Doesn't it seem strange to you that Yakko and Dot Warner have American accents, but the middle child, Wakko, has a Liverpool accent?
I could never figure that out.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Change is a Four Letter Word
It's funny how the meanings of words change over time.
"Nine-Eleven" used to refer to a Porsche.
"Bad" first meant "bad", then it meant "good". I'm not sure what it means now.
"Wicked" used to mean "evil" then it meant "awesome!"
Pimp used to refer to one who made a living off the sex-trade of others. Now it's a verb meaning to supe-up, upgrade, accessorize. You know, like Pimp My Ride, Pimp That Snack, Pimp My Com .com, Pimp MySpace, Pimp My Church, and for you Mac lovers: Pimp My Safari.
Just do a Google search for "Pimp my" and you'll get a ton of results that have nothing to do with prostitution.
A few weeks ago I was in CompuSmart killing time. This young woman walks in and starts looking at the Macs. I'm an unofficial Apple salesman, so I walk up to her and ask if she's thinking about getting one. She tells me her current Windows box is having trouble with "a rather cantankerous wireless network" and is getting old and may need replacing. So I launch into my sales routine where I start extolling the virtues of Macs.
As I'm showing her some of the stuff they can do, a CompuSmart salesman walks up and asks if he can help. This rather proper young woman says "Oh, he's just pimping your products."
On the flip side, "Ass" used to be a donkey. (There's a Christmas carol that has that word in it and I have to fight back laughter every time I sing it in church.) Apparently some of our swear words used to be clean words, like @#$@, and ^&#$.
Can you think of any other words that have changed meanings over the years?
"Nine-Eleven" used to refer to a Porsche.
"Bad" first meant "bad", then it meant "good". I'm not sure what it means now.
"Wicked" used to mean "evil" then it meant "awesome!"
Pimp used to refer to one who made a living off the sex-trade of others. Now it's a verb meaning to supe-up, upgrade, accessorize. You know, like Pimp My Ride, Pimp That Snack, Pimp My Com .com, Pimp MySpace, Pimp My Church, and for you Mac lovers: Pimp My Safari.
Just do a Google search for "Pimp my" and you'll get a ton of results that have nothing to do with prostitution.
A few weeks ago I was in CompuSmart killing time. This young woman walks in and starts looking at the Macs. I'm an unofficial Apple salesman, so I walk up to her and ask if she's thinking about getting one. She tells me her current Windows box is having trouble with "a rather cantankerous wireless network" and is getting old and may need replacing. So I launch into my sales routine where I start extolling the virtues of Macs.
As I'm showing her some of the stuff they can do, a CompuSmart salesman walks up and asks if he can help. This rather proper young woman says "Oh, he's just pimping your products."
On the flip side, "Ass" used to be a donkey. (There's a Christmas carol that has that word in it and I have to fight back laughter every time I sing it in church.) Apparently some of our swear words used to be clean words, like @#$@, and ^&#$.
Can you think of any other words that have changed meanings over the years?
You Can't Legislate Morality
One of the advantages to going to school for ten years is that you learn a lot of stuff. One of the advantages to going to university, as opposed to college, is that you learn lots of stuff that has nothing to do with your major. Some people really don't want to learn anything except their area of concentration. Electives are mere annoyances in their "education." Whereas I've always enjoyed my electives. Often times, more so than my concentration subjects.
As a result, I've taken a number of law classes in university. I think it's fair to say that I know more about Canadian law that your average Joe. (I'm no lawyer, nor do I know very many specifics. I mostly know how it works. I don't know a lot, but your average Joe knows very little. One guy kept trying to convince we don't have the right to remain silent when arrested in Canada. We certainly do. It's in the consitituion and case law (Ibrahim v. The King.))
There are two theories of law that I'm aware of: positive law and natural law. The natural law theory says that laws come from a sense of right and wrong that we all inherently have. Positive law theory says that something is law because the powers-that-be said so; made law to keep order, not because it's right or morally superior.
Law, as a whole, is a combination of the two. Some laws are obviously positive law, like driving on the right side of the road instead of the left. Driving on the right side is not morally superior to driving on the left. We need to have a side, the actual side is arbitrary, but in Canada we drive on the right. If everyone obeys that law then order is kept.
But where people, mostly Christians, get confused when dealing with law is they assume that laws that have a moral component come from the natural law as opposed to positive law. Take killing. Murder is wrong, and murder happens to be against the law. But (and this is the sixty four thousand dollar question) is murder against the law because it's wrong, or because without it on the books chaos would erupt?
