Saturday, January 02, 2010
Things They Should Invent: guitar karaoke
In regular karaoke, words appear on the screen so you can sing along. In guitar karaoke, tabs appear on the screen so you can play along. It's like Guitar Hero, but for real guitars.
Toronto Star Public Editor survey
The Toronto Star has a survey to see what readers would have done with certain decisions the Public Editor had to make in the past year. The problem with this survey is they asked yes or no questions, but provided a reason for the yes or no. Sometimes I had a different reason for my yes or no, and sometimes my answer was more nuanced. Here are some thoughts that didn't fit in the form.
If I wanted headlines like "lesbian axe murder case", I'd read the Sun. The Star isn't the Sun, and I'd much prefer that it behaves accordingly.
I do see the point of publishing the photo specifically because it is highly disturbing. However, this woman has already suffered the indignity (on top of the lynching) of being seen topless by a massive crowd of people. I wouldn't want to add the indignity of being seen topless by a bunch of people in Canada. The ideal solution (perhaps logistically unfeasible) would be to get the subject's permission: do you want the world to see what happened to you?
What's the offensive stereotype? I'm completely unaware of this connotation. Without waiving the option of choosing to revise my opinion once I learn what the offensive stereotype is, I do see how the space limitations of headlines would be a factor in choosing this phrasing.
The question to which I don't know the answer: is the alcohol burned off in the preparation process, leaving only flavour? Or is it still present in the final meal? The question not asked here but that I think is relevant: how many parents are willing to purchase beer or wine for the specific purpose of using it in a recipe prepared for their kid's lunch?
I don't think it's fair to publish it without the subject's permission. I don't ever want to be photographed in grief, and I think other people should be granted the same dignity.
It's not that it's disrespectful to a member of the Royal family, it's that it's disrespectful to a person. The Duchess of Cornwall is a 62-year-old woman. Even if she is a public figure, she should not be spoken of judgmentally for having the characteristics of a 62-year-old woman.
2. Two women involved in an intimate relationship are charged with the first-degree axe murder of a man one of the women was also involved with. Would you publish numerous headlines labelling this as a "lesbian axe murder case."?
Yes. It's accurate and fits limited headline space.
No. Would you refer to a heterosexual axe murder case?
If I wanted headlines like "lesbian axe murder case", I'd read the Sun. The Star isn't the Sun, and I'd much prefer that it behaves accordingly.
3. A woman is photographed in Guatemala City standing topless on a street after being beaten, doused with gasoline and set on fire during a lynching. Passengers of a public bus accused the woman and three men of participating in an armed robbery. According to local media, 219 people were lynched so far this year and 45 of them died. Would you publish this Reuters news agency photo?
Yes. The photo tells much about vigilante justice in Guatemala.
No. It's highly disturbing and sexually exploitive.
I do see the point of publishing the photo specifically because it is highly disturbing. However, this woman has already suffered the indignity (on top of the lynching) of being seen topless by a massive crowd of people. I wouldn't want to add the indignity of being seen topless by a bunch of people in Canada. The ideal solution (perhaps logistically unfeasible) would be to get the subject's permission: do you want the world to see what happened to you?
7. Ken Lewenza is elected national president of the Canadian Auto Workers replacing long-time president Buzz Hargrove. Do you publish this headline: "New CAW boss has a hard act to follow"?
Yes. The president is the boss.
No. Union "boss" is an offensive stereotype.
What's the offensive stereotype? I'm completely unaware of this connotation. Without waiving the option of choosing to revise my opinion once I learn what the offensive stereotype is, I do see how the space limitations of headlines would be a factor in choosing this phrasing.
9. Three of Toronto's top chefs are asked for some back-to-school recipes for meals that fit in a thermos. A recipe for chili calls for a cup of beer. A corn chowder recipe requires two cups of white wine. Do you publish these recipes?
Yes. Yummy lunch fare here.
No. Alcohol does not belong in recipes for kids.
The question to which I don't know the answer: is the alcohol burned off in the preparation process, leaving only flavour? Or is it still present in the final meal? The question not asked here but that I think is relevant: how many parents are willing to purchase beer or wine for the specific purpose of using it in a recipe prepared for their kid's lunch?
