Hackerspace Autonomous Model Sailboat Racing

TL;DR Do you want to race autonomous model sailboats against other hackerspaces?

As you may have heard, think|haus has had a bumpy road lately. Membership has dropped, the space is underused and in need of general cleanup/fixup, etc. We were on the verge of closing, but have decided to give one last shot at revitalizing the space. One of the things people have suggested/requested was to have some group projects to help rebuild a sense of community. To that end, I'd like to seek feedback/expressions of interest from the various hackerspaces in Ontario for the following idea:

WHAT:

An autonomous model sailboat race. In September, think|haus would sponsor a race on Hamilton Harbour. Each hackerspace would enter a boat. If your space is extremely enthusiastic, maybe enter more than one. The rules would be simple: boats no more than 2m in length, must be powered by the wind only. 3 buoys would be placed in the Harbour setting out a triangular course. Teams would be provided the GPS co-ordinates of the 3 buoys. Boats must make it around the course without any remote control - telemetry & video links would be permitted, but no control links. Attacking other boats would not be permitted (though that may be an idea for another side competition - robot wars, boat edition).

think|haus would provide a chase boat to go out & retrieve any model sailboat that got into trouble. We'd also host a BBQ party afterwards.

WHY:

Well, I like sailing, and it's my idea, so there's that. But also, the project has roles for the electronics types, the software types, and the mechanical types who would have to all work together on a common fun project. It would likely involve laser cutting, 3D printing, woodworking, sewing, microcontroller programming, and maybe vacuum forming, fiberglass work, etc. so there would be lots of opportunity to get everyone involved regardless of skill level. It can be as simple or as complicated as you want - stick a dowel with sail made from a plastic bag  in a big hunk of foam, or meticulously model a rigid wing carbon fiber hydrofoiling catamaran - it depends on what your team wants to do.

The main reason why, though, is to have fun working on a project together over the summer, learn new things, and have a good day outdoors followed by food & beverage. Maybe this could be SoonCon 2016?

So: interested? Ideas? Suggestions? Please let me know what you think.

Dave Harvey

think|haus

PS. I've tried to hit most of the southern Ontario hackerspaces that I know of & have contact info for, but if there's anyone else or another list you can think of, please feel free to forward this info.

Federal Government Betrays Tainted Blood Victims

This is appalling.

In 1999, the Federal government provided compensation to people who were infected with hepatitis C through the blood system, but, despite vigorous opposition, initially restricted it to those infected between 1986 and 1990. After years of litigation & lobbying, during which time many people suffered & died, in 2007 compensation was finally extended to those infected before 1986 and after 1990 as well. Separate funds were set up for the two groups.

At the time the funds were set up, we were required to estimate the number of people in each group, and how sick they were, in order to determine the amount of money required for each of the funds. Those estimates turned out to be not quite accurate, and as a result the fund established for the 86-90 group has a surplus of about $240 million, and the fund for the pre-86/post-90 group ran out of money a few years ago, and would need about $60 million to pay out valid claims that could not be paid after the fund ran out.

On Monday, the Federal government is going to court to ask that the $240 million surplus in the 86-90 fund be paid back to the government. They refuse, however, to use any of that money to top up the empty pre-86/post-90 fund. People deserving compensation will go without, and the Federal government will pocket $240 million. Shameful, greedy & wrong

For more info, see the Globe and Mail story here.

Let's Put Scalpers Out Of Business

Ticketmaster managed to piss off everybody this morning with the pre-sale for The Tragically Hip tour. Tickets were on scalper sites before the sale even started, including StubHub.

I logged on right at 10am, and was told there were no tickets available. I decided to keep trying. After about 20 minutes & a dozen tries with "no tickets available", I was about to give up. I decided to try one more time, and I got centre floor, 9th row. Something is clearly wrong with the system. Why weren't these seats available the first 12 times I tried?

So it got me thinking: there's a breakdown in the market for tickets. From an economics standpoint, the existence of scalpers suggests that bands are underpricing their shows. If someone is willing to pay $500 for a $90 ticket, why shouldn't the band get that extra $410 instead of some scalper? The scalpers are making a profit but contributing nothing, and from all appearances are cheating the system to do so. 

So, here's my solution: instead of regular ticket sales, hold a type of auction. For example: divide the venue into 3 sections - good, better, best. There could be a minimum price for each section. Have a sign in page where you say how many tickets you want, and the maximum you'd be willing to pay for tickets in each section. The sign in page would be available for a week. At the end of the week, the system would review all requests, and allocate tickets according to the bids. If a band wanted to ensure that a certain number of tickets were available at a certain price to ensure people could afford to go, those could be set aside and allocated by lottery. The entire bid & allocation process could be open & transparent, so people could see how many tickets there are, what the bids were, and how tickets were allocated. This could be done in real time (which might lead to gaming the system) or could be available after allocation for accountability. 

