Courtesy: City of Sound
Beauty: This goal by Argentina against Serbia and Montenegro during the opening round of the World Cup. 8 of the 10 players on the field were involved in the play, 24 passes in total. Complete domination.
Beast: A giant centipede completely overwhelming this mouse in an aquarium tank. Not for the faint of heart. Trust me on this. No picture though, I don't need to see it everytime I look at this post.
So our Premier Dalton McGuinty could've avoided the mess he stepped in this week, but chose instead to keep on walkin', leaving a nice, dirty trail behind.
The pooch that left this mess? Whoever thought it was a good idea to spend $220,000 to redesign the logo for the Government of Ontario!
picture courtesy the Toronto Star
Now, leaving aside the extravagant cost (an undergrad graphics designer could come up with something like that for a few hundred dollars, probably, remember THIS that was much more loved than "Toronto Unlimited"), the possible partisanship in awarding the design contract for this thing, and the possibile similarities with Liberal or NDP logos (because there's enough people talking about that), was there even a need to redesign the logo?
Right now, the logo's well known, simple and effective. You could even say that it's iconic. Now, the question becomes, is the new logo so much better that people would remark that it represents Ontario that much better than before?
Probably not. There was never a need to rebrand the government logo. It is not a business firm that needs to stay 'current' and 'edgy' for brand recognition. The government will not collapse because of a lack of it, as much as people may want. The government is here to stay.
Now, as of right now, the government homepage still uses the old logo. I wonder how long it'll take them to revamp all the websites? How much chaos will that create?
What an idiotic idea. They need to repay us, and quick. Or at the very least, whoever approved the idea, have them take money out of their own pocket and put it back into government coffers.
The design firm won't return the government check for sure. But we sure as hell shouldn't have to pay for this nonsense.
The CBC's being killed slowly but surely.
It's being choked off from external and internal threats. They lose broadcasting bids for the Olympics and the Curling championships. They create a TV development division strictly devoted to Reality TV. Then, it released a fall line-up that consisted of mostly reality TV shows based on American and British concepts (Dragon's Den, The Underdog, etc.). It's going to simulcast an ABC American Idol rip-off at 10pm, bumping "the National" news program (the CBC anchor show) to a later time til the end of summer. And to top it off, a Senate report was just released calling for the CBC to drop professional sports programming and to eliminate advertising as revenue. Instead, it called for the CBC to be completely taxpayer-funded.
So, will the CBC become a Canadian PBS, showing no sports, but mainly news and current affairs (though, I can't see any Conservative government willing to pump more taxpayer dollars into the CBC)? Or will it become any other Canadian TV Channel, sans-public funding and fighting with the 800 million other networks on the dial, eventually to be bought out by one of the major media conglomerates? These seem to be the only two directions that people are advocating.
Either fate seems unfortunate for the venerable station that can now only reach every part of Canada through Hockey Night in Canada, all the while being forced to cut back on regional stations and programming because of a lack of revenue. Part of the blame goes to the Canadian viewer, who wouldn't know good programming if it bit them in the butt. Partly goes to CBC, who rarely attempts to back and promote dramatic programs for the long haul (Da Vinci's Inquest is the only recent example I can think of). When CTV shows more Canadian programming (Degrassi, the New Generation, Corner Gas, then the CBC (and kudos to them for doing so), you know something is wrong.
The next few years will be rough on the CBC. They'll have to work hard to justify its existence to the public. They can't rely solely on the National and HNIC to bring in the viewers. But hocking reality-schlock does the Canadian public no justice either. It's a chicken/egg conundrum when it comes to figuring out the lack of Canadian drama on TV and why people aren't watching them. I don't believe that we aren't interested in our own stories. If we're that faithless with ourselves, then the CBC should stick to just news and current affairs. Otherwise, it needs to take risks in people who are willing to tell our stories.
The CBC will change. I'm just hoping it'll change to something for the better.
Two videos of Rube Goldberg devices came to my attention today and they're such fun things to watch:
Presenting...Ramen!
and
In the Outdoors
Catering to superstitions will get you nowhere. An example.
I've just finished helping move my parents into a new condo in Markham. There are sixteen residential floors, except there are no fourth, thirteenth or fourteenth floor to be found. Why you ask? 13 is unlucky in the western world, but 4 and 14 are considered unlucky to the Chinese because the pronunciation of these two numbers sound very close to "death" and "certain death", respectively. And being in Markham, with a more predominant Chinese community pervading, Tridel decided to cater to their likely clients.
The punchline: 'removing' these floors from the elevator has left this condo into having 13 floors! You see, you just can't win when it comes to superstition. So don't bother trying.
Now, as long as this building wasn't constructed over the gates to Hell or something ala Buffy, we'll be fine.
