non sequitur: a legal fiction

Bar School! first week down, loads to go

2011-08-21T18:09:00.001-04:00

The first week of Bar School has gone down without a hitch. Sorta. I'm now over 200 pages behind in my reading, after only 3 days of school. How they expect us to read 100+ pages a day is beyond me. And that's not counting the laws that all must be read.

Mandatory reading for Day 3: Civil Code of Quebec. The whole thing?

* * *

Bar School is a strange place where they expect students to be perfectly independent. The first test of your independence, of course, is finding out when your first day of school is. Nobody will tell you that.

You'll get your placement test results somewhere in May, then radio silence until the end of July, when you'll receive a letter telling you to pick up your textbooks (which you'll have to buy, even if you know someone who might have them already, or have seen them on sale at your local Salvation Army store).

Of course the calendar was somewhere on their website. I didn't find it. I had to get a friend to send me the link.

I guess that's your first test. If you can't find it, or don't know anyone who can help you, you're obviously not good enough to pass the bar. Don't even bother showing up for class. Not that you could. You haven't found the calendar.

Coding is easy

2010-11-05T01:05:00.000-04:00

While most of my friends, at least those who are still in school, are reeling after the midterm exams period, I'm on a break of sorts from work.

We've just launched our first batch, which was Literary Fiction, and are slowly getting started with our second batch: Crime Fiction! Since I'm managing production, these are slow times for me, as recording hasn't really started yet.

It's all good, though, as I'm getting a bit of extra time to poke at the new LibriVox forums. Our sysadmin has been hard at work updating the forum software, but it meant we're back to the default forum theme.

I've proposed to take a look at the codes and improve the forum's looks, although I only marginally know any CSS.

Well, edits have gone through, and I haven't broken anything substantial (yet).

I daresay, when poking at a working setup, where everything works right out of the box, edits aren't that hard. I mean, I've got a general idea of how CSS works; there's some stuff, then squiggly brackets, then there's the stuff you want to change and how you want to change it. Then you just have to remember the semicolon at the end, and you're pretty much set. Increase the font here, change some colours there, voila!

Of course it got a bit trickier when I realized that the CSS wasn't the only thing I had to poke at. Most of the elements were in the template files, and I wanted to move elements around, which involved getting my hands dirty and messing with actual code. That was a bit of a mess, since the template files were an eclectic mix of HTML, Styles, PHP and probably Javascript.

Luckily these things all come in chunks, so all I had to do was find the right chunk to move around.

In the end, not too hard, but lots of finger crossing and hoping I didn't mess things up.

oh data...

2010-10-30T15:59:00.000-04:00

Quick question to begin with: Provincial healthcare costs per capita; More is better, or less is better?

I'll give you a few seconds to think about it.

.

..

...

Well, of course there's no easy answer to that, but it would seem that the answer depends on where you're from.

An article in the free 24H paper yesterday proudly claims Québec champion des économies en santé (Quebec champion of healthcare savings). Quoting numbers from the latest study by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, the article highlights the fact that Quebec was the canadian province who spent the least per capita in healthcare, which is a sign of effective cost control.

Malgré les critiques qui lui sont régulièrement adressées, le système de santé québécois serait l’un des plus performants au pays en matière de contrôle des dépenses. (In spite of regular criticisms, the healthcare system in Quebec is one of the best-perfoming ones in the country in terms of expenditure control.)

That sounds pretty good right? With all the fuss about healthcare costs skyrocketing, it's good news that the govt can keep the spending low, right?

Well, apparently not.

The other side of the medal is brought to you by the Metro newspaper (the other newsprint distributed for free in the metro), who taps into the Canadian Press feed, and ran the following story: Dépenses pour la santé: le Québec en fin de liste (Healthcare spendings: Quebec at the bottom of the list). According to the Canadian Press, Quebec lags behind the other provinces in terms of healthcare expenditures.

Which is obviously a bad thing. Cuz if you're lagging behind, well, you've got some catching up to do. And who do you have to catch up with? Well, Alberta of course! Who spends $6266 per capita.

According to the CP article, Quebec lags behind, and it's a bad thing, because it's bad to spend less money than everyone else on health care. It's bad, because...

Well, I don't know why. Why is it bad, again? Do tell me, O CP article.

In case you haven't figured out by now, the CP article does not tell us why low expenditures is bad. And I'm not too impressed with their reporting.

Sure, one can interpret data one way or the other, but saying Quebec was "lagging behind" just stuck me as the typical Quebec bashing that so many Qcers complain about. It implies something negative about Quebec, yet doesn't offer anything to back it up.

Book Reviews: Blink by Gladwell, and Predictably Irrational by Ariely

2010-10-24T18:45:00.000-04:00

At least one good consequence of my harrowing journey through the bookstore was that I got to enjoy two books i've been meaning to read for a while.

(BTW, I actually had to go back to the bookstore for an even more harrowing journey, looking for a book for a friend of mine. Went through 3 bookstores downtown before I found something half-decent. But that's another story altogether, and not a particularly interesting at that. )

I eagerly started reading Predictably Irrational, as I knew it to be full of all kinds of interesting info.

Well, long story short, it was pretty disappointing.

See, Dan Ariely, the author, has some bits up on his website, and the bits are pretty interesting. The downside, of course, is that these bits are probably the only interesting parts of the book.

The first chapter was pretty good, and offered an unconventional look into people's behavior. There were some great insights into how we're being subconsciously manipulated by marketing and stuff that's not even related to marketing.

The book is pretty good until chapter 3, after which it gets really boring.

You know, when you're writing essays for school, the teacher always said Put the weak stuff in the middle? Well, it's the case here. Great start, dismal middle, and I didn't even finish the book yet, i was so bored.

Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell, on the other hand, is a great book, and I loved every word of it. He's got some excerpts up on his site.

Gladwell's writing is a delightful mix of storytelling and journalism, and invites you along a journey through our subconscious minds.

I like this book because it's unpretentious. It tells a story without trying to artificially impose some kind of point. There's some charm to that. At the end of the journey, you feel like you know so much more, and you also feel like you have all the freedom to be able to do something with what you know. At the same time, if you decide to not do anything, that's perfectly fine too.

2010-10-24T15:51:00.000-04:00

Evey once in a while, I imagine what my ideal job would be.

For a while, I've been volunteering for Librivox and have recorded a number of books. Then I was made MC, and was helping others record books.

LibriVox is awesome, and all kinds of fun. I was thinking it would be great if I could get paid to do something like that. That would be the best job ever!

Well, strange how things work out sometimes.

A few months ago, Hugh asked me to join his new project: iambik.

Iambik is an audiobook publishing platform that allows readers and publishers to collaborate and produce audiobooks at low cost, while allowing everyone to share in the sales revenues.

I'm responsible for book management, and the job is very similar to LibriVox admin. I's a great work and learning experience, and perfect for getting my mind out of the law stuff i'd been doing for the past 3 years.

Iambik has launched just last week, with a great selection of literary fiction.

2010-10-21T20:25:00.000-04:00

So I was exploring the possibility of getting one of those e-readers, despite being historically quite against them. Not me, I said. I'm quite fond of my dead-tree books. There's something you have with paper books that you'll never quite have with electronic devices.

Also, e-readers, they're plain evil. I mean, seriously, when I buy a book, I wanna buy a book, not a limited license to store and display the book on a mobile device for an unspecified amount of time. Also, don't spy on me, thank you.

I'll probably be ordering a kindle some time next week, and get started on testing out case designs.

I hate bookstores

2010-09-22T22:56:00.000-04:00

I did something today I haven't done in a long while. It's usually the kind of thing I reserve for the kinds of Stephen Fry.

I went to a bookstore.

And I was unimpressed.

Last time I went to a bookstore, it was to pick up The Ode Less Traveled, by Stephen Fry. Great book; I learned a lot. Still haven't finished it, though. But I suppose it's not something one should rush through. That was years ago.

This time, I was aiming for a couple of books that were on my mind for a while, and which I should've read long, long ago: Predictably Irrational, by Dan Ariely, and Malcolm Gladwell's Blink.

So I went into the bookstore. And then I remembered why I don't go to bookstores. I like books, mind you. I like reading. I like libraries. Bookstores, not so much.

First thing I do when entering the bookstore is the interminable trek through all the rubbish they're trying to sell you in lieu of books: mugs, notebooks, diaries, candles, teas, and a whole truckload of useless overpriced shit. No, I don't want a $5 candle. No, I don't want a $12 notebook with 50 pages in it. Even if it's hardcover. And that image on the cover is Public Domain, so you've got no excuse. And if I want crockery, I'll go to a crockery store, thank you.

The journey through tableware led me to the second floor, right into the café. Mind you, this is where the books are supposed to be. And if you like your books like I do mine, then coffee is probably the very last thing you want near your books. I don't know who's the genius who came up with the idea of implanting a café in the middle of a bookstore. I want to buy books, darnit, not a lifestyle!

At this point I've pretty much discovered where they stash their books. I just have to find the ones relevant to my interest. Left: Fiction. Ahead: Self-help. Right: Business (which in my book should be under that Self-help section).

Now here's a question for you folks: Where am I supposed to find my books? Is there any kind of system that will actually tell me, Yes, your book will be in this section of the bookstore, bookshelf X, shelf B.

Well, no. The bookstore people actually expect me to go around trying to determine where my book goes. I figure, I'm a big girl, I know what my book's about, I can look for it myself, right?

Predictably Irrational, I know what that's about. Behaviour and stuff like that. Choices. Psychology then? (Of course Psychology is under Self-Help, so I get to look like a lost tween in need of relationship advice while looking for my book, but that's another rant altogether.)

Choices! There's a whole shelf on Choices. No book I'm looking for. Ok, fine. Business then? (Don't even get me started on why "Programming" is under the big Business sign. I don't think any sense went into planning the floor.) Marketing. Book sounds like it might be under Marketing.

Oh look, more books on choices, and one book from the same author of that book on choices that was in the Choices section. Probably the sequel. Still, no luck.

At this point, I'm getting reasonably annoyed, and I guess I really can't find my way in a bookstore. The computer was no help. Told me my book was in the Business - General section. I didn't even know there _was_ a Business - General section. The computer also told me Blink was in Culture and Society or something like that.

Lemme geddat straight. A book about how people make choices is in Business. A book about how people make judgments is in Culture? Why can't the friggin bookstore be Dewey-coded?

Anyway. I finally decided that such extreme sports were not for me, poached a store clerk to get my book, went to pay, got stuck at checkout because there were only 2 cashiers, 8 people in line, and the two customers at the cash were ordering books or doing what customers do that takes forever.

I just wanted to buy a book, dammit!

French ISPs resist three-strike law, but not because of users' rights

2010-09-04T19:13:00.000-04:00

French ISPs are at odds with the government over the recently-enacted three-strike law. That might be considered a good thing, except that the ISPs are not resisting because they want to protect their users' rights. Nope.

They're resisting because they want money.

Enforcing the three-strikes law would put a significant burden on the ISPs, as they would have to make thousands of look-ups per month, so they're considering boycotting the law. Until they get paid for all that work, that is.

So shell out the money, and they'll serve up their users on a silver plate.

Excuse me?

2010-09-04T16:40:00.001-04:00

WHAT?

Harper Government Tries to Pass Bill to Send Flight data to US govt.

2010-09-04T16:01:00.000-04:00

Back in high school I had a teacher who made it quite clear that Wikipedia should NEVER be cited as a source in ANY paper we were to hand in. Any other website was fair game, be it Encarta (remember THAT??), Britannica, or some random website a 12-year-old created.

Granted, that teacher's stance might have been hard, but it nevertheless taught us a valuable lesson: don't cite Wikipedia.

Especially when he's not the only one who doesn't appreciate it. A Philippino judge recently ruled against the government in a case where the govt relied on Wikipedia to support their case.

2010-09-04T15:49:00.000-04:00

Nowadays, we always have to be careful about what we say, because we never know what might come back and haunt us. All you need is someone with a bit too much time on their hands and a slightly warped sense of righteousness, and you might find yourself defending your ass in court.

The EFF just blogged about the case of some guy suing Craigslist for defamation because of some other person's post. Craigslist removed the posts, but not quick enough, apparently.

The lawsuit rests on the fact that Craigslist supposedly told the guy that they'll "take care of it", which, it would seem, implies that Craigslist promised the guy that nothing bad about him will ever get posted ever ever until the end of time.

We'll have to see what the trial judge says, but in the meantime, be careful what you tell other people.

Keep it in the family

2010-08-27T23:06:00.000-04:00

National Geographic has an interesting article about why royal families all over the world would marry their close relatives.

Worth a read, if only for the following line:

Bingham learned that even after King Kamehameha III of Hawaii accepted Christian rule, he slept for several years with his sister, Princess Nahi'ena'ena—pleasing their elders but disturbing the missionaries.

2010-08-26T13:45:00.000-04:00

Nowadays, I get my news from the darndest places.

Here I was, nonchalantly browsing through the LOLs and FAILs when I come upon a piece on Failbook on how You can't block Mark Zuckerberg.

According to Failblog, Facebook's response ran thus:

This error isn’t specific to any one account. It’s generated when a person has been blocked a certain large number of times.

OK, lemme geddat straight.

They're saying that the system is set up in such a way that if you annoy enough people to the point that they block you, at a certain point, you become so obnoxious that nobody can block you anymore.

Now how does THAT make any sense?

2010-06-17T13:03:00.000-04:00

Saw Prince of Persia the other day. Some story about a dude convincing people to invade a state after said dude claimed that state had dangerous and threatening weapons, so that the dude can take over that state and drill down the ground to access an immense source of power.

Movie was not so bad.

I learnt that having a movie ticket thrown in your face, then having the ticket-thrower come back 10 mins later, tail between legs, looking for the thrown ticket so he could ask for a refund, leaves you with a pretty satisfying feeling.

How bad is IP?

2010-06-12T12:22:00.000-04:00

Mike Masnick over at Techdirt has an article discussing David Koepsell's argument that intellectual property is unethical.

The question is the following one:

[I]f it's true that by doing away with the idea of intellectual property, you create greater opportunities for everyone, could you make the argument that intellectual property laws themselves are immoral or unethical in that they are actually what makes everyone worse off?

Thinking cases where individuals or corporations have abused of IP law, my initial reaction was that the argument made sense. Back when I took IP Law, the prof gave a few reasons why there should be IP protection, none of which made any sense. The main argument was that protection leads to more incentive for creation. If this premise is shown to be wrong, then wouldn't it make sense to say that the entire concept of intellectual property is wrong too?

If you ever get abducted by aliens...

2010-05-08T02:09:00.001-04:00

Bring a pen, and make sure you learn some basic maths.

Let's say... You're the first human to make contact (large image)

Open letter against UK IP bill - From Youtube

2010-05-03T16:34:00.003-04:00

Always train your employees

2010-04-21T00:27:00.000-04:00

Sometimes, you assume that people know certain things that are held universally to be true. After all, there is a reason people say "Don't saw off the branch you're sitting on". No?

Well, turns out, it's a fairly common mistake people make.

Peter Aspinall, 64, had been asked to prune a sycamore tree in the grounds of a hotel, but instead of leaning his ladder against the trunk he placed it against the branch he was hacking down. [...]
Now Mr Aspinall, who had worked at the Egerton House Hotel near Bolton, Lancashire, for just two weeks, is suing them for compensation. (Source)

You see, one must not think that the placement of a ladder is self-evident. There is in fact a lot of technique involved, and pruning must not be left to the untrained and/or inexperienced. For all of you whose initial reaction was a slight chuckle of disbelief, the rest of the article offers further enlightenment as to the course of events.

[T]he accident happened on July 18, 2008 when Mr Aspinall was helping gardener Alan Ashworth remove the branch because it was shading the lawn.

The men placed their ladder against the branch and Mr Ashworth held the bottom of it while Mr Aspinall climbed up with a bow saw to chop it down.

They did not realise their mistake until the branch finally snapped and Mr Aspinall fell to the ground.

