1. If your Sim is male, wants to have a baby, and doesn't have a female lover living in the same house, he can still "Try for Baby" with a female Sim by doing a Public Woohoo. I don't know yet if the birth of this baby on another lot will satisfy his "Have a Baby" need or not.
2. A Public Woohoo with a certain Sim counts separately from a Woohoo done in the home. So if your Sim wants to Woohoo with a large number of Sims, doing one Public Woohoo and one at-home Woohoo with the same Sim will count as Woohooing with two separate Sims
Saturday, April 29, 2006
Friday, April 28, 2006
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Attn: Sympatico customers
Frequent disconnects? Is your internet connection dropping every 1/2 hour to hour?
Lots of people are having that problem, as you can see on dslreports.com or on the Sympatico forums.
If you're having this problem, we NEED you to call 310-SURF and report it. Yes, it's annoying to have to convince the techs that you have a problem (although I got a really good tech - YAY John!). But until 100 people call in and report it, their tracking system doesn't consider it a widespread problem, so they'll consider you a one-off unless 100 people call.
So if you're having this problem CALL! They seem to be open 24/7, although I can't guarantee that.
Lots of people are having that problem, as you can see on dslreports.com or on the Sympatico forums.
If you're having this problem, we NEED you to call 310-SURF and report it. Yes, it's annoying to have to convince the techs that you have a problem (although I got a really good tech - YAY John!). But until 100 people call in and report it, their tracking system doesn't consider it a widespread problem, so they'll consider you a one-off unless 100 people call.
So if you're having this problem CALL! They seem to be open 24/7, although I can't guarantee that.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Brilliant Ideas that will Never Work: Stop Networking!
Attention everyone: stop networking right now! Just stop it! Don't try to make friends unless you're interested in social friendship. Don't try to make contacts who can get you a secret unadvertised job. Apply for and pursue only advertised jobs (although you can accept any unadvertised job that lands in your lap with no effort on your part - I'm not an ogre here!)
If everyone does this, then employers will have to actually advertise their jobs, and the whole employment market will become far more reasonable.
If everyone does this, then employers will have to actually advertise their jobs, and the whole employment market will become far more reasonable.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Coffins
Really, it isn't my intention to talk military every day, it's just that these issues keep coming up.
Now the federal government has banned photographing flag-draped coffins of soldiers, which is really odd because, while the US government did implement a similar ban recently, I hadn't heard anything about it being an issue in Canada.
I have opinions on this, but they don't matter.
The opinions of only two groups of people matter:
1. Families and other survivors of deceased soldiers
2. Soldiers themselves
Does it bother the survivors if their deceased loved-one's coffin is photographed? Would it bother the soldiers if their coffin were photographed after their death?
If so, they shouldn't photograph them. If not, it's fair game as much as any other occurrence.
Some rhetoric is equating photographing the coffin with photographing the mourners. This is not an apt comparison. Consenting to photographs of one is not equal to consenting to photographs of the other.
I can tell you that I would not want my picture taken while mourning, but I would not mind if a picture were taken of my coffin, or if a picture were taken of a loved one's coffin. If the casket were open, I might feel differently, but a flag-draped casket obviously isn't open.
But that's just my opinion, and it counts for nothing here. The issue should be left up to soldiers themselves and their survivors. Not elected officials, not military policymakers, not voters. Just the people directly affected.
Now the federal government has banned photographing flag-draped coffins of soldiers, which is really odd because, while the US government did implement a similar ban recently, I hadn't heard anything about it being an issue in Canada.
I have opinions on this, but they don't matter.
The opinions of only two groups of people matter:
1. Families and other survivors of deceased soldiers
2. Soldiers themselves
Does it bother the survivors if their deceased loved-one's coffin is photographed? Would it bother the soldiers if their coffin were photographed after their death?
If so, they shouldn't photograph them. If not, it's fair game as much as any other occurrence.
Some rhetoric is equating photographing the coffin with photographing the mourners. This is not an apt comparison. Consenting to photographs of one is not equal to consenting to photographs of the other.
I can tell you that I would not want my picture taken while mourning, but I would not mind if a picture were taken of my coffin, or if a picture were taken of a loved one's coffin. If the casket were open, I might feel differently, but a flag-draped casket obviously isn't open.
But that's just my opinion, and it counts for nothing here. The issue should be left up to soldiers themselves and their survivors. Not elected officials, not military policymakers, not voters. Just the people directly affected.
