1. Think of a 905 phone number, any 905 phone number with which you're familiar. It's better if it's an older phone number that was in use before 1993, but if you don't know any older ones any 905 number will do.
2. Remove the 905 area code and replace it with 416. Then call the number and see if it rings.
3. Post in the comments what happens. Don't post the actual number! Just is the number from before or after 1993, and does it ring.
Why are we doing this? Because prior to 1993, 416 and 905 all fell under the 416 area code. They split the area code in 1993, assigning 416 to Toronto proper and 905 to the suburbs and outlying areas. The ostensible reason for this was that we were running out of 416 numbers.
But I just called the phone number I grew up with (but with 416 instead of 905), and it said it hadn't been assigned. So I'm wondering whether that's a fluke.
So let's do an experiment! If you have or know of a 905 number that used to be a 416 number before the area code split, give the 416 number a call, and post the results in the comments. Don't post the phone number! Just is it from before 1993, and did it ring?
Sunday, June 13, 2010
More information please
1. Are the G20 costs high relative to costs of similar things? A billion dollars sounds like a fuck-ton of money. Media have pointed out how many hungry people it would feed or how much subway it would buy, but how much security can it buy in other situations? Galloping Beaver points out that it can buy a year of Canadian Forces operations in Afghanistan. See, that's informative! And that means we are owed an explanation of why protecting Toronto costs 100 times as much per day.
I saw an article presenting as outrageous the fact that $100,000 was spent on a gazebo. Is that a lot for a gazebo? I don't actually know. I have no frame of reference. While building a fake lake within sight of the real lake is inherently ridiculous, is$2 million $57,000 a lot of money for the thing that they are building? I have no clue. They could be getting gouged, or it could be outstandingly good value on par with the 4 drinking glasses I just got for $2.50 at Kitchen Stuff Plus. I have no frame of reference.
I really want media coverage to contextualize this systematically. It's very easy to see a large number, clutch your pearls, and get outraged. I can do that myself without media help. What I do need journalism for is to help me contextualize it. And if there is room for outrage, then we'll go in well-informed, so politicos can't pat us on the head and tell us that it's complicated and we don't understand.
2. Are people really over-using medical care? A recurring idea is that there should be an out-of-pocket fee to for medical appointments to stop people from making frivolous medical appointments. But do people really make frivolous medical appointments? If anything, I'd say our culture encourages more medical appointments than people are inclined to make for themselves. Advice columns are always sending people to the doctor at the slightest provocation. The fashion magazines I read as a kid always said that your doctor can help with your zit emergencies. My university even required a doctor's note if you wanted to bring your own bed to res rather than using the one provided. This one guy who was seven feet tall had to get a note from a doctor asserting that the normal bed is too small for him, when he could have proven it in 10 seconds by lying down on the bed! I see lots of people being told they should go to the doctor, but I don't ever see real people actually going to the doctor frivolously.
It is true that the patient might go to the doctor out of ignorance, but that isn't something that will be helped by charging people money. Going to the doctor out of ignorance needs to be addressed by educating patients, by giving them the tools to triage themselves. This is accomplished with Telehealth and with decision trees like these. If the patient genuinely doesn't know that this isn't something they need to see a doctor for, they still do need some kind of health care to teach them how to tell whether or not they need to see the doctor.
(At the very least, if the charge is really intended to be a disincentive to frivolous doctor's appointments, it should be waived if you were referred by Telehealth or a medical professional, or for doctor-recommended preventive care. And organizations that require a doctor's note should be responsible for paying the charge. Although even that's imperfect - for example, I know when I have strep throat - I got it every year in childhood and get it frequently enough in adulthood to recognize it. If I had to pay a fee or get referred by Telehealth, I'd just be cluttering up Telehealth.)
3. What happens to inmates' money? Recently in the news was a move to prohibit people who are in jail from receiving OAS and other government benefits to which they'd normally be entitled in their capacity as citizens. This makes me wonder: what normally happens to inmates' money? Obviously they can't spend it freely while in prison, because that would rather defeat the purpose of prison. But what does happen to their money? Can it still be used to maintain ongoing expenses (i.e. can they keep paying your rent with whatever savings they might have)? Can their spouse/dependents access it?
My gut reaction is to oppose taking pensions and other benefits away from prisoners, because I feel like that opens the door to taking them away from other people that the government deems unworthy for whatever reason. (Not sure how legally valid that is, it's just my gut reaction.)
But it also occurs to me that it might ultimately lead to recidivism. This whole thing started with serial Clifford Olsen, who isn't getting out of jail, but most inmates ultimately are going to be released at some point. It seems to me that if they have been rehabilitated (and if they haven't been rehabilitated that's a correctional system problem, not a social safety net problem), having a bit of a nest egg will make it easier for them to peacefully reintegrate into society, whereas if they are desperate for money they'd be more likely to return to crime.
It also occurs to me that, if inmates' families are able to access the inmates' assets, then disqualifying inmates for pensions is simply punishing innocents. It isn't the families' - especially not the dependents' - fault the criminal is a criminal. It's possible the criminal has still contributed to the household, either by earning income or even just by being someone who can kill spiders and help flip the mattress, and the household suffers for his absence. It's also possible that criminals who are released from prison after the age of 65 may never be able to reintegrate into the job market, and their spouse and/or children will end up support them for the rest of their lives. So why should this be made even more burdensome?
Clifford Olsen is an extreme case. I wish we had more information on how this affects more common cases.
I saw an article presenting as outrageous the fact that $100,000 was spent on a gazebo. Is that a lot for a gazebo? I don't actually know. I have no frame of reference. While building a fake lake within sight of the real lake is inherently ridiculous, is
I really want media coverage to contextualize this systematically. It's very easy to see a large number, clutch your pearls, and get outraged. I can do that myself without media help. What I do need journalism for is to help me contextualize it. And if there is room for outrage, then we'll go in well-informed, so politicos can't pat us on the head and tell us that it's complicated and we don't understand.
2. Are people really over-using medical care? A recurring idea is that there should be an out-of-pocket fee to for medical appointments to stop people from making frivolous medical appointments. But do people really make frivolous medical appointments? If anything, I'd say our culture encourages more medical appointments than people are inclined to make for themselves. Advice columns are always sending people to the doctor at the slightest provocation. The fashion magazines I read as a kid always said that your doctor can help with your zit emergencies. My university even required a doctor's note if you wanted to bring your own bed to res rather than using the one provided. This one guy who was seven feet tall had to get a note from a doctor asserting that the normal bed is too small for him, when he could have proven it in 10 seconds by lying down on the bed! I see lots of people being told they should go to the doctor, but I don't ever see real people actually going to the doctor frivolously.