So as you see, there were actually TWO people involved, and neither of them realized that the ladder was badly positioned. I imagine the exchange between the handyman and the gardener to have gone something along these lines:

Gardener: Hey Pete! Can you help me chop off this branch?
Handyman: Sure thing, Al! Which one?
Gardener: This one right there! Look, I'll set up the ladder for you. That branch right there.
Handyman: You sure you want me to saw off this branch? This doesn't look quite right.
Gardener: Don't worry, Pete, I know what I'm doing! It's perfectly safe. Look, I'll even hold the ladder for you!
Handyman: Well, you are the gardener, after all.

True or not?

2010-04-03T01:30:00.000-04:00

The problem with reading stuff on April 1st is that you're never quite sure whether it's real or whether someone is trying to pull a quick one on you.

This post from Tech Dirt is either a well-crafted April Fools, or an example of an increasingly scary trend in the world of business.

We've been noticing a trend in recent years of companies that sell physical goods trying to figure out ways to have those goods get some of the "advantages" of digital goods. For example, with physical products, once you sell it, in theory, the seller no longer owns a piece of the good. But with digital goods, they still hold the copyright, and often try to limit what you can do with the product even though you thought you "bought" it. So we've been disturbed by the rise of things like artist resale rights, which take away the right of first sale on artwork, and require you to pay the original artist every time you sell the product.

How terms of service are shaping our lives

2010-03-19T01:46:00.000-04:00

A while ago, while doing research on a class paper, a sudden realization dawned on me. EULAs and TOSs are the way of the future!

Indeed, TOSs, for instance on websites, govern what you can or cannot do on the website. This considerably modifies people's relationship with content, by transforming a situation that was solely governed by general law into a contractual relationship.

Take the example of television. When you watch at TV show, the only things determining what you can or cannot do with what is broadcasted to you are legal provisions. There is no contract between you and the broadcaster, and the broadcaster can't limit your rights.

But on the Internet, things are different. Surf on any webpage, and there will almost always be TOS. "By accessing this website, you agree..." Now, that same TV show that was broadcasted on the air can be accessed online, but WITH CONDITIONS. All of a sudden, with the sheer power of the Internet, you enter a contractual relationship with the broadcaster, or the owner of the website. Now that there is a contract, the website's owner can effectively determine what actions, albeit otherwise legal, you may or may not take regarding their content.

Take the example of books. Buy a book, and you own it; it's yours forever. Buy an ebook, and you risk having it taken from you anytime.

So, what is so special about the Internet that enables people to impose a contract on you?

Nothing, really.

Internet was just the new medium that enabled people to experiment with new rules. Having TOS on a website would be akin to having a set of rules in a building you enter. Having a TOS or EULA on an ebook you buy is like drafting a contract with a seller every time you buy stuff.

Let us then approach this the other way around. If it is OK to have a EULA on an ebook you have purchased, then wouldn't it also be OK to have a EULA on a plain old dead-tree version of the book? Probably.

And this is where I'm getting at. EULAs and TOS are increasingly shaping our relationship with things around us. More and more people will find that a sales contract is not enough. Companies selling their products will want to retain some form of control over their product, even after having sold it. Control is power. Why then not control it if you can?

I see the future of the consumer-product relationship thus: On one side, consumers will be increasingly subjected to imposed contracts with the manufacturers, distributors, or retailers. These contracts will chalk out the extent of the rights and obligations of the parties, and will become the main source of norms. On the other hand, the corpus of laws will progressively turn into a set of public-policy provisions aimed at striking a balance between the corporations and the consumers.

This post from BoingBoing shows that the trend has already started.
Chinese Take-out Terms of Service

Son of a Bitch!

2010-01-07T22:02:00.000-05:00

In my opinion the words “son of a bitch” by themselves are not capable of any defamatory meaning. They are peculiar, in that they take their meaning either from the tone of voice used or from whatever adjective accompanies them. They are a translucent vessel waiting to be filled with colour by their immediate qualifier. Thus, one has sympathy for a poor son of a bitch, admiration for a brave son of a bitch, affection for a good old son of a bitch, envy for a rich son of a bitch and, perhaps incongruously, dislike for a proper son of a bitch. Why right thinking people should dislike anything that is proper is rather a mystery unless proper is used to mean “real”, but I am confident that is the colour that adjective gives to the expression.

Ralston v. Fomich, 1992 CanLII 1652 (BC S.C.)

Avatar!!

2010-01-02T22:39:00.000-05:00

I have finally managed to see the movie Avatar a few days ago. Rounded up a couple of friends, and off we went, and in 3D please.

In short, I found the movie quite amazing.

I have heard some of my friends complaining that the screenplay wasn't that great. However, I have to admit that I was way too busy gawking at the special effects to be bothered by the screenplay. Besides, I didn't find it that bad. Of course, the story was fairly simple and straightforward, with not much in the area of plot twists, or even complicated inter-personal interactions. That's OK, though. I don't mind simple plots. As long as it's consistent with itself, I'm happy. (Other than the fact that they're spending a shitload of munny developing these avatars to interact with the native population when they seem quite happy shooting said natives ded anyway. And that the natives call the Avatars the "Dream-walkers", which sounds like they know that they're remote-controlled, but then Warrior-guy screams bloody murder ("demon in a body!!") when Jake gets pulled from the simulator. And when ...)

All in all, it felt very much like one of those kids' stories, where the forest unites against the evil lumberjacks. You all know what I'm talking about; we've all seen at least 5 versions of the story.

I quite liked the visual effects in the movie. I was amazed at the richness and creativity of the forest's plants and creatures. The 3D effects and animations were also very well done, although I don't really know whether it's worth all the money they spent on it.

There was this one thing that annoyed me a little, though. They made the Blue Cats very hippie-like, with chanting and beaded necklaces, which reflects a certain stereotype of the people who are close to nature. Also, the scientist lady kept emphasizing that what the natives were experiencing was "real", due to the biological-internet nature of the ecosystem, and was something tangible. This somehow validated their experiences, as it proved that they were not just a bunch of tree-hugging lunatics, and, moreover, also made them more worthy of being protected.

I had the feeling that while on one hand, it said "These people have a real, tangible bond with nature, and deserve protection", on the other hand, it made it seem as though the ones who do not have this tangible bond with nature deserve less respect.

Merry Christmas

2009-12-25T22:01:00.001-05:00

Merry Christmas everyone, and happy holidays!

Karmic Woes

2009-11-01T00:30:00.001-04:00

Upgraded to Ubuntu Karmic Koala today. As it always is with new releases, it comes with its own share of quirks that one has to get used to. Some good, some not so good.

Little things that I've noticed:

Ups:
- Firefox seems faster.

Downs:

- the "notification area" is not at the top-right corner, but a bit below that, for no real reason. I've only noticed that for Pidgin notifications, and the area above the notification box is the size of the volume or brightness box.

- another major bummer is the middle-click function that used to work when i clicked on the top right corner of the trackpad. It doesn't work anymore, and there also seems to be a switch in the 2-finger click and 3-finger click functions, which i didn't know existed. The 3-finger click doesn't work on my 'top.

- the new Ubuntu Software Centre. I like the "installed software" section, but i miss being able to install/remove many apps at once.

- having "show icons in menus" unchecked in Appearance Preferences > Interface only removes the icons under the System menu. That's a grand total of 5 icons removed.

- boot time seems much longer, but it might be because it was the first time it was booted after the upgrade.

Undecided:

- Ubuntu is now shipped with a selection of still-life wallpapers, a great number of which feature close-ups of flowers. I hate to admit it, but at some point in my life, I would've gone "ooooooohhhhhh pwetty!" at the sight of it, but now it just seems horribly quaint and bland. To each his own, I guess. I rather liked it when Ubuntu came with 1 default wallpaper. Somehow, it was a symbol of the minimalism of the system. Now it just feels bloated.
There seems to be some typical wallpapers too, besides the close-up flowers: the pier to nowhere, sunrise/sunset, closeup of leaf, &c.
On the upside, I like that they've gotten rid of the fade-in transition when you changed wallpapers, and the black & white clouds pic is quite nice.

- i don't know what's up with the bold text, but I find it rather un-necessary. I figure I'll get used to that eventually. Also, the Firefox shortcut icon on my menu bar seems unusually bright. The blue highlight is paler, it seems, to the previous logo, and it looks like it's shining.

- at the other end of the menu bar, i quite like the icon for the network connection status, but not the one for the messaging services. The Human icon set had a white envelope that earned a green dot at a corner when there was an alert. The new Humanity envelope icon is gray with a dark gray triangle. Not very visible.

(note that the 2 last icons are transparent, and the menu bar is gray.)

Some changes in OpenOffice.org:
- hitting F11 for the Styles dialog will open the dialog, but will not focus it. Rather annoying, because I used to navigate the styles with the arrow keys, and now i have to focus it first.

- they seemed to have fixed that indentation "feature", where hitting backspace would remove the indentation. (Increase the indentation of the paragraph, hit enter. The next paragraph will also be indented. Hit Backspace once, it removes the indentation on the 2nd paragraph. Hit Backspace again, and it will remove the indentation of the previous paragraph, instead of bringing the caret to the indented beginning.)

- that place in the status bar that used to have an "*" signaling unsaved changed now shows a red "!".

Movie Review: Law-Abiding Citizen

2009-10-21T22:52:00.001-04:00

**ATTN: SPOILERS**

Plotline: Dude get pissed at the way the prosecutor carried out his case, and gets revenge on everybody by blowing them up to bits.

Review: Meh.

To be honest, I don't really know what I was expecting when I decided to go watch this movie. I guess I thought it would be an interesting action movie, and it was mildly related to the justice system, so heck, why not check it out. The trailer made it seem interesting, but then again they always do, and I should've known that. In the end, I have to say, it was rather disappointing.

The trailer set the bar rather high. It was supposed to be a movie about a guy fighting a corrupt system. It was supposed to be a movie about a guy whose intellect was such that he could make people die when he was in prison. It was supposed to be a movie with the typical American patriotism and moral superiority, where good guys prevail and bad guys die.

Well, no.

It turned out to be a movie about a guy who threw a tantrum because he didn't get what he wanted, so everyone else is now the "bad guy" and everybody is personally responsible for what happened to him. The whole plotline was a joke, and only served as a support for a countdown of the 10 most badass ways to kill people.

The Irony started even before the movie. The trailer shown right before the beginning of the film was one of "7 days", in which a father hunts down an tortures the guy who killed his daughter. (Sounds familiar?) The message was clear: this plot is already overused. Then, the high point of that trailer was the dead kid's mom calling the dad, saying "Nobody agrees with what you're doing." And here we are, about to watch a movie celebrating just that.

The nonsenses in this movie are too numerous to be tackled individually. (Why did they have to convict the skinny guy so badly, instead of the fat guy? Why didn't the doctors notice something was wrong when the guy on the execution table was still moving? Did they not notice the steak had a bone?) So I'll just tackle some general issues.

First off, the excuse given for the ire of the dude is quite pathetic. He's angry because the damn prosecutor cut a deal. And this somehow proves that the whole system is corrupt. OK, fine, they tried to show that the prosecutor was very worried by his personal stats, and maybe cared more about his conviction rate than about this elusive concept that we call Justice (with the capital "J" and the band on the eyes). But honestly, prosecutors make deals all the time, and it's not a symptom of corruption per se. Besides, if the prosecutor is only concerned with his own selfish interests, it's not a sign that the whole system is corrupt.

The whole idea was that it is horrible for prosecutors to make deals with criminals, and it would've been better to go to trial and lose, since, at least, the prosecutor would've tried. Well, given the way the story is told, going to trial would probably give the same movie. I'm sure there's lot of films about self-righteous victims who decide to kill jurors because they thought the jurors were corrupt. Either way, the system is supposed to be diseased.

They didn't even make an attempt at including a bit of the corruption that supposedly infects the system. The prosecution was just doing its job, and nothing hits at a job badly done, save the deal. At least they could've tried to show that, I dunno, the prosecution made a mistake and was trying to cover its ass or something. But no. Nothing.

And the judge. Why was the dude so mad at the judge? There was a whole scene at the courthouse that was supposed to show that the judge was incompetent or something, because she was about to release a man charged with murder. Butler's character gave some nice speech that was supposed to sound like bullshit, and cited a precedent that may or may not be real, then accused the judged of being the avatar of the diseased system for being inclined to buy it. Well bad news for you: it's called the Bill of Rights. It's this thing that, ya know, the whole idea of American freedom of democracy is built on.

TBC maybe.

Securities Problem

2009-09-25T14:05:00.000-04:00

Last Securities class, the prof gave us a problem to illustrate some principles relating to legal hypothecs, in particular those of "persons having taken part in the construction or renovation of an immovable" (2724 (2) CCQ).

The relevant section of the Civil Code are the following:

2726. A legal hypothec in favour of the persons having taken part in the construction or renovation of an immovable may not charge any other immovable. It exists only in favour of the architect, engineer, supplier of materials, workman and contractor or sub-contractor in proportion to the work requested by the owner of the immovable or to the materials or services supplied or prepared by them for the work. It is not necessary to publish a legal hypothec for it to exist.

2728. The hypothec secures the increase in value added to the immovable by the work, materials or services supplied or prepared for the work. However, where those in favour of whom it exists did not themselves enter into a contract with the owner, the hypothec is limited to the work, materials or services supplied after written declaration of the contract to the owner. A workman is not bound to declare his contract.

2952. Legal hypothecs in favour of persons having taken part in the construction or renovation of an immovable are ranked before any other published hypothec, for the increase in value added to the immovable; such hypothecs rank concurrently among themselves, in proportion to the value of each claim.

The problem given, which I simplify for the purpose of the present argument, is the following.

Andrew owns a house, valued 100K, on which he does renovations. He has a 75K contract with Bob for the work. Bob sub-contracts with Charles, for work and materials worth 20K. Charles denounces his contract to Andrew. By the end of the works, Andrew still owes 30K to Bob. Charles has not been paid yet. Andrew doesn't pay, so Bob and Charles register a hypothec against Andrew's immovable. Bank ABC also has a 70K hypothec on the same immovable. After the works, the building is worth 150K. The building is sold by judicial authority for 100K. Determine who gets what.

So the hypothecs on the building, according to the prof, are as follows:
- Legal Hypothec (construction) - Bob: 30K
- Legal Hypothec (construction) - Charles: 20K
- Normal Hypothec - ABC Bank: 70K

Legal Hypothecs of constructors are being paid first. However, the owners of the hypothec can only secure the value added to the immovable after the works. The value added corresponds to a percentage of the value of the immovable.
So, the value added was 50K on 150K, which is 33.333%.
This means that the constructors can only secure 33.3% of the proceeds resulting from the sale of the immovable, so 33.333% on 100K, or $33 333.
(1/3 of the value of the building resulted from the works.)

Of the $33 333, 60% goes to Bob, and 40% to Charles. So Bob gets 20K, and Charles gets $13 333.
The rest goes to the Bank.

Now, here's my problem. Both Bob and Charles have a hypothec on the building. However, Charles is a sub-contractor, and the money owed to him is by Bob. This means that of the 30K Bob is owed, 20K was destined to pay Charles. B's "profit" should only have been 10K. However in this case, he gets 20K, which is more than what he's owed! Assuming that C manages to get the ~ 7K he's owed from B, B is still left with ~13K, which is still more than the "profit" he should've earned!

Moreover, A, who only really owes 30K to B, will end up paying >33K!

If you take another situation where the value of the building is high enough that all the creditors will be paid in full. It means that B could get paid 30K, and C would get 20K. So C would have been paid in full, while B, who should have paid 20 of his 30K to C, would be left with an extra 20K.

This does NOT make sense!

Of course, I asked the prof about it, and she replied that it was an "economical question", which somehow should mean that the law has nothing to do with it. She also said that such situations wouldn't matter in practice, because the value of the building wouldn't be enough to pay everybody anyway, and if the building was worth enough, the owner would just sell it himself and pay his creditors.

Very well, So what does it mean? That the legislator writes laws thinking that "Oh, it's OK, there won't be enough money to go around anyway"??

Somehow, I very much doubt that...

What is a Legal Fiction?

