Being a computer geek, I've often got people asking me to fix their home computers.
Now, I could be surly about it and start wearing a Thinkgeek.com "No, I will not fix your computer." t-shirt, but I'm too nice.
Unfortunately, as any geek knows, working on someone's home computer is a dreadful time sink, and there's no way anyone can possibly pay you enough for your time (especially since professional rates quickly outstrip what any home user is willing to pay).
So, I've finally gotten around to writing a one-page computer tune-up guide. It's intentionally simple, but provides enough information to help people set up some basic things to keep their computers running smoothly.
Now I can claim my legitimate excuses of not enough time and energy, and still politely provide some assistance. I've also written a one-page intro to open source software.
Here they are:
Computer Tune-Up Guide
Introduction to Open Source Software
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Monday, January 16, 2006
Canada poised to elect Conservative government
Uh oh. Here comes Mike Harris again.
The polls are indicating that Canada is poised to elect a Conservative government led by Stephen Harper.
For the rest of you who didn't experience the Harris years in Ontario, here's what you can expect:
That's how Conservative government worked out in Ontario, and Harper is cut from the same cloth as Harris.
If you're a disenfranchised Liberal, vote NDP.
If the NDP were a close second in your riding last time, vote NDP.
If you're considering voting Green, vote NDP.
The best hope we have is to get enough NDP MPs elected to force another minority government, but this time with the NDP holding a real balance of power.
Read the NDP platform. I think you'll find they're worth supporting.
The polls are indicating that Canada is poised to elect a Conservative government led by Stephen Harper.
For the rest of you who didn't experience the Harris years in Ontario, here's what you can expect:
- Harper will keep his promises to cut taxes and do other things.
- Harper will drastically downsize and privatize public services (since he will no longer have the tax revenues to pay for them, and because he believes the government should offer only a very narrow range of core services).
- Harper will offload current federal services onto the provinces and municipalities, which will allow him to lower taxes federally. However, you'll pay even more at the provincial and municipal level.
- Expect to pay user fees for just about everything.
- Once the Conservatives are done their hack and slash, don't expect subsequent governments to be able to put the pieces back together too easily. It's much easier to tear something down than to build it.
That's how Conservative government worked out in Ontario, and Harper is cut from the same cloth as Harris.
If you're a disenfranchised Liberal, vote NDP.
If the NDP were a close second in your riding last time, vote NDP.
If you're considering voting Green, vote NDP.
The best hope we have is to get enough NDP MPs elected to force another minority government, but this time with the NDP holding a real balance of power.
Read the NDP platform. I think you'll find they're worth supporting.
Monday, September 12, 2005
Cutting through the Red Tape of Life
Here's the scenario: you're driving along a desert road in the middle of nowhere. There are no trees, and you can see for ten miles in every direction. There are no other cars. A couple hundred metres ahead, there's a crossroads with a four way Stop sign.
Do you stop? According to the law, you should. But what purpose does it serve in this situation? Stop signs exist to prevent collisions at intersections. In this case, there are clearly no cars. You could stop out of principle that you should always obey the law. But I say you should look both ways, and if there's still no cars for ten miles in either direction, drive right on through.
Am I advocating lawlessness? Certainly not. What I'm pointing out is that there's a difference between immutable laws (such as don't kill people for fun and profit), and laws that are largely regulation. In blowing through that stop sign, you have not committed evil. All you've done is disregarded a regulation that had no meaning in your current situation.
You cut through the red tape of life.
Let's extend the metaphor a bit. Same situation, except that this time you've got a badly wounded man in your back seat. He's a good man, worthy of being saved. He's bleeding out quickly, and you've got to get him to the hospital that's a kilometre past the stop sign. If you stop, he dies for certain. Do you adhere to the law? In this case, I'd say that in stopping, you're committing evil. You've abdicated independent thought in favour of mindless adherence to meaningless rules, and by doing so you've let a good man die.
Let's extend it a little bit more. Same situation: desert, wounded man, except this time there's a car coming towards the intersection. I'll make it more interesting: you've got a stop sign, but the other car doesn't. Do you stop, or step on the gas, hold down the horn, and try to make it through? You're now gambling with the other driver's life too. You'll have to gauge the speed and distance, and weigh the chances of yourself, the other driver, and the wounded man dying in a crash, against the certainty of the wounded man dying if you stop. It's going to be a close call in any case, so there isn't really a correct answer to this situation.
