BLOGGER TEMPLATES AND TWITTER BACKGROUNDS

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Democracy is bullshit.

Now, you all know I call things like they are, especially when I write politically-rooted material like this ditty right here, and the plain, unvarnished truth is that democracy is a bullshit system: if you're an English teacher and don't like the word 'bullshit', you can substitute the phrase 'unworkable and impractical'.  The reason it's bullshit is that it operates on the otherwise-perfectly-reasonable assumption that the great majority of the voting public have a politically-oriented, intelligent, sound mind.  This assumption would have been right some years ago; now, however, correct is the last word I would use to describe this theory.

Several months ago, I had a conversation with a young lady, whom I shall call Adrienne (a pseudonym).  I wish she'd worn one of those name-tag stickers you wear at children's parties---the sort that comes in multiple colours, with 'Hello, I'm' pre-written at the top.  Adrienne could have written her first initial and a particular word, and the sticker would be entirely factual and reveal her true identity at first glance: her first initial is A., and the word is moron.  Hello, I'm A Moron.  Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

At a pub in Ontario, I had asked Adrienne which party she'd be voting for in the Ontario election.  Due to its unfortunate ability to provoke a riot where drink has been taken, the discussion of politics is often discouraged in pubs and clubs; personally, though, I find it one of my few reliable conversation starters.  Adrienne replied that she'd be voting for the Liberal party, thank you very much; at this point, I felt that she was merely misinformed.  I said I was a dyed-in-the-wool Tory, and I asked her why exactly she was voting for a party that had broken promises time and again, instead of putting her voice behind a party such as the New Democrats, who would do the same for Canada as the Liberals would, and they'd do it fucking better, too.

I'm putting her reply in inverted commas even though what came out of her mouth may not be verbatim et literatim what's on this page, since I deal in accuracy, and not facts, which are for the historians to interpret.  You'll know a historian when you see one (although you may find it difficult to distinguish it—er, him—from a mathematician or physicist): he'll be the one to be wearing a bleach white shirt buttoned up all the way and tucked in to a pair of trousers hitched up to his chin; furthermore, he will probably have a pink plastic-and-wire thing called a retainer (I have been told that this is a status symbol among such people) in his mouth, as well as an ugly but effective accessory known as a pocket protector (in the obvious place—you don't think he'd be storing it where the sun don't shine, do you?).

So, here's her totally accurate quote.  If you said something similar to this in a country pub in Ontario to a fellow with day-old stubble, longish black hair, and a vaguely West End accent, feel free to correct me: 'Have you seen Dalton McGuinty?  He's so hot!  Hudak looks like a total squirrel next to him, and I wouldn't fuck that Horwath woman for the whole bottle of oxies I saw you shooting up in the bathroom.'*  Yeah, right, first of all, those weren't oxies, those were dillies, and second of all, I wasn't shooting up... heh heh.

* The preceding statement has been edited in accordance with my policy of keeping quotes factual and accurate.

Some days, I wish I had the freedom to ignore such pleasantries as tact and social graces, so as I could tell idiots like this what I really thought of them.  I asked her about the agenda (a.k.a. platform for you Americans) of the Ontario Liberals and was met with a frank 'I don't know or care.  I hope they legalise weed.  Fuck the government.'  At this point, I realised that any form of political discussion would be useless, so I quickly changed the subject to music.  I would have been open to a discussion on marijuana if she'd watched her fucking language and used the right word for the plant/drug taken from it.  I don't talk weed with stoners; I discuss the possibility of easement of restrictions on cannabis and its derivatives with interested parties.

If I was above such petty nonsense as courtesy and civility, I would have said this, and only this.  'I can not help but feel that you are confusing two similar, but different, concepts.  What you are going to vote in is a pro–vin–shul ee–leck–shun.  In a provincial election, you vote for a can–duh–dit representing a pah–tea with whose viewpoints you agree most.  What you were thinking of was a byoo–tee pad–junt.  In a beauty pageant, you vote for someone who looks hot.  Are we clear now?'

I wouldn't be concerned otherwise, but the recent past really has me worried.  Canada used to have some pretty damn good leaders; hell, a majority of Prime Ministers of Canada have been hypercompetent—not only cutting muster, but doing the job with excellence.  I mean, there were a couple of exceptions: the first name that sticks in my mind (this just goes to show that I most definitely don't think chronologically!) is that of the universally-maligned Conservative Bryan Mulroney, who was for Canada what George Bush, Jr was for the United States of America.  Another relatively early P.M. that conclusively proved his incompetence (this time in one fell swoop) was John 'The Chief' Diefenbaker—or was it just plain old inexperience in the area of military contracts, as he was an excellent P.M. otherwise?

Latterly, both Canada and Ontario have been having nothing but dipsticks for leaders.  It started with that redneck Quebecker (no offence against any Quebeckers reading this) John Cretin—pardonnez-moi, j'ai fait une erreur—Jean Chrétien.  Yes, that one.  The one that could speak neither of Canada's two official languages correctly.  The one who constantly spoke awkwardly, out of only one side of his mouth, as half his face was paralysed from a stroke.  When Cretin retired, he passed on the torch–be yours to hold it high!–to Paul Martin.  Martin strikes me as a fellow who could strike it big as a James Bond, but certainly not as a politician—boring name, boring face, boring agenda.  "Hello, I'm Paul Martin, M.P. and I'm the most boring man in Canada.  By the way, I am a current Member of Parliament; my party allegiance is to the Liberals and I represent LaSalle–Émard."  Then Stéphane Dion, who lost Canadians' confidence in the national wing of the Liberal Party without ever being Prime Minister, was the very picture of stupidity and probably one of the reasons we've had a sane leader like Harper for a good long while.

Ontario, on the other hand, has had Dalton McGuilty.  They've had Mike Harris too, who was an idiot, but Dalton McGuilty is either pure evil or pure stupidity.  The Tax Man, as I like to call him, seems to spend all his time either fucking his administrative assistants in half (he isn't hard to look at, I must admit—no homo!) or combing the books for some unprecedented opportunity for a new tax.  When he finds said opportunity, he has said secretaries (who may or may not suffer from social diseases!) look in the thesaurus and find a synonym for tax.

Fine, he's got some things to his credit.  He's lowered wait times at the doctor's, and maybe he's increased our budgetary surplus.  There are right ways and wrong ways to do shit like this though.  Anything, really.  And by right and wrong, I mean socially, morally, politically, and even fiscally.  The British NHS has it right.  They operate almost as a group health insurance company—NHS-approved doctors, medications, hospitals, whatever.  There is the NHS system, and the privately-insured system. I introduced my friend and doctor Elinor to her second career (she works at multiple medical practices, and yet her motto never changes from "I'm bored!") in what the Americans call concierge medicine—pay a modest fee per year (privately insured or out of pocket), and your services increase.  You jump the queue; appointments become housecalls; you get a direct line to the doctor; prescriptions go direct to the pharmacy.  (Unfortunately, I forgot to mention to Ellie that my referrals to her concierge pain practice would mostly be émigrés from Florida hungry for "just a little bit of OxyContin to hold me over"–Ellie, like most British pain control docs, is morbidly afraid of the non-toxic, but somewhat-addictive narcotic oxycodone, although she is perfectly all right with its metabolite, oxymorphone, or its close cousins, hydromorphone and morphine).

A similar system applies to accident and emergency: you pay a modest fee, you get to jump the queue as a Tier One patient.  It's a fair system.  I have no problem with handouts; please just let there be a second option!

But what the hell is up with these damn sneaky taxes?!  I swear there's going to be another one.  This is bullshit.  Seriously.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

On Canadian Politics

I see some international readers here, so I'm going to try to explain some political terminology for you. Brits will not have a problem; the British and Canadian political systems are the same, with the exception of the labour-oriented party being called the rather more obvious Labour in the land of hope and glory, and the "New Democratic Party" here in the colonies.  You Yanks, however, probably didn't understand my last rant; maybe you understood it, but you didn't understand it (Stranger in a Strange Land fans will understand me when I say grok).  So, for all you mad Americans, here's the Complete Idiot's Guide to Canadian Politics.

In Canada and Britain, we don't directly elect what you call your President, and we call our Prime Minister.  Instead, the composition of our Parliament determines the All (Actually, Not-So) Powerful Head Honcho.  Actually, even though most of you Merkins don't know this, you use a similar system, but your guys (called Electors, obviously enough) aren't involved in the political process beyond... d'uhhhhhh... elections.  Our system is a bit more simple, and it runs kinda like this: you place your vote for the political candidate of your choice, who represents your area (riding) in the House of Commons.  You Yanks call it the House of Representatives.  In other words, our Presidential and House elections take place at the same time.  The leader of the party who wins the election becomes the Prime Minister.  

In Canada, there are three real political parties, just like in the greatest of Britains (yes, I do mean Great Britain, how could you tell?): the Liberals, the Conservatives, and the New Democrats, aka the N.D.P.  Our Liberals are even more liberal than your Democrats, our Conservatives are like your Republicans with the one exception that they are secular (I see a lot of religious rhetoric with your Republicans, so much so that I doubt there even is a separation of church and state), and the N.D.P. which is kind of like your Democrats, but they are pro-labour unions and such (basically about the closest you'll get to a Communist party).  Oh, yeah, and we're not afraid of the word agenda.  If a party doesn't have agenda (in other words, a list of things it wants to do), is it even a party?

Honestly, what's with that word being such a nasty word in America?!  To me, saying "we don't have an [sic] agenda" means saying "we don't have a list of things to do".  Are you saying you're going to make decisions off the cuff without planning them, or are you saying you're not going to make any decisions at all?  Wait, wait... you mean you don't have any hidden agenda... why didn't you say so?  Oh, yeah, and the word agenda is masculine plural, like fora or asyla, not feminine singular like alumna or amnesia.  Saying an agenda is like saying an buttons or an zippers.  Learn some Latin, guys.  Figure it out.  (Oh, by the way, masculine plurals take their singular with um, so agenda, agendum; fora, forum; and asyla, asylum.  Feminine singulars take their plurals with æ, so alumna, alumnæ; amnesia, amnesiæ.  If I don't correct you, you'll never learn; by the way, unless you mean a form of salt, there is no such thing as an alum.)