This system would eliminate most of the issues with the current "mad dash" system, and ensure that more money goes to the artists instead of the scalpers. 

Thoughts?

Some thoughts about how we failed, and what we can learn, from the Ghomeshi trial

For me, the outcome of the Ghomeshi case was disappointing, but not unexpected. In my view, the justice system, in its broadest sense, failed. In analyzing what went wrong, we must look far beyond the courtroom. There were, to be sure, inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses. Some may have been errors, others likely deliberate shading of the truth. Details were omitted. In those circumstances, it is understandable that the judge found he could not rely on their evidence alone to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Since there was no other evidence, an acquittal was appropriate.

There is a sad irony in this case: we've made some progress in sexual assault cases. It is no longer proper to question a complainant about what she was wearing, or about her sexual history. We've written into law protections for complainants against the former practice of digging into medical files, psychiatric records, and former relationships. These practices were based on so-called "rape myths": the prejudicial assumptions that a woman's character, sexual history, etc could tell us whether the alleged assault was likely to have occurred. Or, more bluntly, whether she is lying about being assaulted, or was asking for it, or is somehow to blame because of her manner of dress, choice of place or companions. In the Ghomeshi case, however, all of these myths became a part of the unspoken narrative. They could be introduced only because the witnesses had given inconsistent statements to the media, the police, and the court. So many things that would have been inadmissible became admissible, ostensibly for the limited purpose of attacking the witnesses' credibility. But once those rape myth bells have been rung, they can't be unrung. The evidence is in, and any conscious or unconscious bias a judge or jury might have is put into play. Thus the irony: evidence that would not have been admitted, because it's abusive and not probative, became admissible because the complainants did not disclose it, because they feared abuse and did not think it was probative.

I lay some of the blame at the feet of the Crown. To me, it appeared that the witnesses had not been properly prepared for the trial. They did not seem to know what to expect. They should have been told that every interaction they ever had with Ghomeshi could be relevant, that the defense would likely have every email ever sent, every photo, every letter. They should have been provided with those things, been asked to review them, to refresh their memories, so that they could think about the entire context before the high pressure situation of a cross-examination.

At the heart of the broader failure, though, lies this question: why did the witnesses not tell the whole truth? What prejudices do we have as a society that makes a person fear telling the whole truth about abuse within a relationship? Why did they feel that they couldn't tell some parts of the story? Partly to avoid embarrassment. Partly because they worried that those details would make it less likely that they'd be believed about the assaults. But it is unfair to say that those are failings of the women alone. They are failings in all of us. It is the preconceived notions of those of us who have never been in that situation that creates the fear of embarrassment, and the fear of not being believed. If we want justice to work in cases of sexual assault, we must work as a society towards creating an atmosphere where the victims will feel supported, not embarrassed. Where they'll be met with understanding, not derision, when they explain that even after the assault, they went back to their abuser, that they didn't immediately go to the police, or that they wrote friendly, even flirty emails or letters to their abuser after the assaults. Only when we are prepared to listen without judgment, will they be prepared to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The Small World of the Ghomeshi Legal Saga

With the first Ghomeshi trial wrapping up today, I got to thinking what a small world the legal profession can be. Though I'm not involved in any way with the cases against Ghomeshi, at one time or another I've crossed paths with almost every lawyer involved.

I graduated from Osgoode Hall Law School in 1989. My graduating class included Marie Henein, Ghomeshi's criminal defence lawyer, and Janice Rubin, the lawyer hired by the CBC to investigate Ghomeshi's behaviour while at the CBC, and the CBC's response to it. As Marie, Janet and I were preparing for our final exams & looking forward to graduation, across campus Jean Ghomeshi (he went by Jean back then) was gearing up his campaign to become President of the York University student government, the CYFS. He won, and served as President the year after we graduated.

My graduating class

Marie & I both had much longer hair back then

Hired by the CBC to investigate the Ghomeshi sexual harassment & abuse allegations

In the late 1990's, I joined the litigation department at a large Toronto law firm. Most days I would go out to lunch with a number of my partners there, including Neil Rabinovitch. Long after Neil & I had gone off to separate firms, Neil represented Ghomeshi during his dealings with the CBC. Neil also launched Ghomeshi's short-lived $55 million lawsuit against the CBC. That lawsuit never went anywhere, and was dropped with Ghomeshi agreeing to pay $18,000 in legal costs to the CBC.

Around 2003, I joined a smaller litigation firm. We hired a bright young lawyer, Peter Henein (Marie's younger brother). Peter had gone to law school after a brief stint as a stand up comedian. Peter is now a partner at Cassels Brock in Toronto. Peter is sometimes assisted by an associate at the firm, Christopher Horkins, the son of Justice William Horkins, who is presiding over the Ghomeshi trial.

