The "Negative Sidekick Brain"

I'm playing a game called 'SupperBetter' ( www.superbetter.com ) to help me with some of the challenges of my mental illness.

Tonight, I managed to beat the "Negative Sidekick Brain" bad-guy.  I'm really freaking out because I haven't received the money I expected to be deposited on Tues (even though it sometimes doesn't show up until the day AFTER).

I pulled off a "It's never as bad as you think it is" Power-Up, recognizing I do have other options.  Unfortunately, in order to do that I had to succumb to the tag-team duo bad guys "Too excited/stressed/worried to sleep" and "Obsessive Compulsive" to really get cracking on making money on my business.  My business has been running since May and I don't even have $1 to show for it (17 cents in 'Accounts Receivable" with MochiMedia.com isn't gonna pay rent, meds OR food)

The alternative would have been worse - I could have beaten the Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder, stayed in bed, and let my 'Sidekick' spew out all kinds of worst-case scenarios and still not gotten any sleep.  At least this way I'm doing something productive!

The fact is - it's not as bad as I think it is. I have a money management advisor who I give money to to pay my bills - and I'm totally covered for next month (and she's giving me spending money out of my budget for next month). The problem is I don't have any MORE money to give her.

But for now, I'm okay.

I was on an emotional up-swing before tonight, and business prospects are looking good. This financial crunch spurred me to realise I need to start making money. The downside to that is that it triggered my OCPD for tonight and now I want nothing more than to program (was on a bit of a roll before I went to bed). I could have beaten it and stayed in bed, but I think the Negative Sidekick Brain would have kept me up all night. This at least lets me focus it into something useful.

There's every possibility I'll check my account in 4-6 hours and everything'll be fine (I've been stressing out in about this way every month, except December when the money came early)

EDIT:  209 am - after having written the original post on my SuperBetter activity (to explain the 'loss,loss,win' of my 'Bad Guy fights) and then modifying the post for Google+ and here... I take a peek at my bank balance.. and there's the money.  "-495" turned into "922" and I feel much, much better =Z

The new cell phone law gets it right, so quit whining if you don't understand!

Unlocking a phone you don't own is illegal - unlocking a phone you own is still legal

Unless there's an angle to this I missed... I totally understand and support this bill.

If you get a phone for free or at a discount if you sign up with a contract (typically 3 years) you do not own the phone - the carrier does.  Which is why if you default on your contract they charge you full retail price for the device on top of the service charges you would have paid during your contract.

If you actually do own the phone (such as in the above example where you've defaulted on your contract and paid for the phone) the law specifically allows you to unlock the phone from the carrier.

I know people love to get caught up in the hype of the moment (I do it myself all too often) but this is one example where I think the law actually gets it right

UNLESS there is an angle I'm missing - if there is I'd honestly love to hear it.

This article on the _Examiner_ website also backs up what I suspected;
"Not to be confusing, it is only when you buy a carrier’s specific phone, with a contract, that this law comes into play. Consumers can still buy unlocked phones that run across carriers, as both iPhone and Android have many models that do just that."

I'm going to rant and re-iterate this again If you get a phone at a discount for signing up with a contract you do not own the phone!  It is effectively 'leased to you'.  Thus, it makes perfect sense for it to be ILLEGAL for you to tamper with someone else's property until the contract is up (or defaulted on) and the phone becomes yours (at which point it is LEGAL for you to unlock.)

Reposted from my Google +Page with additional comments;

The Pomodoro Technique

My new trick for organizing my time.. both to keep me focused (so my ADHD doesn't draw me away) and to prevent me from becoming TOO focused (so my OCPD doesn't suck me in)

1)  Divide your day into 30 minute chunks ( _Pomodori_ ).  Assign the tasks for each chunk.
2)  During each chunk, set a timer for 25 minutes.  If you finish the task earlier than that, devote the time to 'overlearning' (go over what you have done, or re-study the same skill etc)
3)  Take a 3-5 minute break! (this is a must even if - _especially_ if - it is a longer task that takes up multiple Pomodori)
4)  Repeat 2&3.  After you complete 4 Pomodori, take a longer break - the wikipedia entry says 10-15 minutes, but making the break a Pomodori of 25 minutes on it's own makes scheduling easier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomodoro_Technique

I really like this technique because every half hour I can evaluate my needs.  Sometimes I'm hungry or thirsty (or need to go to the bathroom!) but I'm so absorbed in my programming that I don't even notice!

Another great thing I've discovered is that I can usually spot the errors in my code quicker and easier after coming back from a 3-5 minute break than I did when I would I relentlessly pursue them before leaving the computer (sometimes I even notice them before they've even shown up in runtime - because the loophole that could cause the mistake has never actually happened, but I can see where the loophole is and fix it before it becomes a problem!)

