Month: October 2007

Yesterday, FacebookCamp Toronto 2, the second gathering of Toronto developers interested in developing applications for the Facebook platform, took place.

Where the last FacebookCamp focused on the details of programming to the Facebook API, this one was about promoting and making money from your applications. Once again, Facebook flew a representative to Toronto for the event — this time, it was Ami Vora, Facebook’s lead of Platform Product Marketing, who gave a presentation on best practices for application developers. Also presenting:

• FacebookCamp Toronto brain trust guys Roy Pereira, Colin Smillie and Andrew Cherwenka with the introductory presentation
• Janice Diner and Michael Scissons on Building an App for Your Brand
• Roy Pereira on Marketing Your Application Inside Facebook
• Jesse Hirsch on Analyzing the Top Applications
• Greg Thomson on Monetizing your Facebook Application
• Steve Pritchard on Secrets of PayPal interface used by Gift Cards Facebook Application

I took notes and posted them to Global Nerdy, my tech blog as well as the Tucows Developer Blog.

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3

…remember what the “First Past the Post” system delivered twice:

Keep Saturday, November 3rd open!

I Voted Today

I cast my ballots in the Ontario Provincial Election and Referendum before going to work today. It’s easy for me — the polling station in my neighbourhood just happens to be in the lobby of my building.

If you’re eligible, go vote! Section 132 of the Canada Elections Act entitles you to three consecutive hours in order to vote, and if your hours don’t permit for that when the polling stations are open, your employer is required to give you those three hours off (and s/he cannot make any deductions from your pay for the time off, either).

Simple Paper Ballots

The act of casting a vote in Canada is dirt simple. The ballots are the same format, no matter where you are: a paper ballot with a list of candidates in large print with the candidate’s surname in ALL CAPS, with a circle beside each name.

Here’s a sample federal election ballot:

Here’s an approximation of what the provincial election ballot looks like:

These ballots have a number of advantages:

• They’re simple
• They leave an easily-verified paper trail
• They’re easy to scan either by eye or mechanically
• There’s only one format — no confusing butterfly ballots or other usability disasters
• And no easily–rigged machines created by a partisan company whose CEO promised a win to a specific party.

Where the System Fails

In spite of how simple it is, the system can still fail, and today I saw such a failure.

As I was handing in my registration card, a woman in her 80s — presumably she lived in my building — was puzzling over the referendum ballot. In the referendum, we’re being asked if the provincial election system should remain as the current “first-past-the-post” style, or if we should adopt a mixed-member proportional system, often abbreviated as “MMP”. (If you need an explanation, see here, here and here.)

Here’s what happened:

Old woman: What’s this extra thing?

Election official 1: It’s a referendum ballot.

Old woman: There’s a referendum?

Election official 1: Yes, ma’am. It’s all explained on the poster on this wall. You should take a…

Old woman (looking more closely at the referendum ballot, moving her lips while reading): Couldn’t they put the question in a single breath?

For reference, here’s what it says on the ballot:

Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature? / Quel système électoral l’Ontario devrait-il utiliser pour élire les députés provinciaux à l’Assemblée législative?

• The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post) / L’actuel système électoral (système de la majorité relative)
• The alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly (Mixed Member Proportional) / L’autre système électoral proposé par l’Assemblée des citoyens (système de représentation proportionnelle mixte)

Me: Ma’am, it’s a question about whether or not the system should be changed.

Guy behind me: The current system is…

Old woman: Did they have to put it in so many damned words?

Me (to the guy behind me): Can we just tell her to check the second option?

Guy behind me: Heh heh heh. Good on ya.

Old woman (to election official 2): Could you give me any advice on which to choose?

Guy behind me: If you give us a minute, ma’am, we can explain…

Election official 2: We’re election officials. We’re not allowed to influence your decision.

Old woman (tossing unfilled referendum ballot on table): Ehhhhh. Too much work. Never mind.

(She gets on the elevator and the door closes.)

Election official 1 (to Election officlal 2): Mark that as a refused ballot. First one of the day.

Guy behind me: Ah, democracy.

Me (to the guy behind me): “Greatest Generation” my ass.

Here’s me, making my “rock face” while playing accordion at one of the stages for the Scotiabank Waterfront Marathon, which took place two Sundays ago:

Thanks to Kim Phelan for loaning me the hat!

Here’s yet another reason you should think carefully before getting that tattoo. From the Daily Mail:

After 15 happy years with his wife, Alan Jenkins decided it was time for the ultimate expression of love.

So, determined to prove his devotion, he had a lifesize image of her face – along with those of their two daughters – tattooed on his back.

The painful procedure took 20 hours and cost £870.

Unfortunately for the besotted Alan, it also backfired on a monumental scale after Lisa, 36, absconded with a 25-year-old Latvian hunk she had met at work.

Before and after. Assuming the story is true, how’d they ever get these people to pose for these shots?

What is it about getting your lover’s name tattooed on yourself that leads to a breakup? The more superstitious might say that getting such a tattoo activates Murphy’s Law; I’m more inclined to say that it’s both a warning sign and an expensive (and permanent) act of denial.

If you think that Alan Jenkins has learned his lesson, you would be wrong:

He could be forgiven for wanting his wife off his back for good, but despite his heartache, he has no plans to have to tattoo removed.

“Lisa may have left me but she’ll be on my back forever thanks to the tattoo,” he said.

“But I’ve still got plenty of room on my chest if I get hooked up again.”

Those of you who follow U.S. news know what SCHIP is; for those of you who don’t, here’s the intro paragraph from its Wikipedia entry:

The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a national program in the United States which was founded by Senator Ted Kennedy and First Lady (now a senator from New York) Hillary Rodham Clinton. The program provides health insurance for families who earn too much money to qualify for Medicaid, yet cannot afford to buy private insurance. The program was created to address the growing number of children in the United States without health insurance. At its creation in 1997, SCHIP was the largest expansion of health insurance coverage for children in the United States since Medicaid began in the 1960s. The statutory authority for SCHIP is under title XXI of the Social Security Act. A proposal recently passed in the Congress to expand SCHIP from $5 billion yearly by $35 billion over five years was vetoed by George W. Bush. The veto follows changes of program administrative rules in August which make it more difficult for states to expand eligibility.

Here’s an editorial comic passed to me by my friend Miss Fipi Lele…

…and here’s last night’s Colbert Report segment, in which they explain SCHIP (and what happened to it) to kids.

Can’t see the video? Click here.

Wikipedia cites a number of studies on SCHIP:

In 2007, researchers from Brigham Young University and Arizona State found that children who drop out of SCHIP cost states more money because they shift away from routine care to more frequent emergency care situations. The conclusion of the study is that an attempt to cut the costs of a state program could create a false savings because other government organizations pick up the tab for the children who leave SCHIP and later need care. In a 2007 analysis by the Congessional Budget Office, researchers determined that “for every 100 children who gain coverage as a result of SCHIP, there is a corresponding reduction in private coverage of between 25 and 50 children.” The CBO speculates this is because the state programs offer better benefits and lower cost than the private alternatives. A Cato Institute briefing paper estimated the “crowding out” of private insurers by the public program could be as much as 60%. The program cost $40 billion federal dollars over 10 years.

I’m always wary of things that begin with “According to a study by the Cato Institute” when they’re about things outside the scope of individual liberties. I understand why their hackles get raised when someone says “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help”, but there are also a number of reasons to be wary when someone says “I’m here from the private sector, and I’m here to help” as well.