Water, water everywhere

Water used to taste good enough to eat, is what I once said about the water in a place I lived that got its supply straight from a stream high on a mountain. That water is no more and neither is the mountain. The latter was levelled for gravel to pave roads south of the border and the water settled itself downward as water will do, as the hill disappeared onto barges heading south. It still supplied the village, but as the population grew so did the village infrastructure. The populace no longer trusted the water as pure as it was since it had, heaven forbid, "minerals" and "sediment" in it. You might even see tiny bits floating about. When you take minerals all by themselves, yes, some, including trace arsenic, a natural ingredient like gold, in many systems, can be dangerous in large quantities. Little critters that live in water and can be our bodily friends are also quite safe if they are allowed to participate in Nature's wise balance scheme. But no. In this squeaky clean society in which we exist, so far, we have to have what is called "pure" water. That's a misnomer. That means to remove everything from our water that remotely might live in in, remotely might do harm in large amounts or might make it not absolutely clear. Not only do we attempt to remove these things, we add other substances that really are harmful in large quantities. We are told that now with the addition of these substances, the water will be clear and in spite of the dreadful taste, the added chemicals will make it healthier. I suppose it's all fine and dandy, but I miss the water that used to taste good to drink and came straight from the stream to the tap in my kitchen. Now I don't drink the new "healthy" water as it stands, because, frankly, it not only stinks, but it tastes dreadful. To drink it, I am not into a lot of filtration as some of my neighbours have become addicted to and pay richly for at the hardware store, I let it sit in a cool place and add lemon slices. I don't know whether that makes it healthier but it surely does taste better. I visited someone recently who photographed what his filters looked like. I said, which one of these black and brown things is the good one? I learned that all three of these conical filters had been attached to his tap and this was the result. He also told me that they changed these expensive filters regularly in order to have pure water. He showed me his "system" under the sink and it took up a lot of very impressive space under there. Three big cylinders stood in a row and were attached by a plumber to the tiny water tap they used daily. I was also shown a big steel thing on the counter that forced carbon bubbles into the water  so that these folks could design their own form of flavoured bubbly waters to drink. After this costly display of water treatment, I had to rush home and drink some of my tap lemon water just to quench my very mundane thirst.

Outthinking Your Computer

No. Computers do not think and I doubt, no matter what scientists say, they truly ever shall. Why? Nothing is so devious, creative, unreliable or unpredictable as the human mind. We also make mistakes. Part of our magnificence is that we have emotions and to our thinking, we unwittingly or not, add these wonders. The computer is not human. It is emotionless. Man feeds the computer's memory and its memory is far better than ours. What goes into the machine can be sorted, blended, juxtaposed and transformed but the machine, does and uses, only combinations of what it is fed. Humans without all of the electronics and the uses of power sources other than their built-in own, can create. They can  instantly come up with an idea that is unique to a situation.  And it can make mistakes and correct them or make those mistakes turn into successes. Computers shouldn't make mistakes. They just plug along with what we put into them in one way or another and re-arrange those data according to how their makers have planned. All that being said, taking this to ridiculous conclusions, I know that we can out-think computers. Sometimes. We can learn their patterns as they do ours. We can predict their actions just as they do. But we operate outside the box. Literally. The reason I know this, is that I am an avid Hearts player and I play it against a computer. Same with Bridge, and a whole lot of other games I enjoy when I am not writing or reading on the Box thing. And "thing" it is. Sure. I talk to it, just as you do and often cuss at it but it remains utterly expressionless. During my games of Hearts, a simple game requiring little in the way of mental activity but much in not wanting to throttle the computer when I seems unfairly to present me too often with that dreaded Queen of Spades. But, I can "trick" the machine quite often. Knowing that the computer who is the other three players,  I  have come to ken its patterns because being a simple game, they are limited, to a degree. By discarding certain cards in a game or playing the cards in a certain sequence based on previous patterns noted, it is possible to kind of "foil" the computer so that winning can be accomplished. It doesn't work every time, but when it does, and you back the computer into a corner, it's a sweet feeling. I am not sure, but game makers, I believe, try not to lose customers by beating them every time. They could. If you have control of three hands in a four-handed game such as Bridge, they have a big advantage. And they don't baby you, but they can allow, just as the Vegas and Reno machines do, winning to occur just enough to keep you playing. No one, and I know a couple of keen Bridge players with "card memory", can be sure where every card probably is and where many are, for certain. But the computer can and does. In the meantime, the computers are great opponents because they don't gibe. Or do they? Sometimes, I feel my computer when I have been beaten repeatedly, just might be silently laughing at me in neat steely winner's smugnificence.

