i got some cases at newegg...
the cases i wanted at staples were actually slim, so it's good i didn't buy them. newegg was cheap, paypal & free shipping. easy.\
so...
updated total:
airwalk shoes (payless): $33
bicycle repair (city cyclery): $23
3x40 gb ide hds (kijiji): $10
dell ultrasharp 1703 fp with dvi cables (kijiji): $20
2x500 gb sshd laptop drives (best buy): $2x82
2 tb internal drive (best buy): $104
100 dvd-rs [best buy]: $30
50 bd-rs [best buy]: $45
2x2 gb laptop ram (amazon.ca): $2x15 + shipping, $47
8 gb sd ram for mp3 player (amazon.ca): $13
2 tb external drive (amazon.ca) : $123
50 cd-rs [amazon.ca]: $30
ps/2 to usb connector [amazon.ca]: $5
intel core i3-4710 [amazon.ca]: $243
atx mid tower [amazon.ca] - $52
asus p9d ws [amazon.ca]: $360
2x8 gb ddr3-1600 ram [amazon.ca]: $150
arctic silver [amazon.ca]: $11
450 joule surge protector (amazon.ca): $9
600 watt psu (amazon.ca): $80
700 joule surge protector (amazon.ca): $10
laptop battery (ebay): $26
2x4 gb laptop ram (ebay): $2x33
ip68 phone (ebay): $128
m-audio audiophile 2496 (ebay) [used]: $60
250 gb ssd drive (newegg.ca): $135
200 jewel cases (newegg.ca): $117
bathroom supplies (food basics, walmart, loblaws, shopper's): $202
ps/2 keyboard (axxon computer corporation, windsor): $23
usb mouse (walmart): $15
universal battery charger + aaa batteries (canadian tire): $54
==================
2375.41
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
1.What are the most important things when it comes to setting the minimum age for having, using and buying cannabis?
balance. if the age is set too high or too low it will create unwanted side effects. finding the right balance is key.
2. What are your views about raising the minimum age above 18?
i would actually prefer to see the minimum age lowered to 16, as i think that that is the point where the balance is better met. i would suspect that making it more difficult for teenagers to find marijuana will lead them to use more dangerous drugs instead, specifically lsd or meth-sold-as-mdma. but, i suppose that the best thing to do would be to study the question in further depth and come to an empirical conclusion. i do not think that raising the age higher than 18 will act as a disincentive for use, or measurably impact usage rates. the key demographic that you want to keep away from more dangerous drugs is probably 14-18, and you do that through education in public schools rather than through prohibition.
3. What are your views on restricting where people can use recreational cannabis in Ontario?
public drinking is in fact widespread in ontario. it's one thing to have a law, and another to enforce it. i think it would be far more difficult to enforce public smoking laws than public drinking laws. that doesn't mean that the laws shouldn't exist, for the rare situations that they need to be enforced. i mean, even tobacco laws are unenforceable, in truth - but i support them in the abstract. it makes people think twice and look around before they light up. so, i would support laws that regulate public smoking similarly to public drinking, but only with a comparable level of non-enforcement attached to them.
4. Are there public places where people should not be able to use cannabis? (e.g. around schools or community centres, public parks, sidewalks, patios)
the rules should be the same as for alcohol, but we need to rely on personal discretion for this matter, as we do with alcohol. the laws should exist, but only be enforced in extreme circumstances.
5. When it comes to recreational cannabis use, should landlords and property managers be able to restrict tenants and condo owners from smoking cannabis in their units?
the supreme court will not allow this. there's no use in wasting time and resources in a losing court battle.
6. When it comes to recreational use of cannabis, should condo boards or property management be able to restrict smoking cannabis in common spaces like rooftops, courtyards and balconies?
yes. and, the precedent exists to uphold it.
7. Would you support the Ontario government putting in place more penalties (e.g. fines, demerit points) for drug-impaired driving?
it should be the same as for alcohol.