2009-09-06T18:17:00.002-04:00

Legal fictions are facts or situations assumed or created by courts which are then used to resolve matters before them. Legal fictions are mostly encountered under common law systems. ~ Wikipedia: Legal Fiction

In other words, legal fictions are things assumed to be true by the courts, usually to fill a legal or factual void. Legal fictions may or may not be statutory, and are used when the situation fits the criteria set in the statute or in the precedents.

Whats's a Non Sequitur?

Non Sequiturs, as a literary device, is a comment which is humorous as it is unrelated to the previous statement. See Wikipedia

Non Sequiturs in logic are arguments in which the conclusion does not follow from the premises. See Wikipedia again

Duty to Represent?

2009-06-23T00:52:00.005-04:00

Law is Cool just posted a blog entry about the lawyers' duty to represent even the unpleasant client.

Imagine two potential civil litigation clients. Both present you with problems well within your expertise and both satisfy your financial retainer requirements. Neither ask you to do anything unethical or underhanded.

The first is a quiet, respectful person who appreciates the limits of the law and wants you to pursue a clearly valid claim. The other is an unpleasant, extreme individual with a warped view of justice and a claim that is marginal.

You explain the law to both clients together with the likely results of litigation. Both ask you to go ahead and issue a claim. What do you do?

Prof Morton argues that lawyers have a duty to represent every client, even those who are unpleasant, as every person is entitled to justice. It is hard to find anything to say against that.

However, I can't say I completely agree with what is being argued in the article. My first reaction is that lawyers are the providers of a service, and as such, should have the freedom to chose who they want to do business with.

On the other hand, the right to justice is one of the most fundamental rights, and everyone should have access to a lawyer to defend these rights. It is very easy to make a parallel between lawyer and doctors, and the natural question to ask is "Should a doctor be allowed to pick and choose his patients, then?" Let's leave this topic for a potential later post, as it is not an easy comparison to make, and besides, it's not particularly relevant for our present purpose.

I think the main problem I have with this is not only with this idea of having a duty to represent someone, but also with the way the problem has been presented.

First off, this idea of duty seems rather strange to me. I understand that a lawyer might have a duty to defend the best interests of his clients, and do so to the best of his abilities. However, I can't really agree with having a duty to take a case just because someone wants you to. I don't think that just because you agree to meet with someone to discuss their case makes makes you obligated to defend them. In short, I don't want to be stuck with such a duty just because someone comes for a consultation.

Then, there's a problem with the way the situation is being presented. See, there are 2 clients: the good one, and the bad one. The Good Client, Good Case, vs the Bad Client, Bad Case. What about the 2 middle ones? What about the Good Client, Bad Case, and the Bad Client, Good Case? Certainly, the goodness of a case is independent from the pleasantness of the client.

However, from the way the question is asked, there is no distinction between a bad client, and a bad case. Such a confusion does little to help solve the ethical problem at hand.

If a client has a bad case, the normal reaction of any lawyer would be to advise him/her against going to court. This has nothing to do with how likeable the client is. But what if the client insists? The above article seems to say that lawyers (at least in Ontario), due to their oath to "neglect no one’s interest and [...] faithfully serve and diligently represent the best interests of [their] client," have a duty to launch a lawsuit and go to court should the client so demand.

I beg to differ. I think that "faithfully serve and diligently represent the best interest of the client" does not equal going to court whenever the client wants to. Indeed, if, as a lawyer, I consider going to court to be against the best interests of the client, either due to the high costs involved, or to any number of valid reasons, then it seems to me that it would be against professional ethics to launch the lawsuit. If I know that a case seems desperate, and that the client is likely to invest a huge amount of time, effort, and money into a lawsuit that s/he will very likely not win, then I would certainly think that it is not in my client's best interest to pursue the matter. If I pledge to serve my client's "best interests", then I don't see how I would have a duty to sue whenever the client asks me to.

This is certainly what happens when a client arrives with a bad case, be it a pleasant client, or an unpleasant one. Correlating bad client and bad case is just oversimplifying the issue. At worst, it is intellectually dishonest, because you then don't separate the consequences of having a bad case, with those of being an unpleasant client, and act as though lawyers who refuse bad cases do so because the clients are unpleasant.

[tbc...]

Small Claims this week...

2009-05-27T19:10:00.003-04:00

St-Pierre v. City of Pohénégamook
from Jugements.qc.ca

First off, yes, it's an actual place, and no, I don't know how to say it either.
For some reason, I seem to be developing a fondness for litigation involving municipalities.

The plaintiff is asking for $6000 worth of damages.

The dispute: August 2008, lots of rain. Inadequate drainage duct contributed to the overflowing of water. The water crossed the road and caused damages to the plaintiff's property.

The water picked itself up, and went "F*** this, I'm crossing the road". Why did the water cross the road? Well, apparently, it seemed to have malicious intentions towards the plaintiff's basement.

The defendant contests, because they weren't expecting that shitload of water to fall on their heads on August 2nd and 3rd.

Proof shows that the City has installed a drainage duct, which had a right-angle bend. The diameter was insufficient. There was an overflow, which damaged the plaintiff's property.

According to the plaintiff, the City was at fault by installing and maintaining the ducts. Moreover, the diameter was inadequate, and the overflow stopped as soon as the duct was removed.

After the events, the City conducted some major work in that area, and rearranged the draining system.

The City argued that the amount of rain received on August 2nd was exceptional (89 mm, vs 33 and 25 for the day before and after). On Aug 2nd and 3rd, the storm drains on Rue Principale overflowed. These drains belong to the Ministry of Transports. The other streets (Pignon and St-Laurent) belong to the City.

Proof has shown that the City has had problems with the drains before, and has replaced some with wider-diameter ones on certain streets. The City knew that the ducts had to be replaced.

JUDGE'S ANALYSIS
Water that caused the damage came from higher grounds, which belongs to the City.
The duct was the cause of the water overflow, which caused damage to the plaintiff's property.

Proof shows that the formation of blockages was highly predictable. The City knew that the diameter was not wide enough.

When a municipality executes work on streets or trenches, they must avoid modification of the natural water flow, or plan an effective drainage system for the water in order to avoid floods.

The defendant has not taken reasonable measures to avoid floods. The City has not acted with prudence and diligence.

The Defendant claims Force Majeure (ss 1470 CCQ), because of the truckload of rain they received. However courts have established that rain, even by the truckload, did not constitute force majeure.

So the lesson is: you should always provide for the deluge.

What happens in the Metro...

2009-05-23T15:35:00.003-04:00

I guess I haven't really been following the news lately, because I totally missed what is probably the biggest controversy of the week, namely, the lady getting fined for not holding the handrail in the metro.

My initial reaction upon reading the headlines ("Woman fined for not holding handrail" and the like) was, of course, What The Fuck. But upon reading the article, I have to say that I really can't see anything wrong with what the police did, and I don't particularly sympathize with the lady.

First off, she wasn't only "fined for not holding handrail". Sure, she was. But in my opinion, that fine is only incidental to the real issue, which was obstructing police, for which she got a $320 fine. People shouldn't focus on the handrail, and demonize the police officers because of that. For instance, if the police stops you for a broken headlight, and you assault the police officer because of that, I don't think it would be quite fair to report "Man arrested for broken headlight".

Then, people say that it's stupid to fine people for such a trifle, and the police should have left her off with a warning. However, according to the police, they did warn her multiple times, and he refused to comply. After which they ticketed her. What's a "warning"? No warning would be "Miss, you were not holding the handrail, here's a $100 fine." A warning is: "Miss, you should hold the handrail, please hold the handrail." Or, if you really wanna be thorough with it: "Miss, the law says you have to hold the handrail. You are not holding the handrail. Please hold the handrail (NOW) or you'll get a fine." Here's your warning. So I would say that if you don't start holding that handrail within a reasonably short time, you've had your warning and are eligible for a fine.

Many argue that the police shouldn't be telling people how to ride an escalator. Besides, nobody has ever been fined for not holding the handrail before, so this instance is definitely abusive, right? WRONG. Just because nobody every had doesn't mean nobody ever should be fined, or that it's legally OK not to hold the handrail.

Should she be fined, though? Maybe. I'm not opposed to the fine, and I certainly don't see anything wrong with the fine, given the circumstances.

What circumstances?

Obstructing police work. She yelled at them when they told her to hold the rail.

She says she didn't.

For some reason, I'm not tempted to believe that. Given the facts, I think it's reasonable to say that the police's version is more believable, and that she did obstruct the police in some way.

The only facts we have are these: she was fined for not holding the handrail, and obstruction. She was handcuffed and held in detention.

1. the police was either warning a lot of people, or only picked on her. I find the first case more believable. I don't see any reason the police would pick on her, of all people there.

2. Assuming the police was warning a lot of people, why was she the only one with a fine? Either they picked on her, or she did something to warrant it. Given that she was detained, I'd say she did something. The other option is that police has cuffed her though she didn't do anything. Why would they do that? I don't find this very likely.

So she did something. What did she do?

1. She refused to comply, and
2. Police say she started screaming at them.

Assuming both are true. Should the police have cuffed/arrested her?

(TBC)

In small claims court...

2009-05-20T21:37:00.003-04:00

Ever since I went to visit the Small Claims Court back in January, I found a liking to these little cases. Granted, it's not Judge Judy, and reading a case is not as fun as watching the proceedings, but they nevertheless offer a glimpse into the issues of ordinary people. Had a bit of time today, so I decided to look up some of the latest cases. I just picked one that seemed interesting: Gaudreault c. Future Shop, because everyone knows Future Shop, and I wanted to see what the Gaudreault person had against the store.

Note: below is a summary of the decision, and not a complete translation.

Gaudreault v. Future Shop
Qc, Ca, Chicoutimi District
Judge: Jean-Yves Tremblay

The plaintiff demands the replacement of a 52-inch Samsung LNT TV, bought May 31, 2008, because the empolyee of the defandant has accidentally knocked the TV while loading the furniture (TV table?), thereby breaking it.

[Declaration of Gaudreault's wife, stating that the Future Shop employee was loading the TV with her husband]

[Contestation from the defendant, stating that the plaintiff was informed his car was too small, and was warned that the plaintiff would be responsible for any damages, but decided to transport the TV nevertheless. Physical damages are not covered by the Service Plan. The defendant also claims that it is impossible to determine when the damage has occurred, and the plaintiff has been warned of the risks.]

[Declaration of and employee of the defendant, stating that the TV has been wrapped in bubble wrap and then loaded in the plaintiff's car. The employee had remarked that the car was very small to transport a TV of that size.]

Proof revealed that the TV was very well wrapped. The plaintiff had also been offered the delivery service and the employees had warned the plaintiff the risks.

The Plaintiff's wife was in the car, and confirmed the loading maneuvers, but couldn't confirm that it was then the TV was broken. Moreover, the Plaintiff was part of the maneuvers, and even if that was when the damages occurred, he is the first to affirm that it was an accident.

Article 2803 states that "A person wishing to assert a right shall prove the facts on which his claim is based."

[...]

In the current case, it is impossible to determine when the damages occurred. Was it during the loading, the transport, the unloading, or the installation? Moreover, the Plaintiff had participated in the operations.

(Source: Jugements.qc.ca)

This case is quite typical, as lack of proof is one of the main reasons a claim gets dismissed. I can imagine such things can be quite frustrating. One one side, it's one of these lawsuits that happen when you do something you shouldn't. Bad things happen, and you want someone to pay for it. The guy shows up with a car that's too small, squeeze a valuable and potentially fragile article inside. It breaks, and the guy is trying to blame the store.

On the other hand, there's a guy who just spent a substantial amount of money getting a big TV, and doesn't even get to use it once. He hasn't been able to enjoy his TV, so of course he feels that the money has been wasted, and wants it back.

Well, apparently that's not gonna happen.

So the moral of the story is this: before you even start wondering whether you're right or wrong, make sure you can PROVE IT. And a busted TV doesn't prove anything.

Chinese, English, & Probabilities

2009-05-19T11:35:00.002-04:00

I just discovered a Chinese-learning blog that looked very interesting. I read a few entries, and came up across a post about some phonetic coincidences between English words and their Chinese translation.

This is a very interesting topic, as it has some kind of mystical appeal. However, every time someone wonders whether something is just a coincidence or not, I have a strong urge to work out the math behind it, and find out exactly what the odds are. So I have done a bit of number crunching. Here goes:

According to this table: Wikipedia Pinyin Table Chinese words have a possibility of 402 different sounds (I counted). That's not including the intonations, since I'm assuming that "fee" (in English), for instance, would be deemed similar to "fei" whether it's the 1st tone or the 4th. This means that any Chinese word would have to match one of these 402 sounds.

Assuming that every english word has a corresponding chinese word, and that every english sound has a corresponding sound in Chinese that can be deemed "close enough", it means that given a random English word, and a random Chinese sound, there are 1 in 402 chances that the meaning of a chinese word matching that sound corresponds to the same definition in English.

Therefore, for every English word, there is a 1/402 chance that its Chinese equivalent has the same sound. (assuming every Chinese sound can correspond to an English one. )

If we then assume (conservative estimate) that there are 3500 single-syllable words in English (Dr. Phyllis Fisher's word list) and every word having a 1 in 402 chance of finding its correspondent in Chinese, then the odds would be that 3500 X 1/402 = 8.7 English words would sound similar in chinese.

The odds would be even more favourable if you decide that sounds like zh/z, ch/c, sh/s, an/en, ang/eng ai/ei, etc. are similar enough to be considered identical, and if you assume there are more one-syllable English words.

Just answering some fan mail

2009-04-14T20:48:00.003-04:00

Hey JC, I have been listening to The Mystery of the Yellow Room. Just what is your background? Your English diction is great - and from the other comments I take it that your French is equally perfect. But I can't place your accent.

Whatever, you are an excellent reader and I am truly enjoying The Yellow Room.

MaryAnn (who has been a lawyer now for some 15+ years, is still enjoying the profession while hopefully making a positive contribution to society at large, and who wishes you a long and satisfying career)

Hi MaryAnn! Thank you so much for your kind comments! I'm glad to see that you are enjoying the audiobooks.

I'm actually of Chinese origin, so Mandarin is technically my first language. I've been living in Quebec for quite a while, so my French definitely has a Quebec accent. I guess my English would be Canadian English with a bit of Quebecois background.

However, since I tend to mumble a bit when I talk, I try to enunciate more, and one of the ways I've found was to borrow a bit of british-ish pronounciation, like saying "oll" for "all". Which might make the accent a bit erratic at times, and I do apologize for the listeners who are annoyed by that.

I hope this answers your question!
Thanks again for your comments!

PS: I'm glad that you are still enjoying the legal profession! :)

Circular reasoning works because...

2009-03-09T18:10:00.002-04:00

Philosophy of Law

People have different conceptions of an egalitarian society. K. Nielsen's conception is rather radical. His vision has a marxist flavour to it, and involves getting rid of all social classes, and redistributing wealth around the world.

I found this theory rather annoying. The way our prof presented it, the system was based on the premise that the world will offer abundant resources. And in my mind, if the resources are abundant, then of course you could reach equality. The reasoning seemed somewhat circular.

I mean, if you consider that material inequality is caused by the scarcity of resources, or the perceived scarcity of resources, then the minute you eliminate this scarcity, then you eliminate one of the causes of inequality. And it will be like saying that "In a world without inequality, there will be equality." The rest is just figuring out a way to distribute the wealth, which is what most of the theory is about. (And yes, I do realize that most of the inequality comes from the uneven redistribution of wealth, and having a theory about the redistribution of wealth is good, and might be a step towards equality.)

Of course, it is admitted that this conception is rather utopian, and it should somewhat excuse the initial flaw. Methinks the real theory should be finding a way to achieve a sustainable exploitation of resources, and to distribute them equally. Thus, the eradication of scarcity (or of the perception of scarcity) will bring equality.

On the other hand, some people say that we currently produce enough resources to fulfill the needs of all human beings. (no, I don't have a source for that, it's just something one hears, and I don't feel like looking it up either) So assuming the Earth does produce enough for everyone, then basing a theory on an idea (or ideal) of "abundance" seems like an attempt to overcome the obvious non-applicability of the theory.

