rwmtest

I just watched Ascension  on Netflix. Spoilers, Sweety ..   It is really hard to discuss this show without giving something away.  Please consider watching the miniseries before reading, and come back..   It's only 6 episodes long... The show reminded me of many Joss Whedon series like Firefly and Dollhouse which really aren't made for broadcast television.  They are smart, and have longer stories that evolve where you really don't have a clue what the show is about until many episodes in.   And like those shows, there is a superheroine that really surprises the audience. The 6 episodes are in 3 2-part chapter pairs, with some pretty amazing reveals at the end of each chapter. Chapter 1 ends with the revelation that the ship never took off, and that this is an experiment being held on earth.  What is the experiment?  Is it really about learning about the human impact of multi-generational space flight? Chapter 2 ends with the X-men style superheroine girl reading someone

When discussing cultural policy you will sometimes bump into individuals who seek to diminish the value of culture by comparing it to consumer products.  To them, one creative work is no different than another.  To quote Mark H. Goldberg  who consults to the telecommunications industry (including "regulatory and government relations") and organizes the Canadian Telecom Summit : @russellmcormond @RessyM @BenKlass there are lots of sources of video content. A specific show no different from a specific Happy Meal toy — Mark Goldberg (@Mark_Goldberg) June 18, 2015 As an author (mostly of software) who recognizes the value of the creative works of others, and as an audience and sometimes major fan of creative works, it is an understatement to say I disagree with that attitude. Creative works obviously have economic value, and we creators deserve to be materially rewarded for our contributions, but creative works have value far beyond economics.  Whether you are the author or a

I've had people comment on my strong views against the Liberals for voting for Bill C-51. It was not a surprise that the Liberals supported Harper's alleged "Anti-terrorism" bill, given the Liberals had multiple times in the past proposed similarly flawed Lawful Access legislation.  The agencies that have been granted additional powers by C-51 are not new, and this only represents an update from what I consider to be mistakes of the past. The Liberal response to Bill C-51 only served as a reminder of things I have not liked about the Liberal party for a long time.  They fall prey to the "something must be done, this is something, so it must be done" type of politics. They don't want to be seen as soft on [bad behavior flavor of the month], so push forward policies such as lopsided "lawful access" where citizens outside of agencies get additional scrutiny, but not citizens within government agencies. They get caught by the "you are either

The justification for Lawful Access sounds like: There is some small percentage of people within Canada who might commit [bad behavior], so we must more closely monitor Canadians to find those outliers and stop [bad behavior]. The critique many of us have against most Lawful Access implementations sounds like: There is some small percentage of people within government agencies who might commit [bad behavior] with the help of additional powers granted to those agencies, so we must more closely monitor government agencies to find those outliers and stop [bad behavior]. The specific [bad behavior] doesn't really matter, and has changed over the years as the politics of the day changes. Some years it is generically "crime", sometimes "child pornography", sometimes "hate crimes", and these days the most widely abused is "terrorism". Fundamentally, I believe legislation that add more power for government agencies to monitor citizens that doesn'

The most important aspect of this years Canadian Federal Election campaign is the fact that Canada is still using an antiquated horse-and-buggy electoral system known as First Past the Post.  Under this unfair and divisive system a politician does not need to have the support of a majority of constituents, they only need to divide and conquer the opposition. Harper's election campaign has been clear from the start: promote the Liberal brand and Justin Trudeau as if it were the "opposite" of the Harper brand.  This way voters who agree with Harper will stick with Harper, but those who oppose will go to the Liberals which is Harper's second choice. Harper will promote the Liberals for a number of strategic reasons: The Bill C-51 vote demonstrates that the Liberals are weak in opposition, and they can be trivially frightened by "you are with us, or with the terrorists" style rhetoric.  Harper knows that both Thomas Mulcair and Elizabeth May are adult and more s

The following is a cut-and-paste of my comments on the Ranked Ballots part of the Ontario municipal elections act review. As you can tell, I am excited by the possibility as I believe ranked ballots for either single or multi member districts is the best option for municipalities.  This is a system that fixes the flaws in the antiquated first-past-the-post system which creates the concept of "vote splitting" and encourages negative campaigning (and thus more negative and less effective government). It also doesn't encourage political parties to form at the municipal level, a flaw that some of the so-called "proportional" systems would encourage. Whenever we hear the word "proportional" we need to ask "proportional to what".  If it is proportional to the support a voter has for a political party, this grants more power to political parties in the system. Additional power to political parties has its own harmful effects which we also need to b