Saturday, February 26, 2011
Hindu View on Overpopulation
If the Hindus are correct and the whole idea of reincarnation is true than wouldn't overpopulation and massive herds of cows be a sign that souls are being promoted at a higher rate? I mean lower species are disappearing at an accelerated pace while higher species, like us, are increasing quickly. Or if you look at the spread of much lower species like jellyfish and cockroaches than perhaps we can see an ever increasing divide between the karma rich and poor. This great divide needs immediate legislative intervention to close the karma gap.
Ex-Cop, Current Selfish Bitch, growing tobacco in New York
The New York Times ran a biopic on Audrey Silk, a retired police officer living in Brooklyn. Her complaint? The loss of smoker's rights and increased taxation of tobacco products. The solution? Growing her own tobacco in her backyard, cleaning the leaves in her kitchen and curing it in her basement.
I suppose I can start by saying that smokers have no rights and deserve no special treatment. Smoking is a choice. It is also something that can change. If a smoker is upset about being harassed or feels smoking is a hassle they can quit. It is not exactly the same thing as a sexual orientation or racial background. To argue that smokers deserve any special rights is ludicrous. All other qualities being equal, I would never hire a smoker because they waste time with excessive breaks.
If I lived in America, where health insurance is an issue, I would likely hire someone less qualified who doesn't smoke. Audrey Silk when contemplating the most recent New York smoking ban, this one disallowing public smoking in parks and on beaches, said this would make smoker's rights advocates "apoplectic" which is rather ironic because although it is used to describe someone in a rage it literally means someone afflicted by stroke a known risk of smoking. Coincidentally, the risk of stroke and other serious health risks, are the reasons that governments around the world are trying to reduce smoking rates through taxation and the impact of second hand smoke through public smoking bans.
With regard to this Audrey Silk argues "They’re using the power of taxation to coerce behavior. That’s not what taxation is supposed to be for.” I would say, no Audrey, this is exactly how taxation should be used. When companies or people consume products that have a negative affect on other people, through pollution, health risks or social nuisance the government has a duty to charge a tax equal to those costs, often referred to as externalities, as a way to compensate those who have to deal with the negative consequences of that consumption. Taxing loud night clubs, tobacco, alcohol, carbon emissions, etc. have both the short term benefit of raising funds to compensate victims as well as also reducing long term consumption of those products that society deems an unnecessary burden.
Smoking by its very nature is a selfish action. It is something that people who care more about a small amount of personal enjoyment than upsetting countless people in their vicinity. For this reason it was not surprising that later Audrey added
"The authorities, she added, should not be concerned that she might be illegally selling her cigarettes.
“I make meatballs,” Ms. Silk said, by way of explanation. “My recipe is a four-hour ordeal. My biggest loved ones do not get any. When I have to put a lot of work into something, I don’t share.”"
Finally just a small thing. Audrey argues that her tobacco farming is a big middle finger to the authorities to which I wonder if, perhaps, at some point in time as a police officer if she didn't give the tazer to some person for literally doing what she now promotes. Audrey Silk, fuck you.
I suppose I can start by saying that smokers have no rights and deserve no special treatment. Smoking is a choice. It is also something that can change. If a smoker is upset about being harassed or feels smoking is a hassle they can quit. It is not exactly the same thing as a sexual orientation or racial background. To argue that smokers deserve any special rights is ludicrous. All other qualities being equal, I would never hire a smoker because they waste time with excessive breaks.
If I lived in America, where health insurance is an issue, I would likely hire someone less qualified who doesn't smoke. Audrey Silk when contemplating the most recent New York smoking ban, this one disallowing public smoking in parks and on beaches, said this would make smoker's rights advocates "apoplectic" which is rather ironic because although it is used to describe someone in a rage it literally means someone afflicted by stroke a known risk of smoking. Coincidentally, the risk of stroke and other serious health risks, are the reasons that governments around the world are trying to reduce smoking rates through taxation and the impact of second hand smoke through public smoking bans.
With regard to this Audrey Silk argues "They’re using the power of taxation to coerce behavior. That’s not what taxation is supposed to be for.” I would say, no Audrey, this is exactly how taxation should be used. When companies or people consume products that have a negative affect on other people, through pollution, health risks or social nuisance the government has a duty to charge a tax equal to those costs, often referred to as externalities, as a way to compensate those who have to deal with the negative consequences of that consumption. Taxing loud night clubs, tobacco, alcohol, carbon emissions, etc. have both the short term benefit of raising funds to compensate victims as well as also reducing long term consumption of those products that society deems an unnecessary burden.