8. There are limitations on the ability of current technologies to test for cannabis impairment. Given these limitations, what penalties from above should Ontario consider strengthening?
i think this argument is backwards, as blood alcohol count is not necessarily a good indicator of intoxication. it should be up to the cops to gather evidence in the form of speeding, swerving, slurred speech, etc. i would prefer to see less emphasis placed on breathalyzers and more emphasis placed on observation! but, i don't see a reason for there to be harsher penalties for marijuana. there should be parity, as much as is possible.
9. Are there any other measures you think the government should employ to keep our roads safe?
there is a strong urban myth that it is safer to drive stoned than drunk. this is based on an apples and oranges comparison of being fall down drunk and being very mildly stoned; in that particular scenario, the urban myth would actually be true. it doesn't generalize, though. the key point is that people need to develop apples to apples comparisons, as best they can, and learn to know their limits.
10. Where do you think the government should prioritize its road safety funding to address drug-impaired driving? (e.g. technology development for cannabis testing, Increased RIDE programs, public education)
i'm going to go with tv ads (using MADD as a model) and frank, scientific discussions in grade school, around the ages of 10 or 11.
11. Who should sell and distribute cannabis in Ontario?
i think that both beer and marijuana should be available at the corner store, using the model that currently exists in quebec and also in michigan.
12. What public health and safety measures should Ontario put in place to restrict access for youth and promote public health?
i don't think the government should do anything of the sort.
13. What is most important to you when it comes to the way cannabis is sold and distributed in Ontario?
storefront access. i don't want a mail system; i want to be able to walk into a store and walk out with a small quantity a few minutes later.
14. When it comes to the safe use of cannabis, what does the public need to be informed about?
i think the public needs to be reassured that marijuana is already widely used and that legalization will not cause chaos or social collapse.
15. Which voices are the most important for people to hear these messages from (e.g. government, educators, health care professionals, police)?
the most important voices to be heard from are those with actual experience using the drug. and, i think there should be special care taken to prevent people who have not used it from being given a platform to speak about it.
balance. if the age is set too high or too low it will create unwanted side effects. finding the right balance is key.
2. What are your views about raising the minimum age above 18?
i would actually prefer to see the minimum age lowered to 16, as i think that that is the point where the balance is better met. i would suspect that making it more difficult for teenagers to find marijuana will lead them to use more dangerous drugs instead, specifically lsd or meth-sold-as-mdma. but, i suppose that the best thing to do would be to study the question in further depth and come to an empirical conclusion. i do not think that raising the age higher than 18 will act as a disincentive for use, or measurably impact usage rates. the key demographic that you want to keep away from more dangerous drugs is probably 14-18, and you do that through education in public schools rather than through prohibition.
3. What are your views on restricting where people can use recreational cannabis in Ontario?
public drinking is in fact widespread in ontario. it's one thing to have a law, and another to enforce it. i think it would be far more difficult to enforce public smoking laws than public drinking laws. that doesn't mean that the laws shouldn't exist, for the rare situations that they need to be enforced. i mean, even tobacco laws are unenforceable, in truth - but i support them in the abstract. it makes people think twice and look around before they light up. so, i would support laws that regulate public smoking similarly to public drinking, but only with a comparable level of non-enforcement attached to them.
4. Are there public places where people should not be able to use cannabis? (e.g. around schools or community centres, public parks, sidewalks, patios)
the rules should be the same as for alcohol, but we need to rely on personal discretion for this matter, as we do with alcohol. the laws should exist, but only be enforced in extreme circumstances.
5. When it comes to recreational cannabis use, should landlords and property managers be able to restrict tenants and condo owners from smoking cannabis in their units?
the supreme court will not allow this. there's no use in wasting time and resources in a losing court battle.
6. When it comes to recreational use of cannabis, should condo boards or property management be able to restrict smoking cannabis in common spaces like rooftops, courtyards and balconies?
yes. and, the precedent exists to uphold it.
7. Would you support the Ontario government putting in place more penalties (e.g. fines, demerit points) for drug-impaired driving?
it should be the same as for alcohol.
