Showing posts with label word of the day. Show all posts
Showing posts with label word of the day. Show all posts

Friday, July 8, 2016

This Post Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With South African Economic Policy

It is, instead, a post about language vaguely inspired by this completely random post made years ago on a blog I don't read and never even heard of until I fcuked up an important document and indignantly googled for the proper way to make a sacrifice to the great Tpyos.

The linked post contains a quote from this post elsewhere, the gist of which is thusly:

Because really, what is language for? When you distill it right down to its essence, it’s all about the teleportation of ideas and imaginings, right? Think about how strange this process is: I see something in my mind, or I have a thought, and by emitting a strange series of sounds (or by drawing a string of symbols), I can implant into your brain what was previously in mine. Bizarro. And yet we do it every day and take it completely for granted.

If language is meant to communicate, why do we get in an uproar when it does its primary job, but with slight imperfections? In most cases, the intent of an error-filled sentence is clear. Heck, you can leave all the vowels out of this entire blog post and most people would still be able to read it. The Idea-Teleporter that we call “language” can be missing quite a few bolts and springs and still do its job.

And yet, many people expect perfection out of a tool that does not require it. It’s like wanting a car that not only delivers us to our destination, but emits no road noise, has plenty of cup holders, and will not break down. Ever. It can’t simply do what it was meant to do, it has to do it without error or a scratch. I can’t think of many things that are held to this standard, but the written word seems to be one of them.


The blogger in my original link made some vague comments in response, but didn't really say any of the things I thought of.

So I will write a response of my own. To a four-year-old post. On a blog I don't read. And then post it on a blog no one reads. It's called being internet famous.

Anyway, it's entirely true that language is a tool for communication. It evolves with use, and prescriptivists who obsess over rules they make up are completely failing to grasp the purpose of language in the first place. That said, just because language doesn't have top-down rules imposed by an authority doesn't mean it doesn't have rules.

It's true that language doesn't have to be perfect to be understood. You're udnersanding off these sentence bes'nt effected bye it's pore grammars, speling + tpyos. Hll, vn ths sntnc s t lst smwht cmprhnsbl nd t hs n vwls. However, while you may be able to understand those flawed sentences, it takes more work to do so. Essentially, the ideas teleporter carries a cost in the form of work— either the writer must do the work of making the passage comprehensible or the reader must do the work of (mentally) correcting its errors.

Most people aren't consciously aware of why they fly into a frothing rage over poor grammar and spelling. The usual comments about it reflecting poorly on the writer's education sounds like a rationalisation (and full of racist and classist assumptions at that). However, I think the reason why poor writing bugs so many of us is specifically because the writer is making us do the work to understand it— subconsciously, we are screaming: "You want to use the idea teleporter to teleport your ideas into my head AND REVERSE THE CHARGES??!" Even if it's not the product of laziness, we're viscerally annoyed— I know I get viscerally annoyed by it in much the same way I get annoyed by prescriptivists trying to impose silly rules. They're asking me to spend more cognitive power on language processing and they cannot offer a legitimate reason.

And this is now four posts in a row. That's something.

Vital stats:

Blog: Apparently
Date: Today
Current Mood: Prolific
Sleep Status: Yes
Word of the Day: Specific
Postage: 90p
Spoonage: 2000
Cat: Her name is Tabitha I think she's a witch
Tag: You're it
Bag: IT'S PLASTIC
Gag: Rhyming stats
Fag?: I don't smoke
Job: I gotta stop you there. I'm pretty sure jorb is a four letters word.

Monday, March 9, 2015

I Have Ten Pesos

Whilst out walking, I spotted a coin on the street which didn't look local. Being curious, I picked it up. Turns out it was a shiny 10 pesos, which I took home to put in my coins collection.

I'm not sure how 10 pesos ended up on my street— I'm nowhere near Chile.

Vital stats:

Pesos: 10
Date: Today
Current Mood: Fried
Sleep Status: Pending
Word of the Day: Truncate
Country: Chile
My Country: Anglophone
Francophone?: Non
Bite the Wax Tadpole: I will take one of seven.
Vital stats: Truncated

Sunday, September 1, 2013

Can Flickr Stop Being Owned By Yahoo?

I am officially locked out of my flickr account. The reason for this is because, while I remember my Flickr ID, this is not sufficient to log in. This is because Flickr is owned by Yahoo, a wannabe internet service company with delusions of Google, and for reasons that probably make a lot of sense to their executives, Flickr is now "integrated" into Yahoo systems such that I require not a Flickr ID for login, but a Yahoo ID. This is a problem because I haven't the foggiest idea what my Yahoo ID is.