10. A 21-year-old vacationer from Poland was one of three men who died after diving into the churning waters of Muskoka's Moon River. Your photographer and reporter are on the scene when police divers pull the man's body out of the river. A distraught woman who identifies the body kneels beside the dead man and kisses his hand before numerous onlookers. Would you publish this photo?
Yes. Though the Star rarely publishes photos of dead bodies, this heart-wrenching photo powerfully illustrates the human impact of this news.
No. It's an intrusion on a private moment of grief.
I don't think it's fair to publish it without the subject's permission. I don't ever want to be photographed in grief, and I think other people should be granted the same dignity.
11. While covering the royal visit of Prince Charles and his wife Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, Star columnist Rosie DiManno describes the duchess as "a tad dumpy" and quotes from a biography that says, "It's widely known that Camilla is great in the bedroom." In another column, she recalls that the late Princess Diana dubbed Camilla "a Rottweiler." In another, DiManno gives Camilla a C-minus for her Canadian debut. Would you publish these opinions of the Duchess?
Yes. Columnists have wide latitude to express their views.
No. It's disrespectful to a member of the Royal family.
It's not that it's disrespectful to a member of the Royal family, it's that it's disrespectful to a person. The Duchess of Cornwall is a 62-year-old woman. Even if she is a public figure, she should not be spoken of judgmentally for having the characteristics of a 62-year-old woman.
Friday, January 01, 2010
Calculating the HST tipping point (for Ontario)
Numbers come from this article, primarily because it landed in my lap. If you have any primary sources on hand, I'd appreciate any links in the comments.
In return for that day-to-day pinching of the pocketbook for consumers, Premier Dalton McGuinty's government is offering the income tax cut today, reducing the tax rate on the first $37,106 by one percentage point to 5.05 per cent from 6.05 per cent.
So this means that, for everyone who earns more than $37,106, you will save $371.06 in income tax.
Under HST, an additional 8% sales tax will be charged on items that were previously subjected only to GST. According to Revenue Ontario, that list is:
So based on the information so far (I'll get to the factors I'm missing in a moment), the HST tipping point is whether you will be charged more or less than $371.06 in additional sales taxes over a year. The $371.06 would equal 8% of your total pre-tax purchases on items from the list above. So let's calculate:
So do you spend more than $4,638.25 on things from the list above? If not, no need to worry. If you do spend more than $4,638.25 on the items on that list, then the amount of money you will be down is 8% of any amount over $4,638.25. Where N = the amount spent on things on the list:
In other words, if you spend $5,000 on things from that list:
So you'd be paying an extra $28.94 a year in tax.
If you're happy with a rough estimate, you can stop here. If not, read on as I make it more complicated (likely with only marginal impact on the final number).
There are three factors I haven't taken into account in this calculation:
1. The transitional tax rebate. I haven't taken this into account because it's only temporary. If you would like to take this into account, add $300 if you're a single individual, and $1,000 if you're a couple and/or have dependents.
2. What if you earn less than $37,106? Then replace the $371.06 in the calculation above with 1% of your income. Or replace X in the following equation with your income and plug it into Google:
3. HST not only involves increasing sales tax on items previously subject to only the GST, but also eliminating sales tax on items that are not subject to GST. Problem: I can't find a list of items currently subject to only GST. But here's how you'd calculate it. Where Y equals the amount spent yearly on things currently subject to only GST:
The result of this equation replaces $4,638.25 above as the tipping point.
Want one giant overall equation?
N = the amount spent annually on things currently subject to GST but not PST
X = either your annual income or $37,106, whichever is less
Y = the amount spent annually on things currently subject to PST but not GST
Z = what HST will cost you. If it's a negative number, it will save you money.
In return for that day-to-day pinching of the pocketbook for consumers, Premier Dalton McGuinty's government is offering the income tax cut today, reducing the tax rate on the first $37,106 by one percentage point to 5.05 per cent from 6.05 per cent.
So this means that, for everyone who earns more than $37,106, you will save $371.06 in income tax.
