what the science actually says is that you're not designed at birth by a magic molecule; you evolve over time as a reaction to your experiences. as such, you do not exist as a fixed entity. you are not innate to anything. you have no objective existence outside of the context you are in, and you are constantly and forever in flux, constantly modified by events around you that you do not have any control over.
you consequently do not get to make your own choices in life - or at least not in any defined, insulated way.
so, what is this shit about genetic determinism? in fact, it's actually the christians that believe in predestinaton and "god's plan" and all that bullshit of the sort. and, the media has spun you around and confused the fuck out of you - they have relabeled religion as science, and then fed it back to you through shiny media.
you can code for trivial physical traits like eye colour. if that is important to you, whatever. but, virtually everything that science fiction has presented to you as genetic is in truth a religiously motivated fraud that science treats as almost entirely environmental.
most of the science fiction that exists today should in truth be recategorized as speculative religion.
http://theconversation.com/forget-about-designer-babies-gene-editing-wont-work-on-complex-traits-like-intelligence-51557
Friday, August 4, 2017
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
this is a real travesty.
i was planning on maybe going there this friday. and, the building is ancient. it's across from the old tiger stadium. babe ruth apparently used to frequent it...
ugh.
https://www.metrotimes.com/table-and-bar/archives/2017/08/02/construction-workers-damage-corktowns-ufo-factory
i was planning on maybe going there this friday. and, the building is ancient. it's across from the old tiger stadium. babe ruth apparently used to frequent it...
ugh.
https://www.metrotimes.com/table-and-bar/archives/2017/08/02/construction-workers-damage-corktowns-ufo-factory
i just want to clarify a point i keep coming back to about recent immigrants leaning right, because if you're outside of the country you might not have the context. if you're inside of canada, you probably already know this. maybe it's my fault for being a little bit vague.
during the end of stephen harper's reign of terror, the government took on a decidedly anti-muslim tone. but, while it was doing this, it was also strongly courting chinese and indian immigrants. i guess that the government ultimately made a cost-benefit analysis and decided it would be better off trying to work up the xenophobic parts of the christian base than expand it to a broader religious coalition. but, this is obscuring what was going on for the nine years previously.
i at no point meant to suggest that conservatism is an innate ethnic quality or something, and whatever correlation may exist in objective reality shouldn't be enforced on individuals, or taken with much meaning. globally speaking, randomness is the dominant factor in determining whether any person you meet identifies as left or right. but, we're not dealing with global trends or random expressions. what we're actually dealing with is gerrymandering.
now, before i get into this, i want to point out that this isn't an isolated example of this kind of thing in canada. canadian governments have frequently used immigration policy to further their own hold on power. one notorious example was the elder trudeau's attempt to flood quebec with french-speaking africans (and afro-carribeans) to prevent an eventual separatist referendum from succeeding - which, by all objective accounts actually worked. when the second referendum failed by a margin small enough that fraud hasn't ever been entirely ruled out, the separatist leader blamed it on "the ethnic vote". he's been chided for his language, but nobody has ever doubted the correctness of his statement.
and, of course, the colonial project itself has always been about population replacement.
there are less ominous examples. when we needed to bring in immigrants to settle the west, and didn't want to worry about them moving to warmer climates in the south, we specifically targeted ukrainians, poles and scandinavians for the reason that we knew they were used to the climate. there are large communities of these groups scattered across the west - and some of them did move south, into the dakotas and also into minnesota. my grandmother has ancestry in a finnish community in northern manitoba.
so, this isn't unprecedented...
....but this is what the harper government did: realizing that it had long term electoral liabilities in the urban centres, especially in the east, it went out and encouraged two types of immigrants to settle in the city cores, thereby weakening liberal dominance in the urban centres:
1) religious conservatives, mostly from south asia.
2) anti-communists, mostly from east asia.
it may surprise people to learn that stephen harper actually increased immigration very substantially. it was orders of magnitude; through the roof is an accurate expression. and, this is the reason why: he was trying to make the country more conservative, and specifically trying to make the cities more conservative.
so, when i talk about "the immigrant vote" being right-wing and overwhelmingly conservative, it's not a reflection of the ethnicity in any crude sense - it's a consequence of the way they were purposefully screened in a canadian type of gerrymandering.
did it work, though? it's too early to say for sure. this is ultimately what i'm reacting to: the concern that it may have worked, because i obviously don't want it to have worked. the conservatives have certainly done comparably well with ethnic voters in the greater toronto area over the last ten years, notwithstanding the last election which was less about ethnic voting and more about the collapse of the ndp. right now, we just don't know.
one strange ramification of harper's immigration policy was actually rob ford, who actually built his base on immigrant voters. this is well understood by polling agents in the gta, if largely not realized outside of it. some people have suggested that it was the personable nature that connected with people that felt alienated, whereas others have pointed towards the populist anti-elite and just broadly conservative messaging. but, the seemingly obvious deduction that ford built his support on top of white trash is completely wrong - he represented a heavily ethnic district and would not have succeeded were it not for heavy support by south asians, in particular.
i don't know if that's a sign of the future, but it's not really what harper wanted, either. and, that might be why he turned on them in the end.
the architect of this policy - jason kenney - is currently the leader of the provincial conservative party in alberta.
during the end of stephen harper's reign of terror, the government took on a decidedly anti-muslim tone. but, while it was doing this, it was also strongly courting chinese and indian immigrants. i guess that the government ultimately made a cost-benefit analysis and decided it would be better off trying to work up the xenophobic parts of the christian base than expand it to a broader religious coalition. but, this is obscuring what was going on for the nine years previously.
i at no point meant to suggest that conservatism is an innate ethnic quality or something, and whatever correlation may exist in objective reality shouldn't be enforced on individuals, or taken with much meaning. globally speaking, randomness is the dominant factor in determining whether any person you meet identifies as left or right. but, we're not dealing with global trends or random expressions. what we're actually dealing with is gerrymandering.
now, before i get into this, i want to point out that this isn't an isolated example of this kind of thing in canada. canadian governments have frequently used immigration policy to further their own hold on power. one notorious example was the elder trudeau's attempt to flood quebec with french-speaking africans (and afro-carribeans) to prevent an eventual separatist referendum from succeeding - which, by all objective accounts actually worked. when the second referendum failed by a margin small enough that fraud hasn't ever been entirely ruled out, the separatist leader blamed it on "the ethnic vote". he's been chided for his language, but nobody has ever doubted the correctness of his statement.
and, of course, the colonial project itself has always been about population replacement.
there are less ominous examples. when we needed to bring in immigrants to settle the west, and didn't want to worry about them moving to warmer climates in the south, we specifically targeted ukrainians, poles and scandinavians for the reason that we knew they were used to the climate. there are large communities of these groups scattered across the west - and some of them did move south, into the dakotas and also into minnesota. my grandmother has ancestry in a finnish community in northern manitoba.
so, this isn't unprecedented...
....but this is what the harper government did: realizing that it had long term electoral liabilities in the urban centres, especially in the east, it went out and encouraged two types of immigrants to settle in the city cores, thereby weakening liberal dominance in the urban centres:
1) religious conservatives, mostly from south asia.
2) anti-communists, mostly from east asia.
it may surprise people to learn that stephen harper actually increased immigration very substantially. it was orders of magnitude; through the roof is an accurate expression. and, this is the reason why: he was trying to make the country more conservative, and specifically trying to make the cities more conservative.
so, when i talk about "the immigrant vote" being right-wing and overwhelmingly conservative, it's not a reflection of the ethnicity in any crude sense - it's a consequence of the way they were purposefully screened in a canadian type of gerrymandering.
did it work, though? it's too early to say for sure. this is ultimately what i'm reacting to: the concern that it may have worked, because i obviously don't want it to have worked. the conservatives have certainly done comparably well with ethnic voters in the greater toronto area over the last ten years, notwithstanding the last election which was less about ethnic voting and more about the collapse of the ndp. right now, we just don't know.
one strange ramification of harper's immigration policy was actually rob ford, who actually built his base on immigrant voters. this is well understood by polling agents in the gta, if largely not realized outside of it. some people have suggested that it was the personable nature that connected with people that felt alienated, whereas others have pointed towards the populist anti-elite and just broadly conservative messaging. but, the seemingly obvious deduction that ford built his support on top of white trash is completely wrong - he represented a heavily ethnic district and would not have succeeded were it not for heavy support by south asians, in particular.
i don't know if that's a sign of the future, but it's not really what harper wanted, either. and, that might be why he turned on them in the end.
the architect of this policy - jason kenney - is currently the leader of the provincial conservative party in alberta.
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
if you go into your backyard and you light a can of paint on fire, you're clearly creating a public health nuisance and opening yourself up to fines. almost nobody would argue against this point.
but, if you go outside and smoke a pack of cigarettes, you're upholding your rights in two ways: one as a smoker, and two as a property owner.
but, the functional difference between lighting a can of paint on fire and smoking a pack of cigarettes is that the paint is less harmful.
this is not thought through well, relative to the existing science, and needs to be updated to account for it. my position is that you should not have any more rights to light a cigarette on fire in public than you should to light anything else on fire; that cigarette fumes should not be treated any differently than any other kind of unnecessary pollution and that bylaws restricting property rights to create other types of pollution should be equally enforced towards cigarette smoke.
smokers are not currently being oppressed. rather, they are taking advantage of a special category under the law. the idea that you could ever smoke in public in the first place was always a loophole. that loophole has been slowly closing....
it needs to be shut altogether.
but, if you go outside and smoke a pack of cigarettes, you're upholding your rights in two ways: one as a smoker, and two as a property owner.
but, the functional difference between lighting a can of paint on fire and smoking a pack of cigarettes is that the paint is less harmful.
this is not thought through well, relative to the existing science, and needs to be updated to account for it. my position is that you should not have any more rights to light a cigarette on fire in public than you should to light anything else on fire; that cigarette fumes should not be treated any differently than any other kind of unnecessary pollution and that bylaws restricting property rights to create other types of pollution should be equally enforced towards cigarette smoke.
smokers are not currently being oppressed. rather, they are taking advantage of a special category under the law. the idea that you could ever smoke in public in the first place was always a loophole. that loophole has been slowly closing....
it needs to be shut altogether.
it's a really serious threat to canada. seriously.
i mean, if they keep it up, they might be able to hit japan by 2030. canada's only another several thousand kilometres away. what will we do?
these systems are aimed at china, and we should not get involved with them for that reason. we don't want to be permanently tied to the united states, like that.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/north-korea-u-s-canada-missile-defence-1.4229904
i mean, if they keep it up, they might be able to hit japan by 2030. canada's only another several thousand kilometres away. what will we do?
these systems are aimed at china, and we should not get involved with them for that reason. we don't want to be permanently tied to the united states, like that.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/north-korea-u-s-canada-missile-defence-1.4229904
this guy is such a doofus. i don't know how he ever managed to become a talking head on the left, but he should really be shunned and ignored as the ideologically neo-liberal market fundamentalist that he actually is.
both britain and france have monopoly government price controls, cenk. that's why it's so cheap there. in canada, we balance it out by calculating a floating average over oecd countries, which gives the drug companies a bit of extra profit - largely due to the lack of price controls in the united states - but keeps it down, comparably. we're not a model, though - we need reform here, too. the problem in the united states is that you don't have those regulatory systems in place to keep prices down, not that you don't have a "free market".
it's economics 101 that a drug oligopoly will act like a monopoly and collude to set prices, not compete against each other. why would they want to compete against each other? competition hurts producers. you'd have to write laws that force them to compete with each other. but, that would cost so much in enforcement that it wouldn't be worth it, overall - and the enforcement agencies would just end up getting bribed, anyways.