When I signed up for flickr, they demanded I also sign up for Yahoo mail and a bunch of other crap I don't need, so I signed up for a Yahoo address and gave them one of my spamtraps as an alternate. At some point, I deleted the Yahoo account and the alternate gmail address, assuming my Flickr account would die too, but it didn't. The next time I went to Flickr, my account was still active, and I was prompted to sign up for a new Yahoo ID to get back into it.

So I did. But I don't remember what it was. And I can't delete the old account either, because I can't get back into it.

This is why non-retarded people don't insist on "linking" shit or trying to foist unwanted crap upon people. But then, the idea of forcing me to sign up for a Yahoo account before letting me onto Flickr was probably thought up by a marketer, and marketers aren't even human.

Vital stats:

Flickr: Pants
Date: Today
Current Mood: Annoyed
Sleep Status: Yes
Word of the Day: Standard
Photos: Limbo
Yahoo: No
Google: 10100
Googol: Oh, right, see above.
Picasa: Also rubbish.
Photobucket: Copyright thieves.
My Website: Down
Host: Not invoked.
Photos: Wonderful, according to 100% of not-banned commenters.
Commenters: Umm...

...you wanna sign this petition, my bromide?

Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Lactose-Free Milk Is Not Horrible

So I may have mentioned previously that I was particularly miffed at the dearth of decent lactose-free dairy products despite all the effort the food industry has put into "gluten-free" cake, pasta, etc.

I must now update that position slightly: Lactose-free milk is not horrible. According to the lactose-tolerant milk-chugging people I know, it's much sweeter than regular milk, but I can't taste any appreciable difference between the hot chocolate or egg creams I can drink and the ones that will make me miserable, and if my experience is anything, the lactose-free milk has a much longer shelf life than the unmodified equivalent.

Also, while I know hard cheese (gruyere) is lactose-free, it turns out even softer cheeses (mozzarella) are also pretty much fine. (And I never liked brie anyway.)

That just leaves ice cream. I need my lactose-free ice cream! No one makes lactose-free ice cream. And that the food industry is ignoring the majority of us who are lactose intolerant but require ice cream while making sure to accommodate the <1% of the population with gluten allergies/coeliac disease/etc just bugs me, so that entry can stay up.

Vital stats:

Retraction: Partial
Date: Today
Current Mood: Tasty
Sleep Status: Too much!
Word of the Day: Suzerainty
Egg Cream: Milk, chocolate syrup, soda water. (Not disgusting.)
Sugars: Glucose and galactose. Probably sucrose too from the syrup.
Trans Fat: Yes; preferred gender pronoun = "she"
Gluten: Plant protein
Nation: Obsolete as a social construct.
Rapture: Obsolete as a constructed society.
Bioshock: Apparently it's decent. Doesn't run on my computer. I prefer older games.
Marathon: I play that.
ShadowWraith: That too.
Halo: Revoked due to banishment from Celestial Realm.
WOW: I know! Totally unfair! I didn't even do it.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

I Have A New Computer!

Yes, I have been using a decade-old computer I found for free in a bin, but no more! My local computer store offered me a deal too amazing to pass up! (By which I mean I found another computer for free in a bin.)

As of a few days ago, my local computer store (the bin two streets away) has furnished me with a five-year-old Macbook with nothing but a head crash separating it from a long(ish) career as my primary PC.

As of now, it has a brand new hard drive and is running quite happily. So a hearty thank you to whoever didn't realise that hard drives could be replaced or that a hard drive failure was the reason their magic box stopped working, and decided to chuck it where I could find it.



Now I get to experience the thrill of computing luxuries as yet unknown to me, such as a reasonably up to date version of Firefox and a flash player that's still reasonably serviceable! (The PowerPC maxed out at 10.1, while this happily runs Flash Player 11.3, a version that was still supported within some semblance of recent memory.)

The PowerPC has been demoted to Computer I Can't Use Without Getting Out Of Bed status, but I'm keeping it anyway; turns out I'm not willing to abandon ShadowWraith and Diamonds 3D and other wonderful games just because they can't run on Intel hardware.