It would be like saying "Right now, we don't have equality, because the resources are scarce, but IF the resources were to be plenty, then we'd be equal."
But what if the Earth does produce enough? This is does not seem to be something that Nielsen (or my prof, since my knowledge of Nielsen's theory only comes through my prof) considers, since the conception is qualified as being utopian, and being such, it means that the initial condition of plentifulness are non-existent.

In which case, it makes for very nice philosophical considerations, but we're arguing into the void, as we are ignoring the problem of the non-practical-applicability of the theory by presuming its non-practical-applicableness. (Or, in better English, it cannot be applied in practice, because it has not been made to be applicable in practice, since it --supposedly-- deals with an ideal of plentifulness that doesn't exist)

'Tis all about the math!

2009-02-13T16:52:00.003-05:00

Legal Interpretation this morning. Got me thinking about math, for some reason.

here's the situation:
You have Law A and Law B that contradict each-other. Which one will take precedence?

Postulates:
1. The law that explicitly claims precedence prevails. (eg: "notwithstanding any other disposition..." etc)
2. The more recent law takes precedence over the older.
3. The more specific law takes precedence over the more general.

And with these, the judges found that if you have Law A which is Specific, Claims Precedence, and adopted earlier, and Law B, which is General, Claims Precedence, and adopted later, then Law B will prevail.

And it got me thinking about logical operations, which is weird since I know virtually nothing about it...

To the guy walking in front of me in Snowdon metro station:

2009-02-13T16:25:00.002-05:00

I would like to inform you that when walking in a metro station during high-traffic hours, it is always good policy to KEEP WITH THE FLOW, and avoid sudden deceleration. Indeed, said deceleration is likely to unsettle certain human bodies that have elected to follow the rules of inertia, viz. that a body in movement tends to remain in movement.

I do not contest that this reckless suspension of momentum might not be entirely unjustified. However, I would like to point out that although it might be commendable to yield the right of way to the nice lady walking beside you, it would also be wise to mind the nice lady walking behind.

This time, collision was averted due to my mad ninja skills, but next time, you might not be so lucky.

Legal BURN of the Day

2009-02-08T21:28:00.003-05:00

Larose c. Emanuel (1990)

La parole donnée, manifestation du sens de l'honneur, est une chose consacrée au Barreau. Malheureusement, il y a des gens qui observent les règles de l'honneur comme on observe les étoiles, de loin.

(The given word, a manifestation of the sense of honour, is a consecrated thing. Unfortunately, there are people who observe the rules of honour as we observe the stars, from afar.)

Legal FAIL of the Day

2009-02-08T21:16:00.002-05:00

Betanzos v. Premium Sound N Pictures inc (2006)

Sometimes, a lawsuit can backfire...

On November 25, 2002, Plaintiff (Mr Betanzos) was dismissed by his employer, the Defendant (Premium). He had been working for Premium for eight years [...]. He claims $81,700.00 from Premium ($74,200.00 in lieu of notice, $2,500.00 for his share in the profits of 2002 and $5,000.00 for loss of coverage under the Benefit Plan he was entitled to).

[...] At the time of the cancellation of the contract, Premium paid $25,800.00 to Mr Betanzos to buy peace. [...] Since he did not inform Premium of his intention not to accept the settlement before cashing the cheques and since he sued immediately after having done so, Premium considers he has acted in bad faith and claims, in its Cross-Demand, the reimbursement of the sum of $25,800.00 and an additional amount of $15,000.00 for legal fees.

Judge's ruling:

In the Court's opinion, the evidence is overwhelming and Premium was justified to dismiss Mr Betanzos. His performance was not what was expected of him and notwithstanding his having been told so on a number of occasions, the situation did not improve. As a matter of fact it worsened. [...]

In view of the Court's answer to this question,[...] Mr Betanzos' claim will be dismissed.

[...]

The evidence is clear: a verbal contract had intervened between the parties. It was a transaction and it had the authority of a final judgment between Premium and Mr Betanzos.

Mr Betanzos cashed the cheques of $20,000.00 and $1,800.00 in January 2003 without indicating beforehand to Premium that he was no longer in agreement with the transaction. Furthermore, immediately after having cashed the cheques, he sent a letter of demand and, a month later, instituted the present proceedings.

This is not behaving in good faith and this is not respecting the contract which was the law of the parties. [...]

The Court cannot condone such a behaviour. Mr Betanzos knew what he was doing: he had consulted a lawyer. He also knew that, for Premium, this was a final settlement: a transaction.
[...]

Since Mr Betanzos has not respected the contract of transaction, the Court will order him to refund $25,800.00 to Premium since the contract of transaction is a whole and cannot be severed.

lol.

Crash course on computer fonts

2009-02-03T18:24:00.002-05:00

Please. This is a public service announcement to all teachers preparing course packs. Please.

STOP TYPING YOUR TEXTS IN ARIAL 12!

At least have the decency of using Times! Here's my beef: Arial is a relatively large font. It is so large, in fact, that most teachers who know what they're talking about will request assignments to be printed either in Times 12, or Arial 10. A large font in course packs makes for a lot of pages. WAY too many pages. AND it's not very practical, because a given text will span many pages, whereas it could be squeezed into 2 or 3, thereby offering a more satisfactory experience to the reader who likes to have a more global view of the text.

Please. I do not want to be obliged to flip 2 pages to find the end of a sentence that began 2 pages earlier.

Plus, using Arial 12 is juvenile. Remember when, back in the days when the teacher gave an assignment, and you had nothing to write, and tried to find the largest possible font just to make it look like you wrote a lot, and fooling no one in the process?

Yeah. Exactly.

Moreover, it's a waste of paper. And a pain for the students who are lugging their stuff around.

So please. STOP WRITING IN ARIAL.

Tech support @ home

2009-01-29T19:49:00.002-05:00

Topic of the day: how to "put those pictures from the camera into the computer"

Open the folder
No, not this folder, the other one
The one that looks like a folder
Yeah, this one. Double click
Ok, how about select and hit enter
No, I don't know in which folder the pictures are, why don't you just look?
No, they're not in the computer yet
No, you have to save them into the computer
I know you're looking at them; they're still not in the computer
You need to copy/paste
You need to TELL THE COMPUTER that you want to copy/paste
OK, how about drag & drop?
Here, I'll create a folder on the desktop, just drag & drop
You need to select a group then
No, you can't click on an icon to select a group
Here, let me show you
yeah, so now just drag it to the folder and let go
Oh.
Well, um, looks like you've missed the folder
Oh, don't worry, it's just saving them all on the desktop

***

2nd topic of the day: "why can't I hear?"

MOM: I'm trying to use Skype (which she pronounces "skippy") but it doesn't work
ME: ??
MOM: Look, she's telling me she can hear me, but I can't hear her! Is there something wrong?
ME: I don't think so...
MOM: Well, I can't hear her! Is our computer broken?
ME: No...
MOM: I can't hear her!
ME: I know.
MOM: What do you mean, you know?
ME: The earphones are on the table.

What does "naked" mean?

2009-01-23T18:52:00.002-05:00

It is a rule that you generally assume that the judges, lawyers, and your professors are competent, if not absolute geniuses (or genii). And then you encounter a judgment that makes you wonder what the deuce they're arguing about.

I had "Interprétation des lois" (legal interpretation) this morning, and the prof was talking about the first rule of interpretation, which is that you read the text, and use the normal meaning of the words, and/or the definitions provided by the law.

Well, it so happens that in a particular case, namely R. v. Verrette, which is remarkable not only because it contains the following sentences:

The uncontradicted evidence shows that the Appellant was a “gogo boy”, that is to say a male dancer, who performed on a stage in the hotel. At one point he was dressed in small “panties”, but as the performance progressed he took these off and continued to dance while totally exposed. It was dark in the hall, but a spotlight illuminated the stage. The music, described as typically “gogo”, was rather fast, and the Appellant’s testicles and penis “swung back and forth”.

but also because the lawyers had to interpret §170 of the Criminal code (at that time), which said

170. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse,

(a) is nude in a public place, or

(b) is nude and exposed to public view while on private property, whether or not the property is his own,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

(2) For the purpose of this section a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order.

Now, the controversy stems from paragraph (b), which said that a "nude" person is "clad...". The question: does the definition include a person who is stark naked, ie not "clad"?

Believe it or not, they went to the Supreme Court for that.

Now this is the part that annoys me. The judge went into lengthy discussions about the normal meaning of the words, and how it would be contrary to logic to determine that a stark naked person is not "nude" in the sense of the law because the definition says "clad", etc,

In the case at bar, the Court of Appeal said that s. 170(2) is “more than just a definition” and indicated that the situation would be different should the subsection provide that nude persons “include” persons clad offensively. In definition provisions, the word “includes” is generally used extensively in contradistinction to the restrictive word “means”. To underline that the word “includes” has not been used is to suggest, a contrario, that the word “means” might have come closer to expressing the real intent. The Court of Appeal stopped short at that point; if that suggestion were accepted, the subsection would be construed as if it read:

For the purposes of this section, “nude” means to be so clad as to offend against public decency or order.

An anomalous consequence would follow: to be clad in a certain way would be an offence under s. 170; to be completely naked would not.

Neither “includes” nor “means” were used and I think little is to be gained by the consideration of words which are not in the section.

The key word of s. 170(2) is the verb “is” in the proposition “a person is nude”. In my opinion “is” here means “shall be deemed to be”, the very expression used in the predecessor of s. 170 which was added to the Criminal Code as s. 205A by the Statutes of Canada, 1931, c. 28, s. 2:
[...]
The last paragraph of s. 205A(1), a deeming provision, accordingly assimilated scantiness of dress to complete nudity provided that scantiness of dress was such as to offend against public decency or order.
[...]
Thus, a scantily dressed person is not really nude; but if under certain conditions that person be deemed to be nude in a provision prohibiting nudity, the word “nude” keeps its ordinary meaning which at the same time is extended to something which is not nudity.

A very fancy interpretation indeed.

I like mine better.

The mistake in this reasoning is that the judge seems to think that §170 (1) (b) is a definition of the word "nude", which it isn't. Rather, it is a qualification of being "so clad as to offend ..."

Indeed, consider this:
A bicycle is an automobile. - VS - An automobile is a bicycle.
Similar, yet not.

In the first case, I'm putting bicycle in the "automobile" category, without prejudice (<<- !! I'm actually using this expression!!) to the normal meaning of "automobile". Whenever I talk about automobiles, I'm including the bicycles. (Which is "non-exhaustive" and broadens the meaning of "automobile" by creating a legal fiction.)

In the second case, I'm defining "automobile" as being a bicycle, and (likely), nothing else, thus, whenever I talk about automobiles, I'm only referring to bicycles. (Which would be called an "exhaustive" definition.)

Now consider the problematic sentence:
"For the purpose of this section a person is nude who is so clad as to offend against public decency or order."

Let's just work with the italicized part.
"a person is nude who is so clad as to offend" can be re-written as
"is nude a person who is so clad as to offend" or
"a person who is so clad as to offend is nude".

All 3 sentences have the same meaning. (Darn, I could've gone into Linguistics.)

Now, consider:
"a person who is so clad as to offend is nude" - VS - "Nude is a person who is so clad as to offend"
Assuming I'm not Yoda, the first and 2nd sentences have different meanings. In the first sentence, you define the "person who is so clad as to offend" as being "nude", and in the second, you define "nude" as a scantily clad person.

The rest is just logic and common sense.

Definitely no need to go into 3 pages of precedents and legal history.

but what do I know. I'm just a law student.

Not the best time, but fun nevertheless

2009-01-23T18:11:00.003-05:00

For some time, there was a picture of a headstone that was circulating on the Internet. The headstone has a poem inscribed on its back, and the first letter of every line spells FUCK YOU. I never thought much of it, until I came across this picture, and I realized this masterpiece of cynicism and humour was actually located in Montreal! (See the Oratory on the top right of the picture)

So, today, I went to the cemetery with a friend, and, armed with that picture, set off to find that headstone. Granted, it was rather cold outside, and I can say that we could definitely have chosen a better season for such an expedition, as there was about 3 feet of snow on the ground.

We started at noon, and since we had no idea where the headstone was, we just entered from the first gate we saw, which was the one on Decelles. History will tell that we chose the wrong entrance to start the search.

We didn't have much to go on. From the picture, we tried to triangulate the position based on the Oratory and the other building. Unfortunately, there were 2 high-rises around that place, and we made the mistake of referring to the wrong one. We walked a bit too much to the east, until I realized this was not going to work, as the angle was wrong. In case you go looking, the building in the picture is actually the one on the right. (You'll know if you go there)

I was a bit confused at first, since the Oratory seemed farther in the picture than it was in real life, making me think the stone was farther uphill.

It took us about 40 minutes to walk to the general area corresponding to the picture. Once we got the building aligned just right, we had pretty much spotted the lot in which the stone should be.

The first clue was when I found the tree. (The contorted one you see on the right.) The rest was a matter of observation, and we soon found the stone. It was surprisingly conspicuous once we spotted it, and I don't know how we missed it after walking past twice. There was a road behind the lot, and the stone was in the first row, although right behind it was a rather large tree (whose trunk splits in 2 rather close to the ground). Given the snow, I was quite happy we didn't have to go looking any further. Considering the size of the place, I'm just glad we found it at all. Honestly, I almost lost hope at some point.

I took 2 pictures. Here they are:

It took us about 50 minutes to find the headstone. We then took the bus to go back to the Cote-Des-Neiges metro, and it took us 2 minutes to go back. It would've been easier if we had started by taking the bus to the entrance on Cote-Des-Neiges (where the main building is), as the stone was in the lot right behind it. I'd provide you with the lot number, but where would the fun be?

Cocktail @ McMillan

2009-01-21T22:32:00.002-05:00

Had a "parrainage" event at McMillan today. Quite different from yesterday's place; this one was a cocktail rather than an actual tour.

We didn't get to visit the cabinet, which was a bit of a disappointment. Otherwise, it was really great! There were actual lawyers there, and they were really interesting. The dynamic is quite different from a guided tour, since you just grab a drink and chat.

They had some pretty great people there. The lawyers were really friendly and casual, and the group dynamic was pretty amazing.

McMillan is a medium-large cabinet (~50 lawyers). Their internship structure is very interesting: instead of being in a certain domain, you get to work with pretty much everything. This is appealing, since I like variety. The downside, if you can call it that, is that they only let you work 1 summer, after the 3rd year, as opposed to some other cabinets who will hire you to work the summer after your 2nd year.

McMillan deals with corporate law, and has only 1 lawyer who works on Intellectual Property. :( Obviously, banking, insolvency and litigation are much more popular.

It is still quite hard to judge a firm at those events, since they're obviously putting their best foot forward. Of course, they will pretty much tell you the same thing, eg, that they're looking for people who will integrate well into their team, and they're looking for dynamic people, etc, which is rather a no-brainer.

However, I did gather that one of the lawyers did 16-hr days once, for an assignement, though the general tendency seems to be closer to 12-hr days.

Overall, I have to say, I felt a good vibe at that place.

Parrainage @ Law Firm

2009-01-20T23:19:00.002-05:00

Journée parrainage @ law firm in Mtl. Hunting season is approaching.

Went to visit a law firm this morning. Pretty neat. One of the largest law firms in Mtl, with offices pretty much everywhere.

I have to say, it was a very nice experience. We did a little tour of the cabinet, and met a few lawyers.

Reception is quite impressive. Diffused light and wooden doors, which make for a very convivial and rather gorgeous place. The only thumbs-down so far was a rather loud abstract-art painting that contrasted with the smooth decor. I didn't like the painting, but then I tend to be suspicious of all paintings that can be made with a roller. I don't like abstract art either, except when they're wallpapers (the computer kind, not the sticky kind) AND when they're smooth and pretty. I like curves, and soft colours. That painting had anything but. It had a bright red background, with a wedge shape that had its point around the lower left corner, and its wider part to the upper right. Said shape (I almost called it a triangle, but it obviously had 4 sides) was black and white, and I think had yellow too, contrasting with the red background. I think the thing that annoyed me the most wasn't so much the colour, or the lack of curves, as the fact that the pointy bit didn't quite go exactly to the corner of the canvas. Rather, it sat at the edge of the canvas, about 2 inches above the lower left corner. Anyway. It seemed off.

