Things They Should Invent: sealed recycle container for apartments

I recycle the vast majority of my recyclables. Newspapers, cardboard, fine paper that does not contain personal information, wine bottles, plastics, coffee cans, and any food container that has a lid. However, I do not recycle cans that contained food.

Why? Because my building doesn't have a chute for recyclables. We have to take our recyclabes out to the dumpsters in the back of the building. I have a blue box (acquired through unofficial channels - apartments are not issued blue boxes) in my front hall, and I dump all my recyclables in there. When it gets full, about once a week, I take it out back and sort the stuff into dumpsters. Obviously, I don't want food cans, still containing food residue, just sitting there for days, practically in my living room. So instead I throw the cans away with my usual food garbage, which goes in a plastic bag in a lidded garbage can, and is thrown down the chute every night before I go to bed.

Why not wash the cans? Because the edges are too sharp to wash them thoroughly enough for my satisfaction. Why not take the recyclables out every day? Apart from my innate laziness, it is not always feasible to go to the back dumpsters every single day. Sometimes it is too dark and late to be hanging around dumpsters behind buildings, sometimes the weather is not suitable (putting paper and light, empty containers in tall dumpsters in 70 km/h winds = bad idea), sometimes the dumpsters are overflowing and nothing else will fit in. Yes, if I were the very most perfectest being in the world I'd go way out of my way and the cans would get recycled, but I'm not, I'm only human, as are most people. So here's what they need to invent to address this problem:

It's a resealing sort of container. You open the top, put your recyclables in, and then it closes and seals itself again. It keeps the smell in so your apartment doesn't get smelly and bugs don't come following the smell of food. When the time comes to empty it, you open it somehow, take out an inner bag, and dispose of the contents throught environmentally correct channels. I was once informed that a device very much like this exists for baby diapers, so it shouldn't be that hard to adapt it for recyclables. They could even use a similar device for organics once they've perfected organic waste collection for large, multi-unit buildings. The technology exists, let's get it adapted.

Bad advice of the day

This lady writes into Dear Margo with an alcoholic 16 year old son. Margo ends her advice with "Tell your son he is going to A.A. for young people or he can live on his own."

Is that supposed to help? If I were the kid, that would be a no brainer. "I can move out? COOL!" I've never been an alcoholic, but I have been 16 and had my parents getting on my case about the stuff that I most wanted to do. If given the choice between living with my parents and having to stop drinking (and probably being subject to constant, annoying supervision), and moving out on my own where I can drink all I want without anyone nagging me, I would move out in an instant! I don't know about this kid, but at 16 it never occurred to me that moving out was an option, but if someone presented it to me as an option I would have been all "Brilliant idea!" At 16, especially considering the kind of political rhetoric I was exposed to as a child, I fully believed that it was perfectly possible to support oneself flipping burgers or scrubbing floors if one only budgeted properly, and I was sick of being guilt-tripped about being spoiled. I would have jumped at the chance to live away from my parents in bohemian poverty, feeding my addition without anyone getting on my case. I seriously doubt the so-called "threat" of having to move out would get a 16 year old to say "No, I think I'll live with my parents and stop drinking and be a good little boy."

Ordinary Wolves by Seth Kantner

This book could do with more in the way of plot, but it's certainly worth reading because of the sheer exoticness of the subject matter. It follows the story of a boy living in the wilds of Alaska, to an aboriginal village (the book uses the word Eskimo, but as a 21st century Canadian I don't feel right using that word, and I don't know if the Inuit classification extends to Alaska), to an Alaskan city, and back to the wilds where he grew up, all while dealing with the whole world changing around him (late 20th century setting) and being from the only white family in the area.

I know that this description makes it sounds like one of those horrid coming of age novels with a boy and his dog and he's considered a loner even though he has a loyal best friend and he somehow has the freedom to run around wherever he wants without parental supervision, but it isn't like that at all. There are coming of age elements, there is a boy, but his dogs pull his sled instead of being his best friend, he is an actual loner without a close friend, and the reason he has the freedom to run around wherever he wants is because there is, quite literally, no one out there. It is so far removed from my urban life, but it doesn't feel like it's trying to make me feel guilty for it. It's simply different, and quite interestingly so.

