North Korea’s football team has been shamed in a six-hour public inquisition and the team’s coach has been accused of “betraying” the reclusive leader’s heir apparent following their failure at the World Cup, according to reports. The entire squad was forced onto a stage at the People’s Palace of Culture and subjected to criticism from Pak Myong-chol, the sports minister, as 400 government officials, students and journalists watched. The players were subjected to a “grand debate” on July 2 because they failed in their “ideological struggle” to succeed in South Africa, Radio Free Asia and South Korean media reported. The team’s coach, Kim Jong-hun, was reportedly forced to become a builder and has been expelled from the Workers’ Party of Korea.
“Whom” is just the formal version of “who”.
Who’s = contraction of “who is” or “who has”. Who’s been stealing my lunch out of the fridge?
Whose = possessive pronoun or adjective, like “his” or “her” or “its”. Whose lunch is this in the fridge? I’m taking it.
I’m a little grumpy today I guess.
That is all.
I was going to reblog the post that has all the photos and links to Gawker’s post full of slimy paparazzi-style photos of the facebook CEO and his things, but I decided it didn’t deserve a link (I like to pretend that I have a lot more traffic power to than I do. In my mind I’m a one-man slashdot). Gawker (or, more precisely, a photographer who whores for Gawker) has been stalking Zuckerberg, justifying thusly:
All in all, Facebook’s CEO doesn’t seem too preoccupied about your privacy, or about ours. Likewise, we weren’t bothered by the notion of tailing him around the Valley for a few days, or about sharing the experience with you.
People OPT IN to facebook, Gawker, and you know this. People don’t opt in to being tailed by a shady guy with a camera. Stop pretending that this is justifiable. I know you live off of pageviews and everybody likes a little voyeurism here and there, but at least be honest about it. This isn’t just desserts or poetic justice for Zuckerberg; it’s just a cheap publicity stunt. You’re gross.
So I think I’ll do a fitness test. All my friends who want to participate, meet me at the top of the Grouse Grind. From there, I’ll have you do as many pushups as you can, followed by as many sit-ups as you can, followed by a 5k run. We’ll finish it off with some jumping jacks, and then it’s a race back down the mountain. That ought to give me a good idea of the general fitness level of my friends.
Except that won’t work, because no one will show up, because it sounds terribly difficult and not worth the while and people have better things to do than hang out with me. If anyone shows up, it will be my friend Clark Kent, and he certainly isn’t a representative sample of all of my friends.
That is what the conservative government is doing by throwing out the mandatory part of the mandatory long-form census. You might as well just not even do the long-form census.
Tumblr, indulge me in the kind of conjecturing that I am completely unqualified to make, won’t you?
It’s been astounding me recently, being that I work in the industry, that people buy lottery tickets. I mean, the odds are clearly published:
It’s pretty easy to do the math and figure out that “even in a week with a near record jackpot (second largest in history) the lottery is only almost but not quite a break even proposition”. Even Yahoo Answers knows that lotteries suck. So why do people do it?
Imagine you’re a hunter in a hunter-gatherer tribe (as I mentioned, I am unqualified to talk about this). The women and the children spend all day gathering nuts and berries, and you and the men head out and look for a mammoth (I’m not being sexist; this kind of sexual division of labour was the norm for hunter/gatherers).
Now, hunting is hard. Really hard. Gathering is laborious—picking and sorting all day—but hunting is physically and mentally taxing. This is because most days you probably come back with nothing of any value. Animals are smart and hard to catch, and the rifle hasn’t been invented yet. When there isn’t any meat, you subsist off of the nuts and berries that the gatherers have collected to share with you. Any day that you go out and come home with nothing, you would have been better off just staying home and helping with the gathering. So why do you keep hunting?
Because a mammoth would be a huge windfall. Not only do you get all that meat, but you can use its bones to make harder, pointier spears; you can use its hide to make warm clothes; you can use its ivory tusks to make jewelry to impress the ladies; and there is probably a certain degree of status that comes along with bringing home a mammoth. A mammoth would be a big prize.