my understanding of bernie's legislation is that it is meant to prevent lengthy drug patents. even the soft left has always opposed intellectual property rights for things like drug patents; you don't have to get as strictly anti-propertarian as i am to develop an opposition to drug patents, especially timeframes around them. but, the point of stripping patents in every other advanced country has been to allow the government to set price controls, which is often in conjunction with universal pharmacare coverage.
france, especially, has a very strong incentive to keep drug prices down - namely that the system is fully socialized. and, that is the most efficient approach to keeping costs down, not long-debunked and discarded intellectual masturbation about "free markets".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Pf17uz2S9A&t=475s
both britain and france have monopoly government price controls, cenk. that's why it's so cheap there. in canada, we balance it out by calculating a floating average over oecd countries, which gives the drug companies a bit of extra profit - largely due to the lack of price controls in the united states - but keeps it down, comparably. we're not a model, though - we need reform here, too. the problem in the united states is that you don't have those regulatory systems in place to keep prices down, not that you don't have a "free market".
it's economics 101 that a drug oligopoly will act like a monopoly and collude to set prices, not compete against each other. why would they want to compete against each other? competition hurts producers. you'd have to write laws that force them to compete with each other. but, that would cost so much in enforcement that it wouldn't be worth it, overall - and the enforcement agencies would just end up getting bribed, anyways.
my understanding of bernie's legislation is that it is meant to prevent lengthy drug patents. even the soft left has always opposed intellectual property rights for things like drug patents; you don't have to get as strictly anti-propertarian as i am to develop an opposition to drug patents, especially timeframes around them. but, the point of stripping patents in every other advanced country has been to allow the government to set price controls, which is often in conjunction with universal pharmacare coverage.
france, especially, has a very strong incentive to keep drug prices down - namely that the system is fully socialized. and, that is the most efficient approach to keeping costs down, not long-debunked and discarded intellectual masturbation about "free markets".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Pf17uz2S9A&t=475s
to begin with, these guys are thugs, and you shouldn't stand up for them.
but, the government in caracas would not be doing this without american approval. and, if maduro does become a dictator in the end, it's going to be with american support - although you may have to wait a few decades for the documentation.
again: it would take mere days worth of a serious blockade to collapse the government in venezuela, and there's a reason they're not doing it. do not confuse yourself: given venezuela's absolute dependance on american capital, no government can survive there without american support.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/venezuela-opposition-leaders-house-arrest-1.4230086
but, the government in caracas would not be doing this without american approval. and, if maduro does become a dictator in the end, it's going to be with american support - although you may have to wait a few decades for the documentation.
again: it would take mere days worth of a serious blockade to collapse the government in venezuela, and there's a reason they're not doing it. do not confuse yourself: given venezuela's absolute dependance on american capital, no government can survive there without american support.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/venezuela-opposition-leaders-house-arrest-1.4230086
1) the results of the venezuelan election are not surprising. the chavistas still dominate the mass of lower class voters and workers, while the opposition is mostly limited to a much smaller upper middle class. you have to remember that a country like venezuela has a very large impoverished class and a very small middle class. but, the upper middle class is able to make itself seem more influential than it is because it has so much more access to capital.
2) rhetoric aside, venezuela's primary market - both for oil and agriculture - remains the united states. if america truly wanted maduro gone, it would shut down imports for a few weeks and let the government tear itself apart from the inside.
3) the conclusion - as i have pointed out repeatedly - is that maduro is not quite what he seems to be. the reality is that the american bogeyman is a good distraction to allow for continued resource extraction, nearly solely to america's benefit.
2) rhetoric aside, venezuela's primary market - both for oil and agriculture - remains the united states. if america truly wanted maduro gone, it would shut down imports for a few weeks and let the government tear itself apart from the inside.
3) the conclusion - as i have pointed out repeatedly - is that maduro is not quite what he seems to be. the reality is that the american bogeyman is a good distraction to allow for continued resource extraction, nearly solely to america's benefit.
for real, though.
gore can get your attention. maybe. but, you really need to listen to copernicus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_xI_8aLjds
gore can get your attention. maybe. but, you really need to listen to copernicus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_xI_8aLjds
Monday, July 31, 2017
"but, why won't al gore debate lord monckton."
stop laughing.
in fact, he did, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBzR0-j0O0o
stop laughing.
in fact, he did, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBzR0-j0O0o
i want to be clear: the ontario liberals have really been a pretty good government. they've made errors around energy policy (they overprojected electricity demand, and underprojected carbon demand). but, they've broadly upheld my own interests, at least.
it's just that this premier has this tendency to pander to the right. it's unusual, right - governments usually pander to the left. this one panders to the right, as all liberals in canada end up doing. and, they do it in ways that are horribly unpopular - every time.
if you want to pander to the right, let's talk about lowering taxes for working people, or something. that's some good pandering that doesn't put you on the other side of the culture war. but, when you start pandering about privatizing (and actually do it) in order to pay off the debt, you trigger this reaction in an overwhelmingly left-leaning province that, if anything, wants to renationalize the energy sector, and couldn't give a hoot about the debt. and, then the conservatives don't vote for you, anyways.
this family values approach to pot is going to do the same thing.
i mean, maybe it's the immigrant vote. maybe it is. it's a great irony, right - immigrants don't vote, but they flood their representatives' offices. so, the mps are reacting to what they see in front of them. this is the reason you see so many visible minorities running in canada - the parties are reacting to demand, as reflected by calls to their reps. it's not always an accurate reflection of the diversity of the riding on the ground, though.
and, whatever they're getting flooded with at the mp office, it's not accurately reflecting a broader voting public. the data is consistent and clear on this and what they're doing is going to turn them into a joke.
it's just that this premier has this tendency to pander to the right. it's unusual, right - governments usually pander to the left. this one panders to the right, as all liberals in canada end up doing. and, they do it in ways that are horribly unpopular - every time.
if you want to pander to the right, let's talk about lowering taxes for working people, or something. that's some good pandering that doesn't put you on the other side of the culture war. but, when you start pandering about privatizing (and actually do it) in order to pay off the debt, you trigger this reaction in an overwhelmingly left-leaning province that, if anything, wants to renationalize the energy sector, and couldn't give a hoot about the debt. and, then the conservatives don't vote for you, anyways.
this family values approach to pot is going to do the same thing.
i mean, maybe it's the immigrant vote. maybe it is. it's a great irony, right - immigrants don't vote, but they flood their representatives' offices. so, the mps are reacting to what they see in front of them. this is the reason you see so many visible minorities running in canada - the parties are reacting to demand, as reflected by calls to their reps. it's not always an accurate reflection of the diversity of the riding on the ground, though.
and, whatever they're getting flooded with at the mp office, it's not accurately reflecting a broader voting public. the data is consistent and clear on this and what they're doing is going to turn them into a joke.
there seems to be this underlying misconception in government circles that marijuana users smoke as frequently as cigarette users. i think that's the thing that's got them so confused about this.
i hope they're not basing tax policy on that. they're going to be disappointed.
yeah: if you took a 14 year-old and got her smoking a pack of joints a day, she'd end up retarded after a month. do you know what else would happen? she'd build up such a tolerance, that it would no longer affect her at all. then, she'd get bored and stop smoking pot altogether.
maybe you've heard the old story about giving a kid a cigar and telling him to smoke until he pukes. what happens with pot is that you smoke until you don't get high anymore. and, it actually happens fairly quickly.
for that reason, one of the first things that young marijuana users learn - and are in fact taught by more experienced users - is that you need to space it out, that you can't just start sparking like they're cigs, that you need to give yourself a few days. i remember this very clearly, actually. i was maybe a little lucky, because the guy that introduced it to me in the tenth grade had also been a close friend since we were in the third grade. i trusted him as well as i could (i realized the need to fact check him, as he was not academically inclined), and he had my interests in mind. maybe you had your own conversation, but mine went a little like this...
"j, the most important thing - and i can't stress this enough - is that you don't want to build a tolerance. i've seen it. it's the most depressing thing in the world. you smoke with these older people, and they don't even get high. it's terrible. you never want to let that happen to you."
"what's your rule of thumb on timeframes?"
"j, just stick to weekends. you need to study during the week anyways, right?"
"yeah, that's probably what i'll do, anyways."
"you won't need to worry about it if you do."
"cool."
"but, i've seen it. i tell you - it's disturbing. they smoke these huge js and they don't even laugh or anything. it's like nothing. why bother, if you don't get high? don't let it happen to you."
"thanks for the heads-up, man."
"anytime, j. now about that math homework of mine..."
"ahahaha....not a microphone man..."
"shit. sorry. i do that...."
it's a part of the culture to teach this. and, yeah, not everybody learns it. but, it's the ones that don't that burn out: these are your "former pot users", the ones that never learned you need to avoid tolerance.
the usage model needs to be to more like beer. that's your taxation model. and, it's how people use it.
and, the rare people that do smoke pot like cigarettes are people that have broader social problems - like alcoholics, not like tobacco addicts.
i hope they're not basing tax policy on that. they're going to be disappointed.
yeah: if you took a 14 year-old and got her smoking a pack of joints a day, she'd end up retarded after a month. do you know what else would happen? she'd build up such a tolerance, that it would no longer affect her at all. then, she'd get bored and stop smoking pot altogether.
maybe you've heard the old story about giving a kid a cigar and telling him to smoke until he pukes. what happens with pot is that you smoke until you don't get high anymore. and, it actually happens fairly quickly.
for that reason, one of the first things that young marijuana users learn - and are in fact taught by more experienced users - is that you need to space it out, that you can't just start sparking like they're cigs, that you need to give yourself a few days. i remember this very clearly, actually. i was maybe a little lucky, because the guy that introduced it to me in the tenth grade had also been a close friend since we were in the third grade. i trusted him as well as i could (i realized the need to fact check him, as he was not academically inclined), and he had my interests in mind. maybe you had your own conversation, but mine went a little like this...
"j, the most important thing - and i can't stress this enough - is that you don't want to build a tolerance. i've seen it. it's the most depressing thing in the world. you smoke with these older people, and they don't even get high. it's terrible. you never want to let that happen to you."
"what's your rule of thumb on timeframes?"
"j, just stick to weekends. you need to study during the week anyways, right?"
"yeah, that's probably what i'll do, anyways."
"you won't need to worry about it if you do."
"cool."
"but, i've seen it. i tell you - it's disturbing. they smoke these huge js and they don't even laugh or anything. it's like nothing. why bother, if you don't get high? don't let it happen to you."
"thanks for the heads-up, man."
"anytime, j. now about that math homework of mine..."
"ahahaha....not a microphone man..."
