Ottawa city councillor turned mayoral candidate Clive Doucet has one very small problem. He doesn’t quite get how mailing lists–particularly those advertising his position leading up to a municipal election–are actually supposed to work. Instead of allowing folks to choose to sign up for his advertisements, he chose instead to assume anyone who’s emailed him for any reason must be interested in his platform and has therefore given instead the option of simply being removed. Why is this a problem? Much to Clive’s dismay, not all of us are really all that interested.

I sent one, maybe two emails to councillor Doucet in early 2009, as a direct response to the fact OC Transpo had been dragging the bus strike out and making it nearly as political as some of the crap that came out of the house of commons. The response I got to that email was, pretty much, a politically correct version of “Go screw yourself”, and a reminder that the wicked evil cruel union wouldn’t be pushing the city around if he could help it. I pretty much wrote him off as an ass–even if he was one of the two people who actually did get back to me (the other was a form letter that pretty much said they’d look into it).

That was pretty much the end of my exchange with Ottawa city councillors in general and Doucet in particular. Flash forward to the start of the municipal campaign runs. I get up, go through my morning routine, and the very first email that shows up in my inbox? a newsletter from “Clive Doucet for mayor”. Flash forward again to tonight. I wrote that off as a simple mistake–he doesn’t strike me as very tech savvy, honestly–none of them do, really, but him in particular. Tonight when I got in, I was treated to another newsletter from “Clive Doucet for mayor”. This one, at least, came with an unsubscribe link–the last one didn’t exactly have one.

Hey, Clive? I emailed you a year and a half ago. At most twice. How does that translate to I want to receive advertisements or what have you from you? Most particularly after I no longer live in the city you fully intend to handle I’m sure with the same positively charming touch you demonstrated during our brief conversation. Tell you what. Nobody likes opt-out mailing lists. Particularly from charismatic individuals such as yourself. On the up side, at least you’ve given me a solid reason to avoid emailing you from anything other than a throw-away address from this point. Thanks for that, at least. Now, please, set your spam on fire. I’d appreciate that very much.

This probably should come as no surprise. But, well, it does. A group of parents in Toronto has apparently decided that the wifi network services provided by their kids’ schools is responsible for making them sick. They took the matter to the Ontario government, who’s just now referred it to the federal. Who, just for the record, has already provided information that says they’re safe–as has the group most likely to pull the next health crisis out of a hat, the World Health Organization (WHO). Sadly, I can see at least half a dozen studies coming out within the next few years supporting this. Be careful around your wireless router–it may give you cancer! Or, you know, not. But that doesn’t generate headlines.

Just when you thought it was safe to jump across the border, someone up there’s pointing and laughing. Apparently, Ottawa’s local transit service isn’t the only one who sees a shutdown as the surest path to a contract dispute resolution. Greyhound Canada, also known as those people who will be meeting me in Toronto in order to get me the rest of the way home, is threatening to lock out its drivers on thursday. Assuming I can beat an answer out of people, and that answer is one I like, I’m due to return to the right side of the border on sunday. Houston, we have a problem.

As it stands now, provided they do actually end up locking out, I might be able to get as far as Toronto on the ticket I just purchased. As for getting me past Toronto? Well, that may require some degree of creativity.

Greyhound, you and I have been getting along famously this trip–I didn’t even have to fight with you over the purchase of my ticket for a bloody change. You do not want to start in with this crap now. Really, you don’t. So by all means, don’t. That would be awesome.

Also: What is it with bus services out of Ontario? OC Transpo was talking not too long ago about a lockout at the next contract negotiation, too. Really? Did we learn nothing from the 08-09 bus strike? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Update: Yeah, I thought so. Greyhound, if this happens, please find yourself a nice big fire and die in it. Thanks.

Remember the assessment of doom I was studying for? The one I only had a week to get everything accomplished accessibility/preparation-wise before it was either going to make or break my attempt at further education? Yeah, that one. It broke. Badly. I got word of the proof of such brokenness last night. It was no shocker, though admittedly part of me was kind of hoping for a small miracle. I don’t think it’s very over yet, though–as I mentioned before, I did the test on a week’s notice. The test included algebra, and the extent of its accessibility after a week’s notice consisted of someone reading the questions to me, me trying to remember the equasions, going over most of them in my head and not having much ability to actually check things on my own. The chick doing the reading told me she was surprised at the result I got considering, well, I had virtually not a whole lot more than what I was allowed to bring with me–the cell phone I was planning to use for a calculator. So was I, but given a half-assed shot at doing it on my own I also know I’d of probably done considerably better.

It’s on that thought that I decided, within about 30 seconds of getting word of that from my side of the border last night, that today would be the day heads rolled. So calls were made, and one of the names on the bottom of the denial letter got to have a very pleasant conversation with yours truely. Surprisingly, there was no yelling/screaming/what have you–I didn’t even curse, though I had plenty of them floating around in the back of my mind just in case. I informed her due to the fact it was either do it on a week’s notice or not at all, in spite of the fact I pretty much told the chick when I was speaking to her I didn’t figure anything could be done in a week’s time to make it any easier for her or me, I was pretty much a step behind from the outset. I was even nice enough to explain to the person in question, who gave me the “I’m just a lowly admissions officer” shpeel, that I asked about having it, and/or my entry date into the program, pushed back to allow for the needed time to figure a way through whatever accessibility issues should so happen to crop up.

