So this is all about UBB and the ISP's in Canada. The idea to throw this out on this blog comes from debating the issue with my brother. We get heated at times, but he's one of the only people I find who can hold his own in a debate and be smart about it the entire time. (please see "one of the smartest people I know").
This is going to go over some of the common misconceptions that exist with peoples main arguments as to why they dont agree with UBB.
1) But it's only 3 cents/GB!
Incorrect. That number is only accurate transmitting on the current network. The issue is that usage is increasing rapidly to the point that the network can't sustain the throughput. This is already becoming an issue with Shaw. TELUS is constantly upgrading their infrastructure. They literally spend BILLIONS each year on their wireline infrastructures.
2) They're just doing this because of Netflix.
This argument is only for people who want to ignore the relevant points and just say they dont want to pay more for an upgraded service (and yes, it's upgraded, just look at the speeds 2 years ago as opposed to today).
3) They just use the phone lines it's not that expensive.
This might not be common, but there are people that think this surprisingly enough. The only thing that internet uses is the copper pair path going from our equipment to your house. It doesn't include the Fibre Optics going to the facilities near your home, or the ADSL ports, or the ADSL servers, or the extra cost to maintain all this.
4) Most of the network exists it shouldn't cost this much!
Simular answer to the one above. The only network that exists is the final bit to your house, everything else has to be built in with hundreds of kilometeres of Fibre Optic cable. This is no exageration either, HUNDREDS of kilometers of Fibre Optic cables (and we're probably looking at quadruple digits in the big cities).
Also. Part of the new network we're implementing is Fibre directly to the house, meaning that the Copper pair network isn't used anyone at all. The only copper in this network is the internal stuff in your house. And yes this network is already active in the major cities for TELUS.
5) Why is it so slow and expencive here? AND we pay UBB? That's not fair!
Canda is the 11th least populated country in the world per land mass (or the 229th most dense country, 8.8 people per square km). Compare it to Japan which is listed as the 38th most dense country (873 people per squake km). Basically this means that if 1km of fibre cable can be run to 100 people in canada, the same amount of fibre can be run to 10,000 people in Japan. (if you look at a city level, Calgary Vs Tokyo, it's about 4 times the density in tokyo, so 400 customers in Tokyo vs 100 in Calgary). Mixing into about the way we build the infrastructure (countries like Japan build above ground which saves an enormous amount of money to build out the network). Basically to provide fibre-level services to everyone in canada Vs everyone in japan you'd need 1000 times the cabling alone, not to mention repeaters, extra servers, etc.
This is the same concept for cell phones. Here in Canada because we're so spread out we need more towers, which means higher infrastructure costs, which means more expensive.
6) Access to the internet is a Right and a Civil Liberty.
No it's not. Yes you're stupid. Go read a book.
People that use this argument SHOCK me. Finland is currently the only country to say that internet is a civil right. And they list it as 1GB. Even if internet does become a Right, the Right would be access to information, not a Right to cheaply (or freely depending on how you do it) download every episode of Battlestar Galactica for a weekend marathon. Lets get something VERY clear here. The only reason this is an issue is because of people downloading TV shows and Movies. Since when are these rights?
Also, if these are rights, what about people that cant afford the internet like some seniors or people on social assistance? What about people who can't afford computers? If it's a right why isn't Internet access subsidized by the government? This argument is not even close to a good one, please stop using it, you just sound dumb.
7) Ok fine Kris, I conceed to your awesomeness. But it's really way too expensive per GB.
This is the ONLY argument I will agree with. And even then I'd like to see some better numbers of data cost that takes into consideration stuff like major infrastructure upgrades, which I was unable to find. If it does turn out that it's enormous then yeah they should make the charges more fair, but saying they shouldn't be allowed period is ridiculous.
I also wanted to bring up another quick point, just a "something to think of" thing. A show like 2 and a half men costs the network about $4million per episode, just in casting fees, let alone studio, rental, cameras, processing, blah blah blah. Networks rely of licensing fees from TV networks, and advertising revenues from commercials to pay for tv shows, neither of which netflix can cover. You really think that content will continue if network revenues drop from mass netflix usage?
In the end companies like TELUS and SHAW and BELL are private companies free to do what they want. There's one of two things that will come of this.
1) Internet companies will charge overusage, and the relatively small numbers of users that overuse will pay overage charges.
2) Internet companies will not be allowed to charge overusage, so they'll instead either increase their monthly charges, or sell Tier'd internet, and when you hit your limit, no more internet for the month.
I'm also going to ask something of anyone commenting.
Dont comment with useless posts like "common knowledge says" or "everyone knows" as every conversation i've had, except the one with my brother, that i've asked for info that comes from the provide itself, has turned up no information. Atleast substantiate your arguments please. That's all I want to see.
