Today, from John Geddes:
The Liberal leader spoke of sympathy for victims and concern about underlying causes, as is proper, but failed to express a leader’s necessary outrage and convey a sense of how justice must be done. The Prime Minister was far better on outrage and justice, but conveniently blurred crucial distinctions about those other possible reactions.
Okay, so why is it necessary for a leader to express outrage? Why not sadness, why not disappointment? Why must it be 'outrage?' Also, is it important for them to express outrage if they don't feel outrage? What if they feel saddened, should they act outraged? Do we want a leader who will insincerely monkey an emotion to satisfy the will of the idiot masses?
How one-dimensional we all are these days.
18 April, 2013
17 April, 2013
Rationalizing the Boston Bombings
One of the big non-story stories of the last 24 hours is that Justin Trudeau is 'rationalizing' the Boston bombings. This is a non-story story because it's a talking point propaganda-machine story being vomited forth by the CONservatives, and it's being rather stupidly handled by the Liberal Party.
Dominic Leblanc, on Power & Politics, tried to say that Mr. Trudeau wasn't rationalizing the bombings, and that Trudeau would punish the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. He then went on to say that Mr. Trudeau said that we should be removing these people who are most marginalized and who are would-be crime perpetrators from society.
The talking point is idiotic, the refutation is idiotic.
Essentially, Mr. Trudeau was pointing out, much like Prime Minister Chrétien did before him (with respect to the 9/11 attacks) that some people feel marginalized and we should seek to find out what the motivations are to people's behaviour. Isn't an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? Truly, this should speak to the current government's professed fiscal austerity position. Wouldn't there be potential cost savings to be found in preventing people from feeling so marginalized by society that they commit truly horrifying crimes? And wouldn't there be cost savings in not having lost lives, hospital costs, and incarceration costs associated with the aftermath of these crimes?
The talking points of the Liberal Party should not include statements like the one that Mr. LeBlanc made about removing marginalized people from society. The discourse should be moving towards REDUCING marginalization and developing community cohesion, such that more people feel involved, respected, and a part of their communities and country. The response shouldn't be 'You're right, Mr. Trudeau should have said he condemned the bombings outright, and he did say that, and you just didn't give him enough opportunity to make his words fully understood.' The response should be 'You're wrong. The right move isn't to condemn outright what you don't understand. That's how religious extremists and insane tyrants operate. The right move is to try to understand why bad things happen and make positive changes so that they don't happen again.'
Dominic Leblanc, on Power & Politics, tried to say that Mr. Trudeau wasn't rationalizing the bombings, and that Trudeau would punish the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law. He then went on to say that Mr. Trudeau said that we should be removing these people who are most marginalized and who are would-be crime perpetrators from society.
The talking point is idiotic, the refutation is idiotic.
Essentially, Mr. Trudeau was pointing out, much like Prime Minister Chrétien did before him (with respect to the 9/11 attacks) that some people feel marginalized and we should seek to find out what the motivations are to people's behaviour. Isn't an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? Truly, this should speak to the current government's professed fiscal austerity position. Wouldn't there be potential cost savings to be found in preventing people from feeling so marginalized by society that they commit truly horrifying crimes? And wouldn't there be cost savings in not having lost lives, hospital costs, and incarceration costs associated with the aftermath of these crimes?
The talking points of the Liberal Party should not include statements like the one that Mr. LeBlanc made about removing marginalized people from society. The discourse should be moving towards REDUCING marginalization and developing community cohesion, such that more people feel involved, respected, and a part of their communities and country. The response shouldn't be 'You're right, Mr. Trudeau should have said he condemned the bombings outright, and he did say that, and you just didn't give him enough opportunity to make his words fully understood.' The response should be 'You're wrong. The right move isn't to condemn outright what you don't understand. That's how religious extremists and insane tyrants operate. The right move is to try to understand why bad things happen and make positive changes so that they don't happen again.'