It is true that the patient might go to the doctor out of ignorance, but that isn't something that will be helped by charging people money. Going to the doctor out of ignorance needs to be addressed by educating patients, by giving them the tools to triage themselves. This is accomplished with Telehealth and with decision trees like these. If the patient genuinely doesn't know that this isn't something they need to see a doctor for, they still do need some kind of health care to teach them how to tell whether or not they need to see the doctor.
(At the very least, if the charge is really intended to be a disincentive to frivolous doctor's appointments, it should be waived if you were referred by Telehealth or a medical professional, or for doctor-recommended preventive care. And organizations that require a doctor's note should be responsible for paying the charge. Although even that's imperfect - for example, I know when I have strep throat - I got it every year in childhood and get it frequently enough in adulthood to recognize it. If I had to pay a fee or get referred by Telehealth, I'd just be cluttering up Telehealth.)
3. What happens to inmates' money? Recently in the news was a move to prohibit people who are in jail from receiving OAS and other government benefits to which they'd normally be entitled in their capacity as citizens. This makes me wonder: what normally happens to inmates' money? Obviously they can't spend it freely while in prison, because that would rather defeat the purpose of prison. But what does happen to their money? Can it still be used to maintain ongoing expenses (i.e. can they keep paying your rent with whatever savings they might have)? Can their spouse/dependents access it?
My gut reaction is to oppose taking pensions and other benefits away from prisoners, because I feel like that opens the door to taking them away from other people that the government deems unworthy for whatever reason. (Not sure how legally valid that is, it's just my gut reaction.)
But it also occurs to me that it might ultimately lead to recidivism. This whole thing started with serial Clifford Olsen, who isn't getting out of jail, but most inmates ultimately are going to be released at some point. It seems to me that if they have been rehabilitated (and if they haven't been rehabilitated that's a correctional system problem, not a social safety net problem), having a bit of a nest egg will make it easier for them to peacefully reintegrate into society, whereas if they are desperate for money they'd be more likely to return to crime.
It also occurs to me that, if inmates' families are able to access the inmates' assets, then disqualifying inmates for pensions is simply punishing innocents. It isn't the families' - especially not the dependents' - fault the criminal is a criminal. It's possible the criminal has still contributed to the household, either by earning income or even just by being someone who can kill spiders and help flip the mattress, and the household suffers for his absence. It's also possible that criminals who are released from prison after the age of 65 may never be able to reintegrate into the job market, and their spouse and/or children will end up support them for the rest of their lives. So why should this be made even more burdensome?
Clifford Olsen is an extreme case. I wish we had more information on how this affects more common cases.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Cunning abuse of flags
Apparently it's illegal to desecrate a flag in the US.
What a strange, petty, fussy thing to be illegal in a country that makes such a big-ass deal of not even making hate speech illegal! Encouraging genocide is fine, but damaging a piece of fabric with symbolic value is illegal? Weird!
I do wonder how they manage to fit that into their broader legal framework. Desecrating a flag seems like the perfectly logical symbolic manifestation of legitimate protest against the reigning government, which is something that, if not explicitly legally enshrined, is certainly celebrated in the US. Desecrating a flag is elegant and effective as an act of symbolism while being harmless to all persons and properties except the flag itself. You'd think they'd tacitly encourage it so as to avoid more damaging forms of protest.
What a strange, petty, fussy thing to be illegal in a country that makes such a big-ass deal of not even making hate speech illegal! Encouraging genocide is fine, but damaging a piece of fabric with symbolic value is illegal? Weird!
I do wonder how they manage to fit that into their broader legal framework. Desecrating a flag seems like the perfectly logical symbolic manifestation of legitimate protest against the reigning government, which is something that, if not explicitly legally enshrined, is certainly celebrated in the US. Desecrating a flag is elegant and effective as an act of symbolism while being harmless to all persons and properties except the flag itself. You'd think they'd tacitly encourage it so as to avoid more damaging forms of protest.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Wherein a surprise cheque in the mail makes me depressed
In my mail today was a brown envelope from the Government of Ontario. Ontario? WTF? So I open it, and it's my first HST transitional rebate cheque, for $100.
That just pisses me off.
It isn't the tax that pisses me off. It isn't the fact of the rebate that pisses me off. It's the fact that they never corrected the major inequity in the rebate: Single individuals get $300, but couples without dependent children get $1000.
That is, quite simply, wrong. Living as a couple is not more expensive than living as two single individuals. The rebate for a couple with no dependents should not under any circumstances exceed the rebate for two single individuals.
Of course, I pointed this out right away, as soon as the March 2009 budget came out. I blogged it and emailed it to my MPP and the Minister of Finance and Dalton McGuinty. I talked to people about it, and all the married and cohabiting couples in my life agreed with me that it's unfair, so I encouraged them to write to their MPPs. Basically I spotted a flaw in the plan and did everything I'm supposed to under those circumstances. But they didn't correct it.
I am incredibly frustrated because lately it seems like this is happening with everything.
- Transit City has been defunded, and none of the candidates are proposing solutions that will solve the part of the problem that affects me personally.
- Abortion is being excluded from international development maternal health programs.
- No one is working to correct the flaw in the ORTA that allows landlords to increase rent as much as they want if the building happens to have been built after 1998.
- The new copyright bill makes it illegal to break digital locks.
- The City of Toronto is encouraging buildings to close their garbage chutes rather than encouraging them to use them for recycling or organics.
- They're requiring stores to charge people 5 cents for plastic bags and eventually banning the use of biodegradable bags rather than simply requiring stores to use biodegradable bags in the first place.
- They introduced age-specific (rather than experience-specific) restrictions for young drivers.
- They seem to be seriously considering forcing a rape victim to testify in court with more of her body exposed than she is comfortable with.
And there are at least two other things too. I know I had at least 10 things, but I'm so upset I can't think of them.
All of these are things that I wrote my elected officials about. I wrote sensible, reasonable, coherent letters (much more sensible, reasonable and coherent than this blog post) identifying the crux of the problem and proposing specific solutions. In at least half the cases (garbage chutes, plastic bags, rent increases, driving restrictions, HST rebate) my solutions were objectively better for all involved. (They might in fact be better for all of these issues, but I can't objectively assess my solutions in all of them.) I did exactly what I was supposed to and was helpful and productive, but none of this stuff got fixed.