I'd recommend any urbanite get this book from the library, just for a taste of a completely different life, but I wouldn't say it's worth buying because it doesn't have very much extraordinary in the way of plot.

Things They Should Invent: comprehensive comparison of all the ways of dying

I want someone to make a website with the pros and cons of every possible way of dying - how painful they are, how long they take, how long they cramp your style for, how undignified they are - so that the general public can make an informed decision of whether they want to reduce the risk of a particular illness or accident.

This idea came about when I realized that the vast majority of health advice out there has the ultimate aim of reducing the risk of heart disease (i.e. you should exercise, you should reduce salt, fat and cholesterol, you should watch your weight, etc.), but I don't actually know anything about how bad heart disease is. I'd imagine a heart attack involves pain, but then what? Either you have some pain and you die, or you live, and...what? If you've survived a heart attack, are you still able to live normally? Can you go back home? Can you go to the bathroom by yourself? Google tells me that there are certain medications or lifestyle restrictions, but are those just to stop you from having another heart attack, or are they for something else? It seems to me that a heart attack is not the worst possible way of dying - Alzheimer's or MS would certainly be worse, and cancer might be worse but I don't have enough information to know for sure. If I had a family history of Alzheimer's, maybe I wouldn't want to reduce my risk of heart disease, so I could die of a heart attack at 60 in a quick burst of pain rather than literally lose my mind at 80.

But there are lots more ways of dying, most of which I know very little about. That's why I want someone to put all this information together in one place - so people can make informed decisions. It seems a bit over-optimistic for everyone in the world to forego life's pleasures to achieve the goal of dying in their sleep at age 100. That will certainly work for some people, but we can't reasonably expect it to be applicable to everyone. The rest of the world should have the information they need to make an informed decision, if they choose, so they don't have to give up their favourite foods or activities or whatnot to prevent a less-unpleasant death, only to die a more-unpleasant death later.

Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work: if you don't use your vote, you have to give it away

Some people don't vote because they believe their vote will not make a difference.

People who feel that way should be forced to cast their vote for whichever candidate the first person who asks them on election day wants them to vote for. After all, if your vote will not make a difference, it wouldn't matter who you'd give it to, right?

This rule would only apply to people who aren't voting because they think they're vote won't make a difference. It doesn't apply to situations where the would-be voter has a good reason for not voting. Examples of good reasons include: the voter is eligible to vote on paper, but no longer considers themselves a member of the community having the vote (e.g.: Italy); the platforms of the candidates are not available to the voter; the voter considers themselves incompetent; the voter is unexpectedly indisposed on election day.

Enough rain to make your hair curl

I got caught in the rain today. For the most part I looked like a drowned rat, but those little pieces of hair around my face - you know, the first ones to fall down as a hairdo loses structural integrity - seem to be curling in a quite graceful and attractive manner.

This has literally never happened before in my life. I wonder why? My hair has never been one to respond to humidity in any way except by looking limp and flat. If getting wet in the rain and then air-drying causes curls, then, logically, showering and air-drying, like I do every day, should also cause curls. But it doesn't! Maybe there's hair perm chemicals in the rain?

Best commercial ever!

Mmmmm...bibliothèque!

I love Google! I typed French baguette commercial into Google, and not only did the first result find the video I was looking for, but the it found it from a website run by someone with the same birthday as me.

I AM SO SMRT!

Harry Potter fans may be interested to know that I got an O on my W.O.M.B.A.T.! YAY!

Everyone else will probably have no idea what I'm talking about.