So, here are the agenda of each political party, stated as accurately as possible:

Conservatives:
  • historically supported marriage defined as between one (1) man, id est a male specimen of Homo sapiens, and one (1) woman, id est a female specimen of Homo sapiens;
  • historically (and occasionally presently) supported fœtal abortion when medically or socially necessary;
  • support the (futile) war on drugs, but not to the extent of the Republicans;
  • (federally) support national defence;
  • (federally) support the lowering and possible removal of the Goods and Services Tax (which was actually instituted by Conservative Prime Moron, Brian Mulroney);
  • (federally) support the highly sensible idea of two-tier health care;
  • when money is needed, the Conservatives prefer austerity over raising taxes
  • (in Ontario) support the removal of the Harmonised Sales Tax from certain items
  • (in Ontario) support the closure of fossil-fuel power plants
  • (in Ontario) support clean energy that is proven to be reliable (such as nucular, hydroelectric, natural gas).
  • (in Ontario) support the sensible plan to make prisoners actually work and not stay at Her Majesty's Pleasure Hotel with cable TV and weight-lifting facilities.
  • (in Ontario) support making so-called smart meters for electricity usage optional - a smart meter is a device that meters not only the amount of electric power used, but also the times of day electricity is used, giving discounts for off-peak usage, and marking up on-peak usage.
  • (in Ontario) support ankle bracelets for high-risk criminals, a public online registered sex offender database, and a public online database of homes used as clandestine locations for the production of cannabis and methamphetamine.
Further explanation is needed here.  The Conservatives support the war on drugs, but you can buy needles and syringes over the counter, and you can even get them for free in some places; head shops operate openly, and a bong is a bong, a pipe is a pipe; and there is a drug-use facility in downtown Vancouver that operates with impunity.  Two-tier health care means that the National Health Service, also known as Medicare, still operates, but if you want to "jump the line" at your doctor's office or especially at an M.R.I. or other specialist clinic, you can pay a modest fee (this is illegal at present).  In Ontario, smart meters are mandatory, which forces those less fortunate to (for instance) shower before seven in the morning or do laundry after midnight.  Meth. lab./grow op. registries are currently considered a municipal responsibility; therefore, the case is such that the federal capital city of Ottawa has such a registry, as well as the small town of Guelph, but the provincial capital city of "Tronnuh" (Toronto) does not.    In general, the Conservatives are best for what is called the middle class: those who engage in, and benefit from, organised labour.

Liberals:

  • support individual rights (regardless of morality) such as marriage defined as between two people and elective abortions;
  • support the generation of a budget surplus (by any means necessary);
  • support the environment at the expense of the individual;
  • support (sensibly, I might add!) the legalisation of marihuana;
  • historically have had some excellent leaders, but recently are a shell of their former selves; Chrétien, Martin, Dion, Ignatieff (the worst out of the bunch!), and now Rae!
  • support restoration of the long form of census, which, as I remember it, was one of the most tedious and useless pieces of paperwork I ever wiped my arse with;
  • support 
  • support taxation (introduced the damn Harmonised Sales Tax in five provinces... godawful thing for those of us that actually use services and not just buy goods)
This last issue is why I hate the God-accursed Liberals.  The federal Goods and Services Tax (this was introduced by a Conservative I hate just as badly as Iggie, and his name is Brian Mulroney) applied, as its name says, to goods (like coffee makers, sofas, computers, and telephones), as well as services (like haircuts, blow jobs, and carpet cleaning).  The Provincial Sales Tax applied only to goods.  Harmonising the sales taxes has done nothing but suck money out of people's wallets.  "Unless you are among the 15 per cent of families with an income under $10,000 a year, you’re paying more sales tax under the HST than you would under the PST/GST: On average about $350 per family." Thus concluded an independent report paid for by the government of British Columbia; and thus conclude your facts.

I don't deal in facts; I deal in accuracy.  Basically, this has been the song played by Dalton "Tax Man" McGuilty's government since it was elected: when campaigning, keep saying the words "no new taxes" till they believe you.  Then, the Tax Man spends taxpayer money on a thesaurus, looks up the word tax, and then calls whatever tax he's instituting by a synonym.  Right, if you don't call it a tax, it isn't a tax.  But the fucking HST takes the God damned cake for unfairness.  Let's not just create a new tax, let's bias it towards the people that actually do work!  Not even the rich, because making $25,000 a year isn't rich, it's barely surviving, but basically everyone except the homeless, those who make their money by criminal means, and the underclass, is taxed!  They should have called it the fucking Affirmative Action Tax.

And, now, the New Democratic Party.  They're as close to the Commies as there will be; in other words, tax everybody fairly, but give out money fairly too.  I like them; they're like the Liberals, but a damn sight more honest.  They used to have shit leaders, and the whole party was shit, but when our dear Jack Layton, God bless his soul, faced off against Iggie, he said those six magic words: together, we can make a change.  Together, we did make a change, and let's just say that when Jack came in second, every God damn M.P. in the NDP that got his seat shat his pants when he heard.  I wonder what the liquor bill came to at the Liberal party headquarters.

So, here's what I want.  I want Hudak (the head honcho of the Conservatives) to win.  But I want them to win less than half the seats (this is called a hung Parliament, for you Americans, because the so-called winners get to hang themselves from Parliament's joists, as they're outstripped by the other two parties, who are REALLY the winners), the rest to be made up of (what's that Polack's name... uhh, wait, that OTHER Polack... Horwath, that's it) NDP and (God help, but it's a necessary evil) Liberals.  That way, we get the benefits of both... we get the pro-unionist, pro-work, and pro-weed legislation put forward by the New Democrats, and we get the (fucking finally!) tax cuts and austerity measures from the Conservatives.  The Liberals get to breathe oxygen from the atmosphere and emit greenhouse gasses from their mouths and arseholes, and we get to finally ignore them.  Sounds like a nice deal to me!

Friday, September 30, 2011

The Elvis Cocktail --- a guide

Sometimes, in my blog, I refer to the "Presley cocktail", or the "Elvis cocktail"; having nothing else to write, I will try to explain what this means.  Due to possible interactions, and due to the habit-forming effect of some of the ingredients, these drugs, including those obtainable over the counter, must be reported to your doctor.

The principal raison d'être of this drug cocktail is for chronic pain; the various components of this cocktail treat the physical and mental effects of pain, although only the opioids (opiates, or narcotics) described below, are indicated specifically for pain.  Because some of these drugs pre-date the introduction of the metric system into Europe, their dosages are occasionally written in grains, or fractions thereof; one grain is sixty-four milligrammes, often rounded down to sixty.

Severe chronic pain reduces the patient's attention; one becomes so fixated on the pain that it becomes hard to focus on a task.  Accordingly, the first ingredient in a Presley cocktail is a psychostimulant; Presley himself used dextroamphetamine, usually sold as Dexedrine, and racemic (half-and-half) amphetamine, then known as Biphetamine and now (in a slightly different formulation) known as Adderall.  Here is a list of psychostimulants most used in Canada, Great Britain, and the United States, along with my recommendations:

  • 50:50 Amphetamine (Benzedrine) - not recommended, because it is too mild
  • 75:25 Amphetamine (Adderall/Biphetamine)
  • Lisdexamphetamine (Vyvanse) - time-released form of Dexedrine.  Multiply by 2.5 to get the Dexedrine Spansule dose.
  • Dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine) - double the dose of Benzedrine, or multiply the dose of Adderall by 1.35.  Recommended by psychiatrists, Elvis, and me.
  • Methamphetamine (Methedrine or Desoxyn) - the undisputed best, but also highly abusable.  Used to come in many formulations, now comes in only one: the 1/12 gr. (5 mg) instant-release form.  The blue ribbon goes to this one; by far, it's the best amphetamine out there.
  • Methylphenidate (Ritalin) - chemically not related to any of the above, but can also be used to good effect.  Not to be combined with any of the above.

The pain itself must also be treated; the drugs most common for treating pain are what I have termed the typical opioids (these include those naturally harvested from poppies with no modifications, those modified in the laboratory, and fentanyl, which is completely synthetic but behaves like the natural and semi-synthetic opioids).  Atypical opioids (most synthetic ones) are also used, but these have some very different, and sometimes unpleasant, side effects.  Presley himself preferred hydromorphone; I entirely agree with his recommendation.  Because these drugs are very old (possibly the oldest class of drug in existence), no brand names will be listed except for certain drugs that are mostly known under their (usually American) brands.
  • Codeine - 1/10 the strength of morphine; very mild and not recommended for moderate-to-severe chronic pain.  Over the counter in almost every country.
  • Dihydrocodeine - See codeine.
  • Morphine (Sevredol, MS Contin, and many others) - The gold standard.  Used for everything from headaches to terminal cancer.  Also very mild, and over the couwritten some countries, as a result.  This drug is nine times the strength of morphine; the dosages Browne's Chlorodyne, Kaolin and Morphine Mixture, and Diocalm.
  • Morphine diacetate (Heroin) - This is a form of morphine used mostly in the United Kingdom, but also elsewhere.  It works just as morphine sulphate and morphine hydrochloride do, with one exception: it is twice as potent by injection than other morphine salts.
  • Dihydromorphine - Most commonly used in Japan.  Dosages and effects are roughly equivalent to morphine.
  • Dihydrodiacetylmorphine - Just as dihydrocodeine is codeine with two atoms of hydrogen bound to it, and dihydromorphine is morphine with two atoms of hydrogen bound to it, the same is true of dihydrodiacetylmorphine; the duration of action and doses are slightly different (unlike oxycodone versus hydrocodone.)
  • Oxycodone (OxyIR, Percocet, Percodan, Percolone, Supeudol, and OxyContin) - Oxycodone is an odd drug from its family.  Unlike every other opioid, oxycodone has stimulant qualities; for those suffering from pain together with fatigue, oxycodone is a blessing.  This 
  • Dihydromorphinone/Hydromorphone/Dilaudid - Different names for the same drug; Dilaudid is a trade name that in America has almost become the generic name and written with a small 'd' as a result.  This drug is nine times the strength of morphine; the dosages available are 1/30, 1/15, 2/15, 4/15, 8/15, and 1 gr.  Because of its strength, the higher dosages are available only as slow-release tablets.
  • Buprenorphine (Butrans, Buprenex, Subutex, Suboxone) - An excellent drug; ounce-for-ounce and pound-for-pound the most potent semi-synthetic opioid used in humans.  Butrans is a one-a-week patch; the others are twice-a-day tablets.   As a result of its potency, it is measured in microgrammes, not milligrammes or grains (patch only).  Subutex sublingual tablets are available in 1/32 and 1/8 gr. strengths.  The one-eighth-grain tablet is equivalent to 240 mg. (over four grains) of morphine at once; it is less sedating, but it still packs quite a punch for pain.
  • Fentanyl - Entirely synthetic; comes in many strengths, but must be placed under the tongue or on skin, just like buprenorphine.  It's far shorter-acting; the instant-release fentanyl is for breakthrough pain only, and the patch lasts for three days only.  The patch can leak, which can be deadly.
For sleep, there are essentially six options, as outlined below.  Due to the extreme variety of drugs available (there are far more sleeping powders and pills than pain medications), two drug groups will be covered only as such.  Each hypnotic loses effectiveness over time, so it is important to rotate them for chronic sleeplessness.
  • Benzodiazepines - These are the most commonly-used prescription drugs for sleep.  There is a great variety of them, but all of them are controlled drugs, and for good reason: once benzodiazepine dependence forms, withdrawal (unlike the pain drugs above) can be deadly.  It parallels alcohol withdrawal (delirium tremens and seizures being very common).  However, benzodiazepines are safe in overdose unless combined with alcohol (which is highly contraindicated when on a benzodiazepine).
  • Barbiturates - These are prescribed more rarely, but remain a valid option; these have most of the advantages of benzodiazepines, but many more disadvantages.  Barbiturates are extremely deadly in overdose, whether combined or not; the withdrawal usually is deadly (although substitution therapy works well), and addiction sets in earlier than with benzodiazepines.
  • Chloral hydrate (trichloroacetaldehyde) - Very safe, as it is used in large amounts; however, this drug is uncommonly prescribed, and mostly used with children and seniors.  This drug is available as a liquid which tastes rather like acetone; (very large) gel capsules are available as well.  The main problems with chloral are a hangover effect, as well as stomach irritation (nausea, vomiting, ulcers).  Chloral addiction is uncommon, but can result, and is extremely uncomfortable, but rarely fatal.
  • Quetiapine (Seroquel) - This is an antipsychotic often used also as a sleep aid, but this use is not suggested.  Should be used as a last resort only.
  • Melatonin - An over-the-counter hormone that induces sleep; my own preferred sleep aid, aside from chloral and diphenhydramine.  Available in 3 mg and 5 mg.  Gently nudges you to sleep.
  • Antihistamines - These are used for the relief of allergies and side-effects from pain medication far more than for sleep, but this remains a valid option.  The antihistamines to use for sleep are generally the older ones: diphenhydramine (Benadryl) and dimenhydrinate (Dramamine), both over-the-counter, work well.  The usual dose for sleep is 50-100 mg of Benadryl, or 100-200 mg of Dramamine.  THESE DRUGS ARE VERY DANGEROUS IN OVERDOSE (DELIRIANTS).    
These drugs must be properly spread out.  The most common practice is to take the opioid four times a day, the stimulant twice or three times, and the hypnotic once.  Some examples of the Presley cocktail in practice:

8:00 AM:  Hydromorphone 8 mg; dextroamphetamine 15 mg. 12:00 AM: Hydromorphone 8 mg.  4:00 PM: Hydromorphone 8 mg; dextroamphetamine 15 mg.  8:00 PM: Hydromorphone 8 mg; diphenhydramine 100 mg.  10:00 PM: Bedtime.

9:00 AM: Morphine 60 mg; one large coffee (caffeine 120 mg).  1:00 PM: Morphine 60 mg.  5:00 PM: Morphine 60 mg; one small coffee (caffeine 120 mg).  9:00 PM: Morphine 60 mg; one large glass of grapefruit juice (to make the morphine last out the night!); 1.2 g chloral hydrate.  12:00 PM: Bedtime.

This can be simplified with modified-release tablets, as well:

8:00 AM: Jurnista 64 mg; one large coffee.  Patient drinks coffee and grapefruit juice throughout the day.  8:00 PM: 600 mg of chloral hydrate is taken.  10:00 PM: Bedtime.  Patient wakes up at 8:00 AM with no pain.

My own Elvis cocktail (all drugs are instant-release):

9:00 AM: Oxycodone 10 mg; one large coffee; dexamphetamine 15mg.  Liberal amounts of nicotine throughout; Sativex (dronabinol spray) as needed.  5:00 PM:  Oxycodone 5 mg.  9:00 PM: Diphenhydramine 100 mg; melatonin 20 mg; chlordiazepoxide 25 mg; oxycodone 5 mg.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Welcome to Canuck politics.


As you may or may not know, I live in a large city in Ontario, a province of Canada.  The provincial election is coming up, which means that the three major parties of Ontario (the Conservatives, the labour-centric New Democrats, and the Liberals) are campaigning... and so is the Green "Party".  Those who know me personally already know that I agree with the Conservative stance on issues of economics and culture, and with the New Democrats on labour law and foreign policy.  The Liberals were once a hulking giant; in recent years, however, their federal leaders have been, for lack of a better word, morons.  This, perhaps, is what led to their crushing defeat last election, after which Chief Moron Michael "Iggy" Ignatieff made a non-resignation speech, followed almost immediately by his resignation.  The separatists of Quebec lost official party status, and the Queen Cow of the federal Greens, Elizabeth May, finally got a seat to put her withered, flatulent arse on (I think she's personally responsible for 95% of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere today).

Despite these major changes (and they truly were major), almost nothing has changed in the political climate with the exception of the fact that the Conservatives now form a simple majority (more than half, in other words) of Commons.  When it comes to politics, I almost never deal in facts and figures; those are for the historians to review and argue over.  I deal in accuracy: a verbal photograph, if you will, of the political scene, right here, right now.  What happened last federal election is also going to happen this provincial elections... mostly.  Ontario, particularly the provincial capital of Toronto, leans left-of-centre; this means that many of our recent Premiers have been affiliated with the Liberal Party.  For those of us that don't see past the Great Wall of Bullshit, the eighth Wonder of the World, the Liberals are a left-wing party.  They might paint themselves as centrist, but the reality is that they are left-wing in all areas, with the exception of organised labour, the part that counts.  By harmonising the federal and provincial sales taxes, Mr McGuilty effectively punished rich and middle-class alike.  No handouts or tax reductions were given to Canada's heart and soul: people who work (for a living or otherwise).  Instead, the unemployed and the unemployable now live like kings.  I seem to recall that it is more financially advantageous to be unemployed than it is to be employed earning less than a certain amount, which I do not remember.

Rant over.  Now, back to your scheduled programming: before the Canadian federal election, the leaders of the four political parties had a debate, which was televised (on numerous channels, actually).  Present were Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Conservative), Mr Ignatieff, Gilles Duceppe (Bloc Quebecois), and John Layton (New Democratic Party, God rest his soul).  The "leader" of the federal Green "party", Mrs May, was not invited for one reason, and it is not the one she claimed (i.e. the Canadian government does not care about the environment).  The simple reason that the Greens were not represented at the debate was that the debate examined each party's agenda (that is, their stance on various issues and their future plans).  These issues fell into realms as wide as foreign policy, taxation, and cultural diversity.  The Greens have only one agendum: the environment.  Therefore, asking Mrs May questions in reference to, for example, the war in Mesopotamia, would not represent the agenda of the Greens collectively; the answer would only be representative of Mrs May's personal agenda.  Furthermore, until the last federal election, the Greens had not a single seat in Parliament.  Taking into consideration these two facts, only an idiot would be indignant that his or her loose association of independent candidates (because that's what the Green "Party" is) would not be represented at a debate.

Mrs May, therefore, quite clearly is an idiot.  She did get her seat, though; it was inevitable, and it is crucial to have a diverse parliament.  I would have enjoyed the added diversity in Parliament if it had been anyone but Mrs May.  Beyond being an advocate for nucular power, I am not an environmentalist, just as I am not an advocate for euthanasia with the exception of assisted suicide (by a physician or otherwise).  However, if there weren't people in Parliament that disagreed with me, it wouldn't be a democracy, would it?  The problem is not Mrs May's environmental activism, or her independent views; it is the blatant flaws in her character and personality.  Political views aside, Elizabeth May is a cell-for-cell clone of Sheila Copps (or Hilary Clinton if you're American). Dear Lord, you can have both Mrs Copps and Mrs Clinton, just please, please, please give us back our Jack!

Now, I hate to tar a whole group of people (again, I hesitate to say "party" because they really aren't one) with the same brush, but I'm beginning to think they're smoking the same thing they're hugging.  As I alluded to before, history repeats itself.  There was a debate yesterday, in which the New Democrats, the Liberals, and the Conservatives were represented by Andrea Horwath, M.L.A., Premier Dalton McGuilty, and Timothy Hudak, M.L.A., respectively.  The Ontario Greens, led by Michael Schreiner (not an M.L.A.), were not, coincidentally (or not), represented.  Mr Schreiner staged a (very public) protest, contemporaneously with the debate, and, once again, that old and hoary maxim was proven to be right: it is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.  "The debate is happening down the street, and we need to shout to show them we're here, and that the [Ontario Greens] will not be silenced!"  the Green Party was just plain irrelevant; it would be more accurate to say that Mr Schreiner was absent.  Mr Schreiner "addressed the Green Party policy initiatives he would have raised," Mrs Grainger wrote, "including the creation of a carbon tax [like we don't have enough taxes already], freezing tuition rates, lowering energy costs [for who?!] by reducing energy usage, and controlling healthcare costs [you are speaking from a position of ignorance, mate!]... by... improved access to healthy food."  First of all, if you want to put in a carbon tax, you'd better lower some other taxes!  Second of all, just whose energy costs do you want to lower?  There is only one way to consistently reduce energy usage, and this is to make it less convenient (in other words, more expensive).  This would hit the consumer hard, and that was when Mr Schreiner put his foot in his mouth.  The people who vote Green are generally part of what is called the counter-culture; they may be stoners, anarchists, hippies, or something entirely different, but it is safe to say that many people who vote for the Greens are anti-government, anti-regulations, and anti-establishment. Making energy expensive, or hard-to-get in some other way, would make Mr Schreiner very unpopular with his voter base.  I agreed with his mention of making healthy, nutritious food easier to get; however, Mr Schreiner, where are your medical credentials?  That's right; nowhere.  I understand there's a loose association between healthy eating and healthy bodies... but coming right out and saying that healthcare costs will be lower because of easy access to nutritious food is a logical fallacy.  I forget which; I'm too stoned to tell.

See that big thing up in the sky, though?  That's the flying fuck Ontario doesn't give about the Greens.  Sure, okay, Mrs May has a seat in Parliament.  At this point, though, Mrs May has no political clout; she is far from the fly in the ointment she says she is.  She is more like a mosquito: invisible, stupid, and very hard to finally swat.  Thankfully, you can wear ear plugs for a mosquito, and that is, essentially, what the M.P.'s have been doing till now with Mrs May.  I see no reason why this will turn out any different from the federal election.  Schreiner will get his seat, nobody will give a shit.

Friday, September 9, 2011

Technology Then... and Now


As we live in what has been called the Information Age, it is only logical that the greatest improvements during the last sixty-odd years have been in the office.  In fact, the changes in office technology were so great that this can not be called an evolution, but a revolution.

My uncle worked, and still works, in the corporate and tax division of Clifford Chance, a great monster of a British law firm with offices around the globe.  The environment in such a firm is almost stereotypically corporate; the job is fine, the money is great, but the atmosphere just drains your life away with all its fluorescent lighting and rat-racing.  He began work in the 1970s; 1974, I believe.

In 1974, or thereabouts, there were no mobile phones, much less smartphones, flat-screen televisions, or internet.  Even though there was no internet, there were computers; great, big, hulking machines in glass enclosures with raised flooring that were used in factories for inventory control and in offices like this one for number crunching, which was done by a specially-trained computer operator at night, as the lawyers leaving work gave her jobs to do.  Word processing and computers did not mix; in fact, the slang for the one computer the London head office owned was "expensive calculator".  For word processing, there was the electric typewriter; not the electronic, but the classic IBM Selectric that had a whirring engine and plugged into the wall.

At great expense, the management of Clifford Chance saw fit to purchase what would now be called  fax machines for the offices in London, Paris, Prague, and elsewhere; they were then called telecopiers (this is still the case in French), or telefax boxes.  Regardless, the slang was then, and is now, "Mojo Wire", although what faxing has to do with morphine (mojo) I can't fathom.  Back then, the Mojo Wire was a olive drab-coloured box with a spinning drum around which a flimsy sort of paper called thermofax would be placed.  A vintage Mojo Wire would print at the blazing fast speed of seven minutes per page and would fill the office with the smell of burning plastic.