But when they came up with the excellent of idea of making O Canada inclusive, people wrote in and complained so they chickened out. And when they came up with the excellent idea of updating sex ed for the 21st century, people wrote in and complained and they stopped. But they never stop when I write in and complain.
I am drained and frustrated and exhausted. I'm being a good and diligent citizen, and no one is listening. But they are listening to the people who want to hurt me.
Our standard of living has been stagnating or declining since 1980. I was born in 1980. Things have been getting worse my whole life!
My parents were about the same age I am now when they had me. They had been married for seven years, so the choice to have a child was deliberate and mindful. And this choice must have been informed by the context in which they grew up: be good, and life will get better. My parents were good. They did well in school and went to university and got good sensible jobs, and were therefore able to achieve a much higher quality of life than the one that they grew up with. So they tried hard to make us smart, insofar as parenting can influence that sort of thing, so that we could achieve the same.
I was also good. I did well in school, got a good sensible job, never hurt anyone, and turned out vaguely smart as well. And I'm being a good girl politically too, always writing my elected representatives with good, logical, sensible, coherent letters that propose helpful solutions whenever I have something useful to contribute. But it isn't working! And, in a number of cases, they're actually hindering my quality of life!
This all feels so depressing and hopeless.
That just pisses me off.
It isn't the tax that pisses me off. It isn't the fact of the rebate that pisses me off. It's the fact that they never corrected the major inequity in the rebate: Single individuals get $300, but couples without dependent children get $1000.
That is, quite simply, wrong. Living as a couple is not more expensive than living as two single individuals. The rebate for a couple with no dependents should not under any circumstances exceed the rebate for two single individuals.
Of course, I pointed this out right away, as soon as the March 2009 budget came out. I blogged it and emailed it to my MPP and the Minister of Finance and Dalton McGuinty. I talked to people about it, and all the married and cohabiting couples in my life agreed with me that it's unfair, so I encouraged them to write to their MPPs. Basically I spotted a flaw in the plan and did everything I'm supposed to under those circumstances. But they didn't correct it.
I am incredibly frustrated because lately it seems like this is happening with everything.
- Transit City has been defunded, and none of the candidates are proposing solutions that will solve the part of the problem that affects me personally.
- Abortion is being excluded from international development maternal health programs.
- No one is working to correct the flaw in the ORTA that allows landlords to increase rent as much as they want if the building happens to have been built after 1998.
- The new copyright bill makes it illegal to break digital locks.
- The City of Toronto is encouraging buildings to close their garbage chutes rather than encouraging them to use them for recycling or organics.
- They're requiring stores to charge people 5 cents for plastic bags and eventually banning the use of biodegradable bags rather than simply requiring stores to use biodegradable bags in the first place.
- They introduced age-specific (rather than experience-specific) restrictions for young drivers.
- They seem to be seriously considering forcing a rape victim to testify in court with more of her body exposed than she is comfortable with.
And there are at least two other things too. I know I had at least 10 things, but I'm so upset I can't think of them.
All of these are things that I wrote my elected officials about. I wrote sensible, reasonable, coherent letters (much more sensible, reasonable and coherent than this blog post) identifying the crux of the problem and proposing specific solutions. In at least half the cases (garbage chutes, plastic bags, rent increases, driving restrictions, HST rebate) my solutions were objectively better for all involved. (They might in fact be better for all of these issues, but I can't objectively assess my solutions in all of them.) I did exactly what I was supposed to and was helpful and productive, but none of this stuff got fixed.
But when they came up with the excellent of idea of making O Canada inclusive, people wrote in and complained so they chickened out. And when they came up with the excellent idea of updating sex ed for the 21st century, people wrote in and complained and they stopped. But they never stop when I write in and complain.
I am drained and frustrated and exhausted. I'm being a good and diligent citizen, and no one is listening. But they are listening to the people who want to hurt me.
Our standard of living has been stagnating or declining since 1980. I was born in 1980. Things have been getting worse my whole life!
My parents were about the same age I am now when they had me. They had been married for seven years, so the choice to have a child was deliberate and mindful. And this choice must have been informed by the context in which they grew up: be good, and life will get better. My parents were good. They did well in school and went to university and got good sensible jobs, and were therefore able to achieve a much higher quality of life than the one that they grew up with. So they tried hard to make us smart, insofar as parenting can influence that sort of thing, so that we could achieve the same.
I was also good. I did well in school, got a good sensible job, never hurt anyone, and turned out vaguely smart as well. And I'm being a good girl politically too, always writing my elected representatives with good, logical, sensible, coherent letters that propose helpful solutions whenever I have something useful to contribute. But it isn't working! And, in a number of cases, they're actually hindering my quality of life!
This all feels so depressing and hopeless.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Congratulations!
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Things They Should Invent: no insurance limit on smoking cessation aids
A friend of mine is quitting smoking. (YAY!) When I asked if his insurance covered whatever method he chose to use, he said that they do, but only up to a certain dollar amount.
Isn't that the stupidest thing ever to have a dollar limit on???
People should get all the smoking cessation aids they need to quit smoking! That might even be worse than the dollar limit on psychotherapy.
And people wonder why I have a conspiracy theory (once blogged, can't find it now) that employer-provided health plans are intended to keep you alive long enough to work but kill you shortly after retirement!
Isn't that the stupidest thing ever to have a dollar limit on???
People should get all the smoking cessation aids they need to quit smoking! That might even be worse than the dollar limit on psychotherapy.
And people wonder why I have a conspiracy theory (once blogged, can't find it now) that employer-provided health plans are intended to keep you alive long enough to work but kill you shortly after retirement!
Monday, June 07, 2010
Why are they holding the G20 here if they don't want the trappings of a city?
They're fencing off part of downtown. People will need to go through security screening to get to their homes and jobs. They're closing the CN Tower. They're canceling baseball games. They're canceling performances of musicals. They're closing down U of T. They're closing the art gallery. (And I'd very much like to know if all these workers are losing their wages for this time.) VIA trains won't be running downtown. They're removing garbage cans and bus shelters and street furniture from downtown.
It sounds like they don't really want a whole bunch of people and things all crowded into one small area, all hurrying about in different directions and legitimately engaged in a wide range of eccentric activities.
In other words, they don't want a city.
So WTF are they holding it here? They clearly don't want us to be us! Why don't they hold it somewhere more isolated or at the very least lower density?
It sounds like they don't really want a whole bunch of people and things all crowded into one small area, all hurrying about in different directions and legitimately engaged in a wide range of eccentric activities.
