When I moved to the Land of Tim Hortons I found it somewhat confusing, direction wise.
The place I'm looking for is on the mountain? What mountain? I don't see a mountain.
I learned that Hamilton is typically divided in two, "The mountain" and downtown. The latter is next to Lake Ontario with the former adjacent to the south. Perhaps it's because I grew up in B.C. with the Rocky Mountains, but there's no way no how I'm ever going to call Hamilton's mountain "The mountain."
Of course the Rockies are geological youths, and not all mountains appear like the Rockies. Still, "The mountain" at best is a plateau. There's an escarpment, and then it's flat. F-L-A-T.
Perhaps at one time it was a real mountain and 90% of it was carved off for city development and expansion. I don't know. But as only a recent resident of the Land of Tim Hortons I'd feel silly describing it as one.
08 January 2010
17 December 2009
Video Review of Phantom Menace
/Film posted someone's 70-minute video review of the disappointing disaster that was the Phantom Menace. Whenever someone asks whether I like Star Wars (the topic doesn't really arise that often these days, but when it does...) I always have to qualify my positive response by saying I only like the original trilogy, and not the prequels. Well, the creator of this video review of feels the same way and offers some salient reasons as to why Episode I is so terrible.
Quite well done, actually. The review is divided into seven parts. Warning for mild profanity.
Part 1/7
Part 2/7
Part 3/7
Part 4/7
Part 5/7
Part 6/7
Part 7/7
Quite well done, actually. The review is divided into seven parts. Warning for mild profanity.
Part 1/7
Part 2/7
Part 3/7
Part 4/7
Part 5/7
Part 6/7
Part 7/7
16 December 2009
Does Rogers Think I'm Stupid?
As glad as I was to return to Canada after several years of living in the United States, there are a few things I find severely lacking north of the 49th parallel.
One, amazon.ca is an extremely pitiful, pathetic cousin to amazon.com in terms of variety of products offered. I'd grown accustomed to the one-stop-shop nature of amazon.com -- a characteristic the Canadian iteration doesn't even come close to matching.
Two, is the lack of competition and poor service in some industries compared to the United States. In the case of the telecom industry not only is service relatively poor in Canada, but Canadians for larcenous reasons are forced to pay more for less. A few mobiles have caught my eye over the past few years, but I never want to be stuck with a contract, again. Besides, my s620 still serves me well.
Anywhoo, I digress. This post was meant originally to relate an inane text message I received from Rogers, recently (I use Rogers Pay As You Go). Rogers periodically sends me text messages offering various services and options. This one said in effect, "you've had x number of text messages in the past 7 days. Pay $3 per month for 30 free text messages!"
As with all others from Rogers, this one was deleted. But in the midst of deletion it occurred to me that I really don't use text messages often, and certainly not the x number Rogers says I had in the past week.
My first thought was that somehow someone else was using my mobile number. A second after that, though, I realized the more likely scenario was that in calculating the number of text messages per week, Rogers must be including the texts Rogers themselves were sending me.
Not only does Rogers insist on spamming me, they want me to pay for the dubious privilege. Idiots.
One, amazon.ca is an extremely pitiful, pathetic cousin to amazon.com in terms of variety of products offered. I'd grown accustomed to the one-stop-shop nature of amazon.com -- a characteristic the Canadian iteration doesn't even come close to matching.
Two, is the lack of competition and poor service in some industries compared to the United States. In the case of the telecom industry not only is service relatively poor in Canada, but Canadians for larcenous reasons are forced to pay more for less. A few mobiles have caught my eye over the past few years, but I never want to be stuck with a contract, again. Besides, my s620 still serves me well.
Anywhoo, I digress. This post was meant originally to relate an inane text message I received from Rogers, recently (I use Rogers Pay As You Go). Rogers periodically sends me text messages offering various services and options. This one said in effect, "you've had x number of text messages in the past 7 days. Pay $3 per month for 30 free text messages!"
As with all others from Rogers, this one was deleted. But in the midst of deletion it occurred to me that I really don't use text messages often, and certainly not the x number Rogers says I had in the past week.
My first thought was that somehow someone else was using my mobile number. A second after that, though, I realized the more likely scenario was that in calculating the number of text messages per week, Rogers must be including the texts Rogers themselves were sending me.
Not only does Rogers insist on spamming me, they want me to pay for the dubious privilege. Idiots.
25 November 2009
Lego Matrix
Found these youtube videos posted on /Film. The filmers recreated the roof-top bullet-time scene from the original Matrix, using Lego. 440 hours to film 1 minute 24 seconds.