Vital stats:

Computer: Newer
Date: Today
Current Mood: Bouncy
Sleep Status: Not a wink
Word of the Day: Lurid
Platform: Macintel
Browser: Actual proper Firefox now.
RAM: 2 GB
No, the RAM on the table: That was the broken one from the old computer.
Why?: Well now it's my bookmark.
Oh: Yeah, it's not very useful as RAM anymore but it holds my place in books.
Redundancy: A bit.
Do you has?: Five bucks.
Boond you like?: No.
Favourite character: The Doctor
Doctor who?: I believe his name is Graben.
Sayan?: No, and the demonym is "Siana."
Rambling: Yes
More: No

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Google Ads Fail

So whenever I use a browser without adblock, I get piles upon piles of ads asking me to download Google's Chrome browser. I have no clue why Google has the obsession with which browser I use (since it's not like they get any extra ad revenue from Chrome; maybe it has built-in spyware to track my browsing habits?) but they seemed extremely adamant.

So having seen months of constant ads begging me to try Google Chrome, I finally clicked one of the ads.

At which point, Google declared: "Click here to download the Chrome browser for Mac! System requirements: OSX 10.6 or later."

OK.

I'd been seeing these ads for awhile, so I looked up the system requirements for the earliest versions of Chrome, in case they had only just changed.

System requirements for Mac: "OSX 10.5 or higher, Intel only."

So this entire time, Google has spent untold sums of its ad money or its ad space or its clients' ad money/space, in a massive and perpetual effort to convince me to download a browser that would never, at any point, run on my computer.

Obviously, I never got rich starting up or getting hired as CEO for a massive international company, but if you asked me, I'm pretty sure it's not a particularly good use of Google's marketing budget trying to convince me to download a piece of software just so I can look at a message that says: "You can't open the application 'Chrome' because it is not supported on this architecture."

And the most ridiculous thing is that even without any privacy-invading profiling and without any cookies, Google's ad server can tell that my computer won't run Chrome; I'm pretty sure I can download a user agent switcher for TenFourFox, but I haven't.

Now I have to install Chrome on the laptop just to see if I get ads for Chrome whilst actually using Chrome. Assuming it doesn't require Add Minn privileges to install, since there's no way Google's getting those out of me even if I could give them.

Vital stats:

Browser: TenFourFox
Date: Today
Current Mood: Ironic
Sleep Status: Wrong
Word of the Day: Architecture
Platform: Mac
Operating System: Mac OSX 10.5.8
Processor: Dual 1 Ghz PowerPC G4
RAM: Broken and tends to cause kernel panics.
RAM: Replaced
Redundancy: There is some redundancy here in that this item is redundant.
Redundancy: Yes
Redundancy: Triply so for added security
IBM: No, Motorola
Mobile: Also Motorola
Computer: 10 years old.
Intactness: It still runs.
Computer Store: A bin.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

I Am Not A "Cruise" Person

I'm still delaying on my holiday photos, in part because they're either not ready yet or still hiding on one of my myriad memory cards, but I oughtn't let this blog fall into any semblance of disuse (not with a very nice offer potential for actual readership on the line). So I suppose I might as well fill in for another previously alluded-to reference regarding: me and cruise lines. I promise this one will contain actual advice on service improvements, rather than just several paragraphs of me taking the piss out of yet another industry.

So as previously referenced, I'm not a "cruise" person. I suspected as much from the start; I've always traveled independently, and I suspected I would find tour groups and prepackaged packages overly restricting. However, I also needed to get from Anchorage, AK to Prince Rupert, BC (or Vancouver, there's a ferry) and I needed to do it without flying because no one should ever fly out of an American airport; I'm sure a cursory search for "TSA molestation" or "airport nude scanner" or perhaps "TSA lawsuit" would already cover everything I would say on the matter were it not for pending litigation of my very own.

So a simple cruise from Anchorage (strictly speaking, either Whittier or Seward) to somewhere on the west coast of Canada couldn't be particularly bad; transportation, plus hotel, with meals included is always a plus and I'm not required to participate in the guided tours of this particular square foot of Alaska after all.

Then I actually tried booking the cruise. A clash of personality between me and whatever demographic the cruise lines cater to began as soon as I began searching websites and placing information-gathering phone calls.

First and foremost, cruise lines seem to market themselves exclusively to couples and groups; to a cruise line, solo travelers are at most an afterthought and at worst, actively unwelcome. (For example, Princess and Holland America set aside rooms that solo travelers are outright barred from booking even though they already have to buy two tickets to travel anyway.) Obviously, I've discussed the fraud of "per person, assuming double occupancy" already so there's no need to rehash that at length.