Imagine a society where murder was not illegal, but was still understood by most to be wrong. Or, where it is illegal, but not enforced by the state. Person A murders Person B for whatever reason. It may be justifiable, it may not. It probably is justifiable in the eyes of Person A, but probably not to Person B's son, Person C. Person C then goes and administers justice and kills Person A. Justice has been done, right? Well, not in the eyes of Person D, Person A's son, who administers justice on Person C. And it goes on and on.
Eventually what will happen is that revenge-for-hire businesses pop up; officially or unofficially (like the mafia). Now you have two groups administering justice; the state for all official crimes, and the other groups for the unofficial crimes, like murder. But the unofficial groups are unofficial and can't be controlled. The government can be voted out, or revolted against. It seems inevitable that the unofficial groups would come into conflict with each other.
What we end up with is chaos. It's the same thing for other natural law things like stealing, raping, etc.
But, as long as you make those things illegal and enforce those laws then you can have some semblance of order.
The sooner you realize this, the sooner Canadian law, indeed most constitutional laws, make more sense. When it comes to the same-sex marriage debate, sure you may say it's a wrong life style, and shouldn't have been made legal; Canada shouldn't be condoning, much less celebrating immoral life-styles. But what does morality have to do with the law?
There are a few laws left on the books that seem to have roots in morality rather than order-keeping. The one the comes to mind are the euthenasia laws. If I were a betting man I'd be willing to bet my entire student loan that the euthenasia laws will be struck down in my life time.
Can anyone else think of any laws that exist purely for morality reasons?
As a result, I've taken a number of law classes in university. I think it's fair to say that I know more about Canadian law that your average Joe. (I'm no lawyer, nor do I know very many specifics. I mostly know how it works. I don't know a lot, but your average Joe knows very little. One guy kept trying to convince we don't have the right to remain silent when arrested in Canada. We certainly do. It's in the consitituion and case law (Ibrahim v. The King.))
There are two theories of law that I'm aware of: positive law and natural law. The natural law theory says that laws come from a sense of right and wrong that we all inherently have. Positive law theory says that something is law because the powers-that-be said so; made law to keep order, not because it's right or morally superior.
Law, as a whole, is a combination of the two. Some laws are obviously positive law, like driving on the right side of the road instead of the left. Driving on the right side is not morally superior to driving on the left. We need to have a side, the actual side is arbitrary, but in Canada we drive on the right. If everyone obeys that law then order is kept.
But where people, mostly Christians, get confused when dealing with law is they assume that laws that have a moral component come from the natural law as opposed to positive law. Take killing. Murder is wrong, and murder happens to be against the law. But (and this is the sixty four thousand dollar question) is murder against the law because it's wrong, or because without it on the books chaos would erupt?
Imagine a society where murder was not illegal, but was still understood by most to be wrong. Or, where it is illegal, but not enforced by the state. Person A murders Person B for whatever reason. It may be justifiable, it may not. It probably is justifiable in the eyes of Person A, but probably not to Person B's son, Person C. Person C then goes and administers justice and kills Person A. Justice has been done, right? Well, not in the eyes of Person D, Person A's son, who administers justice on Person C. And it goes on and on.
Eventually what will happen is that revenge-for-hire businesses pop up; officially or unofficially (like the mafia). Now you have two groups administering justice; the state for all official crimes, and the other groups for the unofficial crimes, like murder. But the unofficial groups are unofficial and can't be controlled. The government can be voted out, or revolted against. It seems inevitable that the unofficial groups would come into conflict with each other.
What we end up with is chaos. It's the same thing for other natural law things like stealing, raping, etc.
But, as long as you make those things illegal and enforce those laws then you can have some semblance of order.
The sooner you realize this, the sooner Canadian law, indeed most constitutional laws, make more sense. When it comes to the same-sex marriage debate, sure you may say it's a wrong life style, and shouldn't have been made legal; Canada shouldn't be condoning, much less celebrating immoral life-styles. But what does morality have to do with the law?
There are a few laws left on the books that seem to have roots in morality rather than order-keeping. The one the comes to mind are the euthenasia laws. If I were a betting man I'd be willing to bet my entire student loan that the euthenasia laws will be struck down in my life time.
Can anyone else think of any laws that exist purely for morality reasons?
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
You Know You Have a Problem When You Postpone A Trip To The Emergency Room For A Sports Game
The other day I heard the following conversation:
Person 1: Have you been watching the games lately?
