Tuesday, February 21, 2006
The Plasmacar!
Here's a neat video explaining how this cool new kids' toy drives forward without any batteries or anything.
Read more at www.exn.ca/video/?video...
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Cherry Warns Women's Hockey Squad
Read more at www.cbc.ca/olympics/spo...
I'm warning them too.
Yes, you go to the Olypics to win. Sure you do. But the Olypics are supposed to be a 'celebration of sport'.
From the Vancouver2010.com website:
I feel that running up scores like our Canadian Women's Olympic team did this past week is in direct opposition to the spirit of "... friendship, solidarity and fair play..." that these games are supposed to stand for.
I think it's awful that these ladies and their coaches have tried to hide behind arguments of "We came here to win" and "It would be disrespectful of us to not play our best at any time", and the infamous 'goals-against tie breaker' dilemma.
I think it's horseshit.
First of all, you DIDN'T go there to win. Or you shouldn't have, at any rate. You went there to play and to compete, yes - but the nowhere in any of the mountains of olympic games literature from the IOC or any governing sport body or any athelete association, or any government, etc, etc, does it ever say anything about winning or victory or anything shallow like that. That's NOT why you went there. Every participant is trying to win - it's a given that you'd like to win, and it's not a very classy argument about why you humiliated a team. Respect your opponents, and respect your own abilities.
This is like arguing that although you stepped on children while running from a fire, and they were left behind to perish, allowing you to flee to safety, you were merely trying to save your own life, and so we should have sympathy for your sore legs and singed eyebrows. Give me a break.
Second, it would not be disrespectful at all to find some way to not score 10+ goals too many. Your opponents deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt, for sure, but they deserve to be treated like real people - you're not playing a video game where your actions will never face ethical judgement, or have political ramifications. How will the Canadian women's hockey associations feel now if women's hockey just never develops in Italy, now that they've humiliated their program so horribly.
The Canadian team should have been able to tell when they were up by so many goals at the end of the second period that they were in no danger of losing their lead, and they SHOULD have backed off. (I'll get into this some more in a minute)
The host team deserves better treatment than a 16-0 loss no matter what sport it is, no matter what type of compettition it is - but it's just plain ol' UGLY when it happens at the Olympics.
What happens when the government of Italy does up its sport budget for next year - okay $200M to skiing, $200M to soccer.... hockey? We're not wasting our money on hockey! We can't compete at that sport at all. It's better off to just spend the money on something else that we can compete at.... That's how the argument will go.
But it's exactly the wrong response isn't it? But that's not how it will work politically. By running these scores up so high the successful teams (Canada, USA) are going to KILL women's hockey in other parts of the world.
Third, this stupid 'goals-against-average' argument is total balogney. In order for the GAA to even be considered, you first must have a tied record for the preceeding games, and also a tied record against each other. GAA is the the THIRD tie breaker. It will be unlikely to come down to that.
So, solutions :
First, change the format of the tournament, so that GAA is never considered - GAA will NEVER be a deciding factor. Instead maybe there could be a playoff game, so if two teams have tied records, and tied records against each other they just automatically schedule a playoff game, where the winner proceeds and the loser doesn't - maybe that won't work... but it's an idea and it would at least prevent GAA from ever becoming a factor, and thus there would be no excuse for seeking high stat-padding scores like we've seen this past week.
Second, change the tournament to go back to the amateurs only format for women's hockey. There is so much hockey being played by men around the world that it's not really a problem to let the professionals compete in the tournament - the best of the best. Maybe that's not the case in women's hockey right now - maybe there's a million girls playing hockey in North America and less than 100,000 in the rest of the world combined, and maybe it's time to keep the professional women (like Wickenheiser) out of this tournament until there's some equality in terms of the level of play from at least 50% of the nations that wish to compete. This might not help a lot, but it would help a little.