The other thing I discovered at this very early stage was that cruise lines base not just their marketing materials and itineraries, but their advice, FAQs, and salesperson training on the assumption that riding on the cruise ship is a holiday in and of itself. I don't mean they have itineraries that stop in ports of call; that's to be expected. I mean, when I was on the phone with a Princess reservation agent, trying to locate alternatives to a specific sold-out sailing from Whittier to Vancouver, the agent offered me a room on a north-bound trip from Vancouver to Whittier; I had to explain (rather slowly) that I was actually traveling from Whittier to Vancouver, not trying to book a holiday centered around being on a ship at some point on the Alaskan Inside Passage, where minor concerns like direction and destination didn't matter. And I lost track of the number of cruise line agents who, having located the sailings from Whittier to Vancouver, asked me if I needed to book a flight from Vancouver to Whittier in order to get on the boat.

Honestly, I should have known cruising wasn't for me when I discovered that the average cruise line website offers "ship name" and "cruise duration" as standard search refinement options, but destination is buried in the "advanced" options. (Yes, I know there's usually something called "destination" up front, but that only narrows it down to what approximate part of the planet you're planning to travel within; when you book reservations on ScotRail, you're asked to provide specific origin and destination stations, not offered a handful of general regions on the assumption that you haven't yet decided on the exact details of where you're going.)

So as previously mentioned, I ultimately declined to book travel on a cruise ship due to the fortuitous discovery of the Alaska Marine Highway System, which offered the exact itinerary I needed at a much lower price, without the arrogant assumption that I left home for the sole purpose of spending time on board.

But I didn't say that I had no experience with a cruise.

Because, you see, while I didn't book travel on a cruise ship, I did book a cruisetour, which is basically the exact same thing but on land.

So why did I book a cruisetour when I already knew for a fact that I prefer independent travel, and didn't even have the excuse of no-other-transportation?

Well, it was cheap.

I'd never been to Alaska before, so I decided to take the sampler tour for my first trip and come back to spend more time elsewhere once I knew where to go. To that end, I decided to fly into Anchorage (from an American airport, BIG mistake!), travel to Denali by train (Alaska being big on scenery but a bit short on roads), explore Denali National Park, then travel by train to Fairbanks (partly for the sake of exploration and partly so I can claim to have been farther north in America than anyone I know) before returning to Anchorage and continuing to Whittier.

As I began to research and plan my trip, I discovered that the Alaska Railroad fare in first class from Anchorage to Fairbanks with a stopover in Denali was $350, while Princess Lodges (a subsidiary of Princess which operates several Alaskan hotels and the rail/motorcoach tours that take cruise passengers to them) offered the exact same train fare and two nights at a reasonably high-class hotel in Denali for $368. The hotel I'd be staying at, Princess Lodge Denali, was $300/night if booked a la carte; assuming I'd have to pay a $350 train fare anyway, I was getting it for $9/night. I was convinced that this package wasn't too prepackaged (after all, the itinerary had nothing but the rail travel segments bisected by the single sentence "day at leisure in Denali"), and so I decided to book it, wondering what the catch was to make it so cheap.

It turned out, the catch was I had to travel with cruise passengers.

No, seriously, if you have no objection to traveling with cruise passengers, then there was no catch at all. Princess Tours owns private railcars for their tour passengers and needed those railcars to carry previous cruise passengers north from Denali, the limitations of the railroad meant a car carried into Denali had to be carried out of Anchorage, but there was no ship in that day to fill the Anchorage to Denali segment or the hotel rooms for that night, so they offered me the "anything's better than deadheading" fare. I get a cheap trip; they get some revenue from a wagon that had to run anyway and a hotel room that exists whether it's occupied or not.

But the actual catch was, I had to travel with cruise passengers, and, that I had to travel with a cruise company.

It turned out, I was the only person to take Princess up on their "anything's better than deadheading" offer and it wasn't worth crewing a car just for me, so when I arrived at the station, I learned I had been consolidated into a Holland America-owned car, filled with passengers fresh off (or waiting to board) a Holland America ship, a group consisting entirely of elderly people. (Plus one family with annoying children.)

Now I was well aware that the sorts of people who book cruises (and cruisetours) tend to differ from those with a strong preference for independent travel, but I hadn't realised until I actually took this trip just how much hand-holding cruise passengers need and cruise companies expect their passengers to need. After a less-than-perfect but quite tolerable start (the crew introduced themselves, and asked how many people were just off a cruise ship and how many people were about to board a cruise ship; I was the only one to answer neither, followed by an extremely mediocre and very expensive breakfast), we ultimately reached Talkeetna.

