On rights and responsibilities

I haven't written anything in a while and I actually have a lot I'd like to talk about, but trying to say all that in a single topic is a sure way to get ideas confused and/or end-up in an infinite loop of editing (I tend to completely rewrite most of what I write before it's actually to my liking). So I will try to start with what I believe to be fundamental yet "necessary" notions: rights and responsibilities.

Rights

To the root of the idea lies an assumption one has to accept: every man is equal. I don't mean in any pragmatic or specific way, just that no man's happiness and well-being should be more important than another's. Why should it be so? Well to be honest, I don't have much of an argumentation beside empirical and/or circumstantial historical evidence that most groups of people who ever tried to impose on others the fact that they had some kind of god-approved birthright had to eventually give most of it up or face a timely death like most monarchies did (French, Russian, Japanese, ...).

That said, what is necessary to be happy? Well without elaborating on that specific subject, I will simply refer to Maslow's hierarchy of needs; one can argue about the structure, terminology or some choices, but the general ideas are there. Those are, in my opinion, the basic human rights and you will notice in Maslow's hierarchy of needs that nowhere are physical possessions mentioned. That's simply because possessions are completely irrelevant, they are either a mean to something you need or a replacement for something you need (this is probably a case of neurosis or something). Does that means possessions aren't a right, yes and no since, for example, you might have to stock some food for the winter so you feel safe you have enough to pass winter (not much of an example in today's world, but still), but anything over foreseeable (and reasonable) needs should be considered superfluous.

Responsibilities

Where does responsibilities fit in all this? Well, having rights doesn't mean they are owed to you if you cannot fulfill them yourself; it just means that one's action should never negatively interfere with another's rights, directly or indirectly, actively or passively; this is therefore our responsibility toward another: respect their own rights and help them to the limit of our capabilities, but never beyond it.

Why should you help others if they cannot help themselves? Well if you have everything you need for yourself and have some to spare, but don't help, that would be admitting that you think your own happiness and comfort is more important than other's. Moreover isn't that what we instinctively do with our children? Cooperation is in our genes, it's something our whole world is built on and it is possibly one of our biggest edge compared to other species (see this TED Talk, the part specifically on cooperation starts in mid-video around 8 minutes).

Then why not helping other beyond our capability, sacrificing some of our "happiness" if it can make the life of another person much better, especially if a small sacrifice can make the other one much more happy (overall happiness level will be higher)? Well, this is probably where Mr. NiceGuy stopped and Mr. Pragmatic kicked in; this is the limit I felt needed to remedy the problem of the Free-Rider mentioned in the TED Talk above. Happiness is something hard to measure, so it could be easy for someone to claim that something would make him overly happier just to have it. Moreover, I think it might promote people not to fend for themselves, thinking that everything would be given to them no matter what; if people have already given all they can spare ... to bad for you you get nothing. It probably isn't the most "humane" way to go, but I feel a line must be drawn somewhere.

Revocation

Although I would like to believe the world is made of unicorns and Care Bears, it isn't and perhaps some people would try to abuse the system. As contradictory as this might sound, it is important to understand that having rights is actually a privilege, not a right. Although everybody should be born with equal rights, this equality should be partially or totally revocable if you do something clearly showing you disregard this right in others; if you willfully deny someone else's rights, you forfeit yours. Not that people should be able to do anything to you, but let say they could simply be cast out and never be taken care of in any way even if spare is available. Of course such harsh measures should be a last resort after attempt at rehabilitation, but society as a whole shouldn't have to care for people who actively doesn't want to acknowledge the same rights in others.

Conclusion

So to summarize: everyone has equal rights to happiness and our responsibility to one another is to help each other within limits, but infringing those rights should ultimately lead to a revocation of those same rights. I know all this is mostly rhetorical and probably impractical, but I also believe those can of topic must be debated as they can be guides to take more pragmatic and down-to-earth decisions.

On being an engineer

Given the number of construction-related scandals and roadwork problems that surfaced in the last few years in Quebec, my mother recently suggested people should, perhaps, be more aware of what is an engineer and what role it is supposed to serve (she came to my engagement ceremony so she had an idea of what it is supposed to be about). Thinking it was a very good idea and seeing how hard it can be to find some of the information on the internet, I though I could make a blog entry about this (it was also about time I kick myself and write another one). Being an engineer in Quebec (and possibly all Canada) is a three-fold thing: there is the actual academic formation, adherence to the professional order and the oath all of them related but not bound together (they exist independently as well).

