So it's been a little while since I've been able to write, and it looks like it's going to be a little longer. As the semester draws closer and closer to exams, there is always more work to be done. Essays, articles and studying seem to never end. But that's okay, because the more work there is now, the sweeter it always is finishing the semester!
I guess I just wanted to say I haven't forgotten about writing, things have just been crazy around here!
Thanks for reading!
Monday, November 22, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
GT Academy USA
Good news for the Americans out there, Polyphony Digital has confirmed that the second installation of GT Academy will be coming to the United States.
For those of you who aren't familiar with it, GT Academy is a GT TV series where the best players in the game get a chance to compete for a shot at becoming a real racing driver. The first series was a four part show, and took place primarily on Silverstone Circuit in the UK, starring the top contestants and a panel of racing experts and judges. Other than gaining an opportunity to race a Nissan 350Z and GT-R around the world renowned track, the prize was a shot at the big times - a real race in Dubai, alongside legendary teammates.
While there isn't too much information yet on the US version, I imagine it will be along the same lines, and that is very good news, as the original was indeed a great series. It's just a shame that Canada is not included in this as well.
Also, for all you Americans out there, please go ahead and watch the proper Top Gear. Your version simply doesn't cut it, and frankly, it's a bit of an insult to the real show. You can catch it on BBC, although I would strongly recommend picking up as many series as possible on BBC's shop, or Amazon or something. It'll be well worth your while.
Thanks, for reading, good luck to all the racers out there, and here's my personal favourites from the show, series 11, 12, and 13.
For those of you who aren't familiar with it, GT Academy is a GT TV series where the best players in the game get a chance to compete for a shot at becoming a real racing driver. The first series was a four part show, and took place primarily on Silverstone Circuit in the UK, starring the top contestants and a panel of racing experts and judges. Other than gaining an opportunity to race a Nissan 350Z and GT-R around the world renowned track, the prize was a shot at the big times - a real race in Dubai, alongside legendary teammates.
While there isn't too much information yet on the US version, I imagine it will be along the same lines, and that is very good news, as the original was indeed a great series. It's just a shame that Canada is not included in this as well.
Also, for all you Americans out there, please go ahead and watch the proper Top Gear. Your version simply doesn't cut it, and frankly, it's a bit of an insult to the real show. You can catch it on BBC, although I would strongly recommend picking up as many series as possible on BBC's shop, or Amazon or something. It'll be well worth your while.
Thanks, for reading, good luck to all the racers out there, and here's my personal favourites from the show, series 11, 12, and 13.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
"I had to shut down cause Walmart took my business"
I wanted to know what you think about this, it's certainly an interesting question.
Although shopping at Walmart does on average save consumers money, is it really good for us?
I had the pleasure of speaking to the former owner of a general store the other day. Being close to retirement he had a lot of great things to say, and great experiences to share. We got talking about his shop, and how the Walmart in his town (he was from the southern part of Ontario somewhere) had caused all his business to stop. This of course had to be taken with a grain of salt, as there is any number of reasons why a business may fail; low-demand, recession, poor entrepreneurial skills, etc. But then I got to thinking, and that didn't seem to make a lot of sense. According to the gentleman, he had successfully run the store for over 25 years, and had always updated his products. Gradually since the Walmart had moved in he had started to slow down, which he attributes to Walmart usually having cheaper costs than he did. He claimed that lowering his costs to that of Walmart would have ensured certain failure for his business, as he couldn't afford lower profits like a large company such as Walmart could.
That's capitalism for you, right?
But is it really a good thing? As this happens to more and more people, what really do we see? Owners of stores put out of business and in many cases losing a fortune, so we can save a couple pennies? In this economy saving is always a good thing, but the interesting point is that it eventually comes to a point where it costs more than we save. Maybe not from an economical standpoint, but certainly politically. In the U.S. corporations can now fund election campaigns, for example. While the point is arguable, this shows that the corporation has significant influence.
Canada is also not far off from this, with various corporate money saving techniques. With big companies making so much money do we really want them to have all the influence?