Since the decision supposedly came from significantly above her pay grade, she told me she’d speak to the one who ended up making the final decision. I got the slight impression she was sort of being noncommittal, but we shall see. So she said she’d see what she could do, I threw the number here at her where she, or the person(s) above her pay grade who made the decision, can reach me, and now we wait. In the meantime, I’m closing in on the deadline for getting things submitted to second career, and I still have absolutely no idea what if anything I’m about to actually be getting done.

So, I may or may not actually have plans for September. I may or may not actually have the backing for said plans in September. And I may or may not have a bit of time left to try and twist a few arms in order to secure both. It’s a very good thing I’m not averse to doing things the hard way. I’ve a sneaking suspicion I’m about to do exactly that at full speed.

Update: I got my phone call. And surprise, more waiting games. This time, I get to wait until next tuesday, at which point someone *else* I’ll need to get a hold of re: the mess this testing thing’s becoming will be in. If I were the overly paranoid type, I might be slightly suspicious of the fact I got that phone call after writing this. If someone’s trying to tell me something, I don’t think I’m getting the message they think I am.

A couple weeks ago, I made mention to the fact Canada’s only real alternative to DSL from Ontario east was taking it to their customers again, in the cleverly sneaky form of decreasing the quality of service provided and maintaining the same pricing structure. At the time, all the techy blogs were up in arms about it–and that was pretty much as far as it got. I suppose Rogers should be congratulated for finally breaking that barrier, what with the Ottawa Sun doing us all a favour and publishing their own take on it. And y’know, reading that doesn’t make me feel any less like kicking Rogers squarely in the face. But I’m still no closer to reconsidering my decision to avoid having anything to do with their internet packages for as long as I have at least one other alternative. On the bright side, at least geeks aren’t the only ones who’re about ready to slap around a Rogers employee–this was posted under the finance/money section of the Sun, for the curious. I’ll take my small moments of satisfaction where I can find them, thank you.

I used to be a Rogers cable subscriber. Yes, even though–kind of like now–I don’t actually watch a whole lot of content strictly on TV. And every so often, something happens to remind me why it is I pretty much won’t be returning to them for anything but the absolutely necessary any time in the near future. This week, it’s their response to the coming availability of netflix streaming in Canada this fall.

They have apparently decided, because God forbid anyone actually want to use their internet connection for more than just the basics, no one actually needs 95 GB/month of bandwidth (it used to be unlimited). So they’re lowering it to about 80 GB/month instead. For the same price. This isn’t an out of character response from Rogers by any means–when they launched their own online video on demand service at the end of last year, they did the same thing with a twist. Rather than lower the bandwidth cap when they launched that service, Rogers decided that, even though it was a service administrated and maintained by them, it would not be exempt from the bandwidth limitations the company imposed on its internet customers–thus making fairly sure people like me kept doing what they were originally doing to get a hold of TV content online, since there wasn’t a whole lot of benefit to doing it any other way.

Hey, Rogers? I kind of suspected I’d be doing the right thing when I told your telemarketting rep earlier to take your internet service and shove it right up your ass. Thanks for proving me right. Now, if you’re done completely screwing your customers, I’m still waiting to have that conversation with you. Not holding my breath, just waiting.

I’ve been talking off and on about doing the college thing. I even went so far as getting set up to apply. Yes, 2 months ago. Things finally got rolling on that prospect around the beginning of June–after finally, after much arm twisting, getting my transcripts back from the highschool of doom. Application was sent off, money I didn’t have was paid, got the standard we’ll get back to you response, yada yada yada. Fast forward to this morning.

I get a letter from the college in my mailbox dated June 29. It’s all official like, and I consider that I might have actually been accepted to the course I’m considering taking. Get it open, have a read, and okay, there goes that idea. Instead, they’re requesting and requiring my presence to take a math assessment before they decide whether or not to accept me into this course. And, in typical Algonquin College fashion, this pre-admission assessment requires I pay them more money I don’t have. Woohoo–I struck gold. On top of that, because I’m not yet done receiving the wicked awesome news, the course I’m looking at starts at the beginning of September. Tuition for courses starting in September is pretty much due on Thursday. The second career program, who’s epic failure of logic I’ve already mocked, wants proof of acceptance before they’ll cough up a red cent towards my confirming my current education. I see a small problem here.

The problems just keep adding up, though. Lady I’m talking to has very little to no info on the course I’ve applied for. Indeed, most/all of the questions I asked her received as a response a simple “I’ll get back to you”. This includes how/when we might discuss the possibility of tweeking the course in such a way that I might actually be able to take it without inflicting a small series of strokes on me, the professors, and the folks over at the disability center–of which there is apparently only… um… two. Most if not all of those answers I am now waiting on depend on her getting in touch with someone involved with that program–who’s availability is, at the moment anyway, questionable at best. And who’s availability will probably be questionable at best for the next while. All this for a course starting in September.

I inquired on a precautionary basis about the possibility of shoving my effective application date back to the winter session, as they appear to offer a start for that particular program in that particular semester as well. And, again, she’ll get back to me after she gets a hold of mister questionable availability. That’s becoming the new catch phrase. And I think I’ll slap the next person who says it.

