Darcs has a feature (that I have never really tried) that allows you to locate the last working version of your source. I am currently shlepping through changesets in SVN applying them one by one in order to figure out which one breaks a series of tests that depend on our mocking library. It seems like it would be so simple to just repeatedly run the tests, stepping back through revisions until the tests pass.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Twittering tools
Last night I installed Twitterbar, an extension for Firefox that adds the ability to post to Twitter straight from the address bar. In conjunction with the Jabber extension, JabBar, this provides a really nice little interface for using Twitter. I have a small, single line rolling feed from Jabber and since Twitter updates me via IM I have a mix of lines from any conversations I'm currently having with my contacts and any updates from people I'm following on Twitter. Now, I also have a way of easily posting twitters without changing the current window I'm using. Previously, I would have to open up the conversation panel with the Twitter IM bot, now I just fire and forget.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
A reality check for old party lines
Last night Quebeckers overwhelmingly told both the PLQ and the PQ that they no longer want to focus discussions along sovereignty/federalism lines. The ADQ was boosted into a position as the official opposition and I think that, this morning, people are looking for meaning in the moves from yesterday.
It is important to remember that a fairly low proportion of the population should be voting "strategically". The reason for this is simple: unless the results in your riding are really a forgone conclusion (and last night should serve as a reminder that nothing is as certain as we think), you may end up splitting the vote against your party. To have the foresight required to strategically align one's vote so that an overall message is communicated is equally problematic: in trying to send a message to my party by issuing a protest vote I may actually participate in their defeat (given the extremely thin margins between candidates in some ridings...cough...Sherbrooke...cough).
A common error is to ascribe some sort of intelligence or design to the results of an election. Phrases like "the voters have spoken" or "Quebeckers are sending a strong message" are not false, but they only hint at the underlying truth: the message delivered is a composite one. To boil it down to any one factor or issue would be to imply some sort of external collusion on behalf of the voting population. To look only at the votes that counted towards a win is equally treacherous, especially when one notes that most ridings had at least two if not three candidates neck and neck all evening long. Indeed, one of the more cogent reflections of the evening remarked that in addition to winning 41 seats, the ADQ managed to come in second in over 40 ridings. Wow. Think of what could happen if they managed to attract a couple of extra votes! Dumont was absolutely correct in saying "on connait la prochaine etape; je vous y donne rendez-vous."
All in all, I am pleased with the results of this election; a lot more pleased than I have been in recent years. I was disappointed to not see any Green Party members garner seats but noted with satisfaction that QS did not do much better. An unfocused and inexperienced campaign may have hurt these two parties - certainly QS did not exactly shine in a post-election speech last night where all they could muster was some vague ranting about proportional representation (a point that should be conceded but that hardly belongs exclusively to small struggling political parties).
I am happy that Quebeckers have decided to keep a leader that has experience. I am happy that they have placed a young, dynamic and energetic "watch dog" opposite Mr. Charest at the National Assembly. I am happy that the rise of the ADQ shows that a party can amount to something even if it is not one of the province's "natural" parties. I am happy that the election did not get polarized along "nationalist/federalist" lines. I am happy with our decision to have a minority government: in the future I think we'll see a lot more of these as we move from strongly polarised discussions to shades of grey. The only time we should have a majority government is when everybody agrees and the talent and experience exist to support that arrangement. Mr. Dumont is not ready for power but the last 12 years have certainly shaped his character; I look forward to seeing him push for a government of his own 2 years from now.
Mostly, I am happy with our commitment to the future of our province: by providing for an experienced guiding hand and a powerful young movement, we have the best of both worlds. By smacking down the PQ we have said, in no uncertain terms, "your platform is not for us this year, you will play king-maker and nothing else; when we are ready to discuss sovereignty again we have no doubt you will be waiting."
It is important to remember that a fairly low proportion of the population should be voting "strategically". The reason for this is simple: unless the results in your riding are really a forgone conclusion (and last night should serve as a reminder that nothing is as certain as we think), you may end up splitting the vote against your party. To have the foresight required to strategically align one's vote so that an overall message is communicated is equally problematic: in trying to send a message to my party by issuing a protest vote I may actually participate in their defeat (given the extremely thin margins between candidates in some ridings...cough...Sherbrooke...cough).