"shit. sorry. i do that...."
it's a part of the culture to teach this. and, yeah, not everybody learns it. but, it's the ones that don't that burn out: these are your "former pot users", the ones that never learned you need to avoid tolerance.
the usage model needs to be to more like beer. that's your taxation model. and, it's how people use it.
and, the rare people that do smoke pot like cigarettes are people that have broader social problems - like alcoholics, not like tobacco addicts.
no. this is reefer madness.
the way that the provincial government is throwing around this data is completely irresponsible, and not at all representative of what the research actually states. they're making it seem like any exposure to the drug at all will cause brain damage, which is similar to the way that the flawed research that created that misconception was used in the first place.
do you know what they did to claim that marijuana kills brain cells? that "this is your brain on drugs"? what they did was take a monkey and place it in a hot box at concentrations that created brain damage due to oxygen depletion. then, they blamed that on the pot. it was discredited as soon as it was published, but anti-drug agencies ran with it for decades. it is the "science" behind the fried egg commercials. i'm not shitting you - look it up. it was oxygen depletion the whole fucking time.
the research that they're citing to claim that marijuana causes development issues is based on high exposure over periods of months. it's not that it's wrong - as a long time user, i do not doubt it at all - but it's hardly useful to draw public policy out of it. if you drink a mickey of vodka three times a day for a year straight, you're going to end up with brain damage, too. that doesn't mean we should increase the age limit, or run scary commercials that anybody with internet access can debunk; it means that we need to use vodka far more responsibly than that, and teach our kids how to do so, as well.
in fact, the same research they're citing for brain damage from prolonged heavy use (the most extreme results possible) actually also states that moderate to mild use has no effects on young people at all. it is the latter information that the public policy should be based around, as it is more representative of how young people use it - moderately, and usually on weekends.
that's not to say that people don't "smoke themselves stupid". it happens. but, the policy should not be based around these extreme exceptions - and, doing so misses the point of legalization.
these ads will be ridiculed. they should be. they're wrong. and, don't be surprised if it costs the government the election, in the end.
and, this is strike three for kathleen wynne caving to right-wing special interests in a cynical ploy for votes and having it kill her in the end; she needs to step down before she does long term damage to the party, if she hasn't already.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/07/28/ontario-prepping-reefer-awareness-campaign-on-the-dangers-of-marijuana-as-legalization-date-approaches.html
the way that the provincial government is throwing around this data is completely irresponsible, and not at all representative of what the research actually states. they're making it seem like any exposure to the drug at all will cause brain damage, which is similar to the way that the flawed research that created that misconception was used in the first place.
do you know what they did to claim that marijuana kills brain cells? that "this is your brain on drugs"? what they did was take a monkey and place it in a hot box at concentrations that created brain damage due to oxygen depletion. then, they blamed that on the pot. it was discredited as soon as it was published, but anti-drug agencies ran with it for decades. it is the "science" behind the fried egg commercials. i'm not shitting you - look it up. it was oxygen depletion the whole fucking time.
the research that they're citing to claim that marijuana causes development issues is based on high exposure over periods of months. it's not that it's wrong - as a long time user, i do not doubt it at all - but it's hardly useful to draw public policy out of it. if you drink a mickey of vodka three times a day for a year straight, you're going to end up with brain damage, too. that doesn't mean we should increase the age limit, or run scary commercials that anybody with internet access can debunk; it means that we need to use vodka far more responsibly than that, and teach our kids how to do so, as well.
in fact, the same research they're citing for brain damage from prolonged heavy use (the most extreme results possible) actually also states that moderate to mild use has no effects on young people at all. it is the latter information that the public policy should be based around, as it is more representative of how young people use it - moderately, and usually on weekends.
that's not to say that people don't "smoke themselves stupid". it happens. but, the policy should not be based around these extreme exceptions - and, doing so misses the point of legalization.
these ads will be ridiculed. they should be. they're wrong. and, don't be surprised if it costs the government the election, in the end.
and, this is strike three for kathleen wynne caving to right-wing special interests in a cynical ploy for votes and having it kill her in the end; she needs to step down before she does long term damage to the party, if she hasn't already.
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2017/07/28/ontario-prepping-reefer-awareness-campaign-on-the-dangers-of-marijuana-as-legalization-date-approaches.html
Sunday, July 30, 2017
i've been tweaking a version of smplayer as an html5 workaround. what i've discovered about it is that:
1) seeking crashes the processor. so, don't seek.
2) pausing the video disconnects it from the server. so, don't pause video.
these are behavioural changes that i can deal with. but, i'm not convinced that the solution is even stable, yet. see, there's something like 20 video drivers to experiment with. the default seems ok, except that it doesn't like seeking. if that changes, i have a lot of options to experiment with.
i feel that i should be working this out before i move on to the next option. so, i'm going to be experimenting with smplayer for a while. that's fine; it gets it out of my head, and lets me focus on something else.
i'll need to do groceries tomorrow. i may get a bit of a headstart tonight, even. it'll be a nice bike ride out to the far store this evening.
i'm rebudgeting a little, in taking the hst money out of the 5000. this was useful for july accounting, but it wasn't really honest. the reason is that the $300 they gave me for hst actually offset the $300 i owed in loans. i then took that $300 and spent it a second time on bathroom supplies. letting the $5000 eat it cushioned my expenses a little, but it was always meant as a trick, and i always meant to take it out.
what that means is that it's going to take a full year to balance it back out in my accounting sheet. 25*12 = 300. so, my grocery allotment is decreasing by $25 this month, and each month for the next year. the idea is that i paid it ahead, so that will balance out over time.
but, what that means is that i'm $300 in the hole on the $5000. i'm not going to wait a full year, of course. rather, i'm going to have to hope for some quieter months in terms of raw expense. and, august & september may be those months - although october looks busy, just in time for that gst rebate.
i've been distracted again today, as i have been the last several days. i got some cleaning done, at least - the shelves are lysoled and the cassette holder is cleaned and drying. i might ave to do another coat...
rather than get right back to finishing the living room, i'm going to take some time to finish the next season of videos and get the next season started. i'm also going to get my documents for court ready ahead of time, this time. when that's done, i'll try again on kijiji before i get to determining how much it's going to cost to buy all of this wood.
so, it could be up to a week before i get back to this. hopefully, my remaining items at least get in by then, so i can start with a blank slate.
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
two lamps, one table and one floor [kijiji]: $15
tape holders [kijiji]: $15
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 $0
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): $296
ps/2 keyboard (axxon computer corporation, windsor): $23
usb mouse (walmart): $15
universal battery charger + aaa batteries (canadian tire): $54
stereo table: $34 (antique store)
cassette deck: $23 (antique store)
bookcase for bathroom supplies: $30 (antique store)
==================
2284.55
1) seeking crashes the processor. so, don't seek.
2) pausing the video disconnects it from the server. so, don't pause video.
these are behavioural changes that i can deal with. but, i'm not convinced that the solution is even stable, yet. see, there's something like 20 video drivers to experiment with. the default seems ok, except that it doesn't like seeking. if that changes, i have a lot of options to experiment with.
i feel that i should be working this out before i move on to the next option. so, i'm going to be experimenting with smplayer for a while. that's fine; it gets it out of my head, and lets me focus on something else.
i'll need to do groceries tomorrow. i may get a bit of a headstart tonight, even. it'll be a nice bike ride out to the far store this evening.
i'm rebudgeting a little, in taking the hst money out of the 5000. this was useful for july accounting, but it wasn't really honest. the reason is that the $300 they gave me for hst actually offset the $300 i owed in loans. i then took that $300 and spent it a second time on bathroom supplies. letting the $5000 eat it cushioned my expenses a little, but it was always meant as a trick, and i always meant to take it out.
what that means is that it's going to take a full year to balance it back out in my accounting sheet. 25*12 = 300. so, my grocery allotment is decreasing by $25 this month, and each month for the next year. the idea is that i paid it ahead, so that will balance out over time.
but, what that means is that i'm $300 in the hole on the $5000. i'm not going to wait a full year, of course. rather, i'm going to have to hope for some quieter months in terms of raw expense. and, august & september may be those months - although october looks busy, just in time for that gst rebate.
i've been distracted again today, as i have been the last several days. i got some cleaning done, at least - the shelves are lysoled and the cassette holder is cleaned and drying. i might ave to do another coat...
rather than get right back to finishing the living room, i'm going to take some time to finish the next season of videos and get the next season started. i'm also going to get my documents for court ready ahead of time, this time. when that's done, i'll try again on kijiji before i get to determining how much it's going to cost to buy all of this wood.
so, it could be up to a week before i get back to this. hopefully, my remaining items at least get in by then, so i can start with a blank slate.
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
two lamps, one table and one floor [kijiji]: $15
tape holders [kijiji]: $15
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]:
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
ps/2 keyboard (axxon computer corporation, windsor): $23
usb mouse (walmart): $15
universal battery charger + aaa batteries (canadian tire): $54
stereo table: $34 (antique store)
cassette deck: $23 (antique store)
bookcase for bathroom supplies: $30 (antique store)
==================
2284.55
Saturday, July 29, 2017
the last couple of days have been slow moving and monotonous. where did we leave off?
i spent thursday morning searching through kijiji and found good leads on a television and on cassette holders. there weren't any bookcases in the size i wanted. i spent the afternoon walking up and down the strip on wyandotte, and did find a bookcase for bathroom and cleaning supplies. i spent the evening trying to negotiate a means of testing the tv i had a lead on, but it didn't go anywhere; insisting on an empirical test of a used electronic device was apparently too onerous for the seller, who i actually think was just retarded enough to be insulted by the insinuation. fucking small town midwestern christian dipshit mentality, right. the objective factual reality is that i don't know if it works until i test it, and if that hurts your feelings then you need to grow the fuck up. i managed to get the cassette holders, though, which is actually really important.
friday started a little later; the imbecile with the tv told me to email her in the morning, then didn't return messages. it's easy to draw conclusions that the tv didn't actually work, but i don't think it's actually true - i think she was just too stupid to work through the logic, and ended up with a bruised ego out of it, then decided i was rude. ugh. whatever. pro-tip: don't waste your life worrying about the feelings of idiots. so, i wasn't out until the afternoon. a lot of walking yielded nothing. and, when i sat down to eat i had to deal with the flash issue, which occupied my attention for the rest of the night. .
it was too cold (and it was a chilly dry cold, too) to go out last night. brrr. it was a little chilly on monday, but i think this is the first day this year that i stayed in because it was too cold. i hope we don't get a cold august. it's something that happens in canada sometimes, and it sucks when it does. you can end up with a solid week or two in mid august where the high is only around 20, and the overnights are close to ten :(. it's actually been a cold summer all around here in south detroit. i've got a bad feeling about this...
what have i done today? well, i spent the morning troubleshooting the playback problems. and i picked up my cases. the outstanding items are the phone, the laptop battery and the ps/2 connector and they should all arrive in the regular mail.
i don't have an optimal answer for the html5 workaround, yet, and will probably spend the rest of the weekend fighting with it. but, i've at least learned that the price of a used lcd tv is $50 and that i'm going to need to build my own shelves some time this week.
