Posts Under Newsworthy Category
It’s not secret that I, like many others, have a serious love for all things social media. You name it, I’m on it (or have been at some point!). From Twitter, to Facebook, to YouTube, to Pinterest – there’s no digital social realm I haven’t tried.
So when I caught wind of these uber cute dress designs by Victor Faretina, which he posted to his Deviant Art account as a part of his Web in Vogue series, I instantly fell in love.
Google in Fashion by Victor Faretina
Or, more accurately, I fell in love with the one I saw – the Google Dress – and went to his page to see if he had more. Lo and behold, he has TONS.
The only downside? They’re simply designs, and not available to purchase – yet. According to Farentina’s page, he has plans to eventually make and sell these dresses.
Though I’m not sure I’d ever wear one of these, mainly because I have nowhere to wear a fancy dress TO, I still love them – especially the Google one! I’m a sucker for rainbow accents.
Would you ever wear something like this? And which one is your favourite?
Google’s doing it:
Wikipedia is doing it:
(and causing quite the uproar on Twitter, I might add)
Reddit, Craigslist, Boing-Boing, WordPress, and thousands of other smaller sites are also doing it.
And so am I, even though I’m Canadian.
The Stop Online Piracy Act might be an American bill, but it has very, very bad consequences for everyone, everywhere. Essentially, SOPA would allow intellectual property owners (Hollywood, essentially) to more or less destroy any site (homeland or foreign) they have a copyright claim against.
And then there’s PIPA, SOPA’s little sister, which seeks to make websites – not users – responsible for pirated content.
“Internet policy shouldn’t be set by Hollywood.” – Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia Founder
What does this mean, exactly?
It means say goodbye to a free, open internet.
Right now, if I upload copyrighted content to YouTube, I’m held accountable. With PIPA, YouTube becomes accountable for what *I* uploaded. Doesn’t seem fair, does it? And while the big sites – Facebook, YouTube, etc – have the means to deal with these kinds of copyright claims, many smaller sites don’t.
And under SOPA, if a torrent site hosted in a foreign country is offering movie downloads, the production company can (among other things) demand Google remove them from the search index, demand financing to the site in question is pulled, and tell ISP’s to block the site.
Yeah, as in Rogers/AOL/Insert-ISP-Here can decide what YOU, as a consumer, and as an internet user, are ALLOWED TO SEE AND ACCESS.
Sounds pretty big brother-ish, right?
What’s worse is the consequences this can have beyond torrent sites or streaming video content. Those pushing this bill through are claiming it’s only aimed at these sites that are pirating software, movies, and creative content.
What they’re NOT telling you is that the bill can – and very likely will, if passed – extend beyond those boundaries and start affecting us, as internet users, and start affecting “the little guy.” Basically ANY site the powers-that-be decide infringes on a copyright can be pulled – and just because I’m Canadian doesn’t mean I’m untouchable – that’s the problem, actually. This bill would be essentially be granting the American Government control over foreign hosted content, and, according to Google, “turn the internet into a police state”.
I have to agree.
What I am disappointed with, however, is that Google chose to only blackout on the American site. Though we as foreigners don’t have a direct say in this – I mean, I don’t have an American representative I can contact – but if passed it WILL be affecting us (and our daily internet habits). People – all people, whether American or not – need to be aware of how bad this bill really is. It’s going to allow the American government extraordinary – and worse, loosely defined – power to control the content and information available to us online.
It will essentially, and effectively, kill the internet.
Overly dramatic? Maybe, but maybe not.
I’d rather not find out.
I’m only just scraping the surface of this entire issue – for a more in-depth (but still easy to follow) look at the issue, check out this Gizmodo post, visit Wikipedia’s Q&A about why they’re blacked out, or checkout the SOPA Blackout page.
And, of course – consider joining the blackout and showing your support via Twitter, Facebook, or Google+.
Untitled by Martinho on Flickr
Things have gotten interesting over at the Occupy Toronto camp in the last day or so– really interesting, in fact – especially for a political nerd like me. I love politics and law, and I especially love everything about constitutional law – I took a bunch of law-related classes in my undergrad (and actually had, for all purposes, intended to go to law school – I sort of “fell” into multimedia, journalism, and communications before writing the LSAT) and I took a few constitutional law classes as well.