Westside Red
This is a California wine, but apparently it was designed to imitate certain European reds of impenetrable geographic names. To my untrained palate, it does this quite well. It's a very attractive bottle, and certainly worth seeking out if you don't feel like remembering the ridiculous names of Rhone wines. Which, I do realize, is quite possibly the stupidest reason ever for choosing a particular wine.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Half mast or not half mast
Apparently the government declared that the flag would no longer be lowered to half mast each time a soldier is killed (instead having all fallen soldiers be memorialized on Remembrance Day), then apparently reversed that proclamation.
I'm not sure how I feel about this.
I like half-masting because it's noticeable. I like the idea of it being very in-your-face every time someone dies - it keeps the debate alive on whether what they're doing is worth doing rather than having our soldiers shipped off places to warmonger to various degrees while the public sits by complacent. On a personal level, I like it because it's a reminder of when I've been derelict in my keeping-informed duties. If I see a half-mast flag and don't promptly know what it's for, then I know that I should read my newspaper more closely.
On the other hand, I am opposed to anything that glamourizes soldiering. I am of the highly-unpopular "What if they had a war and nobody came?" school of pacifism - I firmly believe that it is every human being's duty to reject all forms of military involvement (Yes, I am aware of the arguments against this position. No, that's not the point right now), and I think that any action that makes people think they'll be Great Big Glamourous Heroes if they get involved in the military is ill-advised in the long term. (This is why I've always been uncomfortable with Remembrance Day ceremonies).
I'm not sure whether a half-mast flag glamourizes combat deaths. I'm not sure whether the good achieved by keeping "OMG! People are dying!" in the forefront of the public mind outweighs any potential glamourization. Personally, based purely on intuition, I think I'd rather have a half-masting for every death and no Remembrance Day, but obviously that isn't feasible.
I don't presume to have any answers today - just a few good questions at best.
I'm not sure how I feel about this.
I like half-masting because it's noticeable. I like the idea of it being very in-your-face every time someone dies - it keeps the debate alive on whether what they're doing is worth doing rather than having our soldiers shipped off places to warmonger to various degrees while the public sits by complacent. On a personal level, I like it because it's a reminder of when I've been derelict in my keeping-informed duties. If I see a half-mast flag and don't promptly know what it's for, then I know that I should read my newspaper more closely.
On the other hand, I am opposed to anything that glamourizes soldiering. I am of the highly-unpopular "What if they had a war and nobody came?" school of pacifism - I firmly believe that it is every human being's duty to reject all forms of military involvement (Yes, I am aware of the arguments against this position. No, that's not the point right now), and I think that any action that makes people think they'll be Great Big Glamourous Heroes if they get involved in the military is ill-advised in the long term. (This is why I've always been uncomfortable with Remembrance Day ceremonies).
I'm not sure whether a half-mast flag glamourizes combat deaths. I'm not sure whether the good achieved by keeping "OMG! People are dying!" in the forefront of the public mind outweighs any potential glamourization. Personally, based purely on intuition, I think I'd rather have a half-masting for every death and no Remembrance Day, but obviously that isn't feasible.
I don't presume to have any answers today - just a few good questions at best.
Helpful Hint: Cover Girl makeup shades
In Cover Girl makeup colours, if you find that Classic Ivory is too pale, and Natural Ivory is too pale and too pink, and Creamy Natural is a bit too dark, Buff Beige just might be the perfect colour for you.
I must admit, after years of blending multiple shades together for effect, it's rather odd to have just one shade that works perfectly.
I must admit, after years of blending multiple shades together for effect, it's rather odd to have just one shade that works perfectly.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Fun fact of the day
The "freshly updated" version of Miss Manner's Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior contains the word "sluts".
Finding the location and context of this word is left as an exercise for the reader.
Finding the location and context of this word is left as an exercise for the reader.
Not dead or homeless
Please note that there have been no fires whatsoever in my apartment building, and everything is fine over here.
If you have no idea what I'm talking about, just carry on as normal.
If you have no idea what I'm talking about, just carry on as normal.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Thoughts from the comics
1. This is how I feel about parents
2. This is how I feel about children
3. "Goodness, Curtis, you've already had three helpings! This is a problem why? Your kid asks for food, you have food, you give your kid food. He's 11 years old! Of course he's going to eat ridiculously!
4. B.D. left a leg on the battlefield. Literally? Are there all kinds of limbs lying around on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and Sudan and wherever else battles occur, or do they clean up afterwards?
2. This is how I feel about children
3. "Goodness, Curtis, you've already had three helpings! This is a problem why? Your kid asks for food, you have food, you give your kid food. He's 11 years old! Of course he's going to eat ridiculously!
4. B.D. left a leg on the battlefield. Literally? Are there all kinds of limbs lying around on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan and Sudan and wherever else battles occur, or do they clean up afterwards?