Third: I know that chemistry is a major issue for a team like the olympic team. They get together quickly, play a few games and then disperse - there's no time to develop a rhythm with your teammates, so any playing time together is vital. That being said, there's no reason why that chemisty can't be developed playing special teams. Keep someone in the box the whole game - just keep taking penalty after penalty. Not bad ones. Stand in the crease and poke the goalie's glove after she's frozen it - don't be mean about it, just poke it and get a penalty. Throw and extra woman on the ice on purpose and take the penalty. Pull your goalie for a while - PRACTICE pulling your goalie, and killing penalties. Go down to three women and see what you can do. Play your 4th line every second shift, so you're still playing your big lines, but they're resting a lot and talking about their plays. Play your forwards as defencemen so they can practice their body positioning and their checking and their rushing and point shooting, and defencemen as forwards, so they can practice face-offs and forechecking and get some hardcore skating in. Practice cycling. Practice cycling in your own end! Hit the opposing goalie in the middle of the chest 10 times a period or so, just so she can feel the puck and feel herself stopping it.
There's no need to give the game up, or stop working, or lose the rhythm and momentum and chemistry that being on the ice together can bring, but there's no need to humiliate the team you're playing against either.
I think I have more things to say about all this but I need to stop or I'll just rail on and on all day. Really, this is a hard problem, because I want our Canadian team to do well - I really do. I especially want them to beat the American team, because I don't feel like we won fairly last time (a series of bad calls led to Canada winning...). But I want the sport to succeed much more than I want our national team to succeed.
Maybe Italy's not the *best* example of how this is all working, because, as I understand it they didn't have a national women's hockey team before they became Olympic hosts, so maybe hockey's really not important to them. But it should be in Russia and CR and Finland and Sweden etc etc etc... Let's put the games and the game of hockey before ourselves and our national pride shall we - it is the best game I can name.
I'm warning them too.
Yes, you go to the Olypics to win. Sure you do. But the Olypics are supposed to be a 'celebration of sport'.
From the Vancouver2010.com website:
"The goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised without discrimination or any kind, in a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play."I put forward that there are implications to subscribing to this "spirit of sport" philosophy:
- respect for your opponents
- respect for your sport and its regulations
- respect for yourself and your abilities
I feel that running up scores like our Canadian Women's Olympic team did this past week is in direct opposition to the spirit of "... friendship, solidarity and fair play..." that these games are supposed to stand for.
I think it's awful that these ladies and their coaches have tried to hide behind arguments of "We came here to win" and "It would be disrespectful of us to not play our best at any time", and the infamous 'goals-against tie breaker' dilemma.
I think it's horseshit.
First of all, you DIDN'T go there to win. Or you shouldn't have, at any rate. You went there to play and to compete, yes - but the nowhere in any of the mountains of olympic games literature from the IOC or any governing sport body or any athelete association, or any government, etc, etc, does it ever say anything about winning or victory or anything shallow like that. That's NOT why you went there. Every participant is trying to win - it's a given that you'd like to win, and it's not a very classy argument about why you humiliated a team. Respect your opponents, and respect your own abilities.
This is like arguing that although you stepped on children while running from a fire, and they were left behind to perish, allowing you to flee to safety, you were merely trying to save your own life, and so we should have sympathy for your sore legs and singed eyebrows. Give me a break.
Second, it would not be disrespectful at all to find some way to not score 10+ goals too many. Your opponents deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt, for sure, but they deserve to be treated like real people - you're not playing a video game where your actions will never face ethical judgement, or have political ramifications. How will the Canadian women's hockey associations feel now if women's hockey just never develops in Italy, now that they've humiliated their program so horribly.
The Canadian team should have been able to tell when they were up by so many goals at the end of the second period that they were in no danger of losing their lead, and they SHOULD have backed off. (I'll get into this some more in a minute)
The host team deserves better treatment than a 16-0 loss no matter what sport it is, no matter what type of compettition it is - but it's just plain ol' UGLY when it happens at the Olympics.