A likely reason why Terry Jones was kept out of Canada.

Sometimes its not about hate speech (even though I'd be okay if it was)
Every news article on the subject has a comment thread that goes on and on about how 'Free Speech' has been stifled.  While I could write a whole article about how our Freedom of Expression clause excludes violence, threats of violence, and 'Hate Speech' - I won't, because it is irrelevant.

DISCLAIMER:  I am not a Solicitor, nor do I have access to all the facts pertaining to this matter.  I am a layperson forming an opinion based on publicly available information gathered online.

Inadmissibility

In the Immigrant and Refugee Protection Act (hereafter IRPA) at 36(1)(c), a foreign national would be inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for;

"committing an act outside Canada that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years."

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/page-16.html#docCont 

36(2)(c) uses mostly the same wording, but it's 'criminality' instead of 'serious criminality', drops the length of the prison term, and adds that it has to be an 'indictable' offence in Canada (which means a trial by Jury - instead  of a summary judgement which means the Judge decides)

Note here that it says 'committing' not 'convicted' (Interestingly the 'b' portion of both of these says 'convicted' - so I don't really understand why they need to include both, since I'm pretty sure a conviction means that they've been proven to have committed it...)

Based on this, it may not even matter if charges were dropped.  If its on your record - you committed it.  

While this information could be used to bring up the 'disturbance of the peace' charges that were dropped - for now we'll assume this is irrelevant (because there's another 'smoking gun' that I'm leading up to.)

Seriousness based on Canada's Jurisdiction

What the act is saying here is that if you commit a crime in a country that is not Canada that is a crime both where you committed it and in Canada, then we look at the severity as if it had been committed in Canada.

This is important!  That's why people in the United States with 'Driving under the Influence' records (which is a really, really minor crime in the United States) are usually barred from entering Canada, because it is an indictable offence, even if no one was injured

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_(Canada)#Sentencing

While the prosecutor does have the option of filing it as a summary offence - the IRPA makes it clear that if it could be processed as indictable offence then its treated as such for Inadmissibility purposes;

 32(3)(a) an offence that may be prosecuted either summarily or by way of indictment is deemed to be an indictable offence, even if it has been prosecuted summarily;

Convicted of Fraud

Okay!  Now stuff that's relevant to Terry Jones!  Nearly every article on the matter mentions the 'fine' that he paid in Germany.  What they all fail to mention is that this 'fine' was actually a fraud conviction, for using the credentials "Doctor" without a) being a lawyer (a requirement in Germany) and b) having a degree from a school without accreditation.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-132779-Terry-Jones-was-fined-$3800-by-a-German-court-for-fraud-(Dark-side-of-mastermind-behind-anti-Islam-video)

Whoops!  While we can ignore the fact that he's not a Lawyer, you still you need a degree from an accredited school to call yourself a "Doctor" in Canada as well (and in Ontario, there's only a handful of careers that are allowed to as well, but the IRPA requires an 'Act of Parliament' - basically Federal legislature, not provincial - so we can ignore that.)

Canadian penalty for Fraud

Okay, so calling yourself a Doctor without the proper paperwork is also fraud.  The only thing that's unclear is the *amount* of fraud.  I will cover both, and explain why the amount doesn't matter.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-180.html#h-105

Definition of Fraud in the Canadian Criminal Code;

380. (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,

Okay, so it's fraud even if he makes no money.

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars;

If the amount is greater than $5000, the penalty is 10 years and it's an indictable offence (which satisfies either 36(1) or 36(2) of the Inadmissibility criteria in the IRPA.

(b) is guilty   (i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or   (ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.

If it's less than $5000 it can be done as a summary conviction or an indictable conviction (depending on the prosecution's decision and plea-bargaining etc)  We've already covered above how it an offence could be prosecuted as summary conviction or an indictable conviction then it's considered an indictable crime - which means is meets 36(2).

Conclusion
So regardless of the actual monetary value acquired from the fraud (even if it was nothing), fraud makes you inadmissible to enter Canada. Germany actually let him off easy with a fine - if this had been done in Canada the minimum sentence is 2 years in prison.

So ignore the 'Canada oppresses free speech' and the 'but the disturbance of the peace charges were dropped'.  It is quite clear from the publicly available records that the fraud conviction in Germany prevents him from entering Canada.  (I also didn't get into the failure to pay the $1 peace bond - which is a criminal offence - I have just been unable to find out weather or not that's an indictable offence in Canada - so I covered what I could find.)


Re-Disclaimer:  In case you missed it above - I'm not a Solicitor!  This is a layman's opinion formed from information gathered from public sources, and may be inaccurate based on factors unknown to me.

Cute Purple Dinosaur = 666 = SATAN! (Oh noes!)