Under HST, an additional 8% sales tax will be charged on items that were previously subjected only to GST. According to Revenue Ontario, that list is:
* Electricity
* Gasoline
* Heating Fuels
* Internet Access Fees
* Personal Services (e.g., Hairstyling)
* Professional Services (e.g., Legal, Accounting and Real Estate Fees and Commissions)
* Tobacco
So based on the information so far (I'll get to the factors I'm missing in a moment), the HST tipping point is whether you will be charged more or less than $371.06 in additional sales taxes over a year. The $371.06 would equal 8% of your total pre-tax purchases on items from the list above. So let's calculate:
$371.06/0.08=$4,638.25So do you spend more than $4,638.25 on things from the list above? If not, no need to worry. If you do spend more than $4,638.25 on the items on that list, then the amount of money you will be down is 8% of any amount over $4,638.25. Where N = the amount spent on things on the list:
(N-$4638.25)*0.08 In other words, if you spend $5,000 on things from that list:
$5000-$4638.25=$361.75$361.75*0.08=28.94So you'd be paying an extra $28.94 a year in tax.
If you're happy with a rough estimate, you can stop here. If not, read on as I make it more complicated (likely with only marginal impact on the final number).
There are three factors I haven't taken into account in this calculation:
1. The transitional tax rebate. I haven't taken this into account because it's only temporary. If you would like to take this into account, add $300 if you're a single individual, and $1,000 if you're a couple and/or have dependents.
2. What if you earn less than $37,106? Then replace the $371.06 in the calculation above with 1% of your income. Or replace X in the following equation with your income and plug it into Google:
(X*0.01)/0.08=3. HST not only involves increasing sales tax on items previously subject to only the GST, but also eliminating sales tax on items that are not subject to GST. Problem: I can't find a list of items currently subject to only GST. But here's how you'd calculate it. Where Y equals the amount spent yearly on things currently subject to only GST:
($371.06+(Y*0.05))/0.08The result of this equation replaces $4,638.25 above as the tipping point.
Want one giant overall equation?
N = the amount spent annually on things currently subject to GST but not PST
X = either your annual income or $37,106, whichever is less
Y = the amount spent annually on things currently subject to PST but not GST
Z = what HST will cost you. If it's a negative number, it will save you money.
Z=N-((X*0.01)+(Y*0.05)/0.08)*0.08
Wherein I find the obvious solution to procrastination problems that have been plaguing me for years
Two things I keep procrastinating:
1. Housework
2. Watching videos I've downloaded (yes, I'm one of those people who procrastinates fun things too. I typically game or use the internet while watching TV or a DVD, so I keep not watching downloaded videos because I can't multitask them.
I just found the solution: watch the videos while I'm doing the housework! I'm now watching an ITV documentary on the making of Spamalot while cleaning my kitchen. I can't believe it took me so long to think of this!
1. Housework
2. Watching videos I've downloaded (yes, I'm one of those people who procrastinates fun things too. I typically game or use the internet while watching TV or a DVD, so I keep not watching downloaded videos because I can't multitask them.
I just found the solution: watch the videos while I'm doing the housework! I'm now watching an ITV documentary on the making of Spamalot while cleaning my kitchen. I can't believe it took me so long to think of this!
What if the solution to ignorance isn't found in formal education?
You often see people interpret any ignorance they observe as a failure in education. "They should teach this in school," they say, "they should make it a required course."
I wonder if this might be doing us all a disservice?
As I've blogged about before, I didn't learn everything I needed to know about anything in high school, but rather got a starting point for learning things myself as the need arises. I'm wondering if, by treating ignorance as a failure of education, we're collectively absolving ourselves of our own responsibility to keep learning? If people don't know what prorogation means, even if they should have learned it in school and didn't, their job now as adults and functional members of society is to recognize that they should know what it means, and find out what it means. Not having learned it in school isn't nearly as bad as sitting there going "Waah, I don't know what prorogation means because I never learned it in school!" instead of spending 30 seconds googling.
I also wonder if, by deeming it a job for formal education, we're inadvertently giving it a mystique, framing it as something that needs to be taught instead of something that you can figure out yourself. And I'm worried that this will, in turn, alienate people who aren't so very into formal education. I read in Big Sort (and have observed hints in real life) that sometimes people who have not gone through formal education tend to perceive formal education as Other (and sometimes as a bit suspicious). If we view ignorance as a problem to be solved with formal education, would we be marking it as Other for people who don't have formal education, giving the tacit impression that understanding these things isn't for them, and/or that learning them is only for people who have formal education.