Boldly Oldie

The radio, a media that requires delightfully more imagination than screen, voiced this morning that it is "older people who don't believe in global warming". It would have been easy to ignore this witless statement, but it was made by a well-known science guy who should know better. First of all, he's an oldie himself and second of all, I doubt that his charge is accurate. This individual lumping one large group of people into a single dark, unproven statement such as this, is  not only ignorant but defamatory, if not prejudicial. If this man, he's no gentleman, is truly a scientist and not merely riding on the backs of scientists for his show biz money, he ought to present facts in an authoritative manner. Since the famous earth-caring, Dr. Suzuki, an older man, would be included in this media science guy's implosive blurt about age being part of the world's problem, he could at least provide us with some proof. It reminds me of how the older set are regarded by many younger people in our youth-yearning society. There is a great misunderstanding of aging. It is not entering the stupid stage of life, it is merely the natural process of everything living on earth to age, and as such, needs to be understood as much as growth. As our lovely blue planet ages, we, the ones who have been watching it all our lives, we elders, likely have a better picture of where we stand biologically than those who are newer on earth. We have seen the stages and grieve for the losses on the planet, but at the same time, we as citizens, pay our taxes and our daily living expenses the same as those who are still earning money. Our hard-earned money over the many decades, is no longer worth what it was, and thus we live, most of us, in a very practical style. We don't waste, we recycle, we don't overuse. We don't need the fashion labels or foreign cars or restaurant foods at the same rate as Millenials. We also don't have the same credit burdens. But we feel the ills of the world as much as anyone. We've done our jobs. It's our time to rest but that's not always possible, lovely as it sounds.  Many  elders who are daily accused of taking up medical services and time,  have also had to support  grown children and grandchildren, donated and volunteered to make society a better place for all and statements like the one by this science guy, are untrue and unwelcome. I know a couple of retired people who have taken in five grandchildren with parents who are drug addicts. They are old but they are full of love not only for their grandchildren, but also for the world those children will be entering as adults. To hear elders being told they aren't aware of global problems is ridiculous. They have more time to learn about our environment and to make every effort to erase their "footprints". It would be nice to hear the good news about elders and not always words of blame.

Condo Crowned

The advent of growing numbers of condo dwellers calls for closer amateur management skills training of elected council members for these developments. Council members are well-meaning but often unqualified folk who take on the role. It is a big responsibility to manage the investment property of so many other people without specific training in condominium knowledge. Most of the council members doing their job, deem to have been an executive of sorts in business etc and therefore are considered to be "qualified". It's not the same thing. To be sure, there is the Strata Act in place and the Condo Bylaws and Rules. It doesn't seem a complicated domain. One assumes that with the laws in place, everything should go swimmingly. Unfortunately, in the great ocean of local amateur kinds of power, there are the usual sharks lurking amongst the swarms of ordinary fish in the pond. Most of the latter simply want to swim around in their little corners of the world and enjoy life while expecting the elected bodies to carry out the business so that peace of mind may reign.  How ideal that would be. Most condos hire a management company that does have the education in matters of condominium business: collecting fees, listening to gripes and generally, being courteous and cooperative. The council has hired the management company and ought to listen to their advice. Council's job is to see that their "subjects" are able to go about feeling secure and content in their complex. But it is sad to see when councils begin to see themselves as landlords who can dominate other owners without due consideration of their like fellows. Dictatorial attitudes and just plain rudeness do not fit the role of Council Member.  Often it isn't the council member's fault entirely. It seems to indicate a lack of understanding what the role is. Council members should not be permitted to take office until they have learned in a condo course, how to do their jobs effectively and under some sort of ethical code. They are not kings and queens to rule. They are actually servants of the people who elect them, and as such need to use tact and put away their egos. It is also true that they are not slaves. They  try to do their best, but it's not an easy job, nor does it pay well, in fact, not at all.  Councils need to know their parameters. They need educating. There is no requirement by government at present for one to be on a council and yet many of these untrained bodies control a very large amount of other people's monies.  Knowledge is king. A council member I heard about recently, didn't like what happened at a meeting,and is going to instruct the secretary to remove what he doesn't like, thus change the motion. That is a legal no-no but this man, doesn't have the knowledge to realize that.  Councils must operate by the rules and maintain order and peace so that all owners may enjoy their property - but who is watchdogging this?

Shelfless In The House

An ad I just read by a publisher said I will need bigger shelves due to the large number of very fine recent books out. Nope. I don't have shelves any more. While there are pros and cons about "real" books compared to on-line ones, I prefer reading on my computer or device. Oh, I know, I know. You like the smell of books or holding them close to your heart or being able to take them along (to hide behind?) but that doesn't work for me any more. Why? It's cheaper for one thing. I "buy" most of my books for free and if I don't like them, one hit and they're gone and another one can be popped up instantaneously. I weaned off hard books when I wanted to sit outside and have my library and phone and an information source all in my hands. Yup. I am lazy. I don't want to move if I don't want to. If I am sitting in my reed wing back chair with something cool beside me in a glass and my feet up, no, I don't want to get up. Everything I need for a good read is right where I am. I read on. Another "why" I have switched to screen reading, is that my "book" is lighter to hold and I can make the print larger or smaller when I choose. I can carry my book shelf in my handbag. When I have to wait or stand in line for times, my book is readily (pun) available. The final "why", is that I live in an urban style condo where a book shelf library is not practical. For sure, I have six shelves of my dear old friend books and references, but over the years, I have had to pare down many of them and save only the books that I shall not part with. Some of them are original publications stuffed with pressed wild flowers, old photos or little bits such as feathers, locks of hair or swatches of cloth. The books' contents have meaning as well as their own contents. Some of my friends and relatives know what pages hold the treasures and on what pages they lurk for the surreptitious viewing. Moving to online reading is something I can effect during my solitary eating/lunching/munching sessions at the computer where the set up in my den, is the comp screen sitting on a generous amount of board jutting out from the top of my desk. Tut tut, I hear. Yes, indeed, it is one of my favorite places and indulgences. When you're a widow, you don't have to explain what you do. You do as you please, and what I please of late, is my reading habits, doing so on-line. My on-line library is huge and my reading base, unapologetically, much expanded since I switched. Now, let's see where was I?