So what was the point of this exercise? Merely to demonstrate that we can't rely on other people telling us that the law says to do this or do that. Comparatively few of our laws have anything to do with fundamental issues of good and evil; most of them are simply regulations. They're red tape, muddying the waters so many people can't see for themselves what's right and what's wrong.
You need to go through life with your eyes open, and take direction from your internal moral compass. In everyday situations, ask yourself if you're doing what's right, or if you're just rigidly following regulations and procedures that might not even apply to the situation. If you're not consciously doing what's right, then you're not free. You have no independence.
Be aware of your actions and their consequences. Think for yourself. Free your mind, and start living your life.
Do you stop? According to the law, you should. But what purpose does it serve in this situation? Stop signs exist to prevent collisions at intersections. In this case, there are clearly no cars. You could stop out of principle that you should always obey the law. But I say you should look both ways, and if there's still no cars for ten miles in either direction, drive right on through.
Am I advocating lawlessness? Certainly not. What I'm pointing out is that there's a difference between immutable laws (such as don't kill people for fun and profit), and laws that are largely regulation. In blowing through that stop sign, you have not committed evil. All you've done is disregarded a regulation that had no meaning in your current situation.
You cut through the red tape of life.
Let's extend the metaphor a bit. Same situation, except that this time you've got a badly wounded man in your back seat. He's a good man, worthy of being saved. He's bleeding out quickly, and you've got to get him to the hospital that's a kilometre past the stop sign. If you stop, he dies for certain. Do you adhere to the law? In this case, I'd say that in stopping, you're committing evil. You've abdicated independent thought in favour of mindless adherence to meaningless rules, and by doing so you've let a good man die.
Let's extend it a little bit more. Same situation: desert, wounded man, except this time there's a car coming towards the intersection. I'll make it more interesting: you've got a stop sign, but the other car doesn't. Do you stop, or step on the gas, hold down the horn, and try to make it through? You're now gambling with the other driver's life too. You'll have to gauge the speed and distance, and weigh the chances of yourself, the other driver, and the wounded man dying in a crash, against the certainty of the wounded man dying if you stop. It's going to be a close call in any case, so there isn't really a correct answer to this situation.
So what was the point of this exercise? Merely to demonstrate that we can't rely on other people telling us that the law says to do this or do that. Comparatively few of our laws have anything to do with fundamental issues of good and evil; most of them are simply regulations. They're red tape, muddying the waters so many people can't see for themselves what's right and what's wrong.
You need to go through life with your eyes open, and take direction from your internal moral compass. In everyday situations, ask yourself if you're doing what's right, or if you're just rigidly following regulations and procedures that might not even apply to the situation. If you're not consciously doing what's right, then you're not free. You have no independence.
Be aware of your actions and their consequences. Think for yourself. Free your mind, and start living your life.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
On Paranoia, and the Murder of Jean Charles de Menezes
Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian electrician legally living and working in Britain, was recently murdered by London police.
The Globe and Mail recently reported that:
Witnesses said the Brazilian was wearing a heavy, padded coat when plainclothes police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground and shot him in the head and torso.
"They pushed him onto the floor and unloaded five shots into him," witness Mark Whitby told the British Broadcasting Corp. "He looked like a cornered fox. He looked petrified."
Now, pardon me if it's not politically correct to point this out, but if you have a man pinned to the ground, and then you shoot him in the head, that is murder. I don't care what you may say about terrorists and security. Summary execution of a subdued, prone prisoner is murder, plain and simple.
This incident, alas, clearly demonstrates that the terrorists won this round by creating an atmosphere of hysteria and paranoia.
Instead of responding with random bag searches and tossing out any real concept of civil rights and freedom, the UK government should have doubled the number of troops assigned to anti-terrorist activities abroad. When London was attacked again, they should have doubled the number of troops yet again.
Fomenting hysteria and paranoia is what terrorism's all about (terror, after all, being the root word of terrorism). When police summarily murder pedestrians as a result of paranoia, the terrorists have won.
When we blithely allow, or even encourage, politicians to strip us of our civil rights, the terrorists have scored a major victory. Witness how quickly and easily our rights have been eroded since 9/11/01. How many hundreds of years did it take to achieve those rights? How long do you think it will take to regain them?