I'm not opposed to adapting our formal education system to meet our ever-evolving needs, but I am worried about giving the impression that formal education is the only way out of ignorance, rather than that people should be bringing themselves out of their own ignorance.
I wonder if this might be doing us all a disservice?
As I've blogged about before, I didn't learn everything I needed to know about anything in high school, but rather got a starting point for learning things myself as the need arises. I'm wondering if, by treating ignorance as a failure of education, we're collectively absolving ourselves of our own responsibility to keep learning? If people don't know what prorogation means, even if they should have learned it in school and didn't, their job now as adults and functional members of society is to recognize that they should know what it means, and find out what it means. Not having learned it in school isn't nearly as bad as sitting there going "Waah, I don't know what prorogation means because I never learned it in school!" instead of spending 30 seconds googling.
I also wonder if, by deeming it a job for formal education, we're inadvertently giving it a mystique, framing it as something that needs to be taught instead of something that you can figure out yourself. And I'm worried that this will, in turn, alienate people who aren't so very into formal education. I read in Big Sort (and have observed hints in real life) that sometimes people who have not gone through formal education tend to perceive formal education as Other (and sometimes as a bit suspicious). If we view ignorance as a problem to be solved with formal education, would we be marking it as Other for people who don't have formal education, giving the tacit impression that understanding these things isn't for them, and/or that learning them is only for people who have formal education.
I'm not opposed to adapting our formal education system to meet our ever-evolving needs, but I am worried about giving the impression that formal education is the only way out of ignorance, rather than that people should be bringing themselves out of their own ignorance.
Missing Scene In Death
From Naked In Death:
What the book really needs is a scene where, the next time Eve takes a shower at home, she has epic hot water and water pressure. We know, based on the characterization that develops as the series go on, that Roarke would in fact actually have someone fix the plumbing, even if he'd heard of the problem from someone less important to him. I think showing this so early on would make him a much more sympathetic character, and would make it far more believable that Eve falls in love with him.
Nearly everything Roarke did in his early courtship of Eve came across as arrogant and pushy. Every favour or kindness he did for her came in a context where he forced his way into her space in a way that would trigger alarm bells in anyone who read Gift of Fear. He is made more nuanced, more likable, less assholic as the series goes on and we learn more about him and actually spend some time in his head, but at the point of the scene above I hadn't seen any of this and found it completely unrealistic in a trashy romance novel way that Eve found anything appealing about him. I continued reading the series because I enjoy spending time in the universe, find Eve inspiring (at this point despite the fact that she fell for Roarke), and already had the second book on my library holds list, but I don't think I would have added it to my holds list if it hadn't already been there.
But a simple half-sentence mention that there's now plenty of hot water would show Roarke being kind to Eve (and to everyone else in the building) in a way that does not aggressively push forward his own agenda, thereby leading the reader to a much more sympathetic interpretation of the character. Roarke hasn't yet at this point won over either the reader or Eve, so it's better to show us why he will rather than assuming it's inevitable.
[Eve:] "It's a lot of house for one guy."
[Roarke:] "Do you think so? I'm more of the opinion that your apartment is small for one woman." When she stopped dead at the top of the stairs, he grinned. "Eve, you know I own the building. You'd have checked after I sent my little token."
"You ought to have someone out to look at the plumbing," she told him. "I can't keep the water hot in the shower for more than ten minutes."
"I'll make a note of it."
What the book really needs is a scene where, the next time Eve takes a shower at home, she has epic hot water and water pressure. We know, based on the characterization that develops as the series go on, that Roarke would in fact actually have someone fix the plumbing, even if he'd heard of the problem from someone less important to him. I think showing this so early on would make him a much more sympathetic character, and would make it far more believable that Eve falls in love with him.