8. There are limitations on the ability of current technologies to test for cannabis impairment. Given these limitations, what penalties from above should Ontario consider strengthening?
i think this argument is backwards, as blood alcohol count is not necessarily a good indicator of intoxication. it should be up to the cops to gather evidence in the form of speeding, swerving, slurred speech, etc. i would prefer to see less emphasis placed on breathalyzers and more emphasis placed on observation! but, i don't see a reason for there to be harsher penalties for marijuana. there should be parity, as much as is possible.
9. Are there any other measures you think the government should employ to keep our roads safe?
there is a strong urban myth that it is safer to drive stoned than drunk. this is based on an apples and oranges comparison of being fall down drunk and being very mildly stoned; in that particular scenario, the urban myth would actually be true. it doesn't generalize, though. the key point is that people need to develop apples to apples comparisons, as best they can, and learn to know their limits.
10. Where do you think the government should prioritize its road safety funding to address drug-impaired driving? (e.g. technology development for cannabis testing, Increased RIDE programs, public education)
i'm going to go with tv ads (using MADD as a model) and frank, scientific discussions in grade school, around the ages of 10 or 11.
11. Who should sell and distribute cannabis in Ontario?
i think that both beer and marijuana should be available at the corner store, using the model that currently exists in quebec and also in michigan.
12. What public health and safety measures should Ontario put in place to restrict access for youth and promote public health?
i don't think the government should do anything of the sort.
13. What is most important to you when it comes to the way cannabis is sold and distributed in Ontario?
storefront access. i don't want a mail system; i want to be able to walk into a store and walk out with a small quantity a few minutes later.
14. When it comes to the safe use of cannabis, what does the public need to be informed about?
i think the public needs to be reassured that marijuana is already widely used and that legalization will not cause chaos or social collapse.
15. Which voices are the most important for people to hear these messages from (e.g. government, educators, health care professionals, police)?
the most important voices to be heard from are those with actual experience using the drug. and, i think there should be special care taken to prevent people who have not used it from being given a platform to speak about it.
at
05:52
here's my advice to the ndp - and, yes, it's time to get a move on it. you're way behind.
my advice is this: let the liberals run on immigration. just get out of their way. i'm not saying you should parrot what i'm saying; i'd rather suggest otherwise, actually. i'm not a politician. i know what i'm saying is unpopular. i'm in the game of pushing back against the narrative for the purpose of raising awareness and building consciousness, not in the game of running for office. if i thought i was going to run for office, i'd compromise on my principles for the immigrant vote, too - but i'm not, and you might want to think about that, about where canadian principles really are in all of this.
i think a lot of canadians across the political spectrum would agree with the idea that canadian politicians - perhaps especially on the left - have sold out their principles to appeal to first-generation voters. and, if the ndp does not have principles to stand on, it cannot compete. cultural relativism is not a set of principles but the rejection of the concept of holding to principles. let the liberals play that game; the ndp needs to stand for something.
but, what that means is just getting out of the way. what it means is being quiet.
here's a not so bold prediction: you can expect that the media is going to try and make the election about muslims. again. the conservatives are playing along.
canadians told us in 2015 that they didn't want the election to be about muslims. justin trudeau was elected because his platform was articulated very well and positioned him to the left of the ndp, not because of the coverage around syrian refugees. and, if he wants to play into this lie, all you have to do is beat him at his own game.
in the crudest terms possible, what the ndp needs to do to compete is just take trudeau's platform and put the ndp logo on it. that's what people voted for. and, he's done a really shitty job in following through.
but, the key tactic is to make sure that the ndp leader is seen as out of the fray of all of this arguing about muslims. the most recent fail on this point is around the khadr settlement. well, yeah - he was fucking tortured, of course he got a settlement. but, there's this huge confusion amongst pollsters and the media, who expected it to drive voter sentiment.
the reality is that nobody cares. nobody. zero fucks.
the liberals have indicated repeatedly that they're going to buy into this, because they've put the entire brand on it. it's the only thing they've followed through on. and, they're basically aping the democratic party model around hispanic voters becoming dominant. well, that didn't work out in the united states, did it? shockingly, it turns out that a lot of hispanics are actually kind of religious and deeply conservative.