Our tour guides were students and interns from the cabinet. The lawyers we met were really great people. We met the CEO, who was an extremely engaging guy and was eager to meet us (!!). The people seemed very casual, and the atmosphere, friendly and relaxed.

The 2nd lawyer we met greeted us with "Welcome to my mess", yet had the most tidy office I've seen.

They have a lounge with a big-screen TV, and a REALLY fancy coffee-maker with pretty blue lights.

Saw a couple of lawyers who were in Intellectual Property. Seems that IP deals much more with patents and trademarks, than with copyright. I could live with that.

The luncheon was excellent. Must learn to make that beet salad.

3... 2... 1... The hunt has begun!

2009-01-17T13:51:00.003-05:00

Soon, VERY SOON, is the "Course au Stage" (Literally: internship hunt). On the 22nd, all participating legal cabinets will set up a stand in the hallways, and we'll have to dash from one to the other in a desperate search for The Place That Will Hire Me. This mythical place is the law student's Nirvana, where all his legal dreams will come true. It is where we will spend the 6 months of our internship, and, if we're lucky maybe the next summer or two. But that's later. Much later.

Right now, the goal is to browse, to search, and make yourself known. Socialize, socialize, socialize. Wear a funny hat, or platform shoes, and hope to stand out from the crowd.

Then you apply. Resume + cover letter.

I hate cover letters. I never know what to write. Ironically enough, I have a friend who turns to ME every time she needs someone to review her cover letters. She even brokers my reviewing services: she set up a meeting with me for her friend so that I would review her Med School application letter.

Anyway. I thought up something just this morning. Since the trick is to make a good impression, and stand out from the crowd, what if I handwrote my cover letter? I could go get nice letter paper, and a nice pen, and whip out my nice handwriting...

I might even have the guts to do just that... Pick half of the places at random (OK, maybe fewer. Don't want to alienate that many people just now) and send them the handwritten letter and see what happens.

Or maybe not at random. Just those who advertise originality (which is pretty much every one of them, but some more than others) and see if they live by their own standards.

Then again, I might strike them as someone who doesn't own a printer... And the only thing it will show is that I have a nice pen...

2009-01-17T13:33:00.002-05:00

I think something should be made illegal: Professors publishing books and making the students buy them.

For your average student who labours all summer to pay for his/her studies, nothing is more annoying than a teacher telling you you need his book for the class. Said book will, of course, cost you a good $100 of your hard-earned money. Which is 10 hours of work.

Here's my beef: it wouldn't be so bad if the book were actually useful for the class, but what really annoys me is that most of the times, it's barely used. Of course, the prof will refer to a few pages from the book, but very rarely does it offer more insight than what the teacher says.

Case in point: Last year, I had a teacher who told us at the beginning of the semester that we needed the book (which he co-authored, and cost around $100, and new edition, please, because the one from 2 yrs ago isn't good enough) because there would be some topics we won't have time to see in class, which could be in the final. Well, guess what? They weren't.

Now, this year, I've another teacher who makes us buy his book. Which is, almost word-to-word, a reiteration of what he says in class. Down to the examples and analogies he gives. But of course, you need the book, because that's where all the stuff is. And, sneaky, sneaky, the cases to read aren't listed on his course plan; they're in the book. Basically, I'm spending $100 to get a transcript of his course. Book which I HAVE to acquire, because it has the benefit of only quoting the important passages of the relevant cases.

So, message to all professors: Stop doing that! It's annoying!

I was a little bored today...

2009-01-16T16:13:00.003-05:00

... so I thought: I have a highly customizable GUI, with a lot of extras. What should I do? I was experimenting with the Screenlets application, and the Ring Sensors, and it suddenly hit me. Now, it took a while to make everything look right, and I had to re-start many times, and got tired and just went Whatever!, then of course it worked, but I was too annoyed to make it look pretty again.

Basically, being the Dr Who fan that I am, I made my desktop look like a Tardis computer. With the right wallpaper, and the Ring Sensors placed at strategic places, the result looks pretty cool. Only, it's too bad I can't find the place from where I downloaded my wallpaper.

(BTW, Photobucket doesn't seem to like .png files)

My Desktop now looks like this, and the ring sensors work, so it looks a bit like a Tardis dashboard. Now, if you're really into it, you can re-size the sensors to make it prettier, which I had done, but the rings wouldn't load properly when I logged in, for some reason.

Incidentally, I found the wallpaper. It's from here.

Another pretty wallpaper is this but I'd rather have it with David Tennant's face...

Ubuntu Intrepid, Screenlets 0.1.2, with Ring Sensors: CPU, RAM, TEMP, and Batteries.

Now the only thing I need is a round icon for my trash, or a Tardis-looking icon...

2009-01-08T21:58:00.002-05:00

I had a bit of time, so started looking at random websites. Then my StumbleUpon button froze, and I didn't know what to do anymore.

***

Teacher: "At first, the small claims were $1500 max, and Quebec court's limit was 15K. Then, small claims were raised to $3000, and the Qc court, to 30K. Then, all of a sudden, the Qc court's limit jumps to $70K. What does it show?"

And the first thing that came to my mind was: that the Small Claims' Court's limit was 7K?

Ah, I crack myself up.

2009-01-07T23:09:00.002-05:00

The latest outrage in Facebook concerns breastfeeding pictures, and whether or not Facebook should allow them. I'd link to an article, but since it's from the AP, I won't bother. (Because of this.)

Anyway, so I went and had a peek at Facebook's terms of use. First of all, you have to read the Terms.

... you agree not to... upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available any content that we deem to be harmful, threatening, unlawful, defamatory, infringing, abusive, inflammatory, harassing, vulgar, obscene, fraudulent, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

However, that's not enough. Under the 15 bullet-points that lists all the things "you agree not to" do, the Terms of Use will send you to another page

Without limiting any of the foregoing, you also agree to abide by our Facebook Code of Conduct that provides further information regarding the authorized conduct of users on Facebook.

Said Code of Conduct provides that

you may not post or share Content that:

- is obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit
- depicts graphic or gratuitous violence
- makes threats of any kind or that intimidates, harasses, or bullies anyone
- is derogatory, demeaning, malicious, defamatory, abusive, offensive or hateful

What about breastfeeding? Many would argue that it's certainly not obscene, or pornographic, or sexually explicit.

Maybe they should do what some US court did, and clearly define what body parts are forbidden?

For instance, a US court has decided that "buttocks" would be so defined:

the area at the rear of the body which lies between two imaginary lines running parallel to the ground when a person is standing, the first or top such line drawn at the top of the cleavage of the nates [i.e., the prominence formed by the muscles running from the back of the hip to the back of the leg] and the second or bottom line drawn at the lowest visible point of this cleavage or the lowest point of the curvature of the fleshy protuberance, whichever is lower, and between two imaginary lines on each side of the body, which lines are perpendicular to the ground and to the horizontal lines described above, and which perpendicular lines are drawn through the point at which each nate meets the outer side of each leg. The Ordinance would be violated, therefore, if any portion of this area is visible from any vantage point. (from here)

Or, if this is still not precise enough for you, this should do?

The area at the rear of the human body (sometimes referred to as the gluteus maximus) which lies between two imaginary straight lines running parallel to the around when a Person is standing the first or ton of such line being 1/2 inch below the ton of the vertical cleavage of the nates (i.e. the prominence formed by the muscles running from the back of the his to the back of the leg and the second or bottom of such line being 1/2 inch above the lowest point of the curvature of the fleshy protuberance (sometimes referred to as the gluteal fold). and between two imaginary straight lines, one on each side of the body (the "outside lines"), which outside lines are perpendicular to the around and to the horizontal lines described above and which perpendicular outside lines pass through the outermost point(s) at which each nate meets the outer side of each lea. Notwithstanding the above Buttocks shall not include the leg, the hamstring muscle below the gluteal fold, the tensor fasciae latae muscle or any of the above-described portion of the human body that is between either (i) the left inside perpendicular line and the left outside perpendicular line or (ii} the right inside perpendicular line and the right outside perpendicular line. For the purpose of the previous sentence the left inside perpendicular line shall be an imaginary straight line on the left side of the anus (i) that is perpendicular to the around and to the horizontal lines described above and (ii) that is 1/3 of the distance from the anus to the left outside line, and the right inside perpendicular line shall be an imaginary straight line on the right side of the anus (i) that is perpendicular to the around and to the horizontal lines described above and (ii) that is 1/3 of the distance from the anus to the right outside line. (the above description can generally be described as covering 1/3 of the buttocks centered over the cleavage for the length of the cleavage.) (source )

***

While there, I spotted some more interesting clauses in the Facebook Code of Conduct. Indeed, you may not

use Facebook to send or make available any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, solicitations, promotional materials, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation

I wonder if that includes all these invitations that people send you to take such-or-such a test, or join such-or-such a group. Imagine! Invite-you-friend could violate their terms of use! There IS a god after all!

(I wonder if the annoying quizzes that force you to invite 10 friends before giving you your results still exist...)

[you may not] solicit passwords or personal information from anyone, including those under 18

because those under 18 are usually not concerned by the password-solicitation prohibition? ...

[you may not] use information or content you obtained on the Facebook website or service in any manner not authorized by the Facebook Code of Conduct or Terms of Use

OK, I don't know if I need more legal education, or what, but what does THAT mean? That you may not use the info in the manners prohibited by FB? Or that you may not use any info in any manner UNLESS it's authorized by the FB code? In which case, does the Code authorize ways to use the info?

[you may not] register for more than one account or use or attempt to use another's account, service or system without authorization or create a false identity on the Service or the Site

HAHA they haven't specified whose authorization you need.

gosh I'm such a geek.

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-25T14:21:00.002-05:00

Law is Cool offers a humorous and legalized take on 'Twas a Night Before Christmas. (At least I thought it was humorous, but the previous statement only expresses the personal opinion of the writer and may not reflect the opinion of the general population.)

THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS:
Whereas, on or about the night prior to Christmas, there did occur at a certain improved piece of real property (hereinafter “the House”) a general lack of stirring by all creatures therein, including, but not limited to a mouse.

Read the entire text Here.

2008-12-21T22:23:00.002-05:00

Sometimes, I wonder what the hell I'm doing.

Have you ever put yourself in a situation where you embark on a mission, and then wonder what has gotten into you to do such a thing?

I have just decided to revamp the Librivox Wiki. That thing has been annoying me for ages, and I kept thinking someone should be organizing it better. And then I decided that since nobody was doing anything, I would do it. After all, I'm on Christmas holiday and have free time.

Oh boy.

That thing has around 500 pages. I've just finished mapping the pages linked to the Index. Took me just over a day. I should've started with a plan, rather than make it up as I go along. I mean, I know what I want the final product to look like. It's the process that I haven't quite figured out.

I need a plan now.

Here's what will have to be done.

1. group similar pages into clusters. Start with the easy pages first, like the Project Templates, or the Translation Pages. Make sure that each cluster has an user-friendly index page. (BADLY needed for the Project Templates)

This obviously implies identifying the clusters first.

2. Cross-check the All Pages list with the CategoryHomepage list, and make sure nobody is left over.

3. Re-structure the Guides section.

Volunteering should go with LV/Policy/PD

Recording and Editing should go together. I always wanted to have a step-by-step, checklist-like guide. I'll have to see what I can do with the pages available.

TechnicalSpecs should be integrated with the Recording section.

OtherStuff section should have to be split.

I'm thinking of a section for Resources, where we'll put lists and stuff.

As for the rest, I guess I'll make it up as I go along.

2008-12-06T11:51:00.002-05:00

My Corporate Law prof was supposed to give us a class on Copyright on the last day of class, but he didn't have time to do so. I was a bit disappointed, as I was really looking forward to that. He did talk a teensy bit about it, but only on specific cases.

It made me realize one thing, though. People blame many things on Copyright protection, either because the think it's too broad, lasts for too long, or is too repressive. Yet, I came to understand that although Copyright certainly does offer protection, and restrictions, it's certainly not the whole story.

First off, ideas are not copyrightable. I'd certainly like to go into a discussion on the difference between an idea and a copyrightable/patentable work, but that would require research and I won't have time for that until after my finals.

The first example we were given was that of TV shows. Take a show like Deal or No Deal, or Big Brother, for instance. What if you want to create your own show based on that concept? Would you need to pay royalty fees to the original creators of Deal or No Deal? And if not, why do the producers still do?

According to my prof, if you want to take the concept, you could probably do so without having to pay royalties. (Legally, that is. This being said, there isn't much precedent on the subject.) Why? Because it's an idea. It's a concept, and as such, is not copyrightable, nor patentable. Of course, if you want to use the name, you'd have to pay for that, since it's a trademark. But the idea itself is free, and public knowledge.

So why to the producers still have to buy the rights? Well, this has nothing to do with copyright. Or rather, very little. To air a show (in Canada, at any rate), the show needs to be insured. The insurance companies will refuse to cover the show if there is any risk of legal difficulties.

You have to understand, it's not because the original producers will most likely lose their case that it'll keep them from trying to sue. And once the procedures are started, it could be years before a judge gives a verdict. Count a good 10 years if it goes to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the show can't be aired. So really, better be on the safe side, and fork out some money.

So is it Copyright's fault? Hardly so. Why? Because ideas aren't protected by copyright. Just because people use the law abusively doesn't mean that the law is bad in itself. For instance, the law says that if you cause damages to someone else's by your fault, you are liable for these damages. Just because someone uses this principle to claim $50M for a pair of lost trousers doesn't mean that the law itself is abusive, merely that here are abusive people.

Therefore, it's not because the Copyright Act puts forward a set of principles, and people are trying to extend these principles in every possible way, with more or less success, that the Act is bad in itself.

Coalition?

2008-12-02T13:13:00.002-05:00

Who ever said Canadian politics was boring?
(OK, fine I probably did.)

BUT, things are finally getting exciting! The opposition parties are forming a coalition, and we might see the government fall as soon as next week! :D This is about as exciting as it gets. So here are the options:
1. The non-confidence motion passes, and the govt falls. We either go in elections AGAIN, or the coalition governs.
2. Harper suspends parliament, and saves his ass until end January.

Both cases need the Governor General's approval. Now, what will the GG do? Legally, whatever she wants, thanks to the remnants of British Imperialism. However, there are also "constitutional conventions", which are basically tacit rules. According to the conventions, the GG is supposed to approve whatever the Prime Minister proposes, because, after all, we *are* a sovereign nation and don't exactly answer to the British Crown anymore.

So now what?
1. Harper asks for a prorogation, the Governor General accepts, and public outrage ensues, because it's a cheap way to avoid the non-confidence motion.
2. The non-confidence motion passes, Harper asks to dissolve parliamant and calls another election. Public outrage ensues, because we just spent $300M on one.
3. The non-confidence motion passes, the Governor General approves the coalition, and public outrage ensues, because the people who voted Tory will be outraged.

So really, the only way to end this gracefully would be for Harper to hand over the government.

And then public outrage ensues.

LV recordings

2008-11-28T20:15:00.006-05:00

Since I've been getting some (Ok, ok, 3) comments about LV readings, I thought I'd have a post for that, in case people are looking for a place to post their comments.

Comme j'ai reçu quelques commentaires concernant mes enregistrements Librivox, j'ai pensé dédier un post pour permettre aux auditeurs de laisser des commentaires.

Up to now, my solo projects include:
Jusqu'à présent, mes projets solos incluent:
- Le Comte de Monte-Cristo (Dumas) [FR]
- Les Trois mousquetaires (Dumas) [FR]
- Discours sur l’origine et les fondements de l’inégalité parmi les hommes (Rousseau) [FR]
- Fêtes galantes (Verlaine) [FR]
- Illuminations (Rimbaud) [FR]
- Maria Chapdelaine (Hémon) [FR]
- Poèmes Saturniens (Verlaine) [FR]
- Two Years in the Forbidden City [EN]

For everything else, please look here
Pour mes autres contributions, veuillez vous rendre ici:
My LV Catalog page

So if you have any comments, suggestions, or criticism, or if you live in Aix-la-Chappelle and I screwed up the pronunciation of your town, please post a reply to this message!