In other words, they don't want a city.
So WTF are they holding it here? They clearly don't want us to be us! Why don't they hold it somewhere more isolated or at the very least lower density?
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Conspiracy theory of the moment
Bicycles are considered equal to cars (or any other motor vehicle). They should be on the road, not the sidewalk. They are entitled to take up an entire lane on the street.
On the surface, that sounds good and positive and validating towards cyclists. But what if it's really a conspiracy to keep cycling from being a viable and commonly-used mode of transportation?
Biking in the road is difficult and scary for the cyclist, and is also kind of scary for the driver. If you hit another car, you hurt the car. If you hit a cyclist, you probably kill a whole human being. There's huge outcry about how cyclists should be on the road so they don't interfere with pedestrians, but I personally feel safer walking among cyclists than driving among cyclists, and I feel better able to dodge pedestrians while biking than to dodge cyclists while driving. (I freely concede this might be because I'm a bad driver, and good drivers might feel differently.)
People who aren't hardcore and brave simply aren't going to bike as a primary mode of transportation if it means they have to share a busy street with cars. I'd say the majority of people simply don't want that kind of risk with their morning commute.
Has anyone ever looked into the origin of the law that puts cyclists on the road? Why is it there in the first place? Who thought it was a good idea, and why?
On the surface, that sounds good and positive and validating towards cyclists. But what if it's really a conspiracy to keep cycling from being a viable and commonly-used mode of transportation?
Biking in the road is difficult and scary for the cyclist, and is also kind of scary for the driver. If you hit another car, you hurt the car. If you hit a cyclist, you probably kill a whole human being. There's huge outcry about how cyclists should be on the road so they don't interfere with pedestrians, but I personally feel safer walking among cyclists than driving among cyclists, and I feel better able to dodge pedestrians while biking than to dodge cyclists while driving. (I freely concede this might be because I'm a bad driver, and good drivers might feel differently.)
People who aren't hardcore and brave simply aren't going to bike as a primary mode of transportation if it means they have to share a busy street with cars. I'd say the majority of people simply don't want that kind of risk with their morning commute.
Has anyone ever looked into the origin of the law that puts cyclists on the road? Why is it there in the first place? Who thought it was a good idea, and why?
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Things They Should Invent: standardized deprovocation procedure
With the arrival of the G20 in Toronto, all the usual concerns are coming up about authority figures planting agents provocateurs in with the protesters.
So what we need is standardized, universally-agreed-upon way of de-escalation any provocation. Anyone who suspects they are witnessing provocation should engage in the standard deprovocation procedures, and anyone who witnesses the standard deprovocation should also engage in the deprovocation procedure. This will prevent the provocateur from having influence, and might also draw attention to any provocateurs.
The standardized deprovocation should involve being calm and quiet, and should involve some easily visible sign that you are currently engaging in deprovocation. There also needs to be a generally agreed-upon social standard that having one's behaviour deprovoked is not a personal diss, for people who aren't agents provocateurs but just get over-excited by the energy of the crowd.
So how would a deprovocation work? Here's an idea as a starting point: when you witness something you believe might be provocation, you stop, turn away from the provocateur with your arms crossed like a Klingon discommendation ritual, and stay still and silent for 10 seconds. Then you proceed just like you were before, as though nothing had happened. If you witness someone else deprovoking, you also stop, turn in the same direction as the deprovocateur with your arms crossed like a Klingon discommendation ritual, and stay still and silent for 10 seconds. Once the deprovocation is over, forget about it. Don't scold or start a witch hunt for the original provocateur.
This particular method does have its flaws and I'm sure people could think of a better way, but you see what it achieves. The provocation cannot escalate or be interpreted as escalation if everyone is still and silent. Turning away from the provocateur eliminates their audience, so they cannot provoke. It is a visible gesture to witnesses and cameras that you, personally, are actively trying to de-escalate.
If a method can be agreed upon and used by a critical mass of people, it should make it impossible for anyone to successfully provoke and allow benign crowds to peaceably self-police.
So what we need is standardized, universally-agreed-upon way of de-escalation any provocation. Anyone who suspects they are witnessing provocation should engage in the standard deprovocation procedures, and anyone who witnesses the standard deprovocation should also engage in the deprovocation procedure. This will prevent the provocateur from having influence, and might also draw attention to any provocateurs.
The standardized deprovocation should involve being calm and quiet, and should involve some easily visible sign that you are currently engaging in deprovocation. There also needs to be a generally agreed-upon social standard that having one's behaviour deprovoked is not a personal diss, for people who aren't agents provocateurs but just get over-excited by the energy of the crowd.
So how would a deprovocation work? Here's an idea as a starting point: when you witness something you believe might be provocation, you stop, turn away from the provocateur with your arms crossed like a Klingon discommendation ritual, and stay still and silent for 10 seconds. Then you proceed just like you were before, as though nothing had happened. If you witness someone else deprovoking, you also stop, turn in the same direction as the deprovocateur with your arms crossed like a Klingon discommendation ritual, and stay still and silent for 10 seconds. Once the deprovocation is over, forget about it. Don't scold or start a witch hunt for the original provocateur.
This particular method does have its flaws and I'm sure people could think of a better way, but you see what it achieves. The provocation cannot escalate or be interpreted as escalation if everyone is still and silent. Turning away from the provocateur eliminates their audience, so they cannot provoke. It is a visible gesture to witnesses and cameras that you, personally, are actively trying to de-escalate.
If a method can be agreed upon and used by a critical mass of people, it should make it impossible for anyone to successfully provoke and allow benign crowds to peaceably self-police.
What if we don't care enough about the environment because our country is so big?
So I've been playing with IfItWasMyHome.com, which projects the oil spill on a map so you can see how big it is in comparison to an area you're familiar with. So I projected it on Toronto, and yeah, they're right, it's really big.
Then I projected it on London.
Holy fucking shit.
It is wider than ENGLAND! It's about the same size as Belgium and Netherlands combined! It could swallow Wales whole without leaving a trace, and they have their own language!
When projected on a map of Southern Ontario it does look big, It would swallow the world as I know it and then some, but that's just a tiny little corner of our country. Anything that would be lost if we disappeared is reproduced similarly enough in other parts of Canada and/or the US. But in Europe the same amount of land contains whole cultures with histories that go on for centuries (millenia?) beyond anything of which we can conceive.
What if this is making us too blasé about the environment? What if we're subconsciously less motivated to protect our land and water because we have so much of it? I never even realized just how much water we have in the Great Lakes (proportionately speaking) until I saw that the oil spill is a bit smaller than any one lake, but it's as wide as all of ENGLAND!