I'm in a bit of a funk right now, not getting any thesis done or anything productive, for that matter. Hell, I'm even having difficulty blogging! Not a good sign; I should see a doctor about this. On the other hand, PhD Comics continue to amuse me to no end. And just as I was "discussing" over the weekend with a friend about what her Master's report title should be, This day's strip popped up, only 3 days too late. Still, it does fit with what Matt and I have always believed report titles should look like:
Copyright Jorge Cham
It's a sure-fire formula for success! Ok, I promise. Next post will either tell the 3 readers I have that I'm out of my funk, or at the very least, be a post about something of actual interest.
Copyright Jorge Cham
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=715
This is, in effect, my life right now. I wonder if my advisor/spouse/parent would allow ME to get away with this?
I've given PM Harper the benefit of the doubt and even agreed with him on a few issues, not much, but a few.
But I'm once again exasperated at the mismanagement of the entire issue of climate change and the environment in general.
First, you appoint Rona Ambrose as minister of the Environment, who has little experience in the field, thinks that tapping maple sap for syrup "hurts trees", and doesn't seem all too excited about the portfolio in the first place.
But how could he top that? Why, by sending her to chair the next round of discussions on targets and mechanisms for the continual implementation of the Kyoto Protocols. Brilliant!! How hypocritical can we be? Let's find out.
First, to be fair, we did little under the Chretien and Martin government and as a result, our emissions increased a lot and there's probably no chance of us meeting our targets. So her solution: blame the previous government, ask the other delegates (who's actually trying to meet their required targets) to give Canada a free pass on missing our goals and ask for breaks for our industries. That's like telling my supervisor that I'm not going to graduate because I haven't finished my thesis, but let me get my degree and convocate anyways, and hey, why doesn't he help me fast track my accreditation? Simple, right?
How can Harper be more two-faced, you asked? Why, let me tell you. He's told the nation that he wants a "Made in Canada" approach to reducing climate change. And yet, we're somehow still committed to the Kyoto Protocols? How does that work? You can't have it both ways. You either commit Canada to Kyoto or back-off and face the consequences, nationally and internationally. Minister Ambrose also gives other half-hearted excuses, but Gwyn's more or less nailed them all.
It gets even better though. So, what was the "Made in Canada" approach that he favours?
"The Conservative ministers said all federal dollars for the environment will be spent in Canada to help the private sector take the lead in developing technology for such things as cleaner use of fossil fuels and renewable energy."
So if that's the case, why are the Conservative government cancelling a program (Energuide) aimed at helping homeowners get access to these technologies, thereby increasing demand and pushing the market towards green technology? And not just middle and high-income earners, they're canceling the program for low-income homeowners too, the people who probably benefit most from energy-efficient housing? So, what was their excuse? Why, let me share it with you, from the Toronto Star article:
The Conservatives say EnerGuide is being dropped because the cost of the audits was too high. Last year, audits in support of homeowners' energy renovation grants totalled $15.1 million out of the total $44.3 million cost of the program, Natural Resources officials said.
"We are going to ensure that every single Canadian taxpayer gets value for their money," Lunn said yesterday when asked in the Commons to justify the decision.
So, because audits require specialized professionals, it's expensive. If there were more demand for audits, we'd need more professionals, there'd be more competition between them, which lowers the price, etc, etc. Simple economics, right? But we need more people to buy-in, and as North Americans are usually slow on the uptake with respect to the environment, we tend to need a bit of carrot from the government. But how does Natural Resources Minister Lunn want us to get value for our money?
By taking the carrot home. Clearly, that's the best solution overall.
I can rant on and on but there's no point. No one listens, least of all the Conservative Government. I'd hate to say it. Maybe we need a nationwide blackout, coupled with massive freak storms and complete ecosystem collapses. Maybe that'll finally wake us up, I don't know. Because logic and reason doesn't seem to work anymore.
No, this isn't a picture of a mist-covered city. It's actually a mirage of a city out in the open sea. This is actually Penglai City, in China's eastern Shandong province.
I didn't think mirages actually occur to the detail that this does. I mean, the only time I'd ever hear about mirages are in movies or TV shows when they're set in the desert or something. And even then, it's usually a mirage of a Dr. Pepper vending machine (...tip of the hat to Family Guy).
This though, is quite fascinating. Nature always finds a way to surprise.
As an ardent supporter of CBC Television and an occasional listener to CBC radio, I defend this public institution with vigour and verve when I can. I am proud that it distributes programs on TV like This is Wonderland, Twitch City, This Hour has 22 Minutes, Trudeau, Made in Canada and many others.
But when they decide to create an entire department devoted to adapting foreign reality-TV shows for Canadian production and distribution, and call it 'factual entertainment programming,' they're just giving me one more reason to never buy a TV again.
