The art of acting is often overshadowed by the highly publicized and scandal-ridden world of celebrity that today's "stars" comprise. At every corner there is a mention of which Hollywood star has cheated on whom; which crazy drunken mishap another got into; and the ever-so entertaining adventures of the Spears family.
If we watch TV, listen to the radio, read newspapers or magazines and peruse the ol' interweb once and awhile, we've doubtless run into something along these lines. It's annoying, repetitive, addictive (to some) and downright foolish. It dominates our headlines, but that is not what this little diddy is about.
Because the world of acting (specifically in film) is so dominated by the public eye of celebrity, we often forget how truly amazing it is. There are, of course, many actors that stay out of the limelight and find themselves making tremendous films, and I imagine they will forever be remembered for their talents. But then there are those who find there way into the public eye, be it in or out of their control, whose abilities as an actor are immediately overshadowed by their status as a celebrity.
I just saw the amazing sequel to Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and their is quite a bit of truth surrounding the acclaim for Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker. He was compelling, outrageous and wonderful, bringing a character to life like no one could have believed. When you see something so powerful, you're allowed to ignore the gossipy world of celebrity and you're reminded of the remarkable ability of great actors. You realize how sad it really is to lose someone who can do such a great thing like act.
We can only hope Heath won't be remembered for his tragic death, but for his ability to act; an ability that many celebrities and "actors" fail to share.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Read my lips, no new texts...
So you like text messaging, eh cell phone users? Well it's going to keep costing you money.
What's that? You don't even know what text messaging is? Too bad, you're going to have to start paying for it as well.
Customers with contracts from Bell Canada and Telus will soon be paying for incoming text messages, regardless of whether or not you want them. The policy will coming into play in mid-August and will incorporate a 10-15 cents/message charge to cell phone users.
Shit. That's me. And probably you, too.
They'll make a pretty penny off this. Not only will you get charged for incoming text messages from friends, family and business, you'll also be charged for the spam you get. And where does that spam come from? Most likely from companies that your cell phone provider has sold your information too. Sometimes it may even be sister companies that your provider owns, allowing them to make money everytime their sister company spams you. What crooks.
It's not all that hard for them to do it. The Canadian telecommunications industry is one of the most concentrated in the developed world. The price we pay for wireless service is one of the highest in the developed world and it's not hard to see why. The country is dominated by the Big Three: Rogers, Telus and Bell Canada. In economics we call this an oligopoly.
Think about it for a second. Do you know anyone who has a wireless plan through anyone else? And if you're thinking Fido; they're owned by Rogers.
Man, the Canadian wireless industry sucks.
But have no fear, for the government is here. The federal government has recently announced their intention to grant more licenses to companies that are currently prohibited from the industry. That should clear it up a bit. Whenever it actually happens.
And the whole text messaging issue has obviously put a lot of people up in arms. So many in fact that our trusty Industry Minister Jim Prentice has scheduled a meeting with both companies to try to desuade them from pursuing this new text policy. Pretty gutsy move for a government bent on deregulation of the wireless industry, but still a commendable one. We can only hope Prentice actually convinces them to do so. Otherwise there may be quite an uproar.
Hey Rogers, you want some new business?
What's that? You don't even know what text messaging is? Too bad, you're going to have to start paying for it as well.
Customers with contracts from Bell Canada and Telus will soon be paying for incoming text messages, regardless of whether or not you want them. The policy will coming into play in mid-August and will incorporate a 10-15 cents/message charge to cell phone users.
Shit. That's me. And probably you, too.
They'll make a pretty penny off this. Not only will you get charged for incoming text messages from friends, family and business, you'll also be charged for the spam you get. And where does that spam come from? Most likely from companies that your cell phone provider has sold your information too. Sometimes it may even be sister companies that your provider owns, allowing them to make money everytime their sister company spams you. What crooks.
It's not all that hard for them to do it. The Canadian telecommunications industry is one of the most concentrated in the developed world. The price we pay for wireless service is one of the highest in the developed world and it's not hard to see why. The country is dominated by the Big Three: Rogers, Telus and Bell Canada. In economics we call this an oligopoly.
