Now I should admit a perceived conflict of interest here: I am a card-carrying member of Night Owls International (Motto: "We do more after 2am than most people do all day"). However, this post isn't about circadian rhythms, it's about math.
When the legislature is in session, it sits from 1:30 to 6:00 p.m. and again from 6:45 p.m. until as late as midnight Monday through Thursdays, with the only morning sessions at 10 a.m. Thursdays for two hours of private members' business.
Bryant said sitting from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. would expand the number of hours for debate each week by as much as 50 per cent and make life a little easier for members with family demands.
So let's calculate this. First, the number of hours a week under the current system:
1:30 to 6 = 4.5 hours 6:45 to midnight = 5.25 hours = 9.75 hours a day * 4 days a week = 39 hours a week. + 2 hours on Thursday mornings = 41 hours a week
Now under the new system:
9:30 to 6 = 8.5 hours 8.5 * 4 days a week = 34 hours a week
So under the new system they'd actually be sitting for fewer hours a week! That in no way expands the number of hours of debate by 50%!
Now if the MPPs decide they want to sit earlier for work-life balance purposes, that's perfectly fine. A lot of people get to flex their work hours, and I don't think anyone will begrudge them that except for the subset of people who will begrudge them anything and everything on the basis that they're politicians. But don't go around saying it increases the number of hours of work when it doesn't! Frankly, I expected better from Michael Bryant, he's always struck me as rather sensible.
I would start this myself if I had a video camera.
It occurred to me today that Youtube would be the ideal venue for visual performances of John Cage's 4'33". There are some videos of musical performances, but instead of having it "played" on a piano or a violin or a guitar, I'm thinking it should be "played" on a video camera.
Here's how it works: set up your camera somewhere where you don't have complete control over what's going to pass through the viewfinder. Looking out the window, looking at the fishtank, or strapped to the dog are good. Pointing at a blank wall or sitting on top of your computer monitor filming your face are bad. Then press record, and wander away from the camera going about life as you normally would be, whether that has you in the same room as the camera or not. After 4 minutes and 33 seconds, stop filming and post the results on Youtube. You only get one try and you have the post the results of your first try unless it ends up invading someone's privacy in a context where they should reasonably expect privacy (e.g. if your camera is pointing out the window and films someone walking down the street, that's fine. If it's strapped to the dog and the dog wanders into the bathroom where your spouse is doing a bikini wax, don't post that one.)
Shuffle your playlist and press play. For each question type the song that's playing. Then press next and type the next song for the next question.
Opening Credits: Knuckle Down - Ani DiFranco That could work
Waking Up: Another Brick In The Wall (Part 1) - Pink Floyd Wow, that's going to be an intense day...
First Day At School: Baby's in Black - The Beatles This is going to be a weird story...
Falling In Love: I've Got a Crush on Your - Ella Fitzgerald My iTunes is smart!
Fight Song: In My Life - The Beatles I want to see a fight scene to that song!
Breaking Up: Don't Download This Song - Weird Al Yankovic Again, I want to see a breakup scene to that song!
Prom: Outta Me, Onto You - Ani DiFranco Could work if the prom doesn't take itself seriously. Actually, would work well since the prom comes AFTER the break-up
Life is Good: Excuse Me, I Think I've Got a Heartache - Cake Are we going for irony here?
Mental Breakdown: I Just Can't Wait To Be King - from the Lion King Hey, if it's a really thorough mental breakdown, why not?
Driving: Your Little Body Is Slowly Breaking Down - from Evita Well, I'm not a good driver...actually, this would work if I had a car I'm emotionally attached to and I'm driving it on its last trip ever before it dies
Flashback: Prologue from Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat Flashback to what?
Getting Back Together: Find Your Grail - from Spamalot That could work actually!
Wedding: Hallelujah - Rufus Wainwright For an emotionally complicated wedding, yes!
Paying the Dues: Yellow Submarine - The Beatles Am I paying the dues by working on a ship?
The Night Before The War: Space Man - Smash Mouth Am I in the air force?
Final Battle: Attack of the Radioactive Hamsters from a Planet Near Mars - Weird Al Yankovic I don't think this movie is taking itself very seriously
Moment of Triumph: Earth Intruders - Björk Okay, so this movie clearly involves a futuristic space battle. It would work though!
Death Scene: This Jesus Must Die - from Jesus Christ Superstar So now I'm the messiah too?
Funeral Song: Good Morning Starshine - from Hair Well, if I'm the messiah people are going to have to celebrate my death at some point...