The xerox was, mercifully, common by this time; as it was very much in demand, the xerox at Clifford Chase was a very large autocollating model that required a trained operator.  I'm unsure how the boys at that company could possibly have managed without a xerox machine.  It was quite easy to mimeo a document if one prepared a stencil for it when he was making it; otherwise, he was out of luck.  In a law practice with a mimeo, you'd be more often out of luck than in it.

Ten years later, the landscape had changed.  Mobile phones had been invented; about as large and heavy as a brick, they required a briefcase-sized wet battery to be held in the other hand.  These telephones were very expensive at the time (costing as much as a small car), but they were evidently worth the price for the lawyers, young and old.

The real player, however, in the 1980s, was not the mobile phone; too early for that.  The real player was the computer.  In 1981, IBM, the maker of the large computer in Clifford Chance's basement, came out with the Personal Computer; soon, each paralegal and secretary had his or her own Personal Computer, and the huge mainframe was taken to the rubbish dump, despite being technically superior in every possible way (but less convenient).

Even the venerable Mojo Wire (fax) changed, although the name for it didn't.  Gone was the awkward drum and the acrid smell; now, the Mojo Wire transmitted at the speed of one page per three and a half minutes, odourlessly and on standard paper that fed itself into a slot.

In 1995, the internet arrived; it was a primitive thing compared to the internet of today, and logging on to the internet would tie up the phone and the Mojo Wire, if they didn't have separate lines.

The smartphone also arose from two independent concepts during the era: the miniaturised mobile phone and the personal digital assistant.  In fact, the personal digital assistant of ten years ago did not look all that much different from today's iPhone, with the exception of the monochrome touch screen and the lack of a telephone feature.

Here we are in 2011, wondering how the hell our forefathers managed to even think about doing business, what with the lack of office devices and all.  I am myself amazed at how we went from a machine that copies paper (the xerox) to a machine that sends copies by phone (the Mojo Wire) to personal mobile phones and computer technology.

Thursday, September 1, 2011

On Driver Design

I am growing sick and tired of the way companies design CDs for drivers (management software for printers and the like).  Does there have to be a useless programme that slows the computer down to 10% speed included on the CD?!  Answer: there doesn't.  Usually, the programme will pretend to do something useful, such as reporting the level of toner still left in the printer, or letting you write macros for the keys on the keyboard; this makes it even more confusing.  At least the drivers that are installing spyware (Do you agree to the terms and conditions of Google Toolbar?) let you give informed consent (Hell no!).

The worst company for this seems to be Hewlett-Packard... yet I like them most of all for hardware.  Several days ago, I needed to install a multifunction printer/scanner/fax on my Windows drive.  This thing is wireless, so I'm thinking I'll need to install the damn support bloatware with the driver, too.  I grit my teeth, make a restore point just in case, and start the bloatware installer.  Get this: the software is so huge that it comes on two CD's.  The install, predictably, takes over an hour (that's longer than Windows itself took).  You must restart your computer in order to proceed, yada yada.

Ten minutes later... What.  The.  Hell.  My CPU usage widget is showing 80% usage, my free memory widget is showing zero free memory, and my computer is running about as fast as a turtle... on Valium. The install took 200 MB of disc space.  Seriously, what the hell? I don't even bother trying to print.  I start up my system restore application, restore to the last checkpoint... takes another hour.  By this point, I'm sweating and my patience is about as existent as six-headed unicorns.

While the restore is happening, I grab the manual and start thumbing through it.  There's a hard-to-find section on how to make the multi-function box join a network.  Sounds promising.  Turns out, no PC required, you can hook the box up to a network.  I try it; takes me two minutes flat.  Well, how was I to know?  It wasn't in the quick start!  By this time, the restore is done.  I check my router to see at which IP address the multi-function box lives, and I navigate there.  The box has the nicest admin Web page I've ever seen.

With a practiced hand, I go through every folder on the two CD's to find the drivers directory.  No, not the bloatware; the bloody drivers.  You try explaining that to HP's support people.  I find the directory, finally, and I copy it over to my desktop.  I go through the Add Hardware wizard, finally get the damn printer installed, and restart into Linux.  On Windows, the whole experience took me over five hours: installing, venting, restoring, swearing, drinking beer, reading, setting up printer, setting up network, venting some more, another beer, installing just the driver, and one more beer.

In Linux, I spend half an hour on the Internet trying to find the HP printer driver kit.  I finally find it, download it, run it.  The driver kit asks me what printer protocol I use.  This could have been made a lot easier by having the choices: wired directly to pc, in wired network, in wireless network, wired to print server.  Instead, it uses all sorts of acronyms none of which I can understand, since I am not a network guru (no, the acronyms aren't wifi and 802.11b, I know what those are!).  I spend a little time trying, and erring, and trying again, till I finally get it.  Total time, one hour, despite some truly indecipherable acronyms.

HP's "quick and easy" driver and bloatware installation programmes are anything but.  The Linux ones are easier... and yet Linux has a reputation for being completely indecipherable.

Next time I will follow, yet again, my set-in-stone directions for installing drivers; you should too.  If you follow the steps below, you will never run into the kind of frustration that I ran into yesterday.

1.  Open the CD that came with your product.  Search for the string "*.inf".  Open every folder that has a file that ends in .inf in it and copy them to your Desktop.

2.  Run the Add New Hardware wizard.  When possible, click the "Have Disk..." button on the bottom: a dialogue box should appear.  Enter the path to the .inf folder, click OK.  If there are multiple folders, find the one that is compatible with your operating system and/or product.

3.  Your driver should now install, with no "support software".  If you want support software, download some, or buy some.

Addendum: if you want to be shocked, select all the .inf files (sometimes they're all in one big folder called DRIVERS), right-click, and click Properties.  The size should be no more than a few megabytes.  Now take a look at the other stuff... next time you say that drivers slow your computer down, think long and hard about what you mean by drivers, and do you need them.

Thursday, August 25, 2011

On cloud computing

So, back to your regular programming here at Dark of Days, the world's #1 aggregator of black coffee and morphine-induced ranting and raving.

Cloud computing.  Grr.  How I hate the name.  It stinks of the usual business-stroke-sales-and-marketing bullshit bingo buzzwords.  Like the word "convergence".  Or "seamless integration".  It sounds like just another phrase you slap onto a product to get it off the shelves quicker.  The funny thing is, it isn't.

Ten years ago, cloud computing existed under a different name.  It was used in computer-science courses at universities the world over, and in small businesses, and on a little Web site called SourceForge.  Back then, cloud computing was called "real-time collaboration".  Now, not many readers of this site know about a little programme called CVS; it was mainly used in higher education and in business, and it is still used mainly in those circles.

CVS was a small programme that ran on the command line.  No graphic elements whatever.  Its use is best explained by the following scenario: Alice, Robert, Thomas, Richard, and Henry are collaborating to author a book.  Alice is the proof-reader and checks the manuscript once a month for spelling errors; Robert is the typesetter and makes sure the manuscript is in appropriate style to be published, checking in five minutes every day; Thomas writes nine-to-five, Monday to Friday; Richard writes at odd times, including on weekends; and Henry writes every day on evenings.

How can the manuscript of the book be appropriately managed?  eMail would be very impractical; each person would need to keep a copy on their machines, periodically giving it to one person to reconcile with the others.  If that person would prove to be irresponsible, there goes the manuscript.  The answer is in what is called "cloud computing" today: a virtual whiteboard, upon which many can write.  CVS is a system that does just that: it collects different people's versions of what they feel a document should be, and if two people submit the same file at the same time, CVS has an elaborate system of checks and balances to make sure that nothing becomes corrupted.

Another example of cloud computing is what was then called "simultaneous sign-in"; one username and password would log in to a large number of Web services at the same time.  The most prolific of such services was Microsoft Passport, a service known by its users as "MSN".  One password would sign in to MSN Messenger and a whole host of other services; today, this same thing is called "Google Accounts" and operates Blogger, Google+, gMail, Google Docs, and many other such services.

Yet in the 1990s, such services were not much used; this just further adds to my theory that some developments in computer history must be made before or after others.

A Memorial to Steve Jobs


OK. So, as you all know, Steve Jobs resigned from Apple "for health reasons". He's been ill before. I'd conjecture his cancer turned terminal, and he's kicking it soon. He's been called a visionary, and a genius, and all sorts of other things; I'd actually care if he turned turtle, unlike, let's say, Bill Gates or Michael Dell.


A few of his products have changed my life. I'm typing this on my aluminium MacBook Pro with 17" screen and solid-state hard drive.  It wasn't always that way... in the 90s, Apple was well known for its clamshell-shaped plastic laptops (available in over ten colours) with an operating system with zero security and zero stability (I picked Windows 98 over it!).  Because it was such a useless, festering pile of equine excreta, it was rightly nicknamed "the bitty box" or "the toaster" by the cognoscenti.  This was, of course, when Steve Jobs wasn't around.


In 1996, Apple acquired a failing company known as NeXT, known for its obscure, but all-in-all awesome, UNIX-based workstation known as the NeXTCube.  This company was headed by Steve Jobs; when I heard of the acquisition, I thought, "Oh, great.  Another awesome company swallowed up by Big Business." 


It proved to be the other way 'round, though.  Apple had actually been swallowed up by NeXT; Apple after the acquisition became NeXT in all but name.  One day, Apple announced the release of "Mac OS X", a revolutionary (and that's puttin it mildly) operating system based on UNIX, a system used on large mainframes and the like (out of all mainframes and minis I've used, only the Cray CX1 uses Windows).  Of course, I had to have a try.  In all but name and graphics, it was NeXTStep.  They should have called it AppleStep or the like, since I associated the words "Mac OS" with the aforementioned toasters.  It ran on the G3 and G4 processors; I had the choice of desktop or laptop.  I chose the G4 laptop; the desktop, in those days (late 2002), was still the much-derided G3 "toaster".  


OS X was the single thing that gave Apple credibility in my eyes.  I don't care for looks, but when the G4 iMac came out, I was impressed.  Steve Jobs was Apple's saving grace.  Although Mac OS X Cheetah had serious issues when it came to missing features and performance, but the new code base (essentially, as I said, NeXTStep) fixed the two issues that plagued Classic Mac OS: memory management (i.e. stability) and security.  I usually draw an analogy here between Windows NT, Classic Mac/Windows, and X.  The security in Windows NT is comparable to storing your valuables in a locked drawer in your own home; in Classic Mac or Windows ME, it is comparable to storing them in a shoebox at the intersection of Yonge and Bloor (if you're from Toronto), Cornmarket and High (if you're an Oxonian), or Trafalgar Square (if you're a Londoner); in X, and therefore UNIX, it is comparable to storing your valuables at Fort Knox.  At this point in time, the Mac still used a PowerPC processor; this, sadly, meant that the choice of operating systems was very limited---either Linux or Mac UNIX.