Lros
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
I dont hate Mac's
No really I dont. the Mac is a great computer, powerful, stable. It's getting a larger software base, and by and large is becoming more popular.
What I hate are douchebag pretentious apple users.
Just so we're clear, i'm not saying all Mac users are douchebags, pretentious, etc. Some people buy Mac's for very valid reasons. As a multi media system (photoshop, video editing, etc) they actually are superior (hardware architecture from what i'm told is what the Mac has to thank for this).
The people I do have problems with are the ones that always say the following:
"Mac's never crash, unlike windows!"
- My Windows 7 machine has crashed once or twice since I got it
"Mac's can do anything a PC can do!"
- If you actually believe this you're either stupid or uninformed. Macs have less utility than a PC. This is become less and less the case recently as Mac has realized this and they're trying to remedy it.
"Mac users have a culture!"
- You're NOT ALLOWED to make fun of a person that plays World of Warcraft, only to turn around and join in your online Mac culture. And finally my favorite.
"Mac's aren't as over priced as you think."
- This one makes me want to pull my hair out. So what did I do? I did a price comparison right now. I used the http://www.apple.ca/ store, and I used http://www.memoryexpress.com/ to compare. This is what I came to.
*note* i used exact matches where possible. When I couldn't get an exact match I put down a decent equivalent. I did not cheap out, and I did not use sale prices when pricing out the PC. (feel free to do the same and see for yourself if you dont believe my numbers).
iMac - 27"
2.93GHz Quadcore i7 (only available on the 27", you can't get this on the 21.5" version)
2TB hard drive
8Gb 1333MHz DDR3
ATI Radeon 5750 1Gig (only option available)
CD-DVD drive/Keyboard/mouse (wireless)
PC
2.93GHz Quadcore i7
Asus P7P55 LX motherboard
2TB hard drive from seagate
8Gb 1333Mhz DDR3 Corsair
ATI Radeon 5750 1Gig
700W Gaming Power Supply
Cool Master Storm Scout Case (GOOD case)
CD-DVD drive/Keyboard/mouse (wireless)
Windows 7 OEM
Monitor - 27"
The Final Tally:
iMac - $2909.00
PC - $1554.89
The equivalent iMac is $1364.11 more expensive than the PC. I dont even have words for this.
I also like that the CHEAPEST iMac is $1299. The cheapest PC build I could make you is like... probably around $500. And if you're like 80% of people that just use their computer for e-mail, facebook and youtube, that's really all you need.
In the end here's my point.
A Mac is a computer. Dont lie, talk shit, and kid yourself trying to make yourself feel better about your purchase. If you bought it because you want to do video editing, fine. If you're a photoshop guru, giver. Not smart enough to know how to use a PC, hold your head proud in the fact that you're man enough to admit when you simply dont know. Hell, some people just like Mac's better. NOTHING wrong with ANY of these reasons.
To end this Blog post... there's a running joke that explains very well why PC users hate Mac users.
What the different between a Mac user and a PC user.
A PC user can go 5 minutes without talking about his fucking computer.
What I hate are douchebag pretentious apple users.
Just so we're clear, i'm not saying all Mac users are douchebags, pretentious, etc. Some people buy Mac's for very valid reasons. As a multi media system (photoshop, video editing, etc) they actually are superior (hardware architecture from what i'm told is what the Mac has to thank for this).
The people I do have problems with are the ones that always say the following:
"Mac's never crash, unlike windows!"
- My Windows 7 machine has crashed once or twice since I got it
"Mac's can do anything a PC can do!"
- If you actually believe this you're either stupid or uninformed. Macs have less utility than a PC. This is become less and less the case recently as Mac has realized this and they're trying to remedy it.
"Mac users have a culture!"
- You're NOT ALLOWED to make fun of a person that plays World of Warcraft, only to turn around and join in your online Mac culture. And finally my favorite.
"Mac's aren't as over priced as you think."
- This one makes me want to pull my hair out. So what did I do? I did a price comparison right now. I used the http://www.apple.ca/ store, and I used http://www.memoryexpress.com/ to compare. This is what I came to.