Person 2: Yeah.
Person 1: Are you a Team A fan?
Person 2: Oh no! I hate Team A! I'm a Team B fan. Always have been.
To you sports fans, that may seem like a normal conversation, but to a non-sports fan, like myself, it seemed funny. I wanted to add to it at that point:
Me: Yeah, me too. I really hate Team A! That lousy bunch of jerks! After what they did to me and my family! I'll never forgive them!
One of my favorite exchanges is in a movie called "A Bronx Tale." It takes place in between Sonny and "C". Sonny, a neighbourhood tough mafia-esque type is teaching C (a nine year old boy) some life lessons. Sonny asks about C's fascination with Mickey Mantle. The year was 1960. One hundred thousand dollars was a lot of money.
Sonny: What are you, a Yankee Fan?
C: Yeah.
Sonny: So you must be pretty upset after the Yankees lost.
C: Bill Mazeroski, I hate him. He made Mickey Mantle cry. The papers said the Mick cried.
Sonny: Mickey Mantle? Is that what you're upset about? Mickey Mantle makes $100 000/year. How much does your father make?
C: I don't know.
Sonny: You don't know. If your father can't pay the rent, go ask Mickey Mantle. See what he tells you. Mickey Mantle don't care about you, so why should you care about him? Nobody cares.
C - as the narrator: "From that day on, I never felt the same way about the Yankees again."
While that may not be that actual reason I don't care about sports, it certainly validates my feelings - or lack thereof.
From an outsider's perspective, sports fans can seem a little obsessive. In psychology when one thinks one has a problem, like the OC disorder the question that's asked to find out if it's at a problematic stage is "Does it interfere with normal day-to-day living?" I'd say when you postpone a trip to the emergency room because the game is still on, you have a problem.
I could write for pages and pages on it, but since Ottawa is a big sports city, especially hockey, I'm afraid I might make too many people irate. And the last thing you want is people with problematic psychological disordes being really angry with you.
Person 1: Have you been watching the games lately?
Person 2: Yeah.
Person 1: Are you a Team A fan?
Person 2: Oh no! I hate Team A! I'm a Team B fan. Always have been.
To you sports fans, that may seem like a normal conversation, but to a non-sports fan, like myself, it seemed funny. I wanted to add to it at that point:
Me: Yeah, me too. I really hate Team A! That lousy bunch of jerks! After what they did to me and my family! I'll never forgive them!
One of my favorite exchanges is in a movie called "A Bronx Tale." It takes place in between Sonny and "C". Sonny, a neighbourhood tough mafia-esque type is teaching C (a nine year old boy) some life lessons. Sonny asks about C's fascination with Mickey Mantle. The year was 1960. One hundred thousand dollars was a lot of money.
Sonny: What are you, a Yankee Fan?
C: Yeah.
Sonny: So you must be pretty upset after the Yankees lost.
C: Bill Mazeroski, I hate him. He made Mickey Mantle cry. The papers said the Mick cried.
Sonny: Mickey Mantle? Is that what you're upset about? Mickey Mantle makes $100 000/year. How much does your father make?
C: I don't know.
Sonny: You don't know. If your father can't pay the rent, go ask Mickey Mantle. See what he tells you. Mickey Mantle don't care about you, so why should you care about him? Nobody cares.
C - as the narrator: "From that day on, I never felt the same way about the Yankees again."
***
While that may not be that actual reason I don't care about sports, it certainly validates my feelings - or lack thereof.
From an outsider's perspective, sports fans can seem a little obsessive. In psychology when one thinks one has a problem, like the OC disorder the question that's asked to find out if it's at a problematic stage is "Does it interfere with normal day-to-day living?" I'd say when you postpone a trip to the emergency room because the game is still on, you have a problem.
I could write for pages and pages on it, but since Ottawa is a big sports city, especially hockey, I'm afraid I might make too many people irate. And the last thing you want is people with problematic psychological disordes being really angry with you.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Some People Need A Hobby
Now, I'm all for giving to those that which is due them, and protecting creators of creative work from others hijacking their work and calling it their own. I'm glad we have copyright, and other IP laws protecting creators.
But, I think that we have gone too far. By "we", of course, I mean lawyers and corporate types. Most notably the RIAA who have taken to suing their customers. I think they're just upset that someone has moved their cheese. Instead of asking themselves "Okay, our key demographic has taken to downloading music instead of buying it; how can we make money from this?" they've just started suing. Suing nine year old girls, and 89 near old grandmothers at that.