Think about it for a second. Do you know anyone who has a wireless plan through anyone else? And if you're thinking Fido; they're owned by Rogers.
Man, the Canadian wireless industry sucks.
But have no fear, for the government is here. The federal government has recently announced their intention to grant more licenses to companies that are currently prohibited from the industry. That should clear it up a bit. Whenever it actually happens.
And the whole text messaging issue has obviously put a lot of people up in arms. So many in fact that our trusty Industry Minister Jim Prentice has scheduled a meeting with both companies to try to desuade them from pursuing this new text policy. Pretty gutsy move for a government bent on deregulation of the wireless industry, but still a commendable one. We can only hope Prentice actually convinces them to do so. Otherwise there may be quite an uproar.
Hey Rogers, you want some new business?
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
The many faces of environmentalism...
Anyone hoping that solar energy will solve the problem of America's energy independence will have to wait at least another few years for anything to come about.
The federal Bureau of Land Management placed a temporary moratorium on applications for new solar projects to be placed on federal lands, citing that it had nearly 150 applications that still needed to be reviewed and that it would not be accepting any new applications until May of 2010. This certainly throws a damper on the development of solar energy in the U.S.
The particular area of interest is the southwest United States; namely Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and California. There are vast hectares of desert in these states and in turn is recognized as being one of the world's best spots to capture solar energy. As a result, companies have been lining up to develop solar farms in these areas. In theory (which doesn't always work out in practice) the combined electricity production of these proposed solar farms would be able to satisfy nearly all the demand of the United States. To say it bluntly, that's a shitload of power. And it's all clean and renewable.
So what's the problem?
It isn't money or technology, and it isn't the meddling fingers of King Coal, Queen Oil or Prince Gas. Quite simply, it's the environmentalists. Gasp!
"But aren't the environmentalists the ones who love solar energy and all that hippie stuff?" you might ask. But there are several parts to environmentalism. Different people have different priorities, but all want to save the environment. It's more than likely that the enviro-types in favour of solar power are more focused on combating global warming, while those who are stifling this development are a little more holistic.
They feel (and justifiably so) that no work should be developed until there are legitimate environmental impact assessments done and that no work should be done if harm will come to the existing environment. The law certainly backs them on this end. But the controversy has arisen on two fronts:
Firstly, why has it taken so long to go through these applications? Other energy developers like the oil companies or coal companies don't seem to get backed up like this.
Secondly, where do our priorities lie as human beings?
This is probably the most important question in the entire situation. We're constantly being reminded that global warming is creeping up to deliver us our impending doom and so it is becoming ever so important that we start to save ourselves and the planet before it's too late. Do we sacrifice the strict and lengthy, but valuable impact assessments for the sake of saving the world before it's too late? Especially when the environment in question is the desert?
As a society, we're going to have to decide where to put our priorities in the age of global warming. We've passed the point of realizing that global warming is a real problem that needs to be averted. But now we've hit the issue of how far are we willing to go and what may need to fall to the side in order to keep the world running. We need to establish that very quickly. Otherwise, all of our good intentions may leave us screwed anyways. We'd be fucked.
But it's the thought that counts right...
The federal Bureau of Land Management placed a temporary moratorium on applications for new solar projects to be placed on federal lands, citing that it had nearly 150 applications that still needed to be reviewed and that it would not be accepting any new applications until May of 2010. This certainly throws a damper on the development of solar energy in the U.S.
The particular area of interest is the southwest United States; namely Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and California. There are vast hectares of desert in these states and in turn is recognized as being one of the world's best spots to capture solar energy. As a result, companies have been lining up to develop solar farms in these areas. In theory (which doesn't always work out in practice) the combined electricity production of these proposed solar farms would be able to satisfy nearly all the demand of the United States. To say it bluntly, that's a shitload of power. And it's all clean and renewable.
So what's the problem?
It isn't money or technology, and it isn't the meddling fingers of King Coal, Queen Oil or Prince Gas. Quite simply, it's the environmentalists. Gasp!
"But aren't the environmentalists the ones who love solar energy and all that hippie stuff?" you might ask. But there are several parts to environmentalism. Different people have different priorities, but all want to save the environment. It's more than likely that the enviro-types in favour of solar power are more focused on combating global warming, while those who are stifling this development are a little more holistic.