I jumped for joy when the Mac became a PC, with Intel processor and all. They kept airing the stupid "I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC" commercials... it really ground my gears, because the Mac now was a PC.  I figure they kinda got it later, because the commercials were pulled.


Similarly, the iPod classic made my music experience all the better. No more Walkman, no more huge CD players that wouldn't fit in my pocket. Thanks, Steve, for revolutionising the very idea of portable music. Small, minimalistic, and metal. Thanks again.


Other products, though, I could care far less about. The iPod Touch and the iPhone, specifically. I had a test run with the iPhone to compare it with my venerable BlackBerry Bold 9700. The Bold easily won. The reasons were legion. First of all, it had a real keyboard that was sufficiently springy, almost like my Model M keyboard. I could do my homework on that thing... and did. Second, the Bold had removable batteries; I always carry an extra Bold battery with me. No such luck with the iPhone. Third of all, what the hell was with the operating system? The boys at RIM could do a better one with their eyes closed. I couldn't easily figure out how to place or receive a telephone call on the iPhone, and I had to ask a friend for help. I could also use BlackBerry apps I downloaded from the internet... you have to jailbreak the iPhone to do that, and that voids your warranty.


Now, the iPad suffers from many of these problems, but it is excused because of its size. With some hacking, I can connect a Model M and trackpad to the iPad, and have a fully functional workstation. I can't do that with the iPhone---I need a little keyboard, not a huge one like the M. I want a trackpad like I have on my Bold and my Torch. The only thing that really stinks about the iPad is iOS... you have to jailbreak it as above, and the UI stinks. Why didn't they use Mac OS X?!?!?


I don't know what'll happen when Steve finally kicks it. All I know is that I will know about it, and I will care. Good luck, Steve, and Godspeed.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Photo Opportunity

I missed a real good photo opportunity today.  Recently, in view of my pain problem, I have been (under medical supervision) self-injecting pain medications.  I don't mean cooking MS-Contins like a 'phine-freak, I mean intravenously injecting hypodermic tablets (the sort that dissolve with zero residue, or perhaps with a layer of residue lying still at the bottom of the glass) and ampoules.  All under medical supervision, of course.

However, to spare myself the all-too-frequent trips to the chemist for syringes and needles, I started to re-use old needles a few times before finally consigning them to the sharps bin.  This was OK until one day I became very, very sick, hardly being able to get out of bed.  I shivered like mad, too---had a fever of about 104.  Of course, I took Panadeine to drive the fever down, and finally was able to get outside.  When I instinctively looked at my arm, I saw a huge, swollen lump the size of an egg.  I figured I blew a vein, no biggie.

Well, what I saw today was a big, red lump, with minor bruising, and a bit of a boil (like an acne pimple) on top.  Feeling curious, I lanced the small boil, expecting nothing to come out of this wound.  I was wrong.  When I applied even minor pressure to the boil, enough pus came leaking out to fill a shot glass.  I should have taken a picture.  Wow.  Just wow.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Mac OS X Lion review

As a Mac user (although I hate most everything else from Apple), I've been closely following the development of OS X Lion.  In fact, I've downloaded each and every development preview released by Apple, including the release-to-manufacturing version.  Now that the Lion is finally out of its den, I have been running the official version for about a day now, and I can now review the features in full.  So, without further ado, here are the features I love, hate, and feel ambivalent about:

The first difference I noticed with Lion was the scrolling.  In fact, right after installation, there was a one-page tutorial on scrolling.  The scrolling direction is now reversed; scrolling up now scrolls down, and vice versa.  Basically, Apple has now introduced a metaphor into the system that didn't exist before: the screen is like a piece of paper, so I guess they assumed that scrolling should be just like moving a piece of paper up and down (move your fingers up to move the paper up).  I have four words for this: what the f**k, Apple?!  Sure, it makes sense on a touch-based device like the iPad (which I hate, by the way), but on a computer?!  The worst thing is that this is incredibly disorienting, not to mention annoying: it runs against every other type of computer that I've used, including big IBM mainframes, HP minicomputers, Cray machines, Windows PC's, Linux workstations, and older Macs.


Similarly, I don't like this Launchpad idea.  Basically, the Launchpad is a dumbed-down application launcher. If you don't like cluttering up the Dock with un-necessary icons and don't know how to use a search box, you'll love the Launchpad.  Otherwise said: if you're retarded, you'll love the Launchpad.  Problem is, this encourages computer illiteracy: if one isn't forced to use the Dock, Applications folder, and quick search boxes, he will never learn to use them.  This leads to bad habits; for instance, when one needs to locate and use a system utility.  Other than dumbing down the system, Launchpad is an entirely useless feature: there is zero configurability, no equivalent to Stacks, and no 'lights' like on the Dock to indicate which applications are running.

Out of the box, Mac OS has always been an operating system for idiots; this was true especially in the Dark Ages of Apple history, when Mac OS didn't have an X following its name.  In those days, Mac OS didn't even include a command prompt, and its mice had no right buttons.  Thankfully, those days are over.  What is curious about the idea of the Launchpad, as well as 'natural' scrolling, is that these 'features' appear not to have been included to make the computer easier and simpler to use, but to bring the interface closer to iOS, a mobile 'operating system' which I thoroughly dislike, being a hard-core BlackBerry man.

Apple partially redeems itself for these two 'features'; one can easily go into the System Preferences and disable the relevant options.  To disable 'natural' mouse scrolling, click Mouse > 'Move content in the direction of finger movement when scrolling or navigating'.  To disable the Launchpad, simply remove it from the Dock.  Also, the Launchpad is not a mandatory feature; the Finder has not been replaced by it, and so its icon on the Dock can simply be ignored.

Now, I simply love AirDrop.  It's Apple's equivalent of the Microsoft Windows workgroup, or the Beam function on Palm Pilots.  Those that aren't in a corporate environment will probably have no idea what I'm talking about: if all the computers on a single router (network) also share a workgroup, one can share files between them after some slightly obscure settings have been enabled.  Apple, as always, dumbs this down; in this case, however, it's for the better.  Now, no routers, or settings, are needed: any number of Macs running Lion can participate in AirDrop, as long as they are within about 30 feet of each other, and the AirDrop button in Finder is selected (it looks like a parachute).

I also love the new document control.  In Lion, you no longer need worry about losing an unsaved document; applications automatically save documents at idle times, when requested, and during idle times.  In addition, this saving process is incremental: in case you make a mistake and save, you can get your old version back.  In the few months I have had Lion, I have made use of this feature numerous times.  With typical Apple flair, the restore screen even includes a cool space-themed background and effects.

I like Mission Control.  For me, this feature has special utility, as I have always had the sort of mind that tends to compartmentalise.  For instance, I keep my documents on one screen, my social applications on another, and my Web browsing on a third.  I became used to this feature on my IBM mainframe running AIX (a corporate operating system similar to Linux); on AIX, there is a widget that looks like a window with four panes.  Clicking on pane number one would show, for instance, my documents; pane two would switch to my social life.  If I wanted to transfer an application from desktop one to desktop two, I'd drag it to the right edge of my screen, and the desktops would be switched underneath it.  Such a feature existed in OS X prior to Lion, but it was horrendously inconvenient.  Finally, the feature, called Spaces, has been fixed and renamed to Mission Control.

Ever since the inception of the Mac, there has been no feature to maximise a window; finally, with Lion, windows can take up the entire screen.  Finally.  What the hell, Steve?!  This functionality has been part of Windows ever since its creation.  Now, certain applications---far fewer than half of them---support full-screen mode.  However, they do so in an excellent fashion: to minimise distraction, even the window borders are hidden in full-screen mode.

I like the new eye-candy.  Apple has always taken its look seriously; this stands in stark contrast to Windows XP, where the default theme could only have been designed by the partnership of Herman Fisher and Irving Price.  The colour has been somewhat desaturated here, which is nice; the bright blue, capsule-shaped user-interface elements struck me as somewhat childish.  Functionally, in Apple applications, scroll-bars hide automatically; in addition, all applications can now be re-sized by the edges, which is a relief to me as a Windows/AIX/Linux user.

I don't use Apple-supplied applications.  I find them somehow lacking; I use terminal commands whenever I can (alpine to read my eMail, vim to work on documents), and other applications (Chrome for Web browsing, VLC for audio and video) otherwise.  Therefore, I can't speak as to improvements in iCal and Mail.

I am also ambivalent towards the new multi-touch gestures.  Touchscreens don't belong on computers; I have a hard time accepting that they belong on mobile phones.  Therefore, it's obvious that I wouldn't own a Magic Trackpad or whatever they're calling it; I do, however, use the touch pad on my MacBook Pro (reluctantly, when forced to).  I still don't use the gestures.

What I love most, however, is the price and the associated freedoms.  The price, at $40, is mind-blowing for an operating system; this is cheaper than most application software.  For $40, you get a single application, downloadable over the Internet.  When installing, there is no licence key to enter; after installing, there is no activation.  Apple, unlike certain other large technology firms, has faith in its users, and acknowledges that piracy can and will happen---no sense trying to stop it and alienating legitimate users in the process.

Why are you still reading this?  Get OS X Lion!

Saturday, June 25, 2011

On the State of Marihuana in Canada

This here is going to be my final post before I'm off to Europe on Monday (I'll keep posting from Europe though).  I recently learned about a sad piece of news about the laws in regards to the prohibition of marihuana (the flowers of the hemp plant, Cannabis sativa) in Canada.  Now, I'm going to preface this by saying I am not a regular user of marihuana, in spite of the fact that it helps me greatly with my pain, even better than oxycodone does; the reason I don't is because of the other effects, such as blood shot eyes, sedation (drowsiness), obtundation (i.e. a feeling of stupidity), and loss of motor control.  Marihuana is fine on weekends, but it is far from useful on weekdays, when concentration, as well as motor skills, are paramount.  Because marihuana is a substance of great medical use, it was made legal in Canada; however, just like oxycodone and methamphetamine (also substances of medical use), it is a controlled drug.  Also just like oxycodone and methamphetamine, it is sold on street corners in violation of law, although the sale of marihuana is at least ten times more common than either of the two others, or perhaps both combined.

However, marihuana is far more strictly controlled in practice, despite having far less potential for hazardous use (zero marihuana overdosages, ever, in Canada).  There is no Canadian pharmaceutical producer of marihuana (although synthetic tetra-hydrocannabinol is sold under the name Marinol for pain).  Therefore, the Canadian government grows a small amount of hemp, but trusts the balance to private farmers and hobby growers, who are almost always individuals and not businesses.  If a patient finds himself in need of medication, his doctor is to sign a form, and a marihuana card will be issued for one year to the patient.  This is almost never (I'm one of the exceptions, as I've got a card) done, even if it is clear that the patient is in urgent need of this vital medication.