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
two lamps, one table and one floor [kijiji]: $15
tape holders [kijiji]: $15
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 $0
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): $296
ps/2 keyboard (axxon computer corporation, windsor): $23
usb mouse (walmart): $15
universal battery charger + aaa batteries (canadian tire): $54
stereo table: $34 (antique store)
cassette deck: $23 (antique store)
bookcase for bathroom supplies: $30 (antique store)
==================
2580.57
i spent thursday morning searching through kijiji and found good leads on a television and on cassette holders. there weren't any bookcases in the size i wanted. i spent the afternoon walking up and down the strip on wyandotte, and did find a bookcase for bathroom and cleaning supplies. i spent the evening trying to negotiate a means of testing the tv i had a lead on, but it didn't go anywhere; insisting on an empirical test of a used electronic device was apparently too onerous for the seller, who i actually think was just retarded enough to be insulted by the insinuation. fucking small town midwestern christian dipshit mentality, right. the objective factual reality is that i don't know if it works until i test it, and if that hurts your feelings then you need to grow the fuck up. i managed to get the cassette holders, though, which is actually really important.
friday started a little later; the imbecile with the tv told me to email her in the morning, then didn't return messages. it's easy to draw conclusions that the tv didn't actually work, but i don't think it's actually true - i think she was just too stupid to work through the logic, and ended up with a bruised ego out of it, then decided i was rude. ugh. whatever. pro-tip: don't waste your life worrying about the feelings of idiots. so, i wasn't out until the afternoon. a lot of walking yielded nothing. and, when i sat down to eat i had to deal with the flash issue, which occupied my attention for the rest of the night. .
it was too cold (and it was a chilly dry cold, too) to go out last night. brrr. it was a little chilly on monday, but i think this is the first day this year that i stayed in because it was too cold. i hope we don't get a cold august. it's something that happens in canada sometimes, and it sucks when it does. you can end up with a solid week or two in mid august where the high is only around 20, and the overnights are close to ten :(. it's actually been a cold summer all around here in south detroit. i've got a bad feeling about this...
what have i done today? well, i spent the morning troubleshooting the playback problems. and i picked up my cases. the outstanding items are the phone, the laptop battery and the ps/2 connector and they should all arrive in the regular mail.
i don't have an optimal answer for the html5 workaround, yet, and will probably spend the rest of the weekend fighting with it. but, i've at least learned that the price of a used lcd tv is $50 and that i'm going to need to build my own shelves some time this week.
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
two lamps, one table and one floor [kijiji]: $15
tape holders [kijiji]: $15
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]:
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): $296
ps/2 keyboard (axxon computer corporation, windsor): $23
usb mouse (walmart): $15
universal battery charger + aaa batteries (canadian tire): $54
stereo table: $34 (antique store)
cassette deck: $23 (antique store)
bookcase for bathroom supplies: $30 (antique store)
==================
2580.57
Friday, July 28, 2017
i've been saying for a while that mccain often says a little too much, a little too frankly and a little too clearly - and in the process tends to confuse people expecting the usual obfuscating language.
watch the show.
indeed.
i suppose he's not volunteering the seat.
hard core no bullshit realist analysis aside, it was still the right vote.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/28/politics/john-mccain-maverick-health-care/index.html
watch the show.
indeed.
i suppose he's not volunteering the seat.
hard core no bullshit realist analysis aside, it was still the right vote.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/28/politics/john-mccain-maverick-health-care/index.html
"but, you're an anarchist. wtf?"
my arguments are actually quite ideologically left-wing. you just don't know what anarchism is.
anarchism sees the family as an extension of the church, which is itself an extension of the state. the anarchist revolution must consequently abolish the family unit, as if it does not do so the underlying patriarchy will re-establish the state. so, anarchists will generally refrain from supporting things like gay marriage, which are seen as a way for the state to co-opt the queer movement, and instead argue for abolishing marriage altogether. this is not the same thing as a libertarian privatization of marriage; anarchists want the whole institution shuttered and left for dead. we often clash with mainstream pseudo-left parties, and in doing so put through the argument that their proposals are simply not of the left.
in replacement of the family - which i will again stress is an extension of the state - anarchists will argue for collectivized concepts of child rearing that implement democratic decision making. and, this is very key, for child rearing cannot be the decision of any one parent, as that is an undemocratic process. this isn't anything new, either. it's actually closer to the way we evolved. and, it's been proposed as least as far back as plato.
so, who are these gummamint-out-of-my-family types, if not anarchists? they're just conservatives. and, it's not some accident that they regurgitate these religious arguments that are meant to control them. if they wanted real freedom, they would support council democracies meant to overturn the influence of the church; they don't, though, they just want to follow the dictates of authority, and be led into believing what is right and what is wrong. the last thing they want is the ability to actually make decisions for themselves.
putting the control in the hands of a small number of doctors (to be enforced by courts upholding process) is not ideal, but it is at least transitional away from a system of religious authority. ideally, we would have more integrated councils with deeper medical consultation. but, the last thing we want is to give control back to the church via the vector of the brainwashed sheep. the authority here must be academic, and not genetic.
my arguments are actually quite ideologically left-wing. you just don't know what anarchism is.
anarchism sees the family as an extension of the church, which is itself an extension of the state. the anarchist revolution must consequently abolish the family unit, as if it does not do so the underlying patriarchy will re-establish the state. so, anarchists will generally refrain from supporting things like gay marriage, which are seen as a way for the state to co-opt the queer movement, and instead argue for abolishing marriage altogether. this is not the same thing as a libertarian privatization of marriage; anarchists want the whole institution shuttered and left for dead. we often clash with mainstream pseudo-left parties, and in doing so put through the argument that their proposals are simply not of the left.
in replacement of the family - which i will again stress is an extension of the state - anarchists will argue for collectivized concepts of child rearing that implement democratic decision making. and, this is very key, for child rearing cannot be the decision of any one parent, as that is an undemocratic process. this isn't anything new, either. it's actually closer to the way we evolved. and, it's been proposed as least as far back as plato.
so, who are these gummamint-out-of-my-family types, if not anarchists? they're just conservatives. and, it's not some accident that they regurgitate these religious arguments that are meant to control them. if they wanted real freedom, they would support council democracies meant to overturn the influence of the church; they don't, though, they just want to follow the dictates of authority, and be led into believing what is right and what is wrong. the last thing they want is the ability to actually make decisions for themselves.
putting the control in the hands of a small number of doctors (to be enforced by courts upholding process) is not ideal, but it is at least transitional away from a system of religious authority. ideally, we would have more integrated councils with deeper medical consultation. but, the last thing we want is to give control back to the church via the vector of the brainwashed sheep. the authority here must be academic, and not genetic.
this writer is far more politically correct than i am, and far more patient in the face of the absurdities and idiocies of faith than i ever was, am now or ever will be.
but, this is the absolutely key point that we must continue to fight to uphold against reactionaries that would turn back the clock:
The first is to recognise that children do not belong to their parents. Second, when a claim is made that parents have rights over their children, it is important to step back and examine the language used. We need to remind ourselves that parents do not have rights regarding their children, they only have duties, the principal duty being to act in their children’s best interests. This has been part of the fabric of our law and our society for a long time. Third, if we are concerned with the language of rights, it is, of course, children who have rights; any rights that parents have exist only to protect their children’s rights.
this is actually much tamer language than i would use, and gives parents far more control over their children than i would allow. but, it is the crux of the point, here.
and, it is one that is settled in law.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/24/charlie-gard-tragic-respect-courts
but, this is the absolutely key point that we must continue to fight to uphold against reactionaries that would turn back the clock:
The first is to recognise that children do not belong to their parents. Second, when a claim is made that parents have rights over their children, it is important to step back and examine the language used. We need to remind ourselves that parents do not have rights regarding their children, they only have duties, the principal duty being to act in their children’s best interests. This has been part of the fabric of our law and our society for a long time. Third, if we are concerned with the language of rights, it is, of course, children who have rights; any rights that parents have exist only to protect their children’s rights.
this is actually much tamer language than i would use, and gives parents far more control over their children than i would allow. but, it is the crux of the point, here.
and, it is one that is settled in law.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/24/charlie-gard-tragic-respect-courts
if we're letting these parents make complicated medical decisions about their kids, why don't we let them run the nuclear power stations while we're at it?
doctors: treatment won't work.
parents: no. treatment will work. because....faith.
actual media headline: "parents adamant that treatment would work."
proper media headline: "delusional parents won't let go of severely retarded child."
this is a non-issue. the courts made clear decisions based on evidence from the bottom up. the parents, on the other hand, do not have anything resembling a coherent argument.
for the republican party and the catholic church to involve itself in this is disgusting.
and, for the media to even carry it as a story is irresponsible.
the parents need counseling, not a bunch of fucking vultures reinforcing a lot of religious nonsense.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/gard-parents-uk-appeal-dropped-1.4218717
doctors: treatment won't work.
parents: no. treatment will work. because....faith.
actual media headline: "parents adamant that treatment would work."
proper media headline: "delusional parents won't let go of severely retarded child."
this is a non-issue. the courts made clear decisions based on evidence from the bottom up. the parents, on the other hand, do not have anything resembling a coherent argument.
for the republican party and the catholic church to involve itself in this is disgusting.
and, for the media to even carry it as a story is irresponsible.
the parents need counseling, not a bunch of fucking vultures reinforcing a lot of religious nonsense.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/gard-parents-uk-appeal-dropped-1.4218717
it's not that i really liked flash. it's that html5 is so unnecessarily
cpu-heavy. this is needlessly eliminating a whole class of perfectly
functional machines, and is going to pointlessly create a lot of waste
right at the point where we should be doing so much more to prevent it.
years ago, now, i decided to put aside an old pIII for the purposes of sending a signal from youtube out to an even older television. "surely", i reasoned, "a pIII is plenty good enough to send a signal out the back of a video card". and, for years, it certainly was.
a lot of younger people are likely to scoff at the premise of utilizing a pIII for anything at all. but, in fact, it is the idea that a pIII is not powerful enough to launch a web browser to run a video out that is preposterous - as those of us that are old enough to remember running half-life on even slower machines will remind you. it's a pIII - ok. but, you should be able to stream video with a 486.
i've watched this machine slowly lose it's functionality. there's not actually any reason for it, though. the cpu is in perfectly good working order. it has a gb of perfectly good ram. and, it's running a newly refurbished 40 gb hard drive, which is plenty of space to boot windows xp from.
i suppose that the easy thing to do is to buy a quadcore raspberry pi. they're only $100, right? but, the premise is ridiculous. why do i need multiple cores to do something that a 486 should be able to do? and, why should i create a pc full of waste in order to do it?
what is my solution, exactly?
well, the thing that's killing me right now is flash. a few months ago, i had to update firefox in order to block html5 - as absurd as that is. now, i can no longer block html5, and the cpu just sputters out when i try and run video. there is no logic underlying anything that is being pushed down, except the logic of google pushing the hardware market. they may claim that flash is insecure, but that is something to do with porn sites, and not something to do with youtube - unless they are blocking flash to prevent nsa spying of user histories, which they're required to hand over by law, anyways. that excuse is nonsense.
there's no reason youtube needs to block access to older hardware like this. nor is it going to actually drive the market in any meaningful way...
after losing resources to upgrade firefox in order to block html5 to allow flash playback, and then having to succumb to html5 itself, my next step in this fight against google is going to have to be to downgrade to a tiny linux. but, this is a pIII. these distributions are designed for commodores and amigas. it's ridiculous that i need to downgrade a pIII that runs xp perfectly in order to access playback on a website!
but, i can only strip out so many unnecessary cycles before i'm forced to deal with the reality of the site's heavy javascript.