Thursday, April 20, 2006
The This and The That
This one word from this one Seinfeld episode has been bothering me for some time. I just couldn't hear it clearly, and the online scripts didn't seem to get it either. Today I watched that episode with the captions on, and I GOT IT!
According to the closed captions, and I agree with this upon hearing it "brug-wa" = BOURGEOIS! Mystery solved!
Jerry: Now here's another little rule. When we see each other now, we retire to our separate quarters. But sometimes, when people get invloved with that, they feel pressure to sleep over. When that is not really sleep. Sleep is separate from that. And I don't see why sleep got all tied up and connected with that.
Elaine: Okay, okay. Spending the night is optional!
Jerry: Well now we're gettin' somewhere.
Elaine: What about the kiss goodnight?
Jerry: Tough one. You're call.
Elaine: It's brug-wa (?).
According to the closed captions, and I agree with this upon hearing it "brug-wa" = BOURGEOIS! Mystery solved!
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Property taxes
The federal and provincial governments can collect income taxes and sales taxes. However, municipal governments cannot do this. They can only collect property taxes. (Yes, I realize there are other, smaller, revenue streams at all three levels, but I'm sure you'll agree that these are the main sources that affect our daily lives).
Why are municipal governments stuck with this annoying revenue source that is not at all tied to the taxpayers' ability to pay and is very difficult to change when new revenue is required? I know it's some kind of law, but what were they thinking when they made it law?
Why are municipal governments stuck with this annoying revenue source that is not at all tied to the taxpayers' ability to pay and is very difficult to change when new revenue is required? I know it's some kind of law, but what were they thinking when they made it law?
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Things They Should Invent: sealed recycle container for apartments
I recycle the vast majority of my recyclables. Newspapers, cardboard, fine paper that does not contain personal information, wine bottles, plastics, coffee cans, and any food container that has a lid. However, I do not recycle cans that contained food.
Why? Because my building doesn't have a chute for recyclables. We have to take our recyclabes out to the dumpsters in the back of the building. I have a blue box (acquired through unofficial channels - apartments are not issued blue boxes) in my front hall, and I dump all my recyclables in there. When it gets full, about once a week, I take it out back and sort the stuff into dumpsters. Obviously, I don't want food cans, still containing food residue, just sitting there for days, practically in my living room. So instead I throw the cans away with my usual food garbage, which goes in a plastic bag in a lidded garbage can, and is thrown down the chute every night before I go to bed.
Why not wash the cans? Because the edges are too sharp to wash them thoroughly enough for my satisfaction. Why not take the recyclables out every day? Apart from my innate laziness, it is not always feasible to go to the back dumpsters every single day. Sometimes it is too dark and late to be hanging around dumpsters behind buildings, sometimes the weather is not suitable (putting paper and light, empty containers in tall dumpsters in 70 km/h winds = bad idea), sometimes the dumpsters are overflowing and nothing else will fit in. Yes, if I were the very most perfectest being in the world I'd go way out of my way and the cans would get recycled, but I'm not, I'm only human, as are most people. So here's what they need to invent to address this problem:
It's a resealing sort of container. You open the top, put your recyclables in, and then it closes and seals itself again. It keeps the smell in so your apartment doesn't get smelly and bugs don't come following the smell of food. When the time comes to empty it, you open it somehow, take out an inner bag, and dispose of the contents throught environmentally correct channels. I was once informed that a device very much like this exists for baby diapers, so it shouldn't be that hard to adapt it for recyclables. They could even use a similar device for organics once they've perfected organic waste collection for large, multi-unit buildings. The technology exists, let's get it adapted.
Why? Because my building doesn't have a chute for recyclables. We have to take our recyclabes out to the dumpsters in the back of the building. I have a blue box (acquired through unofficial channels - apartments are not issued blue boxes) in my front hall, and I dump all my recyclables in there. When it gets full, about once a week, I take it out back and sort the stuff into dumpsters. Obviously, I don't want food cans, still containing food residue, just sitting there for days, practically in my living room. So instead I throw the cans away with my usual food garbage, which goes in a plastic bag in a lidded garbage can, and is thrown down the chute every night before I go to bed.
