What did Buffalo ever do to deserve this? Not the animal, they didn't do anything. I mean the city. We just had a snowstorm, and while it was bad here in southern Ontario, it was easily survivable. But somehow Buffalo got three feet of snow, paralysing the city. This just keeps happening: storms that are merely inconvenient here - at the same latitude in Canada - save their worst for the Queen City. (That's Buffalo's nickname; people know that, right?)
I'm sure Americans hear about the snow in Buffalo and assume it's a result of its position in the North, but clearly it's more than that. The only explanation I can come up with - and keep in mind I know little about weather - is that it comes from the city's position at the Eastern end of Lake Erie. Thus the prevailing winds blow along the entire length of the lake, picking up moisture, then dumping it on Buffalo at the end. (And Wikipedia seems to agree.)
That begs the question: who decided to put the city there? Or rather, how did a city in such an unfortunate position get so large? Looking around the Great Lakes, there are no other major cities on windward shores. I always assumed that was because people avoided the places with the worst weather conditions.
You got to feel bad for them. Here in Southern Ontario, the two big American cities on our doorsteps are Buffalo and Detroit. Those are two of the most deteriorated cities in the country, and it tends to give us a little smugness. That's unfortunate, since it's not like either city was really to blame for the global trends were their downfall.
In Buffalo's case, we should feel a kinship with them due to our similarities. Not only is there the weather and most of the U.S. ignoring them, they also care about hockey, and yet can't seem to put together a winning team.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
Monday, November 17, 2014
Justice For My Inner Eight-Year Old
Glen A. Larson died this week. If you're in your forties, that name may seem slightly familiar, especially if you picture it on a TV screen prefaced by "executive producer." But once again, the media is confused as to why to memorialise him. I've seen different stories refer to him as "creator of Magnum P.I.," "creator of Knight Rider" or "creator of Battlestar Galactica." But none of them seemed to put those credits together with B.J. and the Bear, The Fall Guy, Buck Rogers and The Six-Million Dollar Man and remember him as the king of Eighties action shows.
(As an aside, did you know that he put a lot of references to his Mormon faith in Battlestar Galactica?)
Combine that with the recent death of R.A. Montgomery, publisher of the Choose Your Own Adventure books, and we've had a couple of instances of short shrift given to people who had a hand in the entertainment of my childhood. Both the Eighties and geekery are getting much more respect than they ever have before, so you'd think the media would use this to give a fond bit of nostalgia.
Instead, I'm just going to have to add them to my ongoing series of people who deserved better obituaries than the media gave them. Now I call on all of you Gen-X'ers out there to hum the Knight Rider theme, as you go to the web page of your choice.
(As an aside, did you know that he put a lot of references to his Mormon faith in Battlestar Galactica?)
Combine that with the recent death of R.A. Montgomery, publisher of the Choose Your Own Adventure books, and we've had a couple of instances of short shrift given to people who had a hand in the entertainment of my childhood. Both the Eighties and geekery are getting much more respect than they ever have before, so you'd think the media would use this to give a fond bit of nostalgia.
Instead, I'm just going to have to add them to my ongoing series of people who deserved better obituaries than the media gave them. Now I call on all of you Gen-X'ers out there to hum the Knight Rider theme, as you go to the web page of your choice.
Friday, November 14, 2014
You Got A Fast Car
Recently, a car put up for auction got some notice. It's a Ferrari Enzo, and the latest price is $370,000. That's quite a steal for an expensive, rare car that's no longer being made.
Of course, there's a catch: it's been in an accident, and needs some work. By "some work," I mean one wheel is missing, both the front and rear suspension are badly damaged. The engine starts, but many parts need replacing. Many body panels are damaged, and since they're made out of composite materials they'll likely need replacing. And worst of all, the carbon fibre "tub" that makes up the the core of the car has cracked, and that will cost a lot to fix. The total repair bill is estimated at $870,000.
