Walking & Texting - do we really need to help people do that?

(Thanks to IntoMobile)

You've seen it if you've walked around the streets of any downtown area, no matter where you live: some people are so tied to their mobile phones that they're walking down the street, eyes locked onto their phones as they're texting madly away. Maybe you've been lucky enough to be bumped into by one of these people. Or been even luckier and seen them walk into a lamp post.

That would be funny.

Different cities are taking different tacks on addressing the issue of increasing injuries to those who walk and text. Some in the UK, as shown in the picture, are trying to safeguard them by padding their posts. Other municipalities in the US are making it illegal.

(If you see a ghostly hand, please see a doctor)

Industrious mobile app-makers are capitalizing on this growing trend. Taking advantage of the phone's camera, these apps show the ground in front of you while you're texting.

Is this really something that we should encourage? Part of walking around on a street is not just watching what's in front of you so you don't run into things. It's paying attention to your entire surroundings. Knowing if somebody's walking up a bit too close behind you. Or swerving over into your path because they're either drunk or because *they're* walking and texting at the same time.

What is so important to text somebody that you can't just stop for a moment and send a quick text, and then resume your walk? If you're going to have a conversation with somebody via text, then stop and have a coffee. Or just periodically stop and move to the side when you have to respond.

This just smacks of the self-absorption that our society seems to be wallowing in. People who are walking and actually paying attention have to either run into you or walk around you because you're too wrapped up in yourself and your texting to actually be courteous to other people walking with you.

Unless you are holding your phone up to eye-level while you're texting, the camera will just be showing the ground directly in front of you. It won't show somebody ten feet away from you who is approaching you. If you see the base of a lamp post show up in your camera, you will have very little time to swerve out of the way or stop. If you swerve, most likely you'll move right into the path of another walker. It will show you the curb you're about to step off of, but it won't show you the traffic coming either way.

I'm torn a bit on whether it should be made illegal. There is a lot of pedestrian behaviour that is truly annoying an inconsiderate that I wouldn't go so far as to make illegal. And while injuries do occur while walking/texting, it's rare that these injuries are to anybody but the idiot doing it in the first place. So it's not like distracted driving, where you could easily kill somebody else, or multiple somebodies, with your carelessness.

It is another example of an inconsiderate society, whose members really need to grow up and actually experience the world around them.

It's a beautiful world to actually look at. If you can get your nose out of your phone. At the very least while you're walking in it.

Why be informed by something you don't trust?

(Thanks to Invicta Properties)

Last week, on one of the best Twitter blogs out there, AllTwitter, I saw an interesting post , which made me stop and think for a minute.

Apparently, Americans increasingly use social media of various types to stay informed, yet their trust level of social media is actually pretty low, according to a new study.

"The Allstate Corporation and National Journal surveyed 1,000 U.S. adults aged 18 and over, and found that while some 60 percent of Americans believe that the internet and social media has made it easier for them to stay informed as consumers, more than two-thirds (69 percent) believe that brands and political candidates are active on social media to advertise or because they want to collect information on their customers or supporters, rather than to engage."

So in other words, these people use social media, and feel more informed because they use social media.

Yet, they also mistrust what they're reading/seeing.

What am I missing here?

How can you be "better informed" if you don't believe what you're seeing?

Of course, I don't take everything I read on Twitter or Facebook (especially Facebook) as given, without at least checking it first. If a number of different sources are saying the same thing, then I'm more inclined to believe it.

But taking something with a grain of salt and not going off half-cocked about something is far different from not believing it. Because of that, I do feel that I'm better-informed because of social media, or at least Twitter (still not sure on the Facebook front).

The money part in that excerpt is that many people believe they are being manipulated or having their data collected rather than being engaged with on social media. I'm not sure what data collection they can do other than "number of Twitter followers" on Twitter, though Facebook could potentially be a bit more insidious.

The thing is, other than the data collection angle, I don't see how social media is any different than anything else in regards to how a company, politician, or what have you interacts with the public. Yes, they are using it for advertising. They're trying to get their message out.

So you see the message. You are informed because you know what the entity is trying to get across. And yet you mistrust that message because...why? Would you trust it any less if you saw it in a commercial?

There seems to be a disconnect between these two statistics, and I'm hoping that one of you can clear up my confusion.

Because I'm at a loss.

(Yes, I said "last week" at the top of this post. I realize I've been gone for a bit. Sorry about that)

Transit Chivalry - a Lost Art?

Recently on this blog, I wrote about whether "chivalry" can exist in the modern day, or whether it's an out-dated concept.

Little did I know that the question would come up again so soon, and in a context that I hadn't even thought about. Maybe because the idea of not doing this is so alien to me?