So, at the end of all that, I’m no farther ahead except I have one more phone number to add to my list and a whole lot of rather off-pissing questionmarks. The only potential bright spot in this one is she’s pegged tomorrow as when she expects to get back to me. At which point we can probably just do this all over again.

I was telling Jess earlier this afternoon it’s a very good thing I haven’t gone anywhere near politics–the burocracy would drive me to drink long before anything else did. As it is, the average joe burocracy that goes with doing just about anything is making me consider going postal. Fortunately I won’t have to debate doing just that for another day or two. In the meantime, I’ll be waiting on someone who’s waiting on someone else so I can tell someone else to stop waiting on me, and then wait on them to get me money so I can eventually, finally, get this whole being educated thing over with. Can it get much more messy?

I’m not exactly sure what my dream job is, but I know what it’s not–any job that largely depends on having to rely on other people. That, if things like this are any indication, would just succeed in pissing me off to no end. And inducing that small series of strokes I’m still trying desperately to avoid.

I was going through Facebook on Jess’s behalf earlier, seeing as her machine would probably die if she tried to use it over there and well, I was here doing other things anyway. Apparently, they have this new security feature put in place–if one can call it a security feature. Apparently, if you’ve not logged in to your account on that computer, you get to jump through a series of convoluted hoops just to get to the point of saying “by the way, yes, I own this account”. One such hoop involved identifying people who were tagged in a specific set of photos. Not a problem if you spend all your time on Facebook, or can see, but a right proper pain in the royal ass for folks who don’t or can’t.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t give you–or doesn’t make readily apparent, anyway–an option to bypass this supposed ID varification check when you’re logging in from a new computer. Which means we got to spend an hour sitting here while she, being the most sighted one of us at an impressive not very, squinted at the photos presented and tried–usually with absolutely no verifiable results–to identify/recognise folks being shown to us. With no way to bypass it and try something else, and a need to wait an hour or so for it to let us get in again, we eventually just decided to say to hell with it. Fortunately, after we managed to get done what needed doing.

Now, I get the whole security thing re: trying to make sure folks are authorised to actually have access to the account. But folks, we’re either totally or nearly totally blind over here. You’re showing us pictures. What in the hell are we supposed to do with them? And, just for the record, I was perfectly authorised to access the account in question–just not authorised according to Facebook. Meanwhile there’s enough of a back door that I could actually do what needed doing without being authorised according to Facebook, thus rendering whatever security checks they were trying to have, um, rather pathetically useless.

Hey, Facebook? I’m not a hacker, honest. I’m just blind. Thank God, really–you didn’t exactly make it difficult. Just irritatingly inconvenient. And I’d still like to know the logic behind flashing random photos for folks to stare at, like they’re gonna remember most of them. I don’t even remember half the things I’ve probably been caught on camera doing and I’ve been accused of having a good memory. So. yes. Please, stop failing. It’s bad for you.

Also: Accessibility? What accessibility? On Facebook? Surely, you Gest. Devs, design smarts. Get you some. It should not take me guessing to change a semi-simple setting. Only you would think otherwise. Again, stop failing. It’s bad for you.

So. Some folks already know, and others are about to. Jessica’s presently on her way up here for a week. She left at 20 minutes to 2 this morning, intent on catching a 6:30 connection. There weren’t enough warm bodies going to toronto, so they had to send another bus. That other bus was supposed to be right behind them. They waited in Buffalo until pretty close to 5:00 or so before finally crossing the border. Which, escentially, means no 6:30 connection for Jessica. Fortunately, that doesn’t put too bad a dent in our plans–we can just leave to pick her up 2 hours later. But now, she’s stuck catching a 9:30 bus to Ottawa from Toronto, which means by the time she gets here, she’ll have been on the go for nearly 16 hours. And that’s assuming we come directly here. Factoring in the fact she’s been awake since yesterday morning, and I probably wouldn’t want to be her body right now. Hopefully, the trip she’s taking at 9:30 doesn’t break. In the meantime, Greyhound, please stop failing. Thanks.

Parents, when a restaurant pushes out commercials advertising x toy with y meal, and you don’t want your kid(s) anywhere near that restaurant whether they’re giving out that specific toy or $150, do you:
1. Tell them no and stick to it, telling them exactly why you’re keeping them as far away from that restaurant as humanly possible
2. Tell them no and that’s it, falling back on the old classic “because I said so”
3. Eventually switch from telling them no to giving in and taking them to that restaurant to shut them up
4. Tell them you’ll take them to that restaurant after they do x for you
5. Organize a consumer group and sue the restaurant for having the nerve to include a toy in that meal

If you said 5, I’d like to introduce you to this group, who’s decided to threaten McDonalds with exactly that.

“McDonald’s marketing has the effect of conscripting America’s children into an unpaid drone army of word-of-mouth marketers, causing them to nag their parents to bring them to McDonald’s,” Stephen Gardner of the Center for Science in the Public Interest wrote to the heads of the chain in a letter announcing the lawsuit.

The centre, which has filed dozens of lawsuits against food companies in recent years, is hoping the publicity and the threat of a lawsuit will force McDonald’s to negotiate with them on the issue. The group announced the lawsuit in the letter to McDonald’s 30 days before filing it with the hope that the company will agree to stop selling the toys before a suit is filed.