All that has really achieved is now people (like myself) are boycotting the RIAA. I still buy indie CDs, but RIAA stuff? Hardly. (Thankfully, my favorite recording band is on an independant label.)
But, at least I can see where the RIAA is coming from. But there's a few things that are just plain stupid.
The Author's Guild is suing Google for making books searchable. (Yet some publishers are thanking Google for increasing book sales because the books are searchable.)
And the whole shutting down guitar chord/lyrics site? The idea is that if you want the sheet music or lyrics, go out and buy the book (if you can find where to buy it). So if you're getting the chords/lyrics from the internet, then if you couldn't get them there you'd buy them, right?
In many cases: wrong!
Most of the time I'll listen to the freaking song to get the lyrics.! The chords are slightly harder to get. It requires a musical ear. But not a great one. Anyone who plays guitar knows that most songs are based on 1 4 5, with a few 2m and 6m thrown in for good measure. (If you don't understand what that means, don't worry about it: guitarists do. If you're a guitarist and you don't understand it, then see the previous sentence.) Furthermore, chord progressions aren't copyrightable. Melodys are, and so are lyrics. But, really, how much money are the music books publishers loosing because of these sites? I don't really know, but I can't see it being very much.
They lose money if people who normaly would buy the books now aren't because of these sites. I'm sure a great number of these site users (including myself) wouldn't buy the books if these sites weren't available. So, how much of my money are they loosing? $0.00. But that's just a round figure.
And Christian music makes the whole thing even more ridiculous! For the uninitiated, churches usually buy something called a CCLI license. That allows them to play a whole long list of songs at their church events. So, if I go to Joe's Christian Chord Site and view the lyrics and chords to the latest hit worship song, assuming Joe doesn't have a CCLI license for the music on his site, then that's illegal. If I print a song off, that's illegal. But, if I take that print-out, and play it at Church next Sunday morning, then suddenly it becomes all nice and legal.
Can anyone explain the rationale to me? (I don't mean the legal mumbo-jumbo), but the actual reason. "Because that's the law" is not a reason. Tell me why it should be the law. Show me how the artist is benefiting from that structure, or how they would be harmed without it.
Again, I'm not talking about Intellectual Property protection laws as a whole. Just some of the fine-point-nit-pickiness of them.
However, I must admit that I am guilty of a few things. I have bought over 200 CDs. I also own a number of music books (mostly for church). But I will tell you one thing, if God suddenly gifts me with the ability to write music, any worship music I write, especially if it becomes a hit, will be released under some kind of creative commons licence. And any music I write, worship or secular, I will allow to be on as many lyric/chord sites as site-owners wish. I think I'd be more frustrated with seeing my music on sites with the wrong lyrics or chords, rather than them being on the site in the first place.
But that's just me.
But, I think that we have gone too far. By "we", of course, I mean lawyers and corporate types. Most notably the RIAA who have taken to suing their customers. I think they're just upset that someone has moved their cheese. Instead of asking themselves "Okay, our key demographic has taken to downloading music instead of buying it; how can we make money from this?" they've just started suing. Suing nine year old girls, and 89 near old grandmothers at that.
All that has really achieved is now people (like myself) are boycotting the RIAA. I still buy indie CDs, but RIAA stuff? Hardly. (Thankfully, my favorite recording band is on an independant label.)
But, at least I can see where the RIAA is coming from. But there's a few things that are just plain stupid.
The Author's Guild is suing Google for making books searchable. (Yet some publishers are thanking Google for increasing book sales because the books are searchable.)
And the whole shutting down guitar chord/lyrics site? The idea is that if you want the sheet music or lyrics, go out and buy the book (if you can find where to buy it). So if you're getting the chords/lyrics from the internet, then if you couldn't get them there you'd buy them, right?
In many cases: wrong!
Most of the time I'll listen to the freaking song to get the lyrics.! The chords are slightly harder to get. It requires a musical ear. But not a great one. Anyone who plays guitar knows that most songs are based on 1 4 5, with a few 2m and 6m thrown in for good measure. (If you don't understand what that means, don't worry about it: guitarists do. If you're a guitarist and you don't understand it, then see the previous sentence.) Furthermore, chord progressions aren't copyrightable. Melodys are, and so are lyrics. But, really, how much money are the music books publishers loosing because of these sites? I don't really know, but I can't see it being very much.
They lose money if people who normaly would buy the books now aren't because of these sites. I'm sure a great number of these site users (including myself) wouldn't buy the books if these sites weren't available. So, how much of my money are they loosing? $0.00. But that's just a round figure.