They feel (and justifiably so) that no work should be developed until there are legitimate environmental impact assessments done and that no work should be done if harm will come to the existing environment. The law certainly backs them on this end. But the controversy has arisen on two fronts:
Firstly, why has it taken so long to go through these applications? Other energy developers like the oil companies or coal companies don't seem to get backed up like this.
Secondly, where do our priorities lie as human beings?
This is probably the most important question in the entire situation. We're constantly being reminded that global warming is creeping up to deliver us our impending doom and so it is becoming ever so important that we start to save ourselves and the planet before it's too late. Do we sacrifice the strict and lengthy, but valuable impact assessments for the sake of saving the world before it's too late? Especially when the environment in question is the desert?
As a society, we're going to have to decide where to put our priorities in the age of global warming. We've passed the point of realizing that global warming is a real problem that needs to be averted. But now we've hit the issue of how far are we willing to go and what may need to fall to the side in order to keep the world running. We need to establish that very quickly. Otherwise, all of our good intentions may leave us screwed anyways. We'd be fucked.
But it's the thought that counts right...
The evolution of creation...
My recent visit to the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) was quite fascinating. The special exhibit was a feature on the life, voyages and legacies of Charles Darwin; the man credited with developing the theory of evolution. Like most ROM exhibits, the feature on Darwin was quite magical; full of skeletons, live and stuffed animals, and numerous pictures and facts. Quite a pretty penny was put into it.
My aunt had mentioned that their was quite a stir as to where this pretty penny was coming from. In most cases at the ROM, large corporations like the big banks tend to jump on board as the main sponsor without so much as a phone call from the ROM. But the Darwin exhibit lacked such enthusiasm from the traditional big spenders. Why was this the case?
Evolution continues to be a controversial subject in society. Much of it counters the historical origins of human beings accounted for by numerous religions, such as Christianity's Bible. Because religion plays such a large part in the lives of many Canadians, evolution is bound to cause a disturbance or two.
In my opinion, Darwin's theory is nearly foolproof and for that reason it is being readily accepted into the mainstream as the prominent explanation behind the creation of human beings, i.e. something turned into apes and apes eventually turned into humans. There is essentially irrefutable scientific data indicating this. The majority of society is gradually dropping the idea that Adam and Eve were the first human beings and accepting many of the propositions behind the theory of evolution.
So why would evolution still be considered so controversial?
Evolution is technically a theory and can not (and probably will not ever) be scientifically proven. It is a scientific theory, which brings into it the historical battle between science and religion. The two are thought to be polar opposites. While it is naive to simply disregard to the two as being completely separate, society still carries this belief and with it the notion that science and therefore evolution, are products of both non-religious and non-creationist thought. Essentially, if you believe in evolution, you must be an atheist.
While this is more than ever proving to be a false interpretation, remnants of it still float around. Widespread adoption of evolutionary thinking has recently given rise to next step in creationism; the idea of intelligent design.
Intelligent design basically states that the universe was created by a supernatural force or being that we can not understand. It's gained significant attention in the media as a result of the release of Ben Stein's controversial pro-intelligent design film, Expelled, as well from the ongoing debate over the theory of the Big Bang.
Critics of intelligent design feel that it is simply a convenient fill-in for unexplained facts in scientific theory and offers no actual evidence of the beginnings of any sort of plausible theory. And this is where the museum bit starts to become a little clearer.
At the exhibit, as part of the Legacies of Darwin, there was a video featuring several esteemed and highly distinguished scientists from prestigious universities around the world. This video was meant to offer an explanation of the differences between the theory of evolution and creationism, but it was remarkably one-sided and you could smell the pompous smugness of these people from across the studio. They come from the "we are scientists and know everything and you are stupid for even considering an alternative to evolution". It's pretentious crap like that that not only loses you big sponsors, but also leaves us all worse off as an increasingly close-minded people.