Then I projected it on London.
Holy fucking shit.
It is wider than ENGLAND! It's about the same size as Belgium and Netherlands combined! It could swallow Wales whole without leaving a trace, and they have their own language!
When projected on a map of Southern Ontario it does look big, It would swallow the world as I know it and then some, but that's just a tiny little corner of our country. Anything that would be lost if we disappeared is reproduced similarly enough in other parts of Canada and/or the US. But in Europe the same amount of land contains whole cultures with histories that go on for centuries (millenia?) beyond anything of which we can conceive.
What if this is making us too blasé about the environment? What if we're subconsciously less motivated to protect our land and water because we have so much of it? I never even realized just how much water we have in the Great Lakes (proportionately speaking) until I saw that the oil spill is a bit smaller than any one lake, but it's as wide as all of ENGLAND!
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Being a polyglot makes me sheltered
A while back, I found a clip on YouTube of a Japanese a capella group singing Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?
Watching this, I was struck by how the only thing I understand are the lyrics to Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego. I don't understand the spoken introduction, I don't understand the signs, I don't understand the various other spoken words. If put in that environment, I couldn't buy a coffee or a train ticket or even ask for help, unless someone there happens to speak my language.
That concept is terrifying! Like paralyzingly, can't-breathe terrifying! I have never in my life been in an environment where I don't speak the language! Sure, I've been in the presence of conversations in a language that I don't understand, but I've always been able to read the signs and address any random passers-by in the default local language. The idea of not being able to makes me feel helpless, like when I was 2 and fell asleep in the car seat and my mother decided to take the groceries into the house first and then come back for me and I thought she'd forgotten all about me.
Then I realized: I have never been in an environment where I don't speak the language! Isn't that weird? People travel to places where they don't speak the language all the time, but I'm so used to knowing languages that I find the prospect terrifying.
Watching this, I was struck by how the only thing I understand are the lyrics to Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego. I don't understand the spoken introduction, I don't understand the signs, I don't understand the various other spoken words. If put in that environment, I couldn't buy a coffee or a train ticket or even ask for help, unless someone there happens to speak my language.
That concept is terrifying! Like paralyzingly, can't-breathe terrifying! I have never in my life been in an environment where I don't speak the language! Sure, I've been in the presence of conversations in a language that I don't understand, but I've always been able to read the signs and address any random passers-by in the default local language. The idea of not being able to makes me feel helpless, like when I was 2 and fell asleep in the car seat and my mother decided to take the groceries into the house first and then come back for me and I thought she'd forgotten all about me.
Then I realized: I have never been in an environment where I don't speak the language! Isn't that weird? People travel to places where they don't speak the language all the time, but I'm so used to knowing languages that I find the prospect terrifying.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Power has been restored at Yonge & Eg
The hydro electrical power outage at Yonge & Eglinton this morning (i.e. June 1) was apparently fixed around 11:30. Why yes, I am front-loading this post with keywords. I couldn't find anything when I was googling from work to figure out if I should go home, so I'm making a blog post in the hope that it might help someone else.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Eddie braindump
I just got back from seeing Eddie Izzard again!! This isn't at all cohesive, but I want to write stuff down before I forget. I know at one point in the show I was doubled over with laughter struggling to breathe at some throwaway line, and I can't for the life of me remember what it was any more!!!! Plus at least two brand new blog posts were inspired by this show, and I can't remember them either.*
- The experience was far less intense for me because it wasn't the first time. Last time I was agog and in awe of the simple fact that he's real. This time that wasn't there. Similarly, some of the lines I didn't laugh out loud and viscerally at because I knew they were coming. I'm wondering if a significant portion of the audience had also been there at previous shows, because we didn't standing O his entrance this time. Which is unfortunate - I wanted to do it on principle - but maybe we weren't collectively feeling the sheer awe that he is real and right there because we had already been through that just a few weeks ago. Maybe this is a bad idea though, maybe we should have forced ourselves to react like it's new, because we certainly don't want Eddie to think he has to wait another seven years before he comes back so he'll get a proper welcome.
- The show is less scripted than I expected. The set pieces were there, loosely plotted, and the key beats were there, but everything in between was just Eddie being Eddie. I'd thought that more of it was scripted in a way to make it sound unscripted, but it seems it's mostly just Eddie. Which is fantastic, because that's what I'm here for - to spend time inside Eddie's brain.
- Eddie was wearing jeans that were so tight that they showed off his post-marathon leg muscles nearly as well as fishnets. Not jeggings, actual jeans. Regardless of how you feel about that as a fashion statement, you have to admire it as a design achievement! In addition to the expected collection of inappropriate thoughts, I want to have a girl talky conversation with Eddie about these jeans. Precisely how comfortable or uncomfortable are they? (They had some stretch to them, but looked like they had the potential to be uncomfortable.) How many did he have to try on to find that exact look? Were they altered? How often does he wash them? Can he sit in them? Does he really need that belt?
- With Eddie wearing makeup and heels this time (along with the same boy-mode costume, but this time with the astoundingly tight jeans), I noticed that his hairdo is masculine. I had never before in my life consciously realized that short hair styles can be gendered! I've always just parsed them as Other and irrelevant and moved on.
- I just noticed this time around that the giant squid is writing a TripAdvisor review with INK! Yeah, because you can totally send handwritten reviews to websites. (Why yes, that is the most egregious of all plot holes in that bit.)
- The seats in Massey Hall are SO uncomfortable! They make me want to sit with my legs rather wide apart, but I can't do that because the seats are close together and the strange older man beside me is rather large and wearing shorts, and I'm just not going to open my legs while wearing a shortish skirt and rub my bare leg against a strange man's bare leg. Most comfortable would have been to sit knee-crossed-over-ankle, but there simply wasn't room to do that (even if I was willing to be improper and invade personal space), so when I got home I had to spend some time in triangle poses. If it's this bad for me, imagine how bad it would be for people with stiff joints, or especially tall people! Dear Massey Hall, please fix this!
- I don't care what anyone says, there are few sights more beautiful than Eddie making himself laugh
- At one point, Eddie dares God to prove his existence by showing himself, and then offers him various bribes to do so (cash, smoothies, etc.) Today he also offered him 12 virgins, then 23 virgins, then 72 people with experience. My thought: are there 23 (or even 12) virgins in this room, like at all?