What happens when the government of Italy does up its sport budget for next year - okay $200M to skiing, $200M to soccer.... hockey? We're not wasting our money on hockey! We can't compete at that sport at all. It's better off to just spend the money on something else that we can compete at.... That's how the argument will go.
But it's exactly the wrong response isn't it? But that's not how it will work politically. By running these scores up so high the successful teams (Canada, USA) are going to KILL women's hockey in other parts of the world.
Third, this stupid 'goals-against-average' argument is total balogney. In order for the GAA to even be considered, you first must have a tied record for the preceeding games, and also a tied record against each other. GAA is the the THIRD tie breaker. It will be unlikely to come down to that.
So, solutions :
First, change the format of the tournament, so that GAA is never considered - GAA will NEVER be a deciding factor. Instead maybe there could be a playoff game, so if two teams have tied records, and tied records against each other they just automatically schedule a playoff game, where the winner proceeds and the loser doesn't - maybe that won't work... but it's an idea and it would at least prevent GAA from ever becoming a factor, and thus there would be no excuse for seeking high stat-padding scores like we've seen this past week.
Second, change the tournament to go back to the amateurs only format for women's hockey. There is so much hockey being played by men around the world that it's not really a problem to let the professionals compete in the tournament - the best of the best. Maybe that's not the case in women's hockey right now - maybe there's a million girls playing hockey in North America and less than 100,000 in the rest of the world combined, and maybe it's time to keep the professional women (like Wickenheiser) out of this tournament until there's some equality in terms of the level of play from at least 50% of the nations that wish to compete. This might not help a lot, but it would help a little.
Third: I know that chemistry is a major issue for a team like the olympic team. They get together quickly, play a few games and then disperse - there's no time to develop a rhythm with your teammates, so any playing time together is vital. That being said, there's no reason why that chemisty can't be developed playing special teams. Keep someone in the box the whole game - just keep taking penalty after penalty. Not bad ones. Stand in the crease and poke the goalie's glove after she's frozen it - don't be mean about it, just poke it and get a penalty. Throw and extra woman on the ice on purpose and take the penalty. Pull your goalie for a while - PRACTICE pulling your goalie, and killing penalties. Go down to three women and see what you can do. Play your 4th line every second shift, so you're still playing your big lines, but they're resting a lot and talking about their plays. Play your forwards as defencemen so they can practice their body positioning and their checking and their rushing and point shooting, and defencemen as forwards, so they can practice face-offs and forechecking and get some hardcore skating in. Practice cycling. Practice cycling in your own end! Hit the opposing goalie in the middle of the chest 10 times a period or so, just so she can feel the puck and feel herself stopping it.
There's no need to give the game up, or stop working, or lose the rhythm and momentum and chemistry that being on the ice together can bring, but there's no need to humiliate the team you're playing against either.
I think I have more things to say about all this but I need to stop or I'll just rail on and on all day. Really, this is a hard problem, because I want our Canadian team to do well - I really do. I especially want them to beat the American team, because I don't feel like we won fairly last time (a series of bad calls led to Canada winning...). But I want the sport to succeed much more than I want our national team to succeed.
Maybe Italy's not the *best* example of how this is all working, because, as I understand it they didn't have a national women's hockey team before they became Olympic hosts, so maybe hockey's really not important to them. But it should be in Russia and CR and Finland and Sweden etc etc etc... Let's put the games and the game of hockey before ourselves and our national pride shall we - it is the best game I can name.
Slashdot | First OS X Virus?
Read more at it.slashdot.org/article...
UPDATE: Here's a great rundown of what's going on thanks to Ambrosia
So, first of all, it's not a ' virus ', it's a trojan or a worm - so let's not everybody panic now. A person has to actually allow this thing to run - it can't do anything on its own - so it's really not as bad as a virus (which can basically do anything it wants whenever it wants to).