So why would anyone pay $300,000+ for a that will need close to a million in repairs? Because that's actually a good price compared to the cost of a mint-condition model.
It brings up an interesting aspect of limited-edition supercars like the Enzo or the McLaren F1: they're nearly impossible to destroy. That's not because they're any more durable than your average car: you can easily find schadenfreude reports of them getting badly damaged when someone tries driving them at their limits. But they are difficult to write-off.
We use the terms "write-off" or "totalled" as a generic way of saying "destroyed," but what it technically means is that something is too expensive to repair. For instance, say your 1997 Taurus sustains damage that will cost $4,000 to fix. But a replacement car of similar vintage would likely cost less than a thousand. Thus, it doesn't make sense for you (or your insurance company) to pay for the repair; it would be cheaper to buy a replacement car.
But these famous-but-rare supercars are so expensive, it's nearly impossible to damage them so badly that repairs will be too expensive to undertake. Just about any repair will cost less than the fixed car will be worth.
With that in mind, I've decided that I will put my Ferrari Enzo up for auction. Like the one in this story, it needs some work. You will have to replace the body, suspension, wheels, engine, transmission, interior and chassis. See, my Ferrari Enzo is, technically, a twisted piece of metal I found in the street the other day. But I'm sure you could rebuild it for less than the current asking price for an Enzo. Jay Leno, I await your call.
Of course, there's a catch: it's been in an accident, and needs some work. By "some work," I mean one wheel is missing, both the front and rear suspension are badly damaged. The engine starts, but many parts need replacing. Many body panels are damaged, and since they're made out of composite materials they'll likely need replacing. And worst of all, the carbon fibre "tub" that makes up the the core of the car has cracked, and that will cost a lot to fix. The total repair bill is estimated at $870,000.
So why would anyone pay $300,000+ for a that will need close to a million in repairs? Because that's actually a good price compared to the cost of a mint-condition model.
It brings up an interesting aspect of limited-edition supercars like the Enzo or the McLaren F1: they're nearly impossible to destroy. That's not because they're any more durable than your average car: you can easily find schadenfreude reports of them getting badly damaged when someone tries driving them at their limits. But they are difficult to write-off.
We use the terms "write-off" or "totalled" as a generic way of saying "destroyed," but what it technically means is that something is too expensive to repair. For instance, say your 1997 Taurus sustains damage that will cost $4,000 to fix. But a replacement car of similar vintage would likely cost less than a thousand. Thus, it doesn't make sense for you (or your insurance company) to pay for the repair; it would be cheaper to buy a replacement car.
But these famous-but-rare supercars are so expensive, it's nearly impossible to damage them so badly that repairs will be too expensive to undertake. Just about any repair will cost less than the fixed car will be worth.
With that in mind, I've decided that I will put my Ferrari Enzo up for auction. Like the one in this story, it needs some work. You will have to replace the body, suspension, wheels, engine, transmission, interior and chassis. See, my Ferrari Enzo is, technically, a twisted piece of metal I found in the street the other day. But I'm sure you could rebuild it for less than the current asking price for an Enzo. Jay Leno, I await your call.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
Neutrality Isn't
Net Neutrality is in the news again. (You can read my explanation on the issue here, along with my explanation of why I'm bitter and cynical about it.) It got a boost in publicity recently because President Obama came out in favour of it. Predictably, other politicians then quickly decided they were against it. Conservative icon Ted Cruz tweeted that it was just like Obamacare:
That lead to a lot of criticism from techies and/or liberals, well summarised in this comic from The Oatmeal. It ridicules Cruz's tweet, and encourages politicians to see this as a bipartisan issue that is in everyone's interest. And it notes that Cruz received a lot of campaign funds from communication companies that would benefit from the end of Net Neutrality.
Well I have a different perspective and it's something quite unexpected, so I'll put it in its own paragraph for emphasis:
Ted Cruz has a point.
