Disqus - Latest Comments for torontocitylife

Re: Canadian scientists raise fish to walk on land

Patrick — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 12:24:42 -0000

Science!!!

Re: Canadian scientists raise fish to walk on land

Patrick — Thu, 28 Aug 2014 12:23:18 -0000

Who's the greatest mudskipper of them all? Who can skip thru the mud with the greatest of ease? What kind of wonderful guy? Who can crawl like a dog without scraping his knees? Who's got segmented eyes? It's Muuuuuuddy Mudskipper, it's Muuuuddy...

Re: Is Harper exploiting cyberbully panic to reboot the Internet spying bill?

Patrick — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:55:57 -0000

Being tied to cash, BitCoin is doomed to suffer the same fate as our modern currencies (control by the few at the expense of the many). That's if it ever gets off the ground -- states hate nothing more than anything challenging their sovereignty, and BitCoin challenges that. Alternative cash systems have been attempted, and crushed, many times before -- if the state can't control it, it'll destroy it.
Not that I'm against BitCoin (quite the opposite, in fact), I just don't think we should get starry-eyed about it.

Re: Is Harper exploiting cyberbully panic to reboot the Internet spying bill?

Patrick — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:46:15 -0000

I respectfully urge you to give it up, James. You might as well be arguing with a fence post. People like Christopher not only miss the forest for the trees, they're barely aware that they're even outdoors. You can point out what's clearly obvious to almost anyone else, and they're going to argue your use of punctuation. You'll provide proof, and they'll demand that you get it notarized. The very thing you're arguing could be happening directly to them, and they'll not only deny that anything's happening, but they'll simultaneously demand that you stop doing it to them (and they'll happily move between both contradictory positions while calling you vile names). Orwell called it "double-think", and he was pretty darn accurate -- with one exception: you don't need sharp mental acuity or any real intelligence to do it.

Re: Is Harper exploiting cyberbully panic to reboot the Internet spying bill?

Patrick — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:36:42 -0000

I'd like to suggest that the purpose of such laws has nothing to do with either stopping or preventing the crimes for which they're stated. The provisions in Bill S-7, for example, have been in force for a number of years and although they've been used numerous times, not a single one of those times had anything to do with terrorism or related charges. The Harper agenda is quite transparent if one stops listening to his rhetoric and starts observing his actions.

Re: Is Harper exploiting cyberbully panic to reboot the Internet spying bill?

Patrick — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:34:08 -0000

It's very much the Vic Toews "you're either with us or your with the child pornographers" mentality. In fact, Toews used a press conference announcing a major child porn ring bust to show just how ineffective current laws were at catching such criminals. The only thing worse than Toews' expectations that Canadians are stupid enough to accept that kind of idiotic argument, is that there actually ARE people out there that accept it -- no questions asked.

Re: Rob Ford: Mayor and one-man resistance movement

Patrick — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:21:59 -0000

In the way that anyone and anything that is in any way critical or opposed to Ford or his "ideas" is illegitimate.

Re: Rob Ford: Mayor and one-man resistance movement

Patrick — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:11:12 -0000

Oh Nick, trying to argue "facts" and "reality" with Fordites is not unlike trying to convince diarrhea to stick to a wall (no offense to any excrement out there!)

Re: Ontario government hits redial on bill targeting cellphone providers

Patrick — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:56:03 -0000

In any other circumstances, contracts changed without prior notice/agreement, or ones that impose onerous demands, are null and void (for example, no court would accept a contract where someone unwillingly signed onto slavery). Yet large corporations and banks regularly push such "agreements" on millions of people without any form of recourse except to have the government say "we're looking into it".
I say B.S. -- if they don't honour their agreements, neither should we, and let them take us to court to try to exact their illegal fees.
If only Canadians weren't so spineless and were willing to stand up to "authority"...

Re: More service, not suits: TTC union

Patrick — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:13:17 -0000

Millions of dollars in inefficiencies? That sounds exactly like Ford's "gravy" or his mystical "public-private-partnerships", both of which are complete fantasies. But it wouldn't be fair to denounce this as yet more empty rhetoric without giving you an opportunity to provide some sort of evidence to back up your claims. Would you kindly do so please?

Re: Fox News takes Karl Rove off the air after election-night meltdown

Patrick — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:56:21 -0000

I've thought about this for some time now, and can simply type fast. No corporate payroll or pension for me. How about you, David?

Re: Fox News takes Karl Rove off the air after election-night meltdown

Patrick — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:52:13 -0000

My point doesn't really have much to do with Rove or whatever/whoever he represents or backs. If you're replying to me, I've made that clear and you're basically talking apples when I'm discussing oranges.