Why not wash the cans? Because the edges are too sharp to wash them thoroughly enough for my satisfaction. Why not take the recyclables out every day? Apart from my innate laziness, it is not always feasible to go to the back dumpsters every single day. Sometimes it is too dark and late to be hanging around dumpsters behind buildings, sometimes the weather is not suitable (putting paper and light, empty containers in tall dumpsters in 70 km/h winds = bad idea), sometimes the dumpsters are overflowing and nothing else will fit in. Yes, if I were the very most perfectest being in the world I'd go way out of my way and the cans would get recycled, but I'm not, I'm only human, as are most people. So here's what they need to invent to address this problem:
It's a resealing sort of container. You open the top, put your recyclables in, and then it closes and seals itself again. It keeps the smell in so your apartment doesn't get smelly and bugs don't come following the smell of food. When the time comes to empty it, you open it somehow, take out an inner bag, and dispose of the contents throught environmentally correct channels. I was once informed that a device very much like this exists for baby diapers, so it shouldn't be that hard to adapt it for recyclables. They could even use a similar device for organics once they've perfected organic waste collection for large, multi-unit buildings. The technology exists, let's get it adapted.
Bad advice of the day
This lady writes into Dear Margo with an alcoholic 16 year old son. Margo ends her advice with "Tell your son he is going to A.A. for young people or he can live on his own."
Is that supposed to help? If I were the kid, that would be a no brainer. "I can move out? COOL!" I've never been an alcoholic, but I have been 16 and had my parents getting on my case about the stuff that I most wanted to do. If given the choice between living with my parents and having to stop drinking (and probably being subject to constant, annoying supervision), and moving out on my own where I can drink all I want without anyone nagging me, I would move out in an instant! I don't know about this kid, but at 16 it never occurred to me that moving out was an option, but if someone presented it to me as an option I would have been all "Brilliant idea!" At 16, especially considering the kind of political rhetoric I was exposed to as a child, I fully believed that it was perfectly possible to support oneself flipping burgers or scrubbing floors if one only budgeted properly, and I was sick of being guilt-tripped about being spoiled. I would have jumped at the chance to live away from my parents in bohemian poverty, feeding my addition without anyone getting on my case. I seriously doubt the so-called "threat" of having to move out would get a 16 year old to say "No, I think I'll live with my parents and stop drinking and be a good little boy."
Is that supposed to help? If I were the kid, that would be a no brainer. "I can move out? COOL!" I've never been an alcoholic, but I have been 16 and had my parents getting on my case about the stuff that I most wanted to do. If given the choice between living with my parents and having to stop drinking (and probably being subject to constant, annoying supervision), and moving out on my own where I can drink all I want without anyone nagging me, I would move out in an instant! I don't know about this kid, but at 16 it never occurred to me that moving out was an option, but if someone presented it to me as an option I would have been all "Brilliant idea!" At 16, especially considering the kind of political rhetoric I was exposed to as a child, I fully believed that it was perfectly possible to support oneself flipping burgers or scrubbing floors if one only budgeted properly, and I was sick of being guilt-tripped about being spoiled. I would have jumped at the chance to live away from my parents in bohemian poverty, feeding my addition without anyone getting on my case. I seriously doubt the so-called "threat" of having to move out would get a 16 year old to say "No, I think I'll live with my parents and stop drinking and be a good little boy."
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Ordinary Wolves by Seth Kantner
This book could do with more in the way of plot, but it's certainly worth reading because of the sheer exoticness of the subject matter. It follows the story of a boy living in the wilds of Alaska, to an aboriginal village (the book uses the word Eskimo, but as a 21st century Canadian I don't feel right using that word, and I don't know if the Inuit classification extends to Alaska), to an Alaskan city, and back to the wilds where he grew up, all while dealing with the whole world changing around him (late 20th century setting) and being from the only white family in the area.
I know that this description makes it sounds like one of those horrid coming of age novels with a boy and his dog and he's considered a loner even though he has a loyal best friend and he somehow has the freedom to run around wherever he wants without parental supervision, but it isn't like that at all. There are coming of age elements, there is a boy, but his dogs pull his sled instead of being his best friend, he is an actual loner without a close friend, and the reason he has the freedom to run around wherever he wants is because there is, quite literally, no one out there. It is so far removed from my urban life, but it doesn't feel like it's trying to make me feel guilty for it. It's simply different, and quite interestingly so.
I'd recommend any urbanite get this book from the library, just for a taste of a completely different life, but I wouldn't say it's worth buying because it doesn't have very much extraordinary in the way of plot.
I know that this description makes it sounds like one of those horrid coming of age novels with a boy and his dog and he's considered a loner even though he has a loyal best friend and he somehow has the freedom to run around wherever he wants without parental supervision, but it isn't like that at all. There are coming of age elements, there is a boy, but his dogs pull his sled instead of being his best friend, he is an actual loner without a close friend, and the reason he has the freedom to run around wherever he wants is because there is, quite literally, no one out there. It is so far removed from my urban life, but it doesn't feel like it's trying to make me feel guilty for it. It's simply different, and quite interestingly so.