I agree, evolution is a pretty good theory and has many strong points, but it would be foolish to use it as a means of disregarding theories as to the creation of the universe. The Big Bang theory is still just a theory, and in my opinion, still not the greatest reasoning behind the universe. I think it's just as likely that some supernatural force may have created the universe (or at least caused its creation) than that there was a completely random explosion that came from nothingness. To tell people that they are wrong just because your theory may be rationally stronger than there's is is disrespectful and downright snotty. As far as I know, your shit doesn't smell any better than anyone else's at this point.
Despite the controversy behind the sponsorship, there was little indication that the exhibit itself was causing any controversy and I highly recommend to anyone who can get there anytime this month. Just remember to keep your mind open, even when a Harvard Prof tells you not to...
My aunt had mentioned that their was quite a stir as to where this pretty penny was coming from. In most cases at the ROM, large corporations like the big banks tend to jump on board as the main sponsor without so much as a phone call from the ROM. But the Darwin exhibit lacked such enthusiasm from the traditional big spenders. Why was this the case?
Evolution continues to be a controversial subject in society. Much of it counters the historical origins of human beings accounted for by numerous religions, such as Christianity's Bible. Because religion plays such a large part in the lives of many Canadians, evolution is bound to cause a disturbance or two.
In my opinion, Darwin's theory is nearly foolproof and for that reason it is being readily accepted into the mainstream as the prominent explanation behind the creation of human beings, i.e. something turned into apes and apes eventually turned into humans. There is essentially irrefutable scientific data indicating this. The majority of society is gradually dropping the idea that Adam and Eve were the first human beings and accepting many of the propositions behind the theory of evolution.
So why would evolution still be considered so controversial?
Evolution is technically a theory and can not (and probably will not ever) be scientifically proven. It is a scientific theory, which brings into it the historical battle between science and religion. The two are thought to be polar opposites. While it is naive to simply disregard to the two as being completely separate, society still carries this belief and with it the notion that science and therefore evolution, are products of both non-religious and non-creationist thought. Essentially, if you believe in evolution, you must be an atheist.
While this is more than ever proving to be a false interpretation, remnants of it still float around. Widespread adoption of evolutionary thinking has recently given rise to next step in creationism; the idea of intelligent design.
Intelligent design basically states that the universe was created by a supernatural force or being that we can not understand. It's gained significant attention in the media as a result of the release of Ben Stein's controversial pro-intelligent design film, Expelled, as well from the ongoing debate over the theory of the Big Bang.
Critics of intelligent design feel that it is simply a convenient fill-in for unexplained facts in scientific theory and offers no actual evidence of the beginnings of any sort of plausible theory. And this is where the museum bit starts to become a little clearer.
At the exhibit, as part of the Legacies of Darwin, there was a video featuring several esteemed and highly distinguished scientists from prestigious universities around the world. This video was meant to offer an explanation of the differences between the theory of evolution and creationism, but it was remarkably one-sided and you could smell the pompous smugness of these people from across the studio. They come from the "we are scientists and know everything and you are stupid for even considering an alternative to evolution". It's pretentious crap like that that not only loses you big sponsors, but also leaves us all worse off as an increasingly close-minded people.
I agree, evolution is a pretty good theory and has many strong points, but it would be foolish to use it as a means of disregarding theories as to the creation of the universe. The Big Bang theory is still just a theory, and in my opinion, still not the greatest reasoning behind the universe. I think it's just as likely that some supernatural force may have created the universe (or at least caused its creation) than that there was a completely random explosion that came from nothingness. To tell people that they are wrong just because your theory may be rationally stronger than there's is is disrespectful and downright snotty. As far as I know, your shit doesn't smell any better than anyone else's at this point.
Despite the controversy behind the sponsorship, there was little indication that the exhibit itself was causing any controversy and I highly recommend to anyone who can get there anytime this month. Just remember to keep your mind open, even when a Harvard Prof tells you not to...
Monday, July 7, 2008
Unplug yourself for a second...
The other day I found myself making my way home and I stopped in to a little coffee shop to grab some sort of overpriced dessert. Directly in front of me in line was a very attractive and interesting-looking young woman who looked roughly my age.
As a young single male, my eyes are always open for opportunities to meet interesting women in Peterborough. Just as I had established myself in line, this really crazy guy started yelling as he left the shop. Everyone started laughing and I figured this would be a perfect chance to break the ice with this girl in a public setting.