They promise not to pander to the lowest-common denominator by putting on shows like The Swan, but instead look to programs like Wife Swap (?!) to connect with Canadian communities?! Clearly, swapping a wife from Calgary with one from Toronto is going to help us understand our regional disparities? Why didn't I think of it? It's genius!
Bravo, CBC. I applaud your lack of creativity. Thank you for giving up on helping to create a better Canadian TV landscape by filling it with more mediocrity.
If I didn't know better, I'd say the idea to create this sort of department might have been some crazy scheme hatched from an Apprentice-type show. But I do know better, and this would be WAY too ironic for even my liking.
The term's over, summer's arriving, and it doesn't seem like I've much to show for it. It's been a strange year all around, but it's neither good nor bad, just strange. Much of my friends have already left for distant shores (well, cities, anyways) while others will soon be leaving (lookin' at you, Karen and Jenny) such that I will probably not see them as frequently as I used to this year ever again. Again, neither good nor bad, but it's nostalgic moments like this that I know I'm just procrastinating.
I've been meaning to post something critically but nothing's really stood out. A lot more urban and environmental issues seem to have come up as of late (at least in the Toronto Star anyhow), which while doesn't automatically create solutions, at least we're discussing and thinking about them. I've even started reading the Condo and Home section in the Star as of late because of pieces on LEED and environmental technology.
I've been mulling over this post for a while now mainly because I hadn't given myself the impetus to write it. Oddly enough, my thoughts took shape during a job interview with a planner for the City of Toronto when he asked what the biggest problem Toronto was facing currently.
To me, it was that Toronto could be such a great city, and be better than what it is. It had such potential. But it was faced with a lot of problems: financial, politicial, perception, etc.
But that seems to be changing.
Things once talked about are finally taking shape. On the cultural front, The Royal Ontario Museum renovations are being completed. The Art Gallery of Ontario designs are being finalized, to name a few.
Regent Park is being revitalized, re-integrated back into the city fabric, de-segregating that community while perhaps building one of the few true "sustainable" communities (environmentally, socially, economically) in Canada. The West Don Lands project, talked about for so long, are finally starting to take shape.
Architects were invited to tour our waterfront on behalf of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation to get an idea of the context for their designs. Bring Back the Don has been trying to repair the ecological damage wrought on it by the planning of its day for many years now. The environment has slowly, but finally been pushed further forward in our priorities.
Finally, apparently there have been buzz in the Toronto blogging circles about the Toronto Star's (whose Sunday section have been putting out very interesting articles lately) What If series, asking its writers how they envisioned Toronto in the future and asking its readers to put their ideas, any ideas, forward.
So it just seems that, the forces are finally coming together for the city, and people are finally excited about what Toronto MIGHT be, if we can keep the enthusiasm up.
http://oneredpaperclip.blogspot.com/
This has been floating from the web for a while but has finally reached mainstream. This man from Montreal started with a simple paper clip, and has slowly, but assuredly, bartered his way to more and more prominent things. His goal is the ownership of his own house. He can currently rent an apartment in Phoenix for free for one year. Now THAT's return on investment.
Piled Higher and Deeper: a grad student's comic strip
Where was THIS all my life? Just a humourous serial webcomic that every grad student should read.
How is the US in the show 24 still standing with the type of people running it? No one trusts each other. Every other sentence coming out of their mouths are lies (which may explain the last part). Every level of government has their own secret agenda. Everyone double-crosses each other. Everyone's intelligence shifts 180 degrees in a few minutes (for example, when did Chloe learn to pickpocket in one instance but be dumb enough to not reroute her phone call if she's secretly helping Jack?).
How do the terrorists still LOSE when they've got better organizational skills then the US government?
So, it has come to my attention that our dear friend Christopher Smith has decided, for his first publication, to publish in the distinguished journal Science (only the abstract is available, so we all have to wait for the dang thing to be actually published before we can read it and critique it...though I doubt any of us would actually be able to understand a 1/3 of it...)
But that's besides the point. I'm very happy for Chris and I want to congratulate him in this post. It is a phenomenal achievement.
Clearly, once again, he has set quite a high bar for the rest of us to catch up to him. Pretty much this is what we have to accomplish:
Monika: Raise Emma (her niece) to be the next PM.
Jess: Teach Emma on her way to becoming the next PM.
Cam: Train the next olympic gold medallist.
Matt: Discover that Sir John A. was not actually a drunk but was a teetotaller and a Communist.
Ashley: become the next Education Minister of Ontario.
Me: plan the perfect city of the future...aka...Markham.
I better get crackin'...
At Queen's at the very least, there is a tradition among the graduating class of engineers that on April 1st (April Fool's), various site gags would greet students walking into campus. In the past, the gags have been superb:
As the years progressed, however, the gags have been increasingly lame. The two I noticed this year was the placement of free "Starbucks" coffee in the Stauffer library foyer with the sign "Free. Not Poison." (It wasn't even good social commentary...) and orange barrier fence wrapped around the JDUC (John Deustch University Centre) with various snippy remarks about the incoming Queen's Centre.