*note* i used exact matches where possible. When I couldn't get an exact match I put down a decent equivalent. I did not cheap out, and I did not use sale prices when pricing out the PC. (feel free to do the same and see for yourself if you dont believe my numbers).
iMac - 27"
2.93GHz Quadcore i7 (only available on the 27", you can't get this on the 21.5" version)
2TB hard drive
8Gb 1333MHz DDR3
ATI Radeon 5750 1Gig (only option available)
CD-DVD drive/Keyboard/mouse (wireless)
PC
2.93GHz Quadcore i7
Asus P7P55 LX motherboard
2TB hard drive from seagate
8Gb 1333Mhz DDR3 Corsair
ATI Radeon 5750 1Gig
700W Gaming Power Supply
Cool Master Storm Scout Case (GOOD case)
CD-DVD drive/Keyboard/mouse (wireless)
Windows 7 OEM
Monitor - 27"
The Final Tally:
iMac - $2909.00
PC - $1554.89
The equivalent iMac is $1364.11 more expensive than the PC. I dont even have words for this.
I also like that the CHEAPEST iMac is $1299. The cheapest PC build I could make you is like... probably around $500. And if you're like 80% of people that just use their computer for e-mail, facebook and youtube, that's really all you need.
In the end here's my point.
A Mac is a computer. Dont lie, talk shit, and kid yourself trying to make yourself feel better about your purchase. If you bought it because you want to do video editing, fine. If you're a photoshop guru, giver. Not smart enough to know how to use a PC, hold your head proud in the fact that you're man enough to admit when you simply dont know. Hell, some people just like Mac's better. NOTHING wrong with ANY of these reasons.
To end this Blog post... there's a running joke that explains very well why PC users hate Mac users.
What the different between a Mac user and a PC user.
A PC user can go 5 minutes without talking about his fucking computer.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Genetically Engineering food - Satan or Savior?
So I hear about genetically engineered foods a lot these days. People seem overly worried about it. I have to admit I dont get the reasoning behind it. This is going to be a bit of a short post as well. Honestly I dont know much about this particular topic, but everything I've read points to nothing really.
I'm going to start this one with a disclaimer as well. The blog name is "Logical Lros". It is only logical that if you're going to dispute anything you show evidence to back up your claims. That's what I'm actually looking for here.
So we're going to go first to people thinking Genetically Engineering food is bad. And in particular, the Salmon that's coming out. So we have this company that has seen a world crisis that is trying to do something to change it. They're made a fish that reaches peak size in about half the time as current fish do. This would allow us to feed a larger amount of people.
There are those who protest this, calling them "Franken-fish" and talking about how unnatural it is. This isn't the way nature intended (comment about this statement further down). People fear that which has been created by man, not nature. This will likely go further on as well. There are companies in the states trying to grow pork; literally JUST pork. Not a pig, no brain, no organs, just growing the meat (would vegetarians be able to eat this?).
For those who think the above isn't safe, I request an answer to this question: why? I haven't read anything, ever, that shows there are any real dangers to this. All I ever hear is that it's unnatural, that we shouldn't be doing this, that we dont know all the dangers, that blah blah blah. When I read news articles about it these people throw out fake numbers that can't be substantiated in anything I can find anywhere, yes people typically believe them because "It's in the news! How can it not be true?!"
So we've determined that there is no evidence showing genetically engineering food poses a danger, just peoples fear (And please, if there is any evidence, correct me. I've never seen any myself). But what about evidence of the positives of genetically engineered food?
I'll try to find an article on it, but the most prevalent thing I know of is corn. If I remember correctly corn is the first thing even to be fully mapped genetically. They're growing corn in some countries that innoculate people against certain viruses and diseases.
So my ask is this. Are there any REAL dangers here? I dont want "we dont know the long term effects" or "it's not natural" because yes... yes it is.
Humans, by defauly, ARE natural. We evolved in nature (or if you're religious made by god... which if everything is made by god... well you know where this is going). So if humans are made by natuire, why in the world would our actions be considered unnatural? Is a gopher hole in which a gopher lives unnatural? Is a bids nest unnatural?
My biggest issue with Genetic Engineering is this. If we shouldn't do it... WHY is it so easy? If we weren't supposed to do it it should be impossible.
Give me your thoughts! I'll be waiting and watching.
Quote of the day:
"Dont believe in me, believe in the you that believes in me!"
I'm going to start this one with a disclaimer as well. The blog name is "Logical Lros". It is only logical that if you're going to dispute anything you show evidence to back up your claims. That's what I'm actually looking for here.
So we're going to go first to people thinking Genetically Engineering food is bad. And in particular, the Salmon that's coming out. So we have this company that has seen a world crisis that is trying to do something to change it. They're made a fish that reaches peak size in about half the time as current fish do. This would allow us to feed a larger amount of people.
There are those who protest this, calling them "Franken-fish" and talking about how unnatural it is. This isn't the way nature intended (comment about this statement further down). People fear that which has been created by man, not nature. This will likely go further on as well. There are companies in the states trying to grow pork; literally JUST pork. Not a pig, no brain, no organs, just growing the meat (would vegetarians be able to eat this?).