a lot of muslims are deeply conservative, too.
that is my advice to the ndp, ok: just don't get into it. let the liberals hang themselves with their own rope. if asked specific questions, interpret the constitution properly. people have rights. sure. we all agree with that. but, don't pander. don't get into the gutter. focus instead on big ideas that canadians actually care about: health care, education, the economy. and, fight the media tooth and nail to get the coverage on it...
my advice is this: let the liberals run on immigration. just get out of their way. i'm not saying you should parrot what i'm saying; i'd rather suggest otherwise, actually. i'm not a politician. i know what i'm saying is unpopular. i'm in the game of pushing back against the narrative for the purpose of raising awareness and building consciousness, not in the game of running for office. if i thought i was going to run for office, i'd compromise on my principles for the immigrant vote, too - but i'm not, and you might want to think about that, about where canadian principles really are in all of this.
i think a lot of canadians across the political spectrum would agree with the idea that canadian politicians - perhaps especially on the left - have sold out their principles to appeal to first-generation voters. and, if the ndp does not have principles to stand on, it cannot compete. cultural relativism is not a set of principles but the rejection of the concept of holding to principles. let the liberals play that game; the ndp needs to stand for something.
but, what that means is just getting out of the way. what it means is being quiet.
here's a not so bold prediction: you can expect that the media is going to try and make the election about muslims. again. the conservatives are playing along.
canadians told us in 2015 that they didn't want the election to be about muslims. justin trudeau was elected because his platform was articulated very well and positioned him to the left of the ndp, not because of the coverage around syrian refugees. and, if he wants to play into this lie, all you have to do is beat him at his own game.
in the crudest terms possible, what the ndp needs to do to compete is just take trudeau's platform and put the ndp logo on it. that's what people voted for. and, he's done a really shitty job in following through.
but, the key tactic is to make sure that the ndp leader is seen as out of the fray of all of this arguing about muslims. the most recent fail on this point is around the khadr settlement. well, yeah - he was fucking tortured, of course he got a settlement. but, there's this huge confusion amongst pollsters and the media, who expected it to drive voter sentiment.
the reality is that nobody cares. nobody. zero fucks.
the liberals have indicated repeatedly that they're going to buy into this, because they've put the entire brand on it. it's the only thing they've followed through on. and, they're basically aping the democratic party model around hispanic voters becoming dominant. well, that didn't work out in the united states, did it? shockingly, it turns out that a lot of hispanics are actually kind of religious and deeply conservative.
a lot of muslims are deeply conservative, too.
that is my advice to the ndp, ok: just don't get into it. let the liberals hang themselves with their own rope. if asked specific questions, interpret the constitution properly. people have rights. sure. we all agree with that. but, don't pander. don't get into the gutter. focus instead on big ideas that canadians actually care about: health care, education, the economy. and, fight the media tooth and nail to get the coverage on it...
at
02:46
when archaeologists study a region that has experienced shifts in culture, one of the things that they use to classify those shifts in culture is changes in burial practices.
i'm concerned about land use. it's 2017; nobody should be burying their dead, any more. in that sense, i'm representing a different cultural shift - one towards a secular and liberal vision of science and reason, and away from conservative religious traditions that have lost touch with whatever sense they may have made in the past. i think that land use decisions should be made by the community that uses the land, not by people from other communities that want to buy a plot of land or whatever else. that is a basic principle of socialism.
so, this is not an individual rights issue; there is no right to a religious burial, and no positive right to carry out religious customs. there is a negative right to non-interference. nobody is claiming such an infringement.
regardless, to suggest that making burial grounds for a foreign culture is not an invasion of some sort is just a break down in critical thinking - for it is exactly what archaeologists will conclude when they study the land in the future. by studying changes in burial practices, they will - correctly - conclude that there was a cultural disruption in the region.