The first step most people will take toward becoming an engineer is getting a university degree in an engineering field such as electrical engineer. Although many programs end-up with "engineering" in their title, not all can bestow the "B. Eng." title, most will lead to a "B. Sc." title. What is the difference? To be allowed to give the "B. Eng." title, an undergraduate program must be accredited by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB, "Bureau canadien d’agrément des programmes d'ingénirie" (BCAPI) in French). I'm not aware of all the details of this accreditation, but some of the criteria involve having a minimum number of credits in mathematics and fundamental sciences as part of the program and I think it also requires a minimum percentage of teachers that must be engineers themselves. This alone does not grant someone the "Engineer" title as it is something usually managed by a provincial "order".

All professional orders in Canada (to my knowledge) have one single and very precise mandate: protect the public; that is, public safety should be the utmost concern driving their decisions and policies. To do that, most order's action plan is divided in three aspects:

1. Define which professional acts can only be done by their members (this must be supported by provincial and/or federal legislation);
2. Establish criteria that must be met by an individual in order to be accepted and stay in the order (usually involves an code of ethic, continuous formation and a professional exam of some sort);
3. Create and maintain a process that can investigate possible faults committed by members (retroactively following a complaint or proactively though professional audits) and punish them if necessary.

So basically an order is a legal framework built to protect the public by making sure only qualified people can accomplish specific professional acts. Each order is supposed to have a code of ethic, but it is often written in a way to be "legally workable", that is be applicable in a rigorous way without to much interpretation. Although this serves the benefit of being "fair", it does leave the door open for "loopholes", gaps that one could fall into and do reprehensible things without being punishable. There is, however, a moral binding that most engineer agreed to and should be accountable to: their engineering oath.

Like the well known Hippocratic Oath for doctors, engineers too have an oath they took during their (unfortunately optional) engagement ceremony. I don't know if the oath has an official name, but the ceremony during which it is pledged is called "The Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer". Participation to the ceremony is completely voluntary and there is no professional prejudice if you never participated; the ceremony doesn't make you an engineer nor it is necessary to become one. The ceremony is an old tradition kept (and possibly trademarked) by The Corporation of the Seven Wardens. The two most important components of that tradition is the oath and the famous engineering ring worn on the little finger of the working hand (the ring aspect IS trademarked by the Seven Wardens). Although not tied to the profession of engineering, the ring IS TIED to the ceremony, so if you see anyone with the ring, he is supposed to have pledged the oath. What is that oath and why it should matter? To me, the oath is possibly what SHOULD define an engineer rather than just education and adherence to a professional order and I hope that, by sharing it with you, you will understand why:

I <name of the engineer>, in the presence of these my betters and my equals in my Calling, bind myself upon my Honour and Cold Iron, that, to the best of my knowledge and power, I will not henceforward suffer or pass, or be privy to the passing of, Bad Workmanship or Faulty Material in aught that concerns my works before mankind as an engineer, or in my dealings with my own Soul before my Maker.

My Fair Wages for that work I will openly take.  My Reputation in my Calling I will honourably guard; but I will in no way go about to compass or wrest judgement or gratification from any one with whom I may deal.  And further, I will early and warily strive my uttermost against professional jealousy and the belittling of my working- colleagues in any field of their labour. 

For my assured failures and derelictions I ask pardon beforehand of my betters and my equals in my Calling here assembled, praying that in the hour of my temptations, weakness and weariness, the memory of this my Obligation and of the company before whom it was entered into, may return to me to aid, comfort and restrain. 

Upon Honour and Cold Iron, God helping me, these things I purpose to abide.

There you have it, the oath most engineers took in which they pledged to put the quality of the work being done (by themselves or under their supervision) above all else. This, to me is what defines an engineer and should define any professional working people.

So now you know more about the three facets of engineering as a profession and I hope it will help you make you mind about the events we see unfolding in the news and be able to rightfully ask that people that committed reprehensible acts be accountable for what they did as they should be aware of their responsibilities both social and moral.