In the end, are you any safer after losing so many rights? No, not at all. Most "security" is just smoke and mirrors. So, what's the net effect of all the draconian security measures and sweeping police powers we've blindly accepted since 9/11? Well, we've dramatically increased our likelihood of being unjustly (and without due process) imprisoned, beaten, tortured, or outright murdered by the same people who a few short years ago we could confidently have said were there to protect us. Legal recourse? None. We gave that up in the name of security.
Without any checks and balances, the legions upon legions of people employed to protect us have become a greater threat to us than any terrorist ever dreamt of.
Perhaps you disagree. Maybe you don't find overzealous omnipresent security to be unnerving. Maybe all the "security" makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
Well, let's ask Jean Charles de Menezes his opinion. Oh right, he's dead. Unaccountably murdered in the name of security.
"Those who suppress freedom always do so in the name of law and order."
- John V. Lindsay
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
The Globe and Mail recently reported that:
Witnesses said the Brazilian was wearing a heavy, padded coat when plainclothes police chased him into a subway car, pinned him to the ground and shot him in the head and torso.
"They pushed him onto the floor and unloaded five shots into him," witness Mark Whitby told the British Broadcasting Corp. "He looked like a cornered fox. He looked petrified."
Now, pardon me if it's not politically correct to point this out, but if you have a man pinned to the ground, and then you shoot him in the head, that is murder. I don't care what you may say about terrorists and security. Summary execution of a subdued, prone prisoner is murder, plain and simple.
This incident, alas, clearly demonstrates that the terrorists won this round by creating an atmosphere of hysteria and paranoia.
Instead of responding with random bag searches and tossing out any real concept of civil rights and freedom, the UK government should have doubled the number of troops assigned to anti-terrorist activities abroad. When London was attacked again, they should have doubled the number of troops yet again.
Fomenting hysteria and paranoia is what terrorism's all about (terror, after all, being the root word of terrorism). When police summarily murder pedestrians as a result of paranoia, the terrorists have won.
When we blithely allow, or even encourage, politicians to strip us of our civil rights, the terrorists have scored a major victory. Witness how quickly and easily our rights have been eroded since 9/11/01. How many hundreds of years did it take to achieve those rights? How long do you think it will take to regain them?
In the end, are you any safer after losing so many rights? No, not at all. Most "security" is just smoke and mirrors. So, what's the net effect of all the draconian security measures and sweeping police powers we've blindly accepted since 9/11? Well, we've dramatically increased our likelihood of being unjustly (and without due process) imprisoned, beaten, tortured, or outright murdered by the same people who a few short years ago we could confidently have said were there to protect us. Legal recourse? None. We gave that up in the name of security.
Without any checks and balances, the legions upon legions of people employed to protect us have become a greater threat to us than any terrorist ever dreamt of.
Perhaps you disagree. Maybe you don't find overzealous omnipresent security to be unnerving. Maybe all the "security" makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
Well, let's ask Jean Charles de Menezes his opinion. Oh right, he's dead. Unaccountably murdered in the name of security.
"Those who suppress freedom always do so in the name of law and order."
- John V. Lindsay
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
Monday, July 18, 2005
Why Harry Potter isn't getting kids Hooked on Reading
Harry Potter has created a tremendous surge of interest in reading. Children read Harry Potter voraciously; they even read the books over and over again. However, many children aren't moving on to enthusiastically devour their local bookstore or school library. They get stuck on Harry, and nothing else. When they're done with Harry, they go back to TV and video games, and complain that books are too long or difficult to read (despite having read hundreds of pages of Harry).
Why is this? Why doesn't reading Harry Potter translate into a general love of reading? Is Harry Potter so spectacularly head and shoulders above the rest of the literary pack? Well, not really. Harry Potter is well written and well crafted, but that's simply on par with most other fantasy fiction. I think the difference is the marketing.
Harry Potter is a marketing phenomenon, and in our herd-like trend-following jump-on-the-latest-bandwagon society, this creates an unusual situation. Children who've never seen the inside of a bookstore before, let alone a public library, are dressed up in costumes and carted off to the bookstore with the flashiest launch party for each Harry Potter. Since the books are good, and because of the collective pressure to have read Harry, the children read the books. They enjoy them tremendously, but they don't take their newfound love of reading any farther than Harry.