Prehistoric man must have had to make a choice from time to time: should I keep hunting for these damn hard-to-catch-and-kill mammoths, or should I just help out with the berry picking? Especially in times where it had been a long time since the last big kill, it must have been tempting to just stop hunting. My guess, however, is that continuing to hunt was well worth it for prehistoric man, because when you did catch a mammoth, it made up for all the time you spent not catching mammoths (much in the same way that when you do win the lottery, it probably will make up for all the time you spend not winning the lottery). Nature selected for humans who were willing to go a long time in between prizes if they could keep their eye on the prize.
So what’s the difference between mammoth-hunting and winning the lottery? The odds are orders of magnitude apart. The odds that you would catch a mammoth on any given day, even if they were low, can’t have been lower than, say, 1 in 365. 1 in 365 is catching one mammoth per year. By contrast, the odds of winning a standard 6/49 lottery are 1 in 13,983,816.
Now, my hunter-gatherer conjecture is probably way off the mark, but I think the general underlying principle has something to it. The number 13,983,816, for all intents and purposes, didn’t exist until extremely recently in human history. I mean, obviously there are more atoms than that in your toenail, more stars and planets than that in the universe, and etc., but all of those things are imperceptible. Until maybe 300 years ago, people didn’t really have to think about numbers that high. Ever.
So basically we’re screwed. We evolved to exhibit a certain stick-to-it-iveness, a perseverance in the face of adversity, but did not evolve the processing capacity to intuitively grasp the mathematics that should govern our decision-making when it comes to large numbers. And don’t think we’re not biased towards perseverance. People who persevere in the face of adversity become rich and are glorified and turned into legends. We really are bred to “keep our eyes on the prize” without considering the probabilities, which, for many things (with most things an actual probability is incalculable anyway) is probably a good thing, but for things like the lottery where there is a concrete, mathematically calculable probability of winning, it is definitely the wrong decision-making strategy.
The lottery exploits this innate quirk of human reasoning, and in the process drives people into bankruptcy. And, while in the end it is a person’s choice to play or not to play, if that person doesn’t have some background in mathematics, all he has to go on to make his decision is his intuition, and his intuition has evolved over millions of years to give him the wrong answer.
Colin Fraser, a 22-year-old student studying economics, doesn’t oppose the decision [for Kwantlen to stop accepting credit cards].
He has paid with a credit card in the past, but said he pays it off right away. For him, using a cheque would be fine.
But he said the school could have communicated its plans for the money better. He quoted the letter as saying, “In fact, $250,000 expected from the savings will be put towards additional scholarships and bursaries for students this year.”
Fraser said it would be nice if it would divulge “exactly” what the savings are. From reading its news release, he said it isn’t clear if the $250,000 figure is what the savings will be, or if it is a portion of a much larger amount. He would also like to see more information about the scholarships and bursaries the school plans to give out, describing Kwantlen’s scholarship selection as “a little sparse” currently.
“I think the move would garner more student support,” he said.
Fraser said a lot of people are misconstruing this as a move to teach kids about the responsible use of credit cards, which he said is completely wrong and doesn’t make sense.
“Kwantlen has a responsibility to the students to provide the best possible facility and education that it can provide, and part of upholding that responsibility is cutting superfluous costs.
“If merchant fees really are as high as Kwantlen claims, then I think this is a responsible move, considering the savings are passed on to the students somehow.
“It’s really not that inconvenient unless you’re planning to finance your education on a credit card, but then you might as well just get a student loan.”
Article in the Surrey Now.
Gateway’s easy-picking escalator is one reason it’s such a popular spot for transit police to catch fare cheats.
The neighbourhood around the station is the other.
“We’re dealing here with drug addicts, drug dealers and people on welfare,” Const. Bruce Shipley said.
Indeed, while fare checks typically nab about one in 20 passengers without a fare, officers say at Gateway that figure rises to at least one in 10.
From The Vancouver Sun
IN 2000 four Americans were charged with importing lobster tails in plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes, in violation of a Honduran regulation that Honduras no longer enforces. They had fallen foul of the Lacey Act, which bars Americans from breaking foreign rules when hunting or fishing. The original intent was to prevent Americans from, say, poaching elephants in Kenya. But it has been interpreted to mean that they must abide by every footling wildlife regulation on Earth. The lobstermen had no idea they were breaking the law. Yet three of them got eight years apiece. Two are still in jail.
From The Economist