In 2009, Walmart alone made over $404 billion. While certainly one of the larger companies, many large powerhouse corporations are starting to earn increased revenue, especially with the introductions of financial services, and the closing of smaller, local businesses.
Now personally, I want Walmart and friends as far away from my politics as possible, but it stands to reason that they want the exact opposite. In many cases, extreme corruption is often present when profit is around, and these companies are no different. I sure don't want large companies being treated better than I am (which, thanks to legal loop-holing and our awful legal system as a whole, they are). Nor do I want to pay more taxes, so these folks can pay less; they already make billions in revenue!
This might be a bit Orwellian, but if you open your eyes, you'll notice that 1984 gets closer and closer every year in one way or another; in fact if you're a conspiracy theorist, you think we're pretty much already there. And who knows? Maybe we are. Fact is, these big businesses are eating our little ones, and frankly they couldn't care less about your needs no matter what the commercials say. It's all about profit, power, and control. So next time you decide to spend a little cash, think about how you would feel if some large, greedy business took your job, and please, spend it on your local shops. The prices are usually similar enough, and you might even get some half decent customer service.
Thanks for reading!
Although shopping at Walmart does on average save consumers money, is it really good for us?
I had the pleasure of speaking to the former owner of a general store the other day. Being close to retirement he had a lot of great things to say, and great experiences to share. We got talking about his shop, and how the Walmart in his town (he was from the southern part of Ontario somewhere) had caused all his business to stop. This of course had to be taken with a grain of salt, as there is any number of reasons why a business may fail; low-demand, recession, poor entrepreneurial skills, etc. But then I got to thinking, and that didn't seem to make a lot of sense. According to the gentleman, he had successfully run the store for over 25 years, and had always updated his products. Gradually since the Walmart had moved in he had started to slow down, which he attributes to Walmart usually having cheaper costs than he did. He claimed that lowering his costs to that of Walmart would have ensured certain failure for his business, as he couldn't afford lower profits like a large company such as Walmart could.
That's capitalism for you, right?
But is it really a good thing? As this happens to more and more people, what really do we see? Owners of stores put out of business and in many cases losing a fortune, so we can save a couple pennies? In this economy saving is always a good thing, but the interesting point is that it eventually comes to a point where it costs more than we save. Maybe not from an economical standpoint, but certainly politically. In the U.S. corporations can now fund election campaigns, for example. While the point is arguable, this shows that the corporation has significant influence.
Canada is also not far off from this, with various corporate money saving techniques. With big companies making so much money do we really want them to have all the influence?
In 2009, Walmart alone made over $404 billion. While certainly one of the larger companies, many large powerhouse corporations are starting to earn increased revenue, especially with the introductions of financial services, and the closing of smaller, local businesses.
Now personally, I want Walmart and friends as far away from my politics as possible, but it stands to reason that they want the exact opposite. In many cases, extreme corruption is often present when profit is around, and these companies are no different. I sure don't want large companies being treated better than I am (which, thanks to legal loop-holing and our awful legal system as a whole, they are). Nor do I want to pay more taxes, so these folks can pay less; they already make billions in revenue!
This might be a bit Orwellian, but if you open your eyes, you'll notice that 1984 gets closer and closer every year in one way or another; in fact if you're a conspiracy theorist, you think we're pretty much already there. And who knows? Maybe we are. Fact is, these big businesses are eating our little ones, and frankly they couldn't care less about your needs no matter what the commercials say. It's all about profit, power, and control. So next time you decide to spend a little cash, think about how you would feel if some large, greedy business took your job, and please, spend it on your local shops. The prices are usually similar enough, and you might even get some half decent customer service.
Thanks for reading!
Monday, November 15, 2010
IGN Giveaway Update
Sadly for me, I didn't win.
However, this means that somebody else did and that person now has to face the wrath of a bunch of good-wheel-and-good-stand-to-hold-it deprived GT5 fanatics (ie. myself and all the others like me), so good luck to you there.
