Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Now, I agree that there are “rules” for writing text, there is a certain order to the paragraphs and the introduction usually precede the conclusion. But the format of each of the part can be pretty loose, and trying to enforce a set up is writing by rote, not understanding writing. It following a recipe for a text instead of cooking your own, while that is not bad it can lack a certain level of originality and it can often make for dry text and in my opinion most of those people would make pretty bad poetry writers.
Ok, that just a minor inconvenience, but I suffered through it today so I’m gonna share it with you. What the person really wanted to say was that my introduction was too long, and he was right it was. However it was not too long because I use three paragraphs, it was too long because I was too verbose and went into too many details in my examples. In a way I was using a story as an introduction for the rest of my text and telling the story in one paragraph would make for one giant weird looking paragraph so I split it off where the ideas demands it, in a way the introduction is it’s own text, with an introduction to the story, the story itself and a short conclusion that introduce the main topic of the text. I do not think I have to do all that in a paragraph, in fact I’m sure that it would harder to read.
Ok, enough ranting about a minor thing oh and in case the person reads my blog that rant is not directed at you, you just triggered something that had been waiting for a event to be released.
Now maybe you think, what up astrogeek that a good solution! Give more money to those that receive the less and they should be able to afford all the stuff they can’t right now. Well let me ask you something, do grocery stores hire lots of employee at the minimum wage rate? Then, consider that raising every minimum wage employee wave by 4 to 5 dollars an hours should cost that store about 160$ a week for each employee. That add up to 8320$ per employee per year. Doesn’t sound like much for just the grocery store but then remember their is a chain of people working for minimum wage between the food production and the grocery store each one costing 8320$ a year more. Now, no business men wants to reduce its profit (or worse go into deficits) so the easiest and most logical choice would be for them to increase the prices of everything. The end result being that the minimum wage worker have at best as much spending power as it had before and at worse less, because other employee that where paid above the minimum wage would like an increase in their wage to keep up with the increased cost of living which will by itself also increase cost of living.
This increase of minimum wage idea is the start of a vicious cycle, every time you do that, you actually make the situation worse by increasing the prices across the board. Now a wiser solution (at least according to me) would be to lower one of the many taxes that are imposed on the food from its production to its consummation. One tax that would really benefits everyone (and the minimum wage worker in particular) is a lowering of the fuel tax. The amount of fuel required to take food from our field to our homes is staggering and it account for a significant part of the price of everything, lower that cost and you should lower prices across the board making healthy food more accessible. And that would also strangely give more spending power to the minimum wage workers. Wouldn’t that be a better solution?
oh a weirdly related note, today the campus for christ organisation is having a talk about 5 reasons for the existance of god and 3 reasons why it matters. I'm sure it just a coincidance but considering the anti-evolution sentiment I've read in their promotional leaflets in the past I have to wonder.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Now someone argued that it was bad and that humanity would be better without that social phenotype (the guy that don’t cry). That is something I can’t agree with, I think that humanity need this social phenotype. There is a need (and a place) for people that will not stop and cry or explore their feeling everytime something “hurt” them and simply do the job that need to be done.
In a way I think that rejecting this social phenotype is rejecting the male social phenotype. I think that it would be a great lost for humanity and that it does a great diservice to future generation to try and make sure everybody cries and explore their feeling the moment things hurt them. Now I’m not saying you should encourage guy never to cry or explore their feeling, but letting it be ok not to explore them right away is probably not a bad idea, sometimes times is what it takes not crying. Oh well, I just had to rant about that conversation even if that rant ended up being confusing.
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Sure I understand that the class is limited in time and that we have to cover the “important” event but I fail to see how skipping part of the patriot revolt really inform Quebec student about it and how failing to mention the treaty of Paris influence on English rule really help. I would think that the history we teach should at least be complete and true. Now if I was redoing the curriculum for high school there would be history class at every grade. I would also insure that the program includes both Canadian and Quebec history and that it goes up about 10 years before the last class (i.e. 1999 this year). I think we need to learn a lot more about our history to understand where we come from and to be ready to step into a greater role in the world. Not to mention that it would help us take another look at the decision of the past and if we can give the next generation a better understanding of these decision they would be better equipped to see if we need to change them. It probably would reduce Quebec’s reliance on the: “it’s a choice we made as a society” answer when we question our model.
Well, in a way that part of my a better education is the best way to solve most of our society problems and to insure that our society’s future is bright and free of tyranny. I really think that education is much more important the health care (well one is actually part of the other, a good education includes preventive health care which is sorely lacking) and should involve a great deal more of our effort.
I really liked that question, even tho I had absolutly nothing prepared to answer something of that kind (according to the asker I succeed quite well). I like the question because it forced me to think on my feet, to convince someone that my science was worth investing in even when the economy isn’t that strong and to answer something I’m prepared for on the fly. In short, that might be a good preparation for my thesis defense!