To clarify, I should point out that I do fully believe the following:
So this is one of those cases of a clock that doesn't work being right twice a day. And can we please come up with a more modern version of that saying?
The fact is that Net Neutrality is a lot like Obamacare. In both cases we're talking about regulating something such that there is a minimum amount of service that everyone can depend on, with the cost being that no one can get better service even if they can pay extra. In both cases, the alternative is a less-regulated system in which your level of service depends on your ability to pay, allowing people to buy better service with more money, but allowing the possibility that some will be priced out of a reasonable level of service.
Of course, Cruz is being disingenuous when he characterises Net Neutrality as though it were the government running the Internet. But that too is a similarity to Obamacare: the proposed solution is a system of regulation rather than total government control (in contrast to say, Canada's health care system.) But, in both cases, opponents are falsely portraying it as the government running everything.
As for The Oatmeal, it's wrong: this is a partisan issue. Some people may agree with its opinion that regulating internet speeds is a good idea (I do) but many others will not, thinking it's better if people/companies can pay for better service. That's what a partisan issue is: one in which the parties disagree. Just because you're really sure that you're right doesn't make your cause bipartisan.
"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.
— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) November 10, 2014
That lead to a lot of criticism from techies and/or liberals, well summarised in this comic from The Oatmeal. It ridicules Cruz's tweet, and encourages politicians to see this as a bipartisan issue that is in everyone's interest. And it notes that Cruz received a lot of campaign funds from communication companies that would benefit from the end of Net Neutrality.
Well I have a different perspective and it's something quite unexpected, so I'll put it in its own paragraph for emphasis:
Ted Cruz has a point.
To clarify, I should point out that I do fully believe the following:
- Net Neutrality is a good thing.
- Ted Cruz doesn't know what Net Neutrality is.
- Cruz is saying this primarily to stay in the good graces of his donors.
- Cruz compares everything he doesn't like to Obamacare ("I asked for medium-rare! This steakhouse is just like Obamacare! ")
So this is one of those cases of a clock that doesn't work being right twice a day. And can we please come up with a more modern version of that saying?
The fact is that Net Neutrality is a lot like Obamacare. In both cases we're talking about regulating something such that there is a minimum amount of service that everyone can depend on, with the cost being that no one can get better service even if they can pay extra. In both cases, the alternative is a less-regulated system in which your level of service depends on your ability to pay, allowing people to buy better service with more money, but allowing the possibility that some will be priced out of a reasonable level of service.
Of course, Cruz is being disingenuous when he characterises Net Neutrality as though it were the government running the Internet. But that too is a similarity to Obamacare: the proposed solution is a system of regulation rather than total government control (in contrast to say, Canada's health care system.) But, in both cases, opponents are falsely portraying it as the government running everything.
As for The Oatmeal, it's wrong: this is a partisan issue. Some people may agree with its opinion that regulating internet speeds is a good idea (I do) but many others will not, thinking it's better if people/companies can pay for better service. That's what a partisan issue is: one in which the parties disagree. Just because you're really sure that you're right doesn't make your cause bipartisan.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Things My Grandfather Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future.
I have a pair of speakers that are better than the one in your Victrola, but they're so small they fit in a person's ears. They are still in working order, but I may have to replace them because the foam cover is ripped, and they don't sell them separately from new speakers.
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
All Of These Things Are Just Like The Others
You may have seen a recent article about the "Hipster Effect." That is, a scientist has mathematically explained why hipsters look the same, even though they are trying to be individual.
The explanation is this: assume that everyone in a community wants to avoid any trend. You also assume that, like most people, it takes a while for an individual to realize that a trend exists (that is, you don't assume there is a trend to wear red suspenders just because you saw one person wearing red suspenders; it takes a while to notice a pattern.) When you simulate such a community, they eventually fall into a rhythm where everyone realizes there's a trend, switches to the opposite of the trend, notices that trend, switches, and so on.
