Binks Is Here

Saw this article in the Globe and Mail. Put briefly, the University will be hiring “facilitators” who, as part of their job description, are charged with intervening should anyone use language that is not “inclusive enough” - even if this language is used in a private conversation.

I’m inclined to agree with the student’s council in rejecting this idea. This is a residence setting they’re talking about; these are student’s homes, not classes.

I guess a lot depends upon the amount of authority granted to these “facilitators”. If the students feel comfortable saying, “Look, just get the heck out of our conversation - keep on walking” I guess it’s not so bad; but if student’s can’t stop the conversation at will… it seems like this is the kind of thing that could really trap students - they can’t leave and go home, since this is happening AT their home.

Their comments on privacy strike me as being absurd - anything loud enough for a third party to hear is not private? I like to see several gradients of privacy - I don’t think it’s black and white. If you’re shouting across a room, that’s one thing; but just because you can hear it I don’t think you’re granted a right to join in on the conversation. I think it’s possible to have a private conversation even though others can hear. I suspect it happens all the time in dorms - if your roommate is on the phone to their parents, that’s not an open invitation to interject at will. The conversation is private because both parties intend for it to be private. If the couple in front of you in the movie is whispering about what they’ll do to each other later in the evening, I don’t think you have the right to lean in and give your own suggestions for positions and pacing.

At the same time, if I hear two people arguing about directions to somewhere on campus, I’ll sometimes interject if it’s clear they’re both lost and I can help out.

Note: In re-reading, I realize that this is the part where I step away from the article, and rant on about my own topics:

I sometimes wonder about the University response to “diversity” - half the time “diversity” is a eumphanism for “don’t be homophobic”. If there was one “diversity” topic I wish I got when I came to university, it would’ve been a grounding on the religious rituals and restrictions of some of the more prominant cultural groups on campus - who is it that can’t eat pork? What’s this “Ramadan” thing all about? South Korean, Japanease, Chinease - how exactly are these groups distinct? I don’t need much depth, just a quick overview of how this stuff might impact me - the quick “dos” and “do nots” of international relations.

I don’t need another lecture on being “LGBTQ friendly” (Let’s see if I’ve got this memorized yet - that’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual/Transgendered, Queer and Questioning (had to cheat and use Google…)). You could take a whole day to try and define all those groups, and the bottom line is that there’re probably many debates about the proper defintions anyway!

There’s civility, then there’s the ridiculous; and I think that language police veers into the ridiculous. If you really care so much about the words people use in conversation, then I suggest that we, as North America, sit down and come up with a term other then “lesbians” to describe homosexual females - the inhabitants of the Greek island of Lesbos apparently find the use of the term leads to many uncomfortable situations for them (since they are from Lesbos, they are “Lesbians”). I’ve heard that they’re actually trying to push a campaign to replace the word “Lesbian” as it refers to the sexual orientation (they DID use the term first…).

Words can mean more then one thing, so long as the context is clear I’m not sure why there’s so much concern and consternation over it.

Even in University essays, some profs are really picky about gender pronouns - depending on the prof’s preferences, you aren’t supposed to say “he” when referring to an abstract or hypothetical individual, or “mankind” when referring to a body of people. Instead, you’re supposed to use a gender-neutral form (instead of, “he would have to renew his license” it should be, “A person would have to renew their license”). “A person” just seems like an awkward substitute for “he” or “she”. I think that it’s a limitation of the language and we have to live with it - some languages actually have a dedicated gender-neutral second person; ours doesn’t.

There’s actually a decent article on Wikipedia about it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun

In doing some reading on this, some people actually object to the use of such notions of “he or she” or “s/he” - such terminology implies that a “gender binary” exists - that someone can only be “male” or “female”; instead of embracing the idea of a whole range and dynamic levels of “maleness” or “femaleness”.

Even in contemporary issues, people have chosen to add a double-meaning to an already existing word rather then create a new one - “hacker” was given the added meaning of “one who breaks into computer systems, normally for nefarious purposes”. But I think that it’s still appropriate to say that “my dentist is a real hacker - look what he did to my gums!”