Nearly everything Roarke did in his early courtship of Eve came across as arrogant and pushy. Every favour or kindness he did for her came in a context where he forced his way into her space in a way that would trigger alarm bells in anyone who read Gift of Fear. He is made more nuanced, more likable, less assholic as the series goes on and we learn more about him and actually spend some time in his head, but at the point of the scene above I hadn't seen any of this and found it completely unrealistic in a trashy romance novel way that Eve found anything appealing about him. I continued reading the series because I enjoy spending time in the universe, find Eve inspiring (at this point despite the fact that she fell for Roarke), and already had the second book on my library holds list, but I don't think I would have added it to my holds list if it hadn't already been there.
But a simple half-sentence mention that there's now plenty of hot water would show Roarke being kind to Eve (and to everyone else in the building) in a way that does not aggressively push forward his own agenda, thereby leading the reader to a much more sympathetic interpretation of the character. Roarke hasn't yet at this point won over either the reader or Eve, so it's better to show us why he will rather than assuming it's inevitable.
I love New Year's Day
It's nothing to do with a fresh start or anything optimistic like that. The reason I love New Year's Day is that there are no actual or implicit expectations. There's nothing specific that I should be doing (or that it's "sad" if I don't "get to" do), no family or religious connotations, not even the social idea that we should be having fun. Plus it's one of the more widely-practised statutory holidays, which means hardly anything is open and I'm perfectly justified in not getting any errands done. I can sleep late and stay home and do whatever I want without any guilt. More statutory holidays should be like this.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
"Media elite"
It's a common collocation. But is anyone questioning it? The media doesn't strike me as especially elite. Some of them are (I was surprised by the number newspaper columnists who own houses in Toronto), but some of them also strike me as rather base.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
More Information Please: prorogation edition
So what was the government's ostensible/official reason for proroguing? I know that conventional wisdom is that they want to avoid an inquiry into the Afghan detainee scandal. But don't they have to give a plausible-sounding nominal reason before proroguing with legislation still on the order paper?
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The Ugly Glasses Chronicles
I suppose, objectively speaking, I can't quite call them ugly. They were bold. They were rectangular. They were trendy, in both the positive and negative senses of the word. They were chosen by a friend whose objective fashion sense I (still do) trust implicitly, and any halfway competent person could fully justify them as a fashion choice. They were also a wise purchase. The day I tried them on was the last day that they were on sale for 50% off (bringing their price BELOW the limit covered by my insurance!!), and three separate Lenscrafters employees assured me that I could return them for a full refund (which I ended up doing), so I decided to give myself time to see if I'd grow into them.
But the more I wore them, the more they made me feel hideous.
Their rectangular shape emphasized the squareness of my jaw and the lines on my forehead (which I detest not because they're lines, but because they are exactly the same as my father's). The thicker frame completely boxed in and emphasized the dark skin around my eyes when I wasn't wearing makeup, making me hesitant to even run to the grocery store without full makeup. Wearing my hair up was no longer an option, which is problematic at hip-length. Red lipstick no longer worked (and what's the point of life if you can't enjoy red lipstick?) I felt butch. I felt like a laughingstock. I felt like a fashion victim. I felt 13 years old again. I cried myself to sleep. I avoided making eye contact with my reflection in mirrors. I couldn't imagine wearing them with a sexy dress. If I had run into a client with whom I've only corresponded by email, or someone from high school whom I haven't seen in 10 years, I would have been embarrassed to be seen in these glasses.
So I went back and got the glasses I'd had my eye on in the first place, the pair I was, despite my best efforts to be open-minded, daydreaming about wearing. The pair that I fully expected would cause my fashion-savvy friend to say "We can stop shopping right now, this is perfect!" (In reality, they were relegated to about 4th place.) They're less fashion-forward, but I feel like myself in them.
I felt better now. I could breathe. I could stop crying, knowing that glasses that made me happy were on their way. But it would still be 10 days until they could be made. During that time, I had to navigate the city, meet with clients and convince them of my competence, get beauty treatments from people who are cooler than me, buy things and return things, deal with relatives over xmas, and generally perform as a competent adult despite the fact that my every instinct wanted to vanish into shame and shoegazing like my 13-year-old self.
So I had to very quickly learn a new skill. I had to fake being confident in these humiliating glasses. I had to aggressively externalize my energy, pushing the green of my eyes beyond these thick plastic rectangles that were boxing me in, convincing the world that I'm a confident hipster and this look is totally on purpose and of course I can totally pull it off. It was exhausting, but it was effective. I think I managed to carry myself as though this were a deliberate fashion choice, and somehow I managed to develop an effective "quelling glare" (as Miss Manners puts it) on the way. And, in the process, I fulfilled one of my birthday horoscopes from last year.