Our brains look for patters where none exist - and the more insidious the pattern the more likely we are to believe it.

A repost from my Google+ stream that fits in line with the types of things I want to talk about on this blog;

My good friend, +Susan Meyer shared this with me on facebook, because I have a lot of 'obscure knowledge' and wanted my opinion on weather this had any merit or was "Logic Fail"

(Original post;  http://www.facebook.com/susan.meyer.756/posts/353893564691231 )

Short answer - Someone had too much time on their hands - but it's an interesting find nonetheless (and appears to be correct - I do seem to recall 'V' is often used in latin words that we adopted and now write with a 'U' but not certain - and the roman numerals are correct and obviously the arithmetic is correct.)

The long (disquisitive) answer;

This is similar to 'bible code' stuff. Humans are wired to spot patterns and so they wind up finding patterns where there are none.

I'm sure there are lots of names or phrases one could find that if you added them up via A=1, B=2... Z=26 you will get 666.  Or doing other weird things with them like converting them into ASCII code or something before adding them together and dividing by some super special secret number.

If you play the pokemon rap backwards "Gotta catch 'em all, Gotta catch 'em all (Yeah!), Gotta catch 'em all, Gotta catch 'em all (Yeah!)" becomes "I... LOVE SATAN! LOVE SATAN!. I... LOVE SATAN! LOVE SATAN!" it is so crystal clear when I heard it it didn't even sound warped (except the 'I' which is the inverse 'Yeah')  It's no wonder that they stopped including that rap after a few seasons (of course, by that point there were also more than 150 different pokemon, and thus didn't fit the rap anymore - so it's hard to say weather it was because of criticism that it got removed.)

YouTube link to the reversed Pokemon Rap:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cGEwFIsk0g

In addition to spotting patterns, our brains are also wired to 'fill in gaps' or gloss over bits that don't make sense (like random noise and interpreting that backwards syllables sound like language so therefore they must be) also like how when you look at your monitor you see a picture until you look REALLY close and you see all the little grid lines (well - depending on how clear your vision is).  This is most noticeable on the huge screens used in sports stadiums - they are made up of several smaller screens spaced out, but at the distance they are designed to be viewed, you don't see the gaps, because your brain glosses over the error.

More optical illusions;

http://thechive.com/2012/09/20/optical-illusions-hurt-my-brain-sometimes-25-photos/

This is also the principle by which we get Optical Illusions and 'Audio illusions' - ever swear you heard someone saying your name from somewhere?  Well it was a combination of sounds your brain triggers on. 

There was one video game I played where I could swear I could hear the phone rang every time I played it.  After the first couple of times I decided a neighbour must have a similar phone, but when I started realising it would always happen at specific times (I believe it was during boss battles) I started listening verycarefully and it was actually a combination of instruments in the music.  It actually wasn't the same at all to my phone, but it was CLOSE ENOUGH that my brain registered it and triggered the 'your phone is ringing - go answer it' response.   (In a responce to this on Google +, Susan mentioned there was one zone in World of Warcraft where as a subtext of the music she could swear she thought the game was calling her name)

To be frankly honest in this particular case, +Susan Meyer hit the nail on the head when she said "TBH it is a show for kids and heck if they like it and learn something that is all that matters. There are much worse things in this world that we have to protect our kids from."

Way too true, Susan!

Now that said - there are instances where people INTENTIONALLY hide things in places (Tom Marvolo Riddle = I am Lord Voldemort, for example) and some bands really did encode backwards 'subliminal' phrases into their music (which was played to the 9's on a particular episode of The Simpsons where Bart and his classmates all became a famous 'boy band' who became popular for their lyrics "eemra e-yet neeoj" or "Join the Army!").  I do not believe this to be one of those cases.

Word of the Week: Plurality

Word of the Week:  Plurality

Happy Thanksgiving!  (Though I recognize for all of you south of the 49th it's not until next month)

Today's word comes from the short 15 minute film that was recently released of the same name;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzryBRPwsog

In this case, the definition used is "The state of being plural"  - where there are two identical people when there really should only be one.  In fiction, this trope is played up with doppelgängers  identical twins (Prince and the Pauper, The Parent Trap, Ringer, etc), or, yes, even time travel (Although, apparently, it's a *very* bad idea to meet yourself when you time travel.  Of course that presumption assumes the concept of a Paradox, but I assert that there is no such thing as a Paradox when dealing with time travel because of either separate timelines or a re-writing of the existing one - but I am now on a tangent that's probably best for a separate article!)

Another context I've heard this recently is in politics - specifically the electoral process used in determining a party's candidate.  From wikipedia:  "Used in the context of voting, refers to the largest number of votes to be received by any candidate (or any proposal in a referendum)." This usage of the word dates back to 1828.

