Friday, August 28, 2009

Wherein the catholic school boards solve a 40-year-old problem

Apparently some of the catholic school boards are eliminating the uniform kilt because students are wearing them too short.

I think this is hilarious, because my mother wore her uniform kilt too short when she was in high school, back in the 1960s. It's actually my mother who (inadvertently) taught me how to roll a kilt so your hemline is high but you can readily lower it when there are teachers around. I never went to a school that had uniforms, but I still know the technique.

If my mother had chosen to start her family in her early 20s, and then I had chosen to start a family in my early 20s, my mother could easily be the grandmother of one of the high school students who's now seeing kilts banned from their wardrobe because people are wearing them too short. Imagine that! "But my grandmother got to do it!"

Women's trust is irrelevant to men's contraception

Tangental to this:

One thing I've frequently seen mentioned in discussions about the possibility of a male birth control pill is that it wouldn't fly because women wouldn't trust their partners to take the pill.

The more I think about it, the less I can see how this is at all relevant.

If my partner doesn't want children, he takes his pill. If I don't trust him to take his pill, I take my pill. Then we're doubly protected. Nothing wrong with that.

I've recently come to the realization that I still want to be sterilized even if my partner has been sterilized. But that doesn't mean my partner shouldn't get sterilized too if that's what he wants.

I know many people make these decisions as a couple and operate under the assumption that if between the two of them they can't make a baby, they're fine. And it is entirely their right to do so. But that doesn't mean that people who happen to be coupled shouldn't also be allowed to take measures to make sure that they, personally, don't sprog.

Some people will say that making these decisions as an individual implies that you're going to cheat. (Personally, I was thinking more along the lines that I could get raped.) But even if you are going to cheat, isn't it better to avoid making unwanted children while doing so? Best-case scenario: there's an affair, you reconcile and decide to move forward, if there are no children you can leave it completely behind you. Worst-case scenario: you DTMFA, there aren't any sprog requiring child support payments to take away from your alimony.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

How do psychic people know they are psychic?

We tend to assume that other people can do what we can do. If I can read that sign over there, I assume you can read that sign over there. If I heard that noise, I assume you heard that noise.

So if you are psychic, you'd assume other people can read people as well as you can. So you wouldn't think of it as psychicness, you'd just think of it as...being able to read people. Like how you can tell if someone's trying to hit on you or just making smalltalk, or you can tell if someone is nervous or uncomfortable.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Things They Should Invent: wireless internet in laundry rooms

Seriously, all laundromats and apartment buildings NEED this!

Why your childless friends stopped calling

I often see in advice columns new parents complaining that their childless friends aren't calling them as much or aren't as involved in their lives.

Here's why:

We don't want to wake up the baby.

We know that you're not getting much sleep, and that the baby requires a lot of time and attention. We know that whatever idle chitchat we might have isn't nearly as important as letting the baby sleep if it's asleep, or as letting you parent the baby if it's awake. So we aren't going to go barging in on your important stuff for our less important stuff. Frankly, we don't know how you do it, but we do know well enough not to go imposing additional burdens on you.

So if you want to chat, call us when it's a good time for you. If you want something specific from us, let us know. Remember: you have been childless, but we have never been parents. Your needs have changed immensely, but ours are still pretty much the same. You know where we're coming from as well as you ever did, but we can only guess where you're coming from. You're the only one with the ability to bridge the gap, because you're the only one in this relationship who's been on both sides.

Monday, August 24, 2009

xkcd knows everything

How to fix your computer.

In case you needed just one more reason to sponsor Eddie Izzard's run

In case the fact that Eddie Izzard is running a marathon a day for a month (while injured and insufficiently trained) to raise money for charity isn't enough to move you to donate, it seems he's also rescuing lost kittens as he goes along.

You can donate here.

From the "things I never knew were a problem" file

The edge of the strap of my beautiful, well-made, comfortable new sandals lands exactly on the cuticle of my big toe.

Friction + cuticle = not good. My morning commute involves probably a total of three blocks of walking, but by the time I got to the office there was blood.

With normal blisters and stuff, I just work through it and after a few days of pain the shoes and my feet come to an understanding. But in this case, I don't know if my cuticles will ever toughen up to the extent needed. (I don't mind wrecking my cuticles and a couple of days of blood and bandaids if it will solve the problem, but not if it's going to be unproductive.)