Crossing the floor analogy

My MP's weekly chat touched on whether a by-election should be required after an MP crosses the floor. One participant proposed that having a by-election every time someone crossed the floor is like requiring a referendum on every single issue. His logic was that you choose the individual to represent you, and they should represent their constitutents no matter what. Moments after the chat ended, I thought of a mostly-apt analogy to counter this point. It's a bit weak in places, but it communicates the general point.

Affiliation with a political party is giving a pre-arranged set of positions on issues. When a candidate is affiliated with a particular party, you don't have to find out their position on every issue on an ad-hoc basis - you can just look at their party platform. For some people, the individual representative may be more important, but others consider this set of positions on issues to be more important.

Think of a cable TV company. The party's position is like a channel bundle. It shows you the kind of messages you can expect to receive. Obviously you don't know the exact shows you'll get because TV lineups are changing all the time, but it gives you a general idea. The TV company also offers regular and high-definition broadcasting.* The type of broadcasting is like the individual you vote for. It is the medium through which the message is communicated.

Now imagine you call up your TV company.

"I would like to subscribe to the News and Documentary bundle, so I can get all the latest current events, and documentaries on all kinds of interesting subjects," you say. "And I just got a brand new high-definition TV, so I would like to get a high-definition signal, so I can see terrorist attacks and lions eating zebras in vivid detail."

The TV company says, "Yes, that's perfectly fine, we can do that. You will have the News and Documentary bundle in high definition."

Then, a few days later, you turn on the TV and your news and documentary channels are gone. In there place, you have all kinds of sports channels. You call up your cable company and ask what's up.
"Oh, we decided to switch you to the Sports bundle. It's far more popular," they tell you.

"But I specifically requested the News and Documentary bundle!" you say.

"I know," they say, "But with the Sports bundle you can get all the hockey and baseball games, plus World Cup soccer and even cricket matches from India!"

"But I don't want to watch those things, I want to watch news and documentaries!"

"But the Sports bundle will make much better use you for HDTV. More sports are broadcast in HDTV, so you can enjoy the colour and clarity of your brand new set. After all, you watch TV for its technical quality, not for its content."

Now I know some people do prioritize technical quality over content, but you can at least see why content is important. Similarly, while some people do vote for an individual, you should be able to see why party platform is important, and it's disrespectful to the voters for their elected representatives to go switching on them, as though party affiliation is negligible.

*(I know broadcasting isn't the correct word for distribution of high-definition TV signals, but I forget the correct term and it's really beside the point. Feel free to give me the correct term in comments)

Why is cynicism sad?

I read some article yesterday (I forget where), where a teenager said that everyone lies sometimes, and an adult said that it was sad to see such cynicism in someone so young.

But why is that sad? It seems to me that it would make for a more enjoyable life to expect things to be suboptimal and then possibly be pleasantly surprised if it turns out it isn't than to wander around being a wide-eyed naif only to be harshly disillusioned. I've seen that many times - grownups want to shelter children from certain aspects of reality and then get sad when the children see how the world really is. But doesn't that seem like they're being set up for a huge disappointment? And why would you be sad that your child is aware of reality? Why would you have a child if you didn't want them to be exposed to reality?

Silly poll of the moment

A person whom you do not find at all attractive tells you that they do not find you at all attractive.

Are you insulted or relieved?

Stupid tagline alert!

There's a ballroom dancing movie called Take the Lead, and the tagline is "Never follow".

That's a very strange thing to say. Generally when a movie tagline says "Never [verb]", it means the message/morals of the movie consider the action represented by the verb to be undesirable/dishonourable/shameful. Never let go. Never give up. Never surrender. Never die. But in ballroom dancing, there is nothing wrong with following. One partner leads, the other follows. That's the nature of this style of dancing. Half of all ballroom dancers must be following at any given time for ballroom dancing to succeed. If no one follows, no one can lead, so the whole "take the lead" thing wouldn't work out too well, and the ballroom dancing would be pretty messy too.

Actually, that applies for all forms of leading, not just in dancing. If one wants to lead, one must have respect for and value the idea of following. After all, you can't be a good leader with the attitude "Only LOSERS would FOLLOW!" because then no one would want to follow you, and you wouldn't be a leader any more.