Ah, but it’s not really about the toys, says the article. It’s about those nasty marketters who’re forcing those poor kids, who’re then forcing those poor parents to drive to McDonalds so they can stuff their faces with crap that even on their healthiest happy meal isn’t exactly overly healthy.

The fast food company made a pledge in 2007 to advertise only two types of Happy Meals to children younger than 12: one with four Chicken McNuggets, apple dippers with caramel dip and low-fat white milk, or one with a hamburger, apple dippers and milk. They both meet the company-set requirement of less than 600 calories, and no more than 35 per cent of calories from fat, 10 per cent of calories from saturated fat or 35 per cent total sugar by weight.

CSPI argues that even if those Happy Meals appear in advertisements, kids order the unhealthier meals most of the time.

Nice switch, folks. So now it’s a health thing–that just so happens to be focused on whether or not the chain happens to be selling a toy with those particular meals they’re claiming kids shouldn’t be allowed to have. And yet, they still virtually ignore the fact that it’s not up to the restaurant to parent these people’s kids. Oh, wait; no they don’t. They just gloss over it.

Michael Jacobson, executive director of CSPI, says it’s the parents responsibility too, but he equates the toy giveaways to a door to door salesman coming to a family’s house every day and asking to privately speak with the children.

“At some point parents get worn down,” Jacobson says. “They don’t always want to be saying no to their children. We feel like an awful lot of parents would be relieved if this one pressure was removed from them.”

News flash, folks. Sometimes, parenting sucks. I’m not a parent and even I know that. Saying no to your kids is part of life. If parents are under that much pressure over a 2 dollar toy in a 5 dollar happy meal, I’d really hate to see what kind of pressure they’d be under when the kids stop looking for the toy in the happy meal and start looking for the car they just saw on TV instead. Are they going to start suing car manufacturers if they start doing something like giving away free MP3 players when you buy a certain model car? Which could, quite likely, start happening what with certain models now able to actually store music locally on their own physical hard drive. Are they going to start suing Wendy’s, because you can get a soft drink with your meal for the same price as a thing of milk?

You can’t legislate good parenting, folks. And you can’t enforce it in the courts, either. Not if you’re enforcing it against people who aren’t even responsible for the parenting of your kids. End of the day, you chose to drive to McDonalds with your kids. You chose to let them order the burger, fries, coke and whatever else their little heart desires. No one forced you to do it.

I wrote this post back in May about advertisers, their marketting strategy, and whether or not they’re ultimately responsible for you deciding to buy a particular product. As I said in that entry, all the advertiser’s doing is letting you know what’s available. You’re the one deciding whether or not that thing that’s available would actually be useful/beneficial to you. The same can easily be said for this situation as well–McDonalds advertises what it calls a healthier happy meal. Parents know this. If they absolutely must take their kid to McDonalds–and I firmly believe no one’s forcing them to even do that–if they want their kids to eat healthier, it should be their responsibility to make sure they actually do that. I’d argue the first step in that would be to not go to McDonalds, but if the parents are feeling that unavoidable pressure, part of parenting is actually, you know, teaching your kids which, of the current options, is actually better for them. If you can’t seem to do that, then I seriously question whether you should even be parenting. You certainly shouldn’t be suing a restaurant chain because they’re not doing the parenting for you.

If I ever get an opportunity to meet Dalton Mcguinty in person, remind me to drop kick him square in the face. Another casualty of the HST in July? Pembroke’s taxi services, who’re about to stick an additional 8% on their already a little tiny bit insane price tags. Keeping in mind the last time I used a taxi to take a 5-10 minute drive from here to the parents’ place and back it cost me just about twice what it was supposed to. Suffice it to say, I haven’t used one since. And, suffice it to say, I won’t be using one in the immediate future unless I absolutely have to.

Since most people who take taxis do it because they very often can’t drive from here to there on their own and slightly less often have no one else who can, and since a common reason people can’t drive from here to there on their own is because they can’t aford to purchase/keep up payments for/constantly put gas in a vehicle, you’d think Ontario’s–and BC’s, for that matter–government would be trying to make it just a little bit easier for folks who aren’t making twenty thousand plus to make their limitted income last just a little bit longer. That would be a big fat no on that one. Well, the fantasy was nice, anyway.

Ontario’s liberal government: squeezing every cent the feds haven’t already squeezed out of you since way too damn long. Is it election time yet?

Take the act of actually paying your rent as a perfect example. If you happen to live somewhere like in Ottawa, failure to pay the rent on your part resulted in a warning of eviction notice on the part of the landlord a week or two later. It doesn’t matter if you have the money and they didn’t try to take it, or they tried and you didn’t have the money. Compare that to somewhere like Pembroke. Apparently, not taking one’s due rent–even if you have the cheque that says you can do so and even if the money exists–is perfectly fine. I might be inclined to say normal. Of course, equally normal–for the building I live in, anyway–is to not actually get your landlord on the phone to figure out if he does, indeed, intend to cash the said rent cheque, or if it’s just going to sit there collecting dust while he does I’m not sure what. I’ve lived here for almost a year now, and I think I’ve actually gotten him on the phone all of twice.