So the moral of the story: don't by sandals where the edge of the strap lands exactly on your toe cuticle.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Filing her nails while they're dragging the lake

I like version far better than the original:

Search String of the Day

Tubals make you horny

Do they? Forever, or just temporarily? Could it possibly be because you stopped the Pill after your tubal and it was suppressing your sex drive?

(Search String of the Day concept shamelessly yoinked from L-girl)

Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work: Godwin's Law penalty box

First, we make a universal standard for necessary exemptions from Godwin's Law (i.e. cases in which a comparison with nazis is appropriate).

Then, anyone who makes an inappropriate comparison with nazis gets a time-out. They are banned from all discourse for a certain period of time, like a penalty in hockey. If any particular political faction is egregiously overusing nazi comparison, these penalties will enable their opponents to dominate discourse, like a power play in hockey.

A potentially feasible variation: people who make completely irrelevant comments in comment threads (e.g. the gist of the article is "Look! Baby ducks!" and someone comments "See, this is what's wrong with feminists!") is banned from commenting for a certain period of time.

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Teach me how US health care works

Conventional wisdom is that you can't get medical care in the US unless you can pay for it. When I was a kid, they'd tell us to always carry your travel insurance information on your person at all times, because you can't assume a hospital will treat you until they know you're able to pay the bill.

But what happens if you go to the hospital, prove you can pay for the treatment they expect that you'll need, then it turns out to be more complicated and the complications are beyond your ability to pay? Do they turn out out of the hospital before you're fixed up? If not, what happens?

This train of thought was brought on by information I've seen in various places about the cost of childbirth, although I'm sure it applies to other situations as well. Apparently an uncomplicated vaginal birth costs four digits, a complicated c-section costs five digits, and NICU care (i.e. when the baby's in one of those boxes with tubes sticking out of him) costs six digits. I've seen, in multiple places, numbers in the $500,000 range for preemies who required a NICU stay. I would never be able to pay that - not even with a lifelong payment plan. However, I could easily afford the bill for an uncomplicated vaginal birth. But when you show up at the hospital in labour, not even the doctors can tell how complicated it's going to get. How do they handle this?

Friday, August 21, 2009

How clothing standards are completely subjective

My body is covered neck to wrist to ankle in thick, unflattering material that hides my shape. My hair is completely covered. My face is free of makeup.

There's a knock on the door. I'm hesitant to answer because I feel overexposed, but it's the UPS guy and if I don't take the package then I'll have to go all the way to Jane & Steeles to collect it. So I answer, and he averts his eyes a little to protect my modesty.

If he had come to the door half an hour later, I would have been wearing a fitted scoop-neck cap-sleeve shirt, a knee-length skirt, more makeup than strictly appropriate, and my hair completely uncovered and styled in a way that hints at its length and lusciousness. If the knock on the door had come then, I wouldn't have hesitated to answer because I wouldn't have felt overexposed, and he wouldn't have felt the need to avert his eyes because I was clearly fully clothed.

In the outfit I described in the first paragraph, I was just out of the shower in a bathrobe and hair towel. In the outfit I described in the third paragraph, I was dressed for work on a hot summer day in Toronto.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Teach me about the US political process

Logistically, legislatively, is there any reason why they couldn't just legislate a single-payer health care system into place without first seeking broader consensus? I get that it's a bit arrogant and assholic to go around unilaterally doing something that so many people are opposed to, but could they just make it happen if they didn't care about pissing people off and future electability? If not, why not?

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Advanced urban navigation

In the subway:

- If you're using a token, use the token-only turnstile. Not all turnstiles have a card swiper, so leave the ones that do for the Metropass users.
- If there's only one escalator and you're going in the same direction as it, take the escalator. Leave the stairs for the people going in the other direction, who have no choice but to use the stairs.
- If there's a train coming and you aren't running for it, assume the people behind you are running for it.
- Your dog is truly awesome, and everyone in the subway car agrees and is having a fabulous time petting him and squeeing at him. However, you need to have him in a sit on a tight leash every time the train pulls into a station. Why? Because some people are afraid of dogs, and those people might be waiting on the platform completely unaware that there's a dog in this car. You need to give them an opportunity to get on, get their bearings, realize there's a dog over to their right and head as far as possible to their left before Mr. Puppyface comes and slobbers on them. I know he's harmless, but that doesn't mean everyone wants him to lick them. There are a lot of harmless people on the subway too, but you still want a chance to consent before some random person walks up and kisses you.