...and there's no reason for any of this besides greed.
years ago, now, i decided to put aside an old pIII for the purposes of sending a signal from youtube out to an even older television. "surely", i reasoned, "a pIII is plenty good enough to send a signal out the back of a video card". and, for years, it certainly was.
a lot of younger people are likely to scoff at the premise of utilizing a pIII for anything at all. but, in fact, it is the idea that a pIII is not powerful enough to launch a web browser to run a video out that is preposterous - as those of us that are old enough to remember running half-life on even slower machines will remind you. it's a pIII - ok. but, you should be able to stream video with a 486.
i've watched this machine slowly lose it's functionality. there's not actually any reason for it, though. the cpu is in perfectly good working order. it has a gb of perfectly good ram. and, it's running a newly refurbished 40 gb hard drive, which is plenty of space to boot windows xp from.
i suppose that the easy thing to do is to buy a quadcore raspberry pi. they're only $100, right? but, the premise is ridiculous. why do i need multiple cores to do something that a 486 should be able to do? and, why should i create a pc full of waste in order to do it?
what is my solution, exactly?
well, the thing that's killing me right now is flash. a few months ago, i had to update firefox in order to block html5 - as absurd as that is. now, i can no longer block html5, and the cpu just sputters out when i try and run video. there is no logic underlying anything that is being pushed down, except the logic of google pushing the hardware market. they may claim that flash is insecure, but that is something to do with porn sites, and not something to do with youtube - unless they are blocking flash to prevent nsa spying of user histories, which they're required to hand over by law, anyways. that excuse is nonsense.
there's no reason youtube needs to block access to older hardware like this. nor is it going to actually drive the market in any meaningful way...
after losing resources to upgrade firefox in order to block html5 to allow flash playback, and then having to succumb to html5 itself, my next step in this fight against google is going to have to be to downgrade to a tiny linux. but, this is a pIII. these distributions are designed for commodores and amigas. it's ridiculous that i need to downgrade a pIII that runs xp perfectly in order to access playback on a website!
but, i can only strip out so many unnecessary cycles before i'm forced to deal with the reality of the site's heavy javascript.
...and there's no reason for any of this besides greed.
Thursday, July 27, 2017
it's not kijiji's fault that so many of the sellers are fucking idiots.
if you think i'm going to give you $50 for a tv without plugging it in to make sure it works, you're a retard.
i wouldn't give you $0.50 for a tv without plugging it in to make sure it works. and, i don't give a fuck who you are or who you aren't.
if you think i'm going to give you $50 for a tv without plugging it in to make sure it works, you're a retard.
i wouldn't give you $0.50 for a tv without plugging it in to make sure it works. and, i don't give a fuck who you are or who you aren't.
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
what's the update?
i finally got my package mailed on friday morning, and then spent another $80 on bathroom supplies on friday afternoon, before crashing early on friday night. also, my arctic silver got refunded due to poor packaging.
i spent the weekend cleaning out the back room, planning out how i'm going to remodel it and sorting through internet ads; all i got out of it was a couple of cheap lamps, but those are actually key to the room setups, too. i picked up my soundcard on monday, on a trip to detroit that also included a run to recycle here to get rid of film plastic and batteries, as well as a disappointing stop at whole foods (who refused my brita filters and razors). i had to throw them out as i didn't want to walk into the bar with a margarine tub of used razors and a bag full of cheese wrappers, which could not be recycled due to the lack of a number on the packaging.
and, as such, i am restarting the bag. i've made my point, which is that it is not at all difficult to keep personal waste down. but, i want to finish the experiment. i'm now even more conscious than i was then, and i have found ways to recycle things i couldn't previously recycle. if the issue with the cheese wrappers is that they don't have a number, perhaps i'll switch to a brand that has a number. and, i'm hoping that the issue with whole foods is site specific.
yesterday, i found a cassette deck and a table for my stereo, which will allow me to move the cabinet into the bedroom and flip it sideways, to use as an extended table. i'm going to keep looking for shelving solutions, but i've largely resigned myself to the need to build the shelving myself.
i spent today cleaning, mostly.
that brings me to...
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
two lamps, one table and one floor [kijiji]: $15
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 $0
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): $296
ps/2 keyboard (axxon computer corporation, windsor): $23
usb mouse (walmart): $15
universal battery charger + aaa batteries (canadian tire): $54
stereo table: $34 (antique store)
cassette deck: $23 (antique store)
==================
2535.57
officially halfway.
i'm going to at least nap. but i didn't sleep well last night. i'll need to sort through the loose ends in the living room when i wake up.
i finally got my package mailed on friday morning, and then spent another $80 on bathroom supplies on friday afternoon, before crashing early on friday night. also, my arctic silver got refunded due to poor packaging.
i spent the weekend cleaning out the back room, planning out how i'm going to remodel it and sorting through internet ads; all i got out of it was a couple of cheap lamps, but those are actually key to the room setups, too. i picked up my soundcard on monday, on a trip to detroit that also included a run to recycle here to get rid of film plastic and batteries, as well as a disappointing stop at whole foods (who refused my brita filters and razors). i had to throw them out as i didn't want to walk into the bar with a margarine tub of used razors and a bag full of cheese wrappers, which could not be recycled due to the lack of a number on the packaging.
and, as such, i am restarting the bag. i've made my point, which is that it is not at all difficult to keep personal waste down. but, i want to finish the experiment. i'm now even more conscious than i was then, and i have found ways to recycle things i couldn't previously recycle. if the issue with the cheese wrappers is that they don't have a number, perhaps i'll switch to a brand that has a number. and, i'm hoping that the issue with whole foods is site specific.
yesterday, i found a cassette deck and a table for my stereo, which will allow me to move the cabinet into the bedroom and flip it sideways, to use as an extended table. i'm going to keep looking for shelving solutions, but i've largely resigned myself to the need to build the shelving myself.
i spent today cleaning, mostly.
that brings me to...
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
two lamps, one table and one floor [kijiji]: $15
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]:
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): $296
ps/2 keyboard (axxon computer corporation, windsor): $23
usb mouse (walmart): $15
universal battery charger + aaa batteries (canadian tire): $54
stereo table: $34 (antique store)
cassette deck: $23 (antique store)
==================
2535.57
officially halfway.
i'm going to at least nap. but i didn't sleep well last night. i'll need to sort through the loose ends in the living room when i wake up.
we will continue to focus on the recruitment and retention of under-represented groups within the Canadian Forces' ranks
the weird thing is that this is actually legit, and i know it. i just wish that we were at a stage of consciousness where we would see this as disturbing, rather than affirming.
i am personally exceedingly uncomfortable with the idea of the government specifically reaching out to minorities as cannon fodder - and think it's just surreal that they're promoting it under the banner of 'diversity'.
but, we live in a fascist war culture. the days where canada was outside of this are over. again: history will see this as the absurdity that it is, even if you're too damaged by the reigning culture of violence to see it, yourself.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-transgender-military-trump-ban-1.4222787
the weird thing is that this is actually legit, and i know it. i just wish that we were at a stage of consciousness where we would see this as disturbing, rather than affirming.
i am personally exceedingly uncomfortable with the idea of the government specifically reaching out to minorities as cannon fodder - and think it's just surreal that they're promoting it under the banner of 'diversity'.
but, we live in a fascist war culture. the days where canada was outside of this are over. again: history will see this as the absurdity that it is, even if you're too damaged by the reigning culture of violence to see it, yourself.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-transgender-military-trump-ban-1.4222787
to be clear: the republicans have an absolute total majority across government, right now. the idea that they can't figure this out is asinine.
if you believe any of this nonsense, you're being played - just like they played their base for so long to get them into this conundrum.
historians will understand this properly. and, it may very well go down in history as the single greatest example of the absolute sophistry that defines american democracy.
if you believe any of this nonsense, you're being played - just like they played their base for so long to get them into this conundrum.
historians will understand this properly. and, it may very well go down in history as the single greatest example of the absolute sophistry that defines american democracy.
are they going to fuck around on this for the next fifteen months?
probably.
but, which republican senator is volunteering their seat, anyways?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/obamacare-quick-repeal-republicans-fail-senate-1.4223115
probably.
but, which republican senator is volunteering their seat, anyways?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/obamacare-quick-repeal-republicans-fail-senate-1.4223115
i usually phrase it as too many old people, but it's good to see the analysts actually get the fucking point.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/07/26/cmhc-housing-market-assessment-not-enough-young-canadians_a_23049544/
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/07/26/cmhc-housing-market-assessment-not-enough-young-canadians_a_23049544/
awww.
poor wittle woblaws.
awww.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/07/26/loblaws-warns-minimum-wage-hikes-will-eat-into-its-profits_a_23048891/
poor wittle woblaws.
awww.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/07/26/loblaws-warns-minimum-wage-hikes-will-eat-into-its-profits_a_23048891/
the ndp is not a collection of independent parties, the way the liberals are, but a single organization. this is the reason that notley's - and mulcair's - support for the pipelines made it so clear that horgan was full of shit.
and, this is why canadians don't trust them.
it has nothing to do with a fear of socialism. the reality is that the party can't get anywhere because their recent history is full of nothing but persistent betrayal.
they lie. to your face. and, when they win, they're worse than conservatives.
i hope weaver takes them out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/07/25/andrew-weaver-b-c-green-leader-bemoans-ndp-change-in-languag_a_23048020/?utm_source
and, this is why canadians don't trust them.
it has nothing to do with a fear of socialism. the reality is that the party can't get anywhere because their recent history is full of nothing but persistent betrayal.
they lie. to your face. and, when they win, they're worse than conservatives.
i hope weaver takes them out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/07/25/andrew-weaver-b-c-green-leader-bemoans-ndp-change-in-languag_a_23048020/?utm_source
Many of the proposals, such as for digital economy and labour, resemble
provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that have already been
agreed to by Canada, the United States and Mexico, so these elements
should be pretty easy to add to a new NAFTA text.
umm. no?
the tpp was written in a different context, altogether. and, it's proposals were deeply unpopular - especially the ones about intellectual property. there's an argument that trump got a crucial slice of the electorate by opposing it, even if it was clear from the start that he was full of shit.
i don't expect trudeau to put up much of a fight. the guy is a tool. we're going to need to raise hell on the streets, instead.
if you opposed the tpp, the next round of fighting is in opposing trump's proposed changes to nafta. let's start organizing, now.
umm. no?
the tpp was written in a different context, altogether. and, it's proposals were deeply unpopular - especially the ones about intellectual property. there's an argument that trump got a crucial slice of the electorate by opposing it, even if it was clear from the start that he was full of shit.
i don't expect trudeau to put up much of a fight. the guy is a tool. we're going to need to raise hell on the streets, instead.
if you opposed the tpp, the next round of fighting is in opposing trump's proposed changes to nafta. let's start organizing, now.
am i supposed to be upset about this?
fuck the troops.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/trump-says-no-transgender-people-will-serve-in-us-military/article35802795/
fuck the troops.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/trump-says-no-transgender-people-will-serve-in-us-military/article35802795/
i actually support scrapping these extra-territorial kangaroo courts and returning local sovereignty to the judicial systems of our respective countries.
canadian firms should abide by democratically enacted us law; in turn, american firms should abide by democratically enacted canadian law. i'm not going to wave a flag to stand up for an investor class with a maple leaf on it. i'm on the side of democracy, not on the side of special rights for the upper class.
trudeau is wrong on this point and standing up for the wrong principles - that is, the ability of capitalist special interest groups to ignore democratically enacted laws - in doing so.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/nafta-renegotiations-what-do-trump-and-canada-want/article33715250/
canadian firms should abide by democratically enacted us law; in turn, american firms should abide by democratically enacted canadian law. i'm not going to wave a flag to stand up for an investor class with a maple leaf on it. i'm on the side of democracy, not on the side of special rights for the upper class.
trudeau is wrong on this point and standing up for the wrong principles - that is, the ability of capitalist special interest groups to ignore democratically enacted laws - in doing so.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/nafta-renegotiations-what-do-trump-and-canada-want/article33715250/
i'm not going to challenge the basis of denial; it's an objective test, and if you're above it then you fail the criterion and don't get to stay. we can have discussions about whether the economy should be based on resources or finances, and argue that artificial scarcity should be abolished, but so long as we live in a society where bankers set the rules, we have limits that need to be abided by. i have to put some trust in the state to arrive at numbers, as i can't derive that myself; whatever the limit is, one should exist.
