Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Cell Phone Cancer

According to the World Health Organization, cell phones might be carcinogenic. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/:
There are some indications of an increased risk of glioma for those who reported the highest 10% of cumulative hours of cell phone use, although there was no consistent trend of increasing risk with greater duration of use.Researchers concluded that biases and errors limit the strength of these conclusions and prevent a causal interpretation.
While an increased risk of brain tumors is not established from INTERPHONE data, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile phone use over time periods longer than 15 years warrant further research of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk.
 Good thing no one ever calls me. 

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Criminal Cruft #1: Transportation Fraud

Many of the laws in Canada's Criminal Code have outlived their usefulness. However, it is unlikely that any political party will ever have the gumption to run an anti-law-and-order campaign to get rid of the laws that have built up in the unobserved parts of Canada's criminal law statutes like a tonsil stone.

Take, as my first example, 'Fraudulently Obtaining Transportation'. Section 393(3) of the Criminal Code states that:
Every one who, by any false pretence or fraud, unlawfully obtains transportation by land, water or air is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Now there is nothing inherently objectionable about punishing those who use fraud to travel but why should this be singled out apart from the more general offence of fraud? As far as I can tell, the only differences are that standard fraud bothers to differentiate between fraud over and under five-thousand (which is a distinction missed by the transportation fraud offence), and standard fraud allows the Crown to elect to proceed by indictment (i.e. more harshly) if it feels that is necessary despite the subject matter being less than $5,000. Unless you really think that using fraud to obtain transport should never be treated as harshly as some other cases of fraud then having a separate offence serves no purpose.

Transportation fraud is just one example of the hundreds of laws on the books that linger there well past their best-before date. In effect, they allow the Crown to lay more charges if she wants to be a jerk and makes criminal law unnecessarily complicated.

Horse Law

Like many of you, I prefer to ride my horse on the highway. A canter to the grocers and back can turn a tedious errand into an expression of man's superiority over the animal kingdom.

However, this honorable means of transportation is not as accepted in the so-called "multicultural" society of Ontario as one might expect. To begin with, many conductors of carbon-spewing automobiles are less than respectful. Not only do they insist on ejecting noxious fumes at you as they zoom by at hazardous speeds, they will often eject equally noxious insults at me regarding my choice of carriage. These insults are usually interspersed with honks on their vile horns when I assert my right to travel along the road's center.

Even worse, these plebeians have formed a powerful lobby that has brought the coercive power of the state to bear against me and my fellow equestrians. Draconian laws prevent us from fully using the roads for their original intended purpose: horsies. Consider the following:
  • Section 173 of the Highway Traffic Act states that, "No person shall race or drive furiously any horse or other animal on a highway." Well, where, pray tell, am I supposed to drive furiously if not on the highway? My estate is limited in hectares and usually contains many reminders of that which hath infuriated me in the first place. I would be content to gallop on my mount furiously elsewhere but the only routes to those places are along -- you guessed it! -- highways. Essentially, the government has legislated that I have no recourse to my horsie when I need it most, i.e. when I am furious.
  • Subsection 2(1) of the Horse Riding Safety Act, 2001: No owner or operator of a a horse ... shall permit any rider ... to ride any horse ... unless the rider has and is correctly using the following equipment:
    1. A helmet that meets current standards for equipment designed and manufactured for use while riding horses as established by the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), the British Standards Institute (BSI) or the European Safety Standards. -> First of all, where is the Canadian Standards Association when it comes to creating guidelines for horse safety equipment? If we are not going to have made-in-Canada solutions for made-in-Canada problems then why even maintain pretensions of sovereignty? I mean, who are we, Mexico?
      Second, as a "horse operator" it should not be incumbent upon my person to force other "operators" to wear a helmet; one of the joys of horse riding is feeling the wind toss your hair. This law was clearly created by vicious bald people.
    2. Hard soled footwear with a heel of no less than 1.5 centimetres. -> Um, hello, I do not spend $10,000/year on a podiatrist to have my feet wrecked by hard soles on my Black English riding field boots (which also cost $10,000). And if heels over 1.5 cm are going to become acceptable then I would not have bothered being tall in the first place; we cannot have the undernourished underclass infiltrating our gazebo extravaganzas thanks to lifts, no sir.
    3. Tack properly fitted on the horse. -> Princess Majestic would never suffer the ignominy of full horse tack. That would be like putting a tarp on mother's bone china.
  • Section 1 of the Horse Riding Safety Act, 2001: horse” means any animal of the equine species that is over 14.2 hands in height and does not include a pony. -> Why do ponies always get a free ride? This act is prejudiced against horses by definition.
  • Subsection 77(1) of the Highway Traffic Act:
    Sleigh Bells
    (1) Every person travelling on a highway with a sleigh or sled drawn by a horse or other animal shall have at least two bells attached to the harness or to the sleigh or sled in such a manner as to give ample warning sound. ->
    No, no way. I am a golden god when I am atop Princess Majestic, not Santa Claus. Besides, sleigh bells are like children: they are fun for about five minutes but then become so irritating you want to cast them off a cliff.
    Penalty
    (2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $5. -> So it would be cheaper to pay the fine than comply with the law by buying two bells. I wonder which approach I will choose? <sarcasm>