Smoking by its very nature is a selfish action. It is something that people who care more about a small amount of personal enjoyment than upsetting countless people in their vicinity. For this reason it was not surprising that later Audrey added
"The authorities, she added, should not be concerned that she might be illegally selling her cigarettes.
“I make meatballs,” Ms. Silk said, by way of explanation. “My recipe is a four-hour ordeal. My biggest loved ones do not get any. When I have to put a lot of work into something, I don’t share.”"
Finally just a small thing. Audrey argues that her tobacco farming is a big middle finger to the authorities to which I wonder if, perhaps, at some point in time as a police officer if she didn't give the tazer to some person for literally doing what she now promotes. Audrey Silk, fuck you.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
The Application Complication
I purchased an iPhone in September (on a side note my bill has been reduced by 60% over my previous phone which means it has been the best investment I have ever made) and have been downloading applications, or apps as the kids say, ever since. I now have around 60 apps on my phone. As the number of apps I possess increases I am starting to find classification more and more difficult.
When you have 24 or less apps arrangement is simple and folders are unnecessary. Keeping the top 12 apps, by usage, on the front page and the remainder on the last page you have a relatively simple sort. Within the front page you could arrange the apps any number of ways, by colour of symbol, alphabetically, usage, order of download, the default, etc. but all amount to the same basic thing since you can see all the apps simultaneously when you open the screen.
As I continued to download more applications and finding that three screens worth of apps would not be practical I decided to start sorting my apps into folders. When considering how to group apps the iPhone is quite intelligent in guessing names for folders - not only predicting generic titles like games or education but also more specific groups like card games or board games - but the fact is a lot of applications serve more than one purpose.
Do I put bodybuilding.com's app in with the health section along with my weight tracker and exercise video library apps, my social section because I use the bodybuilding forums or with other apps that connect to online shopping websites?
Does Google's application go with social apps because it connects me to my Gmail, reference section with Wikipedia or in utilities because it is a search engine and train map?
Once you have decided to go with folders, is it worth keeping the four or five most used items on the dashboard for easy access or will that upset your sense of order? Another issue I have found with using folders is that I am less likely to cull my apps and delete the ones that I find useless if they are hidden in a seldom used folder.
In deciding how to separate my apps that appear to fit into more than one category I have managed to avoid the pit that is to add more and more folders to the point that their function has been lost. I chose to place the apps together based on the function that I associate with the app the most. For both the examples above it has placed them along with Linkedin, Facebook and Twitter in the social folder. Finally new downloads remain on the second page, not in a folder, for a short period of time until I deem them useful and place them in a folder or summarily delete them.
When you have 24 or less apps arrangement is simple and folders are unnecessary. Keeping the top 12 apps, by usage, on the front page and the remainder on the last page you have a relatively simple sort. Within the front page you could arrange the apps any number of ways, by colour of symbol, alphabetically, usage, order of download, the default, etc. but all amount to the same basic thing since you can see all the apps simultaneously when you open the screen.
As I continued to download more applications and finding that three screens worth of apps would not be practical I decided to start sorting my apps into folders. When considering how to group apps the iPhone is quite intelligent in guessing names for folders - not only predicting generic titles like games or education but also more specific groups like card games or board games - but the fact is a lot of applications serve more than one purpose.
Do I put bodybuilding.com's app in with the health section along with my weight tracker and exercise video library apps, my social section because I use the bodybuilding forums or with other apps that connect to online shopping websites?
Does Google's application go with social apps because it connects me to my Gmail, reference section with Wikipedia or in utilities because it is a search engine and train map?
Once you have decided to go with folders, is it worth keeping the four or five most used items on the dashboard for easy access or will that upset your sense of order? Another issue I have found with using folders is that I am less likely to cull my apps and delete the ones that I find useless if they are hidden in a seldom used folder.
In deciding how to separate my apps that appear to fit into more than one category I have managed to avoid the pit that is to add more and more folders to the point that their function has been lost. I chose to place the apps together based on the function that I associate with the app the most. For both the examples above it has placed them along with Linkedin, Facebook and Twitter in the social folder. Finally new downloads remain on the second page, not in a folder, for a short period of time until I deem them useful and place them in a folder or summarily delete them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