the problem here strikes me as a lack of communication between government departments. this family was brought here and settled here, then told at the last minute they can't stay. you can't do that. and, they'll win their court battles because of it.
i don't oppose the idea of setting limits on what the country accepts in terms of health care costs. the correct solution is that the united states - a much more populated country - should adopt universal health care. that's what's wrong here, on that level.
but, you can't bring people in and then kick them out - and the courts will uphold that point.
what should come out of this is a change in the process: the feds should be reviewing applications before the province pre-admits them. what that means is that they should not have been accepted in the first place; but, they were, and now you can't just kick them out.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3620003/family-in-shock-after-permanent-residency-denied-by-immigration-canada-due-to-daughters-disability
the problem here strikes me as a lack of communication between government departments. this family was brought here and settled here, then told at the last minute they can't stay. you can't do that. and, they'll win their court battles because of it.
i don't oppose the idea of setting limits on what the country accepts in terms of health care costs. the correct solution is that the united states - a much more populated country - should adopt universal health care. that's what's wrong here, on that level.
but, you can't bring people in and then kick them out - and the courts will uphold that point.
what should come out of this is a change in the process: the feds should be reviewing applications before the province pre-admits them. what that means is that they should not have been accepted in the first place; but, they were, and now you can't just kick them out.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3620003/family-in-shock-after-permanent-residency-denied-by-immigration-canada-due-to-daughters-disability
"The signing of the (free-trade agreement) is to provide a stable and
anticipated institutional arrangement for mutual investment, so that
investors won't worry (that) their investments may encounter some
difficulties or problems."
well, at least he's honest. so, why not drop the orwellian "free trade" language, then? that's not a description of free trade, it's a frank statement of why people oppose these "free trade" agreements - we don't want to sign away our sovereignty to foreign investors, or give them the ability to override our laws in these wonky corporatized kangaroo courts.
what canadians want is a stable and anticipated institutional arrangement that ensures that foreign investors are held accountable under canadian jurisprudence, so that we don't have to worry about investors running rough shod over our democratically enacted laws and carefully arrived at judicial precedent.
again: we need a trade framework with china. we can't have free trade with the existing chinese economy; it's an incoherent proposition. so, what we need is to normalize relations in such a way that upholds our national sovereignty in the face of corporate irresponsibility. and, what you're smoking is stronger than what i'm smoking if you think that this government is on the side of canadian citizens in this matter.
expect the chinese to get everything they ask for.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-norsat-free-trade-canada-1.4190712
well, at least he's honest. so, why not drop the orwellian "free trade" language, then? that's not a description of free trade, it's a frank statement of why people oppose these "free trade" agreements - we don't want to sign away our sovereignty to foreign investors, or give them the ability to override our laws in these wonky corporatized kangaroo courts.
what canadians want is a stable and anticipated institutional arrangement that ensures that foreign investors are held accountable under canadian jurisprudence, so that we don't have to worry about investors running rough shod over our democratically enacted laws and carefully arrived at judicial precedent.
again: we need a trade framework with china. we can't have free trade with the existing chinese economy; it's an incoherent proposition. so, what we need is to normalize relations in such a way that upholds our national sovereignty in the face of corporate irresponsibility. and, what you're smoking is stronger than what i'm smoking if you think that this government is on the side of canadian citizens in this matter.
expect the chinese to get everything they ask for.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-norsat-free-trade-canada-1.4190712
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
if i were to design a policy designed to further anti-americanism in canada, it would look a lot like this. but, the reality is that trump has been clear from the start: canada is not an ally, but a vassal, and the trade agreements that canada signs with the united states should reflect the proper imperial relationship that exists, which is that canada is a client state within the american empire. that is "donaldism" - naked american imperialism.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-data-storage-privacy-1.4220272
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-data-storage-privacy-1.4220272
i had a talk about this last night (with a self-identifying iraqi chaldean that actually looked something like a caricature of a germanic elf - although i eventually noticed the old assyrian nose, which juts out like an equilateral triangle, in a jewish or italian manner, rather than hooking up from the bottom.) and the dude oversold it quite a bit.
he claimed that the new nuclear reactors would recycle the waste they create, thereby solving the primary objection to a wider adoption of nuclear power. i questioned this on conservation grounds. he also suggested it was being designed by "china". as it turns out, the company has retracted the claim, reducing the next gen reactors to a simple upgrade in efficiency.
i think it reminds me a little bit about some of the debates i've had around superconductors. increases in efficiency are a positive thing, but superconductors were never the answer to the energy crisis. likewise, while increasing the efficiency of the process is a sign of progress and should be pursued, this isn't actually a game changer. it doesn't actually solve anything.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603731/nuclear-energy-startup-transatomic-backtracks-on-key-promises/
this was in the smoking section of a dj set by jello biafra in detroit, which i stumbled into on a lark. it was amusing enough. i was actually over in detroit to pick up my sound card. and, i didn't have to pay customs on the way back.
he claimed that the new nuclear reactors would recycle the waste they create, thereby solving the primary objection to a wider adoption of nuclear power. i questioned this on conservation grounds. he also suggested it was being designed by "china". as it turns out, the company has retracted the claim, reducing the next gen reactors to a simple upgrade in efficiency.
i think it reminds me a little bit about some of the debates i've had around superconductors. increases in efficiency are a positive thing, but superconductors were never the answer to the energy crisis. likewise, while increasing the efficiency of the process is a sign of progress and should be pursued, this isn't actually a game changer. it doesn't actually solve anything.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603731/nuclear-energy-startup-transatomic-backtracks-on-key-promises/
this was in the smoking section of a dj set by jello biafra in detroit, which i stumbled into on a lark. it was amusing enough. i was actually over in detroit to pick up my sound card. and, i didn't have to pay customs on the way back.
Monday, July 24, 2017
i'll be explicit, because i know i'm right about this and i don't care if it upsets people. if you want to stand up for what's right, you have to take unpopular positions sometimes.
if i was in the middle of something, and i asked if they were hiv, and i was told they were but are on antivirals, would i stop, even if a condom was involved? yeah. immediately - forcefully, and violently, if necessary.
so, is that information that is necessary to provide in determining consent? it sure would be, for me. therefore, is withholding that information a type of rape? it is. i would certainly feel violated. and, it doesn't matter if the person is taking retroviral drugs, or if the risk of transmission is negligible - consent still depends on the absence of any possibility of transmission. i would never consent, under any circumstance, to relations with somebody that is positive, whether they are on retrovirals and wearing a condom or not.
and, what is the counter-argument to this?
"if i disclosed, they might say no."
you're fucking right that i would say no. and, what do you lose from that?
obviously, if you cared at all about me or my feelings, you would disclose - and if that means we don't fuck on that night, you'd take it as an acceptable loss.
the only argument for non-disclosure reduces to the viewpoint that an orgasm, however fleeting, is more important than the health and consent of the person you're fucking.
and, that is rape culture.
if i was in the middle of something, and i asked if they were hiv, and i was told they were but are on antivirals, would i stop, even if a condom was involved? yeah. immediately - forcefully, and violently, if necessary.
so, is that information that is necessary to provide in determining consent? it sure would be, for me. therefore, is withholding that information a type of rape? it is. i would certainly feel violated. and, it doesn't matter if the person is taking retroviral drugs, or if the risk of transmission is negligible - consent still depends on the absence of any possibility of transmission. i would never consent, under any circumstance, to relations with somebody that is positive, whether they are on retrovirals and wearing a condom or not.
and, what is the counter-argument to this?
"if i disclosed, they might say no."
you're fucking right that i would say no. and, what do you lose from that?
obviously, if you cared at all about me or my feelings, you would disclose - and if that means we don't fuck on that night, you'd take it as an acceptable loss.
the only argument for non-disclosure reduces to the viewpoint that an orgasm, however fleeting, is more important than the health and consent of the person you're fucking.
and, that is rape culture.
i'm not sexually active, but i've long realized that i'm the one that needs to ask because the vast majority of people on this planet are irresponsible cretins.
the sad fact is that you cannot expect people to have the common courtesy to disclose, if it means foregoing the possibility of an orgasm. that's the sad reality of how people think in this utilitarian society. that's their cost benefit analysis.
if you have hiv then you should not be sexually active at all, and i'm sorry if you're too stupid to figure that out. but, i guess you were dumb enough to catch it in the first place, right...
the sad fact is that you cannot expect people to have the common courtesy to disclose, if it means foregoing the possibility of an orgasm. that's the sad reality of how people think in this utilitarian society. that's their cost benefit analysis.
if you have hiv then you should not be sexually active at all, and i'm sorry if you're too stupid to figure that out. but, i guess you were dumb enough to catch it in the first place, right...
"What you're talking about here is a vulnerable, marginalized group of
people who are going to be forced to go around volunteering to anyone
with whom they're going to have sexual contact, that they belong to that
vulnerable, marginalized group,"
yeah. that's exactly what they law should say: that they have a responsibility to full disclosure, at all times. it's a basic moral principle.
they have aids! they shouldn't be having sexual contact at all!
the fucking retards on this planet....
"it's just a mild case of hiv."
yeah. that's exactly what they law should say: that they have a responsibility to full disclosure, at all times. it's a basic moral principle.
they have aids! they shouldn't be having sexual contact at all!
the fucking retards on this planet....
"it's just a mild case of hiv."
i don't think that the question of whether the rapist is taking retroviral drugs should be of much consideration when determining the charges that are being laid. hiv is not a spectrum disease, and the risks of contracting it should not be weighed like you would play odds at a casino. any risk of transmission at all - no matter how negligent - should be considered equivalent, and come with equivalent sentencing.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/hiv-positive-status-to-factor-into-regina-rapist-s-sentence-but-not-criminal-charge-1.4216714
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/hiv-positive-status-to-factor-into-regina-rapist-s-sentence-but-not-criminal-charge-1.4216714
i've argued it should basically be the same as alcohol, too, but the age thing is the exception - it should be set younger. and, let's think it through.
what the legislation is (supposedly) geared around is the idea that kids are smoking because it's easier to get pot than it is to get alcohol because, despite the legal wording, marijuana is not currently a controlled substance. the solution is that if you control the distribution then usage rates will decrease amongst kids.
it's probably true for kids in the 14-18 range.
but, that implies that they'll need to find other drugs - like meth-sold-as-mdma - because they can't access pot.
so, do you legalize mdma then? well, i actually think you should, because it's safe in pure form but extremely dangerous in the forms you find on the street. even a lot of the kids that are walking out of parties without any visible harm are only vaguely aware of what they're actually taking, and the longer term damage that it might be doing.
but, then what? do you legalize psilocybin? well, psilocybin isn't that dangerous, either.
but, you start getting in blurrier areas when you get to the next iteration. if you end up legalizing lsd in the end, the age should be relatively high. and, i'll never support legalizing opioids or cocaine - although i wouldn't mind seeing more potent caffeine options on the market.
the point is that you're just kicking the can down the road, here. at some point you need to realize that kids are just going to move to the next drug if they can't get the one you're cutting off access to. it's a demand issue; and demand creates supply.
trudeau's argument is really just supply-side economics, and is flawed for the same reason that any other piece of supply-side economics is.
a better idea is to lower the age and teach kids how to use it responsibly, like they do with alcohol in france. it is, after all, not use that should be of concern but abuse. and, the concern should really be in finding ways to gear marijuana policy around tactics to stop them from getting into the harder stuff, which includes alcohol.