I've since retired from practice. But even sitting here at home, I can usually connect to the legal news in Canada with much less than 6 degrees of separation. Canada is the 2nd largest country in the world by land mass, but in certain professions, like law, it can really seem to be a small town.

Grace in America

As I watched Obama's extraordinary speech yesterday, I was struck with a sense of sadness. Sadness at the senseless violence that once again was the form of expression chosen by an alienated soul, yes, but also a larger sadness. A sadness for what could have been. Obama was elected on a platform of hope and change. He embraced big ideas, and sought positive change for all. He cares about breaking cycles of poverty, and about creating a better life for everyone.

Yet all that hope, and all that change, were blocked at every turn by entrenched interests in Congress, fueled by money and engineered by lobbyists. A hatred of the President, racism barely below the surface, fed a childish tantrum that reflexively opposed everything the President suggested, everything he stood for.

Everyone is saying what a great week this has been for the President. But it's only a great week in the context of what has come before. Yes, the Affordable Care Act survived yet another court challenge. But the very fact that this watered down version of universal health care is the subject of so much opposition is troubling. Saving it is a small victory - introducing truly universal, single payer healthcare would have been worth celebrating. But in today's America, small victories are all that's on offer. Yes, same sex marriage is now legal across the country, but it is far from universally accepted. The vitriol in the Court's dissenting opinions, and from many of the Republican leaders, is baffling. This is an issue that will have no effect on their lives, yet could have profound, positive effects on the lives of others. Their strident opposition to something that costs them nothing can be born of only judgmental hate.

The President's speech was heartfelt. To me, there was a tone of desperation, of resignation, of exhaustion. It was the speech of a man who, free of the burden of re-election aspirations, could speak honestly. A man who has come to realize that despite all his efforts, most of what he wanted to achieve would be left undone. Like many eulogies given following a senseless death, Obama was searching for meaning, for a shred of goodness that might be gleaned from the pain. It was clear, though, that this searching transcended the Pastor's death. His earlier insistence that things had improved was no doubt true. That he felt he had to say it said so much more.

When the President spoke of grace, he intended to celebrate the extraordinary grace shown by the people of Charleston in dealing with the targeted attack on their community. But in doing so, he, perhaps inadvertently, highlighted the absence of grace in so much of modern day America. Few would use "grace" to describe the daily machinations in Washington. Few would use "grace" to describe the goals of the NRA, the defenders of the Confederate flag, the angry selfishness of the Tea Party. Grace, like much of Obama's presidency, represents what can be, what should be, but what still seems out of reach.

When the history of this era is written, will it be seen as a presidency ahead of its time, yet the start of a transformation towards an America that truly represents its ideals of "life, liberty and justice for all"? Or will it be seen as a last grasp at decency, before the moral and economic decay of a once great society accelerated so quickly it became irretrievable?

Sadly, for me, yesterday seemed to be a funeral not only for Reverend Pinckney, but for the hope and the promise Obama once symbolized.

An Open Letter to My Conservative MP

I continue to receive fundraising calls & emails from the Conservative Party. I wanted to write to you to make it clear why I will not donate to the party.

Over the past several years, the policies of the Conservative Party have become increasingly harsh. There seems to be no compassion left in the party. There's a willingness to simply toss aside, or worse condemn, people who live in poverty, or people who have made mistakes. A "with us or against us" mentality has taken hold, with no room for compromise or forgiveness, and no interest in understanding the lives of those who do not fit into the mould of what the party appears to consider "real Canadians".

Instead of promoting policies that could benefit all segments of society, this government has promoted a culture of fear. Unprecedented surveillance of Canadians is now routine, and through Bills C-24 and C-51, this government has extended even more extraordinary powers to law enforcement & intelligence agencies, to be exercised largely in secret and without adequate oversight. This is in response to an exaggerated threat of "terrorism" (a word that seems to have a very flexible, result-driven definition). These laws, in my view, cannot survive a Charter challenge. The government has been unwilling to even listen to the reasonable concerns of the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, several Privacy Commissioners, as well as many other respected organizations and individuals. The Commons Committee hearings were a sham, and showed contempt for anyone who did not fully support the Bills.

I am old enough to remember the USSR, and the stories of people being spied on by the government, being arrested without charge and detained without recourse. We in the west were appalled at their tactics, and felt quite smug about our freedoms. It is deeply disturbing to me that our government no longer views such surveillance and detention as intrusive and excessive, and seems to be following in the Soviet footsteps.

This is not my Canada. It is not the Canada I grew up in, and it is not the Canada I want to live in. It is not the Canada I want to hand over to my children.

Instead of donating to the Conservative Party, I will be offering my money, my support, and my help to organizations who are fighting to reverse these trends, and to restore the compassionate Canada I believe the majority of Canadians want and deserve.

Yours truly,

David Harvey

Burlington, Ontario