You see, unless a movie is made, there isn't really any marketing for books other than Harry Potter. The Lord of the Rings is now a great movie trilogy, and lo and behold, kids are reading Lord of the Rings. But they're not reading The Hobbit. Since the only thing they know about books is the advertising for Harry Potter, children don't realize that when they're done with Harry, more entertainment awaits them in their local bookstore or library.
The problem isn't that there aren't good books out there. I have hundreds of great adventures on the shelves lining the walls of my home. The problem is that our society doesn't encourage a culture of reading in the home. Right from the time they're toddlers, instead of reading to their children, parents are dropping them in front of the TV to watch the latest DVD. In our schools, the curriculum and demands on teachers are so heavy that many teachers don't feel they have the time to read long books out loud to their classes, or to design lessons around good literature. Of course, in school, most reading is considered "work". Teachers are pressured to constantly assess, measure, evaluate; so children are too seldom encouraged to read for the simple pleasure of reading. Giving children a love of reading is best done at home.
How do we create a culture of reading, so that kids know where to go beyond Harry? It's easier than you think. Read out loud to your children from the very beginning. Read them interesting books, not poorly-written drivel that will turn their brains to mush. Keep a dictionary at hand, and when they don't know a word, tell them to look it up. Long words are interesting. They're the meat of our language. The short high-frequency words emphasized in schools are the mere bones.
Take your children to the public library on a regular basis. Make it an adventure. Make it a family tradition they look forward to each week. Regular trips to the library (and the bakery next door) with my Mom are something I remember fondly from childhood. The library was my second home back then, and now that I'm an adult, my home has become a library. Speaking of adults, you also need to practice what you preach. Children won't become avid readers if they never see anyone at home reading a book. You have to model behaviour for them. If they see you reading on a regular basis, if they can talk about books with you, then they'll become readers. Simple as that.
Some reading resources:
teacher.markcarter.info
Helping your child to read
Why is this? Why doesn't reading Harry Potter translate into a general love of reading? Is Harry Potter so spectacularly head and shoulders above the rest of the literary pack? Well, not really. Harry Potter is well written and well crafted, but that's simply on par with most other fantasy fiction. I think the difference is the marketing.
Harry Potter is a marketing phenomenon, and in our herd-like trend-following jump-on-the-latest-bandwagon society, this creates an unusual situation. Children who've never seen the inside of a bookstore before, let alone a public library, are dressed up in costumes and carted off to the bookstore with the flashiest launch party for each Harry Potter. Since the books are good, and because of the collective pressure to have read Harry, the children read the books. They enjoy them tremendously, but they don't take their newfound love of reading any farther than Harry.
You see, unless a movie is made, there isn't really any marketing for books other than Harry Potter. The Lord of the Rings is now a great movie trilogy, and lo and behold, kids are reading Lord of the Rings. But they're not reading The Hobbit. Since the only thing they know about books is the advertising for Harry Potter, children don't realize that when they're done with Harry, more entertainment awaits them in their local bookstore or library.
The problem isn't that there aren't good books out there. I have hundreds of great adventures on the shelves lining the walls of my home. The problem is that our society doesn't encourage a culture of reading in the home. Right from the time they're toddlers, instead of reading to their children, parents are dropping them in front of the TV to watch the latest DVD. In our schools, the curriculum and demands on teachers are so heavy that many teachers don't feel they have the time to read long books out loud to their classes, or to design lessons around good literature. Of course, in school, most reading is considered "work". Teachers are pressured to constantly assess, measure, evaluate; so children are too seldom encouraged to read for the simple pleasure of reading. Giving children a love of reading is best done at home.
How do we create a culture of reading, so that kids know where to go beyond Harry? It's easier than you think. Read out loud to your children from the very beginning. Read them interesting books, not poorly-written drivel that will turn their brains to mush. Keep a dictionary at hand, and when they don't know a word, tell them to look it up. Long words are interesting. They're the meat of our language. The short high-frequency words emphasized in schools are the mere bones.
Take your children to the public library on a regular basis. Make it an adventure. Make it a family tradition they look forward to each week. Regular trips to the library (and the bakery next door) with my Mom are something I remember fondly from childhood. The library was my second home back then, and now that I'm an adult, my home has become a library. Speaking of adults, you also need to practice what you preach. Children won't become avid readers if they never see anyone at home reading a book. You have to model behaviour for them. If they see you reading on a regular basis, if they can talk about books with you, then they'll become readers. Simple as that.
Some reading resources:
teacher.markcarter.info
Helping your child to read
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