It's an interesting concept: it's a lesson in how patterns can have very non-obvious causes, and a lesson in how difficult it is for an individual in a large population to avoid being part of large movements. But I don't think it alone explains the phenomena of individualistic people looking the same.
In a world where you can easily distinguish yourself in a myriad of different ways, it's not likely you'd create a trend that way. That is, if you're tired of everyone wearing white, wearing black isn't the only way to distinguish yourself; you could start wearing 1970's style rollerskates. Or wear an ironic neckerchief. Or carry a clarinet around.
Okay, there is the possibility that avoiding trends itself becomes a trend. That is, you might try to avoid clothing trends by choosing your clothing based only on practicality and comfort. If enough people do that, then comfortable, practical clothing might be seen as a trend, and adopted by people who choose their clothing based on fashion. That's sort of what happened with Grunge era fashion.
I remember a Sociology prof observing that loners often look like other loners, though he explained it in terms of psychology: everyone has a need for both individuality and belonging, but different people have different amounts of each need. So individualistic people don't completely reject membership in any group, they just have less of a need than most people. So for them, the ideal solution is to join a smaller group. If you're in a subculture, you can feel individual while still maintaining a sense that you belong to something.
That seems to be a better explanation than some sort of comedy of errors in which people end up the same in an attempt to be different. That sounds like something that would be the premise of an SNL sketch or a Twilight Zone episode.
The explanation is this: assume that everyone in a community wants to avoid any trend. You also assume that, like most people, it takes a while for an individual to realize that a trend exists (that is, you don't assume there is a trend to wear red suspenders just because you saw one person wearing red suspenders; it takes a while to notice a pattern.) When you simulate such a community, they eventually fall into a rhythm where everyone realizes there's a trend, switches to the opposite of the trend, notices that trend, switches, and so on.
It's an interesting concept: it's a lesson in how patterns can have very non-obvious causes, and a lesson in how difficult it is for an individual in a large population to avoid being part of large movements. But I don't think it alone explains the phenomena of individualistic people looking the same.
In a world where you can easily distinguish yourself in a myriad of different ways, it's not likely you'd create a trend that way. That is, if you're tired of everyone wearing white, wearing black isn't the only way to distinguish yourself; you could start wearing 1970's style rollerskates. Or wear an ironic neckerchief. Or carry a clarinet around.
Okay, there is the possibility that avoiding trends itself becomes a trend. That is, you might try to avoid clothing trends by choosing your clothing based only on practicality and comfort. If enough people do that, then comfortable, practical clothing might be seen as a trend, and adopted by people who choose their clothing based on fashion. That's sort of what happened with Grunge era fashion.
I remember a Sociology prof observing that loners often look like other loners, though he explained it in terms of psychology: everyone has a need for both individuality and belonging, but different people have different amounts of each need. So individualistic people don't completely reject membership in any group, they just have less of a need than most people. So for them, the ideal solution is to join a smaller group. If you're in a subculture, you can feel individual while still maintaining a sense that you belong to something.
That seems to be a better explanation than some sort of comedy of errors in which people end up the same in an attempt to be different. That sounds like something that would be the premise of an SNL sketch or a Twilight Zone episode.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Hall Of Name
Today was the last day of the Canadian Football League season. People are talking about end-of-season awards, but there's one category everyone is missing: names. This season, the CFL has had the best player names, exceeding even the NFL in that area. So here are my nominees:
| Hamilton Tiger-Cats | Bakari Grant |
| Montreal Alouettes | Winston Venable |
| Toronto Argonauts | Swayze Waters |
| Ottawa Redblacks | Dobson Collins |
| Calgary Stampeders | Bo Levi Mitchell |
| Edmonton Eskimos | Adarius Bowman |
| Saskatchewan Roughriders | Weston Dressler |
| B.C. Lions | Solomon Elimimian |
| Winnipeg Blue Bombers | Paris Cotton |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)