For those who think the above isn't safe, I request an answer to this question: why? I haven't read anything, ever, that shows there are any real dangers to this. All I ever hear is that it's unnatural, that we shouldn't be doing this, that we dont know all the dangers, that blah blah blah. When I read news articles about it these people throw out fake numbers that can't be substantiated in anything I can find anywhere, yes people typically believe them because "It's in the news! How can it not be true?!"
So we've determined that there is no evidence showing genetically engineering food poses a danger, just peoples fear (And please, if there is any evidence, correct me. I've never seen any myself). But what about evidence of the positives of genetically engineered food?
I'll try to find an article on it, but the most prevalent thing I know of is corn. If I remember correctly corn is the first thing even to be fully mapped genetically. They're growing corn in some countries that innoculate people against certain viruses and diseases.
So my ask is this. Are there any REAL dangers here? I dont want "we dont know the long term effects" or "it's not natural" because yes... yes it is.
Humans, by defauly, ARE natural. We evolved in nature (or if you're religious made by god... which if everything is made by god... well you know where this is going). So if humans are made by natuire, why in the world would our actions be considered unnatural? Is a gopher hole in which a gopher lives unnatural? Is a bids nest unnatural?
My biggest issue with Genetic Engineering is this. If we shouldn't do it... WHY is it so easy? If we weren't supposed to do it it should be impossible.
Give me your thoughts! I'll be waiting and watching.
Quote of the day:
"Dont believe in me, believe in the you that believes in me!"
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Dont hit a woman? Says who?
There is no right or wrong answer to this question outright. Your opinion on one part of this whole topic would affect the entire outcome.
First I want to delve into a side topic.
Equal rights.
This is actually the part that bugs me the most about this whole thing. Allow me to explain... and this doesn't go beyond the main topic either, so I'll try and keep my ranting to a minimum.
A very large hypocritical statement from a number of women is "we deserve equal rights". This statement is ONLY being made to the hypocrits. Don't assume I'm talking about you just because you're a girl and I'm being controversial. Here's what I mean.
Women want equal pay in the workforce. They want equal right in the court system, and *gasp* they want to vote! I completely agree with all of this. What I have is a problem with women who want equal rights one moment, then play the hurt innocent woman role the next. You can't pick and choose, otherwise not only are you degrading your cause, but you're making it worse because people will actually start mocking it.
So here we come to where your opinion changes the outcome.
Are you a pacifist? Do you think that no one deserves to be hit and that there's always another outcome and peace love truth justice and the american way? Would be nice, although it's unrealistic. I do think like this. I've never been in a fight really, I hate the thought of hitting people. If this is you then yes, I agree, women dont deserve to be hit, but you should ALSO think neither do men.
Are you a person that thinks it's ok to hit someone, depending on the circumstances? If so then yes you should be able to hit a girl. If a guy spits in your face and you'd smash him one, I see nothing wrong with doing the same to a girl. If a girl hits you you should be able to hit her back. I've NEVER understood some of these people where a guy gets slapped in the face over and over again by a woman, and the guy finally hits her once, and everyone freaks out because "you should never hit a girl". That actually angers me that people think women should be able to get away with stuff like that, but still treated equally in other ways.
Equality isn't a grey area, it's pretty black and white. You either want it or you don't. So pick which before the next time you treat someone horribly. If you think your actions would get you punched out if you were a guy doing the same thing... maybe avoid doing that.
P.S. Perez Hilton isn't human... feel free to hit him as much as you want. Anyone who makes a career our of hurting and belittling others for others enjoyment should be caned.
First I want to delve into a side topic.
Equal rights.
This is actually the part that bugs me the most about this whole thing. Allow me to explain... and this doesn't go beyond the main topic either, so I'll try and keep my ranting to a minimum.
A very large hypocritical statement from a number of women is "we deserve equal rights". This statement is ONLY being made to the hypocrits. Don't assume I'm talking about you just because you're a girl and I'm being controversial. Here's what I mean.
Women want equal pay in the workforce. They want equal right in the court system, and *gasp* they want to vote! I completely agree with all of this. What I have is a problem with women who want equal rights one moment, then play the hurt innocent woman role the next. You can't pick and choose, otherwise not only are you degrading your cause, but you're making it worse because people will actually start mocking it.
So here we come to where your opinion changes the outcome.
Are you a pacifist? Do you think that no one deserves to be hit and that there's always another outcome and peace love truth justice and the american way? Would be nice, although it's unrealistic. I do think like this. I've never been in a fight really, I hate the thought of hitting people. If this is you then yes, I agree, women dont deserve to be hit, but you should ALSO think neither do men.