On upgrading an AO522-BZ499 Netbook

First of maybe a few tech posts. Some of you that know me are probably surprised my first posts weren't that geeky to start from. Anyway, I decided to do this one because there isn't that many posts on the web regarding that specific model. I'll skip the tech spec saying this is a great little netbook powerful enough to play 1080p videos (the monitor is only 720p, but it has full 1080p output through HDMI out) and good battery autonomy (around 6-7 hours).

The major downside to this computer are that it has only 1GB or RAM of which 256MB is taken by the GPU; given that it runs Windows 7 Starter, that doesn't leave lots of headroom. I therefore decided to upgrade it to 4GB of RAM (not much pricier than 2GB so why not!). Since Windows 7 Starter only supports 2GB or RAM, I also decided to upgrade it to Windows 7 Home Premium (got a deal on the Anytime Upgrade ... 20$).

So, for anyone interested in the procedure, here is how it went.

Step 1 - Removing the keyboard
In order to remove the back panel of the AO522, you need to remove screws that are located behind the keyboard, so lets remove it. To do so, you need to first unclip 4-5 little plastic clips on top of the keyboard (see picture below).

If you have a small solid plastic tool to do the work, good idea to use it as you have less risk of scratching the surface ... I used a small metal flat screwdriver; damaged the surface a bit, but it is barely visible and could probably be hidden with a black Sharpie pen. When you push the clips back, you might want to gently pull the keys up so the clip won't pop right back into place.

Once you do it with all the clips, they keyboard won't pop right out, you could try to pry it a bit as some online video suggest, but I have an easier solution. Remove the battery at the back, there will be a square opening on the right (see picture below), if you take the eraser side of a pencil and push, the keyboard should just pop.

Step 2 - Popping the back panel
Once the keyboard pops, you could remove it completely by unplugging the ribbon, but it isn't necessary. Once you have access to the back of the keyboard, you will see 4 screws marked with the number "1" (circled in red in the picture below). Unscrew them, then push with a thin object in the whole next to the HDD (marked with a star in the picture below). I would also like to point-out the dent in the back of the keyboard (red arrow in the picture below), that is where I pushed on the keyboard with a screwdriver instead of a pencil eraser (and why I suggest a pencil eraser); the material is very delicate, reminds me of BBQ grade aluminum foil. Damaging it a bit doesn't seem to cause any problem at all; it didn't pierce through, just dented it, but you could have done the same with the tip of your nail as well.

Step 3 - Now we change the RAM
To change the RAM, just stick-out the 2 little metal "arms" on each side of the DIMM, the memory should pop right up and you can remove it. Place the new module in and push back down. You might have to move the "arms" to fit it back in.

 

Step 4 - Check and close the netbook

Now, before closing everything, make sure the netbook boots and detects the memory by going into the (very limited) BIOS and in Windows.

Now you can close everything; put the back panel in place, re-screw it, put the keyboard back. You are now done!!!

Step 5 - Upgrading to Windows 7 Home Premium

The upgrade to Windows 7 Home Premium is supposed to be pain free and it is ... sort of. Simply bring-up the Anytime Upgrade application (type it in the start menu), enter the key found in you upgrade box and follow the steps; easy. When I did it, I got an error message telling me the upgrade failed, crap! Then I rebooted, but by doing so it finished the installation and everything got upgraded like that. I don't know what failed, but it gave me a scare there; might have been because I already had SP 1 installed.

Yup, the upgrade is just that, a piece of cardboard with a code on it.

Conclusion

The process was rather trouble-free and now my netbook is much snappier than before, the Windows Performance Index for the memory when a whole 0.9 point up. For those wondering which RAM module I used, it's a G.Skill F3-10600CL9S-4GBSQ.

On Capitalism, Socialism and Communism

Not many subject create as many debates around the world as economic systems. I never hid from anyone that I'm a communist at heart, but my mind is capitalist; not that I think capitalism is the rational system to adopt, I simply think no large scale society is mature enough to cope with communism. Yup, you read me right, I think communism is a evolution above capitalism. I won't pretend I know a lot about economic systems, but I will still try to explain my point of view.

On Communism

To me, communism is an ideal system, everybody contributing the best they can toward the common social good. Nobody has money because everything you need is provided for. You decide to study/work at what you like and are good at because salary isn't a concern. Anything bad happens, no problem, society will take care of you so you can get back to work or contribute in some other way. There is only one big problem with that system: human kind; yhere are many flaws in the human kind that makes this system unworkable.