Colloquially, people use the word 'majority' in this context.  However, a majority is 'more than 50% of the votes'  Whenever there are more than 2 options (including 'abstain' as one of the options) you have a possibility that no option will have more than 50% of the vote, but one will have more votes than any of the others.

For example, in Alberta's 2012 Provincial Election there are a total of 10 parties that run - even though we are an extremely conservative province and the Progressive Conservatives always win.  This year, however, there was a bit of a shake-up as a new contender - the Wildrose Alliance - tried to steal the conservative spotlight.  Due to a last-minute gaff (which turned into a complete meltdown of the part's platform) the Progressive Conservatives came in with 43.95% to Wildrose's 32.29%.  This is not a majority, but is the plurality, which is what lead to Alison Redford claiming the title of Premier (Being the first woman in Alberta's history to do so, apparently - though that would have happened even if Wildrose had won, since Danielle Smith is also a woman.)

Lastly, the term Plurality is also used in context of religious governance, where decisions are made by a council (usually referred to as 'elders') instead of by a single individual, such as a Pastor.  According to the wikipidia article on the subject - this is common amongst Presbyterian and Jehovah's Witnesses.


If you liked the linked video - I strongly suggest the Canadian science-fiction series Continuum, as well as the US show Person of Interest.  Both of these shows have similar tie-ins to this short film that are worth watching.

Word of the Week: Disquisitive

Word of the Week:  Disquisitive

Today's word (and the name of this blog) comes from Bones:  Season 8, Episode 2 - "The Partners in the Affair" which originally aired on September 24, 2012

Dr. Temperance "Bones" Brennan:  When I was examining the skull I found that the fissures felt... wh, what was the word I used, Mister Abernathy?

Finn Abernathy:  Disquisitive.  I had to look it up - in this case it means her "spidey sense" was tingling.

I had to look it up too, but I could not find any definitions similar to Mr. Abernathy's (which is essentially intuition) nor could I find any definitions that matched Dr. Brennan's use of it.

Disquisitive (adj)

•  Relating to disquisition:  This particular definition is already apparent in the '-ive' suffix.  Looking this up further - a disquisition is a long or over-elaborate discussion or essay on a particular topic.  Most of what I write - for any reason - winds up being a disquisition (or is 'disquisitionary').  This definition could be accurate for this context since could get into a long discussion about the skull - however because in order to move the plot along, they do it succinctly instead.
•  Fond of discussion or investigation:  Since a lifeless skull cannot discuss or investigate this does not match the context.  It could, however, be said that Dr. Brennan is very disquisitive - as she is often investigating all kinds of things in her professional and personal life, and often likes to discuss the finer details of her research (much like I do - hence why I decided to create a blog about such things)
• Examining:  I find this definition rather unusual, since 'Examining' is a verb.  It's uncertain how something could be described as 'Examining', however the skull could be 'worthy of an examination' - that does not come sufficiently close to any of the other meanings however.
• Inquisitive:  This more closely matches the second definition listed here, however there does seem to be a slight difference between 'inquisitive' and 'disquisitive'.  Inquisitive seems to have more to do with curiosity or an eagerness to acquire knowledge and is a related word to inquiry.  While they are similar, someone who inquisitive might be more prone to asking questions to learn information, while someone who is disquisitive might be more prone to do the research on their own, and then discuss the results (often with those who are inquisitive)
  A related word, 'inquire', is usually used when asking questions - and not usually when someone seeks out the answer on their own or is involved in a discussion about it (unless the initial inquiry invokes further discourse and debate - then it could be a disquisition)

Disquisitive comes from the latin quærere - to ask, seek or gain.  In this case, it is to ask, seek, or gain knowledge.  'Quærere' is also related to the latin word  that form the basis of the word 'quest'.

Originally it seemed as though between 'disquisitive' and 'inquisitive' that it might have been prefix based - but I could not find information that made sense with that in mind.  'In-' words tend to imply into, towards, or within - it could be implied that 'inquisitiveness' invokes ones need to investigate or inquire.  The 'dis-' prefix did not make sense in this context.
The word seems similar to the word 'discuss' and the definition also seems similar, and I discovered that 'discuss' comes from 'discutere' which domes from 'dis-' ('apart') and 'quatere' ('to shake').  There is a vague, but interesting, similarity to the words 'quatere' and 'quærere' that could suggest a further relation further back in the etymology that is beyond my means to research.


While I am not nearly as well educated as the character of Dr. Brennan, I do share her disquisitive nature, and her tendency to explain rationally.  I also prefer logic over emotion - and in a lot of ways I somewhat identify with this character, which is one of the reasons I like this show.  It's somewhat interesting how I can often follow what is being said - even before they put it into "layman's terms" for the benefit of Agent Booth (and their viewing audience.)