I handed him 6 months worth of rent cheques in April; he’s already cashed two of them. This month’s rent should have been drawn at the latest by the seventh of the month. As it’s currently ten days later, and I still have more money than I should, I’ve spent a large part of today trying to invent a means of geting him to wake up and answer his phone, short of showing up at his front door with cash in hand. If I can’t drag an answer out of the man by Monday, I’m halfway tempted to do just that.

I’ve been contemplating finding an apartment over here that may or may not be slightly cheaper than what I’m paying right now, in an attempt to stop my bank account from sliding in altogether the wrong direction. At the moment, cheaper or not, at this point I’d settle for a landlord that’s actually available. I’m not a huge fan of talking to someone’s voicemail–particularly voicemail on a cell phone. I’m an even less huge fan of it when we’re talking money owed that has not been collected. I’m significantly less of a huge fan when the owner of that cell phone who’s voicemail I’m forced to talk to is extremely bad at returning phone calls. I get the pleasure of having to contend with all three rolled up into one.

Tiny little note to my ever so pleasant landlord. I’m trying to give you money. Or, rather, I’ve given you permission to go right ahead and take my money. I’ve even given you that permission for the next four months. I have money, which you have not taken. Please to be rectifying this situation quickly, lest you like the idea of irritated blind man showing up at your front door. I can oblige, if you’d prefer. Personally, I’d just prefer you take my money. No love, the irritated blind man.

Also: He clearly loves his voicemail. Just called yet again. Is there a legal method for firing your landlord while still keeping the apartment?

Update: Superintendant dood doesn’t have an answer either. Yay multiple levels of stupid. Now we both get to wait for the guy or guys who actually own(s) the place. Go me.

Uh. What?

The international community should brace for another referendum on Quebec sovereignty that will finally allow the province to become a country, said Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe in a newly released letter that was distributed around the world.

Have they forgotten 1995′s affects already? Quebec decided–albeit barely–not to separate during that thing they called a referendum. Meanwhile the rest of Canada was just kind of hoping they’d make up their mind and stick to it. And Gilles Duceppe wants to reopen that can again? Okay, so I wasn’t old enough to care one way or another in 1995. I am now. And for my part, if it’ll shut up the Bloc Quebecois, by all means–have another referendum. And vote yes. I wouldn’t mind it if half the jobs I was trying to get into lost their bilingualism requirement, personally. Then disband the BQ, and let’s get back to something resembling the functioning of an actual, honest to goodness normal country. Since the opposition won’t let us just make it illegal for a party who’s sole purpose is to break up the country exist federally, I suppose that’s the best we can settle for. Hey, I’m not picky. Oh, by the way. A tiny note to the separatist movement. If you go, you get to take your share of the national debt with you. Have fun.

PS: Really, Gilles? Airing our really, really old, dirty laundry out for all the world to see? Really? I thought you were better than that. Well, okay, I didn’t. But you should be.

I wrote a couple years ago about a tim Hortons suck in which a server, after having the nerve to give a kid a timbit to shut him up, ended up tossed from her job. That’s minor, but still worthy of the WTF award. Not so minor, and just as worthy of this year’s WTF award, say hello to your local Subway, Nova Scotia.

Apparently, there was a pretty heavy apartment fire in Dartmouth that resulted in at least one–possibly more than that–homeless couple. A Subway employee, knowing they pretty much didn’t have a whole lot on them except what they were wearing, made them a sub with the intent of charging it to her employee plan. She was promptly tossed.

Now, I get it–every company’s gotta make top dollar or hell’s gonna freeze or something like that. But, come the hell on. Do a nice thing for someone who just got the royal crap kicked out of them by something beyond their control, why in hell should it cost you your job? I don’t think it would have killed the local Subway to eat the cost of those two things, even if she hadn’t meant to buy it for them. Apparently, they disagreed.

She did get hired somewhere else, fortunately–unlike my Tim Hortons story, not within the same franchise but rather the local Quiznos, so at least the fire victims’ suck didn’t entirely become her suck. But still, you gotta wonder if part of this is why people are more hesitant to help each other out now than they would have been, we’ll say, 30 years ago. If doing a favour for someone who needed it was gonna end up losing me my job, I might be inclined to think twice, personally. Particularly in an economy where jobs are kind of at a premium right now. Whole new meaning to the expression “don’t do me any favours”.

A couple Canadian residents living in the US, upon Canada’s winning of the gold metal against the US during the olympics, took it upon themselves to replace a US flag with a Canadian one in response to a bet they’d entered into in a bar. In response to that, they were promptly arrested and charged. The excuse? The US flag was apparently damaged. So apparently, accidentally banging the flag up a little–if it was even these two who did it at all–is an offense worthy of being taken to court over. And all because of a little olympic fun. Sounds like someone doesn’t take too kindly to losing. Clearly, if you’re proud of your country, you’re not allowed to show it–unless your country is the US. Now that’s patriotism. And folks wonder why it is I shake my head at what goes on down there sometimes.

Suddenly, all the bad parenting stories I’ve heard in my life–yes, including the one about the kid smoking 2 packs a day–don’t seem quite so bad as this. Mom physically abuses her two-year-old, gives him crack for 14 months, nearly kills him, and winds up with 8 years in jail. Meanwhile, the kid’s pretty much, according to the article, not going to amount to a whole lot of anything–he’s pretty well brain fried, among other things.