First is the perception of value. Oscar Wilde said "The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing", but, somehow ironically, I feel that unless something has a price, nobody ever learn its value. Not that value and price necessarily have a correlation, but, by having a price, people might not be able to afford it. I think it's that realization that something might not be available to us that makes us realize its value. In a communist context, people therefore loose sight of the value of everything since all is provided for them; same thing at a smaller scale for socialism. After a while, they will feel that are working hard for absolutely nothing. This leads us to the 2nd problem: sloth.

Possibly out of evolution, most people will tend toward sloth; why not, conservation of energy unless need (possibly to get more of it) would increase your chances of survival in the wild. Given that over time people loose sight of the value of things, they will therefore feel that they are working way more than what they gain. Since in a communist context you cannot "ask for more", they most likely will reduce their productivity. If enough people do that, the whole system will collapse and it will no longer produce enough to self-sustain.


On Capitalism
To me, pure capitalism is just natural selection applied as an economic system: the poor thrive less or die-off and the rich do well. Unlike communism, there isn't anything wrong with that system since it's probably in our primal nature to function like this anyway. However, like natural selection, this system is self-balancing and, like nature, the re-balancing can be rough. I think this is the biggest risk of capitalism: lack of structure to absorb shocks the system itself might not tolerate without catastrophic consequences.

If we keep the natural selection analogy, species got extinct in the past and that before humans came to be. It is to say that, in a purely capitalist system, the same thing could happen; we might destroy ourselves or send ourselves back many decades with crashes. Take the last economic crisis for example; the American government, far from being know for it's socialist tendencies, decided to inject massive amount of moneys into banks and even buy some companies back to prevent them from going bankrupt because they feared it might have fueled a chain reaction of a magnitude nobody really gasped.

The only other thing that could be considered "a risk" of capitalism is also related to the "natural selection" analogy: sheer luck or lack of it. We like to think of natural selection simply as "survival of the fittest", but even positive evolution could have been "weeded-out" by just being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Who knows, there might have been a mutated dinosaur with high intelligence just before it got smashed by a meteor. Might have been another species of intelligent primate before our strain ... that died in a forest fire. How many desirable human qualities would we be willing to sacrifice just because other traits or bad luck didn't help them thrive?

So nothing is really "wrong" with the system, but it comes with a high risk. Moreover, I'd like to think humans have evolved beyond simple "natural laws" to model it's society; the system doesn't care for compassion. When promoting capitalism remember that the last resort to save it was to resort to communism tactics:

On Socialism
Because of the risks/drawbacks of both systems, most societies seems to have chosen some middle point: some degree of socialism; some have unemployment insurance, some have health insurance some have welfare, ... This could seem like a perfect compromise, but it still misses the mark on many aspects.

First, the loss of perceived value is still present, even if the system isn't completely capitalist. Even if living beside more capitalist countries, people still lose sight of the value associated with the service provided to them. Even for newly acquired benefits it doesn't seem to take long for this loss of value to occur. In Quebec for example, many of what we have now were obtained during the 60's and the 70's, but most people take those benefits for granted now; in less than 50 years, people went from being grateful for what they fought for to being totally indifferent.

There is also the problem of bureaucracy which is possibly related to "sloth" discussed in the communism section. Managing social services requires a big administrative machine. Moreover, the service is often provided as a monopoly (no competition). Combine that with high level of unionization (maybe more so here in Quebec) and you get a machine that doesn't feel the need to be efficient and where job security is a given. The end result is a society where people live mostly with a capitalist mindset, but get half of their paycheck eaten by taxes to fund inefficient services where at least 50% of the cost end-up in bureaucratic wastes and therefore only 50% in perceivable services. Then, when you finally need the services you pay for, you have to wait weeks if not months while navigating a labyrinth of paperwork and phone services operated by people who couldn't care less that you actually need the service, their job description is to answer the phone, not be helpful.

In Conclusion
So here you have it, no system is perfect. Some have high level of risk and total lack of compassion for others and others are flawed, not in themselves, but by the human nature. I'd like to have a solution to this problem but I don't. My mind then just gave-up and chose capitalism; live with the risks, pay the consequences of not being to control your primitive sloth instinct; if we end-up extinct, we will just have been another species "unfit for survival" as many others have been; tough luck, we might not have been much more than chimps after all.