But seriously, if you are the winner and you happen to read this, congratulations.
However, this means that somebody else did and that person now has to face the wrath of a bunch of good-wheel-and-good-stand-to-hold-it deprived GT5 fanatics (ie. myself and all the others like me), so good luck to you there.
But seriously, if you are the winner and you happen to read this, congratulations.
The End of an Era?
It may really be the end of life as we know it.
No, I'm not talking about 2012, nuclear war, disease or famine, but something far more sinister and unexpected:
The end of unrequested phone-book deliveries.
Okay, so it's not quite that sinister. But either way, it is actually a bit of a change. As our society becomes ever more immersed in technology and the advantages it has to offer, we are very likely going to see more changes like this; in fact, it's already started elsewhere. You need look no further than a grocery store and the self-checkout, or the GPS replacing conventional maps. Now obviously technology has its advantages, and it makes our lives easier in many ways, but this poses an interesting question. Is having this technology at our fingertips actually better for us, or does it simply make us incapable of living without it?
I know it sounds far fetched, but actually think about it. When the power goes out, how many are lost without the internet, television, or even more basic commodities like lights and refrigerators? Compare the differences to say, twenty years ago, before the rise of commercially available internet. Now consider even a few years from now. With smart phone capabilities, and tablet PCs on the rise, how long is it before traditional personal computers are considered obsolete? Technology in the least is a costly habit; and in more ways than we may realize.
Obviously, owning the latest is going to require a pretty substantial amount of money, but we usually consider it "worth it" in order to gain the advantages technology gives us. For example: using online banking instead of going into the branch. It saves time, and that's something we can all appreciate. But what about the negative side? Online banking, slowly but surely puts non-specialized workers, in this case bank tellers, out of a job. Yes, more are created in the IT business, but because of often on call work, high education requirements, and experience, this is not an option for many of these tellers. While this is a slow shift, it is certainly a worrisome one, and is likely to speed up as we continue to make advancements in the technological field. But this isn't just happening to bank tellers.
The same goes for self-checkouts, automated telephone menus, and much, much more. The worst part in my opinion is that, as part of the staff at these locations, we are encouraged (and in many businesses, required) to advise customers to use the self-serve options available to them - we are, in a very real way, trying to destroy our own employment.
Inevitably, many are going to argue this and say that I am being far too paranoid and this is not at all the case. And in a perfect world, where we all looked out for one another, I may be so inclined to believe them. But if this most recent recession has taught us anything, it's that most of these big shot CEOs and their corporations couldn't care less about the common person. This is evident in all aspects of our workforce, from spending bailout money on big bonuses going to the same people who ruined the company, to laying off thousands of employees to avoid cutting boardroom salaries. It therefore seems only natural to me that these greedy, merciless pigs would do everything in their power to cut costs, and if we can put ourselves out of a job for them, that's even better as it saves them looking bad.
I guess I come off as hating technology and that isn't true at all. I can appreciate what it does for my life on a daily basis, much the same as anybody else. I just think we all need to take a step back and think about what we're doing, it's a dangerous world out there. And now it's going to be a world where we don't get the iconic free phone books.
Thanks for reading, and as always I'd love to know what your thoughts are on this!
Here's the story on Yahoo for reference:
Telephone directory about to walk into pages of history?
No, I'm not talking about 2012, nuclear war, disease or famine, but something far more sinister and unexpected:
The end of unrequested phone-book deliveries.
Okay, so it's not quite that sinister. But either way, it is actually a bit of a change. As our society becomes ever more immersed in technology and the advantages it has to offer, we are very likely going to see more changes like this; in fact, it's already started elsewhere. You need look no further than a grocery store and the self-checkout, or the GPS replacing conventional maps. Now obviously technology has its advantages, and it makes our lives easier in many ways, but this poses an interesting question. Is having this technology at our fingertips actually better for us, or does it simply make us incapable of living without it?