Overall, it was very much a learning experience. I went in not trusting my fashion instincts because my previous pair of glasses (which I love) were counter to most of my fashion instincts at the time of purchase. But from wearing the ugly glasses and then going back to the ones my instincts first wanted me to wear, I learned a lot about which of my fashion instincts I should trust and where I should and shouldn't follow trends (which is something I consider an essential adult life skill, but I haven't yet perfected it for glasses as much as I have for clothes). The energy and body language skills I developed trying to appear confident in the ugly glasses will serve me well as I work on Entitlement. I've developed a much better sense of where I'm comfortably willing to spend money on glasses, and I've gotten better at working with opticians to find something that suits me. Lots learned, good life experience. All of which is very easy to say now that I'm not stuck with the ugly ones for a whole year.
But the more I wore them, the more they made me feel hideous.
Their rectangular shape emphasized the squareness of my jaw and the lines on my forehead (which I detest not because they're lines, but because they are exactly the same as my father's). The thicker frame completely boxed in and emphasized the dark skin around my eyes when I wasn't wearing makeup, making me hesitant to even run to the grocery store without full makeup. Wearing my hair up was no longer an option, which is problematic at hip-length. Red lipstick no longer worked (and what's the point of life if you can't enjoy red lipstick?) I felt butch. I felt like a laughingstock. I felt like a fashion victim. I felt 13 years old again. I cried myself to sleep. I avoided making eye contact with my reflection in mirrors. I couldn't imagine wearing them with a sexy dress. If I had run into a client with whom I've only corresponded by email, or someone from high school whom I haven't seen in 10 years, I would have been embarrassed to be seen in these glasses.
So I went back and got the glasses I'd had my eye on in the first place, the pair I was, despite my best efforts to be open-minded, daydreaming about wearing. The pair that I fully expected would cause my fashion-savvy friend to say "We can stop shopping right now, this is perfect!" (In reality, they were relegated to about 4th place.) They're less fashion-forward, but I feel like myself in them.
I felt better now. I could breathe. I could stop crying, knowing that glasses that made me happy were on their way. But it would still be 10 days until they could be made. During that time, I had to navigate the city, meet with clients and convince them of my competence, get beauty treatments from people who are cooler than me, buy things and return things, deal with relatives over xmas, and generally perform as a competent adult despite the fact that my every instinct wanted to vanish into shame and shoegazing like my 13-year-old self.
So I had to very quickly learn a new skill. I had to fake being confident in these humiliating glasses. I had to aggressively externalize my energy, pushing the green of my eyes beyond these thick plastic rectangles that were boxing me in, convincing the world that I'm a confident hipster and this look is totally on purpose and of course I can totally pull it off. It was exhausting, but it was effective. I think I managed to carry myself as though this were a deliberate fashion choice, and somehow I managed to develop an effective "quelling glare" (as Miss Manners puts it) on the way. And, in the process, I fulfilled one of my birthday horoscopes from last year.
Overall, it was very much a learning experience. I went in not trusting my fashion instincts because my previous pair of glasses (which I love) were counter to most of my fashion instincts at the time of purchase. But from wearing the ugly glasses and then going back to the ones my instincts first wanted me to wear, I learned a lot about which of my fashion instincts I should trust and where I should and shouldn't follow trends (which is something I consider an essential adult life skill, but I haven't yet perfected it for glasses as much as I have for clothes). The energy and body language skills I developed trying to appear confident in the ugly glasses will serve me well as I work on Entitlement. I've developed a much better sense of where I'm comfortably willing to spend money on glasses, and I've gotten better at working with opticians to find something that suits me. Lots learned, good life experience. All of which is very easy to say now that I'm not stuck with the ugly ones for a whole year.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Excellent customer service from Lenscrafters
Props to Lenscrafters, specifically their Fairview Mall location, for allowing me to easily and effortlessly return a pair of glasses (in keeping with their 30 day return policy) simply because I didn't like them.