10 April, 2013
Government as a Psychopath
Our government is laying off a reported 8% of its civil servants, nearly twice the 4.5% originally announced. At the same time,the new legislation rendering Employment Insurance criteria more stringent and reducing EI entitlements is in effect.
Instead of job creation, we have job destruction.
Instead of a social safety net, we have a truly 'insurance-industry' EI system, i.e., a system under mob rule.
22 February, 2013
Math Is A Language Of Its Own...
Hands up if you've heard that before; "Math is a language." Yeah? Tell me; how do you say "fuck off, already" in Math? How about "It was me. I knocked the milk over in the fridge and made that mess. I'm sorry." Has anybody written an Actual love poem in math - and I am Not talking about cheesy symbol constructs that represent a little sideways heart.
I'm not saying such things can't be expressed in mathematical terms, but after 4+ decades of hearing about math being a language, nobody yet has ever tried speaking it within earshot of me. Little wonder why, too. Strictly speaking, mathematics does fit the definition of language. It's a pretty loose definition, though.
The bigger mystery by far is why does math, or moreover those who study, use and seek to promote math, feel the need to associate it to language? Is this some kind of weird, sick, desperate attempt to legitimize math? How does one come to the opinion it needs to be legitimized? Math does plenty enough as it is without having to be "qualified" by the title of "a language." Like that's so special. We have 4,000+ of those lying around and that's just the human ones!
Anyways, I'm pro-math. I'm pro-language. What I'm not is pro-tentious. Seriously, math folk, if there is a point to re-iterating that math is a damn language, please Make It. But deep down, we know there isn't. It's just one of those things that you occasionally say to sound kind of deep and perhaps a little introspective.
I'm not saying such things can't be expressed in mathematical terms, but after 4+ decades of hearing about math being a language, nobody yet has ever tried speaking it within earshot of me. Little wonder why, too. Strictly speaking, mathematics does fit the definition of language. It's a pretty loose definition, though.
The bigger mystery by far is why does math, or moreover those who study, use and seek to promote math, feel the need to associate it to language? Is this some kind of weird, sick, desperate attempt to legitimize math? How does one come to the opinion it needs to be legitimized? Math does plenty enough as it is without having to be "qualified" by the title of "a language." Like that's so special. We have 4,000+ of those lying around and that's just the human ones!
Anyways, I'm pro-math. I'm pro-language. What I'm not is pro-tentious. Seriously, math folk, if there is a point to re-iterating that math is a damn language, please Make It. But deep down, we know there isn't. It's just one of those things that you occasionally say to sound kind of deep and perhaps a little introspective.
14 February, 2013
Style and Substance.
The final ridiculous comparison (for now) between phones (and many other things) is the styling. I will acknowledge that different design cues suggest different things about people: Seriousness, a business like manner, a relaxed easy-going outlook, avant-garde tendencies, traditionalism... Ok probably not traditionalism.
All things being equal in the quality of construction, durability and related matters, style is entirely the choice of the individual. It can only be of concern to the individual. And although it may be important to the individual, it must be secondary to functionality.
As an extension, I will go so far as to say that each operating system is in fact an extension of style. From the open variance and user-definability of android, to the rigidly enforced environments of iPhone and Windows (BlackBerry seems to be in between the two extremes, but leaning toward the conservative, pre-defined design ethic of the proprietary code), it is just different styles of presenting your information.** They are all beautiful in their way.
In a sea of devices, it is ridiculous to say "this is surely the best" without defining the user first; that is the only meaningful way to gauge which is best amongst so many wonderful examples.
** Reliable OSs are crucial. By experience, I can attest to Android and iPhone. I have not heard of a Windows phone giving anybody the BSOD. If you know of it happening, tell me about it. This all started because of reviews of the BlackBerry, which runs QNX. Of 10 reviews I watched, 2 hinted at some kind of glitch, but stopped short of actually saying it. Such hesitancy makes me suspicious. It is possible, of course, given how new the devices are. It should be noted, though, that if there are any bugs, they are likely to be addressed faster and more completely than other operating systems would be. QNX is still used as code in military, medical and other programming areas considered "mission critical."