I know it sounds far fetched, but actually think about it. When the power goes out, how many are lost without the internet, television, or even more basic commodities like lights and refrigerators? Compare the differences to say, twenty years ago, before the rise of commercially available internet. Now consider even a few years from now. With smart phone capabilities, and tablet PCs on the rise, how long is it before traditional personal computers are considered obsolete? Technology in the least is a costly habit; and in more ways than we may realize.
Obviously, owning the latest is going to require a pretty substantial amount of money, but we usually consider it "worth it" in order to gain the advantages technology gives us. For example: using online banking instead of going into the branch. It saves time, and that's something we can all appreciate. But what about the negative side? Online banking, slowly but surely puts non-specialized workers, in this case bank tellers, out of a job. Yes, more are created in the IT business, but because of often on call work, high education requirements, and experience, this is not an option for many of these tellers. While this is a slow shift, it is certainly a worrisome one, and is likely to speed up as we continue to make advancements in the technological field. But this isn't just happening to bank tellers.
The same goes for self-checkouts, automated telephone menus, and much, much more. The worst part in my opinion is that, as part of the staff at these locations, we are encouraged (and in many businesses, required) to advise customers to use the self-serve options available to them - we are, in a very real way, trying to destroy our own employment.
Inevitably, many are going to argue this and say that I am being far too paranoid and this is not at all the case. And in a perfect world, where we all looked out for one another, I may be so inclined to believe them. But if this most recent recession has taught us anything, it's that most of these big shot CEOs and their corporations couldn't care less about the common person. This is evident in all aspects of our workforce, from spending bailout money on big bonuses going to the same people who ruined the company, to laying off thousands of employees to avoid cutting boardroom salaries. It therefore seems only natural to me that these greedy, merciless pigs would do everything in their power to cut costs, and if we can put ourselves out of a job for them, that's even better as it saves them looking bad.
I guess I come off as hating technology and that isn't true at all. I can appreciate what it does for my life on a daily basis, much the same as anybody else. I just think we all need to take a step back and think about what we're doing, it's a dangerous world out there. And now it's going to be a world where we don't get the iconic free phone books.
Thanks for reading, and as always I'd love to know what your thoughts are on this!
Here's the story on Yahoo for reference:
Telephone directory about to walk into pages of history?
Sunday, November 14, 2010
University: Is it truly essential, or just the ultimate gamble?
The rule of thumb in most cases, is that you generally lose money on an investment. That doesn't m-ean the investment has no benefits, just that you will not experience any financial gain from it. For example: buying a new car. Generally the cheapest brand new vehicle you can purchase/lease/finance/etc. starts at around $12,000-$13,000. Well the second you drive off the lot in your new baby, the value begins to depreciate, until, in a few years it's worth next to nothing. Such is the case with many things we strive to own and do.
However, unlike cars, we all "need" some kind of post-secondary education to get by in life, right? But is that really true? Now more than ever, the students who genuinely work hard to get into university seem to be questioning this. While there are many compelling arguments for either side, I tend to agree with those that feel a degree should be an asset, not an essential, and here's why:
First off, the role of universities has changed in the last several decades, becoming a more easily accessible commodity which is available to almost everyone, as opposed to the wealthy elites like before the 1950's or so. But has it really? It seems that I hear more and more students every day complaining not only about cost of tuition, but about struggling to survive in the university environment. Although schools are marketed as being available to anybody, the reality is that this is untrue. With good grades, or being part of a minority perhaps scholarships and bursaries are open, but even they usually don't cover enough. With the desire to graduate with good grades so crucial, why is that standards and costs are raised every year, rather than lowered? Enough students already struggle to cope with mountains of homework, never mind those whose parents haven't footed the bill and have to work a job on the side. The rule of thumb is that for every hour of class you have, you should have three hours of homework, every week.