So what do they mean by this tagline?

Postal codes

When I was shopping today, two stores were doing a postal code survey so they could know where their customers lived.

I wonder if they can really get useful information from that though? One of the stores in question I was shopping at because it was the closest to my home. Another wasn't the closest (although it was in the neighbourhood), but I was shopping there because they sold the specific greeting card I wanted to send to someone. But I frequent stores for lots of reasons that are completely unrelated to where I live. For example, some stores I frequent because they're the closest to my work. Others I go to because they're close to where I used to work, and the people who work there know me now, and it isn't actually that far out of my way. Others aren't the closest to my home or my work, but they are the easiest subway trip from my work, and I much prefer taking the subway to the bus.

When I choose a store because it's convenient to work or because of positive prior experiences there, my postal code isn't going to thelp them. All they would have gotten from my postal code is that I live in a different neighbourhood, but since I chose the store because of reasons unrelated to my home neighbourhood, they can't assume that my neighbours would also want to be customers.

Why poor people can't always afford to cook from scratch

I had a discussion recently with someone who was insistent that poor people wouldn't be poor if they could only learn how to cook in bulk and from scratch. Unfortunately, my interlocutor didn't realize or accept that poverty can be a barrier to cooking from scratch.

Here's a rough outline of the hurdles one must overcome to be able to cook from scratch:

1. Do you know how to cook from scratch? If not, where can you learn? I tend to get recipes from the internet, but people in poverty often don't have internet access. Cookbooks are expensive. Are cookbooks available at your local public library? Maybe, maybe not. Is your local public library even accessible? Or would it cost you two bus fares to get there and back? Since you don't have internet access and can't search the catalogue from home, it it worth using two bus fares to see if they even have cookbooks, and if they do, would they contain useful recipes that are within your price range and skill level?

2. Do you have the equipment to cook from scratch? Does your stove work? Does your fridge work? Landlords of low-cost housing don't always keep their appliances in good repair. Is your kitchen clean enough to cook safely, or is it infested? Cleaning products and insectcides cost money. Do you have a big-ass pot? Do you have a spoon for stirring? Do you have a strainer? A cutting board? Tupperware for saving all the extra portions? Do you have a working sink where you can wash the dishes and dish soap and a cloth or sponge or something? All these things cost money. Do you have rubber gloves? Is washing the dishes without rubber gloves worth making your hands all stiff and cracked, thus making it more difficult to do the manual work involved in your job?

3. Do you have the ingredients? Do you have enough money together at one time to buy them? Can you get them home? Is the supermarket within walking distance? If not, can you carry all the ingredients yourself in one trip? If you're poor you don't have a car, so you're limited to what you can carry. If you can't carry it all in one trip, that's two more bus fares, or cab fare, or the expense of getting it delivered. Can you store all the ingredients? Do you have a working fridge and enough cupboard space? Do you have big plastic or metal containers to seal the bread and flour so the vermin doesn't get it? If not, you'll need to buy storage stuff too, so your bulk food doesn't go to waste.

4. Is cooking something new worth the risk? How confident are you in your cooking abilities? How likely is it you will mess up? How badly might you mess up? Would the result be inedible? If you mess up, can you afford to let all this food go to waste? Can you afford the electricity to do the cooking and the water to wash all these dishes? Can you afford the electricity and water to do a small trial run, and then cook in bulk once you've perfected it?

Sodium in tomato sauce

Today I went to the grocery store and read the nutritional information on every single brand of tomato sauce. I now have an observation:

The more expensive the sauce, the less sodium it contains. The less expensive the sauce, the more sodium it contains.

The most expensive sauce has, literally, half the sodium of the least expensive sauce; price and sodium content are practically inversely proportional.

I don't know if the same holds true for other products.

