pathos
Seen on the subway: a man, wearing a suit that he clearly bought when he was at least 30 lbs. lighter, carrying an old, worn-out briefcase straining at the seams with documents, holding an pair of cheap geeky glasses that are completely out of date yet entirely without retro irony, weeping silently and openly.
Poor guy.
I spent the rest of the day thinking up his backstory.
Poor guy.
I spent the rest of the day thinking up his backstory.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
How to Vote
In honour of the upcoming election, a review.
1. Of the parties running candidates in your riding, decide which one has the best platform that comes closest to meeting your needs and your vision of the country (hereafter the Best Party). Then decide which one has the worst platform that is furthest from meeting your needs and deviates the most from your vision of the country (hereafter the Worst Party). You are judging the parties as a whole, not the individual candidates in your riding. Assess each party individually without regard to possible strategic voting - that comes later.
2. Based on your own needs and your own vision for the country, decide whether it is more important to you that the Best Party win, or that the Worst Party does not win.
3. If it is more important to you that the Best Party wins, vote for the Best Party. If not, continue to the next step.
4. If it is more important to you that the Worst Party does not win, assess the Worst Party's chances of winning in your riding.* Not in the country as a whole, just in your riding. If you feel that there's too great a risk of the Worst Party winning in your riding, vote for the party most likely to defeat the Worst Party. If you feel the risk of the Worst Party winning in your riding is acceptably low, vote for the Best Party.
*Here are some suggestions for ways to assess sentiment in your riding:
- The Election Prediction Project
- Lawn signs
- General sentiment gleaned from talking to people
- Letters to the editor, if there's a local newspaper which has the majority of its leadership living in the same riding. This won't work in major cities, but it will work in smaller towns and cities
- Historical election results in your riding.
- Contact your local reference librarian and have them help you find out if any polls have been done for your specific riding.
- Extrapolations from seat predictions. This depends on the kind of predictions available, but sometimes it works. During the last election, the Toronto Star predicted X Liberal seats in Toronto, Y Conservative seats, and Z NDP seats. By looking at a riding map and using the process of elimination, I was able to determine which way my riding was predicted to go, and that prediction was correct.
Remember: do NOT use national polls to inform your strategic voting. Your vote is only effective in your riding. No matter how earnestly you vote, you cannot cancel out votes in another riding. Vote strategically only if the situation in your very own riding demands it, regardless of what the rest of the country is doing.
1. Of the parties running candidates in your riding, decide which one has the best platform that comes closest to meeting your needs and your vision of the country (hereafter the Best Party). Then decide which one has the worst platform that is furthest from meeting your needs and deviates the most from your vision of the country (hereafter the Worst Party). You are judging the parties as a whole, not the individual candidates in your riding. Assess each party individually without regard to possible strategic voting - that comes later.
2. Based on your own needs and your own vision for the country, decide whether it is more important to you that the Best Party win, or that the Worst Party does not win.
3. If it is more important to you that the Best Party wins, vote for the Best Party. If not, continue to the next step.
4. If it is more important to you that the Worst Party does not win, assess the Worst Party's chances of winning in your riding.* Not in the country as a whole, just in your riding. If you feel that there's too great a risk of the Worst Party winning in your riding, vote for the party most likely to defeat the Worst Party. If you feel the risk of the Worst Party winning in your riding is acceptably low, vote for the Best Party.
*Here are some suggestions for ways to assess sentiment in your riding:
- The Election Prediction Project
- Lawn signs
- General sentiment gleaned from talking to people
- Letters to the editor, if there's a local newspaper which has the majority of its leadership living in the same riding. This won't work in major cities, but it will work in smaller towns and cities
- Historical election results in your riding.
- Contact your local reference librarian and have them help you find out if any polls have been done for your specific riding.
- Extrapolations from seat predictions. This depends on the kind of predictions available, but sometimes it works. During the last election, the Toronto Star predicted X Liberal seats in Toronto, Y Conservative seats, and Z NDP seats. By looking at a riding map and using the process of elimination, I was able to determine which way my riding was predicted to go, and that prediction was correct.
Remember: do NOT use national polls to inform your strategic voting. Your vote is only effective in your riding. No matter how earnestly you vote, you cannot cancel out votes in another riding. Vote strategically only if the situation in your very own riding demands it, regardless of what the rest of the country is doing.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Thoughts on the eve of the government falling
As a voter, I don't feel that it's necessary to make the government fall right now. The decision to make the government fall today feels completely arbitrary to me - the opposition leaders are acting like it's extremely necessary, but to me it sounds like they're just randomly saying that. I'm equally disappointed in all parties for their lack of consensus-building, so as a voter I'm back at square one.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Pain
If you go to a doctor with a complaint of pain, the doctor asks you to rate it on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the worst pain you've ever experienced.