And Christian music makes the whole thing even more ridiculous! For the uninitiated, churches usually buy something called a CCLI license. That allows them to play a whole long list of songs at their church events. So, if I go to Joe's Christian Chord Site and view the lyrics and chords to the latest hit worship song, assuming Joe doesn't have a CCLI license for the music on his site, then that's illegal. If I print a song off, that's illegal. But, if I take that print-out, and play it at Church next Sunday morning, then suddenly it becomes all nice and legal.
Can anyone explain the rationale to me? (I don't mean the legal mumbo-jumbo), but the actual reason. "Because that's the law" is not a reason. Tell me why it should be the law. Show me how the artist is benefiting from that structure, or how they would be harmed without it.
Again, I'm not talking about Intellectual Property protection laws as a whole. Just some of the fine-point-nit-pickiness of them.
However, I must admit that I am guilty of a few things. I have bought over 200 CDs. I also own a number of music books (mostly for church). But I will tell you one thing, if God suddenly gifts me with the ability to write music, any worship music I write, especially if it becomes a hit, will be released under some kind of creative commons licence. And any music I write, worship or secular, I will allow to be on as many lyric/chord sites as site-owners wish. I think I'd be more frustrated with seeing my music on sites with the wrong lyrics or chords, rather than them being on the site in the first place.
But that's just me.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Single Serving Friends
One day as I was walking to work I saw a cell phone lying on the side walk. I picked it up so I could track down it's owner. I brought it to the office, found it was a Telus phone. I called Telus to see if they could track down the owner. I thought this whole ordeal could get inconvenient. this phone could belong to anyone in Ottawa or Hull. I'm very busy, and I don't want to take potentially hours of my time to track down the owner.
A single serving friend is someone who is your friend for a short time, then you never see them again. For examle, when you sit next to someone on an airplane and you talk with them. You have two or three (or more) hours together, then you never see them again. (Unless you're my parents. They met on an air plane.)
But that type of single serving friend is easy to deal with. You probably never see them again. What about the guy who fixed your computer at work though? He comes by, fixes your computer. As he's looking at it, you get to chatting. Next thing you know you see him later on in the day and you say "hi" as you walk by.
But how long does it go on for? 6 months? That seems a little long, doesn't it? So, how does one handle this delicate situation?
During the summer my computer at work was screwed up so I called the help desk. They had to send someone. That someone came, let's call him Fred. He had to come a few times to fix my computer. After a few times he ended up just taking my computer away and re-imaging it. I work in a pretty large complex; he works one floor below me. So I found myself seeing him in the halls, and on the elevators and saying "hi" to him.
But it's conceivable that I will never deal with him again in a tech-support capacity. So, how long do I have to say "hi"?
Just a day or two after I had decided to stop saying "hi" to him.....well remember the phone I found on the way to work? Yeah, well it was his phone. So, now I'm back to saying "hi" to him.
Now, I do want to stay on his good side. He's a nice person, and he can severly screw up my computer if he so desired.
Does Emily Post's famous etiquette have a chapter on single serving friends?
***
A single serving friend is someone who is your friend for a short time, then you never see them again. For examle, when you sit next to someone on an airplane and you talk with them. You have two or three (or more) hours together, then you never see them again. (Unless you're my parents. They met on an air plane.)
But that type of single serving friend is easy to deal with. You probably never see them again. What about the guy who fixed your computer at work though? He comes by, fixes your computer. As he's looking at it, you get to chatting. Next thing you know you see him later on in the day and you say "hi" as you walk by.
But how long does it go on for? 6 months? That seems a little long, doesn't it? So, how does one handle this delicate situation?
During the summer my computer at work was screwed up so I called the help desk. They had to send someone. That someone came, let's call him Fred. He had to come a few times to fix my computer. After a few times he ended up just taking my computer away and re-imaging it. I work in a pretty large complex; he works one floor below me. So I found myself seeing him in the halls, and on the elevators and saying "hi" to him.
But it's conceivable that I will never deal with him again in a tech-support capacity. So, how long do I have to say "hi"?
Just a day or two after I had decided to stop saying "hi" to him.....well remember the phone I found on the way to work? Yeah, well it was his phone. So, now I'm back to saying "hi" to him.
Now, I do want to stay on his good side. He's a nice person, and he can severly screw up my computer if he so desired.
Does Emily Post's famous etiquette have a chapter on single serving friends?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)