So let's do the math. At my school, which I'm to understand is pretty much like the rest, the standard course load is 5 courses/semester. Now, if each course is on average 3 hours, that works out to be 15 hours a week in class. Now factor in the 3-1 rule. Which would be 15 (total number of hours) multiplied by 3 (factoring in homework and research time). 45 hours. Every. Single. Week. With more and more students having to work throughout the school year, like myself, in order to simply come up only slightly in debt, is it any wonder that professors have complained about falling averages? What are we supposed to do? Work in a fast food restaurant out of high school until we've saved enough (which incidentally will get harder every year as tuition is raised)? Spend all of our savings on lottery tickets and hope we'll win enough for school? But of course not, says my first year history professor. According to him (whose name I won't mention), if you can't afford university by the time you arrive, you ought to look at doing something else. Period. We only want the rich, sorry, find something else. Well that works for me, except for one small problem...
There isn't much else without a degree or diploma.
This is a sad, but true reality. While many jobs still are open, you almost always need extra education in order to break the poverty line now. Fewer and fewer jobs are available with those to little post-secondary education or experience, which doesn't fare so well for the student that can't afford or does not want to go to university. This really brings me to my next point.
I am in a history program at school. Most of those around me are looking to graduate, and eventually become teachers at elementary or high schools. Naturally, as history is a major teachable subject in high school, this program will help them prepare for that goal, correct?
Not even close.
Frankly, at my school, most of the professors don't care. I don't mean don't care in the high school way, ie. they aren't going to chase you down for late assignments, but that most genuinely don't care. They copy articles from the textbook onto a PowerPoint presentation, and then read directly from the book. Many are usually the last one in the class and the first one out. You have questions? Email the teacher, or the T.A. No guarantees the prof. will get back to you though, sorry. How does this help anybody learn? If I wanted to pay over $1,000 per course to learn only what's in a textbook, I would have simply bought the textbook and saved $900 or so, which, incidentally, we have to do anyways.
So where does our money really go? Most schools in Ontario, seem to be like this, at least those that I have friends at. I know our money goes to expanding the school and making it look like a miniature Ivy League, in order to impress parents, but where does it go education-wise?
I sure don't know. I have more to say about our grading system as well, but that's for another day I think. In the meantime, I would simply encourage students to think about their decision beforehand. The world as we know it is very fragile. All it takes is enough people with enough passion to instigate change. But then, it seems in our world there is no such thing as passion about our lifestyle anymore. Most of us, especially young people, are much more interested in what Lady Gaga wore last night, or who Taylor Swift is dating. I'd like to think that we still have a chance to change the way things work, but then again, maybe we don't.
Although I haven't given up quite like Professor Robert Martin of the University of Western Ontario. Maybe it's because in his words, I am an "illiterate, ignorant cretin," but I think it's more because Professor Martin is a self-absorbed gargoyle incapable of accepting that he is part of the very thing he hates. To that respect, maybe we should all form our own businesses? A handful are bound to be successful, and in my opinion success is measured by what you leave behind in life; your legacy if you will, rather than the amount of "bits of paper" you have. I just thought I would add this in as an afterthought, as this really irked me. If you'd like to read an excerpt of this miserable man's writings, click here, otherwise, thanks for reading, and maybe we could all do with proving people like him wrong. I know I'm trying to.
However, unlike cars, we all "need" some kind of post-secondary education to get by in life, right? But is that really true? Now more than ever, the students who genuinely work hard to get into university seem to be questioning this. While there are many compelling arguments for either side, I tend to agree with those that feel a degree should be an asset, not an essential, and here's why:
First off, the role of universities has changed in the last several decades, becoming a more easily accessible commodity which is available to almost everyone, as opposed to the wealthy elites like before the 1950's or so. But has it really? It seems that I hear more and more students every day complaining not only about cost of tuition, but about struggling to survive in the university environment. Although schools are marketed as being available to anybody, the reality is that this is untrue. With good grades, or being part of a minority perhaps scholarships and bursaries are open, but even they usually don't cover enough. With the desire to graduate with good grades so crucial, why is that standards and costs are raised every year, rather than lowered? Enough students already struggle to cope with mountains of homework, never mind those whose parents haven't footed the bill and have to work a job on the side. The rule of thumb is that for every hour of class you have, you should have three hours of homework, every week.