Excluding the fact she had to have child services called on her before she took the kid to hospital for broken bones they’re saying she caused, what kind of brain dead thinking would make someone believe cocaine would do anything but screw this kid up? Granted it doesn’t look as though she particularly cared one way or another what it did, but still. There are more than a few things wrong with this situation, not the least of which being in the list of charges she was found guilty of, I don’t see attempted murder listed there. Granted I’m not a parent, but geebus criminy. There’s something broken with this system if a situation like that lands someone with a light sentence. All I’ll say is thank the divine power of the week we got rid of 2 for 1. Now at least she’ll be in there for 5 years, as opposed to significantly less. Yes, I already said it. But I’m gonna say it again. This system is broken.

I thought it might be more of an advantage having folks with a hint of tech savvy thinking working on Canada’s answer to copyright legislation demands being tossed at us from the US and other countries. turns out, not so much.

Industry Minister Tony Clement says cracking down on people who break “digital locks” on DVDs and video games brings Canada in line with many countries, despite criticism from Internet experts.

So, let me kind of see if I can’t maybe wrap my head around this one. Copying CD’s to your computer, to then put them on your iPod, is not illegal under the new bill. Purchasing music online to then put on your iPod is not illegal. So long as the said music from either source isn’t protected by DRM. Which escentially means we’re going to start seeing more companies employing DRM in order to prevent folks from copying, now that they have legal backing up here to do so. In spite of the fact DRM only ever actually makes things worse for people who actually *do* want to pay for it. Nice thinking, Tony.

With the appropriate props given to the originating blog, I explained my theory behind tactics like that as it applies to TV. The same can easily be expanded to music. I want to be able to listen to an album I obtain where, when and how I choose. Why? Because if I legally purchased it, it’s legally mine to do with as I see fit. The copyright bill as it stands right now escentially grants record labels the freedom to decide, simply by including DRM on a purchased CD, that by law I’m not allowed to do so. Hence, it’s then off to another illegal realm–I either break the digital lock on the CD, pay for yet another copy to put on my MP3 player, or just to have on my computer, or obtain the album the not so legal way via torrents. Which do you think I’m gonna pick? And I haven’t even addressed the case of an album only ever having maybe 1 or 2 good songs on it, but you’re still required to cough up $20 for the whole thing.

It was no doubt a common practice pre-internet for folks to copy a tape, or part of one, for a friend/family member. Or, for folks to copy songs off the radio onto tape for themselves. I’ve done both, and had both done for me–so have doubtless many others. With the advent of the internet and file sharing, that’s kind of the natural progression of that same practice. Under both the old and new copyright legislation, that practice–in spite of the fact it predates the internet–would still be rendered illegal. I’m pretty sure there are folks in government on both sides of the issue who’ve done the same thing I have. I’d lay odds minister Clement is one of them. I guessed as much already, and questioned whether or not he’d begin to see file sharing as it stands right now as a natural progression of that habbit. Given his viewpoint on this particular bill as it stands right now, my money’s on not likely.

In spite of statements etc up until this week that were shying away from the kind of copyright legislation being challenged in various forms on the other side of the border, Tony Clement still doesn’t quite get it. It’s sad, but I can’t help but wonder if anyone’s surprised. For about thirty seconds, I admit, I was. Now? I’ll be surprised if he switches.

I’ve been trying to find halfway decent ways to save me some money–cutting back on things where possible, changing companies if another company offers me a price significantly lower than what I’m paying now, and most recently, looking for possible places to call my temporary residence that end up being relatively cheaper than that which I’m currently staying in. On top of trying to get me properly educated, but that’s another entry. Since no one around here wants to hire folks in my particular fields, and since no one in Ottawa has gotten around to calling me back yet, saving money until either situation changes is the thing to do. Enter a bit of research being performed on my part over the last couple days.

There’s a possible building I’m looking at moving into. When I called about it on Friday, they didn’t have anything available. I got a call just a few minutes ago that one of the renters there may be looking to sublet the apartment. Over the course of the conversation, the process of 20 questions ended up starting. Around question 19, I was in full WTF mode. He asked if I was working at the moment, which–okay, I get it–you need to be paid. So do I. I told him I was presently on disability, but that I had been working. I didn’t tell him if I have my way I’ll either be working or back in school by this time next year, mostly because that would generally lead to me informing him I’d be moving out just as soon as either situation came to light. Then, he asked my age.

I’m not one to keep my age a secret by any means–I’m 26, if you’re curious–but, er, what does that have to do with my ability or willingness to pay the rent? I don’t get it. If it’s a disability thing, I’m kind of WTFing just a little more–but that, at least, isn’t altogether very surprising. But, still. I have money in hand. I want to give this landlord money. I can keep giving this landlord money until such time as either I go completely and totally broke or he raises his rent beyond my price range. My age has very little if anything to do with that. So, uh, what’s it to him? Anyone have a clue? Can I borrow it?