There are many problems with this, and I think I might have blogged about some of the problems before. But another problem that just occurred to me is that we experience pain differently at different points in our lives.
I've never given birth or had a kidney stone. I have broken a bone, but my only memory of the experience is overwhelming terror - I don't remember the physical pain itself. The worst pain I can remember experiencing is a bout of menstrual cramps at the age of 11 that left me curled up on the floor in the fetal position. If I experienced those same cramps today, I would still go to work and do whatever else I needed to do. I would be watching the clock and popping Midol and thinking lustful thoughts about heating pads, yes, but I wouldn't be curled up in a ball. This is because I've become accustomed to menstrual cramps, plus I can duck out of my office at any time if the cramps start to feel slightly digestive instead of having to wait until the end of my class.
So if I go to the doctor and am asked to rate my pain on a scale of one to ten, is my ten hardcore cramps as I experienced them at age 11, or is it hardcore cramps as I experience them as an adult? I haven't really experienced that much pain as an adult. I can produce pain equivalent to the worst I've experienced as an adult with impractical shoes and too much walking, but it's still pain I can work through. So how would some arbitrary number be helpful to a doctor?
There are many problems with this, and I think I might have blogged about some of the problems before. But another problem that just occurred to me is that we experience pain differently at different points in our lives.
I've never given birth or had a kidney stone. I have broken a bone, but my only memory of the experience is overwhelming terror - I don't remember the physical pain itself. The worst pain I can remember experiencing is a bout of menstrual cramps at the age of 11 that left me curled up on the floor in the fetal position. If I experienced those same cramps today, I would still go to work and do whatever else I needed to do. I would be watching the clock and popping Midol and thinking lustful thoughts about heating pads, yes, but I wouldn't be curled up in a ball. This is because I've become accustomed to menstrual cramps, plus I can duck out of my office at any time if the cramps start to feel slightly digestive instead of having to wait until the end of my class.
So if I go to the doctor and am asked to rate my pain on a scale of one to ten, is my ten hardcore cramps as I experienced them at age 11, or is it hardcore cramps as I experience them as an adult? I haven't really experienced that much pain as an adult. I can produce pain equivalent to the worst I've experienced as an adult with impractical shoes and too much walking, but it's still pain I can work through. So how would some arbitrary number be helpful to a doctor?
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Things that rock!
1. Cover Girl TruBlend Powder Foundation. I know I'm probably too old to be wearing Cover Girl, but this makeup works as advertised and I feel good wearing it. It would, however, benefit from having a wider range of colours available, and more colours available within the existing range. I wear a blend of two different colours, neither of which matches my natural skintone, but together they create a pleasing third colour that is a sort of idealized artistic allusion to my natural skintone. This works for me, but it would be better if they could match my natural skintone exactly.
2. Parissa 2-in-1 Roll-on Hair Removal System. Finally they combined the convenience of a roll-on applicator with the quick clean-up of a sugar-based hair removal system! Makes annoying hair removal much faster and easier, and even a little bit fun! The only problem is it comes with these weird sort of wax paper-ish strips, and I find unbleached cotton strips work better. So I use the cotton from an older sugaring system, and it's all good. You can buy cotton strips separately as refills for other sugaring systems.
2. Parissa 2-in-1 Roll-on Hair Removal System. Finally they combined the convenience of a roll-on applicator with the quick clean-up of a sugar-based hair removal system! Makes annoying hair removal much faster and easier, and even a little bit fun! The only problem is it comes with these weird sort of wax paper-ish strips, and I find unbleached cotton strips work better. So I use the cotton from an older sugaring system, and it's all good. You can buy cotton strips separately as refills for other sugaring systems.
Friday, November 25, 2005
How to make people paranoid
If you're ever near people having a conversation in another language, stare at them as though you're following along. If they look in your direction, quickly look away. If they start laughing, you laugh too. Then cover your mouth as if to hide your giggles and avert your eyes as if to say "No, I'm not eavesdropping! Who, me?"
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Free political advice!
One piece of political advice for each party that runs in my riding. In alphabetical order:
Conservatives: You seem to be trying to promote yourself by dissing the Liberals, but a lot of people are saying something along the lines of "I don't want the Liberals to win, but I can't in good conscience vote Conservative." You might want to be looking at why people feel they can't in good conscience vote Conservative, and change your policies accordingly.
Greens: Many people see you as a radical sort of party, but you are actually more fiscally conservative than most people think. You might want to emphasize this in your campaign.
Liberals: This is tricker, because, as the centremost party, people are complaining about your policies from both sides, and the fallout from the sponsorship scandal can only be healed over time. The best I can think of here is to distance yourself from Conservative policy on dealbreaker issues.
