No, I didn’t make any resolutions!

If one more person asks me what New Year’s resolutions I made this year, I’m going to lose it.

Let’s be clear – I don’t make resolutions. Not this year, not last year, not next year. Never.

On the surface, resolutions seem like a nice idea.  You identify the things in your life that you are not happy with, and resolve to change them. Maybe you want to lose weight, or spend more time with your spouse / children. Maybe you want to be more open-minded or less stressed.  These are certainly worthy goals for any life.

But what makes you think that you are more likely to follow through with them, just because you ‘resolved’ to at the  beginning of another arbitrary new year?

If you don’t like how much you weigh, then you have probably been thinking about it for a while.  In fact, you probably think about it every day.  And yet you’ve done nothing about it? And now you think that you’ll actually have the will-power to change, just because the year has changed?

Psh! It won’t happen.

Don’t make resolutions – make changes!

If I don’t like some aspect of my life, I don’t wait for symbolic things to line up before doing something about them.

Here’s my 5 step process to enjoying life:

1. Identify something about life that I don’t like.
2. Identify what specifically needs to be done in order to change it.
3. Do a basic cost/bennefit analysis, identifying what the change will cost vs. what I will gain,  and then make a decision about whether or not the cost truly outweighs the benefit.
4. If I think that changing is too much trouble given the benefit, then I accept it, stop whining,  and move on, so I can restart the process again with a different problem.  If I think changing is worth the trouble, then I follow through with the things identified in Step 2. Either way, I have made a decision and have to accept responsibility for my action or inaction.

That’s it! Just make a decision about what you’ll gain vs. the amount of effort it will take, and then do it.  If you follow the process and discover that you are not willing to accept the hassle required to really change something, then just move on to something else.

Making resolutions isn’t the same as making changes – resolutions are just one more way to procrastinate.  I’m all for procrastination – I won’t hold it against you.  Just don’t pretend like you are actually accomplishing anything.

I don’t make New Year’s resolutions, because at the end of the year I have nothing to resolve. I fixed all of my problems as soon as they came up. 

In 2011, the only things that I will fix are things that become a problem in 2011.

It’s Rememberance Day, but not at the mall

I pass through the Rideau Centre most mornings on my way to the office, and I’ve noticed that more and more Christmas decorations have been going up this week.  But somehow I was still taken by surprise this afternoon when I walked by and realized that the Santa Claus chair is already set up.

Today is November 11th!!!  NOVEMBER!

It’s too damn early for Christmas decorations, and it is WAY too early for Santa’s chair!!!

Forget age-based alcohol driving rules

I’ve heard a lot of discussion for and against new legislation that will make it illegal for people under 21 to drive with anything other than a zero blood-alcohol level.

The blood-alcohol level thing has always confused me.  We learn very early in school that there is almost no way for the average person to gauge the true effects of alcohol on their own body.  We all know about that little card you can get that compares how much alcohol is in each type of drink, and we all know that it is complete garbage. The number of variables that have to be taken into consideration are simply immeasurable.

Any yet, we continue to presume that the law can simply give a single number applicable t all, and that will somehow keep us safe – despite the fact that nobody is ever quite certain if they are over the level.

I propose that we stop relying on age-based, and blood-alcohol-based laws. The law should be that if you drink alcohol, you can’t drive for 24 hours. Period.

If everyone, young or old, was required to have a zero blood-alcohol level when driving there would be absolutely no mystery.

Unnatural disasters

Why is it that we ascribe the term “natural disaster”  to floods, avalanches, mudslides, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, and other perfectly natural occurrences only when they destroy completely unnatural, man-made structures?

An earthquake isn’t a disaster – it’s a basic geological phenomenon.  Likewise, the leveling of a city is not natural – cities are about as far from nature as we can get.

Yes, floods, avalanches, mudslides, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes and tsunamis sometimes destroy our things, and it is very unfortunate.  But we should be clear:  when this happens it is not nature ravaging humanity, it is humanity getting in nature’s way.

Nature was here first, and nature will be here last. Lets all agree to stop mixing these concepts.

Law of Conservation of Intelligence

Leuraner’s Law of Conservation of Intelligence states that intelligence can be neither created nor destroyed.  Since there is a finite quantity of intelligence in the universe, this requires that the greater the population of intelligence receptacles (beings capable of intelligence), the less intelligence there is available for each receptacle.

This is not to suggest that intelligence is spread evenly throughout the universe.  Just as some areas of the universe contain greater or lesser quantities of mass, so certain intelligence receptacles are capable of containing greater or lesser quantities of intelligence.  However, the only way to increase the average quantity of intelligence available for each receptacle is to limit the creation of, or destroy, unnecessary receptacles.

This leads to Leuraner’s Intelligence Dilemma, which postulates the following:  In order to increase the average quantity of intelligence across the universal population of intelligence receptacles, it would be necessary to destroy either a lesser quantity of receptacles with high densities of intelligence, or a greater quantity of receptacles with low densities of intelligence.

The destruction of a lesser quantity of receptacles with high densities of intelligence is obviously a more efficient method of redistributing intelligence.  This is because it requires the destruction of fewer overall receptacles, and each receptacle is likely to have a greater understanding of the need for its destruction.  However, those specific receptacles are the least likely to contribute to the creation of new receptacles. Moreover, they are more likely to be of significant importance to the general population.  Indeed, they are likely to have been involved in the discovery of the Law of Conservation of Intelligence in the first place.

On the other hand, the destruction of receptacles that are of lesser importance would be of significant benefit to the population in the longer term, since the removal of these receptacles would be less obvious and would help to limit the creation of more receptacles.  However, these receptacles, having lower densities of intelligence, would likely fail to understand the Law of Conservation of Intelligence. As such, they would be more likely to resist any attempt at destruction, causing even greater inefficiency.

Add to: Facebook | Stumbleupon | Twitter |

Culinary rules

Never eat Cheetos before 9am.  Not even the crunchy kind.

Addendum: If ever in China, do not eat the turkey flavoured Cheetos, regardless of time of day.

Culinary rules

You know what? I don’t care what anyone else says:

Garlic should only be smellable when my face is within  approximately 40 to 50 centimeters from the plate.

I don’t want to smell it throughout the whole house.