At Talkeetna, we had to make a longish stop (probably about 20 minutes) for reasons probably relating to the regular-service Alaska Railroad train the cruise carriages were trailing behind. At Talkeetna, our cruise section also boarded some additional passengers, meaning that the doors were opened and the stairs were lowered. I waited for the crew member to open the stairs so I could step off, only to be told I wasn't allowed off the train because he was worried I'd get left behind when the train departed.

Now I'm no stranger to train travel; you could certainly say I like to travel by train. I've done it quite extensively. And when the train makes a long stop for servicing or any other reason, I always step off. I have stepped off my train in San Jose and Sioux Lookout, Winona and Winnipeg, Denver and Davis, and I have never been Duffilled— not even at Domodossola. The staffer refused to listen to reason but ultimately conceded he couldn't stop me from stepping off, as long as he didn't formally give permission.

I stepped off and walked up and down for a few minutes, at which point the crew member insisted I get back on, as he was increasingly worried I'd get lost and/or confused and the train would leave without me. All while I was standing about three meters from it. I pointed out that the engineer typically signals "all aboard" by sounding the train whistle; he refused to listen and demanded I board immediately. I stepped back on the train, and we proceeded to sit in the station for another 15 minutes before the whistle sounded and we departed. When I pointed out to the staffer that the engineer did, in fact, sound the all aboard just like every other engineer on every other train on the entire continent, the crew member honestly told me he had never noticed that before.

Once we arrived in Denali and I got settled in at the lodge, I began planning the following day; after all, there were only so many trails I'd be able to walk and I wanted to find the best ones. That's when I learned several things about the lodge itself.

First and foremost, the property is fairly small; 650 rooms and a dozen-odd buildings fairly clustered together. Yet, the property has a shuttle van that drives around and around for the purpose of shuttling visitors between buildings. When I got off the bus, the driver told me to wait for the shuttle to take me to my room, which couldn't have been more than 20 meters away! I suppose elderly people with too much luggage might have trouble walking that far, but the "take the shuttle" mentality was so ingrained into staff training that a young fit bloke like myself was directed to ride in a van rather than simply walk.

The second thing I noticed was that the lodge appeared, at first sight, to be a "resort" rather than a hotel. The next thing I noticed was that its resort-full appearance was completely deceptive. I have fond memories of staying in a resort from when I was little; between two pools and extensive hiking trails, ponds and wild berry bushes, vast open spaces, afternoon tea, and constantly-rotating activities, one could take half a holiday just on the property itself. Princess Lodge Denali was basically the same as that, except with all of the activities and amenities of the previous sentence removed and replaced with overpriced restaurants selling mediocre food and overpriced gift shops selling worthless tat.

And then I reached the main building itself. The check-in desk was located at the far wall and occupied half the width of the lobby. The other half was occupied by the "Tour Desk," where cheery-mannered clerks offered for sale a wide range of tours at prices between $120 and $600— tours which the same clerks candidly admitted were all available for free from the Park Service. (Strictly speaking, the Park Service charged a $10 park entry fee for some tours, but that's still nowhere near $600.)

I'm not sure what struck me more; that Princess was charging several hundred dollars for a "tour" that anybody could take for free, or that they were happy to admit that the tour was available for free, secure in the knowledge that the majority of their clientele would rather pay a small fortune than have to think for themselves for a day.

But the one little incident that I will quote whenever anybody asks me why I hate cruising occurred the day I left the resort. Everyone bound for Fairbanks got on board a bus to take us to the rail depot. The bus arrived in front of the depot. The driver turned off the engine, opened the door, and stepped out. And I was unable to disembark, because the aisle in front of me was blocked by some idiot who wouldn't get off the bus until the driver got back on and told him that we had arrived at the depot and it was time to leave.

That, to me, is the quintessential cruise passenger— someone so helpless that he can't acknowledge the blazingly obvious until a cheerful uniformed escort explicitly tells him about it. And that's why I'm glad I didn't book any more cruise-related anything on that trip.

And yet.

The ferry from Whittier to Juneau and then on to Prince Rupert had all the obvious advantages over a cruise. It was cheaper. It didn't even think of trying to quote "per person, assuming double occupancy" fares. The two-day layover gave me enough time to be in Juneau properly while a cruise line's 6-8 hour stop wouldn't. Because the ferry is primarily a form of transportation, most of the passengers were native Alaskans; whilst waiting to get my room key in Juneau, I learned that the person in the queue ahead of me was actually an Alaska state senator returning home to his district. Being taken directly to Prince Rupert rather than having to make my way from Vancouver was very convenient. And had I taken the cruise ship, I would never have stopped in Yakutat, a town so tiny that it doesn't have mobile service and the ferry's cafeteria is their most popular restaurant.