This second video is a side by side comparison of the original with the Lego Matrix version:
This second video is a side by side comparison of the original with the Lego Matrix version:
16 November 2009
Swimming and an Autonomic Reflex
Once upon a time I watched part of a BBC documentary on the human body, in which they revealed that babies, under a certain age, will automatically hold their breath when dunked under water. As the babies get older, however, they lose this reflex. The video of babies "swimming" by themselves was kind of neat. Cute, too.
Being too cheap to purchase prescription swim goggles, I haven't as much as dipped a toe in a swimming pool for decades. Nevertheless, I still remember that I never required a nose clip to prevent water from flowing up my nasal passages. I just held my breath, and that was it.
As a young child I vaguely remember wondering, upon first viewing some competitive swimmers wearing nose clips, why they bothered. After the split second I considered this weighty conundrum, I concluded that as they obviously swim much faster so water must as a consequence threaten to go up their nose with greater force... thus nose clips as a preventive measure. Kids, eh?
Anywhoo, I never thought about it again, until recently (hence, this post). Apparently the use of nose clips is all dependent on how people were trained. In the beginning, everyone's nasal passage will close off and prevent water from going up their nose -- assuming they hold their breath underwater, obviously. However, those who first learn to swim with nose clips lose this autonomic reflex.
So this is an ability acquired in the womb... still possessed in young babies... then lost... then regained... and then, perhaps, lost again.
Interesting, eh? Well... I think it's interesting.
Being too cheap to purchase prescription swim goggles, I haven't as much as dipped a toe in a swimming pool for decades. Nevertheless, I still remember that I never required a nose clip to prevent water from flowing up my nasal passages. I just held my breath, and that was it.
As a young child I vaguely remember wondering, upon first viewing some competitive swimmers wearing nose clips, why they bothered. After the split second I considered this weighty conundrum, I concluded that as they obviously swim much faster so water must as a consequence threaten to go up their nose with greater force... thus nose clips as a preventive measure. Kids, eh?
Anywhoo, I never thought about it again, until recently (hence, this post). Apparently the use of nose clips is all dependent on how people were trained. In the beginning, everyone's nasal passage will close off and prevent water from going up their nose -- assuming they hold their breath underwater, obviously. However, those who first learn to swim with nose clips lose this autonomic reflex.
So this is an ability acquired in the womb... still possessed in young babies... then lost... then regained... and then, perhaps, lost again.
Interesting, eh? Well... I think it's interesting.
09 November 2009
Just Say No?
On CTV local news tonight there was a news report about a woman missing in Toronto area for the past two months or so. In the report, police stated that they would be asking all tenants of the missing woman's apartment building to let them enter their homes to take a look for any possible clues (aside: the report said that was 6 000 units which, if accurate, is one huge apartment building). Apparently this is the second time the police would be making a search of this kind in this case.
My first thought was that the police must be fishing. My second thought was that perhaps the police have a suspect, but not enough evidence for a warrant, so to avoid unduly forewarning the suspect plan to search all residents' homes, perhaps in the hope the suspect won't decline police entry in order to not appear suspicious.
This led me to wonder how I'd react if I was placed in a similar situation, with police knocking on my door, asking to search my home without a warrant on the off chance they'd find something to help solve a case.
My rational self thinks if it's the former, fishing, then it's idiotic, unreasonable, and given a world with no repercussions I'd say a definite, "no". If it's the latter, part subterfuge, then the police wouldn't really care about searching my place, anyway, so that's another, "no".
But then there's the inevitable fear, guilt, and resentment because, realistically, I'd find it difficult to say no, even though I'd probably want to. Fear of appearing guilty by declining. Guilt because if searching my home would help the police solve a case -- no matter how fantastical a possibility -- how would I possibly say no? Resentment at having to let police search my home for fear of appearing suspicious, resentment at being made to feel guilty, resentment at the loss of privacy, and guilty for feeling resentment.
Another not so involved thought popped in to my mind after the CTV broadcast about police asking to enter homes without warrants. I wonder if there will be any criminals trying to take advantage of the news report, impersonating police to gain access to apartments and stuff to steal, pretending to be looking for clues to the missing woman.
Finally, a question: what's the protocol for something like this? Would it be appropriate to ask police to first take off their shoes?
My first thought was that the police must be fishing. My second thought was that perhaps the police have a suspect, but not enough evidence for a warrant, so to avoid unduly forewarning the suspect plan to search all residents' homes, perhaps in the hope the suspect won't decline police entry in order to not appear suspicious.
This led me to wonder how I'd react if I was placed in a similar situation, with police knocking on my door, asking to search my home without a warrant on the off chance they'd find something to help solve a case.
My rational self thinks if it's the former, fishing, then it's idiotic, unreasonable, and given a world with no repercussions I'd say a definite, "no". If it's the latter, part subterfuge, then the police wouldn't really care about searching my place, anyway, so that's another, "no".