Si vous avez des commentaires, des suggestions, ou des critiques, ou si vous habitez Aix-la-Chappelle et que j'ai mal prononcé le nom de votre ville, laissez moi un commentaire!

***

Thank you to all listeners!
Merci à tous les auditeurs! :)

Copyrights and wrongs

2008-11-28T18:11:00.002-05:00

There was a discussion going on on the LV forums, and I found myself defending copyright. This, from one whose Facebook page's "I'm a Fan of" box consists entirely of open source stuff, and who defended the public domain with equal fervour some time ago.

Meanwhile, Linux called; they wanted their bootleg Ubuntu back.

I'd do some research and make a compelling pro-copyright argument, but after a 20-page essay, I'm not really in that mood. I'd post my arguments on the forum thread, but I'm not feeling argumentative right now. However, the topic really does call for reflection, and I think, it's worth some brain juice.

First, allow me to clear up my position. I am FOR copyright. I think maintaining copyright after the author has died is pointless. AND I think that once the copyright is expired, you better stop asking for royalties!

Copyright generally has a bad rep. Big record companies and million-dollar lawsuits usually don't help with the reputation. But really, the same can be said of a lot of rights, and just because big corporations can sue based on those rights doesn't mean the principles are bad in any way.

Another fact people use to discredit copyright is its relative newness. People will argue that copyright is quite a recent development, and somehow link it to the hegemony of the corporations. Again, just because it is a concept that has been developed recently doesn't mean it's a bad concept. It just means that there were new situations that needed to be addressed, which required new rules. What new situation? Printing. Selling books. Not that people didn't read before, but printing (and general literacy) certainly made books more widespread, along with counterfeiters and plagiarists.

Ideas can't be copyrighted. But a creative work can. Unfortunately, some people are confusing both. Is music an idea? I don't think so. You can have the idea of playing the guitar. You can have the idea of singing about love or hate or war or flowers. But the final song is not a mere idea. The final arrangement of notes, the arrangement of words, that belongs to you.

Why does it belong to you? Why should it? What's so different between a song and a mere idea? After all, isn't the result a mere succession of ideas?

[TBC...]

LOL

2008-11-26T13:08:00.003-05:00

Sometimes, little things happen that just makes you go "Hmm..."
I had a bit of a WTF moment Monday, as I was logging into LibriVox on a school computer. I usually use the same few computers in the lab, so my username is often saved on them, and I'd just click in the username field and select mine from the drop-down menu. On LibriVox, and everywhere else I had to log in, my username is usually the only one. Except that on Monday, I click in the field, and lo and behold, I get:
Jc
Starlite

Needless to say, I spent the next 10 minutes wondering why Starlite (who lives in Ontario) was there, as I certainly don't remember ever trying to log in with HER username...

Get out of my brains, NOW!
***

In other news, I have one of these little applications you put on the Google personalized home page, which is the "Reuters' Oddly Enough" box. And for almost 3 months, it's been stuck on the same 3 news stories. One of them is "Putin saves TV crew from Siberian tiger"

Bit weird, but draws a daily chuckle.

***

I was eating at the caf when Pauline Marois dropped by for a visit. She was supposed to give a speed "in 10 minutes", someone reminded us, which was about 5 minutes before she showed up in the caf. I was sitting on one side of the aisle, and she started talking to people right on the other side, making her way to the back of the room, followed by cameramen from the news.

And I was thinking 2 things:
1. Thank god I decided not to sit in the back.
2. Hurry up and eat before she comes up to you.

I was a bit annoyed, really. I just wanted to eat in peace. I've got nothing against politicians; I was quite pleased when Mr Lussier from the Bloc came a-knocking on our door, even though I didn't vote for him.
I'd probably be a bit more evil with the people from the ADQ. I'd probably just go:
"Sorry, I don't speak French."
"But we're in Quebec, you should be speaking French." (Which is something I'm expecting them to say, or at least think. So I could go:)
"Sorry, we're in Canada, and there's another official language. Hostie!"

I did see a friend of mine walk away from the back of the room, when Marois was there. I like to think she was running away. (Friend is a member of the Youth Liberal Party)

2008-11-14T21:22:00.001-05:00

In this case, a State which had solemnly undertaken to cherish the
right to life, has wantonly plucked and tossed away the being of a
young man, paying the price of a small car - almost an
entertainment tax on homicide. In the Strasbourg market it seems
that life comes cheap, and killing is a tremendous bargain.

~Bonello J.
Ogur v. Turkey, ECtHR, 21594/93, 20 May 1999.

Awww a comment!

2008-11-05T14:34:00.003-05:00

Hello,
I wanted to THANK YOU for your recording of "Les trois mousquetaires" in Librivox! I really enjoyed listening to all chapters! Now I am reading and listening to "Le Comte de Monte Cristo". Thanks a million again!
Do you have any future plans to record any other works of Alexandre Dumas?

Thanks for the comment! It's so nice to see that people appreciate it! To answer the question, I did have the intention of recording ALL of Dumas' work at the beginning, then it hit me: soooooo many books!
I've "only" read the 3 musketeers + the 2 sequels, the Count of Monte-cristo, and Acté. Which isn't much compared to the rest of his works. I'm more interested with the "cape et épée" novels, and the other books seem really big and long and not that exciting. I might try La Reine Margot one of these days, per someone's suggestion. Or maybe something shorter like Acté.

Right now, my ongoing giant project (I seem to have a knack for these things) is the Essais par Montaigne.

No stupid questions...

2008-11-05T13:57:00.002-05:00

... but sometimes, you wonder.

Corporate Law class.

The teacher is explaining the basic principles of the "société de personnes" (society/partnership). The 3 basic principles are:
1. an "apport" (contribution) from all partners
2. Division of profits/losses
3. Intention to form a society/partnership.

Thus, if you are not bringing some kind of contribution ("apport") you cannot be part of the society.

Which prompted this question:
"Suppose 3 people form a society to go on a picnic. (Cue class: WTF?) The first person brings the food, the second person brings the drinks, and the third person brings his brother. (Cue class: WTF #2) Is that considered an "apport" if the brother only eats?"

It's quite hard to describe the effect of such a question. On one side, the entire class is going What the Hell is she talking about? and yet you don't want to laugh in her face. There were some repressed chuckles, though. Points for the Prof for keeping his cool. I think I would've laughed.

I mean, yeah, we pretty much get what she was getting at. But, really, this is not exactly the best analogy. Who in their right mind would form a society for a picnic?

The prof handled it pretty well. First, it wasn't a society, because there was no commercial or any other kind of pecuniary interest involved. And evil teacher would've ended it there. But for the answer: no, you can't bring in a "contribution" that only generates spending.

***

There was also that question about confidentiality. All partners have an obligation of confidentiality regarding their customers' files, so they can't use the information for personal or other purposes.

The question: "What if the partner wants to get married to the customer, and looks for her address in the files?"

Um. Yeah. I'm not sure that the prospect of an amorous relationship is necessarily a mitigating factor in this case. The thought of it is quite disturbing.

gained in translation

2008-11-01T11:30:00.002-04:00

I've got another research paper to write, this time on diplomatic and consular protection, and Canada's "performance".

I was doing some research, and reading a page in the Foreign Affairs' webpage, when I came across this:

Certains Canadiens font comme s’ils ne savaient pas qu’ils doivent épuiser tous leurs recours avant de demander de l’aide ou se mettent dans des situations dangereuses, et exigent ensuite certains services consulaires qui ne sont normalement pas offerts. Ces personnes vont par la suite demander réparation en justice s’ils jugent insuffisants le niveau et l’efficacité de l’aide fournie par le gouvernement du Canada.

Which _literally_ made me go WHAT!? Not only is it extremely mean, it's unprofessional. Of course, I wanted to see if that's what the government meant, or if it was only a translation mistake. The English version says this:

Some Canadians ignore their responsibility to exhaust all personal options of recourse or place themselves in risky situations, then demand consular services not normally provided, and subsequently seek legal recourse in demonstrating their dissatisfaction with the level and effectiveness of the assistance provided by the Government of Canada.

Which begs the question: Which incompetent low-life paid by MY taxes translated that? And HOW do you go from "Some Canadians ignore their responsibility" to "Some Canadians pretend not to know their responsibility"!?

I hope that's not how the gov't views its citizens: as ill-intentioned, ungrateful morons who act like spoiled brats and sue the administration every time we're not having things our way.

And even then: "SOME Canadians ignore". Sorry to disappoint, but that should read "MOST Canadians ignore". It's not exactly common knowledge. I'm sure most people going abroad do not necessarily expect to get in trouble with the law, much less research your recourses in advance.

2008-09-30T23:12:00.002-04:00

On a lighter note, I had some stuff to post and, well, let's just say be careful when using Cut/Paste. I think it's fate. This is evidently info I wasn't supposed to keep, since my recorder bailed out on me, and this is exactly the part that didn't get recorded.

It was just some funny factoids gathered from the Administrative Law class. There were some funny rules the prof told us about , among which were the by-law stating that kite flying, cock fighting and dog fighting were prohibited. I'm not sure why kite flying had to be forbidden, but on certainly wonders why it's put in the same sentence as cock and dog fighting...

There was also this by-law that said calèche owners couldn't make their horses work in above-30C temperature. This is one bit of info I would've liked to have had earlier. I would've known what to say to people who called during the few hot days in the summer, asking whether there were a temperature limit above which they weren't obliged to work. Then, I could've told them "Nope, nothing in the labour standards act, but if you were a horse, then you'd be off if it's above 30."

There was also this by-law prohibiting people to walk more than 2 dogs on a leash, which was apparently passed in order to get rid of a homeless dude in the neighbourhood.

And you're not supposed to park within 5 metres of a stop sign, but they'd have parking lines within that distance.

2008-09-30T22:39:00.003-04:00

I had a bit of an existential moment the other day. I have a class on Corporate Law, and we were learning about the definition of a business. I started thinking about LibriVox, and whether it could be considered a business. Business is defined according to two criteria: 1. organization and coordination of resources, and 2. an economic objective. LibriVox is organized alright, but no economic goal there.

And I thought, are we producing anything? What are we producing anyway? Audiobooks. But, what is an audiobook, really? Bytes and bytes of data. 0s and 1s sitting somewhere on a server. I was hit by the intangibility of it all. Unplug the server, and what have you left? Nothing. It's a bit unsettling, really. Just bits and bits of data traveling through wires, traveling through the air.

Is this a product? It's nothing. Or maybe, it's energy. Energy pulses through the wires, through the air. Soundwaves, that's what we're producing. Data. Lots and lots of data. Maybe if we had CDs, it would seem more real. I'd have something to touch, something to hold, something to stack up.

And then I played a recording, and thought, "don't tell me this is not real!"

2008-09-27T09:27:00.002-04:00

Yesterday was my last day of work. Some time in the morning, I get a call from a guy, and it goes like this:

Guy: "Hi, I'm calling because I think my boss owes me money."
Me: OK, why does he owe you money?
Guy: Well, I think there's time that I worked, but I didn't get paid for it.

At this point, I'm already starting to be seriously annoyed. Just spit it out dude, instead of prolonging the agony. You're not writing a mystery novel! Care to elaborate just a tiny bit?

Guy: Well, here's the thing. I usually go on break from 6 PM to 6:30 PM to eat. So from 6 PM to 6:30, I'm not getting paid. The other day, a machine broke at around 5, and it still wasn't fixed by 5:30, so my boss told me to take my break from 5:30 to 6 PM. And I came back to work at 6. So from 6 to 6:30 PM, I didn't get paid.

Oh. Right. ... Wait. What? No, I misunderstood, right? The guy can't be THAT stupid, surely? I recap, just to make sure. So you went on break from 5:30 to 6, came back to work from 6 to 6:30. On the schedule, it says you're not paid from 6 to 6:30. So you worked from 6 to 6:30 and didn't get paid for that time that day. But you were paid from 5:30 to 6, right?

Guy: Yeah.

Oh blimey. He really is that dumb. So what's the problem?

Guy: Well, my boss could've made me do other jobs for that time. He would've found other work for me to do.

Uh, so? You boss can tell you to take your lunch break too, dude. In a desperate attempt to punch a bit of common sense into him, I ask:

Me: so how many hours have you worked that day?
Guy: same as every other day.
Me:Which is?
Guy: 7 hours.
Me: And you were paid for how many hours of work that day?
Guy: 7 hours.
Me: So where's the problem? (Seriously hoping he gets it)
Guy: Well, I didn't get paid from 6 to 6:30.
(Fuck me.)
Me: LOOK, YOU WORKED 7 HOURS, YOU GOT PAID 7 HOURS, I REALLY DON'T SEE WHERE THE PROBLEM IS. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT SAYS THAT YOU WERE ON BREAK FROM 6 TO 6:30 AND DIDN'T GET PAID FOR THAT TIME, YOU GOT PAID FOR 7 HOURS, WHICH IS WHAT YOU WORKED. OK?

Made my day.

* * *

I'm becoming more like a lawyer now. A lady called for a question on the pay for Labour Day for one of her employees who was on vacation at that time. The rule for Holiday Pay is that you take the salary of the 4 weeks before the week of the holiday, and divide it by 20. People are not entitled to the pay if they're on unpaid vacation, sick leave or parental/maternity/paternity leave.

I was explaining that to the lady, and saying how vacation pay is included in the salary, so if the employee took 2 weeks vacation and worked for 2 weeks, you'll have to include the vacation pay in the forumla. The employee took 2 paid weeks, and 2 unpaid weeks. And I just went: well, you don't have to pay her anything then. Because Labour Day was the first day where she was on unpaid leave. Her 2 weeks of paid vacation ended the day before. So she wouldn't be entitled to holiday pay.

Wow. I was thinking, I just deprived someone of her vacation pay. And I'm not even feeling bad about it. Cuz it's the law, baby.

(at least the lady was nice, and said the girl was a good worker, and she'd pay her anyway)

War games

2008-09-22T12:16:00.002-04:00

Yesterday, my dad told me about a son of his friend's, who has apparently decided to join the Armed Forces, and has done pretty well finding himself a nice spot where he would work and study. And then he asked: "Have you ever thought of joining the Army?"

Well, as a matter of fact, yes. Except for the fact that I would be a tiny bit too visually impaired to be allowed to join without laser surgery. AND the fact that I react very badly to any kind of physical exercise.

But that is beside the point. It's not the first time one of my parents have suggested (albeit jokingly) that I join the Army. This time, though, I actually shuddered. Join the army? NO WAY. IN HELL. I'm too happy being a civilian.

For the last couple of weeks, I've been doing research for an essay on the laws of war. Got a nice little book, and started reading. The book explained the international law governing such and such kind of military actions. What was allowed, and what wasn't. Not that it makes any difference in practice, since when all hell breaks loose, you're pretty much in the shit, law or no law.

Very early on, there is a distinction between civilians and non-civilians. Civilians are supposed to be protected. When war is a-knocking at the door, civilians should be evacuated, and you're not supposed to be shooting at them. Civilian installations shouldn't be destroyed either. Not so much for the military. Military personnel is what they call "valid military target". Military equipment is "valid military target". Roads and bridges are "valid military target".

Bit chilling, that. It almost felt like I was reading the manual to a video game. Almost like it was a game. Bridges: 10 points. Destroy a bunker: 50 points. Tanks: 20 points. Hospital: -100. When you're a soldier, you're a valid military target. Like a tank. Like a rocket launcher. You're not a human anymore. Just little things at which they shoot.

War is just a game. Do the generals think in terms of human life? Or are they just in front of their computer screens, counting points?

***

Join the military? No thanks. I'd rather not be running around the battlefield with a bullseye on my ass.

2008-07-29T12:52:00.002-04:00

Just had a call about a guy complaining that his employer didn't give him his Record of Employment. We're at labour standards, not the Employment Insurance office, and that's none of our business. We can't do anything about that, it not in our law, you have to call the EI.

And the guy goes: "Well, you really don't want to do your job, do you?" and hangs up on me.

AARRGGHH!!

I told it to my coworker, and one of them recounted an information session they've had with a management consultant of some kind, who said that IF YOU DID YOUR JOB RIGHT, SUCH THINGS WOULDN'T HAPPEN. I was outraged!