I am fully aware that, as a competent adult, I should be able to tell whether or not I like the aesthetics of something when I'm first shopping for it, and returning a custom-made product is rather high maintenance. I know they can't resell my glasses, they lost money on the transaction, and someone might have even lost commission (which I do regret, but I really couldn't find anything else I liked in the store). And yet, despite all this, they still allowed me to return my glasses outright for a full refund without any drama or guilt, and without my needing to be assertive about it. There was an initial offer to help me find a pair I like better, but there was no further pressure once I told them I'd already found a pair I like better elsewhere.
I am very happy with the service I received, it makes me feel safe shopping at Lenscrafters, and I very much look forward to doing business with them again in the future.
I am fully aware that, as a competent adult, I should be able to tell whether or not I like the aesthetics of something when I'm first shopping for it, and returning a custom-made product is rather high maintenance. I know they can't resell my glasses, they lost money on the transaction, and someone might have even lost commission (which I do regret, but I really couldn't find anything else I liked in the store). And yet, despite all this, they still allowed me to return my glasses outright for a full refund without any drama or guilt, and without my needing to be assertive about it. There was an initial offer to help me find a pair I like better, but there was no further pressure once I told them I'd already found a pair I like better elsewhere.
I am very happy with the service I received, it makes me feel safe shopping at Lenscrafters, and I very much look forward to doing business with them again in the future.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Scared
As I do every year, I read every birthday horoscope I could find. Like 80% of them suggested that a lifestyle change would be happening in the next year. This scares me, because a) I've never had that degree of agreement among different horoscopes before, and b) apart from the possibility of a dog entering my life, I can't think of any way my lifestyle might realistically (i.e. no winning the lottery) change for the better. I'm in a good place now, I have what I need and what I want, I can't really see any realistic room for improvement.
Many of my horoscopes also talk about overcoming new challenges, in that bright, perky, slightly desperate tone of optimism used by people who have been laid off and decide to/are forced to go it alone as "entrepreneurs" in contract hell.
My horoscopes always come true, but never in a way I could have predicted. However, given the limitations of reality and the finite nature of the resources available to me, I can't see any possibility of a change in lifestyle or new challenges to overcome being a positive thing. And intellectually I know I've already had more than my lifetime's share of good luck.
I'm scared. I just want to stay safe.
Many of my horoscopes also talk about overcoming new challenges, in that bright, perky, slightly desperate tone of optimism used by people who have been laid off and decide to/are forced to go it alone as "entrepreneurs" in contract hell.
My horoscopes always come true, but never in a way I could have predicted. However, given the limitations of reality and the finite nature of the resources available to me, I can't see any possibility of a change in lifestyle or new challenges to overcome being a positive thing. And intellectually I know I've already had more than my lifetime's share of good luck.
I'm scared. I just want to stay safe.
I don't think I like my horoscopes this year
Star:
Globe and Mail:
This year, you want to transform your daily life. Your vision might not coincide with what really happens. Examine your long-term desires, and don't focus on the status quo. If you are single, you will open a new door. The person you choose could be from a foreign country. If you are attached, the two of you will benefit from better communication and a willingness to detach. Work on the friendship that exists between you as well.
Globe and Mail:
You have big plans and you get a kick out of telling friends and relatives what they are but at some stage you are going to have to stop talking and start doing. Time may not be running out exactly but it is certainly counting down. If not now, then when?
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Poetry reading
Idea of the moment: Sonnet 29 being half-screamed, half-wept by a Beatles-movie-style fangirl trying to corner her idol at the stage door.
More information please: detainees edition
Why does the Canadian military in Afghanistan have detainees in the first place? Most of the media coverage I've seen doesn't explain how they came to be detainees. The impression I've gotten (which may well be incorrect or not entirely accurate) is that they track down people who have planted bombs etc. and arrest them like you'd arrest a civilian criminal in peacetime. Is that normal? It doesn't seem very military to me, and vaguely offends my sense of fair play. Would Canada have arrested people similarly during, say, WWII?
I have heard of prisoners of war, and I'm assuming that these detainees aren't prisoners of war or they'd be calling them that. Why aren't they prisoners of war? Are Canadian troops equipped to handle prisoners of war? If not, why not? If they are equipped for prisoners of war, why are they outsourcing their detainees?