NDP: Many people want to vote NDP, but vote Liberal instead because they don't want the Conservatives to win. To counter this you should sponsor riding-by-riding polls at several points during the campaign. If people can see that the Conservatives aren't likely to win in their riding, they'll be more likely to throw a vote your way.
Conservatives: You seem to be trying to promote yourself by dissing the Liberals, but a lot of people are saying something along the lines of "I don't want the Liberals to win, but I can't in good conscience vote Conservative." You might want to be looking at why people feel they can't in good conscience vote Conservative, and change your policies accordingly.
Greens: Many people see you as a radical sort of party, but you are actually more fiscally conservative than most people think. You might want to emphasize this in your campaign.
Liberals: This is tricker, because, as the centremost party, people are complaining about your policies from both sides, and the fallout from the sponsorship scandal can only be healed over time. The best I can think of here is to distance yourself from Conservative policy on dealbreaker issues.
NDP: Many people want to vote NDP, but vote Liberal instead because they don't want the Conservatives to win. To counter this you should sponsor riding-by-riding polls at several points during the campaign. If people can see that the Conservatives aren't likely to win in their riding, they'll be more likely to throw a vote your way.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Advice
I've said this before, but I think it bears repeating.
IF you own a business or are in charge of a public space or institution, and
IF your business or public space or institution, for whatever reason, does something to mark a religious occasion, and
IF members of the public, especially of that religion, complain that your method of marking the religious occasion is not religious enough,
THEN I would recommend not doing anything at all to mark the occasion next time it rolls around, if not to save yourself some trouble, then at least for the amusement if seeing if anyone notices that you haven't gone to any effort.
IF you own a business or are in charge of a public space or institution, and
IF your business or public space or institution, for whatever reason, does something to mark a religious occasion, and
IF members of the public, especially of that religion, complain that your method of marking the religious occasion is not religious enough,
THEN I would recommend not doing anything at all to mark the occasion next time it rolls around, if not to save yourself some trouble, then at least for the amusement if seeing if anyone notices that you haven't gone to any effort.
How to build the perfect website for an eyewear store
Eyewear is a tricky business. It's expensive, serves both fashion and medical purposes, and has to be worn on one's face at all times. While eyewear does need to be sold in bricks-and-mortar stores so people can try it on and get second and third and fourth opinions and have it properly fitted and get adjustments when necessary, retailers could add so much value by having a useful, informative, interactive website that will help people do their initial research at home.
Seven steps to the perfect eyewear retailer's website:
1. Have a website, with hours and locations. Sounds obvious, but some stores don't.
2. List your prices for lenses and coatings, as well as the full terms and conditions of any deals you might have. I want to be able to walk into the store, look at a price tag, and mentally calculate what I'll have to pay. Come to think of it, list your prices for lenses and coatings in the store too! (And have price tags on the frames in stores too, *coughHAKIMcough*).
3. Show me your frames. All of them. Have an online catalogue like those online eyewear vendors do. You don't have to sell online, but show me pictures and prices. If the frames happen to come in different sizes and colours, tell me! I want to have the option of walking into the store with a list of style numbers, colours and sizes that I want to try on.
4. Let me search through your inventory effectively. With a click of the mouse, I want to be able to see all the oval frames, or all the oval wire frames, or all the oval wire frames with a lens size between 46 and 50 and a nose size 18 or 19. If there are only two frames in your inventory that meet my needs, let me find that out in 2 minutes on your website instead of by trekking all the way to The Big Mall and browsing through your entire inventory. Then, of course, show me which stores these specific frames are available at, and give me the option of having them sent to my local store for me to try on if they aren't there already. I know some chains' internal computer systems already allow store employees to do this. Now just make it available to the customer!
5. Have a price calculator on your website. I want to be able to enter the price of the frames and my lens requirements, and see how much I'll have to pay before I even leave the house. If you have promotions, set up the calculator that will automatically apply the best promotion to my purchase. For bonus points, have a reverse calculator, where I can enter my lens requirements, prescription, and the maximum I'm prepared to spend, and it tells me how much frame I can afford. For double bonus points, then let me select my frame preferences, and generate a list of the frames in that price range that match my preferences.
6. Let me enter my prescription too, so the computer can automatically exclude lens-frame combinations that are not compatible with my prescription. I would much rather find out that my hideously myopic left eye prevents me from ever being able to wear big frames before I get my heart too set on those big movie-star sunglasses that seem to be the fashion right now.