End Credits: Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps - Cake Okay then, not the weirdest thing
Okay, so I'm secretly and unknowingly the messiah in a futuristic universe that includes space battles and where half the time the emotions of a situation are the opposite of what they should be.
Also, I don't think my iTunes knows how to shuffle very well. That wasn't nearly random enough.
It's obviously a big and loaded issue, but there's one thing I'm surprised they didn't mention: taking the school bus SUCKS!
I took the schoolbus in grades 6-8. Before and after that, my schools were close enough to our house that I could walk or my parents would drive me depending on circumstances.
The major problem with the schoolbus was you were trapped. You had no freedom. You had to be on that bus at that specific time, and you had no other choices. In grade 5 we could stop at Becker's for candy on the way to school, or go in early and join the pick-up soccer game, or sleep in a bit (or watch Jem and Punky Brewster) and get to school just in time for the bell. On the way home we could go to a friend's house or run home really fast to watch Ninja Turtles or dawdle and play Ninja Turtles. Then suddenly in Grade 6 we had to take the bus and all these options were gone. The bus got us to school half an hour before the bell - no more, no less. If you were a victim of bullying, you were trapped on the bus with your bullies, and you had to kill half an hour in the mornings before classes started instead of showing up just before the bell to minimize bullying opportunities. You couldn't go to the store and buy candy, you couldn't go to a friend's house without a note from your parents stamped by the office to let you on your friend's bus, there was just no freedom whatsoever.
My high school was closer than my middle school so I didn't have to take the bus any more. This was especially useful in OAC when we had spares. In my last semester of high school, I had first and last period spare, so I could sleep in a bit (which also eliminated bathroom battles with my sister, who had a class first period) and go to school for 10, then take three classes in a row and go home at 2 if I had nothing to do, or stay as needed for extra-curricular or social reasons. However, a classmate with a similar schedule who took the bus had to hang around the school from like 8:00 to 3:30 with nothing to do for hours. (Some people had cars in high school, but not enough that you could make policy on that assumption.)
Frankly, on a personal level, I would be pretty pissed off if someone tried to take that freedom away from me for the purpose of greater racial integration. Nothing against the people in the other school or the neighbourhood the other school is in, it's just the limitations of being dependent on a school bus. I'm rather surprised this hasn't come up as one of the factors.
Did people still used to dream in black and white before TV/movies/photography were invented? Because if you were completely unfamiliar with black and white images IRL, black and white dreams would be so bizarrely arbitrary!
I was googling for how to skip double dutch, and everything I can find talks extensively about how you need to get two ropes and two people to turn and one or more people to jump, and how to turn the ropes so they're opposite to each other, all of which I know. And then when it gets to the point that I want to know about, it says "Jump in!" Then it goes on about how you can do all these tricks and stuff, but never actually elaborates HOW to jump. I've never been able to figure this out! The turning isn't the hard part, the jumping is! Give us better instructions people!
- Suppose someone's got you cornered and is about to beat you up, and your cellphone rings, and you say "Just a moment, I have to take this call." Would that stop them, at least briefly before they go "Hey, wait a second..."
- Suppose you see someone else being attacked, and you just walk in calmly, completely ignoring the fact that there's an attack going on, and start talking to the victim and take them by the hand and lead them out "Oh, there you are, I thought we were supposed to be meeting over on the corner. Come here for a second, I need you to look at my car, the windshield wipers have been acting funny..." Again, would that throw off the attackers just long enough to make an escape?
- Suppose media coverage of the US elections (aside: are they going to be campaigning straight through until November? or do they get a break?) just didn't mention the fact that Hilary Clinton is female and Barack Obama is black. If the media stopped mentioning it as a factor would it continue to be a factor?
- In places where people like to go around shooting abortion doctors, what if the abortion doctors had extremely elite well-trained pregnant bodyguards? So if you shoot at an abortion doctor, a pregnant woman will jump in and take the bullet. Logistical and ethical issues aside, would that be an effective deterrent to the shooters?
Materialism is about having things. "Comfortism" (still taking suggestions for a better word) is about the ease and/or comfort that those things bring to your life. It would be very helpful to separate those concepts.
I love my ipod not because it's a sleeky shiny pricey toy, but because carrying around all my music at once makes life more pleasant. I love my appliances not because they're the very latest thing in energy-efficient appliances, but because they make life so much easier. I love my computer not because it looks cool and was when I bought it faster than anyone else's computer, but because it allows me to do whatever I need or want to do without any waiting or technical difficulties.