Second, I think everyone should be forewarned - THIS IS VERY SERIOUS. There is a malicious executable floating around, claiming to be something benign, disguising itself very well, and carry a nefarious payload. THIS IS VERY SERIOUS.
I want to use this opportunity to write a piece about personal machine administration that I've been meaning to do for some time now. That will come later.
For now though, I want to reassure the folks out there about what this really means.Some people have been using Mac OS X primarily because of it's 'security', by which people typically meant 'safety' because they didn't actually know anything about Mac OS X's 'security' per se, as there weren't really any known attacks to measure it with.
The 'safety' came from the separation from the Microsoft technologies that were typically used to transmit some malicious payload, or was the principle site of the exploit. This 'safety' reason was a good reason to use Mac OS X. IT STILL IS a good reason to use OS X.
However, no operating system (from Apple or anyone else) will ever be able to protect its users from themselves - not completely anyway. The threat of a trojan/worm will always exist on any and every operating system.
These things are executed by a user, somehow directing the machine directly - someone the machine MUST be able to trust in order to function. In the best case scenario the user will be warned before doing something the operating system thinks might not turn out the way they wanted, like when you visit a website with an unverifiable certificate, etc. Even in this instance though, the user (at some level of security, maybe some classification of restricted users can't do what they want, but the 'Administrator' of the machine at any rate) MUST be permitted to direct the machine, and not the other way around.
(Analogy: You car is headed for a giant tree at 200 Km/h and you turn the steering wheel to avoid it, with plenty of time to make the turn, and the car decides that because you're cell phone is ringing (or something similarly stupid) you don't know what you're doing and ignores the steering wheel... yikes! ) You wouldn't like it much if you were prompted with an "Are you sure?" dialog before the computer executed every single action, would you. ("Are you sure you want to open the document you just double clicked on?" "Are you sure you want to go to that webpage you just clicked on the bookmark for?" "Are you sure you want to pull down that menu you just clicked on?" "The computer detected that you have moved the mouse - Are you sure you want to move the screen pointer 3 pixels to the left and 2 pixels up?" - pretty annoying, eh?)
No operating system should be given the power to refuse an order from a user that should be trusted - but in the bluntest terms, NO users can be trusted. There will always be ways to entice people (even smart computer people) to open things they shouldn't, whether it be promising screenshots of the next OS release (as in this case), or spring-break-girls-naked videos, or drugs, or money, or whatever it is.... and people will run these things thinking they're one thing and realising later it's something else entirely, only too late. There's no second chances in this game.
There are things the OS can do to protect us (and it's doing many of them already), and there are things we can do for ourselves (I'll go over some in my article to come), but to sum all this up, every single user needs to take responsibility for their own cyber-space.
Don't open things you can't trust. Period.
After all, a computer is only as smart as the monkey in front of it.
UPDATE: Here's a great rundown of what's going on thanks to Ambrosia
So, first of all, it's not a ' virus ', it's a trojan or a worm - so let's not everybody panic now. A person has to actually allow this thing to run - it can't do anything on its own - so it's really not as bad as a virus (which can basically do anything it wants whenever it wants to).
Second, I think everyone should be forewarned - THIS IS VERY SERIOUS. There is a malicious executable floating around, claiming to be something benign, disguising itself very well, and carry a nefarious payload. THIS IS VERY SERIOUS.
I want to use this opportunity to write a piece about personal machine administration that I've been meaning to do for some time now. That will come later.
For now though, I want to reassure the folks out there about what this really means.Some people have been using Mac OS X primarily because of it's 'security', by which people typically meant 'safety' because they didn't actually know anything about Mac OS X's 'security' per se, as there weren't really any known attacks to measure it with.
The 'safety' came from the separation from the Microsoft technologies that were typically used to transmit some malicious payload, or was the principle site of the exploit. This 'safety' reason was a good reason to use Mac OS X. IT STILL IS a good reason to use OS X.