7. As an added bonus feature, set up a price-watch system, especially if you have ever-changing promotions. Let me enter my requirements (e.g. oval; wire-rimmed or frameless, amber, brown, bronze or tortoiseshell, single vision with anti-glare, plus a pair of sunglasses, oval, plastic, same prescription, all for under $X) and email me an alert when something like that becomes available. If I'm asking the impossible, give me a notice saying "The product combination you requested has never been available for less that $Y. Click here to proceed with this alert. Click here to modify your preferences."
I don't need to point out that the technology to do this already exists. Every online retailer works this way. Several online retailers have already applied this technology to selling glasses. If a bricks-and-mortar eyewear store picks up on this idea, and they will have my unquestioning loyalty. If I could do all the annoying preliminary browsing online, going to the store only to try frames on, show them to trusted friends for second opinions, and get properly fitted, I would not even consider going to a competing store that didn't have the online option.
Seven steps to the perfect eyewear retailer's website:
1. Have a website, with hours and locations. Sounds obvious, but some stores don't.
2. List your prices for lenses and coatings, as well as the full terms and conditions of any deals you might have. I want to be able to walk into the store, look at a price tag, and mentally calculate what I'll have to pay. Come to think of it, list your prices for lenses and coatings in the store too! (And have price tags on the frames in stores too, *coughHAKIMcough*).
3. Show me your frames. All of them. Have an online catalogue like those online eyewear vendors do. You don't have to sell online, but show me pictures and prices. If the frames happen to come in different sizes and colours, tell me! I want to have the option of walking into the store with a list of style numbers, colours and sizes that I want to try on.
4. Let me search through your inventory effectively. With a click of the mouse, I want to be able to see all the oval frames, or all the oval wire frames, or all the oval wire frames with a lens size between 46 and 50 and a nose size 18 or 19. If there are only two frames in your inventory that meet my needs, let me find that out in 2 minutes on your website instead of by trekking all the way to The Big Mall and browsing through your entire inventory. Then, of course, show me which stores these specific frames are available at, and give me the option of having them sent to my local store for me to try on if they aren't there already. I know some chains' internal computer systems already allow store employees to do this. Now just make it available to the customer!
5. Have a price calculator on your website. I want to be able to enter the price of the frames and my lens requirements, and see how much I'll have to pay before I even leave the house. If you have promotions, set up the calculator that will automatically apply the best promotion to my purchase. For bonus points, have a reverse calculator, where I can enter my lens requirements, prescription, and the maximum I'm prepared to spend, and it tells me how much frame I can afford. For double bonus points, then let me select my frame preferences, and generate a list of the frames in that price range that match my preferences.
6. Let me enter my prescription too, so the computer can automatically exclude lens-frame combinations that are not compatible with my prescription. I would much rather find out that my hideously myopic left eye prevents me from ever being able to wear big frames before I get my heart too set on those big movie-star sunglasses that seem to be the fashion right now.
7. As an added bonus feature, set up a price-watch system, especially if you have ever-changing promotions. Let me enter my requirements (e.g. oval; wire-rimmed or frameless, amber, brown, bronze or tortoiseshell, single vision with anti-glare, plus a pair of sunglasses, oval, plastic, same prescription, all for under $X) and email me an alert when something like that becomes available. If I'm asking the impossible, give me a notice saying "The product combination you requested has never been available for less that $Y. Click here to proceed with this alert. Click here to modify your preferences."
I don't need to point out that the technology to do this already exists. Every online retailer works this way. Several online retailers have already applied this technology to selling glasses. If a bricks-and-mortar eyewear store picks up on this idea, and they will have my unquestioning loyalty. If I could do all the annoying preliminary browsing online, going to the store only to try frames on, show them to trusted friends for second opinions, and get properly fitted, I would not even consider going to a competing store that didn't have the online option.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Open letter to white supremacists
While searching to see what the blogosphere had to say about the Cardinal McGuigan incident, I noticed that some white supremacists were citing it as an example to support their white supremacist ideas.
To those white supremacists: DON'T
It's already bad enough that some people are trying to make this about race rather than about the fact that a high school student was harassed and assulted and threatened for more than a year. By using it to forward your white supremacist agenda, you are simply providing more fodder for the unfortunate idea that it was all about race and not a valid sexual harassment/assault copmlaint at all.
This is not helping the victim.
If it really is strictly necessary for you to go around being white supremacists, do it in a way that doesn't make live even more difficult for victims of sexual assault.
To those white supremacists: DON'T
It's already bad enough that some people are trying to make this about race rather than about the fact that a high school student was harassed and assulted and threatened for more than a year. By using it to forward your white supremacist agenda, you are simply providing more fodder for the unfortunate idea that it was all about race and not a valid sexual harassment/assault copmlaint at all.
This is not helping the victim.
If it really is strictly necessary for you to go around being white supremacists, do it in a way that doesn't make live even more difficult for victims of sexual assault.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)