Thrawn's Fables: The Cockroach and the Caterpillar

The Cockroach dashed about the apartment, spreading its taint along the various surfaces and products. It happened upon a Caterpillar that was preparing to enter its cocoon. Observing that the Caterpillar was practically sedentary, the Cockroach started to make fun of it.

"Hey Caterpillar, check it out, I'm moving around. I can traverse the byways and highways to get stuff I want like that cookie crumb over there. Jealous?"
The Caterpillar refused to react.

"Hey yo Caterpillar," called the Cockroach again. "Is that your leaf-bed over there? I'm going to sleep it in while you are in your cocoon. Hope you don't mind cockroach-drool on your twig-pillow. Enjoy your suffocating existence inside that tomb-like thing your building. What a pathetic sight!"
Still, the Caterpillar kept its mouth shut. He did not give the Cockroach the satisfaction of a retort.

Several weeks later, the Cockroach was hungry so it started looking for some food. After scouring a deplorably clean dishwasher it noticed a cracker on the kitchenette floor. The Cockroach devoured the cracker and looked around. Now there was another couple cracker fragments nearby which the Cockroach ate up. This pattern repeated itself until the Cockroach was engorged.

Suddenly, footsteps were heard at the kitchenette's entrance. The Cockroach looked up and its eyes met a frightened human female who screamed and grabbed the broom. Although the Cockroach tried to be evasive, its bloated corpus was unresponsive. Eventually the human female's swings found their target and the Cockroach found itself upended and mortally wounded. The Butterfly flew over with a piece of its old cocoon and dropped it on the Cockroach.

"Damn you," cried the Cockroach. "You did this to me! I bet you even lead the human in here with your dazzling aeronautical maneuvers!"
"I'm sorry," said the Butterfly, "did you say something? It sounds like you are having difficulty breathing. Maybe you should exercise more often. Move those legs around, ya know?"
"It's not too late to fix this, Butterfly! I could help you."
"Child please," laughed the Butterfly before doing an Immelmann turn and flying off.


Bosh outside looking in

It must be awkward for Chris Bosh to have Dwayne and LeBron be best buddies and exclude him. I guess Bosh is the Lepidus of that triumvirate. Dwayne and "The Brawn" exuberantly hug each other first then they congratulate Bosh with a half-hug they are sliding out of before it starts. They hold all their press conferences together leaving Bosh to face the media alone. I bet his exclusion started when he let out that ridiculous scream at Miami's pre-season celebration party and is cemented by the fact that he is not as good as them.
Bosh is so good yet he is still a third wheel. I know he has his own posse wherein he is the alpha champ, but it must be a tough transition for him when he gets to practice and he is suddenly of middling coolness. I wonder if LeBron and Dwayne's posses are slightly condescending towards his posse members?

LeBron James's nickname

Why don't we call LeBron James "The Brawn"? "Le" is french for "the" and "Brawn" is a homophone for "Bron". Plus, he is big and strong in every way.