- I noticed today that whenever Eddie did his write-on-his-hand oops-not-funny thing, it was always in cases where I wasn't laughing, but I wasn't not laughing because it wasn't funny. I wasn't laughing because I was waiting with rapt anticipation and bated breath to hear what he'd say next. I wish there was some way to communicate "Yes, and...?" to the person on stage.
- (In retrospect, putting my purse between my knees might have helped with the uncomfortable seats.)
- The black-market merch guys were still out there (different guys, same set-up) so I guess that means they did make enough money last time. Either that, or they had a bunch of extra merch left over from the last run and this was their best chance to move some of it.
- At one point, Eddie was on a tangent about how the word sheep doesn't pluralize, and a bunch of all different people in the audience shouted out "MOOSE!" And I was thinking that too, I just didn't shout it out because it didn't seem the moment. But it was just so interesting that so many people were thinking exactly the same thing at that point. There are other words that don't pluralize, but we all thought of the same one, to the extent that probably 7 people felt the need to shout it out (and this at a point in the show where he wasn't asking us to shout things at him).
- The interesting thing about sitting close to the stage (Second row centre!!! Best seats I've ever had for anything in my life!) is how the audience feels different to me as an audience member. The audience as I was experiencing it was me and Poodle, the very enthusiastic group of die-hards in front of us, and the older couple next to me who kept repeating funny lines to each other. The reaction of the audience as a whole was travelling to Eddie in waves over our heads, not touching us at all.
- Overall, the show as a whole was looser and more relaxed than the previous one. I think a significant portion of the audience had seen it before, but even without the surprise it was still entirely entertaining. I would very happily do this once a month at the same price point for a very long time.
"I'm very good at pure logic. I have to be - I'm a transvestite!" - E. Izzard.
*Oh, I just remembered: the line was supposed to be "everyone take a frog and put it on your head" (plot point in Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt) but Eddie either accidentally or deliberately-repeating-a-previous-mistake-that-had-humour-value said "everyone take a frog and put it on one of your heads" or something like that, then took rather a circuitous route back in a way that alluded to Inspector Tiger. I'm obviously not communicating the humour here, but for some reason it just killed me.
- The experience was far less intense for me because it wasn't the first time. Last time I was agog and in awe of the simple fact that he's real. This time that wasn't there. Similarly, some of the lines I didn't laugh out loud and viscerally at because I knew they were coming. I'm wondering if a significant portion of the audience had also been there at previous shows, because we didn't standing O his entrance this time. Which is unfortunate - I wanted to do it on principle - but maybe we weren't collectively feeling the sheer awe that he is real and right there because we had already been through that just a few weeks ago. Maybe this is a bad idea though, maybe we should have forced ourselves to react like it's new, because we certainly don't want Eddie to think he has to wait another seven years before he comes back so he'll get a proper welcome.
- The show is less scripted than I expected. The set pieces were there, loosely plotted, and the key beats were there, but everything in between was just Eddie being Eddie. I'd thought that more of it was scripted in a way to make it sound unscripted, but it seems it's mostly just Eddie. Which is fantastic, because that's what I'm here for - to spend time inside Eddie's brain.
- Eddie was wearing jeans that were so tight that they showed off his post-marathon leg muscles nearly as well as fishnets. Not jeggings, actual jeans. Regardless of how you feel about that as a fashion statement, you have to admire it as a design achievement! In addition to the expected collection of inappropriate thoughts, I want to have a girl talky conversation with Eddie about these jeans. Precisely how comfortable or uncomfortable are they? (They had some stretch to them, but looked like they had the potential to be uncomfortable.) How many did he have to try on to find that exact look? Were they altered? How often does he wash them? Can he sit in them? Does he really need that belt?
- With Eddie wearing makeup and heels this time (along with the same boy-mode costume, but this time with the astoundingly tight jeans), I noticed that his hairdo is masculine. I had never before in my life consciously realized that short hair styles can be gendered! I've always just parsed them as Other and irrelevant and moved on.
- I just noticed this time around that the giant squid is writing a TripAdvisor review with INK! Yeah, because you can totally send handwritten reviews to websites. (Why yes, that is the most egregious of all plot holes in that bit.)
- The seats in Massey Hall are SO uncomfortable! They make me want to sit with my legs rather wide apart, but I can't do that because the seats are close together and the strange older man beside me is rather large and wearing shorts, and I'm just not going to open my legs while wearing a shortish skirt and rub my bare leg against a strange man's bare leg. Most comfortable would have been to sit knee-crossed-over-ankle, but there simply wasn't room to do that (even if I was willing to be improper and invade personal space), so when I got home I had to spend some time in triangle poses. If it's this bad for me, imagine how bad it would be for people with stiff joints, or especially tall people! Dear Massey Hall, please fix this!
- I don't care what anyone says, there are few sights more beautiful than Eddie making himself laugh
- At one point, Eddie dares God to prove his existence by showing himself, and then offers him various bribes to do so (cash, smoothies, etc.) Today he also offered him 12 virgins, then 23 virgins, then 72 people with experience. My thought: are there 23 (or even 12) virgins in this room, like at all?
- I noticed today that whenever Eddie did his write-on-his-hand oops-not-funny thing, it was always in cases where I wasn't laughing, but I wasn't not laughing because it wasn't funny. I wasn't laughing because I was waiting with rapt anticipation and bated breath to hear what he'd say next. I wish there was some way to communicate "Yes, and...?" to the person on stage.
- (In retrospect, putting my purse between my knees might have helped with the uncomfortable seats.)
- The black-market merch guys were still out there (different guys, same set-up) so I guess that means they did make enough money last time. Either that, or they had a bunch of extra merch left over from the last run and this was their best chance to move some of it.
- At one point, Eddie was on a tangent about how the word sheep doesn't pluralize, and a bunch of all different people in the audience shouted out "MOOSE!" And I was thinking that too, I just didn't shout it out because it didn't seem the moment. But it was just so interesting that so many people were thinking exactly the same thing at that point. There are other words that don't pluralize, but we all thought of the same one, to the extent that probably 7 people felt the need to shout it out (and this at a point in the show where he wasn't asking us to shout things at him).
- The interesting thing about sitting close to the stage (Second row centre!!! Best seats I've ever had for anything in my life!) is how the audience feels different to me as an audience member. The audience as I was experiencing it was me and Poodle, the very enthusiastic group of die-hards in front of us, and the older couple next to me who kept repeating funny lines to each other. The reaction of the audience as a whole was travelling to Eddie in waves over our heads, not touching us at all.