Over the weekend, I came across an article in the Washington Post by Dana Hedgpeth, entitled "Pregnant and Hunting for a Seat on the Metro." In it, Dana says that she's 9 months pregnant, actually past her due date, and has gained a lot of weight due to the pregnancy. She talks about the time last month where she was sitting in a senior citizens seat when a blind woman came onto the bus. She tried to give her seat to the woman, and each ended up doing the "no, you go ahead" tango before finally somebody else gave up their seat for the woman.

But this instance is what really got to me.

"Another time, a friend’s husband and I boarded a rather full rail car during the evening rush hour. In a rather loud voice he said — “Excuse me, my friend here is very pregnant. Can someone give up their seat, please?”

Three people in the first row of seats looked up. Two businessmen looked me dead in the eye and then looked back down to their newspapers. A 30-something professional woman appeared to glance at me and then look back out the window."

Has society gone insane?

It seems that basic courtesy has gone out the window these days. I can't even imagine not giving up my seat to a pregnant woman, especially if she was so obviously that far along.

I have to wonder whether it's a gender thing of some kind. Would these same people have acted the same way if a doddering 76-year-old man or woman had struggled onto the bus? Do they think the pregnant woman can fend for herself because she's not struggling to walk around? (and I'm sure some women do struggle to walk around, depending on the pregnancy, so that point may even be moot).

She talked with a fellow pregnant woman on another metro ride, and they agreed that it seemed the most likely to give up their seat were young African-American men and middle-aged women (who may be doing it from remembering their own problems). The least likely seemed to be women in their 20s and middle-aged white men. Of course that's all anecdotal, but it does speak from these women's experiences.

There are two other great articles linked to from Dana's post, so I encourage you to go read that and click through to those as well.

Has it come down to the point where a pregnant woman has to *ask* for a seat on a bus or subway? And even if they do, Dana's experience when her friend's husband loudly demanded it sort of implies that it may not happen even with that. I wonder how much those people felt ashamed afterwards.

Or are they just that oblivious?

It seems that people will go out of their way to make room for mothers with kids in tow, but if you're towing a kid inside you, all bets are off. Lynn Harris asks "where were you people when I was pregnant?"

It's really sad.

Podcast Stuff - Ep 37 of Down the Hall

In this week's episode of the show, Jenny and I talk about the death of noted science fiction author Ray Bradbury, especially examining his phenomenal book, Fahrenheit 451. Jenny has some wonderful insights and I come along for the ride.

But seriously, it is a great little discussion about Bradbury and the book before we get into the rest of the episode, which is a 30-minute interview with Dr. Michael Marker, who teaches ETEC 521 (Indegeneity, Technology, and Education) in the MET program, as well as being heavily involved in the Aboriginal Education program at UBC. We talk about technology and how it's affected Indigenous Education, the importance of cross-cultural inquiry and improving the training of native teachers (or non-native teachers who will be coming into Aboriginal schools), and Michael's history of studying the ethnohistory of Aboriginal Education.

It's a truly fascinating interview, and I say that 100% because of Michael. It was a wonderful opportunity for me to sit down with him, and I found it quite inspiring.

You can listen to it, or download it, here.

And while you're at it, why not head on over to Facebook and "like" our page? It would be really great if we could get over 30 "likes" as that's a threshold that let's us do more things with the page.

So what are you waiting for?

Do it before your nap!

Book Review - The Royal Stuarts by Allan Massie

Over the last few years, my love of History has transformed and broadened. I used to be mainly a military history nut, and I still am (and I'm still a nut, too, but that's unrelated). But I have also moved on to things like Medieval History, especially European History that encompasses almost anything from the end of the Roman Empire all the way up to more recent times.

One area I have not covered much is the history of Scotland. That's not really by choice; it's just that I haven't found a good book on the subject crossing my path. There should be one soon, I would think, as some little-studied (by me, anyway) areas of history keep popping up in books by authors I like.

The Royal Stuarts, by Allan Massie, sort of wets that whistle, though not entirely. The book is a biography of the entire Stuart line of kings and queens of England, from Robert II back in 1371 (Scotland only) all the way to James III (VIII in Scotland), a king without a country as he was in exile his entire life. Each chapter is about a monarch, so earlier chapters are shorter as there is less documentation on them than there is on later royal members.

My review of the book is up on Curled Up With a Good Book.

From my review:

"The history of Great Britain is well-mined territory for many casual history readers with any interest in Europe through the ages. Two areas that I have missed in all of my reading, however, are Scotland and the English kings (and queen) after Elizabeth. Many (like me) stop with Elizabeth and don't delve any further. However, the Stuarts are an interesting family in themselves, especially James I (best known for the King James version of the Bible) who immediately succeeded Elizabeth. With The Royal Stuarts, Allan Massie takes a look not only at James and his post-Elizabeth version of Great Britain, but also the entire Stuart family from beginning to end. A welcome side effect is that the reader gets a nice (if somewhat superficial) history of Scotland as well."

I greatly enjoyed this book, and I will have to make do on my promise to myself to find a book on Scottish history soon.