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2017/07/21/ontarios-age-of-majority-for-pot-same-as-booze
what the legislation is (supposedly) geared around is the idea that kids are smoking because it's easier to get pot than it is to get alcohol because, despite the legal wording, marijuana is not currently a controlled substance. the solution is that if you control the distribution then usage rates will decrease amongst kids.
it's probably true for kids in the 14-18 range.
but, that implies that they'll need to find other drugs - like meth-sold-as-mdma - because they can't access pot.
so, do you legalize mdma then? well, i actually think you should, because it's safe in pure form but extremely dangerous in the forms you find on the street. even a lot of the kids that are walking out of parties without any visible harm are only vaguely aware of what they're actually taking, and the longer term damage that it might be doing.
but, then what? do you legalize psilocybin? well, psilocybin isn't that dangerous, either.
but, you start getting in blurrier areas when you get to the next iteration. if you end up legalizing lsd in the end, the age should be relatively high. and, i'll never support legalizing opioids or cocaine - although i wouldn't mind seeing more potent caffeine options on the market.
the point is that you're just kicking the can down the road, here. at some point you need to realize that kids are just going to move to the next drug if they can't get the one you're cutting off access to. it's a demand issue; and demand creates supply.
trudeau's argument is really just supply-side economics, and is flawed for the same reason that any other piece of supply-side economics is.
a better idea is to lower the age and teach kids how to use it responsibly, like they do with alcohol in france. it is, after all, not use that should be of concern but abuse. and, the concern should really be in finding ways to gear marijuana policy around tactics to stop them from getting into the harder stuff, which includes alcohol.
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2017/07/21/ontarios-age-of-majority-for-pot-same-as-booze
Saturday, July 22, 2017
the federal government says it wants to keep pot taxes low to fight the black market. that's a necessary but not a sufficient condition. i'm running into more and more medical on the street, and i'm learning that it smells terrible and gives you a headache. as of right now, i wouldn't expect that the government product will compete with the street product because - perhaps counter-intuitively - it seems like the government is spraying it with something.
to me, the bigger question is about who we're taxing. and, cities need to tax - they can't print money. do we want sin taxes that primarily penalize the poor? you would expect a conservative like john tory to push for that. i'd rather tax property, so that we're redistributing wealth from the top down.
so, when i tell the guy to tax property, it's not a 'keep your hands off my stash' type thing. it's a broader social question. sin taxes mostly target poor people, and are consequently deeply regressive. i don't know if john tory still pretends he's a progressive conservative or not, but he should live up to the title and push more for progressive taxation over property - which is the actual power that he has, as mayor and head of city council.
to me, the bigger question is about who we're taxing. and, cities need to tax - they can't print money. do we want sin taxes that primarily penalize the poor? you would expect a conservative like john tory to push for that. i'd rather tax property, so that we're redistributing wealth from the top down.
so, when i tell the guy to tax property, it's not a 'keep your hands off my stash' type thing. it's a broader social question. sin taxes mostly target poor people, and are consequently deeply regressive. i don't know if john tory still pretends he's a progressive conservative or not, but he should live up to the title and push more for progressive taxation over property - which is the actual power that he has, as mayor and head of city council.
democrats stand up for the corporate interests that push for cheap labour. they directly represent capital, and it's bourgeois class (which identifies with "progressive values", including the idea that challenging the status quo of cheap racialized labour is racist).
republicans create a distraction for disaffected workers, which prevents them from revolting against capital and feeds into the progressive narrative. they blame everything on brown people, which divides the working class against itself.
so, they work together, rather than against each other.
there is not a mainstream option that has the interests of workers - migrant or native - in mind.
republicans create a distraction for disaffected workers, which prevents them from revolting against capital and feeds into the progressive narrative. they blame everything on brown people, which divides the working class against itself.
so, they work together, rather than against each other.
there is not a mainstream option that has the interests of workers - migrant or native - in mind.
this is the actual correct analysis.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/opinion/no-crackdown-on-illegal-employers.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/opinion/no-crackdown-on-illegal-employers.html
i've actually been pretty clear that i support amnesty for illegal immigration. it's legal migration that i think needs some stricter boundaries put around it, particularly regarding refugee inflows and temporary workers.
i will repeat that because it's counter-intuitive: i support illegal immigration, but i think we need stricter boundaries around legal migrants.
there's a caveat, though: we need to better enforce labour laws. that's the bit that gets lost in the immigration debate. immigration isn't really about immigration, it's about the labour department refusing to enforce labour laws - or even creating new categories to evade them. if the labour laws were enforced, nobody would get undercut.
this is why i don't key in on illegal immigrants. i took economics 101; i know that an influx of cheap labour is going to decrease wages. but, i know better than to blame the proletariat, who are just looking to survive. if you just enforced the fucking laws already, you wouldn't have this race to the bottom.
of course, it's not a coincidence that the media sets you at the workers rather than capital. and, it's a sad scene to see the lack of class consciousness that allows these workers to go after the comrades they need to organize with, because the real villains - the bankers, the politicians - have brainwashed them all into fighting each other.
if you want to get behind a concrete political position that will actually address the root causes of the problem, it isn't amnesty and it isn't immigration reform - legal or illegal. it's fighting for the enforcement of labour laws. that means making sure that the law says that all workers deserve a minimum wage and then taking down business owners that refuse to pay it out. it also means shutting down state-operated programs that are designed to circumvent labour laws.
it means actual socialism, not this do-gooder christian capitalist progressivism that ultimately just upholds the interests of the upper middle classes.
but, i mean, i've read the grapes of wrath. recently, even. you don't need this fancy gramscian machinery. i get it.
i will repeat that because it's counter-intuitive: i support illegal immigration, but i think we need stricter boundaries around legal migrants.
there's a caveat, though: we need to better enforce labour laws. that's the bit that gets lost in the immigration debate. immigration isn't really about immigration, it's about the labour department refusing to enforce labour laws - or even creating new categories to evade them. if the labour laws were enforced, nobody would get undercut.
this is why i don't key in on illegal immigrants. i took economics 101; i know that an influx of cheap labour is going to decrease wages. but, i know better than to blame the proletariat, who are just looking to survive. if you just enforced the fucking laws already, you wouldn't have this race to the bottom.
of course, it's not a coincidence that the media sets you at the workers rather than capital. and, it's a sad scene to see the lack of class consciousness that allows these workers to go after the comrades they need to organize with, because the real villains - the bankers, the politicians - have brainwashed them all into fighting each other.
if you want to get behind a concrete political position that will actually address the root causes of the problem, it isn't amnesty and it isn't immigration reform - legal or illegal. it's fighting for the enforcement of labour laws. that means making sure that the law says that all workers deserve a minimum wage and then taking down business owners that refuse to pay it out. it also means shutting down state-operated programs that are designed to circumvent labour laws.
it means actual socialism, not this do-gooder christian capitalist progressivism that ultimately just upholds the interests of the upper middle classes.
but, i mean, i've read the grapes of wrath. recently, even. you don't need this fancy gramscian machinery. i get it.
this serbian-russian thing has legs.
ask the archduke.
https://sputniknews.com/military/201707211055753931-russia-serbia-s-300-nato/
ask the archduke.
https://sputniknews.com/military/201707211055753931-russia-serbia-s-300-nato/
i'd never heard this story before.
if you need to go, this is how you do it.
http://thejns.org/doi/10.3171/2015.4.FOCUS15106
if you need to go, this is how you do it.
http://thejns.org/doi/10.3171/2015.4.FOCUS15106
Friday, July 21, 2017
my views on eugenics are actually not what anybody would think without asking me - or, at least, not unless you're actually paying attention, which of course you're not.
try it.
stop.
tell me: what do i think about eugenics?
type it out.
done?
k.
no peeking.
i just need to waste a few more lines.
almost there...
k.
i actually don't think that the premise of bettering the human genome ought to be objectionable. you really shouldn't oppose the idea. but, eugenicists have historically supported methods that do not lead to positive outcomes at all. what you should be criticizing here is not eugenics, but poor science - which has been broadly condemned by actual scientists from the start.
i often argue that the best argument against racism is history, and it usually goes over everybody's heads, because both self-described racists and militant anti-racists tend to reject the same history, for different reasons. they would both reject white slavery by non-whites, for instance. racists would claim it's impossible because it overturns their hierarchy; non-racists would claim it's impossible because.....because it overturns their hierarchy. but, it is historical fact. and, the correct reading of history is that the historical fact of everybody enslaving everybody else demonstrates that nobody maintains superiority for very long. foucauldians should be careful with their arguments, as if it were actually true that white people have enslaved everybody else since the beginning of time then the empirical deduction would be that white people are, in fact, superior - as demonstrated by their total historical dominance. you can't just wave away evidence with an axiom. it isn't true, though. and, the evidence that demonstrates this is what the anti-racist ought to truly seek to advance their view of equality with evidence, rather than declarative ideology.
i can think of two empirical examples of eugenics at work through natural selection.
the first is the extreme selective pressure on jews through the centuries to escape all manners of oppression. and, we should all see that the jews are an intellectually superior race; that is clear from evidence. only the most intelligent managed to survive. this selection acted as a bottleneck.
the second is the british isles, which demonstrates the opposite effect of superiority through increased variation. for, britain has always been one of the most diverse places in the world, with settlers coming from every which way. while this created chaos in the dark ages, it led to a clearly superior society from the renaissance onwards. white supremacists should be more specific, for it is truly the brits, and not the backwards germans or russians, that invented the modern world - and not through insularity but through absorption. it is well understood by geneticists that a healthy genome should seek to maximize variation.
so, a eugenicist should look at these examples and draw two conclusions. the first is that the way to improve the genome is to promote policies that maximize variation, by introducing as much genetic diversity as possible. a eugenicist should seek to cross-breed humans for increased vigour and to generate new mutations, not to insulate and stagnate a genome. the second is that selective pressures will strengthen, rather than weaken, a group and that attempts to cleanse a population of a certain ethnicity are almost certain to backfire.
try it.
stop.
tell me: what do i think about eugenics?
type it out.
done?
k.
no peeking.
i just need to waste a few more lines.
almost there...
k.
i actually don't think that the premise of bettering the human genome ought to be objectionable. you really shouldn't oppose the idea. but, eugenicists have historically supported methods that do not lead to positive outcomes at all. what you should be criticizing here is not eugenics, but poor science - which has been broadly condemned by actual scientists from the start.
i often argue that the best argument against racism is history, and it usually goes over everybody's heads, because both self-described racists and militant anti-racists tend to reject the same history, for different reasons. they would both reject white slavery by non-whites, for instance. racists would claim it's impossible because it overturns their hierarchy; non-racists would claim it's impossible because.....because it overturns their hierarchy. but, it is historical fact. and, the correct reading of history is that the historical fact of everybody enslaving everybody else demonstrates that nobody maintains superiority for very long. foucauldians should be careful with their arguments, as if it were actually true that white people have enslaved everybody else since the beginning of time then the empirical deduction would be that white people are, in fact, superior - as demonstrated by their total historical dominance. you can't just wave away evidence with an axiom. it isn't true, though. and, the evidence that demonstrates this is what the anti-racist ought to truly seek to advance their view of equality with evidence, rather than declarative ideology.
i can think of two empirical examples of eugenics at work through natural selection.
the first is the extreme selective pressure on jews through the centuries to escape all manners of oppression. and, we should all see that the jews are an intellectually superior race; that is clear from evidence. only the most intelligent managed to survive. this selection acted as a bottleneck.
the second is the british isles, which demonstrates the opposite effect of superiority through increased variation. for, britain has always been one of the most diverse places in the world, with settlers coming from every which way. while this created chaos in the dark ages, it led to a clearly superior society from the renaissance onwards. white supremacists should be more specific, for it is truly the brits, and not the backwards germans or russians, that invented the modern world - and not through insularity but through absorption. it is well understood by geneticists that a healthy genome should seek to maximize variation.
so, a eugenicist should look at these examples and draw two conclusions. the first is that the way to improve the genome is to promote policies that maximize variation, by introducing as much genetic diversity as possible. a eugenicist should seek to cross-breed humans for increased vigour and to generate new mutations, not to insulate and stagnate a genome. the second is that selective pressures will strengthen, rather than weaken, a group and that attempts to cleanse a population of a certain ethnicity are almost certain to backfire.
actually, how about this for a stark and obvious truth: the reason there are so few fiscal conservatives left is that fiscal conservatism is irrational in a fiat monetary system, and most people alive today fully understand that.
the only people that don't seem to understand this are the aging old tories in the dying print media who are holding to an obsolete message as they hold to an obsolete medium, and the handful of liberal party insiders that they happen to have sway over. even the conservative party doesn't bother much with fiscal conservatism any more.
if canadians were ever "socially liberal and fiscally conservative", that description met it's end somewhere around the demise of brian mulroney. harper was able to run huge deficits without anybody caring much. and, nobody cares much about trudeau's deficits, either.