Re: Fox News takes Karl Rove off the air after election-night meltdown

Patrick — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:39:18 -0000

Exactly. I think if he went on an actual tirade and started cursing people out, that would've warranted a ban. But when you watch the video, he was asking a simple, coherent, topical, and relevant question in a fairly calm way (after being encourage to engage in "a cage match! go go go!"). To use this questioning of network "authority" as a basis to reduce his time is censorship at its most exemplary, and to have follow-up nonsense like calling it a "meltdown" really puts a nail in that coffin. There's a lot more about this video that's very very wrong, but these facts alone are extremely disturbing to me.

Re: Fox News takes Karl Rove off the air after election-night meltdown

Patrick — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:34:21 -0000

So if I understand you correctly, whenever Fox (or any network) flashes big text on screen, we should all accept it as fact, no questions asked? And even if I were to accept this (I really hope this isn't what you're saying), what about the fact that they were also showing OBAMA 49% - ROMNEY 49%, or ties in both electoral colleges, at the same time? In other words, they were declaring Obama won while simultaneously showing a neck-and-neck tie in the results.

George Orwell had a name for what you're suggesting: "doublethink"

Re: Fox News takes Karl Rove off the air after election-night meltdown

Patrick — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:15:27 -0000

I gotta get back to work anyways :)

Re: Fox News takes Karl Rove off the air after election-night meltdown

Patrick — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 15:06:39 -0000

You're absolutely correct. However, statistics are numbers we have to take for granted since we have no real way of verifying if they're in any way accurate (and we've all, I'm sure, experienced statistical manipulation to back one viewpoint or another).

And who gives us the statistics? The news organizations. Who conducts the entry/exit polls? The news organizations. As of this year's elections, the collated poll data is sealed until the official results are released, further obfuscating what is going on behind (literally) closed doors. The director for Project for Excellence in Journalism that this is because, "with Internet penetration and the speed of social media, that (data) would be known pretty widely".

Kind of an odd statement -- either the electorate are basically all drooling idiots who do whatever they're told and are thus easily influenced by trends in voting results (hence they have to hold them back), or the results are being purposefully withheld for another reason. The only reason I can come up with is to further prevent any sort of independent verification of what the results actually are (after all, none of this stops any news organization from election-night punditry and predictions).

You're right, maybe they all simultaneously and with only one (two?) opinions to the contrary, called Obama the winner well ahead of the finish line.

Maybe all the results are pre-selected and this is all just done for the benefit of the masses to make them feel like any of it matters.

In scenario one, everyone plays by the rules and, yes, people are idiots and therefore can't know the results ahead of time (it's the same here in Canada). We have no evidence of this except what we're told and must simply choose to believe.

In scenario two, there are crooked people in power who have wrested control out of the hands of the population, are manipulating or directly controlling election results, and doing their darndest to crack down on dissent. We have plenty of evidence of this like the unanimous preemptive call of election results (which miraculously happen to be correct), media assassination of dissenting voices (doesn't matter which side of the "left/right" argument they're on), implementation of things like the NDAA (aka the "iNdefinite Detention of Americans Act", mirroring Canada's own Bill S-7), Obama's dictatorial "kill list" and completely illegal (according to American law), wars in place like Lybia, etc. Seems like there's WAY more evidence that this is actually what's happening.

Unless, of course, you don't believe in raising any questions.

Re: Fox News takes Karl Rove off the air after election-night meltdown

Patrick — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 14:56:02 -0000

Cheers.

Re: Fox News takes Karl Rove off the air after election-night meltdown

Patrick — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 14:55:22 -0000

If you watch that video again, seems very few people in front of the cameras were aware of these differences (which would still not fully decisive even then). That was the "maybe my computer is slow" reference Rove made towards the end.

So, no one sitting there had any idea that these numbers were different, and no one but Rove was questioning them (not even question, but simply urging caution in making any sort of pronouncements). That's problem 1. This questioning, which wasn't a rant or done in any sort of agitated or combative way, is being called a "meltdown". That's problem 2.

To me, a "meltdown" would've been if he'd thrown his hands into the air and started screaming that Romney should be in the lead (a good definition from the web: "Emotional upset (including crying and anger) caused by feeling overwhelmed.") If you're okay with newspapers changing the definitions of words to bash anyone questioning "official" pronouncements, we're basically living in Orwell's 1984 today.

Re: Fox News takes Karl Rove off the air after election-night meltdown

Patrick — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 14:47:15 -0000

I suggested very clearly that opposing views are necessary, regarless of who is delivering them. I personally don't like Fox, but whatever critical thought they do bring forth is just as necessary as whatever your favourite news channel is, and that goes for the people delivering those opposing viewpoints too.

About your second point, people weren't able to leave the earth's atmosphere or even fly at the time when they discovered that the earth was round (and circled the sun, etc.) What was needed was somebody raising questions against the status quo. At that time, I suspect you would've derided me for not thinking the world was flat in much the same way. You've gotten comfortable with the "everyone knows" excuse for not questioning things, and that's exactly what I have a problem with. I think it's fine to say that this is the general concensus, but your example perfectly demonstrates the problem with that type of thinking. Yes, much of the doubt that's raised is ridiculous and just nonsense, but sometimes it seems cogent and well put-together and then why is it so wrong to say "why not?" (regardless of who asked the original question).