In the meantime, The Royal Stuarts will do me well. It's nice to see that the Stuarts were such a randy bunch of guys, especially the early ones.

A Television Icon Returns - And Nobody's Shot Him...Yet

I was watching something on TV last week, and saw an ad for the Summer shows on Bravo TV up here in Canada. And one of the ones that slipped by very quickly seemed to have a familiar face in it.

I turned to my wife and said "Was that Dallas?"

To the Internet, Boy Wonder!

Good ol' J.R. is looking a bit long in the tooth

I checked Internet Movie Database, and sure enough, Dallas is coming back. That 1980s night-time soap that spawned Knots Landing (a show that I consider a guilty pleasure of my past), another night-time soap. Maybe that will come back? Is Donna Mills still hot?

Anyway, yes, Dallas is coming back, and it's not being rebooted. This won't be a show with a similar plotline and recast characters. This is a sequel of sorts. At least three of the original stars are back: Larry Hagman (J.R.), Patrick Duffy (Bobby), and Linda Gray (Sue Ellen). And this time, they've brought their kids.

Here's the trailer that came out for it in December:



It will be on TNT in the States, and I believe it starts on June 13.

I won't be watching it, but I'm not sure if I am pleased that it's coming back or horrified. The plot, for those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, is that the Ewing clan is a family whose riches are steeped in Texas oil. J.R. Ewing is a manipulative bastard who will do anything to get ahead. Bobby is his brother, the nice guy who very famously appeared in a shower. Sue Ellen was J.R.'s wife, though I'm sure they're divorced by now if they weren't already in the original show (knowing that would require me to care).

The new incarnation of the series will have these three characters, along with supposedly three others from the original series, along with their progeny who it turns out are just as bad as their parents.

And hilarity will ensue, I'm sure.

Oh, that and steamy sex. Can't forget that.

The series will be like most TNT series, 10-episode seasons. The first season will be this Summer and I guess we'll see from there.

Are you as pumped as I am for the return of this show? Have you been missing it like I have?

And if you match either of those, what's wrong with you?

Book Review - Critical Path by Dan Amrich

Those of you know me well, or even just a little bit, probably know that I'm a big video game fan. So it should come as no surprise to you that I jumped at the chance to read a book on video game reviewing. Especially a book by that game reviewing legend, Dan Amrich.

I first came to know Dan from the Official Xbox Magazine podcast and then saw some of his reviews in the magazine. I followed him when he went to Activision to become their social media manager (or whatever the official title is) and now religiously listen to his One of Swords podcast about Activision games and gaming (though it is so much more than that).

Anyway, he has been working on a book about game reviewing for a long while, and he's finally self-published it. Dubbed Critical Path (a brilliant name, if I do say so), it gives the reader all of the ins and outs on becoming a game reviewer. Some may not know this, but I did, for a short while, entertain the idea of becoming a game reviewer. I even started my own game review blog (which I haven't posted to in over a year). If I had read this book first, I wouldn't have bothered entertaining that dream, because I know I wouldn't have the dedication and energy required in order to do so. It was a casual flirtation, so it's good that it died there.

The reason for that is that Dan pulls no punches. He doesn't discourage readers from trying to become game reviewers. But he does tell you exactly what it entails, with no sugar-coating whatsoever.

My review of the book has gone up on Curled Up With a Good Book.

From the review:

"Critical Path covers everything you're going to need in order to get your dream job of reviewing video games. He even mentions things that you might not think of but which are very important to keep in mind, such as having a bit of empathy for the game's creators who have spent many long months, if not years, putting together this game that you're getting ready to trash with a horrible review. He suggests trying your own hand at developing something, even if it's something simple, just so you get the feeling of what it's like.

The book covers a steady career path from getting your work noticed to becoming a freelancer to finally getting your dream job working at a gaming magazine or web site. He also shatters many illusions that young people who want to do this job probably have. You're not going to get rich doing this, and it's not just going into the office at 9am, picking up a controller and playing games all day, then going home at 5pm. It's actual work. Amrich pulls no punches in his description of just what this job entails and how hard it is to do when you go into it with blinders on. It's not discouraging in any way. He just wants to make sure you're going into it knowing the truth. He even addresses issues like dressing professionally and developing the social skills that you're going to need for interacting with people in the business. Again, it's not just hiding out and playing games all day by yourself."

It truly is a wonderful book, despite the minor issues I point out in the review (and Dan has rightly commented to me, and I've asked the editor to update the review, that the screenshots actually do come out very well if you have a Kindle Fire or something like that to read the book on. I was reading on a basic Kindle, and they were totally worthless on that platform).

Reading the book just reinforces the fact that I'd love to sit at a convention (maybe it would have been Pax, but those tickets sadly sold out almost overnight *sniff*) with Dan and have a beer, just talking video games.

If you have any love for video games whatsoever, go read this book!