But a cruise ship has certain advantages not available on the ferry. Being so small, and intended primarily for transportation, the ferry lacks many of the amenities a cruise ship has to offer. Perhaps the most readily noticeable is that ferry food is extremely boring and having to eat it for days on end starts to become unpleasant to the point of near-sickening; one ferry has been outfitted with a proper restaurant and I wasn't on it. I make a point of always having a selection of video games and half a season of Doctor Who on my laptop at all times in case of a Level 6 Boredom Emergency, and the ferry was known to provoke a couple; yes, it's very scenic in parts, but you can only stare at scenery for so long and there's basically nothing else to do on board.

Next time I book a holiday like this may be awhile; I got lucky this time, but I normally can't afford long trips and if I can afford another one soon, Egypt is not going to visit itself. However, someday I will be able to book another trip across America and Canada, and when I do, I will be taking a cruise ship southbound. (If only because I will be taking the ferry northbound, I mean it when I warn you never to fly out of an American airport.)

It's a real pity there's no middle ground "best of both worlds" option; a luxury ferry fitted like a cruise ship with the all the amenities, but without the hand-holding and prepackaging and assumption that riding on it is your entire holiday.

There are so many cruise companies with so many ships; one of them could readily devote one ship to a ferry-like Alaska service, running between Whittier and Vancouver, but selling intermediate tickets between ports of call. I suspect that the cruise companies would object to doing this simply because I suspect that most of their revenue comes from selling prepackaged tours of the cruise's ports of call which the cruise-hating demographic just wouldn't buy, and because true cruise passengers who need their hands held through every step of a trip are more profitable overall because, obviously enough, it's easier to fleece your customers if they happen to be sheep.

However, it's an untapped market and if I had a ship handy, I would try to fill it. In fact, there are several places on the planet where a ship with cruise-like amenities and a ferry-like attitude might be very profitable; obviously, the Alaskan inside passage is the prime example since they already run a ferry to serve that market to say nothing of cruises, but trans-Atlantic journeys might be another given the horrors of flying out of American airports. Currently, the trans-Atlantic passage market is served only by Cunard, and I have problems with them, primarily relating to the fact that their dress code is incompatible with my baggage limits.

Even leaving aside the idea of ships that offer passage without the cruise attitude, there is the other matter of solo travelers. I haven't exactly conducted thorough market research studies, but unless you have, I'm not willing to believe that people who travel solo are substantially less likely to book cruises than those who travel as couples or in groups— that the small handful of single rooms on one particular ship sell out extremely quickly tends to suggest that solo travelers are quite willing to book on the existing crop of cruises. Yes, solo travelers represent only about 10% of cruise line bookings, but that's sort of expected when every cruise line jumps through hoops to make solo travelers unwelcome. When your policy is "solo travelers must pay double, and even then are accepted only in Designated Solo Rooms, and can't get most of the special fares and promotions," then it's surprising they even got 10%.

Cruise lines claim they need to drive away solo travelers because a solo traveler occupying a double room deprives them of the onboard spending that a second person would have made. This is, of course, absolute nonsense; if they divided some of the double rooms into two single rooms with adjoining door (or perhaps even collapsable wall), the cruise line would fit just as many people for the same space and wouldn't have to drive away any market share.

Plus, when was the last time a couple racked up a massive bar tab buying drinks for people who clearly weren't interested in them? How much money do you think Hubby would have lost in the casino if Wifey hadn't dragged him away after the first round? The first cruise line that opens up to solo travelers might well see total onboard spending increase substantially.

As for me, I would definitely book a cruise ticket for my next trip if I can do it without paying double. After all, if they drop their assumptions about how I travel, the "per person" fare on the cruise is actually cheaper than the ferry, and when my holiday consists of a six-week adventure across two of the world's largest countries, every penny counts!

After all, I'd book another Alaskan cruisetour if it's cheap enough; a cheap cruise is much better than a more expensive ferry.

If no cruise company offers equitable fares to solo travelers, I may have to raise money to start a cruise line of my own!