So let's do the math. At my school, which I'm to understand is pretty much like the rest, the standard course load is 5 courses/semester. Now, if each course is on average 3 hours, that works out to be 15 hours a week in class. Now factor in the 3-1 rule. Which would be 15 (total number of hours) multiplied by 3 (factoring in homework and research time). 45 hours. Every. Single. Week. With more and more students having to work throughout the school year, like myself, in order to simply come up only slightly in debt, is it any wonder that professors have complained about falling averages? What are we supposed to do? Work in a fast food restaurant out of high school until we've saved enough (which incidentally will get harder every year as tuition is raised)? Spend all of our savings on lottery tickets and hope we'll win enough for school? But of course not, says my first year history professor. According to him (whose name I won't mention), if you can't afford university by the time you arrive, you ought to look at doing something else. Period. We only want the rich, sorry, find something else. Well that works for me, except for one small problem...
There isn't much else without a degree or diploma.
This is a sad, but true reality. While many jobs still are open, you almost always need extra education in order to break the poverty line now. Fewer and fewer jobs are available with those to little post-secondary education or experience, which doesn't fare so well for the student that can't afford or does not want to go to university. This really brings me to my next point.
I am in a history program at school. Most of those around me are looking to graduate, and eventually become teachers at elementary or high schools. Naturally, as history is a major teachable subject in high school, this program will help them prepare for that goal, correct?
Not even close.
Frankly, at my school, most of the professors don't care. I don't mean don't care in the high school way, ie. they aren't going to chase you down for late assignments, but that most genuinely don't care. They copy articles from the textbook onto a PowerPoint presentation, and then read directly from the book. Many are usually the last one in the class and the first one out. You have questions? Email the teacher, or the T.A. No guarantees the prof. will get back to you though, sorry. How does this help anybody learn? If I wanted to pay over $1,000 per course to learn only what's in a textbook, I would have simply bought the textbook and saved $900 or so, which, incidentally, we have to do anyways.
So where does our money really go? Most schools in Ontario, seem to be like this, at least those that I have friends at. I know our money goes to expanding the school and making it look like a miniature Ivy League, in order to impress parents, but where does it go education-wise?
I sure don't know. I have more to say about our grading system as well, but that's for another day I think. In the meantime, I would simply encourage students to think about their decision beforehand. The world as we know it is very fragile. All it takes is enough people with enough passion to instigate change. But then, it seems in our world there is no such thing as passion about our lifestyle anymore. Most of us, especially young people, are much more interested in what Lady Gaga wore last night, or who Taylor Swift is dating. I'd like to think that we still have a chance to change the way things work, but then again, maybe we don't.
Although I haven't given up quite like Professor Robert Martin of the University of Western Ontario. Maybe it's because in his words, I am an "illiterate, ignorant cretin," but I think it's more because Professor Martin is a self-absorbed gargoyle incapable of accepting that he is part of the very thing he hates. To that respect, maybe we should all form our own businesses? A handful are bound to be successful, and in my opinion success is measured by what you leave behind in life; your legacy if you will, rather than the amount of "bits of paper" you have. I just thought I would add this in as an afterthought, as this really irked me. If you'd like to read an excerpt of this miserable man's writings, click here, otherwise, thanks for reading, and maybe we could all do with proving people like him wrong. I know I'm trying to.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
IGN GT5 Giveaway
Somehow I missed this yesterday, but anybody interested in Gran Turismo 5 (11 days!) can head over to IGN and post what their dream car is, and why, for a chance to win a Logitech G27 racing wheel, as well as an awesome Playseat Alcantara. The boxed package that is up for grabs is right here. Best hurry though, the winner is being decided Monday!
There's also some info. about COD: Black Ops in the Daily Fix video, if you're interested.
Here's the link and thanks for reading!
For the record, here's my pick. What's yours?
There's also some info. about COD: Black Ops in the Daily Fix video, if you're interested.
Here's the link and thanks for reading!
For the record, here's my pick. What's yours?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)