On keeping time for yourself

The last few months have been a bit hectic, that's why I didn't have new posts for a while. I will create a few posts based on all that happened, but it will have to wait as the next months might not be a lot better. With all that, I decided to take a few minutes to praise the importance on keeping a spot for yourself in your agenda.

In today's active and efficiency-oriented society, we often associate doing nothing with laziness. I, on the other hand, actually think that there is a healthy dose of procrastination we should all indulge in. I think spending some time alone is good to just relax, but also to keep some emotional balance and individual identity (for those of use in long-term relationships this is very important). It is also a good way for one to reflect on himself, learn more about himself and accept the "qualities one is less proud of". Doing something that requires little attention/concentration is key to letting your mind wander around. Watching TV, gardening, cooking, cleaning dishes or just doing menial house-chores are all things we can do to just spend time with ourselves; the proper mindset is, however, necessary. If you are doing those things because you feel like you have to, it could cause stress that is counter-productive to the desired effect.

Spend time with yourself and learn to live with yourself; after all you will be the one you spend more time with during your life

Pourquoi en anglais?

Cleux qui me connaissent savent que je suis francophone de naissance. Je crois très bien maîtriser la langue, je possède un bon vocabulaire et je suis capable de travailler avec des phrases de complexité très variées. C'est une langue que j'adore malgré ses complexités grammaticales, car elle est riche et est capable de transmettre une panoplie d'information et d'émotions à travers ses mots. J'aime également apprendre son histoire et ses subtilités. Yves Duteil a bien su exprimer ce que je ressens pour cette langue:

La question se pose alors à savoir pourquoi je décide de faire un blog en anglais. Non ce n'est pas pour rejoindre un plus grand public, je suis certain que tous ceux qui liront ces lignes sont mes amis francophones de Facebook. En fait la réponse est un peu simpliste, mais non pas moins véridique: mon monologue intérieur est spontanément en anglais depuis que j'ai environs 16-17 ans; ce n'est que lorsque j'écris des textes en français que celui-ci retourne dans ma langue natale. J'aurais beau vouloir l'expliquer, je n'ai jamais réellement compris comment les choses se sont développées ainsi, surtout que j'ai grandi dans un milieu très francophone jusqu'à mes 20 ans environs. Malgré cela et le fait que je travaille dans un milieu majoritairement anglophone depuis 10 ans maintenant, je reste plus à l'aise à parler en français, allez comprendre.

Puisque ce blog est, entre autres, une manière de m'exprimer, j'ai donc décidé de le faire dans une langue qui me vient spontanément quand je me parle à moi-même et quand je suis derrière un clavier. Maintenant libre à vous, compères francophones, de me traiter de Judas, mais je vous répondrai par la bouche de ma dérision et surtout de celle d'un groupe qui m'a énormément influencé:

 

 P.S. L'utilisation du français pour expliquer pourquoi mon blog est en anglais est volontaire, je trouvais la chose ironique.

Why "Dual Being"?

Well, because I believe it's the basis of human condition, because I'm so very human and live a normal life, yet I also believe I'm so very different that what I should be given my life.

The idea that human condition is partially defined as opposed forces isn't new. In Chinese philosophy, the concept of Yin and Yang dates back at least two millennia. Not only does it refer to forces inside us, but also opposing forces that balance the universe. A more mind-centered and recent example would be Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis theories; both id and super-ego being opposed to form the ego, us.

I'm a very common guy, I have no extraordinary talent or characteristics and I live a very uneventful life. Most people would probably describe me as some cross between an accountant and an engineer; the former I though of becoming, the second I became. So as "normal" goes I think it pretty much clears me out. For human, I never got tested but beside the fact I was called "alien" by friends during high school, I have no reason to believe otherwise.

So what does make me stand out in any way? From an external point of view, absolutely nothing, but that is what shocks the people who get to know me, how my personality and way of thinking doesn't match the perception they had of me. I have both the pragmatic side expected of me and a very humane and spiritual side, but instead of trying to harmonize both I just live by both set of rules. It's actually quite useful as many situations requires one side or the other and very few requires both. Only in the later situation do I actually make an effort to reconcile myself with myself.

So here you go, that is why this blog is called "Dual Being": because it's about a world made of opposites with people torn by dilemma and written by a normal yet narcissist guy with some sort of split personality syndrome. Was it that hard to understand???