Are you a person that thinks it's ok to hit someone, depending on the circumstances? If so then yes you should be able to hit a girl. If a guy spits in your face and you'd smash him one, I see nothing wrong with doing the same to a girl. If a girl hits you you should be able to hit her back. I've NEVER understood some of these people where a guy gets slapped in the face over and over again by a woman, and the guy finally hits her once, and everyone freaks out because "you should never hit a girl". That actually angers me that people think women should be able to get away with stuff like that, but still treated equally in other ways.
Equality isn't a grey area, it's pretty black and white. You either want it or you don't. So pick which before the next time you treat someone horribly. If you think your actions would get you punched out if you were a guy doing the same thing... maybe avoid doing that.
P.S. Perez Hilton isn't human... feel free to hit him as much as you want. Anyone who makes a career our of hurting and belittling others for others enjoyment should be caned.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Burning the Qur'an - Mosque at ground zero
1 blog post, 2 topics, obviously both related.
To start with, so everyone knows, I'm pretty Aethist. I think there might be a *something* out there, but there's no proof. (and no... there's no proof, at all, period. If anyone argue's this I'll make it my next blog post).
We're going to start with the burning of the Qur'an.
Basically my opinion on this can be summed up by saying "Terry Jones, you're a fucking doucheclown". We have this guy, this fake pastor, with his tiny cult following that claim they're god fairing, loving christians, who prepare to perform this act that will endanged people. This guy is putting the lives of people at risk. The US embassy is already under protest in Jakarta, and at risk of possibly being attacked.
Another problem with this, and it's unfortunate that a lot of Muslims can't differentiate this, is that the entire US isn't at fault for the actions of a small group of invalid psychopaths. Best case scenario these people would be causing rioting, mass anger, and people will get hurt. Worse case scenario is extremists will start killing to protest these people.
Terry Jones, as a "Christian", how can you continue this act knowing you're risking the lives of people by your actions? You disgust me. At best, you should be thrown in jail, at worst you should be flown to Jakarta and left outside the gates of the US embassy with a letter of apology tied around your neck from President Obama for allowing you to do what you're doing for longer than it takes to send a group of soldiers to take you out.
Next up, the Mosque at ground Zero. This is a tough one.
We have the people who want the mosque not thinking they're doing anything wrong, and we have the people opposed to it who feel threatened by a symbol of what happened becoming a permanent fixture.
Basically you're both wrong.
The group that is building the Mosque, I understand you're not doing this as a slap in the face, but a lot of people take it that way. You need to be understanding about peoples feelings in this. If anything else needs to be explained thent here's really nothing else I can say in this that would help you understand.
At the same time, everyone that's protesting this Mosque is showing the same level of intolerance and hate that led to the attacks on 9-11 in the first place. By saying they're not welcome there you're lumping them into the same group of people, just like if they were to lump all white people into the same group as some of the people that we hear about, military people raping others, murder, etc. Yes I realize this is a poor example but my point is the same.
Both groups should concede in this. The protestors should apologize for their bigoted intolerance, and the mosque should understand peoples hurt and relocate to a place that others wont be upset about. And neither group should do this because their opinion is right, or better, but just out of understanding.
My last point... expecting people to be caring and understanding about others is the biggest joke that exists. No wars have killed more people on this planet than those causes by religious beliefs. Christians who "love thy neighbour" only do so when convenient it seems. When it actually comes to something serious their whole belief structure is thrown out the window. I'm pretty sure the same kind of stuff can be said about some muslim people, but I dont really know enough about it to say either way. (not being mean or insulting, but every religion is full of loopholes... and humans are too flawed to do good all the time).
This situation, both of them, will end badly. I desperately hope they dont, but hoping that religious people act in a caring understanding way is like hoping bullies will suddenty realize one day that nerds have feelings too.
To start with, so everyone knows, I'm pretty Aethist. I think there might be a *something* out there, but there's no proof. (and no... there's no proof, at all, period. If anyone argue's this I'll make it my next blog post).
We're going to start with the burning of the Qur'an.
Basically my opinion on this can be summed up by saying "Terry Jones, you're a fucking doucheclown". We have this guy, this fake pastor, with his tiny cult following that claim they're god fairing, loving christians, who prepare to perform this act that will endanged people. This guy is putting the lives of people at risk. The US embassy is already under protest in Jakarta, and at risk of possibly being attacked.
Another problem with this, and it's unfortunate that a lot of Muslims can't differentiate this, is that the entire US isn't at fault for the actions of a small group of invalid psychopaths. Best case scenario these people would be causing rioting, mass anger, and people will get hurt. Worse case scenario is extremists will start killing to protest these people.