A common error is to ascribe some sort of intelligence or design to the results of an election. Phrases like "the voters have spoken" or "Quebeckers are sending a strong message" are not false, but they only hint at the underlying truth: the message delivered is a composite one. To boil it down to any one factor or issue would be to imply some sort of external collusion on behalf of the voting population. To look only at the votes that counted towards a win is equally treacherous, especially when one notes that most ridings had at least two if not three candidates neck and neck all evening long. Indeed, one of the more cogent reflections of the evening remarked that in addition to winning 41 seats, the ADQ managed to come in second in over 40 ridings. Wow. Think of what could happen if they managed to attract a couple of extra votes! Dumont was absolutely correct in saying "on connait la prochaine etape; je vous y donne rendez-vous."
All in all, I am pleased with the results of this election; a lot more pleased than I have been in recent years. I was disappointed to not see any Green Party members garner seats but noted with satisfaction that QS did not do much better. An unfocused and inexperienced campaign may have hurt these two parties - certainly QS did not exactly shine in a post-election speech last night where all they could muster was some vague ranting about proportional representation (a point that should be conceded but that hardly belongs exclusively to small struggling political parties).
I am happy that Quebeckers have decided to keep a leader that has experience. I am happy that they have placed a young, dynamic and energetic "watch dog" opposite Mr. Charest at the National Assembly. I am happy that the rise of the ADQ shows that a party can amount to something even if it is not one of the province's "natural" parties. I am happy that the election did not get polarized along "nationalist/federalist" lines. I am happy with our decision to have a minority government: in the future I think we'll see a lot more of these as we move from strongly polarised discussions to shades of grey. The only time we should have a majority government is when everybody agrees and the talent and experience exist to support that arrangement. Mr. Dumont is not ready for power but the last 12 years have certainly shaped his character; I look forward to seeing him push for a government of his own 2 years from now.
Mostly, I am happy with our commitment to the future of our province: by providing for an experienced guiding hand and a powerful young movement, we have the best of both worlds. By smacking down the PQ we have said, in no uncertain terms, "your platform is not for us this year, you will play king-maker and nothing else; when we are ready to discuss sovereignty again we have no doubt you will be waiting."
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Term "visible minority" considered harmful
A UN committee released a report today on Canada's efforts to combat racism. The report praises Canada on some aspects of it's anti-racism programs but says that the term "visible minorities" may not be "in accordance with the aims and objectives of the [International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination]". The convention says that "distinction based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin is discriminatory".
Great. Now we can no longer tell the difference between a black man and a Ukrainian because to make the distinction between them (that is, to employ another definition of the word, to discriminate) based on the colour of one's skin and the other's nationality is "discriminatory". Um yeah. Aren't we pushing this a little too far? I mean, how far am I from being an "individual with low amounts of skin pigmentation from a city near the coast with parents and in posession of a penis"? Come on! Sometimes we need to differentiate between two people or two groups.
Now, I understand that penalizing one group or another based on these distinctions is what is really at issue here. That doesn't stop me from being a bit frustrated that there are actually people somewhere in the world paid to come up with this shit, write it down and hand it out to other people who are paid to read it. We could be solving "real" problems but instead we are haggling over what to call somebody who is black. How to talk about a deaf person without mentioning the fact that they can't hear.
Talking about people's differences or referring to them in some way is not discriminatory. There is only a problem when those differences cause you to judge based on those differences instead of based on personal merit. Now go home, make friends with a black deaf retarded gay woman and call it a day.
Great. Now we can no longer tell the difference between a black man and a Ukrainian because to make the distinction between them (that is, to employ another definition of the word, to discriminate) based on the colour of one's skin and the other's nationality is "discriminatory". Um yeah. Aren't we pushing this a little too far? I mean, how far am I from being an "individual with low amounts of skin pigmentation from a city near the coast with parents and in posession of a penis"? Come on! Sometimes we need to differentiate between two people or two groups.
Now, I understand that penalizing one group or another based on these distinctions is what is really at issue here. That doesn't stop me from being a bit frustrated that there are actually people somewhere in the world paid to come up with this shit, write it down and hand it out to other people who are paid to read it. We could be solving "real" problems but instead we are haggling over what to call somebody who is black. How to talk about a deaf person without mentioning the fact that they can't hear.
Talking about people's differences or referring to them in some way is not discriminatory. There is only a problem when those differences cause you to judge based on those differences instead of based on personal merit. Now go home, make friends with a black deaf retarded gay woman and call it a day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)