But then there's the inevitable fear, guilt, and resentment because, realistically, I'd find it difficult to say no, even though I'd probably want to. Fear of appearing guilty by declining. Guilt because if searching my home would help the police solve a case -- no matter how fantastical a possibility -- how would I possibly say no? Resentment at having to let police search my home for fear of appearing suspicious, resentment at being made to feel guilty, resentment at the loss of privacy, and guilty for feeling resentment.
Another not so involved thought popped in to my mind after the CTV broadcast about police asking to enter homes without warrants. I wonder if there will be any criminals trying to take advantage of the news report, impersonating police to gain access to apartments and stuff to steal, pretending to be looking for clues to the missing woman.
Finally, a question: what's the protocol for something like this? Would it be appropriate to ask police to first take off their shoes?
03 November 2009
PS3: Playstation Network
I've never used my PS3 to browse the web or purchase anything, but recently I inadvertently discovered what I consider to be a major bug in how Playstation Network accounts are managed. I say 'bug' but I suspect it's intentional, another example of some proprietary protection overkill by Sony.
What am I talking about? I purchased my PS3 when I was living in the United States so when I set up my PS3 user account I used my U.S. address. Now having relocated to Canada, I recently tried to update my information -- inexplicably, I am unable to update my address because Sony doesn't allow you to update the country of residence. Eh!?
After some cursory research, as far as I can gather Sony - unlike Nintendo with Nintendo Club - has no intention whatsoever of changing this policy.
Hmm... any work arounds? First I tried creating a new account/user with my current Canadian address. This worked fine. I could then transfer all my save games to my new user and delete the old account, right?
Not quite.
In this case a little paranoia paid off. Fortunately, prior to deleting my old account I decided to verify that I could use the save games with my new account. Kudos to Valkyria Chronicles, Assassin's Creed, Fallout 3, and Oblivion for letting gamers do this. A big disgusted boo to EA Sports NHL10 for not.
So... in order to not lose three completed seasons and the start of a fourth in NHL10 Be A Pro, I am forced to keep two user accounts on my PS3, one with my current address in Canada and the other with my previous address in the United States. Not a major fiasco by far, but definitely a major irritation for someone who very much prefers to avoid opening multiple accounts to the same service.
Anywhoo, I find myself blaming Sony more than EA Sports. All this hassle could have been easily avoided if Sony merely allowed people to update their country of residence.
I can only assume Sony designed it this way because different countries/regions have access to different content on the PS3, and Sony doesn't want PS3 owners changing their country of residence willy-nilly in order to access other regions' content.
Which is odd when I think about it, because I'd have thought more people purchasing downloads would result in more money for Sony. It's also odd because it seems a very crude and inadequate method. People can still create as many PS3 user accounts with international addresses as they have e-mail addresses.
This oddness, then, begs the question, "What's the point?" The only answer I can come up with is that this is merely another example of Sony being anal.
What am I talking about? I purchased my PS3 when I was living in the United States so when I set up my PS3 user account I used my U.S. address. Now having relocated to Canada, I recently tried to update my information -- inexplicably, I am unable to update my address because Sony doesn't allow you to update the country of residence. Eh!?
After some cursory research, as far as I can gather Sony - unlike Nintendo with Nintendo Club - has no intention whatsoever of changing this policy.
Hmm... any work arounds? First I tried creating a new account/user with my current Canadian address. This worked fine. I could then transfer all my save games to my new user and delete the old account, right?
Not quite.
In this case a little paranoia paid off. Fortunately, prior to deleting my old account I decided to verify that I could use the save games with my new account. Kudos to Valkyria Chronicles, Assassin's Creed, Fallout 3, and Oblivion for letting gamers do this. A big disgusted boo to EA Sports NHL10 for not.
So... in order to not lose three completed seasons and the start of a fourth in NHL10 Be A Pro, I am forced to keep two user accounts on my PS3, one with my current address in Canada and the other with my previous address in the United States. Not a major fiasco by far, but definitely a major irritation for someone who very much prefers to avoid opening multiple accounts to the same service.
Anywhoo, I find myself blaming Sony more than EA Sports. All this hassle could have been easily avoided if Sony merely allowed people to update their country of residence.
I can only assume Sony designed it this way because different countries/regions have access to different content on the PS3, and Sony doesn't want PS3 owners changing their country of residence willy-nilly in order to access other regions' content.
Which is odd when I think about it, because I'd have thought more people purchasing downloads would result in more money for Sony. It's also odd because it seems a very crude and inadequate method. People can still create as many PS3 user accounts with international addresses as they have e-mail addresses.
This oddness, then, begs the question, "What's the point?" The only answer I can come up with is that this is merely another example of Sony being anal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)