- Overall, the show as a whole was looser and more relaxed than the previous one. I think a significant portion of the audience had seen it before, but even without the surprise it was still entirely entertaining. I would very happily do this once a month at the same price point for a very long time.
"I'm very good at pure logic. I have to be - I'm a transvestite!" - E. Izzard.
*Oh, I just remembered: the line was supposed to be "everyone take a frog and put it on your head" (plot point in Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt) but Eddie either accidentally or deliberately-repeating-a-previous-mistake-that-had-humour-value said "everyone take a frog and put it on one of your heads" or something like that, then took rather a circuitous route back in a way that alluded to Inspector Tiger. I'm obviously not communicating the humour here, but for some reason it just killed me.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Things They Should Invent: shyness drugs
From today's Miss Conduct:
I've seen this sentiment a number of times before, and what shocks me and baffles me and makes me want to weep every single time is that people think this is snobby and malicious, and don't see that it is so obviously a sign of shyness. (Although props to Miss Conduct for recognizing that in her answer!)
Apparently there are a lot of very loud people out there who have no idea what it's like to be shy. They don't know that eye contact is physically difficult. Seriously, it feels incredibly intense and your first instinct is to look away. They don't know that it would literally never occur to us that a stranger/casual acquaintance might want a hi how are you from us, because they're obviously cool people with their own lives so why on earth would they need us? It's not malice, it's a desire to quietly keep out of everyone's way!
And having it interpreted as malicious makes it even worse for the shy person (and, consequently, even worse for the co-workers who do want an eye contact hi how are you). I do eventually unshy once I feel safe in a particular context, with particular people, but it takes time and external validation. Having it considered malice just makes it worse and puts the barrier towards unshying further and further out of reach. If I were the shy woman in the letter, I wouldn't have thought anything about not getting as many gifts as my colleague. Obviously she's cooler and better-liked, that only makes sense. My feelings wouldn't even have been hurt, I would simply have seen that as the natural order of things. However, because that is so obviously the natural order of things, it would lead me to renew my pattern of eyes down don't disturb anyone. That isn't passive-aggressive, that's just the only response that would ever occur to me. However, if I got just as many gifts as the other woman and was treated as an equally valued member of the team, that might make me feel like they do actually want me and are actually interested in me, which would make me more likely to say hi to them.
I've been working on doing the eye contact hi how are you thing for nearly half my life, and it's still work. Making eye contact with someone I'm not close to is like trying to push like magnetic poles together. I can do it, but I have to struggle against my natural instincts to do so. (I even have a memory of adults getting offended at my lack of eye contact when I was a preschool child. You're a preschooler, doing the only thing that it even occurs to you to do (it feels intense so you look away) and grown adults are taking offence because you're not doing the thing that is so against your every instinct that it would never occur to you. What do you even do with that? No wonder I always felt like the world had a secret set of rules that no one had told me about!) It's like doing the splits. You can train long and hard to get flexible enough that you can do the splits, and if you practice your routine enough you will eventually fall into the splits at the right point. But it will never be natural. You'll never get to a place where you're at home, with no one watching, just sprawled out reading a book, and you end up in the splits.
Anyway, my point: someone should invent drugs that make non-shy people feel shy just temporarily, like for a day or two. So people could see first-hand what it's like when your every instinct has you wanting to walk quickly by, eyes down, so they don't see you and you don't see them. Then maybe we'll all be able to understand each other better and unshy people more quickly.
(And yes, I would be interested in experimenting with the opposite drug to make me feel outgoing, but I'd probably end up becoming an addict.)
Two of my co-workers are expecting. One of the women is friendly to everyone. The other will walk by me without replying to a hello. She does this to many people and only talks to her select friends. One of her friends has planned a dual shower for both (it is suspected that this is the only way people would go to a shower for the second woman). I am not attending because of a prior commitment. I had planned on buying a gift for the first woman and giving it to her at a different time, but some people are planning to buy a joint gift for the second woman. I know I am not the only one who feels uncomfortable buying a gift for someone who does not make any effort to be friendly to everyone.
I've seen this sentiment a number of times before, and what shocks me and baffles me and makes me want to weep every single time is that people think this is snobby and malicious, and don't see that it is so obviously a sign of shyness. (Although props to Miss Conduct for recognizing that in her answer!)
Apparently there are a lot of very loud people out there who have no idea what it's like to be shy. They don't know that eye contact is physically difficult. Seriously, it feels incredibly intense and your first instinct is to look away. They don't know that it would literally never occur to us that a stranger/casual acquaintance might want a hi how are you from us, because they're obviously cool people with their own lives so why on earth would they need us? It's not malice, it's a desire to quietly keep out of everyone's way!
And having it interpreted as malicious makes it even worse for the shy person (and, consequently, even worse for the co-workers who do want an eye contact hi how are you). I do eventually unshy once I feel safe in a particular context, with particular people, but it takes time and external validation. Having it considered malice just makes it worse and puts the barrier towards unshying further and further out of reach. If I were the shy woman in the letter, I wouldn't have thought anything about not getting as many gifts as my colleague. Obviously she's cooler and better-liked, that only makes sense. My feelings wouldn't even have been hurt, I would simply have seen that as the natural order of things. However, because that is so obviously the natural order of things, it would lead me to renew my pattern of eyes down don't disturb anyone. That isn't passive-aggressive, that's just the only response that would ever occur to me. However, if I got just as many gifts as the other woman and was treated as an equally valued member of the team, that might make me feel like they do actually want me and are actually interested in me, which would make me more likely to say hi to them.
I've been working on doing the eye contact hi how are you thing for nearly half my life, and it's still work. Making eye contact with someone I'm not close to is like trying to push like magnetic poles together. I can do it, but I have to struggle against my natural instincts to do so. (I even have a memory of adults getting offended at my lack of eye contact when I was a preschool child. You're a preschooler, doing the only thing that it even occurs to you to do (it feels intense so you look away) and grown adults are taking offence because you're not doing the thing that is so against your every instinct that it would never occur to you. What do you even do with that? No wonder I always felt like the world had a secret set of rules that no one had told me about!) It's like doing the splits. You can train long and hard to get flexible enough that you can do the splits, and if you practice your routine enough you will eventually fall into the splits at the right point. But it will never be natural. You'll never get to a place where you're at home, with no one watching, just sprawled out reading a book, and you end up in the splits.
Anyway, my point: someone should invent drugs that make non-shy people feel shy just temporarily, like for a day or two. So people could see first-hand what it's like when your every instinct has you wanting to walk quickly by, eyes down, so they don't see you and you don't see them. Then maybe we'll all be able to understand each other better and unshy people more quickly.