All things being equal in the quality of construction, durability and related matters, style is entirely the choice of the individual. It can only be of concern to the individual. And although it may be important to the individual, it must be secondary to functionality.
As an extension, I will go so far as to say that each operating system is in fact an extension of style. From the open variance and user-definability of android, to the rigidly enforced environments of iPhone and Windows (BlackBerry seems to be in between the two extremes, but leaning toward the conservative, pre-defined design ethic of the proprietary code), it is just different styles of presenting your information.** They are all beautiful in their way.
In a sea of devices, it is ridiculous to say "this is surely the best" without defining the user first; that is the only meaningful way to gauge which is best amongst so many wonderful examples.
** Reliable OSs are crucial. By experience, I can attest to Android and iPhone. I have not heard of a Windows phone giving anybody the BSOD. If you know of it happening, tell me about it. This all started because of reviews of the BlackBerry, which runs QNX. Of 10 reviews I watched, 2 hinted at some kind of glitch, but stopped short of actually saying it. Such hesitancy makes me suspicious. It is possible, of course, given how new the devices are. It should be noted, though, that if there are any bugs, they are likely to be addressed faster and more completely than other operating systems would be. QNX is still used as code in military, medical and other programming areas considered "mission critical."
13 February, 2013
It's Full of Stars!
There are big differences in numbers that should be dismissed too. Chief among them is the “ecosystem,” and a word about that before we hit the numbers. It should be officially noted that “ecosystem” is a poor replacement for “apps.” That’s right; it’s a pretentious little jargony bit of twaddle and people should be lightly and playfully smacked when they use it. Perhaps slightly harder each time they use it. Is it supposed to denote how green you are for powering your digital consumption with nickel and cadmium? "Ecosystem" my ass.
This sense of indignance aside, how many apps does your phone have? At the time of writing this, iPhone and Android are equal at “over 700 000” offered to each. Windows phones have about 30 000 apps available - but MS just this week set up what seems to be an android emulator that should expand its app selection by roughly android’s entire market (roughly 23 times larger). BlackBerry, which has re-launched itself into the consumer market less than a month ago, claims to have 70 000 apps.
So many people get caught in this trap! Is it not clear that the two platforms rapidly closing in on a million apps are the only real choices? Well, how many apps are on your phone right now? Think of the heaviest user you know and consider how many are on their phone. 500? 1000? 30 000? No. No in all cases. So the absolute number of apps, or “size of ecosystem,” though highly discussed, is in fact just a crap measure of how great your phone is.
How many web browsers are available for android and iPhone - and how many do you actually need? Choice and variety is nice. One person needs a big, full featured browser while another person only has use for a fast, light and relatively featureless browser. Ah and it’s a good thing these people had so much choice; so they could find just exactly what they need! But then again, no it isn’t. You don’t need That much choice. No, you don’t. If you took the 25 top browsers, you could comfortably cover every websurfer’s needs with one of them.
It’s not just browsers, though. There are far too many file managers, radio programs, flashlight programs, wallpaper downloaders, and on and on. People who maintain they can only thrive in huge “ecosystems” are usually deluded or dumbasses. "Ecosystems" thrive on themselves; cannibalizing their own. It's an "ecosystem's" method of reproduction! As anybody can tell you, copies of copies generally lead to degredation of quality.
It could be that very specialized, purpose built apps can only be found among such huge repositories, but it isn't Necessarily that way. In other words, that assertion is non-sequitur. Some platforms cut deals with developers so the developer only works with their platform. It rarely takes long before a developer on the other side makes their version available though.
The end of this business is simple: when you have 30 000 apps available, you Must have pretty much all basic functionality covered. Hopefully folks will tell me where I've gone wrong with that. "Nope! Windows and BB don't have blablabla apps! And android doesn't have suchandsuch apps!" If there's good response along these lines, the topic will be re-examined.