However, no operating system (from Apple or anyone else) will ever be able to protect its users from themselves - not completely anyway. The threat of a trojan/worm will always exist on any and every operating system.
These things are executed by a user, somehow directing the machine directly - someone the machine MUST be able to trust in order to function. In the best case scenario the user will be warned before doing something the operating system thinks might not turn out the way they wanted, like when you visit a website with an unverifiable certificate, etc. Even in this instance though, the user (at some level of security, maybe some classification of restricted users can't do what they want, but the 'Administrator' of the machine at any rate) MUST be permitted to direct the machine, and not the other way around.
(Analogy: You car is headed for a giant tree at 200 Km/h and you turn the steering wheel to avoid it, with plenty of time to make the turn, and the car decides that because you're cell phone is ringing (or something similarly stupid) you don't know what you're doing and ignores the steering wheel... yikes! ) You wouldn't like it much if you were prompted with an "Are you sure?" dialog before the computer executed every single action, would you. ("Are you sure you want to open the document you just double clicked on?" "Are you sure you want to go to that webpage you just clicked on the bookmark for?" "Are you sure you want to pull down that menu you just clicked on?" "The computer detected that you have moved the mouse - Are you sure you want to move the screen pointer 3 pixels to the left and 2 pixels up?" - pretty annoying, eh?)
No operating system should be given the power to refuse an order from a user that should be trusted - but in the bluntest terms, NO users can be trusted. There will always be ways to entice people (even smart computer people) to open things they shouldn't, whether it be promising screenshots of the next OS release (as in this case), or spring-break-girls-naked videos, or drugs, or money, or whatever it is.... and people will run these things thinking they're one thing and realising later it's something else entirely, only too late. There's no second chances in this game.
There are things the OS can do to protect us (and it's doing many of them already), and there are things we can do for ourselves (I'll go over some in my article to come), but to sum all this up, every single user needs to take responsibility for their own cyber-space.
Don't open things you can't trust. Period.
After all, a computer is only as smart as the monkey in front of it.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Bust Doctor
Everyone needs a good bust doctor, don't they?
I'm not sure how this thing would actually do anything, but it's pretty funny that it exists at all.Sucky for people with 'misshapen breasts' though. Sounds like something that could make you pretty self concious.
Read more at www.trymax.co.kr/hq/ite...
Pretty Pretty Bang Bang
Here's a great little Valentine's Day time waster. Give it a whirl.
Read more at www.studiohunty.com/ban...
Pretty Pretty Bang Bang
Here's a great little Valentine's Day time waster. Give it a whirl.
Read more at www.studiohunty.com/ban...
Sweets for My Stud - Gizmodo
This is just too rad. Those crazy Japanese.... I want a cheeseburger cake for Valentine's day next year!
Read more at us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/...
Friday, February 10, 2006
Mac OS X and Memory
A good read about how to analyse RAM usage issues in Mac OS X, and how to determine if you need more (almost everyone does)
Read more at www.macworld.com/2006/0...
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
electro^plankton: Selk'bag
Coolest sleeping bag ever. Ever.
Read more at www.tranism.com/weblog/...
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Volvo
A favorite automaker of mine has been pumping out some news lately.
Volvo's newly annexed C30 model will be unveiled this fall, and has got me really excited. The model is directly aimed at MY market segment :
Just thought you'd like to know.
Volvo's newly annexed C30 model will be unveiled this fall, and has got me really excited. The model is directly aimed at MY market segment :
For an active life in the cityAlso, the new flagship S80 has been in the news lately, especially with regards to this new I6 that is really making waves.
Volvo focused primarily on singles and on couples without children, who regard the car as a tool for pursuing their hectic lifestyles. When they buy clothes, decorate their homes or purchase home electronics, design and brand name are particularly important factors – and they choose their cars according to the same criteria.
Just thought you'd like to know.