I suppose this derivation takes the long way around, but I guess my basic point is this - you can’t please all the people, all the time. There’s a ton of pressure to change languages to appease given groups. At the end of the day, we’re stuck with a limited number of words and usages, and to have a university body arbitrarily declare “This is the version of the word that is correct, and this shall be the only version that is correct” seems rather crude. I doubt the island of Lesbos would approve.

Looks like we may’ve hit a tipping point. I’m hoping we have - I’m hoping that all the big stuff is done, and now they’re working on making this place open and really work.

On the other hand, I’m feeling a bit of fear - it took 3 months for this stuff to move down one floor and over about 30 feet. What’s going to happen in 2-3 years, when there’s something new that we need access to?

But, focusing on hope - I’m really hoping that this is them making a strong, positive commitment.

Whenever I tell people that I like to do that, they think I’m joking…

(No, it’s not an “all the time” thing, but every once in a while you want to study someplace different).

No real point, just a collection of small clips. I thought the “Theology of Physics” in the St. Jerome’s library was especially funny/disgusting.

It seems that Red Alert 3 shipped without the last character of its CD key. This from Slashdot:

sunderbear noted that EAs Command & Conquer 3 shipped missing the last digit of the CD Key. He writes “EA’s brightest minds have put their synapses into overdrive in order to whip up a comical work-around. ‘There is currently a work-around that may allow you to bypass this issue. Since you have the first 19 characters of the code already, you can basically try guessing the last character,’ said a note on EA’s customer support site. Yes, they’re serious. ‘To do this, simply enter your existing code, and then for the last character, try the letters A-Z, and then the numbers 0-9. You should eventually get the right combination, and be able to play the game.’” It appears that the helpful hint has been purged.

Source

Well done with the QA, chaps! You’d think somewhere between the sticker-printing factory and your local Wal-Mart someone would’ve realized that the code was short. I suppose the more disappointing possibility is that they DID see it, and they DID realize it, but they decided that making the end user brute-force their own license key was a better fix.

I haven’t looked for it, but I’d wager there’s a cracked copy of RA3 on the bittorrent network as we speak - and it probably has a crack that works through a simple copy and paste.

Once again, you can pirate a product of higher quality and greater ease of use than you can buy.

It’s pretty clear that they’ve just stopped updating the numbers for console sales, which is a real shame.

So, they weren’t really doing any good.

Wassup 2008.

How much you figure it cost to make? Answer: $6500.

The beer company didn’t even know the video was happening - apparently the director leased the rights of a short film he did to the company for $30,000 or so, so by now those rights have returned to him, for use more or less as he pleases.

Link for some more details.

Sometimes, it’s cool seeing what comes from the US political debates - they spend so much more time and money on the process, and there’re so many more people that live in the country, you get some pretty interesting outcomes:

EDIT: Embed didn’t work. Video linked HERE

Yeah, admittedly, a lot of the big synchronizations are on numbers - but they had three debates! I thought the idea was to cover a broad swath of issues. It sounds like they addressed a lot of different issues with the same lines and identical points (probably moreso then this video suggests, since if they used different words it wouldn’t synchronize well, and so wouldn’t show in the video).

So we’ve got Dion; a guy who doesn’t present well and his party has basically been hiding, who’s had some major faux pas when it comes to interviews. Then there’s Palin, who has only been allowed a few unscripted interfaces with the press, and who’s made a fool of herself basically every time. We have GOT to get these two kids together if for no other reason then so John Stewart’s kids will have some great material once Dion and Palin’s children grow up.

Found two recipes from the Egg Farmers of Canada.

If the Egg Farmers are OK with it… maybe it comes out halfway decent?

I think I’ve decided that microwave Kraft Dinner is too much trouble; it’s basically easier to do it up in a pot, but with eggs you’ve got a big pan, a non-eating tool, a plate, and an eating tool. Sounds like it might be a job for the microwave…

According to Slashdot.

I guess this can go on the list next to forums, chatrooms, email, telephones, cellphones (somehow eviler…), the mail system, videos, newspapers, blogs…

So… basically anything that facilitates communication is a terrorist tool.

Next up: Shouting really loud is a terrorist tool of mass-communication.

I can’t help but think that the only way we’ll get less technology-hysteria is for the older generation to die (I’m not saying we should speed up the process, just that there’re an awful lot of people out there who “don’t get it”, and likely never will, just like “rock and roll” was not to be trusted years ago)