For the better part of two weeks or so, I’ve been on a hunt for a non-painful way to get hold of my highschool transcripts so I might go back and start on the path to putting my geekness on paper in the form of an actual college-level diploma–something I admittedly should have done when I was messing around in college anyway, rather than the program I ended up picking. It required playing phone tag with the highschool, and then playing phone tag with the college, and now going back to the highschool in question.

The school I went to and graduated from is presently 6 hours away from where I live, give or take. Which escentially means I can’t much walk in with money in hand, and walk out with a copy of my transcripts. Since I’m looking at applying to Algonquin College here in town, and I’d already attended the Ottawa campus, I figured they might still have the transcripts that were submitted to them roughly 7 years ago–my credentials re: highschool haven’t changed since then, so I might as well make it easy on everyone, right? If you agree, then apparently you’re as wrong as I am. Apparently, transcripts are only kept at the college for a year.

So, after two weeks of back and forth with the voicemail of someone who apparently hasn’t been in her office since December, a couple days of back and forth with the voicemail at the college’s reception desk, and finally getting someone with half a brain to call me back, I’m right where I started two weeks ago. Monday, I call the highschool yet again, and probably land in their voicemail, yet again. And we somehow work out an arangement in which they get their money and I get my proof of education in under a month. Hopefully these folks are a tiny bit more familiar with the concept of email than they were when I actually went to this school, but I’m not holding my breath on that one. Thanks, educational administrative folks. I was trying not to do it the easy way. You’re so accommodating. So when do you start working *with* me?

It’s come to my attention, minister Moore, you aren’t seeing any negative reaction to your and other MPS’ decision to not open the books for a public audit. It has also come to my attention that you believe the media’s continuing to throw it out there despite an apparent lack of pressure from the public to knock it off with the being a moron and spill it. Please allow me a moment of your time to set the record straight.

As a member of the public, albeit not of your constituency, I’m very interested in what it is you folks are spending my tax dollars, as few as they are, on throughout the year. And, I’m actually quite surprised a man as otherwise observant as you are seems to entirely skip right by the fact that I, along with probably a majority of folks who’re actually following this development, am pissed. So, let me just reintroduce you to that minor problem. We give you $500 million of our tax dollars per year, for you to blow in on expenses related to your position. And in return, you provide us with–er–what, exactly?

See, when we ask that question, and we very much are, the correct answer to give us is not “trust me, I’m not breaking the law”. If you see that as the appropriate response to our question, then might I submit that when income tax time rolls around next year, that will be the response I will submit to the Canada Revenue Agency in place of my statement re: how much of my money belongs to you. Because, clearly, if the laws of the land don’t apply to those who make them, why do they apply to me? I believe most folks would refer to it as setting an example.

I will end this post with one more request to please yank your head out of your ass and wake it the hell up. Show us the money, or we’ll be more than happy to show you the door. You’re losing what little respect your ill-fated hockey prediction might have bought you.

Sincerely,
One of many tax payers who is currently considering his own internal board of economy.

IsoHunt may or may not be heading towards shutdown after yet another, shall we say, less than brilliant ruling from south of the border. Now, keep in mind, IsoHunt is located in Canada so this ruling probably shouldn’t even apply, but the US has a thing for sticking its legal nose in where it doesn’t belong–ACTD, anyone? My favourite part of the ruling, if only because its mock value is through the roof.

Defendants shall be permanently enjoined from knowingly engaging in any of the following activities in connection with the Isohunt System or any Comparable System:

(a) hosting, indexing, linking to, or otherwise providing access to any Dot-torrent or similar files that correspond, point or lead to any of the Copyrighted Works;

(b) assisting with end-user reproductions or transmissions of any of the Copyrighted Works through a tracker server, or any other server or software that assists users in locating, identifying or obtaining files from other users offering any of the Copyrighted Works for transmission; or

(c) hosting or providing access to any of the Copyrighted Works.

So, escentially, a service not based in the US has been ordered by a US court to instinctively know whether or not something it’s hosting is protected by copyright and not supposed to be up there–ignoring the fact the service is used by people who hold the copyright for various types of media and actually want them to be up there. Brilliant. Because, you know, it just makes me want to go out and get back to doing things the legal way. Except, um, not really. Good job, folks.

If you’re curious to see what else was found wrong with the ruling, not that you probably need to, clicky. Moronic people are moronic. And now, back to whatever it was you were reading before me.

So, remember when I said I just needed to fill out some paperwork and I should be good to go? Apparently not quite. The second career program, in its infinite wisdom, has apparently decided that in order to even possibly maybe be approved for funding, you must already be enrolled in the course of your choosing. Not exactly a tough expectation to meet–if you’re not applying for funding because you can’t invent it on your own. I’m not sure how it works outside of Ontario, but here, just to submit your application off to a college ends up costing you nearly $100. Not much if you’re working a minimum wage job with the same kind of bills I’ve got, but a bit of creativity will be required for anyone who has the pleasure of not having a minimum wage income. Like, for example, just about anyone who qualifies for second career funding.

So now, you go off and pay the non-refundable $95 application fee, apply to your college(s) of choice, get accepted, then wait for the government to decide if they’re going to let you actually be able to aford to take the course in question. Their reason? They want to see exactly what kind of fees they’ll be stuck on the hook for paying while I go through this course. Um, which I thought was the point of me walking into the office with a listing of the applicable fees for the course I’m thinking about taking already.