If you actually Need specialist apps and functionality, it doesn't make your phone better so much as it makes your phone better for you. Since the rest of us aren't you, nobody cares. In the meantime, the average Janes and Joes of the world are covered.
This sense of indignance aside, how many apps does your phone have? At the time of writing this, iPhone and Android are equal at “over 700 000” offered to each. Windows phones have about 30 000 apps available - but MS just this week set up what seems to be an android emulator that should expand its app selection by roughly android’s entire market (roughly 23 times larger). BlackBerry, which has re-launched itself into the consumer market less than a month ago, claims to have 70 000 apps.
So many people get caught in this trap! Is it not clear that the two platforms rapidly closing in on a million apps are the only real choices? Well, how many apps are on your phone right now? Think of the heaviest user you know and consider how many are on their phone. 500? 1000? 30 000? No. No in all cases. So the absolute number of apps, or “size of ecosystem,” though highly discussed, is in fact just a crap measure of how great your phone is.
How many web browsers are available for android and iPhone - and how many do you actually need? Choice and variety is nice. One person needs a big, full featured browser while another person only has use for a fast, light and relatively featureless browser. Ah and it’s a good thing these people had so much choice; so they could find just exactly what they need! But then again, no it isn’t. You don’t need That much choice. No, you don’t. If you took the 25 top browsers, you could comfortably cover every websurfer’s needs with one of them.
It’s not just browsers, though. There are far too many file managers, radio programs, flashlight programs, wallpaper downloaders, and on and on. People who maintain they can only thrive in huge “ecosystems” are usually deluded or dumbasses. "Ecosystems" thrive on themselves; cannibalizing their own. It's an "ecosystem's" method of reproduction! As anybody can tell you, copies of copies generally lead to degredation of quality.
It could be that very specialized, purpose built apps can only be found among such huge repositories, but it isn't Necessarily that way. In other words, that assertion is non-sequitur. Some platforms cut deals with developers so the developer only works with their platform. It rarely takes long before a developer on the other side makes their version available though.
The end of this business is simple: when you have 30 000 apps available, you Must have pretty much all basic functionality covered. Hopefully folks will tell me where I've gone wrong with that. "Nope! Windows and BB don't have blablabla apps! And android doesn't have suchandsuch apps!" If there's good response along these lines, the topic will be re-examined.
If you actually Need specialist apps and functionality, it doesn't make your phone better so much as it makes your phone better for you. Since the rest of us aren't you, nobody cares. In the meantime, the average Janes and Joes of the world are covered.
Let's Just Put 'Em On The Table...
Often the first thing to be compared, size only matters in certain respects and understanding that appears to be very difficult, even for "experts." For thinking people it is difficult to understand how the “my phone is better” assertion is upheld by distinctions of about a millimeter or less. Alright, yes, your screen is bigger, but pointing this out as an advantage makes people look like idiot children having tantrums.
There are more critical areas though, right, like thickness! This measure is far more relevant to other things than phones, incidentally, but that's digression. I doubt you can find a phone thicker than 17mm these days, and most are close to 10mm. With that standard, 1mm is 10%. Nonetheless, it’s just not that significant. Anything that’s that close is not really worth mentioning and certainly not worth touting. Half an inch makes a difference in any dimension. Sometimes less than that makes an appreciable difference - sometimes. Learn to distinguish when it counts.
Here’s more problems with small differences in numbers. Pixel count reviews are a pain to listen to. If one phone has 320 p.p.i. and another has 332 p.p.i. do Not sit there and tell me you can see how much sharper the second picture is, because I will know you are full of bull-pucci. After 300 p.p.i. the human eye gets lazy. It’s even harder to tell the difference between 332 p.p.i. and 350 p.p.i. even though the spread is greater. So up to a point, this is certainly important, but again, learn to distinguish the relevant ranges.
Weight is yet another place where this happens. If one phone is 179g and the other is 170g, for heaven's sake stop telling me how much more 'hefty' the first one feels. It is true that the human hand is perfectly capable of distinguishing 10g difference, but for raw "meatiness" people still wrap their hands around a roll of quarters to throw their weight around - not around a mobile phone. Besides, there is another consideration of tactility that is by far more useful.