As I turned to joke with her, I realized she was wearing headphones and listening to her iPOD. She hadn't even noticed that this guy had done anything. Lame. It would be super uncool and awkward to distract her from her music to joke about something that she wasn't even aware existed.
Strangely enough, such a thing happened earlier in the day while walking through the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. The Darwin exhibit was on and I went with members of my family, who predictably fell behind. I noticed a cute young woman who was checking out the exhibit and quickly realized she had come by herself.
How cool is that? A young attractive girl who goes to the Darwin Exhibit by herself? What a perfect combo. But much to my chagrin, she also had headphones in. I briefly thought it might be one of those audio guides you can get at museums, but then the iPod showed up. Dang.
One friend of mine thought that they might all have boyfriends (or girlfriends) and this may be a form of deterrent. That had crossed my mind, but it would seem to be a rather extreme form of deterrent.
It wouldn't surprise me though. In a much broader context, it's clear that the whole world is gradually plugging itself in and in the process shutting itself off from normal social interactions.
I used to have an iPod and I must admit I really loved it. It came in handy for running, travelling and getting hyped up before volleyball games. But then the battery got messed up and I've been far too lazy to get it fixed.
I don't want to sound corny here, but over time I have noticed that it is much nicer to enjoy whatever sounds the world gives you. Nothing is quite as nice as walking down the street and smiling at someone or saying hi and maybe even having a brief conversation. Then of course there are the infinite wonderful noises that nature and the outside world can throw your way.
Headphones shut people off from this. It's sad to be walking down the street and walk past someone with their headphones in who doesn't even glance at you, let alone smile or say hi. I'm even starting to find this in the older generation.
It's a real shame.
And text messaging on cell phones is just as bad. At least if you're talking on it you're probably talking to a real person on the other end, rather than selfishly indulging yourself and cutting yourself off from outside contact.
Open up people! We'll all be better off, especially poor schmucks like myself that can't seem to find a girlfriend....
As a young single male, my eyes are always open for opportunities to meet interesting women in Peterborough. Just as I had established myself in line, this really crazy guy started yelling as he left the shop. Everyone started laughing and I figured this would be a perfect chance to break the ice with this girl in a public setting.
As I turned to joke with her, I realized she was wearing headphones and listening to her iPOD. She hadn't even noticed that this guy had done anything. Lame. It would be super uncool and awkward to distract her from her music to joke about something that she wasn't even aware existed.
Strangely enough, such a thing happened earlier in the day while walking through the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. The Darwin exhibit was on and I went with members of my family, who predictably fell behind. I noticed a cute young woman who was checking out the exhibit and quickly realized she had come by herself.
How cool is that? A young attractive girl who goes to the Darwin Exhibit by herself? What a perfect combo. But much to my chagrin, she also had headphones in. I briefly thought it might be one of those audio guides you can get at museums, but then the iPod showed up. Dang.
One friend of mine thought that they might all have boyfriends (or girlfriends) and this may be a form of deterrent. That had crossed my mind, but it would seem to be a rather extreme form of deterrent.
It wouldn't surprise me though. In a much broader context, it's clear that the whole world is gradually plugging itself in and in the process shutting itself off from normal social interactions.
I used to have an iPod and I must admit I really loved it. It came in handy for running, travelling and getting hyped up before volleyball games. But then the battery got messed up and I've been far too lazy to get it fixed.
I don't want to sound corny here, but over time I have noticed that it is much nicer to enjoy whatever sounds the world gives you. Nothing is quite as nice as walking down the street and smiling at someone or saying hi and maybe even having a brief conversation. Then of course there are the infinite wonderful noises that nature and the outside world can throw your way.
Headphones shut people off from this. It's sad to be walking down the street and walk past someone with their headphones in who doesn't even glance at you, let alone smile or say hi. I'm even starting to find this in the older generation.
It's a real shame.
And text messaging on cell phones is just as bad. At least if you're talking on it you're probably talking to a real person on the other end, rather than selfishly indulging yourself and cutting yourself off from outside contact.
Open up people! We'll all be better off, especially poor schmucks like myself that can't seem to find a girlfriend....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