Often, debates can solve these differences -- I made a point about "what do we know about the mathematicians making election results" above that shows my own ignorance of the subject. Someone else might jump in and tell me all about these people and at the end of the day I feel a lot more comfortable about election results. But if I don't raise the question, if my mind isn't open to it, I'll be part of the flat-world crowd until someone else shows how foolish I've been all along.

Re: Fox News takes Karl Rove off the air after election-night meltdown

Patrick — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 14:33:35 -0000

A difference of 900-odd people with 20% of the American population unaccounted for seems pretty close to call. Yeah, I can conceded that statistically and historically, results can be forecast before they're ultimately announced, but Rove had also brought up some statistical/historical numbers that contradicted the "mathematicians" who, by the way, we know absolutely nothing about, including how qualified they are to predict anything. Now consider my next point alongside the previous one: if you believe that Rove is a sensationalist loudmouth (I have no reason to disagree with you), that means that Fox (and others), are willing and able to hire people who will raise ratings (or toe the line) without much respect to their qualifications, accuracy, etc. We've also seen wildly inaccurate predictions of elections in the past, demonstrating that the people the networks have sitting in the basement making the calls aren't all that accurate either. And besides all of this, advances in all fields, whether statistics, mathematics, physics, or otherwise, came about as a result of questioning (and being open to questions), not following the status quo and simply nodding one's head to agree with whatever one's told. I get that you don't like Rove, but can you at least agree that questions need to be raised by someone?

Re: Fox News takes Karl Rove off the air after election-night meltdown

Patrick — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 14:22:56 -0000

No, no, I get it. Rove got his (presumably) because he's a sh**-disturber the rest of the time. As I replied below, that may be, I don't know much about Rove and what I've heard thus far suggests you're probably entirely correct.
But what "environment" are you referring to? I'm talking about simply questioning what seems to be obviously wrong. To me, it doesn't matter who does it (though HOW they do it is, I think, is what you're taking issue with). But that wasn't my point...there was no other foot on which to put the shoe, I heard no dissenting opinions, I read no questions about the validity of the results or how quickly (and, seemingly prematurely), they were called, etc. If anyone else (anyone you consider fair and balanced) had said it, would it have been a valid point? The messenger may suck, but what about the message?

Re: Fox News takes Karl Rove off the air after election-night meltdown

Patrick — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 13:49:13 -0000

Yeah, that may be. I don't really follow pundits very closely because they tend to be mouthpieces for the organizations that they work for. Sometimes they're just abrasive loudmouths, but I still think we need them to raise questions. Every once in a while, they actually raise some important points that would otherwise be missed (even if it's just by chance).

Re: Fox News takes Karl Rove off the air after election-night meltdown

Patrick — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 13:45:27 -0000

Again, I just want to reiterate that I support neither candidate so I don't have a horse in the race, but I'd like you to consider what may (not saying FOR SURE, just raising the question), happen.

First, there is no independent verification of election night results (true for Canadian elections too). I don't believe the media pick the president, they report on what they're told. Those results are collected by electronic voting machines and mail-in ballots and we have to simply trust that there's nothing untoward happening behind the scenes (and even then, reports of "glitches" and other irregularities still come out).
I think you'll agree that there's a lot at stake for the run for the presidency, so I think you'll agree that it's HIGHLY likely that every attempt at cheating and deception will be thrown into the mix (all it takes is one crooked candidate). Then there are all of the other lobbyists and corporate interests working behind the scenes that may not have a direct connection to any candidate but are nonetheless VERY strongly attempting to influence (if we're using a naive term), the outcome.

In other words, we have elections with highly vested, ingrained, generations-old interests, mechanisms that allow for cheating and deception at every turn, and very little independent verification of anything. In all of this, the role of the media is, at best, to sway you away from even thinking about any of this. Okay, granted it may not be true, but has ANYONE in the mainstream media raised any of these concerns?
In Las Vegas, the rules are always stacked in favour of the house. I think it's incredibly naive and childish to think that at higher levels of influence/money/control, things wouldn't be stacked even more.

Re: Fox News takes Karl Rove off the air after election-night meltdown

Patrick — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 13:28:10 -0000

Cogent arguments make me high? I suppose believing that we need a balance in our reporting and dissenting views in our society makes me an extremist too, right? And defending the rights of people to make sensible arguments (even if they're later proven wrong), probably puts me next to Hitler?
How about we come at this from another direction -- you tell me what part of my argument was wrong or incorrect.

Re: Fox News takes Karl Rove off the air after election-night meltdown

Patrick — Wed, 05 Dec 2012 13:24:09 -0000

You also completely and entirely missed the point of my argument. Please read it again.