I have heard of prisoners of war, and I'm assuming that these detainees aren't prisoners of war or they'd be calling them that. Why aren't they prisoners of war? Are Canadian troops equipped to handle prisoners of war? If not, why not? If they are equipped for prisoners of war, why are they outsourcing their detainees?
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Crossover fanfic bunny
Eve Dallas crosses paths with Dexter Morgan, who, it turns out, killed Eve's mother (for perfectly valid, Code of Harry reasons).
Dexter would be about 80 by then, which is well within life expectancy in the In Death universe, and it would be easy to create reasons for him to be wherever Stella was in 2030 and then to be in New York (or for Eve to be in Miami, or for them to both be in the same third location) in 2060.
Dexter would be about 80 by then, which is well within life expectancy in the In Death universe, and it would be easy to create reasons for him to be wherever Stella was in 2030 and then to be in New York (or for Eve to be in Miami, or for them to both be in the same third location) in 2060.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Dear Amazon.ca: please ship by Canada Post, not UPS
I get into the elevator. I press the number for my floor. A UPS lady is standing in there for some reason, and when she notices the number I press asks me my apartment number. I tell her, and she hands me a signy thing and a package...from Amazon! "Weird that Amazon is shipping through UPS," I say as I sign the signy thing. "It's a new contract," she tells me.
Dear Amazon: Please go back to Canada Post!
Canada Post is easy and convenient. They just leave it in my mailbox. If it's too big or they need a signature, the post office is a block away. Effortless!
However, UPS can't leave stuff in my mailbox and requires a signature for every delivery. Like most people, I work during the day and am never home during UPS delivery times. Today I only just caught the lady as she was leaving, and that's because I didn't do errands after work like I normally do. So I end up having to go an hour out of my way, by bus, to the UPS depot on a remote stretch of Steeles. And on top of this already-disproportionate inconvenience, there's not much around the UPS depot (the street backs onto the back end of a field) and there aren't many eyes on the street, so I don't feel particularly safe waiting for the bus there after dark, which comes at about 4:30 pm this time of year. (This is where I'd have to wait for the bus. In comparison, when I have to wait for a bus in real life, it's usually in a place that looks more like this.)
Frankly, if they're going to ship by UPS it simply isn't worth it for me to buy from Amazon any more, which is tragic because Amazon has always been the easiest and my preferred way to buy anything that they sell. I sent them a note through their customer service thing, hoping it will get directed to the right people. (It's so hard to find an actual contact address on the Amazon.ca site!)
Update: I got an email back from Amazon saying, among other things, that they are passing my concerns on to the shipping department. If you share these concerns, I'd suggest you let Amazon know too. Wouldn't you rather have your purchases in your mailbox than at the UPS depot?
Dear Amazon: Please go back to Canada Post!
Canada Post is easy and convenient. They just leave it in my mailbox. If it's too big or they need a signature, the post office is a block away. Effortless!
However, UPS can't leave stuff in my mailbox and requires a signature for every delivery. Like most people, I work during the day and am never home during UPS delivery times. Today I only just caught the lady as she was leaving, and that's because I didn't do errands after work like I normally do. So I end up having to go an hour out of my way, by bus, to the UPS depot on a remote stretch of Steeles. And on top of this already-disproportionate inconvenience, there's not much around the UPS depot (the street backs onto the back end of a field) and there aren't many eyes on the street, so I don't feel particularly safe waiting for the bus there after dark, which comes at about 4:30 pm this time of year. (This is where I'd have to wait for the bus. In comparison, when I have to wait for a bus in real life, it's usually in a place that looks more like this.)
Frankly, if they're going to ship by UPS it simply isn't worth it for me to buy from Amazon any more, which is tragic because Amazon has always been the easiest and my preferred way to buy anything that they sell. I sent them a note through their customer service thing, hoping it will get directed to the right people. (It's so hard to find an actual contact address on the Amazon.ca site!)
Update: I got an email back from Amazon saying, among other things, that they are passing my concerns on to the shipping department. If you share these concerns, I'd suggest you let Amazon know too. Wouldn't you rather have your purchases in your mailbox than at the UPS depot?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)