Letters to the Editor
Rowyna
Published Letters: 105 Editor's Choice: 36
-
how does it go in the snow?
[Read the article: The Smart car is coming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seriously though... how well does it drive in the snow? There was a comment above about Montreal/Toronto that got me wondering about this.
I live in Australia right now, and lots of people have these cars. Friends of mine have one on this neat scheme where it gets painted with advertising material every 2 weeks, and they get to "lease" it for free. The thing is, it doesn't snow here. And having had a close-up look at the tiny tires and low wheel base, I'm frankly dubious about how well this would sell in new england (where I grew up). I suppose it has a chance in California, but a place where you could ever get more than 12 inches of snow? Dubious.
-
vespa
[Read the article: The Smart car is coming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks to the people who answered my snow question, I guess it really does go OK in the snow if people in Canada are buying them!
I wonder if people will buy them for the daily commute, but keep their hulking SUVs/sedans for family trips? (Obviously this doesn't apply for the people who are single w/out kids)
For me, in sunny Australia (a little too sunny... hasn't rained properly for about 5 years... gg global warming) I'll stick to my vespa for city-travel. I can park it on the sidewalk (legal in Melbourne) and it gets about 70 mpg. In a head on colision with a chipmunk it's probably as safe as a smart car... also, it can carry two people and 1 shopping bag (about the same as a smart car! no just kidding, my mates managed to fit a bike in thier smartcar, although I think they took the wheels off).
Vespas, however, do NOT go in the snow. (I don't care what you Canadians say!)
-
shes in the right
[Read the article: J.K. Rowling's Crucio curse on fan's Harry Potter book]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]JK Rowling has every right to stop another author making a profit off the universe she created -- thats how copyright has always worked. It would be a different story if she was opposed to the online (non-profit) version, but she is only striving to prevent someone (a GREEDY someone imo) from profiting off HER creation.
I wonder how the author of this blog would feel if I said I was going to publish a book sumarising all his blog entries, for my own personal profit. I bet he wouldn't be entirely thrilled about it.
Maybe if the authors of the HP compendium had asked and gotten permission BEFORE going ahead with a publishing deal, the response would have been different. Common courtesy would have been for them to have obtained permission from the living author before deciding to use her unique universe in order to make profit for themselves. This is a very different issue than that of nonprofit fanfiction posted on the net.
-
donning my monocle
[Read the article: Mind your manners online]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think the biggest issue in written/online communication is that the written word leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to showing tone. What one person may write to be taken with the utmost seriousness may read as a joke to another. You may think I'm being sarcastic, but am I? Who knows! When I'm talking to you, even on the phone where you can't see me, it is incredibly obvious whether I'm taking the mickey out of you, or being really truly rude.
The other big issue is that there is no way to judge how the person we are communicating with is reacting to our statements. In a 'real' conversation we can immediately see the impact our words have on others. We read facial expressions and body language, and moderate our tone and approach accordingly.
The internet is a crazy place where we can be really mean to eachother (sometimes without even intending to be), and never have to see the other person's hurt reaction. Best not to take it too seriously.
-
looking backwards
[Read the article: A casualty of female hunters?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Aside from the whole "Neanderthals are animals" thing (which is really probably more controversial than the actual Globe article, when it comes to the ethics of humanity and the atrifical distinction we draw between ourselves and the rest of the 'animals' out there), I think both this blog and the premise of the article in the Globe suffer from a "using today to explain yesterday" mentality.
We're often guilty of looking for explinations to past events that fit into a continuous narrative with contemporary events. Some want to believe that Neanderthals went extinct because they didn't properly divide labour by gender lines, they were "feminists". Now, this is obviously one theory, which the article doesn't really do much, in my opinion, to back up with any empiricle data or similar case studies.
But hey, we're all interested in climate change as well -- maybe THAT really killed the Neanderthals! There's another backward looking theory that shapes itself based on contemporary concerns today. I'm not saying climate change or 'feminism' couldn't have killed off the Neanderthals, I'm just saying that maybe the reason we've come with those particular theories has more to do with what's going on in society NOW than an actual factual analysis.
As a climate change scientist, and they'll probably tell you climate change killed the Neanderthals. Ask a socilogist, and they might tell you it was a lack of gender division. Ask a creationist, and they'll tell you that God killed them off in the Great Flood... you see, it's all a bit relative. (ok, the Great Flood one isn't really... I just threw that in there for kicks).
Either way, this is the sort of 'scientific' study that the media laps up. I'm going to write a 'theory' about how the neanderthals were killed by space aliens. Maybe I can get something published in the Globe.