I even have a t-shirt from my Political Science department that has a sports-jersey style to it:
NOTWITHSTANDING
33
Hilarious, right? If you got that, you’re as big of a nerd as I am.
Anyway, like I said – things are getting interesting. Specifically, in relation to legal developments surrounding the Occupy Toronto movement – and I’ll be watching the court system over the coming days very, very closely.
Untitled by -- brian cameron -- on Flickr
Yesterday morning, Mayor Rob Ford and the City of Toronto delivered eviction notices to the Occupy Toronto protesters (who have set up a tent city and have been camping in St. James Park downtown for the past 31 days) – basically saying “vacate the park by 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, please and thank you”. Well, that didn’t sit too well with the protesters – who thus planned a party (I wish I was kidding) and said “well, we’re not listening to the law, and we’re not leaving”. I’ve heard they’ve since removed (and burned) all eviction notices and have replaced them with signs reading something to the effect of, “The Charter is our permit!”
Now, I believe in the right to assemble and protest as much as the next person – but setting up a camp in public space does not sit well with me. The city wants the Occupy Toronto protest out for a number of reasons – bylaw violations, disrupting the neighbourhood residents enjoyment of the park, the effect on local businesses in the area… you get the idea.
Technically, the Occupy Toronto protest has been violating a number of city (park-related) by-laws since the occupation of St. James Park began over 30 days ago, including 608-3 conduct, 608-7 encroachment, 608-9 access, 608-10 campfires and barbecues, 608-13 camping and lodging, and 608-14 tents and structures.
To expand a list of the specific bylaws they’re violating (according to my interpretation) click here.
Basically, what happened next was this: while most protesters were planning a party (I wish I was kidding) and meeting to discuss “what now?”, a small group went to the courts to get an injunction – based on a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenge – and succeeded.
The occupiers are arguing that evicting them from St. James Park (and other occupy movements across Canada from their respective locations) is a violation of our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which outlines our fundamental freedoms as Canadian citizens in section two:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Justice David Brown granted them a stay of eviction, meaning a) the City and police may not forcibly remove the protesters, tents, or other structures, and b) the protesters may not grow their operations by adding more bodies, tents, or structures.
The hearing is scheduled for Friday, when the Occupy Toronto lawyer and city lawyer will present their cases to the courts, and the Justice Brown has promised a decision by suppertime Saturday.
So, the question remains: is there really a valid Charter challenge here? And whose rights supersede whose? Do bylaws trump the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or does the Charter trump the law?
Personally, I don’t think there’s a real Charter challenge, nor do I think the Charter trumps these particular bylaws.
Section one of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is very clear:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
And, in my opinion – the bylaws outlined above are such reasonable limits. No one is telling the Occupy Toronto protesters they may not protest, and no one is saying they may not protest IN St. James Park – they are simply being told they can’t LIVE in the park.
As a sidebar, in other cities, there’s been issues with protesters overdosing on drugs (in fact, there was a non-fatal incident of a similar nature in Toronto) and in Vancouver, someone actually died at the protest. With the harsh Canadian winter fast approaching, it’s no wonder people are concerned about the well-being of the protesters on top of the other aforementioned issues.
But, on the flip side – it seems in Vancouver a group of homeless activitists won the right to sleep/camp in parks in 2008, though I’m unclear as to whether or not that is still the case.
Also, in terms of the American protests and their evictions – I’ve seen numerous tent cities set up in the USA, particularly across from the White House, and they’ve been there for decades (presumably) without issue. So, do they have some sort of special consideration, or permit – or does the government turn a blind eye? Or are they arrested, and then return to continue the protest? If anyone has any insight into this, I’d love to hear it.
Untitled by Martinho on Flickr
What makes me nervous about this is the fact it’s a challenge to the Charter – while I agree it’s time the protesters stop camping in St. James Park and look at other options, I also don’t like the fact it’s come this far. A successful Charter challenge by Occupy Toronto would open a whole other can of worms in terms of bylaws, citizen rights, and whether laws of the Charter – in other similar and non similar instances – supersede City laws.