....and this isn't some deficit of fiscal understanding that needs to be explained. it's a stark reflection of the reality of monetary policy: deficits do not matter, and most canadians are educated enough to realize it.
aging political strategists will no doubt continue to hammer this issue that nobody cares about. but, voters in the near future will make decisions based mostly on social policy and successful political parties and movements will gear themselves around this truth.
the only people that don't seem to understand this are the aging old tories in the dying print media who are holding to an obsolete message as they hold to an obsolete medium, and the handful of liberal party insiders that they happen to have sway over. even the conservative party doesn't bother much with fiscal conservatism any more.
if canadians were ever "socially liberal and fiscally conservative", that description met it's end somewhere around the demise of brian mulroney. harper was able to run huge deficits without anybody caring much. and, nobody cares much about trudeau's deficits, either.
....and this isn't some deficit of fiscal understanding that needs to be explained. it's a stark reflection of the reality of monetary policy: deficits do not matter, and most canadians are educated enough to realize it.
aging political strategists will no doubt continue to hammer this issue that nobody cares about. but, voters in the near future will make decisions based mostly on social policy and successful political parties and movements will gear themselves around this truth.
Thursday, July 20, 2017
it's a good thing the government is putting off decriminalization to focus on youth safety.
c'mon...
http://www.lfpress.com/2017/07/20/london-police-an-88-year-old-man-is-charged-alongside-another-man-60-with-drug-trafficking-and-possession
c'mon...
http://www.lfpress.com/2017/07/20/london-police-an-88-year-old-man-is-charged-alongside-another-man-60-with-drug-trafficking-and-possession
a good example of kermit getting stressed out and having an episode.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shbgRyColvE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shbgRyColvE
i've seen enough old muppet show episodes to know that "bitter victim" is a better description of the original kermit than "compassionate muppet leader".
kermit was constantly stressed out by the people around him. he tried to make the best of it, and always gave people a second chance. but, they usually just continued to take advantage of him. and, once in a while, he'd get pretty withdrawn and upset.
in a way., he's kind of like a character in a kafka novel: he doesn't know how to deal with the absurdity that's constantly thrown at him, and is consequently constantly on the brink of a total breakdown.
i hope that they don't turn kermit into a smurf or something. that would be very sad.
http://www.thewrap.com/kermit-frog-steve-whitmire-henson-muppets-fired/
kermit was constantly stressed out by the people around him. he tried to make the best of it, and always gave people a second chance. but, they usually just continued to take advantage of him. and, once in a while, he'd get pretty withdrawn and upset.
in a way., he's kind of like a character in a kafka novel: he doesn't know how to deal with the absurdity that's constantly thrown at him, and is consequently constantly on the brink of a total breakdown.
i hope that they don't turn kermit into a smurf or something. that would be very sad.
http://www.thewrap.com/kermit-frog-steve-whitmire-henson-muppets-fired/
this government doesn't care about international law. this is consistent with it's support for bombing syria, for example.
the united nations is dead.
i'd rather they do something about it. but, what this government is doing is following the lead of the americans in just abandoning it.
i would not expect so much as a letter to the un to explain it's position. they just don't care about the treaty at all. and, i would expect this government to continue to flout and ignore international law in other avenues, as well.
this is not your father's liberal party.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3606927/after-blowing-july-1-deadline-canada-seems-likely-to-legalize-pot-while-ignoring-un-treaties/
the united nations is dead.
i'd rather they do something about it. but, what this government is doing is following the lead of the americans in just abandoning it.
i would not expect so much as a letter to the un to explain it's position. they just don't care about the treaty at all. and, i would expect this government to continue to flout and ignore international law in other avenues, as well.
this is not your father's liberal party.
http://globalnews.ca/news/3606927/after-blowing-july-1-deadline-canada-seems-likely-to-legalize-pot-while-ignoring-un-treaties/
i want to stand in solidarity with individual rights and free expression, not with traditionalist conservative cultural ideas.
and, i'm the one that's consistent - you're the one that's stuck in a set of contradictions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/07/18/a-video-of-a-woman-in-a-skirt-sparks-outrage-in-saudi-arabia/?tid=pm_world_pop
and, i'm the one that's consistent - you're the one that's stuck in a set of contradictions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/07/18/a-video-of-a-woman-in-a-skirt-sparks-outrage-in-saudi-arabia/?tid=pm_world_pop
let's see what actually happens.
it's a positive development, if it pans out. but, i'm skeptical.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-ends-covert-cia-program-to-arm-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria-a-move-sought-by-moscow/2017/07/19/b6821a62-6beb-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html
it's a positive development, if it pans out. but, i'm skeptical.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-ends-covert-cia-program-to-arm-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria-a-move-sought-by-moscow/2017/07/19/b6821a62-6beb-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html
MCCAIN: We're not trying to involve ourselves in Mr. Schiavo's private and personal life. We're trying to save a life. This young woman has a loving family, a mother and siblings that want to take care of her for the rest of her life. I would hope that Mr. Schiavo would allow them to do that, without having to go through all this.
the media coverage is kind of priceless, though.
i don't believe in heros. fuck your idols.
....so this one's for you, senator mccain.
from canada.
*smooch*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4pg6Jh94Lo
i don't believe in heros. fuck your idols.
....so this one's for you, senator mccain.
from canada.
*smooch*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4pg6Jh94Lo
this is what nailed my dad a few years ago.
it's a horrible, drawn out, excruciating way to die. he'll need surgeries in between chemo to remove parts of his brain, because it will keep coming back, and which will inevitably leave him mentally retarded. the growth will eventually prevent his brain from sending signals to the rest of his body, shutting down his autonomous nervous system. it literally slowly squeezes the life out of you.
i pleaded with my dad not to fight it, and he excommunicated me for it. he was going to beat the odds, he said. of course, he didn't; he instead spent the last two years of his life in unthinkable agony, planning around a future that all medical knowledge and subsequent deduction told him was impossible.
i would strongly suggest to senator mccain that he should consider assisted suicide.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/john-mccain-brain-cancer-1.4213444
it's a horrible, drawn out, excruciating way to die. he'll need surgeries in between chemo to remove parts of his brain, because it will keep coming back, and which will inevitably leave him mentally retarded. the growth will eventually prevent his brain from sending signals to the rest of his body, shutting down his autonomous nervous system. it literally slowly squeezes the life out of you.
i pleaded with my dad not to fight it, and he excommunicated me for it. he was going to beat the odds, he said. of course, he didn't; he instead spent the last two years of his life in unthinkable agony, planning around a future that all medical knowledge and subsequent deduction told him was impossible.
i would strongly suggest to senator mccain that he should consider assisted suicide.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/john-mccain-brain-cancer-1.4213444
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
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
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
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.
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...
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
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
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
“I offer straight talk, an authentic voice that cuts through the spin.”
...except that you don't, charlie. you're as transparent as a vivenne westwood bodysuit.
the harsh truth is that charlie angus is too reminiscent of stephen harper to be a serious candidate on the left.
i think the smart thing to do is to put nikki ashton in and let her rebuild before she hands it over to somebody else. that means realizing that the party needs to go through another election before it can even understand what it is; it means realizing that the disaster of 2015 was too deep, too catastrophic, to build around.
the next competitive leader of the ndp has not been elected yet.
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/07/18/Charlie-Angus-NDP-Leader/
...except that you don't, charlie. you're as transparent as a vivenne westwood bodysuit.
the harsh truth is that charlie angus is too reminiscent of stephen harper to be a serious candidate on the left.
i think the smart thing to do is to put nikki ashton in and let her rebuild before she hands it over to somebody else. that means realizing that the party needs to go through another election before it can even understand what it is; it means realizing that the disaster of 2015 was too deep, too catastrophic, to build around.
the next competitive leader of the ndp has not been elected yet.
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/07/18/Charlie-Angus-NDP-Leader/
woah. woah. woah...
let's not get cocky, here.
there's still a lot of work to be done. and, trudeau is very clearly on the wrong side of history, here.
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/07/18/Oil-Party-Over-Energy-Firms-Know-It/
let's not get cocky, here.
there's still a lot of work to be done. and, trudeau is very clearly on the wrong side of history, here.
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/07/18/Oil-Party-Over-Energy-Firms-Know-It/
nobody in canada is going to base their vote on omar khadr, and you're a moron if you think anybody will.
https://www.hilltimes.com/2017/07/18/khadr-deal-not-yet-hurting-trudeaus-popularity-campaign-research/113911
https://www.hilltimes.com/2017/07/18/khadr-deal-not-yet-hurting-trudeaus-popularity-campaign-research/113911
i spent the day catching up on sleep, and needed it. but, i got my square monitor this afternoon for $20.
i got tricked a little on the actual size; the model specs told me 17", which i though meant it was about 17x17. it's actually only about 13" across. the monitor that it is replacing is about 15" across, which means it is replacing a 19" monitor. going from 19 to 17 may seem backwards, but i'm actually more concerned about desk space and would not have wanted something much bigger. i've tested it, and the size is acceptable - but i'll revisit later on if i have to. again: owning a spare monitor is not a bad thing.
the way i should look at it is like this: it came with a dvi cable, which i don't have and should not expect in a second purchase. that dvi cable is worth more than $20, anyways. even if i don't use it, this was really a steal.
but i'll reiterate that i'll probably be fine with the slightly smaller screen. i've just increased the resolution a little to compensate. and, the thing is indeed quite sharp and focused at 1280x1074.
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
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
==================
2258.52
i got tricked a little on the actual size; the model specs told me 17", which i though meant it was about 17x17. it's actually only about 13" across. the monitor that it is replacing is about 15" across, which means it is replacing a 19" monitor. going from 19 to 17 may seem backwards, but i'm actually more concerned about desk space and would not have wanted something much bigger. i've tested it, and the size is acceptable - but i'll revisit later on if i have to. again: owning a spare monitor is not a bad thing.
the way i should look at it is like this: it came with a dvi cable, which i don't have and should not expect in a second purchase. that dvi cable is worth more than $20, anyways. even if i don't use it, this was really a steal.
but i'll reiterate that i'll probably be fine with the slightly smaller screen. i've just increased the resolution a little to compensate. and, the thing is indeed quite sharp and focused at 1280x1074.
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
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
==================
2258.52
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)