So unless, there were better gags inside the JDUC or elsewhere (I didn't see any on Grant Hall) or this is a prelude to the real thing tomorrow (since it is Mar. 31 today, afterall), the class of Sci '06 should hang their head in shame, because this was a piss-poor job.
So Sympatico/MSN has an article about what "Scientology" is supposed to be. My problem is that they're giving it to much credit than what it is...their ending is:
"Fab or flake – only you can judge."
Really? I think it doesn't take individuals how stupid it is...take for example this part of the article:
Scientology literature points to many extraterrestrial references. According to Scientology, the thetan is tainted from events dating back millions of years, which are related to extraterrestrials and lives on different planets. The story of Xenu is within the III level of Scientology and it is as follows:
Xenu, the galactic tyrant first kidnapped certain individuals who were deemed ?excess population´ and loaded these individuals into space planes for transport to the site of extermination, the planet of Teegeeack (Earth). These space planes were said to have been copies of Douglas DC-8s, except with rocket engines. He then stacked hundreds of billions of these frozen victims around Earth's volcanoes 75 million years ago before blowing them up with hydrogen bombs and brainwashing them with a "three-D, super colossal motion picture" for 36 days, telling them lies of what they are and what the universe should be like and telling them that they are 3 different things: 'Jesus, God, and The Devil.' (from Wikipedia)
To some, this may seem farfetched. Nevertheless, everyone should judge for themselves how much credibility should be given to Scientology for explaining humanity through such examples.
First off...."seem" farfetched?!?!?! Are you kidding me?! copies of DC-8s and Xenu the galactic tyrant wasn't a dead giveaway of how ridiculous this is?! Who the hell would accept the assignment of trying to write a 'fair and balanced' article on this crap? And was the author laughing the whole time?
Oh, by the way, speaking of the author. Way to use Wikipedia as your source. Now there's an undisputed source of knowledge...
I had talked about Stauffer Library's new "Learning Commons" and it's reconsideration of how students use libraries.
This post has relatively nothing to do with that. Rather, I just like to point out this new service that the Queen's library system is offering: instant messaging library assistants (the example is of Stauffer Library, but is available in Douglas and Bracken).
That's right, between 1-4pm Mon-Fri, if you're too lazy to get up out of your library seat or too lazy to search for it on the website or don't know how to use the phone, you can now get library assistance through MSN, Yahoo or AIM...
Frankly though, how many people will actually want "Stauffer Library" as one of their contacts?
Caveat: This is only reposted because some spammer left a disgusting comment on the original post, which is being deleted...clearly I will have to moderate the comments in the future.
Two interesting case of how journalists/pundits use words:
1) Thomas Walkom, in his Saturday piece comparing our decision to sit out the Iraq war (and of our subsequent smugness about how 'smart' it was, when in reality, public opinion was split on the issue) and the current decision to accept another tour on the UN and NATO backed Afghan mission.
What's interesting is this line: "It would be involved in development and nation building. Yes, the "mission" (note the religious imagery) would be more dangerous. But it would serve a good cause."
Now, I'm no english major, but I'm pretty sure that the definition of "mission" doesn't necessarily require religious connotations. According to the Oxford English Dictionary:
Defition 1: "An act or instance of sending someone or (formerly, rare) something, or an instance of being sent, esp. to perform some function or service; spec. of (a) Jesuits to seminaries abroad; (e) a body of people to a foreign country to conduct engotiations, establish plitical or commercial relations, etc.
Clearly, the origin of the word is derived from religious pursuits, in terms of performing missionary work abroad, etc. However, its use has clearly been broadened to include secular pursuits, i.e. military, foreign, Apollo missions, to name a few. So, it seems like he's the one placing the religious connotation himself, rather than the objective of the Canadian military being in itself with religious goals.
2) The Sunday Mirror in the UK publishes a pretty grisly account of the opening of the seal hunt on the ice floes near Newfoundland and Labrador. I don't really have a stance because I know little of the methods, the economics, the environmental science of it. However, this line caught my attention:
"A moment ago one baby seal was a living creature, looking up towards its executioner, fear etched on its face. Its last gesture is to open its mouth wide. A silent cry for mercy."
I don't know, but fear and cries of mercy are clearly human emotions. The writer is clearly anthropomorphizing the baby seal pup in order to garner sympathy from the reader. The article doesn't describe the professions of the author, so I assume they're journalists.
In both instances, I didn't like the fact that they were being dishonest in their framing of the words. Since the first piece is clearly an opinion piece and the second very likely, I can see why they did it. It still doesn't mean I find it right for them to do it.