In the grocery store:

- Act like you're driving. Do you leave your in the middle of the road parked perpendicularly when you need to run into a store? No, you pull off to the side. If you're driving down a busy street and accidentally pass your intended destination, do you do a u-turn (blocking all of traffic) and go back? No, you go around the block. Do the same with your cart.
- If your kid doesn't know the dance, don't let them push a cart during rush hour. You wouldn't let them practice driving during rush hour if they didn't know the rules of the road, would you?
- Don't have your children stand behind you in the grocery line. They get in the way of the person behind you putting their stuff on the conveyor belt, which slows down the line for several people. Have them stand in front of you, put stuff on the belt, and collect bags once the cashier has bagged your groceries.

On the street:

- If the sidewalk is temporarily narrower than usual due to construction or some other obstruction, don't panhandle, fundraise, hand out free samples, stop to talk on the phone, snog, smoke, loiter or wait for your friend in the narrow section. Walk a few doors down to the wider section so you don't block the whole sidewalk for everyone.
- I can totally see why you might leave garbage on the ground in front of the garbage can if the garbage can is full. However, before you do this, look at the company name on your take-out cup. Then look to your left and look to your right and see if you can see any franchises of that company. If you can, throw out your cup in there. There's no excuse to have Tim Hortons cups on the ground two doors down from Tim Hortons.
- When driving, signal your turns even if there's no car behind you. If the pedestrian to your left doesn't see your left turn signal, she'll assume you aren't turning in her direction and jaywalk out onto the street in front of you.


Life in general:
- If you're ever in charge of some being that doesn't understand the meaning of "Excuse me," (dog, cat, small child, llama, etc.), it's your job to make sure said being doesn't get in people's way.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Things They Should Invent: foreign-language official document confirmation service

Many freelance translators don't translate birth certificates etc. I don't know if there's a particular business reason for this, but I've done a few as parts of larger files of documentation, and I do know that they are especially annoying to translate. (For the googlers: sorry, I can't translate yours or give you specific advice on how to get yours translated.) For example, I've seen death certificates from France that listed all the pertinent details (and some less-pertinent details such as birthplace and parents' names) in a single run-on sentence of over 100 words. While the gist of the information was simple, it took a not-insignificant amount of actual work to wrestle that sentence into something that the English reader would have a chance of understanding, and I'm never going to be happy with the results because it cannot be made idiomatic in English unless I completely restructure it, which is beyond the scope of translation.

I don't think the end user actually cares whether I reflect the structure of the original. I think they're just looking for the basic death certificate information. So what I'd like to do instead is either produce a summary of the certificate (just list name, time of death, place of death, cause of death in point form without having to worry about the structure of the original) or to issue an official certification letter saying something to the effect of "I hereby certify that the document in question is a death certificate for Pierre Untel."

The logical question at this point is "But then how do we know if the document is real?" The answer to that question is even with normal translation, you still don't know if the document is real. Certifying the validity of documents is outside the scope of the translator's job; we just translate the words on the paper. When I certify the translation, it means that my translation accurately reflects the original. It doesn't mean the original is accurate. I cannot certify the authenticity of the original document any more than I can certify that an article I'm asked to translate is factually correct. Nor would the method I'm proposing hinder the end user's ability to certify the validity of the original document. If the end user knows how to certify the validity of a death certificate from France, they wouldn't need it translated. They'd be familiar enough with the format that they could easily extract the necessary information themselves. In other words, even if they can't read every word on the page, they'd know that this is the space for the deceased's name, and this is the space for time of death, etc. They might have to get the cause of death translated, but that's a 10 minute turnaround at minimum charge rather than an hour spent wrestling with bizarre sentence structure.

Another advantage of this approach is that the less-desirable documentation translation market could be redirected to less-skilled translators without any particular loss of quality. A student in their final year of undergrad or a first-and-a-half generation immigrant looking to earn some extra cash could totally confirm "Yes, this says he was born in Belgium on such-and-such a date" or produce a point-form summary of the death certificate, even if a full translation of the run-on sentences and legalistic language is beyond their skills. This would give the newbies some experience and make it easier for

It sounds like I want the translation industry to invent this, but really what we need is for the end users of translations of official documents (governments, universities, etc.) to accept this kind of simplified translation when they don't actually need a full translation. It would make life easier for everyone, but we can't do it unless the end users would accept it.

Facing your fears

Think of a situation where you're afraid to do something, and then you work up the nerve and do it. Let's assume it goes sufficiently smoothly.

