Forbidden Planet

Last week was a rather hectic as I commuted daily between Ottawa and Montreal (200Km each way or 1600Km in total or 120L of gas) because Sofia was in Brazil and that left me to take care of the kids (same thing happens next week when she goes to Panama). So opportunities to blog were rather scarce. This week, I have to play catch up at work on hours missed last week. I am not out of ideas, just out of energy to blog. bleh. Anyway ... I was in Chapters this past Monday and went to the magazine rack to look at magazines. I picked a glossy one ( Circuit Cellar ) and it was warm. It felt very nice in my hands and evoked a very pleasant emotional rsponse. I didn't have my infrared pyrometer with me (even if I did, I would have felt self conscious pulling it out to measure the temperature of the magazines, the shelving and lights), but I would estimate it at having been somewhere between 30C and 35C (based on measuring the temperature of my hands later on and remembering that the magaz...

I really dislike (bordering on zealous detestation) of things that don't make sense, are obviously wrong or, worse yet, deceptive (except as humour). That great provider of comedy, satire and parody - AOL - recently ran a consumer piece comparing prices between warehouse retailer Costco and normal retailer Giant and showing where you got better savings. What struck me was the way the savings were expressed - they were nonsensical. If I say you can save 50%, you would expect (at least I would hope you would expect) to pay 1/2 the price for it. If I tell you that you can save 100%, you would expect the item to be free (zero cost). That it not how AOL does math. In fact, on some products you can save as much as 267%! ????? I don't see how you can save more than 100% and I would expect any person to look at that and go, "That is just plain wrong." For your consideration two examples pulled from the AOL piece claiming 100% and 267% savings. (The real savings is 50% and 72....

[Update 10-Deember-2007 @ 17:38, since this post went up 3 days ago, I have had a few search engine hits using the keyword smoking on this post. To dispel any possible confusion: the title is ironic . Smoking increases the risk and incidence of cancer. So do oral contraceptives. However, both also have positive side effects. Smoking appears to reduce the incidence of Alzheimer's. Researchers are currently looking into a nicotine like compound found in a marine creature as a possible treatment for Alzheimer's (why they don't look at tobacco, I don't know - probably because it would not be politically correct). Oral contraceptives reduce the incidence of certain rare forms of cancer, however, the sum of cancers prevented and cancers caused show an overall increase in the number of cancer cases.] I am still in an anti-spinning mood. Eleven years ago or so, the Ottawa Citizen ran a front page article on the pill. The headline (in the biggest font I ever recall seeing) was ...

As someone who likes his information unadulterated, I am often annoyed by news reporting, political rhetoric and spin in general. Two nights ago I was listening to The Review on CBC radio, which featured a segment on plasticizers from the The Current earlier that day. Like most "in-depth" reporting, it was not. It was primarily about presenting one side of a story and making it as sensational as possible. Of course, it helps to bring in some experts from McGill University. There were two things about the report that really annoyed me because the information was disingenuously presented. The first was about how not much research has been done on the biodegradation of plasticizers. Ok, then we should do more research. A group from McGill did an experiment in which they put microbes into a container with plasticizer and watched what happened. As expected, the organism broke down the plasticizer, but then, (oh, shock!) they discovered the microbes were dying from compounds the pl...

The problem is not that the tap water is dirty (as the commercial implies), but rather that we are flushing perfectly potable water down the toilet.

One thing I find inexplicable is the strong desire people have to "label" themselves. They make sure they wear and consume the "right" brands. They ensure they have the "right" look and walk and talk. They even make sure they have the "right" psychoses or ailments. These thoughts were spurred by an article I read a few weeks ago by a woman claiming her relationship problems are due to her high IQ (intelligence quotient) and low EQ (emotional quotient). Years ago, ADD / ADHD was a popular identifier, then dyslexia, asthma and now, it seems, autism. As more and more people are labeled and it becomes fairly normal, we then start hearing of epidemics and rising rates. I don't dispute that some genuinely have issues. My beef is with those who seek labels to abdicate responsibility for their actions, "Oh, it's not me, it's because I have / I am ******." Ultimately, what we do or don't do is our responsibility. (As you might b...

In an episode of the British series Yes, Prime Minister , the Prime Minister was keen on reintroducing conscription (National Service) as a means of bolstering the armed forces, reducing unemployment and providing skills training to young people. For various reasons, the civil service and military are opposed to the idea, which the Prime Minister believes to be a vote winner. In this clip, Sir Humphrey Appleby, the Cabinet Secretary, explains to Bernard Woolley, the Principal Private Secretary of the Prime Minister, how to get the poll results desired. This is one of the techniques used in negotiating with someone or trying to persuade someone - consistency. People want to act in a way that is consistent. Psychologists Jonathan Freedman and Scott Fraser, published a study in the 1966 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology titled Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique showing just how consistent people will strive to be. The experiment was simple, people were...