I hope in hell I never have to get out of this shop is there is a fire!
Well, today marks one year in my current job. It also marks the end of our graduate program!
The end of our graduate program is marked by all the graduates doing a presentation in front of the company MD, about 7 or 8 of the other senior managers, and a number of other invited guests; about 40 people in total. And, if you think about it, for just starting working here a year ago, giving a talk in front of the MD et al. is a big bloody deal. But, we all got through it, all the presentations went well, and were well received.
So yes, one year down. And it was a bloody fast year! Even some of the guys I work with couldn’t believe it was one year.
Time moves when you are having fun.
President Obama should listen to US and UK public: don’t strike Syria | Mark Weisbrot
So, it seems that we (whoever ‘we’ may refer to) will be bombing the hell out of Syria pretty soon. All because someone, as yet unknown, because the UN are still investigating, used chemical weapons to kill upwards of 1000 civilians. If you feel like it, you can go here to see some pictures of the awful situation after the chemical attack.
So, is there any doubt that chemical weapons were used? No. Do we know exactly who used the weapons? No, but I am sure we can all guess. And no matter what some of the major governments of the word say, it is important that we know, exactly, who did this. The truth is important after all.
It also seems that the UK government thinks it can attack Syria, even if there is no UN backing. This according to its own legal advice (let us hope this advice is not coming from the same people/departments involved in the September Dossier!). The UK has been given this advice because any action would be a “humanitarian intervention“. And I do not think anyone could argue against a humanitarian intervention. But let me ask a question: why now? Yes, chemical weapons were used and they killed, as I have said, upwards of 1000 people. But why is there no talk of a humanitarian intervention when your bog standard bullets and bombs killed over 100,000 people!
And let me ask another question: why does a humanitarian intervention seem to take the form on a few major governments (UK, USA, France) sending over more bullets and bombs? It seems strange to me that more people will (probably) die in this so-called humanitarian intervention.
How about instead, they sent in peace keepers? Food? Generators? Blankets? I dunno, something to help the poor people in that country! More death and destruction will not help them.
But that is not how things are done, is it? The playground bully only knows one method of operation.
And of course, we have the Americans. As always. They already know who did it. Same as the UK.
In fact, John Kerry the secretary of state for the USA said it was
a cowardly crime.. and morally obscene.
Strong words indeed. And he is right. But, let us not forget that the Americans dropped Agent Orange!) all over Vietnam for nearly ten years, where
Vietnam estimate 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use.
I really wish the response of governments in the West was not to just blow the shit out of everything. And it is the governments. I do not think the majority of the people want to do that. I would rather they helped the people who are getting attacked, but protecting them. Dropping more bombs will not protect them. And if history has taught us anything, I don’t think it will help them in the long run either.
I really need to get back into the way of blogging. It is fun for me, I guess. And a way to let off steam or, more accurately, talk totaly shite about stuff that most people don’t care about. And I can do that here, because I know no one reads this! And I am okay with that. I am more than okay with that.
I am not sure how comfortable I would feel if I knew people started to read the rubbish I write. Anyway, that is not likely to happen.
But yes, I am sitting here in Starbucks drinking some iced espresso drink, which is actually very nice! I tend not to be one for ‘fancy’ coffee drinks, but this one is nice. I wonder can I put a pocture of it in here. Lets see.
Sorry, that took me a little bit of time, and I was distracted by the screaming baby here in the coffee shop; I never understand why people bring little childern in to places like this. Anyway, where was I?
Yes, I was talking about needing to blog more …then I got on to coffee somehow.
Indeed. Yes. The point of this was to say that I need to blog more. And with that been said, I am going to go and work on my work presentation. And I will also see if this picture has embedded in!
It didn’t, so I just put a link in.
Land of the free people, land of the free.
It is a simple enough question: Should people be allowed to have anonymity when they operate online?
I should clarify, I don’t mean in some CIA/NSA spying mission type of thing. I mean when you post on Internet forums, on Newspaper comment sections etc., should you be allowed to do it behind a false or made-up ID, or should you have to post under your real name, with real details?
Personally, I have no problem posting under my read name etc., I think if you are going to say something, have the balls to stand behind it. Don’t hide behind a wall. And that goes double for trolling. For the record, I have no problems with trolls, trolls who point out someone who is being hypocritical, or making fun of someone with an over inflated sense of ego. But I do have a problem with people essentially attacking the defenseless.
Anyway, back to the original point; Internet anonymity, yes or no?
Today I’m back in the Fabrication lab here at Queen’s …except I am not fabricating, I am measuring diodes.
There is something kind of peaceful about doing this work; I stand in a room (generally) alone, and I measure the IV characteristics of diodes. But it is like some yoga-zen trip; there isn’t much noise and you focus on what you are doing, and an hour passes in what seems like 15 minutes.
I wish I could work like this at home.
Okay, so I will start by saying I do not follow football (or soccer if you prefer), but I have been watching the opening game of the women’s Olympic football games (and I will set aside the fact that the first match of the Olympics is before the actual opening ceremony ….really, didn’t someone just take a look at a calendar?) and as I have watched …or half watched to be more accurate, there is something I don’t understand; why isn’t football a mixed sex sport?
Football is not a physical game, and by physical I mean it is largely a non contact game, as opposed to hurley, American football or rugby for example. So, with that in mind, and the fact that women can of course reach the same levels of physical fitness, can have the same stamina than man (I would actually argue women could have more stamina, but that will be put to one side too), and they can reach the same technical level as any man, I would have to ask the question, why isn’t football a mixed sex sport?
Yet this is never a subject I have heard discussed. But maybe that is because I don’t follow football. Is the issue ever discussed?
I would argue the same for, say F1. Why is there no female F1 drivers? And really, if you are reading this and you are making a comment about women being bad drivers, please, close my blog down and never darken its door again. I mean that, go on, go!
So, is sport largely sexiest? I don’t think it is overtly sexiest, I mean, I do not think, for example, football wants to keep women in their own leagues etc., but I think it is fair to say that sport, in general, is not very progressive.
Any thoughts? Comments?