Terry Jones, as a "Christian", how can you continue this act knowing you're risking the lives of people by your actions? You disgust me. At best, you should be thrown in jail, at worst you should be flown to Jakarta and left outside the gates of the US embassy with a letter of apology tied around your neck from President Obama for allowing you to do what you're doing for longer than it takes to send a group of soldiers to take you out.
Next up, the Mosque at ground Zero. This is a tough one.
We have the people who want the mosque not thinking they're doing anything wrong, and we have the people opposed to it who feel threatened by a symbol of what happened becoming a permanent fixture.
Basically you're both wrong.
The group that is building the Mosque, I understand you're not doing this as a slap in the face, but a lot of people take it that way. You need to be understanding about peoples feelings in this. If anything else needs to be explained thent here's really nothing else I can say in this that would help you understand.
At the same time, everyone that's protesting this Mosque is showing the same level of intolerance and hate that led to the attacks on 9-11 in the first place. By saying they're not welcome there you're lumping them into the same group of people, just like if they were to lump all white people into the same group as some of the people that we hear about, military people raping others, murder, etc. Yes I realize this is a poor example but my point is the same.
Both groups should concede in this. The protestors should apologize for their bigoted intolerance, and the mosque should understand peoples hurt and relocate to a place that others wont be upset about. And neither group should do this because their opinion is right, or better, but just out of understanding.
My last point... expecting people to be caring and understanding about others is the biggest joke that exists. No wars have killed more people on this planet than those causes by religious beliefs. Christians who "love thy neighbour" only do so when convenient it seems. When it actually comes to something serious their whole belief structure is thrown out the window. I'm pretty sure the same kind of stuff can be said about some muslim people, but I dont really know enough about it to say either way. (not being mean or insulting, but every religion is full of loopholes... and humans are too flawed to do good all the time).
This situation, both of them, will end badly. I desperately hope they dont, but hoping that religious people act in a caring understanding way is like hoping bullies will suddenty realize one day that nerds have feelings too.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Generic Calculation - the cold truth
If you dont believe in science and evolution please leave now, this post is not for you.
Get! Shoo!
What we now know is humans began evolving at the time of the dinosaurs. Millions of years of slight genetic mutations shifting over and over and over again to bring us to where we are now. There are a few things we have to thank for this. This main thing is survival of the fittest. This works alongside evolution by the following method:
2 tribes of proto-humans (ooga booga tribe and booga ooga tribe).
1 tribe starts evolving with longer legs.
1 tribe starts evolving with stronger arms.
*insert Startrek music here where Spock and Kirk fight on Vulcan, and a large group of fighing neanderthals*
stronger arm tribe wins.
The genetic code that would have continued with the long legged tribe is now destroyed, and the strong armed genetic code continues. The concept is that the idea behind longer legs isn't as advantageous as having stronger arms.
Now what ended up happening later on is physical characteristics were beaten by the mental part of the body... or, the brain. Survival of the fittest no longer means physically strong, but mentally too. And this strength is actually becoming a genetic weakness.
With intelligence we gave birth to individual thought, love, hate, anger, remorse, pity.
With these we create laws, morality, and ethics.
And with these we gave birth to Survival of the weak.
Now try to keep in perspective, this is all about genetics, evolution, and the strengthening of the human race. I'm not being mean, this isn't hateful, and there are no racist undertones here.
Child born. Child has downsyndrome. (testing now can detect this in the first trimester, giving the parents the option of aborting or not). What to do with child? Does this child deserve to be love and nurtured? Be a part of a family, a life, a home. Most definitely. But their genetic structure is compromised, and by default, there will typically be a genetic proneness to the mother or the father.
"But Kris, are you saying we should sterilize new borns because of genetics defects?"
Yes I am. Im not going to sugar coat it. I'm not going to pretend this isn't as bad as it sounds either. It's a cold thought, but one that has meaning, and purpose.
Now keep in mind also, i'm not saying to steralize children that have minor issues, most people do. But serious genetic abnormalities should not be allowed to continue.
Why would we want to give onto our children major genetic risks, so that they can continue to pass it on, and so on, and so forth.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you want to look at it) we allow this to continue. Left unchecked it risks becoming so wide spread that it will affect the entire polulace. Most people dont see the risks yet because of the same reason that most people didn't see the risks about the environment at first.
How can you polute the air? It's Air! There's way too much air to be able to polute it all. 50-70-100 years later now look at us. People see the polution in the air, the water, even the earth. This is the same basic thing. If wont make a difference, there's too many people. Then in one hundred years where 1 of every 2 people are both with genetic dispositions people will see how widespread this is capable of becoming. (realistically speaking we're probably talking a thousand years, but i'm not totally sure).