Nonetheless, that not what I brought up the sujet, I brought it up to speak about public speaking. Now, those of you that know me know that I am very verbose and that I can speak quite a lot. Given the evidence of my speaking too much above I assume that even those that don’t know me very well understand. You might think that my next sentence would something along the line: but I’m scared of public speaking or some such. You would be wrong, I love public speaking, it must be part of my attention whore side and no I’ve never been that scare of speaking in public. Still, I’ve heard and tried many of the “tricks” to help yourselve speak in front of an audience and frankly I don’t think any of them really works. Imagining people naked, yeah that sure is going to get me too feel better, I’m giving a talk in front of bunch of naked people. Finding someone that looks sympatic to me in the audience and looking at him while I speak, great only one person came to hear me. Looking above the audience to the wall behind, great no one came to hear me talk. None of that works, at least for me, I prefer to talk to the audience. I’m talking to everyone there as if it was a single person, when I answer question I start my answer toward the person asking the question but I go on to talk to everyone, using the logic that if someone asked the question most of the group probably was wondering the same thing.
Well that my idea about it, I’m certainly not an expert on public speaking and it probably doesn’t work for every kind of public presentation there is. I’m pretty sure that an act can’t work well with that technic or any kind of performace that doesn’t require feedback from the public but I don’t know. So what do you think?
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Now many of mister Falardeau’s follower parrot that the battle was the conquest of Quebec. Now while Quebec city was conquered in this battle, most of Quebec was still free, one proof of that is that Chevalier de Levis (a french general) fought for Quebec in 1760 and defeated the British at the battle of Ste-Foy. However the British managed to retreat the to fortification of Quebec and hold out the siege until English reinforcement arrived and forces Levis to retreat to Montreal where he was forced to capitulate by September of 1760. So while the battle of the Plain d’Abraham was a major defeat for the french it was by no mean the end of the war in fact if France had send reinforcement for Levis he would probably have retaken the city.
Next we have to remember that in the Treaty of Paris the French where given the choice between taking back Canada or the island of the Guadeloupe. They chose to take the Guadeloupe leaving the snowy fields of Quebec to the English. The nicely provided closes in the treaty protecting the french living in Quebec and giving them a 18 month period to move out (basically). So remember, France GAVE Quebec to the English, they could have kept the territory if they had let go of the Guadeloupe.
So yes, the British conquered Quebec, but the French did far worse they abandoned Quebec. For a few gram of sugar they gave Quebec away without a second though and without ever trying to retake the province from the British. Yes we where conquered but we should own no loyalty to the people that abandoned us, Quebecers are their own culture, we are one part french and one part english and completely unique. This is what we should celebrate, that our destiny was changed by a battle and a name on a treaty but that we nonetheless forged for ourselves a new destiny and a new identity.
An interesting arguement, however it suffers from a few flaws. First, it assumes that existance is a greater statuts then non existance because if you can imagine a being that which nothing can be greater and it doesn't exist well you can imagine a being that nothing can be greater and that would exist and say that this is greater. Second it is circular, the argument is that if you can conceive a being it must exist because if it didn't exist you couldn't conceive it.
Nice try but still no proof for or against the existance of god.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
It might seem strange for me to decry a game for being well, a game but let me explain and I hope you will understand. Like I said before I do RPG for the stories, the characters and the settings the rules are kinda like the physic behind the universe and while they shouldn’t be too quirky they should not endanger “belivability”. You don’t want people to read your rule, think for a second and see that if the rule existed in our world that would bring forth amazingly stupid situation.
Now when you see the RPG as a game first and the rest second those kind of rules “creep” in naturally with the rules to insure game balance. The idea that every character must have the same amongt of utility in combat (at least according to D&D and it’s descendant), most designer will claim that their system is made to represent both combat and non combat encounter but seriously when everything hindge on the mecanic that tract how close you are to dying it’s hard not to think of it as a mecanic for combat even more so when the mecanic only reproduce very short action. Sure it’s balanced and everyone has “exactly” the same amount of influence on the game and many people call that fun, but to me it’s so illogical as to make the game far less enjoyable.
Think about it, in Star Wars Saga some character can have the opportunity to recruit followers, in a way have someone follow them and their orders. Well to presever “game balance” the game designer made it so that for your follower to act you the character have to sacrifice one of his own action. Think about this in reality, the corporal and his soldier are in a fight, for the soldier to fire his weapon the corporal as to stand and wait! That just wrong, but it makes for a balanced game, the character with the follower does not get more “game time” nor does he get extra power.
I guess I prefer simulations to game, and roleplaying to game balance, sure I don’t want character x to be always better then character y in all situation and about everything but I don’t want character x and y to be completely identical except for the name of their abilities. So please tone down the gamy feel in future supplement I’m sure you’ll be able to get a larger share of the market.