After being shot down in flames numerous times, 37-year old Torontonian Matthew Mernagh was arrested for manufacturing, and possession, of marihuana (he was growing seventy plants in his St Catharines flat and suffered from depression, seizures, fibromyalgia, and scoliosis).  He, along with 21 other patients, took his charge to the Superior Court of Ontario, and, on 13 April, Donald Taliano J. ruled in his favour, declaring the laws regarding marihuana to be 'constitutionally invalid and of no force and effect'.  He gave the Canadian government an ultimatum: either reform the laws or appeal within 90 days, or else marihuana will become, for all intents and purposes, legal.  The case was covered in all sorts of media: pro-marihuana advocacy groups (of course!), established broadsheet newspapers, and network television.

Of course, with typical Canadian efficiency (or lack thereof), the government appealed.  On 22 June, granted a stay (effectively putting the judgement on hold, as it were) until the appeal.  In exchange, the trial is to be put on the fast track---the trial is due in six months (November) as opposed to twelve.  Robert Blair J. said, about the stay, 'The practical effect of the decision if the suspension were permitted to expire on July 14 would be to legalize marijuana production in Ontario, if not across Canada, and it will invalidate many ongoing prosecutions involving commercial marijuana productions and possession offences before the appeal. While most people in the courtroom today would applaud such a result, there is much debate about this issue in this society, including about the pros and cons as to whether marijuana is a harmless but valuable therapeutic substance or whether its consumption has harmful effects that may outweigh those considerations in the absence of a controlled regime.'

This is disappointing (although Blair seems quite neutral), but what is even more disappointing is the lack of media coverage.  Only a few network television and radio stations covered the story; the rest were advocacy groups.  I don't smoke much, but I feel that people who dislike opioids (although I can't figure out why) need to have an alternative.

Why don't you get it, government people?!

Friday, June 17, 2011

On the road again... soon!

I'll be flying to Europe soon, which is both a good thing and a bad.  What I like about flying home is that I am under far less stress---no idiot teachers, no busywork, less stress.  I also like the fact that I own, together with my family, several high-performance cars; I like driving, but can't do it when I'm under too much stress.  Same for flying a helicopter---I love to fly even more than I like to drive (although it took my family a long time to convince me).  I also like the mere fact of being in Europe---I guess my roots are still firmly planted there; I like England more than Canada, and Canada more than the U.S.A.  And I like the fact that there's more things to do---hunting, gentlemen's club, snooker, cricket, fencing, actual pubs, etc.

However, the medications used in England leave a lot to be desired; sadly, it is the same for the rest of Europe.  In America, if one is having chronic pain, they go to a palliative care (basically, a clinic to make your life easier, not to cure the disease) clinic specialising in pain disorders; these clinics, for the uninformed, do not take medical insurance (only cash is accepted), and the usual fare is an extended release oxycodone tablet called OxyContin, or a hydromorphone preparation called Dilaudid.  As pain also comes with anxiety, an anti-anxiety pill called Xanax is also often given.  OxyContin and Xanax are given for anything ranging from tooth-ache to scoliosis; bone fractures usually get Dilaudid instead.

In Canada, doctors are a little more careful with giving out pain medications; you won't get Dilaudid for a broken arm or leg unless you're nice (and manipulative) enough.  If your doctor thinks the pain has been going on for too long, he will send you to a clinic specialising in palliative pain care, like in America; the difference here is that you can't go to a palliative clinic right away---your doctor decides if you should go or not.  Such clinics are, however, a bit more careful than the American ones, as they are generally non-profits owned by hospitals, not companies owned by businessmen.  The good thing is that, if you are employed, you will most likely have pills for free, as pharmacies in Canada must take insurance.  Just like in America, Dilaudid is occasionally used---more commonly, though, oxycodone (called Percocet, Supeudol, or OxyContin), hydrocodone (called Vicoprofen), or fentanyl patches are used.  If you have weak pain, you'll be given codeine (the usual medication for pain unless you ask for something else), morphine (called MS Contin or Roxanol), or tramadol.

By my doctor in Canada, I was given Supeudol, which is pure oxycodone, 20 mgm. a day.  Not much, but not too little either.  It helps me walk without limping, and it helps me feel good because it has some sort of antidepressant effect, very much like morphine does.

In England, pain clinics don't exist---yes, you read that right.  If you are injured, you will be treated by your physician.  The usual medication for pain is morphine (called Heroin, with a capital H), which is very weak.  Morphine tablets come in 5, 10, 15, 30, and 60 mgm strengths; the strongest, morphine 60, is about as strong as a 20 mgm Supeudol.  This is the strongest pain medication in common use in Europe, although the 5 and 10 mgm morphine are considered entirely safe, even for use by children.  This is a gigantic pain in the rear; although over-the-counter pain relievers in England and France are far better than American pain relievers (Canadians can get codeine over the counter), the prescription pain relievers are useless in Europe, and hard to get.

This would be okay, except that my doctor doesn't exactly trust me with the Supeudol, as she is afraid that I party with my pills instead of using them for medicinal purposes.  So, I get a week's worth, #30 5 mgm pills, at a time.  Which is fine, except I'm in Europe.  What the hell am I supposed to do?!

Thursday, May 19, 2011

My Head

It's been a few months since I started this here blog, and I've blogged on anything and everything ranging from computers to my battle with chronic non-cancer pain to the impressive array (for an 18-year-old) of prescription bottles lined up on my bed head.

What I've intentionally refrained from blogging about, however, are the problems with my head.  I don't mean headaches or tooth pain, either.  It seems that, historically, ever since the arrival of modern medicine, there has always been much more of an emphasis on the organs below the neckline.  Since the arrival of Dr Freud (and if anyone doesn't remember the name somewhere---go sign yourself into the nearest psych ward, pun intended) and the science of psychiatry, mental health care has improved, but those suffering from mental issues are either marginalised by society, or their problems are shrugged off as minor.

If someone has a broken arm, they're given morphine and aspirin and they get their arm put in a splint, which is then signed by their friends and family.  If someone has a broken leg, they're given Dilaudid IV and get their leg put in a splint, which is then signed by friends and family.

But God help someone who suffers from constant stress, or can't see any reason for continuing to live and is too chicken to pull the trigger.  I know---it's happened to me.  And those days are getting more and more frequent.  There are the days when everything seems like it's in a black-and-white movie, and then there's the days when I feel like I've gone into bullet time, complete with audible heart thumping and time stopping.

I used to carry around a few (like four to six) oxies for the former, and some Serax, Valium, or Nembutal for the latter. I still carry around the Valium, but I've come to have a love-hate relationship with the oxy.  Oxy helps me---it turns the storm clouds to sunshine.  It really does.  Within five minutes.  Try explaining that to my psychiatrist.  Oh, yeah, and after the last dose is taken and I sober up, I feel fine.  No hangover.  Trouble with oxy is (in addition to the addiction, which I haven't developed) you soon start feeling that the happiness, the calm, that it's actually normal.

Which is fine if your life actually feels happy and calm most days.  Mine doesn't.  I get the black-and-white thing once or twice a week, and it would be tolerable if people simply co-operated and figured that maybe I wasn't feeling my very best, etc. etc.  But people, especially at school, tend to think I'm their personal punching bag.

For instance, the vice principal, whom I'll call Sandy Drof on this blog, is widely known to be an alcoholic.  She berates me for something I didn't do, or overblows something I did do to almost comical proportion, and even worse---in public.  Or a friend of some of my friends.  She's a heavy drug abuser (mostly hallucinogens) and abuses alcohol as well.  Piercings all over her body, goes to raves, lesbian because it's the new thing nowadays, the works.  Not that going to raves and drinking is bad.

I go to socialise with cultured, intelligent people.  Most are occasional drug users, some go to raves, about half are model students, and I can discuss practically anything from alcoholism to the nutritional benefits of zinc, so I enjoy this group.  What I don't enjoy is, after a discussion on whether Stephen Harper runs the country poorly or well, or a discussion on the benefits of marijuana v. oxycodone for the psychobehavioural aspect, I hear, "SHUT UP, NOBODY CARES." Maybe you're too stupid to care.  That doesn't mean everybody else is.

The family isn't the most understanding, either.  And I include my mother in this, who deals with the same problems.  I've often said, "You know how you feel on your black days?" "Yeah, I know, sweetie." "Well, I'm sorta feeling it.  I've just about had it." "Do you want an oxy and a Serax?" (My mum hates pills!) "Yeah, I'll take an oxy and a Serax, but I also need some peace and quiet."  She goes on to criticise me about some matter or other, knowing that I feel like crap just sitting up.

My grandmother is worse.  She thinks that you can't be stressed as a teen ager.  Yes, God damn it, you can.  "So don't be stressed." That's like telling a madman to be sane.  Or telling the sky to turn green.  I got injured in a road accident.  That means that I can't operate modes of transportation without either going into bullet time or taking a Serax or a Valium (those work similarly).  Serax makes me sleepy.  So does Valium.  So those aren't options if I haven't had a lot of sleep.  So what I do is I take breaks driving or flying.  My grandmother now blames me that instead of the fifteen minute drive to the doctors' it took twenty.  Big fucking deal.  You could have arrived feet first if I didn't take that five-minute break.

Monday, May 16, 2011

On Pain Management

(This was written in March.  I now have 300 mg Lyrica pills, which are MASSIVE and damn near impossible to swallow for some people.  My GP lowered my oxy yet again---I am now on 15 mg/day.  Fuck.)

I'm a chronic pain patient, blah, blah, blah.  Because of my GP's irrational fear of opioids, I was given tramadol as a replacement for oxycodone while I'm away in Europe.  However, I was unable to pick up my prescription at the chemist's back in Canada before I flew, and so I came to Europe with only Celebrex and Lyrica (Neurontin on steroids).  The Lyrica does wonders for nerve pain, but nothing else (plus it makes me incredibly sleepy and doubles as a sedative).  The Celebrex is about as useful as a leather jacket on a nudist beach.

Needless to say, I was able to obtain a prescription for tramadol and the British version of Fiorinal (essentially Nembutal and Aspirin) for migraines, and I supplemented this with healthy amounts of over-the-counter kaolin and morphine syrup.  However, as I've come to realise, tramadol for chronic pain like this is absolutely ridiculous.  For me, it's about half the strength by weight of morphine.  The British version of Tramadol, which is called Mabron,  comes in 50mg capsules.  To get a complete reduction in pain, I've had to take approximately 500-600 mg of tramadol a day.  The good news: Tramadol, for an instant-release medication, is incredibly long-lasting.  A single dose lasting 12 hours is usual for me.  However, it takes 3-4 hours to register an effect.

There are a couple non-obvious downsides to tramadol therapy, though.  First of all, with taking huge doses like that, the histamine itch becomes unbearable.  So, I take a Zyrtec or two (that's Reactin to you Americans) for the itch.  As if that weren't enough, what I consider to be the most important organ in my body becomes completely non-operational.  I've asked my doctor here for Viagra and have been flatly turned down.  To top it all off, tramadol (like pethidine) becomes seizurogenic at doses above 200mg, and if I weren't taking Lyrica I'd probably be having eppies all over the place. For this reason, although it may be addictive, I got morphine and promptly discontinued the tramadol.