Vital stats:

Holiday: Over
Date: Today
Current Mood: Thoughtful
Sleep Status: Yes
Word of the Day: Defenestrate
Total Cost: $7,000 USD and $2,500 CAD
Trains: 11
Planes: 1
Automobiles: 2
Fun: 67.4 Parties
A Moose: No
Finances: Shambles
Health: 17 Hitpoints
Level: Confound Delivery

Thursday, April 5, 2012

The Trouble With Tablets

Now, I have nothing against tablet PCs per se. In fact, if my budget were (considerably) bigger than it actually is, I could see several ways in which I'd quite happily use one. I object only to the fact that they cost as much as a proper computer but are less capable than a proper computer; the irritating touchscreen interface, which is never quite compatible with my hands, makes them unusable for more than video watching and maybe some casual browsing; typing on a touchscreen for anything more than a search query is impossible.

And yet, I'm filled with a sense of foreboding.

My grandfather was a lawyer; he worked with many clients including some who were quite high-profile for the time. He was actively practicing law until the day he died; he actually died at his office. And yet, he only barely learned to type. He could manage, sure. Difficultly. Awkwardly. With two fingers. The reason he found it so difficult to type was because when he was growing up and starting his career, the personal computer hadn't been invented yet. At that time, typing (on typewriters) was something that secretaries did for you; unless you were planning to become a secretary, you didn't need to learn how to type. And so, he never learned. Once the advent of the PC brought on the expectation that everyone be able to type, he was past the point at which learning new basic skills comes naturally.

I have the unpleasant feeling that typing on a touchscreen will be to my generation what typing was to his.

Tablet sales are exploding and even cannibalising the sales of netbooks, which tend to be cheaper and more capable. The major desktop operating systems are becoming increasingly tablet-like; Windows 8 will sport a touchscreen-friendly interface, with the conventional desktop hidden behind a preference box, Mac OS has become more like iOS with every release, and desktop Linux is still stagnant while its mobile counterpart (including Android) now runs on at least a plurality of mobile devices. It's clear that Microsoft and Apple are increasingly treating a proper computer as an accessory that needs to be compatible with your tablet rather than the other way around. As much as I hope tablets are a passing fad, every day there are more indications that they're here to stay.

And while keyboard accessories for tablets exist, they're awkward and defeat the purpose of a tablet— that it's extremely portable. No; tablets mean touchscreens.

And I saw an employee at an Apple store typing quite deftly on an iPad. Obviously, as an employee, he is required to make Apple's products look easy to use and I have no idea how much training was required before he could obtain that level of proficiency, or how long he could type like that, or to what extent he was selected for the position specifically because his hands were identical in size and proportion to those of the late Steve Jobs. But he could type on an iPad. Typing on an iPad is a thing that can be done.

And if I hold out against the tablet monstrosity until social necessity forces me to cave, it'll be too late for me to learn another basic skill easily. I'll end up like my grandfather; able to type awkwardly, with difficulty, because typing (as it's understood in that distant future day) just wasn't a skill you needed to learn when I was growing up and starting my career.

Unless you were planning to become an Apple store employee.

Vital stats:

Interface: Psychic
Date: 5 April 2012
Current Mood: Foreboding
Sleep Status: Hopeful
Word of the Day: Commune
Name: Host
Registration Identity: host
Species: Not Applicable
Realm: Vault
Casting Method: Daman
Casting Power: Environmental
Location: Omnipresent
Time: 5 Months, 1 Day since blog-start.
Casting: Local Transept 80401, Registry 229

Thank you and goodbye.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

My Cocaine Rewards

This being the internet, I am absolutely baffled that "My Cocaine Rewards" is not a real thing. If it's not defictionalised at some point in the next whenever I bother to look again, I am so going to have to do it myself. Seriously.

Vital stats:

Impulse: Totally
Date: Today
Current Mood: Impulsive (that one was obvious)
Sleep Status: Pending
Word of the Day: Terrarium
Plants: 6
Animals: 2
Manchester United: 0
Ashes: Burned
Lovers: Spurned
Stocks: Up
Stipes: Down
Obscure References: 8
Blatant Lies: 1

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Netflix Is A Slut

Language is fluid and constantly changing. With effort, any of us can coin a new word and see it adopted into the dictionary. Moreover, existing words change; in the 1890s, a "gay" marriage was an ideal husbands and wives hoped for; today, "gay" marriage is a fundamental human right that governments worldwide are slowly learning to respect. "Nunnery" doesn't mean nearly the same thing now as it did in one of Shakespeare's more well-known plays. And to my great annoyance, many people are redefining the word "literally" to mean "superlatively" or "extremely."