Now people who don't understand what's being said here will often counter with "Oh, so you think screen size makes no difference, Well! I'll tell you..." And sometimes I'm happy such people exist; like when I need to feel superior but I'm too lazy to go to a bar full of undergrads or those times when my nigh-impregnable fortress is beset by an angry mob of straw men. Of course screen size makes a difference! But instead of quibbling over whose is slightly bigger and who knows how to use theirs better - the first considerations for every individual user should be "how much real-estate do my phone computing purposes require," "how important is it to leave one hand free," and "how big are my hands?" This applies to the entire handset, too.
The upshot is the realization that for different people, different phones are the best. If a person isn't capable of considering themselves the most important factor in getting a phone, I suppose it follows that reviewers won't either. Probably that's just how the manufacturers want it. For the Darkest Roast's purposes, however, that's not good enough.
Next: more commentary on phones, without the childish penile double entendres
...
There are more critical areas though, right, like thickness! This measure is far more relevant to other things than phones, incidentally, but that's digression. I doubt you can find a phone thicker than 17mm these days, and most are close to 10mm. With that standard, 1mm is 10%. Nonetheless, it’s just not that significant. Anything that’s that close is not really worth mentioning and certainly not worth touting. Half an inch makes a difference in any dimension. Sometimes less than that makes an appreciable difference - sometimes. Learn to distinguish when it counts.
Here’s more problems with small differences in numbers. Pixel count reviews are a pain to listen to. If one phone has 320 p.p.i. and another has 332 p.p.i. do Not sit there and tell me you can see how much sharper the second picture is, because I will know you are full of bull-pucci. After 300 p.p.i. the human eye gets lazy. It’s even harder to tell the difference between 332 p.p.i. and 350 p.p.i. even though the spread is greater. So up to a point, this is certainly important, but again, learn to distinguish the relevant ranges.
Weight is yet another place where this happens. If one phone is 179g and the other is 170g, for heaven's sake stop telling me how much more 'hefty' the first one feels. It is true that the human hand is perfectly capable of distinguishing 10g difference, but for raw "meatiness" people still wrap their hands around a roll of quarters to throw their weight around - not around a mobile phone. Besides, there is another consideration of tactility that is by far more useful.
Now people who don't understand what's being said here will often counter with "Oh, so you think screen size makes no difference, Well! I'll tell you..." And sometimes I'm happy such people exist; like when I need to feel superior but I'm too lazy to go to a bar full of undergrads or those times when my nigh-impregnable fortress is beset by an angry mob of straw men. Of course screen size makes a difference! But instead of quibbling over whose is slightly bigger and who knows how to use theirs better - the first considerations for every individual user should be "how much real-estate do my phone computing purposes require," "how important is it to leave one hand free," and "how big are my hands?" This applies to the entire handset, too.
The upshot is the realization that for different people, different phones are the best. If a person isn't capable of considering themselves the most important factor in getting a phone, I suppose it follows that reviewers won't either. Probably that's just how the manufacturers want it. For the Darkest Roast's purposes, however, that's not good enough.
Next: more commentary on phones, without the childish penile double entendres
...
Comparative Standards and Measures in the Phone Market
The BlackBerry Z10, as you likely know, was recently released. It has been just enough time for the reviews to start showing up and for people in the street to start talking. That is to say that mountains of the same twaddle is being trotted out to defend why so many people's choice of phone is better than yours, or mine, or any other really.
Having heard enough crapspeak, a few short articles about what makes phones good and what people can shut up about already, are being lined up for tonight. The fact is that even so called "experts" become worthy of ridicule when they blather on about numbers they obviously don't really comprehend.
Having heard enough crapspeak, a few short articles about what makes phones good and what people can shut up about already, are being lined up for tonight. The fact is that even so called "experts" become worthy of ridicule when they blather on about numbers they obviously don't really comprehend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)