Seen on the way home

Seen on the way home: an overcompensatingly large SUV, with an overcompensatingly loud stereo system, driving overcompensatingly fast, loudly blasting...piano jazz! Really good piano jazz too! I was tempted to dance, but I didn't want to encourage that sort of thing.

People who shouldn't have kids

So Salon has this article about this guy who might want kids (65% sure he does), but his fiancée doesn't want kids (70% sure she doesn't), and then he's considering how or whether to convince her to have kids.

I'll admit, I was planning a much more vicious rant (including a lovely metaphor about whether you'd want someone with a mark of 65% in the classroom component of driving school and 30% in the in-car component to be driving around on the road), but dude ended up acquitting himself somewhat near the end. Essentially, his dilemma came down to this:

[...]when I toss it back at her wanting to know what she'll do if I decide I must pursue a daddy destiny, she sighs and admits, "Oh, you'll probably convince me to do it."

But I don't want to if she's not totally on board.

I'd probably love having kids. The question is: can I live without them?

Now here's the thing, Mr. Smith, if that is in fact your real name. If you decide you cannot live without having kids, that means you should not have kids. How do I arrive at such a bizarro conclusion? Walk with me, I will explain.

1. Kids completely and permanently change your life. We know that. It's a given.
2. If you decide you cannot live without having kids, that means you have decided you cannot live without having your life completely and permanently changed. In other words, you do not find it acceptable to go on live with your life forever staying the way it is now.
3. If you do not find it acceptable to live with your life forever staying the way it is now, that means that your life is not satisfactory.
4. If your life is not satisfactory, that means one or more of your inner life, your social networks, your relationship with your fiancée, or your contributions to society are unacceptable (unless I've missed some major component of life satisfaction).
5. If one or more of these components of your life is so unacceptable as to make your entire life so unsatisfactory that you need to completely and permanently change it, that means that you do not know how to make that component or those components of your life acceptable with the resources available to you.
6. If you do not know how to make one or more major components of your life acceptable with the resources available to you, how on earth do you expect to raise a child who can make a life that is acceptable to him or her? If you have not yet managed to build a life that you find satisfactory as is, why on earth do you think you are qualified to teach another human being how to build a life?

Once you have succeeded in building a life for yourself where you can look around, lean back, fold your arms, and say "You know, this is nice. I don't mind this at all. If I didn't end up having kids, I'd still have a perfectly happy life, because everything here is quite acceptable," then you can start thinking about having kids, if all other circumstances are appropriate. But if you think your life is incomplete without kids, you aren't ready. Don't go around making yourself responsible for other lives until you have figured out how to build your own life.

Helpful Hint: Stress reduction tips shouldn't frustrate the user

The Heart and Stroke Foundation's Stress Index asks, "Do you try to do everything yourself?"

Question: If I don't do everything myself, who is going to do it?

It also asks "Do you look to other people to make things happen?"

So doing everything yourself is bad, but looking to other people to make things happen is also bad?

Also: "Do you put things off until later?", and then a few questions later "Do you race through the day?"

But if you don't race through the day, you're in some way putting things off until later. Especially since another question is "Do you fail to build time for relaxation into your day." So if you're going to make a point of relaxing, you'll have to put off some things until later.

"Do you fail to see the humour in situations others find funny?" What, so I'm supposed to find everything funny? I'm supposed to laugh at racist jokes? If I don't find bodily functions absolutely hysterical, I'm putting myself at risk for heart disease?

Commercials that just don't do it for me

I saw two commercials today that just put me right off the products/services they were selling. They probably don't care because I'm hardly the target audience, but, because this is my blog, here are the commercials and my reactions:

1. I think it was a Home Depot commercial. A newlywed couple learns that their honeymoon flight was cancelled, so they stay home and...renovate their backyard. This says to me that Home Depot is for people who would rather fuss with landscaping than consummate their marriage.

2. A Viagra commercial, with the "Good morning, good morning" song, except in this one it was women dancing around and singing. This says to me that Viagra is for people who are unable to locate and apply friction to the clitoris.