What happens in the Metro...

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...

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

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

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...

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!

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:

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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!

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...

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...

... 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...

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.

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!

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.

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. 

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?

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

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

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

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)

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!

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...

... 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

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.

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.

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!"

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

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.

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

... 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.

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!!!

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...

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.

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.

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!?

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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."

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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 -/-/-/

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.