I'd recommend any urbanite get this book from the library, just for a taste of a completely different life, but I wouldn't say it's worth buying because it doesn't have very much extraordinary in the way of plot.
Things They Should Invent: comprehensive comparison of all the ways of dying
I want someone to make a website with the pros and cons of every possible way of dying - how painful they are, how long they take, how long they cramp your style for, how undignified they are - so that the general public can make an informed decision of whether they want to reduce the risk of a particular illness or accident.
This idea came about when I realized that the vast majority of health advice out there has the ultimate aim of reducing the risk of heart disease (i.e. you should exercise, you should reduce salt, fat and cholesterol, you should watch your weight, etc.), but I don't actually know anything about how bad heart disease is. I'd imagine a heart attack involves pain, but then what? Either you have some pain and you die, or you live, and...what? If you've survived a heart attack, are you still able to live normally? Can you go back home? Can you go to the bathroom by yourself? Google tells me that there are certain medications or lifestyle restrictions, but are those just to stop you from having another heart attack, or are they for something else? It seems to me that a heart attack is not the worst possible way of dying - Alzheimer's or MS would certainly be worse, and cancer might be worse but I don't have enough information to know for sure. If I had a family history of Alzheimer's, maybe I wouldn't want to reduce my risk of heart disease, so I could die of a heart attack at 60 in a quick burst of pain rather than literally lose my mind at 80.
But there are lots more ways of dying, most of which I know very little about. That's why I want someone to put all this information together in one place - so people can make informed decisions. It seems a bit over-optimistic for everyone in the world to forego life's pleasures to achieve the goal of dying in their sleep at age 100. That will certainly work for some people, but we can't reasonably expect it to be applicable to everyone. The rest of the world should have the information they need to make an informed decision, if they choose, so they don't have to give up their favourite foods or activities or whatnot to prevent a less-unpleasant death, only to die a more-unpleasant death later.
This idea came about when I realized that the vast majority of health advice out there has the ultimate aim of reducing the risk of heart disease (i.e. you should exercise, you should reduce salt, fat and cholesterol, you should watch your weight, etc.), but I don't actually know anything about how bad heart disease is. I'd imagine a heart attack involves pain, but then what? Either you have some pain and you die, or you live, and...what? If you've survived a heart attack, are you still able to live normally? Can you go back home? Can you go to the bathroom by yourself? Google tells me that there are certain medications or lifestyle restrictions, but are those just to stop you from having another heart attack, or are they for something else? It seems to me that a heart attack is not the worst possible way of dying - Alzheimer's or MS would certainly be worse, and cancer might be worse but I don't have enough information to know for sure. If I had a family history of Alzheimer's, maybe I wouldn't want to reduce my risk of heart disease, so I could die of a heart attack at 60 in a quick burst of pain rather than literally lose my mind at 80.
But there are lots more ways of dying, most of which I know very little about. That's why I want someone to put all this information together in one place - so people can make informed decisions. It seems a bit over-optimistic for everyone in the world to forego life's pleasures to achieve the goal of dying in their sleep at age 100. That will certainly work for some people, but we can't reasonably expect it to be applicable to everyone. The rest of the world should have the information they need to make an informed decision, if they choose, so they don't have to give up their favourite foods or activities or whatnot to prevent a less-unpleasant death, only to die a more-unpleasant death later.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work: if you don't use your vote, you have to give it away
Some people don't vote because they believe their vote will not make a difference.
People who feel that way should be forced to cast their vote for whichever candidate the first person who asks them on election day wants them to vote for. After all, if your vote will not make a difference, it wouldn't matter who you'd give it to, right?
This rule would only apply to people who aren't voting because they think they're vote won't make a difference. It doesn't apply to situations where the would-be voter has a good reason for not voting. Examples of good reasons include: the voter is eligible to vote on paper, but no longer considers themselves a member of the community having the vote (e.g.: Italy); the platforms of the candidates are not available to the voter; the voter considers themselves incompetent; the voter is unexpectedly indisposed on election day.
People who feel that way should be forced to cast their vote for whichever candidate the first person who asks them on election day wants them to vote for. After all, if your vote will not make a difference, it wouldn't matter who you'd give it to, right?
This rule would only apply to people who aren't voting because they think they're vote won't make a difference. It doesn't apply to situations where the would-be voter has a good reason for not voting. Examples of good reasons include: the voter is eligible to vote on paper, but no longer considers themselves a member of the community having the vote (e.g.: Italy); the platforms of the candidates are not available to the voter; the voter considers themselves incompetent; the voter is unexpectedly indisposed on election day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)