you can argue in favour of that cultural disruption if you insist, but it is simply disingenuous to deny it altogether. as mentioned, my own biases lie in a cultural disruption of a different sort.
i consequently don't share the premier's views that the situation puts the province in a poor light. rather, the premier's comments make him seem clueless and delusional.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/couillard-muslim-cemetery-saint-apollinaire-1.4211441
i'm concerned about land use. it's 2017; nobody should be burying their dead, any more. in that sense, i'm representing a different cultural shift - one towards a secular and liberal vision of science and reason, and away from conservative religious traditions that have lost touch with whatever sense they may have made in the past. i think that land use decisions should be made by the community that uses the land, not by people from other communities that want to buy a plot of land or whatever else. that is a basic principle of socialism.
so, this is not an individual rights issue; there is no right to a religious burial, and no positive right to carry out religious customs. there is a negative right to non-interference. nobody is claiming such an infringement.
regardless, to suggest that making burial grounds for a foreign culture is not an invasion of some sort is just a break down in critical thinking - for it is exactly what archaeologists will conclude when they study the land in the future. by studying changes in burial practices, they will - correctly - conclude that there was a cultural disruption in the region.
you can argue in favour of that cultural disruption if you insist, but it is simply disingenuous to deny it altogether. as mentioned, my own biases lie in a cultural disruption of a different sort.
i consequently don't share the premier's views that the situation puts the province in a poor light. rather, the premier's comments make him seem clueless and delusional.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/couillard-muslim-cemetery-saint-apollinaire-1.4211441
at
00:47
the thing about legislating caps is that the industry then works any fines into the cost of business. the only way legislating caps can be effective is if the government is willing to go in there and actually shut the businesses down. this is going to set off expensive & lengthy court battles that will give corporate interests an opportunity to write the case law on the subject from the position of a court that is going to be forced to stand up for their constitutional rights.
nor am i particularly optimistic about trudeau's choice of court justice to replace mclachlin. we may very well be on the cusp of a more right-wing supreme court in canada.
i've been saying for years that the only answer is mass public investment. fuck authoritarian decrees, fuck punitive police states and fuck naive theories about market incentives. you have to just fucking build it, already - that's the only solution. and, i'd be happy to see an election fought partially over the question of whether the trudeau government has lived up to it's commitments on 'green infrastructure'.
don't get me wrong, here: nikki ashton is not an ideal. she's actually younger than i am, and yet seems stuck in the identity politics of the previous generation. she's not a youth candidate; she's in truth deeply out of touch with youth, and rather stuck in an ivory tower bubble. she'll be wise to listen to the advice of a charlie angus, and she's going to need it. but, it's almost like the left has to get out of - perhaps grow out of - this mess together. as impossible as it is going to be for nikki ashton to win an election, she's the better candidate to try and rebuild an actual base.
and, she's more correct on the right approach to emissions reductions.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/07/18/ndps-niki-ashton-targets-corporate-greed-in-green-platform.html
nor am i particularly optimistic about trudeau's choice of court justice to replace mclachlin. we may very well be on the cusp of a more right-wing supreme court in canada.
i've been saying for years that the only answer is mass public investment. fuck authoritarian decrees, fuck punitive police states and fuck naive theories about market incentives. you have to just fucking build it, already - that's the only solution. and, i'd be happy to see an election fought partially over the question of whether the trudeau government has lived up to it's commitments on 'green infrastructure'.
don't get me wrong, here: nikki ashton is not an ideal. she's actually younger than i am, and yet seems stuck in the identity politics of the previous generation. she's not a youth candidate; she's in truth deeply out of touch with youth, and rather stuck in an ivory tower bubble. she'll be wise to listen to the advice of a charlie angus, and she's going to need it. but, it's almost like the left has to get out of - perhaps grow out of - this mess together. as impossible as it is going to be for nikki ashton to win an election, she's the better candidate to try and rebuild an actual base.
and, she's more correct on the right approach to emissions reductions.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/07/18/ndps-niki-ashton-targets-corporate-greed-in-green-platform.html
at
00:08
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)