Logic has clearly gone on vacation this week. Now, I go attempt to spit $95 worth of quarters. Maybe I’ll get lucky and the lottory ticket I bought a couple days ago won’t turn out to be a complete waste of $6. Hey, I can dream, can’t I?

College admins, take note. I’m trying, via Ontario’s second career program, to give you money. I’m actually standing here with my hand out, with untold dollars in said hand. We have just one problem. Your websites do not tell me how much of said untold dollars you want for courses and/or residence fees where applicable. Nor, I’ll add, do you respond to my phone and email requests for same. In fact, if I didn’t know better I’d say you were trying to make me not want to give you money. You’re succeeding.

Congrats to the two colleges that actually volunteered, either via their website or via telephone inquiries, tuition and/or residence information where necessary. Can you please educate some of the others on doing same? I’m looking at you, Seneca. Your email. Read it. Respond to it. Thank you.

I promise, there’s an actual update about, well, me coming eventually. But in the meantime, have a techy rant.

I’ve never really been an overly huge fan of Bell Canada. Usually, I’d default to them only because the alternative–which, at the time, was Rogers–isn’t exactly a whole lot better. I’d heard halfway good things about some of the smaller ISP’s, but couldn’t be bothered to switch–most noteably because they still escentially sold their services over Bell’s equipment. Then they started throttling their customers for doing anything they didn’t agree with–like, for example, downloading a season of a TV show via torrent. Then, because the kicker for the smaller ISP’s was they could start advertising they didn’t do that, Bell decided shortly thereafter to start throttling the smaller ISP’s in much the same way. Meanwhile while this was going on, they were inventing new and creative ways to try and screw me over entirely.

In May of 2008, shortly after word came out about Bell’s throttling of third party ISP’s, I switched my internet service to TekSavvy. While yeah, they’re still borrowing Bell’s services for their own uses, at least my money wasn’t going directly into their pockets this time. And I ended up paying less of it overall. Apparently, Bell’s decided users from third party ISP’s should be paying through the nose for their services, much like they would be through Bell directly. So they’ve opted to introduce a rather ridiculous overage fee on a per-byte basis to the third party ISP’s. It amounts to, according to the linked article, roughly $1.13/gigabyte. And naturally, it has CRTC approval, so prices will probably start going up even while the appeals by the affected ISP’s are being drafted. Way to go, Bell. If we had a third option, you’d get none of my money entirely. Sadly, I’m still not entirely enthusiastic about the alternatives.

And, of course, while I was writing this post, a friendly neighbourhood nag agent from Bell itself thought it might be fun to call me up on a Saturday afternoon and inform me my apparent new phone bill is now approximately $11 higher than it should be for same service. Once again, Bell’s got the wrong idea here. Here’s a random thought. You already lost me on your internet service–largely because your internet service, and the folks who support it, fail–contrary to the regular junkmail I’m still seeing in my mailbox encouraging me to reconsider. Are you trying to lose me on your phone service, too? You’re succeeding, if you are.

Update: And now I read Bell’s doing exactly the same thing to its direct customers. So much for unlimitted plans.

The CRTC noted almost all the individuals who voiced their opinions were “unanimously opposed” to Bell’s application.

And yet, the application was approved anyway. Officially screwed, again.

There’s a huge blow-up in Ottawa over one senator deciding to say exactly what, on this ages old debate, a lot of Canadians–at least the ones I talk to, anyway–are thinking. We can’t even seem to make up our own minds on how we plan to deal with abortions within our own borders–there is, at the moment, no real clear law one way or the other on the subject. And now, Canada’s liberal party’s pushing to have a portion of our tax dollars going towards funding abortions overseas, in countries wherein it’s probably no more clearly legal than it is here. Naturally, the pushers were rightly told by senator Nancy Ruth to “shut the fuck up about it”.

Now, before I get half a dozen people commenting on what a cold-hearted asshole I am, which wouldn’t be too far from the truth, let’s put it into some common sense perspective here. I have no problem whatsoever with the whole abortion thing. I, personally, think it should be up to the person(s) involved as to whether or not they want one. As the diehard pro-abortion folks are so fond of saying, yes, it’s your body. So do with it what you want. But if it’s not medically necessary, don’t expect me to willingly pay for it. And if you’re not a Canadian citizen currently in Canada getting a medically necessary abortion, I’ll be even less willing to see my taxes go up–and they in all likelyhood will–to pay for it.

Put even more simply, abortion is not birth control. If you don’t want to get pregnant, try birth control. Or try not having sex. And if you try birth control and still end up getting pregnant, put the kid up for adoption. There’s a lineup of families probably 5 miles deep, and that’s just in Canada, who are perfectly capable of raising a child and yet perfectly incapable of having one. They will thank you. If you want to lower the amount of poor people in third world countries who end up pregnant, make the various methods of birth control available to them for free and/or cheap. But don’t take money from an already negative balance to put towards someone who decides to get an abortion for the simple fact they don’t want to be pregnant. Most especially if that someone who just simply doesn’t want to be pregnant is in Afghanistan or somewhere equally, well, problematic.

So far as this new idea that a package without abortion is not family planning, yes, please do shut the fuck up about it. Particularly if it involves my tax dollars. I already don’t have very many left.