When I come back to Canada, I'm seeing my pain management doctor, and I am already scared.  I have a good knowledge of medical terms, and I am afraid that if I use such terms to accurately describe where the pain is and its nature, I would be thought of by a doctor that does not know me as a drug-seeker, which I am not.  I am in urgent need of oxycodone---it is the one drug that helps completely at the right dosage.  I have found that twenty milligrammes of oxycodone twice a day provides relief from pain and anxiety during my waking hours; however, my doctor has seen fit to prescribe only enough to last me a third of the day --- twenty milligrammes, with a strong possibility that this will be reduced the next time I see her.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Suicide Note

If I were to write a suicide note, which seems more and more likely as the days go on, I'd write something like this.

My dear friends and family:
My sincere thanks go out to you for attempting to put some form of joy into my life; I have enjoyed my stay on this planet very much.  My life has been packed with enriching activities: swimming, watching the latest blockbusters at the cinema, drinking at the bar.  Therefore, I put no blame on you for causing me to go on this, my last journey.  However, I now feel that my life has no meaning or purpose whatever, and it is time for me to go to the land from which nobody returns, and everyone goes alone, no matter how close his fellow men walk behind him.  Why was I born?  What is the purpose of humanity on the planet?  Where are we headed in this crap-shoot called life?  I used to know, with high confidence, the answer to all of these questions; now, I fear I have forgotten them.  Every morning, I try my damnedest to get up out of bed, and I have failed miserably on multiple occasions.  School, nowadays, seems to be hardly an excuse.  Why should I burden my friends---if I can call them that---with my presence?  Same goes for my family.  Having spent most of the past year pondering this question, I find that the answer is decidedly no.  I had once been in love with the very idea of life---I felt that it seemed to have had an almost magical quality to it.  Boy, was I an idealistic, naive fool.  I have now seen the reality of life, and the truth is that it's a game with no rules and no way to win; a dead-end job with no promotion in sight and no wages either; a race with no finish line and no medals given out---a rat race, in other words.  In the words of the dolphins of The Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy, "So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish!"
My sincere thanks, again, and see you in a few years.

Friday, May 6, 2011

Kick 'em when they're down...

A couple days ago, I was at school, and went out for a smoke in-between classes.  This doesn't make me too late, and it allows me three minutes to de-stress.  I slip and fall on the mud, caking my whole side with earth.  After enduring ten or so people mocking me, I go to the office and ask for the key to the handicap bathroom so that I can clean myself up in a civilised manner.  Of course, as my shitty luck would have it, the only person in the office is the vice principal, whom I will call Chevrolet (or Mrs C for short); she happens to be an alcoholic and also one of the most disagreeable women I know.

She refuses---of course.  I go to the regular washroom---fortunately, nobody's there, and I can wash up without letting my dignity run out the door.  No sooner do I get out than I get told by a teacher that Mrs C is looking for me.  Instantly, of course, I get stiff as a board.  I get into her office, and she accuses me of smoking marijuana.  Of course, I reply that it was a cigarette.  I'm no stoner---pillhead yes, stoner no.  I show her my pack of Camel to prove it---she says that of course I wouldn't have weed on me, because I just smoked it.

She seems to ever-so-slowly cotton on to the fact that the only thing I reek of is Turkish tobacco.  Then, to add insult to injury, she swipes my smokes saying that they're illegal for me to own as I'm under 19, and she'd call the cops on whoever sold them to me.  Why would she seize them now, and not the million other times she caught me smoking?  Of course, the rest of the day, I have to buy fags for $1 apiece to feel anything close to relaxed.

The problem really wasn't even losing my ciggies, it was the verbal abuse that I was forced to listen to.  I was accused completely unfairly.  It's one thing when you have a witness or two, or when someone obviously stinks of cannabis.  Also, *right after* I hurt myself and lose most of my dignity?  This is why I can't stand life.

I give up.  Seems like this sort of thing happens every day.  No wonder I'm losing my stamina and have to take four or five different pills every day just to keep myself halfway functioning.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

On Lyrica

A long time ago, I was given pregabaline for pain relating to my accident.  It's an unscheduled, unclassed drug in Canada (and the UK) due to its new-ness, but I'm sure it'll hop to Class B or Class C very soon.  Pregabaline isn't an opioid; it doesn't even work on what most people would call "pain".  It works on tingling, burning, etc., which are forms of "pain" caused by damaged nerves.  Because of my chronic tingling "pain", I was given 300 mg of pregabaline to take at night; I now take 600 mg, half in the morning, half at night.

However, pregabaline has some... ahem... interesting side effects.  It pins your eyes, even worse than oxy does.  In fact, people first thought I was taking ungodly amounts of oxy when I began taking the pregabaline in the morning.  I mean, I was, but the pinned eyes and the walk... Oh, God, the walk.  After you overcome the drowsiness, which is a big factor for me, you walk like you're on methaqualone.  Sorta like the stumble of the alcoholic, with a bit of the Largactil shuffle (if you don't know what that is, visit your nearest psych ward and you'll see it) mixed in.  If you've been to a 70's disco, you've seen the Quaalude walk (most probably on high-heeled shoes).  Well, learning to walk on pregabaline is no different.

Oh, yeah, and it KILLS your anxiety.  I thought Valium worked.  Now I see that Valium is just the beer to Lyrica's champagne.  When I wake up in the morning, I take my 300 mg horse pill (the pills are fucking huge, like tetracycline) of pregabaline, and I feel good within an hour.  I've heard of Lyrica abuse... didn't take it seriously till I had the 300 mg pills.

I mentioned this to a particular professor of psychiatry at the U of T, a Dr M., who said, and I paraphrase, "Oh, yeah, they do that.  We use them instead of benzos [benzos are Valium, Librium, Klonopin, and Xanax], because, well, you're smart, you know what they do."

Well done, Dr M.  I no longer need SSRI's from my psychiatrist, Dr R., who's fresh out of psycho school and actually told me to take the pregabaline out of my diet.  Hayull no.  I refuse to take pills that make my dick not work and my head hazy... which is what Prozac does.  And, I quote, there's a chance that upon withdrawal of Prozac, certain side effects will persist long-term.  Plus, the SSRI's only work long-term; you can't take one Prozac when you're feeling terrible, and no pills the rest of the week.

Dr R. actually recommended I see Dr M., who "had more experience".  At the time, I figured, another shrink, same difference, I have experience with Dr R., so I said no.  Now I know he's the professor of psychiatry, plus he practices at the pain centre, and at the hospital... oh, yeah, and he's my fellow countryman.  I asked for a referral immediately.  Too bad when he sees my psycho file he's going to recoil in horror.

"Poly drug abuser".  Blow me.  When I feel stressed out, I take a Valium.  When I get hurt, I take an OxyContin.  When I feel burning in my legs so bad I can't stand up, I take a Lyrica.  That's not poly drug abuse.  That's normal human behaviour.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Mac OS X Quibbles

I used to hate the Apple Macintosh with a passion.  This was in the days before Macs were white or silver. Those of you younger than about 16 will need a history lesson here: up to about 1998, the only colour you could get the Macintrash, as I called the Mac back then (I still call that version of the Mac the Macintrash), in was that of desert sand, which is called sand in Britain and beige in the U.S.A.  This was a dignified, classy, and appropriate colour for a professional machine, which is, after all, what a computer is.

Then, even the colour---the last bastion of respectability held onto by the 'regular' Mac---was changed.  Sand was discontinued, and from 1998 up until about 2002, the Mac would come in what seemed to me like a thousand different colours. none of which were suitable for a hobby room at somebody's home, let alone the office, and all of which were suitable for a child's toy box.  Even the elegant form-factor of the Mac was trashed; the new form-factor of the Mac was evocative of nothing, if not a gumdrop.  Even the name of the system was changed---instead of the (admittedly, oxymoronic) cool-sounding Performa, the new machine was called the iMac.   None of these things would have bothered me much.  I like my computers to look cool, but the lack of coolness in a computer's look does not affect my buying decision, as long as all other aspects of the system are to my satisfaction.  I'd have bought a pink one called the Barbietron if it had the right features.

Needless to say, it didn't.  With the advent of the iMac, the perfectly good Apple Desktop Bus connections for mouse and keyboard (the functional counterparts of the PS/2 mouse and keyboard connections on IBM-style microcomputers) were scrapped and replaced with Universal Serial Bus connections.  USB ports, as every computer-literate human being or dog knows, are still widely used today; they control every peripheral from printers to cameras.  PS/2 and ADB ports both have, or had in ADB's case, only one use: connecting to a human interface device.   In fact, USB, perhaps due to its versatility, is a slightly poorer standard for interfacing with a human than either ADB or PS/2 (I'd explain, but the explanation is long and not germane to the topic being discussed here).

The introduction of USB was an excellent step forward for the Apple Mac, but it did not have to come at the expense of the two ADB ports.  There was ample space for both kinds of cards inside, and both kinds of sockets outside the vaguely computer-like toy.  The mouse and keyboard were all but unusable.  This wasn't at all surprising for the mouse, which was of the signature, minimalistic Apple variety, with one button and no scrollwheel (inferior to even the most basic PC mouse, which would have three buttons and one scrollwheel).  This mouse, however, was despised even by Apple users; unlike other mice, shaped in an oval, teardrop, or rectangular shape for human hands, this one was perfectly round, had a ridiculously short cable, and would suit only a robot with tiny palms and fingers less than an inch in length.  It was, in fact, nicknamed the hockey-disc mouse, due to its resemblance to the flat, round, black 'ball' used in that sport.

The keyboard, however, was another matter entirely.  Prior to the festering piles of horse dreck that the four Mac pack-in keyboard models used between 1998 and 2007, Apple had created three of the best computer keyboards in history, all of them being called the Apple Extended Keyboard for marketing purposes, and Models 0115, 0312, and 3501 for engineering purposes.  All of these (especially the 0115 and 0312) were to the Mac as the Model M is to the PC---the high point of peripheral design.  Like the Model M, every key on the AXK had a physical switch it was connected to.  The switches worked on different principles, felt differently, and made different sounds, but if a single key failed, it could be repaired (i.e. the switch replaced) with very little difficulty.  Also, with use, physical switches would continue to provide consistent tactile feedback to the typist until failure, which was instantaneous; this can be likened to a lightbulb burning out after its rated hours of use.

The iMac keyboard, and all the Apple keyboards which followed it until they made the laptop-style metal one, did not use key switches.  Like almost all keyboards on the market today, irrespective of the price bracket, the iMac keyboard used a sandwich of keys on top, a rubber sheet coated with graphite (a common, electrically conductive type of carbon) in the middle, and a printed circuit board on the bottom.  The tactile feel, like with all keyboards based on this blueprint, is non-existent; and if any part of the keyboard failed, it could not be repaired or replaced individually.  The life of a rubber membrane keyboard is short, even though the keyboard hardly ever 'fails'; it simply becomes more and more mushy until the user discards it in irritation.  For the above reasons, I called the Macs manufactured between 1998 and 2003 "Macintoys".

However, the most serious problem with all Macs before 2003, in my opinion, was the operating system.     Apple's primary rival in the operating system market was, and is, Microsoft; its three variations on their operating system offering are collectively known as Windows.