My viewpoint is actually shared with quite a few people, and not even necessarily bad people either. We've even see entire civilizations share a much harsher version of this. The Spartans would sterilize your child... they would take your baby from your womb. The mother would bathe the child in wine. If it didn't die from that the child was inspected. If it was "puny or deformed" they would throw it into the chasm of Mount Taygetos. Hell i'm just saying make it so they dont spread their defective genetics.
Personally, I feel if something simular to this isn't created soon, the long term consequences of the human race will be disasterous.
Get! Shoo!
What we now know is humans began evolving at the time of the dinosaurs. Millions of years of slight genetic mutations shifting over and over and over again to bring us to where we are now. There are a few things we have to thank for this. This main thing is survival of the fittest. This works alongside evolution by the following method:
2 tribes of proto-humans (ooga booga tribe and booga ooga tribe).
1 tribe starts evolving with longer legs.
1 tribe starts evolving with stronger arms.
*insert Startrek music here where Spock and Kirk fight on Vulcan, and a large group of fighing neanderthals*
stronger arm tribe wins.
The genetic code that would have continued with the long legged tribe is now destroyed, and the strong armed genetic code continues. The concept is that the idea behind longer legs isn't as advantageous as having stronger arms.
Now what ended up happening later on is physical characteristics were beaten by the mental part of the body... or, the brain. Survival of the fittest no longer means physically strong, but mentally too. And this strength is actually becoming a genetic weakness.
With intelligence we gave birth to individual thought, love, hate, anger, remorse, pity.
With these we create laws, morality, and ethics.
And with these we gave birth to Survival of the weak.
Now try to keep in perspective, this is all about genetics, evolution, and the strengthening of the human race. I'm not being mean, this isn't hateful, and there are no racist undertones here.
Child born. Child has downsyndrome. (testing now can detect this in the first trimester, giving the parents the option of aborting or not). What to do with child? Does this child deserve to be love and nurtured? Be a part of a family, a life, a home. Most definitely. But their genetic structure is compromised, and by default, there will typically be a genetic proneness to the mother or the father.
"But Kris, are you saying we should sterilize new borns because of genetics defects?"
Yes I am. Im not going to sugar coat it. I'm not going to pretend this isn't as bad as it sounds either. It's a cold thought, but one that has meaning, and purpose.
Now keep in mind also, i'm not saying to steralize children that have minor issues, most people do. But serious genetic abnormalities should not be allowed to continue.
Why would we want to give onto our children major genetic risks, so that they can continue to pass it on, and so on, and so forth.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you want to look at it) we allow this to continue. Left unchecked it risks becoming so wide spread that it will affect the entire polulace. Most people dont see the risks yet because of the same reason that most people didn't see the risks about the environment at first.
How can you polute the air? It's Air! There's way too much air to be able to polute it all. 50-70-100 years later now look at us. People see the polution in the air, the water, even the earth. This is the same basic thing. If wont make a difference, there's too many people. Then in one hundred years where 1 of every 2 people are both with genetic dispositions people will see how widespread this is capable of becoming. (realistically speaking we're probably talking a thousand years, but i'm not totally sure).
My viewpoint is actually shared with quite a few people, and not even necessarily bad people either. We've even see entire civilizations share a much harsher version of this. The Spartans would sterilize your child... they would take your baby from your womb. The mother would bathe the child in wine. If it didn't die from that the child was inspected. If it was "puny or deformed" they would throw it into the chasm of Mount Taygetos. Hell i'm just saying make it so they dont spread their defective genetics.
Personally, I feel if something simular to this isn't created soon, the long term consequences of the human race will be disasterous.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Idiots are not heros!
Todays blog revolves around this JetBlue flight attendant who in "the peoples hero" by freaking out on some people, pulling an emergency slide with 2 beers in hand, and fluttering away like a giant douche-canoe.
Here's a recent story about it:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/846995--the-anti-slater-how-one-flight-attendant-handled-an-on-board-free-for-all?bn=1
Ok so the jist is as he accounts:
2 passengers were fighting. Slater steps in, gets hit in the head with a piece of luggage and absolutely looses it. Grabs 2 beers, pulls the emergency slide, slides down to the tarmac, drives home. At this point he's arrested for multiple charges.
What makes him even more of a douchebag is that reports are coming out that show that he might have been lying. That he was in fact the one that started the fight.
That aside, assuming he was telling the truth, he's not a hero, and doesn't deserve anyone's pity or cheer.
Imagine if you may; You call TELUS because your long distance has been suspended and you're told it's because you didn't pay your bill. A system error caused us to not send a bill for a few months so you weren't getting it. As a customer this is still your fault. You didn't receive a bill, didn't call us to let us know you weren't getting them, and didn't answer when we called to let you know your bill wasn't paid (you seriosuly dont have a voicemail?).