What does that mean? that it's MY fault, that an asshole calls? That if some fucktard doesn't want to understand, it's MY fault? Hey, I'm all for responsibilities, but that's too much! I wish I'd been there.

Imaginary conversation with the consultant:
Consultant: If you did your job right, such things won't happen.
Me: WHAT!? Does it mean that if someone yells at me, it means that I haven't done my job right?
Consultant: yes.
ME: it means that if someone is an asshole, it's MY FAULT?
Consultan: Why, yes.
ME: WHAT KIND OF FUCKING LOGIC IS THIS!? ARE YOU TRYING TO TELL ME THAT IT'S MY FAULT THAT A DUMBASS CALLS, AND GETS ANGRY, WHEN I'VE GIVEN THEM A PERFECTLY RESPECTABLE ANSWER, AND THAT I SHOULD FEEL GUILTY ABOUT IT!?
Consultant: Please calm down...
ME: WELL, IF YOU DID YOUR JOB RIGHT, SUCH THINGS WOULDN'T HAPPEN!!!

Or something to the effect. Throw a fit or something. Just to get that last line in.

Featured today

2008-07-24T15:11:00.002-04:00

... in the too much information department: medical information.

Look people. Medical info is private. Sometimes, for a good reason. You have the right to keep medical information private, so please, exercise that right. Especially when said medical condition is totally irrelevant to the discussion and, moreover, is an especially embarassing one.

Because, you know, there really is no pride in admitting that you went water-skiing, fell on your butt, which caused tearing in a very sensitive and unattractive body part. Please keep it for yourself. It's not because we're on the phone that people won't be laughing at you for quite a while.

2008-07-22T16:00:00.002-04:00

The first thing I heard on the radio when I woke up this morning was the news about the dude in the US who said that 99% of the people who have autism were in fact just ill-behaved kids. The newsguy was telling us that people and groups were demanding the dude's head on a platter, for having dared to utter such atrocity.

And in the same breath, newsguy goes on talking about Mike Ward, who got death threats because he had the misfortune to make a joke with Cedrika Provencher, the girl who went missing. The joke was quoted in a newspaper, and since then, Ward can't even go out of his house because he's got death threaths.

Newsguy then said something about putting things in context.

And all I could do was marvel at the irony of the thing. i mean, on one side you've got the dude with the autistic kids, and it's alright to ask for HIS head, but then you can turn around and complain about how people don't put sayings in context and should just basically calm down.

IRONY!!!

2008-07-08T10:41:00.003-04:00

I was going to work this morning, and the lady in front of me in the escalator was wearing a pair of white pants. She had what appeared to be a spot of humidity in the groin area. Pretty had to miss, since her ass was in my face. I know she knew, because she was rubbing her ass all the time.

For a split second, I felt the urge to go up to her and say "Yep, it shows."
But no.

I guess Schadenfreude is a sense I have yet to perfect...

2008-07-04T14:32:00.002-04:00

What would you tell an employer who tells you to go attend one of those new-age seminars on "personal growth"? This employer was into I don't know what, really believed in this crap, something about leaving the past in the past and that kind of shit, and now he's making all, I repeat, ALL his employees attend it, otherwise, goodbye.

It's like forcing your employees to join a cult. Geez, some people are nuts!

Oh, and I just got yelled at again by a customer on the phone, because he didn't want to wait a few weeks for us to process his complaint. And something about us fuckers who work for the government, who never do anything, etc.

2008-07-03T21:57:00.002-04:00

One gets all sort of people when working in a call center, and some people give you 7 kinds of crap. This dude the other day INSISTED that we help him. The only problem was, that we couldn't. And he didn't take that. Started bitching about how incompetent I was. "You a damn secretary? Do you know the law?" Well, I friggin hope so , after a month's training. "There anyone more competent?" Fine. Dumped the call on a supervisor. Poor guy had to deal with the dude, and at some point,
"Well, Sir, what do you want exactly?"
"I'm starting to think that what I want is to blow up all the offices that piss me off!"

o.O Oh great. I have to admit, I glanced at the caller ID to see where he was calling from. 814. Phew!

And today, this lady calls and starts bitching because she got fired for having made a coworker cry. The coworker happened to be Chinese. I happen to be Chinese. For 45 minutes, I had to listen to her go "just because that Chinese girl was crying". At some point, I was thinking I'd just say to her, at the end of the call "BTW, I'm Chinese." and hang up. And then she asks for my name.

And I thought, God exists.
Awkward silence. Then: "Don't tell me you're Chinese... "
"Hem. Yeah. "

WELL. I guess SOMEONE's going to kick themselves tonight.

2008-06-19T08:33:00.002-04:00

I woke up this morning at 5, and the first thing that came to my mind was "I think I might have time to sneak in a couple of chapters before my bro wakes up!" Then, I became aware of a throbbing pain in my left forearm, and it just wouldn't go. So I folded my arm behind my back and slept on it.

And now it's stopped hurting.
I swear, I could be a doctor.

On my way to work, I saw 2 police officers writing parking tickets. They had their motorbikes beside them, and they were half a block from the police station. And I couldn't help but to picture these 2 guys riding their bikes one block, getting off, and start inspecting the cars. What were they afraid of? That they wouldn't look cool going on foot and walk half a block to write a parking ticket? And who the hell is dumb enough to park illegally right beside a bloody police station!?

2008-06-17T15:35:00.002-04:00

Ah! the weird calls you receive when in a call center!! Unfortunately, I haven't got any of the really weird ones, but one of my friends got a guy who was wondering whether his boss was allowed to keep the dirty pictures of his girlfriend that he had at work, whatever he was doing with them in the first place.
Took some kind of guts to call for that...

Got a lady this morning who was trying to screw the employment insurance. She was wondering if she had the right to refuse her vacation pay so that she'll be able to keep receiving some kind of insurance.
Darn...

work work work

2008-06-16T12:34:00.002-04:00

Ahhh! here I am sitting at my very own desk. At work. Pretty neat, considering I didnèt even do any very exhaustive work search. Way back in March, I was freaking out when I saw every classmate scurrying about searching for jobs, and voila, here I am; work just fell from the sky.

It's not the most exciting kind of work, though. I'm an information person at the Labour Standards' call center. Basically, I answer the phone. You get all kinds of weird questions, and some people aren't the brightest you'll see around...

One thing I've got to say, though, is that working for the gov't is pretty much like it's portrayed to be. Pretty relaxed, no boss that drags you to your office when you're one minute over your break time.

Linux awn

2008-05-31T16:02:00.002-04:00

notes for self

Installing awn-bzr

First, google awn-bzr, and get to the Reacocard awn-bzr page on launchpad.net
add the url to the software sources
( deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/reacocard-awn/ubuntu hardy main )
Get the 3 packages from the package manager:
- avant-window-navigator
- awn core applets
- awn window manager

Then, have it run at startup:
system > preferences > sessions
add avant-window-navigator

**

That's IT. can't believe I forgot how to do that!

automobiles

2008-05-10T21:15:00.002-04:00

A few days ago, my parents have made the purchase of a luxury vehicle. I have nothing against luxury vehicles, except when it happens to be OUR luxury vehicle. See, we don't NEED a luxury vehicle. We don't have the kind of money to DRIVE a luxury vehicle. If we had 50K to spare, our bathroom could use a little freshening up. Pretty badly.

We're not luxury vehicle people. We can't afford to roll around town in a $50,000 metal shell. Not that we can't afford it, since we can, provided we live on Kraft Dinner for the next decade or so, but we don't have money lying around for that kind of shit.

We're not luxury vehicle people. We're more Toyota people. We look ridiculous when we hop into a luxury vehicle. My mom doesn't know how to drive the bloody car she bought. She wanted a manual car, for whatever reason. And she can't drive a manual car. She already has trouble driving and working the windshield wiper at the same time, let alone handle a speedbox. This afternoon, she had the brilliant idea to put the car in the garage. No idea why, though, since I pretty much thought she bought it to have it sit in the driveway and impress the neighbours. Anyway. So from the driveway to the garage (a 5-metre ride), she managed to stall the engine. Not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES!!

No idea who she's trying to impress, but I'm pretty sure they're laughing their asses off right now...

Hating OS upgrades

2008-04-30T00:25:00.004-04:00

OK, so after having to do a clean install to upgrade from Gutsy to Hardy, and thereby losing all my downloaded packages and customizations, I have thought that the wiser thing would be to record all the changes made to the system.

FIRST: the most important thing: The spinning hard drive.
Never forget that your hard drive goes nuts. You've used it for a whole month with it spinning up and down every 5 seconds, so the life of the poor thing has been significantly shortened.
Here is the solution, you get it by searching "hard drive spinning up/down ubuntu"
SOLUTION:
Add startup script:
sudo gedit /etc/init.d/local_settings
Now add this:
hdparm -B 254 /dev/xxx
...whereas 'xxx' represents your hard drive. (personal note: xxx = sda)

Make it executable:
sudo chmod +x /etc/init.d/local_settings
Create symb-link:
sudo ln -s /etc/init.d/local_settings /etc/rc2.d/S99local_settings
Restart & the weird clicking sound should now have disappeared. Guess that's it!

THEN. I've tried to make the backspace key work. To do this, had to type
about:config
in the address bar of the browser. Then search for ‘browser.backspace_action’ and change its value to 0 (zero).
NOTE: the default value was 2.

That's it for the moment,Now, if only I can remember how to install compiz-fusion and awn-bzr, maybe I can showcase the gorgeous icons I've downloaded...

FAT GUY ON METRO

2008-03-12T21:13:00.001-04:00

I was taking the metro this morning when I saw the most exasperating thing I've yet to see in public transit. Rush hour in the morning, metro car mildly full, a girl leaves her seat to get off. There were about 5 people standing around, doing what people do in such a case, namely, looking at each-other to see who was going to take the seat. And believe me or not, in that split-second, some fat dude spots the seat, goes "Excuse me! EXCUSE ME!", literally shoves aside 2 people, on of which was an old guy who looked like he could use the seat, and sits his fat ass down. I hope he's that motivated when it comes to losing weight...

Where does their money go?

2008-03-12T21:12:00.002-04:00

Back in Cegep, I had a teacher who became known for always wearing the same shirt. So much so, that a Facebook has been created just for him, called "Please buy [insert teacher's name] a new shirt." Well, what do you know, Cegep teachers aren't the only ones around in need of extending their wardrobe selection. Who'da thunk that University teachers would too? Law teachers, on too of that. You'd think that with their salaries, they'd be able to afford a bit of diversity in their wardrobe.

Yes I did.

2008-03-11T15:20:00.003-04:00

There's a islam-awareness thing going on around campus, and I was speaking to this guy at the booth, and what he had to say was interesting, but I couldn't help but notice one thing: he kept repeating "But you already know this, don't you?"

Which struck me as curious, since I obviously didn't, otherwise I wouldn't be asking And yet, there was something in that sentence that just made me wonder, Why? Why did he keep asking that? OK, maybe I should go back and ask him why. Would that be rude? Or inappropriate?

And do I want to know? Maybe it's just something he says. Or maybe it's some dark tactic to mess with your subconscious. To make you go "Well, OF COURSE, I knew it already".

If I suppose good intentions, and assume that this question is asked out of modesty, then it kinda makes sense. As in "I'm giving you all this info, but perhaps you already know all of this? Am I boring you?" And by doing this, you assume the one you're talking to is not an utter moron. Though, it only works when the person really did know it already.
Because it really could go the opposite way. As in "You know this already, don't you? Because I assume you do, because you really should be knowing all this stuff. Moron."

And if I assume bad intentions, and it I were the least bit paranoid, I'd be thinking he's trying to subconsciously force these facts into my mind. As in: "I'm saying something totally unrealistic and untrue, but you did believe that too, didn't you? Yes you did."

2008-03-07T16:09:00.002-05:00

I have a paper to write for Monday, and I haven't started yet. Maybe, if I keep staring at the blank page, inspiration will come by itself. Reading and re-reading the instructions doesn't help, that's for sure. I'm supposed to offer a CRITICAL and PERSONAL reflexion. I can't help but feel like there's a contradiction somewhere in there.

Oh well, I guess critical isn't the same thing as objective, though pretty close. Will figuring out the difference help me with my project? Dunno, but let's see. It's not like I knew what to write about anyway.
Merriam-Webster says this about Critical:
2 a: inclined to criticize severely and unfavorably b: consisting of or involving criticism critical writings>; also : of or relating to the judgment of critics critical success> c: exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation <critical thinking> d: including variant readings and scholarly emendations critical edition>

and Objective:
3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> objective history of the war> objective judgment>

Well, I guess the judgment doesn't have to be objective, then.
Emendations. What does that even mean?
emendation:

1 : the act or practice of emending 2 : an alteration designed to correct or improve

Right.
that helps.
Emending: : to correct usually by textual alterations.

Right. BAsically, give lots of quotes, and pretend you've actually read what was to be read, I guess.

2008-02-22T23:15:00.003-05:00

Been watching this "new" show on CTV. New is a somewhat relative term, as it has only started airing here, yet it seems that 2 seasons have already been aired some other place. Dexter, it's called. Quite neat, nice concept, but it just doesn't fit.

Show's about some serial killer dude who kills killers. I thought it was neat, but after watching it, I have to say, it's somewhat disappointing. Not the story, mind you. Story is fine. But the characters... The main character is so... romanticized. He's the perfect character of the "ideal" serial killer, the one that lies in some dark corner in all of us: the one who kills the bad ones. There's some Stockholm-ish feeling about this guy, charming, and kills cause of some sense of justice.

Character is also pretty lame: all textbook serial killer stuff, but none of the mentality. And get me right, I'm not saying I understand the tortuous minds of the mentally fucked-ups, but I consider myself having the qualifications for a degree in Criminal Mind-ology and Hannibal Lecter-ology. The guy Dexter's killer-ness is only skin deep: childhood trauma, an in-you-face type of lack of empathy, finds relationships difficult, and collects stuff from victim. Scratch the surface, and there's nothing more underneath.

The writers' attempt at adding a bit of humanity to the character completely ruins it. Not supposed to have any!!!
Where is the evil geniusness? Where is the youth spent torturing little creatures? Where is the low-profile average joe who seeks recognition through his "work"?

*sigh* The writers have tried too much to make the character appealing. They should've relied more on viewers' innate sense of fascination about serial killers and Stockholm. Instead, they've created a half-sentimental supposedly non-empathetic guy who actually has a sense of moral.

Law as religion

2008-02-21T19:49:00.002-05:00

There's something uncanny about learning about the law. Not learning the law, mind you. Learning about it. About how it started, why we respect it, what makes us respect it, that sort of thing. The philosophy behind it all, what. I find it's a bit like religion, in the sense that you take what is given, and go with it. Many theories try to explain why we follow the law. Jus naturalism talks about our innate sense of justice.

We're now talking about positivism. Kelsen's theories. And in the end, you're left with this: you follow the law because it is based on another law, or norm, and in the end, everything is based on a Super-Norm, which you follow because you do. Which is a bit like religion. You do something because God says so. You do something because the law says so.

Which, come to think of is, is quite similar to the job of any scientist. The chemist studies the rules of chemistry, and does not really question where the rules come from, because they just ARE. The jurist studies the law, and does not question its origins, because it just IS.

There's something comforting, really, about not worrying about the Meta-norm, and taking it for granted. Because if it were to fall, it's the whole system that will come crashing down. Sometimes, I guess, willful blindness is just necessary.

2008-02-21T19:49:00.001-05:00

Was going out the metro when I noticed something. They're installing new turnpikes, and they've kept the same width as the old ones. Nothing there, right? Well, as one knows, the diameter of the average midsection has been steadily increasing over the past years. People are making wider movie seats, wider bus seats, etc, to accomodate people's larger butte. But, the turnikes are staying at the same width. I wonder if there's something in that... Of course, the one nearest tho the booth is wide. Wonder what they had in mind...

I think they're trying to make the wider ones go through that. So that every time they want to get into the metro, they have to go "OK, let me in, I'm a fat-ass". Must do wonders for their ego.

Riiiiinnng! Riiiing!

2008-02-20T17:49:00.002-05:00

Hello?