(And yes, I would be interested in experimenting with the opposite drug to make me feel outgoing, but I'd probably end up becoming an addict.)
Saturday, May 29, 2010
How to fix your computer freezing after the latest ZoneAlarm upgrade
After the latest ZoneAlarm update (I got it on Friday, May 28), my computer started slowing and freezing. I'm running Windows XP on a five-year-old computer, 2.8 GHz processor and 2 gigs of RAM. Not the best, but it had served me well right up until that upgrade.
Sometimes after boot-up, nothing would work. Like I'd click on something and after five minutes it still hadn't loaded, and even the Task Manager would freeze. I also started getting errors when launching Sims 3, "Application failed to initialize properly." I tried a system restore to before the ZoneAlarm upgrade, but that didn't help.
The ultimate solution ended up being to uninstall and reinstall the ZoneAlarm upgrade, but not installing all the components. Unfortunately I failed to write down the exact name of the interface items, but there's a window with three checkboxes asking what you want to install. The first checkbox is the regular firewall, I forget what the second is, and the third offers to put a ZoneAlarm security function in your Google toolbar. If you uncheck the second, the third is greyed out.
The first time around (which caused all the problems), I'd chosen all three. The second time around, I chose only the first of the three. The installation went smoothly and there have been no problems since.
Sometimes after boot-up, nothing would work. Like I'd click on something and after five minutes it still hadn't loaded, and even the Task Manager would freeze. I also started getting errors when launching Sims 3, "Application failed to initialize properly." I tried a system restore to before the ZoneAlarm upgrade, but that didn't help.
The ultimate solution ended up being to uninstall and reinstall the ZoneAlarm upgrade, but not installing all the components. Unfortunately I failed to write down the exact name of the interface items, but there's a window with three checkboxes asking what you want to install. The first checkbox is the regular firewall, I forget what the second is, and the third offers to put a ZoneAlarm security function in your Google toolbar. If you uncheck the second, the third is greyed out.
The first time around (which caused all the problems), I'd chosen all three. The second time around, I chose only the first of the three. The installation went smoothly and there have been no problems since.
So what's going on in Scandinavia?
I've seen a number of articles lately (like this) saying that the situation in Greece demonstrates that the European model of socialism is unsustainable, often implying that this means we should stop aspiring to it ourselves.
These articles focus on Greece, and also cite in passing other European countries such as Italy, Germany, France and Britain.
But I have never seen any of them mention any Scandinavian countries.
Scandinavia is most often held up as the very best example of European socialism, where the concept works better than anywhere else. But I haven't heard anything about how they're doing in this economic crisis. I know something serious happened in Iceland, which I think was related to the kinds of bad debt investments that triggered this whole thing, but I haven't heard anything about any of the other Scandinavian countries.
So how are they doing up there? And why are our media never using them as an example of anything?
These articles focus on Greece, and also cite in passing other European countries such as Italy, Germany, France and Britain.
But I have never seen any of them mention any Scandinavian countries.
Scandinavia is most often held up as the very best example of European socialism, where the concept works better than anywhere else. But I haven't heard anything about how they're doing in this economic crisis. I know something serious happened in Iceland, which I think was related to the kinds of bad debt investments that triggered this whole thing, but I haven't heard anything about any of the other Scandinavian countries.
So how are they doing up there? And why are our media never using them as an example of anything?
Friday, May 28, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
More information please: sound cannon edition
Toronto police have purchased four, long-range acoustic devices (LRAD) — often referred to as sound guns or sound cannons — for the upcoming June 26-27 summit, the Star has learned.
...
Of Toronto’s newly-acquired LRADs, three are handheld devices that can broadcast noise heard from 600 metres away. Their volume can reach 135 decibels, which surpasses the pain threshold of 110 to 120.
The fourth device is a larger model that can be mounted on vehicles or marine vessels and can generate noise reaching 143 decibels, audible from as far as 1500 metres.
Before we even get into the question of whether this is a reasonable/advisable approach to protesters, we have to think about collateral damage. This is a high-density area, and the vast majority of the people in the area will be ordinary people just doing their jobs and going about their lives.
What would the ratio of people targeted by the cannon to other innocent people who just happen to be within range? How many people live within range? Aren't there a number of hospitals in the area? Doesn't the subway go right under it? What happens if a subway driver suddenly feels the need to clamp their hands over their ears? Are they blocking the entire sound cannon range off to cars? If not, what happens if a street full of people driving cars all feel the need to clamp their hands over their ears? How does being near the line of fire of a sound cannon affect children? Dogs? Birds? Wildlife? The scientific experiments that are doubtless being conducted somewhere within U of T?
We need to know this has been given all the consideration it deserves, especially since the Toronto Police are apparently keeping these devices.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Things They Should Invent: do not disturb signs for dogs
Some people like it when random people pay attention to their dog while walking down the street. Others don't - maybe it interferes with the dog's training, maybe the dog doesn't deal well with strangers, maybe they're in a hurry and don't want to have to stop for every squeeing idiot. The problem is, as a squeeing idiot, I have no way of knowing which dogs are which. I don't want to annoy anyone or ruin anyone's training, but at the same time I love your dog and don't want to miss a chance to interact if it will make everyone happy.
So what we need is some kind of standardized, easily-visible convention for leashes or collars or something that indicates to the onlooker that the dog does not want to be disturbed, similar to how service dogs have a distinctive harness. Perhaps it could be something temporary that you could add to an existing leash setup, in case your dog is okay with being disturbed sometimes but not always.
Random idea that came to me while typing: neckerchiefs. Sometimes people put neckerchiefs on dogs (which has always baffled me - it seems random and arbitrary - but whenever I ask dog people about it they say "It looks nice!" as though it's completely self-evident). Maybe a kerchief on the dog's neck or tied to the collar could mean do not disturb.
So what we need is some kind of standardized, easily-visible convention for leashes or collars or something that indicates to the onlooker that the dog does not want to be disturbed, similar to how service dogs have a distinctive harness. Perhaps it could be something temporary that you could add to an existing leash setup, in case your dog is okay with being disturbed sometimes but not always.
Random idea that came to me while typing: neckerchiefs. Sometimes people put neckerchiefs on dogs (which has always baffled me - it seems random and arbitrary - but whenever I ask dog people about it they say "It looks nice!" as though it's completely self-evident). Maybe a kerchief on the dog's neck or tied to the collar could mean do not disturb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)