You call in pissed because you think it's not fair, you were going to call your mother today because she's not feeling well and now you can't. You get angry at the agent on the other end of the phone.
1) You're in customer service. You know you are... you know you're going to get yelled at from time to time. It happens. Don't act like "this isn't what i signed up for" because yes, it is.
2) Your job is to help this customer. Let him rant and then do your job. Take a payment and get his service back up. Come on, yes this is partially our fault, but the customer did have a responsibility here as well. He still has a right to be mad... he misses his mom.
3) Stressful call? Take a breather, short walk, talk to your manager, then take the next call.
But no, the TELUS rep calls you an idiot for not calling us when you didn't get your bill, a fuck tart for thinking it's our fault, and ends the call by telling you to go die in a fire! After hanging up on you, the rep goes into the systems and cancels phone/internet/tv JUST to spite you. (to my knowledge this has never happened, just a made up scenario)
This is something that reps with ALL telecommunication companies would just LOVE to do with some people that call in. Do we? NO! Because this is horrible! Doing something like this wouldn't make you awesome, or a hero, it would make you the biggest dick to grace the company you're with.
Now lets return this back to this idiot. After all that's happened with airplane security, 9-11, homeland security, etc. he still has the odacity to pull something like this. Was it worth it? Was getting hit in the head by a piece of luggage worth going to jail?
The sad thing is this guy is going to have massive amounts of support by people who think what he did was commendable. If you can't handle the job you're doing, quit. This is just pathetic.
Also, if the new information coming out about him being the one who started the fight turns out to be true... Fired, fined, jail time should be mandatory... and if anyone on that plane wants to sue him to undue stress (after all, they were on a plane, omg is it a terrorist? I haven't been able to sleep since then)... i wouldn't blame you.
What do you guys think?
Here's a recent story about it:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/846995--the-anti-slater-how-one-flight-attendant-handled-an-on-board-free-for-all?bn=1
Ok so the jist is as he accounts:
2 passengers were fighting. Slater steps in, gets hit in the head with a piece of luggage and absolutely looses it. Grabs 2 beers, pulls the emergency slide, slides down to the tarmac, drives home. At this point he's arrested for multiple charges.
What makes him even more of a douchebag is that reports are coming out that show that he might have been lying. That he was in fact the one that started the fight.
That aside, assuming he was telling the truth, he's not a hero, and doesn't deserve anyone's pity or cheer.
Imagine if you may; You call TELUS because your long distance has been suspended and you're told it's because you didn't pay your bill. A system error caused us to not send a bill for a few months so you weren't getting it. As a customer this is still your fault. You didn't receive a bill, didn't call us to let us know you weren't getting them, and didn't answer when we called to let you know your bill wasn't paid (you seriosuly dont have a voicemail?).
You call in pissed because you think it's not fair, you were going to call your mother today because she's not feeling well and now you can't. You get angry at the agent on the other end of the phone.
1) You're in customer service. You know you are... you know you're going to get yelled at from time to time. It happens. Don't act like "this isn't what i signed up for" because yes, it is.
2) Your job is to help this customer. Let him rant and then do your job. Take a payment and get his service back up. Come on, yes this is partially our fault, but the customer did have a responsibility here as well. He still has a right to be mad... he misses his mom.
3) Stressful call? Take a breather, short walk, talk to your manager, then take the next call.
But no, the TELUS rep calls you an idiot for not calling us when you didn't get your bill, a fuck tart for thinking it's our fault, and ends the call by telling you to go die in a fire! After hanging up on you, the rep goes into the systems and cancels phone/internet/tv JUST to spite you. (to my knowledge this has never happened, just a made up scenario)
This is something that reps with ALL telecommunication companies would just LOVE to do with some people that call in. Do we? NO! Because this is horrible! Doing something like this wouldn't make you awesome, or a hero, it would make you the biggest dick to grace the company you're with.
Now lets return this back to this idiot. After all that's happened with airplane security, 9-11, homeland security, etc. he still has the odacity to pull something like this. Was it worth it? Was getting hit in the head by a piece of luggage worth going to jail?
The sad thing is this guy is going to have massive amounts of support by people who think what he did was commendable. If you can't handle the job you're doing, quit. This is just pathetic.
Also, if the new information coming out about him being the one who started the fight turns out to be true... Fired, fined, jail time should be mandatory... and if anyone on that plane wants to sue him to undue stress (after all, they were on a plane, omg is it a terrorist? I haven't been able to sleep since then)... i wouldn't blame you.
What do you guys think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