This is your destiny calling.

How may I help you?

Follow the path.

* * *

I was reading a document on copyright when it hit me. For the first time, I felt inspired. Not just a vague yeah-sure-I-could-do-that kind of feeling. No. That one was a wow-I-am-SO-doing-that feeling. Nothing big. Nothing flashy. No high-profile sue-till-you-drop aspirations.

Public domain. Copyright. More specifically, something in intellectual property. Protecting public domain works. Stop fraudulent copyright claims. Meaning, going after those who claim copyright on PD works.

Yeah. Dream on.

2008-02-18T20:22:00.000-05:00

There is something incredibly depressing in finding out that the B you were so proud of actually amounted to barely more than 70%. Thank you for normalized grades. So now what? Not much, I guess. Just thinking, what will happen next year? what will happen when the people who kept the average so low gets the boot, thereby increasing the average by a surely substantial amount? Will I be able to keep afloat? Or is that their way to weed out the weaker members of the student body, until by the end, the B+ become C-, and the A-, Bs?

By then, if you still have a bit of confidence left, the world is yours.

2008-02-11T13:00:00.000-05:00

So there I was, innocently browsing the LV forums and going about my own business, about to record the next chapter of the Comte de Monte-Cristo (which, by the way, is at its 70th chapter, go me!) .... So I was quietly going about my little business when all of a sudden, Cori ambushed me in the dark corners of a Private Message and asked me to record something for the Valentines' Day LV Podcast. She wanted something about LUURVE, and hopefully, something that wouldn't include "Bug off, Cory, that is so cheesy". Which of course, I just did. Sorry Cory.

Why do I love LV? Hmmm...
Well... WHY DO I love LV? The easy answer would be because it's fun, because of the great people who are there, because reading is fun, even when I don't always have time to read... because, really, LV is just so darn COOL.

But there's something deeper than that. A deeper kind of connection. And it would sound cheesy if I just say it like that, so I decided to write a little poem, because there's nothing like a cheesy poem to convey a cheesy idea. And it's the good kind of cheese, mind you.

So, on this Valentine's Day, here's my poem, dedicated to the dedicated volunteers at LV.

billions of souls in the universe /--/--/-/
billions of stars in a galaxy /--/--/-/
I found a voice among all voices -/-/-/-/-
A voice that told a story -/-/-/-

A voice that roams across the seas -/-/-/-/
To whisper in your ear -/-/-/
The tales of long-forgotten cities -/-/-/-/-
For one and all to hear -/-/-/

I gave the world a part of me -/-/-/-/
I took a tale and set it free -/-/-/-/
And then one day when I'll be gone -/-/-/-/
my voice will carry on -/-/-/

2008-02-02T17:34:00.001-05:00

Have you ever come across someone, someone so offensive, that you just wish you could hit them with a club? Some people who are so awesomely incoherent, and some plain stupid or plain ignorant, but who think oh so profoundly that they are right and that you are an idiot, a thorough idiot if you should ever question HIS beliefs?

Those people who call your ideas unlikely and fallacious, but fail to see it in their own?

I know someone around -- if you can ever say you "know" someone on the web -- who just makes my blood boil.
According to him, saying "I own this and can do whatever I want with this" is fundamentally the same as saying "Everyone owns this and can do whatever they want with it." We're talking here about online data.

Right. Yeah, sure, except for the "I" being replaced by the "everyone", the rest is pretty much the same. But don't be saying it makes NO difference at all!

Somewhere, I had made a joke about the monkeys, typewriters and Shakespeare. Or chimps, rather. He said since it's impossible to have infinity, such considerations are useless and they'll never come up with Shakespeare. And the same guy turns around to speculate about the possible malicious taking-over of OUR free, public domain data, by an evil-intentioned hacker who would roam the web to delete all our files, in order to monopolize the selling of it. For someone who can't imagine infinity, he sure has a lot of imagination!

And THEN, he calls the community totalitarian, because we have admins who make decisions.

I wish we could have stupidity filters.

sound advice for teamworkers

2008-01-25T13:02:00.002-05:00

If you've been to school, you've probably experienced this: Teamwork.
No single student has ever escaped this curse. Many things have been learned through Teamwork. Many abilities acquired, usually depending on your Implicit School Social Status.

There are many non-mutually-exclusive kinds of teamworkers.
First, there's the Friend. The Friend is the one who will put him/herself with a friend, just to be with a friend, and nobody will do anything until 1 AM the morning of due day.
Then, there are the Leeches. Leeches come in many flavours. There's the Dumb Leech, who will grab the smartest grab-able person and not do shit, just to get the grade.
There's the Smart-but-Lazy Leech, who doesn't care who his/her teammate is, so long as they do the work for them. Nevermind the grade, his exams will make-up for it.
THen, there's of course the One. This is the person who will end up doing everything. Come on, you all know One.

Many precious skills are learned through Teamwork. Perhaps the most important is the ability to find out the people who will do all the work and still let you get credit. People having mastered this skill usually grow up to become some sort of supervisor. Or YOUR BOSS. But, remember, you must not neglect the exploited party. Always be nice to them, because they're the ones you're counting on to save your ass one day. However, do always assure yourself that you have a sizable supply of these at your disposition. It might be a bad idea to always leech off the same one, as resentment builds up and you never know when it might blow up.

One also leans about the great principles of life, such as, if you don't do anything, chances are, someone else will care enough to save their own ass, and maybe yours if you're lucky.
You also learn that you should never leave your team by itself. You need to supervise. Even if you don't do anything relevant. You HAVE TO SUPERVISE. Because the minute you leave the room, that's when People start talking. And you don't want them talking about YOU. Because chances are, they're plotting a way to blame everything on you. And even if they might be right, you can't let that happen.

All fellow teamworkers, you have been warned.

2008-01-15T21:14:00.001-05:00

I week into the 2nd semester and already, stuff has started piling up. Reading, reading, and more readings. First week is all about getting organized, and hopefully, once I'm done running after books to buy and stuff to sort, everything will fall into place.

Of course, that's what I tell myself every semester. And there's a reason I have to repeat the same thing every semester. Nothing ever works.

Procrastination: So wrong, but feels so right.
Until exam week.

Assume a job interview

2008-01-04T14:55:00.000-05:00

Toward a perfect answer.

Why not med?

- Because I have felt that going in med would not allow me to achieve my full potential. Once one gets accepted into med, one is pretty much assured to get a job, so there isn't much stimulation. In Law, on the contrary, one must be the best in order to secure a job, so the continual competition throughout the years would allow me to keep aiming for the top.

Why would there be no competition in med?

- I guess it's something psychological, in the sense that once you know that as long as you do moderately well, you are pretty much assured to be employed. So there isn't much of an incentive to get better results. In order to get a job, that is.
On top of that, if I had gone into med, it would have been mainly to satisfy my parents. So once I would have been a doctor, I would probably just have sat around, thinking, here, I am a doctor. Isn't that what you wanted? But in Law, there's the added pressure that I have to prove to my parents that I made the right choice, and that I was able to achieve something, and I wouldn't have been satisfied unless I had something great to show them.

Can't you compete against yourself?

- Competing against oneself sounds very nice on paper, but in practice, I find it pretty useless. It is much better to have a tangible target. It is very easy to be satisfied when competing against oneself, since any slight improvement is considered a success. I find it much more productive to have something to aim for, rather than just to be "better" than myself. Say I can only run 1 mile, and my neighbour can run 10 miles. I think it is more productive to tell myself, "tomorrow, I will run 10 miles", rather than to say "tomorrow, I'll run a bit more than a mile".

It all sounded so well in my head...

2007-12-31T12:24:00.000-05:00

There once was a glorious time when I had time.
When I was a prolific blogger of all things cynical.

And then time has passed and time has gone and no time was left for me to blog.
And I learned how not to write.

And now I can't even write anymore.

2007-12-25T01:00:00.000-05:00

Don't know what's wrong with some people. Just yesterday, I've had this random old dude come up to me and my parents, and go: "You know, Christmas isn't just about presents, and shopping, it's about God and Jesus, and I'm a Quebecer and I'm a Christian, and it's part of my heritage. I've read the Bible and found God years ago, and I thought it was very important to answer questions such as where we come from and where we're going, so here's a pamphlet for you. I think it's important that people know about our culture, and about our Christian values. "

I was so pissed off. First off, I hate those pamphlet-handing religious folks. And second, WHY do you think we don't friggin know about YOUR Quebec/Christian values!? I went to the same school your kids went to! I took the same religious classes your kids had to take! So WHY do you think we don't know about YOUR culture?

And I'm an atheist. I believe in Sciences. I founds Sciences years ago, and found where we come from: nowhere, and where we're going: nowhere. Here's the meaning of life: it hasn't got any. Thank you very much. I have read the Bible. Thank you very much. I hope you don't believe it, and I hope you won't start chopping people's hands off, as the Bible tells you to do.
Sorry I don't have a pamphlet for you.
Happy Hanuka.

I used to want to be...

2007-12-13T15:29:00.000-05:00

I used to want to be a standup comedian.
But I wasn't funny.

It's hard when you're a kid and try to amuse your teddy bears and none of them laugh at your jokes. Heck, I couldn't even imagine them finding me funny. Especially the Red Bear with the judgmental look. That's what I called him. Red Bear. And then there was Green Bear, and Big Bear, and Polar Bear, and Scarf Bear. I never gave names to my teddy bears. People name their plushies, for some reason. I never did. I could never remember what their names were. And it's not like you can ask them to remind you of their names.

Why would people name their toys? It's not like they care. And if they did, who says you got the right name? Your little bear, the one you've named Poochi, maybe every time you call him that he just stares at you and thinks "It's Eduardo!! My name is Eduardo!!"

Coordination is painful

2007-12-11T22:45:00.000-05:00

Wanted to post something smart, but don't feel like typing it up.

Been recording for LibriVox for a few monts. Just finished BCing 2 poetry projects. Came out with a newfound respect for those doing admin work. Just coordinating a little project like that on the web can be quite time-consuming and energyvorous.

First, get the project up. Then, get people to record. THEN, run after said people for info, and also run after them for any corrections to be made. End up making the corrections yourself, since it's much faster that way. Check everything. Listen to Everything. Upload Everything.

And then hope that everything is just right for the cataloging.

Of course everything went OK. The worst I came across was a recording where we had to modify some technical stuff. I can't imagine what some BCs have to go through, when sometimes the reader would just post their stuff and you never see them again. They're stuck with a chapter in need of editing, and the person' s gone.

Still about 80 chapters to go through for Monte-Cristo. Good luck with that. At the rate I'm going, it' s going to take at least 6 more months to finish. Hopefully I can squeeze in some more chapters during Christmas break.

And THEN, I can start with the 800 pages of Blackstone.

But before that, remember to find the MIA reader for the Chasse-galerie.

Pleasure, pleasure.

Imagine

2007-12-11T15:35:00.000-05:00

Imagine yourself all alone
six billion people crawling on the earth
six billion stars in a galaxy

who are you?

a peak in the voice of humanity
a pixel on the screen

what did you ever do?

I left my voice for today and tomorrow,
carved in metal sheets,
and one day when all of us have gone,
my voice will read you a book.

Assume a job interview

2007-12-07T21:03:00.000-05:00

Why law?

I don't know. I've always been interested in debating, conveying my ideas, and, more importantly, convincing others. Of course my parents wanted me to go into med, or at least something in the medical field, or, at worst, something in science. I tried. I went into sciences in cegep. I've always been drawn to sciences anyway, so I figured, why not at least try? I tried, and didn't like it.

So I decided to go into Law. A lot of my friends were telling me I should go into the legal field, ever since that geography class in sec 5 where we did model UN and I won best debater. I was representing Benin, this tiny country in Africa, and we were against the reform on Human Rights, against the UK.

Of course my parents weren't all that happy when I chose law. They all had scientific backgrounds, so they didn't know anything about this. They both grew up in China, so their mentality was that if you wanted to succeed, you had to go in sciences. They still think that.

Of course they did everything they could to dissuade me. Every once in a while they'd repeat the same story about the kid of one of their friends who was in Physio and had job offers even before she finished her diploma. They wanted me to go into some field where I would be sure to get a job when I come out. Some field where there was a lack of personnel, so I'd be sure to get a job.

But I didn't want that. I didn't want something so easy. Not that it would be easy studying to be a doctor, or anything, but I didn't want a field where the roads were all paved. I didn't want to get a job because people are so desperate for the vacancy to fill. I wanted something to be proud of, and not just of having survived my studies. I wanted something where I could say: I achieved this by myself. I worked hard for this, and this is what I deserve.

Ze logik, I has it

2007-12-05T13:11:00.000-05:00

Rush hour on the metro platform. Chinese kid asks Chinese mom: "Why are there so many people here?"

To which Chinese mom replies: "There are far more people in China. The population in China is many times that of Canada. That's why you have to study hard."

Oh really.

But it was comforting. It shows my mom isn't the only one around with faulty logic. Pretty much all the Chinese do, apparently. (Your stomach aches because you haven't cleaned your room, your feet are cold because your socks are dirty...)

Maybe that's a government conspiracy to keep the population subjugated. Maybe the government has had the people convinced that because they've got black hair, they don't need to go vote... forever entrapped in their faulty logic...

Of Bridges, Boats, and the Constitution

2007-10-24T15:52:00.000-04:00

Sometimes, one gets to wonder why the Constitution has to be followed so closely. And instance in point: when building the Confederation bridge to Newfundland, (or was it PEI?) they had to change the Constitution so that it wouldn't inconstitutional. That's because one of the conditions of entry of that province into the Federation, back in the day, was that the federal govt had to maintain a naval service between the mainland and the island. And then they were getting rid of it by building the bridge, hence an amendment.

and I kept wondering... would it be so horrible if they left the constitution as it was?

Ah, the things you learn!

willfully blind

2007-10-12T18:16:00.000-04:00

Ever felt your sense of reason slowly creeping away?
All the time! you might say.
No, I mean reason as in common sense.
That's how I feel, being in Law. An all new outlook on Life, the Universe, and Everything.

The other day, a friend of mine told me that there was a guy in Germany who wanted to have a chimp declared a "person". And the only thing I could say was: "so? what's the big deal?"
I could imagine his expression. There was an "Are you nuts!?"-like silence for a fraction of a second.

It's quite amazing how they get you to think only by the Code.

Law isn't necessarily justice. They made it quite clear the first week. I don't quite remember how they did it, but they did it.
There was a mention of law not = justice, and then they went on a definition of the kinds of justice, being distributive or commutative, and that was that.

求佛 (Qiu Fo)

2007-09-28T15:15:00.000-04:00

求佛 (Qiu Fo, Begging Buddha)

歌手：誓言 (artist: Shi Yan)

当月光洒在我的脸上 - when the moonlight pours down on my face
我想我就快变了摸样 - I think I almost change shape
有一种叫做撕心裂肺的汤 - There is something called Heart-tearing-liver-cracking soup
喝了它有神奇的力量 - Drinking it gives mysterious strength
闭上眼看见天堂 - Closing my eyes, I see heaven
那是藏着你笑的地方 - That is the place where your smile is hidden
我躲开无数个猎人的枪 - I have avoided countless hunters' guns
赶走坟墓爬出的忧伤 - Drove away the grieving crawling out of tombs
为了你,我变成狼人摸样 - For you, I took the werewolf's appearance
为了你,染上了疯狂 - For your, I infected myself with madness
为了你,穿上厚厚的伪装 - For your, I put on a thick, thick costume
为了你,换了心肠 - For you, I changed my heart
我们还能不能再见面 - Can we see ourselves once again?
我在佛前苦苦求了几千年 - I have painfully begged the Buddha for a thousand years
愿意用几世换我们一世情缘 Willing to exchange many lives for only one life of love
希望可以感动上天 - Hoping to move the heavens
我们还能不能能不能再见面 Can we, can we see ourselves once again?
我在佛前苦苦求了几千年 - I have painfully begged the Buddha for a thousand years
当我在踏过这条奈何桥之前 - Before I cross this bridge
让我再吻一吻你的脸 - Let me kiss your face
让我再吻一吻你的脸 - Let me kiss your face