One thing is for sure – like I said earlier – I’ll be watching very closely as this unfolds in the coming days.
Click “read more” below to see the Toronto Municipal Code Parks by-law as it pertains to this protest.
Read more »
I’m really excited about an event I’m planning with the Durham Photography Group called “Help-Portrait”. In fact, I’m so excited that I can’t contain my urge to blog about it any longer.
So, what exactly is Help-Portrait?
Help-Portrait is, in essence, a way for us photographers and volunteers alike to donate their time and give back to those less fortunate in our community by doing what we do best: making people feel beautiful, and capturing that moment on film. As photographers, we usually take photos; but this event is all about giving them. Giving them to orphans, single moms and dads, underprivileged families, the elderly, and anyone else who might not otherwise be able to have a professional portrait taken.
Help-Portrait is a worldwide event, and, on December 10th a huge number of communities will be taking part. And, thanks to a wonderful group of volunteers, I’m proud to say for the first time, Durham Region is on that list.
I’m thrilled to be involved as the group’s marketing and sponsorship lead; meaning I have the daunting task of raising the money we need to go ahead (approximately $2,000) and getting the word out to the community.
We have a solid core group of volunteers, but of course – can always use more hands.
If you’re local to the GTA, and are interested in getting involved (or you work for, or know, a company who may be interested in sponsoring us) please get in touch with me or join up with our local group.
And, for those of you who are visiting from other communities – consider checking the global list on the Help-Portrait site to see if there is an event running near you. We can always use more helping hands on these sort of events.
In the past, the portraits have strictly been given to participants – never shared online, in portfolios, or anywhere – but they’re looking at changing that this year (with photo releases, of course) and additionally allowing participants to, if they choose, become the photographer. The folk over at Help-Portrait did a mini event this past weekend, and the stories and photos shared on their blog are truly touching.
We’re still ironing out the final details of the Durham event (and which, if any, new aspects we’ll adopt in our virgin year) but so far I’m so impressed with the diverse group of people in Durham who have pulled together to make this happen: a number of photographers, a project manager, a few technical people, folk from the Salvation Army (who are graciously donating the most important thing – our space/location for this event), a graphic designer, and volunteer coordinator.
Together, we’re making this a reality and I’m so excited.
The theory is this: in 1998, the province downgraded Highway 7 from a provincial highway to a regional road for a number of reasons, including the opening of the 407 (aka my favourite thing ever, except for the cost).
More traffic lights were added, the speed limit was lowered – but the “highway” moniker was kept. Now, York Region is building a bunch of junk (okay, not junk – bus lanes, bike lanes, highrises, etc) along Highway 7, and officials think the word “highway” doesn’t match anymore.
So they’re holding a contest to rename it.
It’s going to cost more than $250,000.
Yes, a quarter of a million to rename a small piece of a long highway that runs through Richmond Hill, Markham, and Vaughan – but will still be called “Highway 7” in other areas.
And, honestly – who actually thinks people will refer to Highway 7– sorry, [INSERT NEW NAME HERE] as it’s new name? The Skydome became the Rogers Center in 2005, and really, who calls it the “Rogers Center” besides newscasters, sports officials and, uh, Rogers?
According to news reports, a few contenders include Avenue 7, Gridlock Way, and Bottleneck Boulevard.
Wait, Avenue 7?
Yes, there’s a good idea – lets waste TWO HUNDERD AND FIFTY THOUSAND dollars to change the word “highway” to “avenue”.
Face palm.
Oh, and did I mention it’s already been dubbed “York Regional Road 7″ by the region?
Double face palm.
So, why is this (apparently) a good idea?
Well, according to some guy who swims in hundred dollar bills Steven Kemp, director of traffic management with York Region, “Highway 7 will not be the road that people use to travel through the region. It’s the place that people will go.”
Which, obviously, warrants spending $250,000 on a name change.
Guess I’ll need to buy new road maps.