Is the positive feeling you (i.e. you, personally) get from having successfully faced your fears stronger than the negative feeling of the fears themselves?

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Let's consider friends a luxury, not a necessity

"But my friends are a necessity," you're thinking, "I really do need them!"

Don't worry, I don't want to take your friends away. But just stick with me for a second; if we consider friendship a luxury, then everyone will have the opportunity to get the same friendship benefits that you do.

If a person doesn't have any friends, society in general thinks there's something wrong with them. And while it's true there might be something wrong with them, they also have simply never had their paths cross with someone who is compatible to be a true friend. Think of how many people you know. How many of these people would you let call you at 3 in the morning with a crisis and gladly drop everything so they can cry on your shoulder without begrudging it even an instant? Probably not a super-huge percentage - for me, I can count the people on one hand.

Given how small this percentage is, isn't is possible that the friendless person just hasn't met any compatible friends yet?

There were a few years where I had no friends. The problem was that my bullies would mock me for having no friends, and people wouldn't want to be friends with me because the bullies were mocking me. So because of this, I adapted two personality traits that are hindrances to making friends: I got really defensive, and I acted like I had a whole nother active social life outside of school so I didn't need to be friends with anyone there. This kept the bullies away, but it also kept prospective friends away. Frankly, I'm astounded that I ended up with any friends at all!

Even now as an adult, if I found myself in a situation where I didn't have a sufficient number of friends, I would do everything possible to hide it. I would get defensive, I would dissemble, I would make up elaborate excuses, I would generally become an unpleasant person to spend time with. All of which would make people disinclined to be my friend, thus perpetuating the problem. If it were socially acceptable to admit to not having enough friends, or to admit to the trappings and side-effects of not having enough friends, I could be frank and candid and pleasant.

This train of thought originated from that guy who shot up an aerobics class because he couldn't get a date. I originally started blogging about how not wanting to have sex with someone isn't a personal diss. (Do you want to have sex with me? Probably not. Do you think negatively of me? Most likely not. Although, if you do, why are you wasting your time reading my blog?) Similarly, not being friends - like real, true, call-at-three-in-the-morning friends - with someone isn't a personal diss. (Think of your co-workers. How many of them can you chat perfectly pleasantly with, but don't have any particular need to see outside of work?) But if a person hasn't had sex in a long time, or doesn't have friends, society in general tends to think negatively of them. When developing a relationship, the revelation that one's prospective friend/lover doesn't have friends or hasn't had a lover in a long time is generally seen as a red flag. How is anyone supposed to self-actualize in this context?

Let's consider friendship and lovers as a luxury, the same way a dishwasher is a luxury. Dishwashers are awesome! If you've had one, you don't ever want to do without, and a lot of people who don't have them covet them. But if you don't have one, that isn't a sign that there's something wrong with you. It's mildly unfortunate, but doesn't have broader implications. "Oh, that's too bad. So how about that local sports team?" If we consider lack of friends the same way, stop looking at friendless people as inherently unstable, maybe fewer unstable people will feel the need to act out specifically because of a lack of friends.

Think about war. If you've never been in a war zone before, do you know precisely how you'd react if you were sent to a war zone and got PTSDed? Probably not. I certainly don't know what would happen to me, but it has the potential to be disastrous. But since I've never been in a war zone, whatever demons lurk there remain safely tucked away and have no potential whatsoever to be loosed upon the world. If people who don't have friends don't feel like they're under siege for not having friends, maybe any unpleasantness that might possibly be lurking will never have the opportunity to come to the surface. And when the unpleasantness doesn't ever come to the surface, it's much easier to make friends.


The Bird And The Worm (Album Version) - The Used

What if we're accepting subpar health care because of the US influence?

We have public health insurance. The US doesn't, and they're very loud and have us surrounded and outnumbered.

We're more inclined than we should be to think our system is mad crazy awesome just because it's better than the US's - after all, no matter what happens, there is no possible way, no matter what goes wrong, we can possibly end up with a hospital bill that's larger than our annual income. Conversely, whenever there's discussion about whether we should be changing our health care system, there's always a disproportionate US influence in the conversation, as though that's the only other plausible option.

What if this is really skewing our perception? What if our system is only mediocre, and looking at the US will make it worse, and where we really should be looking is, say, Japan?

Why don't we tune them out for a bit and see what the rest of the world has to say?