These motivations for owning consumer goods should not be given the same label as the motivations of someone who wants to own something to show off or be cool or impress other people or so people will go "Whoa, they have a solid gold Hummer, they must be rich!" (If people actually have these motivations - I've found that people are quick to ascribe truly materialistic motivations to others, but if you ask people about their own motivations it's for ease or comfort or convenience).
The problem with conventional opinions is that to the onlooker, a conventional opinion that you've blindly accepted without a second of critical thought looks exactly the same as a conventional opinion that you've analyzed deeply.
Suppose I say, "I don't believe in photons". Regardless of how sensible you think that opinion is, it's clear that I've thought about it rather than unquestioningly accepting what I was taught in science class.
However, if I say, "I think democracy is a good thing," you have no way of telling whether I've given the matter any thought or whether I'm just blindly accepting society's opinion.
Sex is a nice thing to dream about. So is flying. A quest or adventure dream is always good. Being a character in any work of fiction is a fun way to spend a night, and being given a plot that I can use to write my own fiction is always worthwhile. Barring that, I can appreciate any dream that will make a good anecdote, even if it is a nightmare.
So why the fuck did you make me spend all last night being 11 years old and stuck in the back of my parents' car while they drove all over suburbia doing boring errands???? Frankly, I'd rather have had a panic attack dream that woke me up at 4 in the morning! At least then once I'd recovered my equilibrium I could get some gaming in before my alarm went off!
In Grade 12, my English teacher made us memorize the "To be or not to be" soliloquy from Hamlet, which was a perfectly normal assignment. On the test, we had to write out the soliloquy. Perfectly reasonable, right? Except that he was also marking us on whether we had memorized the exact punctuation! This was really surprising, since he also taught Drama, so I figured he would appreciate that the punctuation is not that relevant. As long as you know the words and understand their meaning and emotional arc, it doesn't matter if there's a period or a comma or a semi-colon or a colon or a dash between "To be or not to be" and "that is the question".
I stopped music when I came to the realization that I was never expressing myself artistically or creatively through that medium. I know other people do, but it doesn't work that way for me. When I worked on music - and I did have to practice and work extremely hard just to be competent - it was like memorizing the punctuation in Shakespeare. The more I worked the more I knew about music, the more familiar I was with the mechanics of the piece, the better I could play the piece, the more it became something my fingers could do automatically without involving my brain, but it was never artistic or creative. It never had soul, just like memorizing the punctuation in Shakespeare isn't going to give your performance soul.
Now I'm quite good at learning new things. I can pick up a book and learn fingerings and/or embouchure, then pick up an instrument and practice relentlessly, and with hard work I will eventually be able to play all the notes as written. But that doesn't make me a musician any more than a voice synthesizer reciting Shakespeare is an actor. I can learn knowledge and technical skills, but I can't fake having soul. I had to leave the church for that reason, and I also had to stop being a musician for that reason.
This always reminds me of this commercial. She wanted to be a gymnast, she was too tall, so she ended up being a pole vaulter. So impossible is nothing? No...being a gymnast was impossible because she was too tall. You can't set out to do one thing, fail, end up doing a completely different thing, and declare success on that basis. I can't go around saying "I always wanted to be a musician but I don't have the soul for it, so I ended up being a translator. See, you can do anything you put your mind to!" Not that people should be castigated when their original plans don't work out so they switch directions to something more suitable, but you can't use that situation to illustrate the idea that impossible is nothing.
"Saying, "I'm a feminist," is almost like saying, "I have no problem with Pakistanis" - we're all just going to assume that one, okay? Unless you say otherwise."
I'd love to link but the Globe & Mail won't let me
Very appropriate from the point of view of us down here on Earth, I freely admit, but is that really the best thing to send to the aliens? A lot of the meaning is in the lyrics, so they would have to be able to manage the concept of music, then recognize the many different instruments, then recognize that some of the sound is vocal, then have the concept of verbal language, then work out the English language except that one sentence is Sanskrit. I think even Hoshi Sato would have trouble working out a language if the occasional sentence was in another language. Plus, if it's the recording I think it is, there are some birds and stuff in the recording, which is non-linguistic (or, if it's linguistic it's another language completely irrelevant to the message) vocalizations from a whole nother species! That's an awful lot for the aliens to work out!
Better music to broadcast out to the aliens would be something with no lyrics, only one instrument, and a very clear structure so they can see there's intelligence behind it. Goldberg Variations anyone?
Often much is made of the fact that police officers and taser salespeople get tased as part of their training.
I think this is a shitty idea and they should stop it immediately.
