Monthly Archives: October 2011
Consider the island of Great Britain. Imagine choosing 3 points on the coast, and connecting those points to make a triangle. I think there would be an infinite number of possible triangles. Would that still be the case if we added the condition that the sides of the triangle may not cross the coastline?
And is it possible to create even one equilateral triangle that doesn’t cross the coastline?
I have no clue how to approach as a general case.
Some things that haven’t added up in my eyes:
Say I was good but my wife was not. So I would go to heaven but she would go to hell. But I love my wife. It just wouldn’t be heaven if she wasn’t there. Now what? Does her soul get copied, and some android controls the part in my heaven, but she doesn’t know, and just suffers in hell? I imagine her soul would have to get copied a lot of times. Her friends and family would want her in their heavens too.
Wow a religious person might freak out at the thought of their soul being copied and used to make other people happy while they themselves rot in hell. They would probably feel that that was unjust. I heard that some serious criminals don’t believe they’re doing anything immoral. I wonder how many of them would have cause for alarm. There are some ridiculous things that are considered sins, like the one about wearing two different fabrics together. That this discredits the Bible’s reliability of what would actually get you sent to hell makes sense, but then they really ought to change those ridiculous laws (example, the Toronto law that forbids dragging a dead horse down Yonge St. on a Sunday). If that actually exists (I’m skeptical) then doesn’t that discredit our laws in a similar way to the Bible?
Ok, the debate could continue because we could just remove those sorts of laws. But because the Bible is 2000 years old, nobody would agree to change it. And different sects already interpret the Bible differently. And what if the Pope thinks that mixing fabrics is demonic?
If they did think about one silly Bible passage, they might scour the book for other outdated notions. But if someone asked for the horse law to be repealed, the legal authorities would not read through every other law to see what others might be outdated.
“Why not?” Is that even feasible?
Wow, I got sidetracked. I don’t believe in souls, but the notion seems that they would be too precious to copy. Another issue I have: what age is someone in heaven? If I died now, I would hope to be my age. But if I was 93, I would probably rather be younger than that in heaven. And what if I’d had cancer, or broken all my ribs, or had a leg amputated? Who’s even to say?
But heaven is probably beyond the physical form. Though I don’t even think that could happen.
OK, so it’s metaphorical. Your soul is happy, but we really mean the memory of you. Which I do agree with, but it has nothing to do with religion. You’re still in the ground, but because you were a good person, we think fondly of you after you’re gone. Can this be the new standard?
What needs to happen to get more funding to GO Transit? It really ought to be expanded. This is what I was thinking about today:
1. Go Transit needs the least subsidies per ride in North America. It’s a great investment in infrastructure and you get a good bang for your taxpayer buck. (Source: Wikipedia for the comparison, GO Transit (Background section) for the claim that it’s consistent)
2. The new GO trains hold over 1900* people each (new engines can pull 12 passenger coaches rather than 10). How many cars is that? Let’s do some math, and choose values that hurt my argument. A 10-coach train could hold about 1580 people. Metrolinx reports that “Currently the average vehicle travelling on the GTHA’s roads and highways during the morning rush hour carries less than 1.2 people” so let’s use 1.25, because the info seems like it’s from 2008. 1580/1.25 equals 1264 cars that could be taken off the road with a single GO train. So I wondered how much space that would take on the highway. 1264 cars/3 per “row” is just over 420 rows of cars. And I’ll estimate the length of a car to be 4 metres, which means that all those cars would fill the DVP one way from Bloor to Dundas, bumper to bumper.
*Edit (10/24/16:00) A reader noted that this is the seating capacity; I didn’t read carefully. I can’t find an accurate figure for standing passenger capacity. Maybe an extra 40-50%? Well, all the more reason to add trains.
I’m not even going to get into the environmental aspect (like CO2 emissions), the economical aspect (like productivity/man-hours lost in traffic), or how awesome it would be if they re-opened North Toronto Station (at Summerhill) so you could get from Kipling to Old Cummer or Agincourt in less time than it would be to drive.
How can I put this idea forward to the right people?
The Swiss Chalet rotisserie channel is essentially a 24-hour ad for Swiss Chalet. But I haven’t heard anyone say, “What the hell is wrong with this picture?” or anything to that effect.
This is the kind of thing that 10 years ago, people thinking of it would have said, “Imagine if that existed, how messed up would that be?” or possibly, “How can we make this real and have people accept it?”
Seriously, I’m not sure if should congratulate Swiss Chalet or fear the future of advertising or media.