Prior to 1993, Microsoft provided one flavour, as it were, of Windows.  At this time, although Windows was marketed as an operating system for IBM-style microcomputers, this usage of the term was incorrect.  Windows versions one to three could not run on a computer---and I have no hesitation in calling PC's computers---unless a particular piece of software called the Disk Operating System was installed first.  Although more than one person could share the computer, they could not keep their identities separate: user accounts had not been incorporated into any of the DOS-based Windows versions.  Metaphorically, users of DOS-based Windows lived in a house with one room; each member of the household could do whatever he wanted, but affected every other member.  Also, only one member of the household could be inside the house at a time.  This was an improvement from DOS: in the DOS house, only one person could do one thing at a time, and stop doing that thing before he started another, whereas in Windows, a person could sip on a beer and watch telly at the same time.

In 1993, Microsoft provided a self-contained operating system for business called Windows NT 3.1; this was Microsoft's second operating system.  This line of operating systems, now sold also for the residential market, still continues; its latest iteration is version NT 6.1, for marketing purposes called Windows 7.  This line of products introduced user accounts---each user of the computer could choose his own desktop background and store files under his own name.  Each account, at the owner's discretion, could have a password associated with it, so the account owner could relax in the knowledge that his sensitive data was private.  This line of Windows would metaphorically be closest to a house with multiple rooms, with locks on every room door, as well as the front door.

Both lines of operating systems continued to evolve; in 1994, Microsoft released a version of Windows built upon the same philosophy as the graphical DOS interface described above; logically, it referred to itself as Windows version 4 (for marketing purposes, it was called Windows 95).  This version of Windows began a new generation, however, as it needed no software to be installed on the computer prior to itself; thus, it actually was very close to an actual operating system.  Windows 95 still needed DOS to function, but its internal version of DOS was installed as an integral part of the system.  Of this generation, five versions were released, starting with 95 and concluding with Millenium Edition, i.e. 4.9. This line of products also featured accounts; however, security was lacking.  Anyone with a cursory knowledge of the system could defeat DOS-based Windows password protection.  This line of Windows would be closest to a house with multiple rooms and doors between the rooms, but no locks.

In terms of security, Mac OS before 2002 was exactly like the DOS-based versions of Windows, the last version of which was released in 1993; i.e., it was eight years behind!

After 2002, Mac OS was scrapped.  The new operating system used on Macs is Mac OS in name only.  Mac OS X, as it is called, is actually an adaptation of a particular business-grade operating system used on large mainframes; this system is called UNIX, and powers multinational corporations and banks.  In UNIX, security would essentially be that of a supermax prison.  Although Windows also powers mainframes in large corporations (the split is about 50/50), it lags years behind when it comes to security.  Scant wonder: the particular version of UNIX that Mac OS X is based on hails from the University of California at Berkeley, and dates from the 1970s; it has had ages to become the beast it is today, and was written by its students entirely as a volunteer project, and so it became better than any business could produce.

Here's another analogy, this time relating more to file security than account security.  Mac OS and pre-4 Windows store files in a shoebox at the corner of Oxford and Bond Streets.  Windows 9x stores its files in an unlocked filing cabinet.  Windows NT stores its files in an office safe.  UNIX stores its files in a Swiss bank vault.

Now, if a computer/computer-like toy has only one user, security becomes a non-concern.  However, there is a second issue, whether a computer has one, two, or a thousand users: stability.  DOS is single-tasking; only one job runs at a time, so the computer is infinitely stable.  All versions of Windows and Mac OS can run more than one application at a time.  However, the way they accomplish this is very different, and so the degree of stability

Non-NT Windows, as well as Mac OS, use co-operative multi-tasking.  A programme asks for a resource; the system gives it to the programme.  When and only when the programme finishes with it, it gives the system the resource back.  If the person who wrote that programme forgot to include certain statements at the end, when the programme is quit, it doesn't give the resource back even after it's done with it.  The first situation requires a restart; the second only requires it eventually, once there's no more of that resource left.  This is comparable to a roomful of first-forners left unsupervised with a limited amount of toys.  If one of the children simply hold on to a toy and refuse to share it, there will be a fight, and someone will get hurt.  If several children mistakenly believe that the toy belongs to them and them only, and take that particular toy home, nobody will notice until there's no toys left, at which point there will be crying and fights.

NT Windows and Mac OS X use pre-emptive multitasking.  Instead of a roomful of first-formers with no supervision, pre-emptive multitasking is a roomful of mature adults with police supervision.  If one of the adults is being unruly, the policeman will take the man away.  People leaving the room are frisked, to make sure that everything taken is put back.  When this happens, the object is put back and everything works as normal.

The reason for the sudden change of code base in Mac OS was because Apple bought out NeXT, a company founded by Steve Jobs after he was fired from Apple.  Yes, that Steve Jobs.  NeXT started in 1985, and was bought out in 1996.  NeXTStep was an operating environment that could run on almost any operating system, although at first NeXTStep ran only on NeXT's own computers.  NeXT was bought out for the explicit purpose of using NeXTStep as a replacement for Mac OS, as well as re-hiring Jobs.

In the meantime (i.e. between 1994 and 1996), Apple spent a fortune in money and man-hours into its in-house solution to the Mac OS problem: a hotch-potch of various modules, akin to puzzle-pieces, codenamed Copland.  Copland never came close to completion, and never would have: Apple's development strategy for Copland was fundamentally flawed.  Instead of putting together a well-balanced team to write a kernel---that is, a base on which the graphical environment would run---Apple put together a multitude of teams to each write a single component of the Copland system, and somehow expected the puzzle to magically come together.  The Copland demo, released in 1996, lacked even a text edit control, the most basic of features; it was unstable and crashed frequently, despite the concept being rock-solid in theory.

Work on Mac OS X, which was essentially a graphically-updated NeXTStep running on the Berkeley Software Distribution of UNIX, officially began in 1996 under the name Rhapsody.  Instead of releasing NeXTStep on BSD immediately with no changes, Apple made extensive graphical changes to the perfectly-fine user interface, to bring it in line with the "Platinum" interface that defined old-fashioned Mac OS.  I believe a better name for "Platinum" would be "Manure".

The upshot of this was that an uglier version of NeXTStep was released, three years later, in 1999, for server (i.e. business) use only.  Guess what the home market was to use.  Yes, you're right: old-fashioned Mac OS, now called Mac OS 9.  Home users, as well as Joe the office drone, were stuck with old-fashioned Mac OS while servers ran a real operating system.

Microsoft made the same mistake, but its mistake was limited to marketing only: NT 4 and 5 (2000) were marketed to businesses, while 98 and Me were marketed to residences.  However, NT 4 and 2000 both had versions for the average PC, and would work well in a residential capacity; in fact, due to the uselessness and instability afforded by Me, Windows 2000 was frequently used that way.

With Mac OS X Server, no workstation version existed; i.e. the Mac counterpart to Windows 2000 was Mac OS 9.  This state of affairs existed until 2001.

Again, a summary: from the acquisition of NeXT in 1996, businesses had to wait three years for a server solution from Apple---a server solution that could have been written in six months maximum (a re-brand of NeXTStep, running on BSD compiled for PowerPC microprocessors).  This server solution could have been made available for office machines as well.  Instead, both office and residential users had to wait five years to get a useful operating system to run on Mac.

In an ideal world, as soon as NeXT was acquired, Mac OS 8 should have been scrapped; this would leave more-or-less double the number of employees to work on Rhapsody, so that it could ship in half the time, and be used for home, office, and server applications.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is why Microsoft has a near-monopoly on computer systems: it took five years for Apple to release an affordable operating system that was not a pile of manure.  Microsoft, on the other hand, gave workstation users a choice between 9x (their counterpart to old-style Mac OS) and the slightly more expensive professional NT.  Although more users chose 9x in the mid 1990s, the balance had shifted by 1999.

Apple's operating system was released in 2001, as a glorified version, more or less, of BSD.  And, up till now, the command environment, that is, BSD proper, has been working properly.  In fact, it's still working properly---it's had forty years of development behind it.  Apple, however, has had ten years---that is, thirty six fifty days and somewhere around seventy thousand hours---to work on the graphical part of its system, and it still isn't done.

Take hover-to-focus.  It's a simple feature, wholly misunderstood by those not using UNIX, but considered essential by those that do: if Word is active (and presumably on top), and Excel is inactive (and is on bottom), simply keeping the mouse pointer on any part of Excel's window that isn't covered up gives Excel focus, i.e. makes it active BUT DOESN'T MOVE IT.   I stress that point because there is a widely-maligned variation of this that actually pulls up the window, which I'll get into later.

Autofocus is a great feature---hell, even Windows has it.  It comes in handy when you have multiple projects open, and a command line or two, and you need to put in a command and then get back to your work.

However, people who haven't tried administrating an AIX server, or doing graphics on an SGI box, or even who haven't used Linux, number, sadly, in the majority.  Although autofocus is included in Windows, making it happen includes finding a particular checkbox, ticking it, and clicking on OK, something which Joe Average Office Drone isn't interested in doing.

However, when this is mentioned on a forum somewhere on the Information Superhighway To Hell, people automatically assume that focus means foreground.  So they point you to some programme or other that invariably costs north of $25 and does something that I could write up myself.

Then there is an even worse example, and to be honest it makes me wonder if the programmers at Apple are stupid or really drunk.  Most graphical operating environments are window-based.  The nice folks at Xerox thought of that back in the 1970s, didn't make a penny, and let everyone else copy off of them.  They put each collection of related functions on a piece of data inside a self-contained "window", and allowed these windows to be moved at one's leisure.

Suppose I have two Word windows open on Mac and two Excel, but one of the Excel windows is minimised.  If I hit Apple-Tab, I should get the next window in line.  Instead, Apple makes it PROGRAMME-FOCUSSED, so if I have one of those windows minimised, Mac OS just skips over them, no big deal.

So I've moved away from Apple-Tab entirely.  I've now had to keep a list of keyboard shortcuts magnetically pinned to a metal easel on my desktop so that I don't forget: F8, F9, F10, F11, F12.  Whisky, tango, foxtrot?  Sure, I like the Exposé, but I like my Apple-Tab too!  Same for Home and End.  On UNIX and on Windows, Home and End move to the head and tail end of a line.  On Mac, they move to the head and tail end of a page.  Then again, this is just semantics---this isn't really missing features, because I've just had to learn Apple-Left and Apple-Right for that.  No problemo, I can adjust.

And then we have Spaces, also known as multiple desktops, a standard feature of UNIX machines for years.  Windows still doesn't have it.  Hurrah for Mac.  BUT HOW THE HELL DO I GET AN OPENED WINDOW FROM "SPACE" 1 TO "SPACE" 6?!  That's the whole bloody point!  No, apparently I can open a programme window on desktop one, and another couple on desktop three, but I can't move them across desktops.  Why the hell include the damn feature then?

You know what, I can't even rant anymore.  If I rant like this anymore, I'll die of apoplexy.