Why? Because the person being tased might live.
Stick with me, I'm going somewhere with this.
Every once in a while people die from being tased, and we aren't sure exactly why. They don't know when they tase a person whether they'll die or not. So a taser isn't actually a safe stun gun, it isn't like setting your phaser to stun, it's a randomly lethal weapon. Believe me, if they were reliable never-lethal stun guns, I'd have one in my night table and one in my purse - whether they were legal or not!
If you've never been tased, you appreciate how they're randomly lethal, because you have no idea whether you'd survive a tasing or not (and what you'd experience while dying). But if you've been tased and then walked away with nothing more than a bit of a headache (or whatever), then you're more likely to think "Hey, it's no big deal! I've survived it myself!"
It has come to my attention that people are using the word "Googlegänger" to mean another person who comes up when you google yourself.
Good, well-intentioned coinage, but unfortunately it's wrong.
Googlegänger is a blend of "Google" and the German "Dopplegänger", meaning an exact double of a person. "Dopplegänger" itself is a blend of "dopple" meaning double, and "gänger" meaning literally "goer".
So as you can see, whoever coined "Googlegänger" inadvertently chose the wrong part of Dopplegänger to retain. A more accurate word would be "Doppelgoogler".
As a special incentive program, I have been authorized to permit anyone who switches from Googlegänger" to "Doppelgoogler" to use an umlaut on the O of their choice for purely aesthetic reasons, even though it is lexically incorrect.
Anything can be funny, no matter how offensive. The trick is, it has to be funnier than it is offensive. You get positive points for funny, you get negative points for offensive. If your net result is >0, you're funny. In theory, you can say something that's -10^100 offensive, and it will work if and only if it's +(10^100)+1 funny. This is why Sarah Silverman tends to work for me.
The thing most people don't realize is the audience gets to delegate these points however they like. The comedian doesn't get any say in it (which is why people who insist that they're funny even when the audience doesn't agree come across as mad crazy assholic). If the audience finds it more offensive than it is funny, the comedian loses.
I had this big long explanation about how to calculate whether something is going to be offensive to the audience, but I just realized it comes down to one simple thing: if the audience identifies with the victim of the joke, and they feel like the comedian is a threat to them - like the comedian wants to hurt them and then laugh at them for it.
So if a comedian wants to tell a joke with an offensive element to it and wants to maximize the chances of the audience finding it funny, what they have to do is disarm themselves and/or empower the audience until they get to the point where even if they audience identifies with the victim, the comedian is so powerless ineffective that they couldn't actually hurt the victim. Again, I think this is why Sarah Silverman works - her character is such an ineffective person that she couldn't successfully act on her offensive impulses even if she tried. (I can't think of an example offhand, but I have seen comedians go too far with this, casting themselves as the victim in a that I can identify with, and leaving me uncomfortable because now I feel like the whole world wants to hurt me and laugh at me for it.)
As usual, Eddie Izzard is very good at this. In his Heimlich Manoeuvre bit, he takes a joke just up to the point where he's about to pose a threat to the audience, then promptly disarms himself, all in about 30 seconds.
The part I'm talking about starts at 2:00:
Watch from 2:00 to 2:22, then pause just after he says "Your hymen's been removed?... You need it removed?"
Now if this joke were being worked out for the first time, the obvious next step would be for him to thrust his groin or something. But that would ruin everything. The audience would be sitting there, imagining themselves choking to death in a restaurant, and suddenly someone comes up and starts trying to have sex with them. That's not fun at all!
Now press play and watch how Eddie gets himself out of this one.
First he mimes surgical equipment - pretend surgical equipment that doesn't exist in reality. So now whatever this idiot has in mind, at least he isn't going to try to stick his dick in you while you're choking to death. Then he says "I don't know how to remove a hymen." BOOM, threat eliminated. He doesn't even know to stick his dick in places, so he's no threat at all! In fact, since the audience does know how to remove a hymen, he's put us in the position of power. We can now feel slightly superior in any number of ways, ranging from "Good, let's keep it that way," to "Come on, we don't believe that for a minute," to "Why don't you come here and I'll show you?" That's got just about everyone in the audience covered.
The net effect isn't hugely funny, but it does end up with positive points because he was able to make his little "Heimlich manoeuvre sounds like hymen removal" joke while not making anyone in the audience feel like he wants to rape us while we're choking to death or would think it's funny if someone raped us while choking to death. And all because he's willing to swallow his ego enough to pretend for a moment that he doesn't know how to have sex.