I, for one, am a firm believer in taking the words used by bigots as racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory slurs and redefining them in non-bigoted ways. The word I'm currently trying to redefine is "slut."

In particular, I have taken to using the word "slut" in the following manner:

slut [sluht]
noun
1. a company or organisation which, through its methods of advertising, conveys illegitimacy or desperation for customers.
2. a company or organisation which uses unusual methods of advertising normally associated with fraudulent or illegal activity.
Origin:
2009-2011 or whenever I made it up.

So, under my new definition, Netflix is a slut. They advertise in pop-up ads as if it were still 1996 (and they're probably the only legitimate company that does). They advertise using what I call "lead-gen" sites - typically referred to by their owners as "offerwalls" - where users are awarded virtual currency (such as Facebook credits) for clicking on special ads and signing up as per the advertiser's request; Trialpay is one such example but Netflix can be found with virtually all of them. They even send spammy emails to people who have closed their accounts, asking them to sign up again. Each one suggests that they're not legitimate (even if they are) and/or that they're desperate for any customers (especially bothering their exes). So, in my dictionary, Netflix is a slut.

Vital stats:

Post: Longish
Date: Today
Current Mood: Plodding
Sleep Status: Insufficient
Word of the Day: Slut
Season: Allergy
Interest: 0.5%
Dollar: £0.63
Russia: Big
Appointment: Tuesday
Score: Q-12
Angels: Floofy
Clerk: Efficient
Riches: I wish. :(

Saturday, November 5, 2011

What He Would Have Wanted

Having lost two very close relatives within the last year, I've had occasion to think about (if not necessarily hear all that often) the phrase "what he would have wanted." (It can be "she" too, but English has no singular gender-neutral third-person pronouns save the non-personal "it" and made-up ones like "xe" which are awkward to use at best.)

"What he would have wanted" is a troublesome phrase. When you die, you cease to exist and thus have no wants. Considering what someone would have wanted if they hadn't ceased to exist at that particular juncture is a perfectly valid thing to do, but it's often equivocated to "what he does want now." This doesn't tend to cause a lot of trouble in comparison with many of the other flaws in our reasoning, but treating the theoretical needs that the dead would have if they weren't dead as being equal or near-equal to the actual needs of the living can have negative consequences, as can any other form of irrationality.

I find it especially silly to hear people talk about what the dearly departed "would have wanted" with regard to funeral arrangements. Functionally, the phrase "what he would have wanted" is identical to "if he were alive right now, he would want," so using it with regard to funeral arrangements of any variety is absurd. If he were alive, you wouldn't be holding a funeral. The funeral presumes he's dead, which means he doesn't have any wants at all.

I'm not old or rich enough to have a will, but when I do I will make a point of reminding all involved in it that when I die, I will be dead and will thus lack desires of my own, so don't do anything on my account. I will also remind them, however, that if any of my organs or other body parts are medically or scientifically valuable, then there are living people with actual needs and desires who would benefit from having them; the only reason to burn or bury the parts is idle sentimentalism.

Hopefully, it'll be a long time before that becomes necessary.

And thus begins my second day of blog-have.

Vital stats:

Comments: Open.
Date: Today.
Current Mood: Morbid.
Sleep Status: Maybe.
Word of the Day: Ignostic.
Points: 3,923.
Nickname: Hamilton.
Nick's Name: Nick.
Weather: Sunny.
Fag?: No thanks.

Friday, November 4, 2011

I Think I Have A Blog Now.

This is a personal blog. That means I write random crap I think of and put it in a series of tubes in an appropriately pseudonymous fashion. Reading this blog constitutes your agreement not to whinge about how offended you are, because seriously, you don't have to read it. But fully justified complaints are always welcome because they're justified. Actually, whining may also be tolerated because hey at least that means someone is paying attention to me which is more than most bloggers can say.

So anyway, the reason I started this thing is because I kept having ideas where I'd think "oh, that'd be great for my blog... IF I HAD ONE!" Individually, they were passing thoughts. Collectively, they are a vast pile of verbiage commonly known as a "weblog."

Vital stats:

Blog: Yes.
Date: Today.
Current Mood: Verbose.
Sleep Status: No.
Word of the Day: Replevin.
Update Schedule: Whenever I bother.
Content: Highly limited.
Popularity: Un.
Blog Ranking: Last place.
Readership: Nil.

Advertisers welcome.