Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 2017-03-02, Page 5THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2017. PAGE 5. Other Views Ifyou change it, make it better Apologies to anyone who happened to drop by The Citizen's Blyth office near our deadline time in recent weeks and had their ears assaulted by language we wouldn't print in this newspaper. You see we've been trying to get used to updated versions of the computer programs we use to put together each weekly edition. Now you'd think the word "updated should mean improvement, but not when it comes to computer programs. While getting used to our new computers has, for the most part, been a breeze, adapting to the graphics program has been frustrating to the point we need to find a group discount for Valium. What's more, our productivity has gone down. Things are taking longer to do and the possibility of making mistakes has increased because of the changes that somebody no doubt labelled "new and improved". Well new, yes, but improved, no. We've been using this program for 25 years now. It was difficult to learn at first, but the rewards were worth it. Once we got over having to think about doing our jobs in a whole different way, we were amazed at the magic of the digital world — how something that took us several minutes to accomplish pre -computer could be accomplished in the click of a mouse (and being Apple -computer-based, we used the mouse long before anyone else). We could instantly duplicate things. We could include pictures in ads or photos in news articles without having to go through a lengthy mechanical process, especially once we became the first people around using digital cameras. But as time went on we learned something: version four of the program did not necessarily improve on version three. In fact, it might have taken a step back in the name of making changes that made customers think they had to Keith Roulston From the cluttered desk update their programs. They changed something that was already pretty darned good. It was a little like Miss Universe thinking she needed plastic surgery. So we'd hang onto the version of the program we already had for as long as we could. But in the computer game, they have you over a barrel — especially if you do things over the internet. You find that there are updated versions of some useful online tools that you can no longer use unless you update your computer's operating system. If you update the operating system, the older programs on your computer no longer work so you have to upgrade the programs. And of course of you decide that it's getting risky to keep operating your old -and -getting - ancient, bought -in -2010 computers, you have no choice but to upgrade everything. So in January, usually as quiet a time as we get around here, we made the switch and we haven't had a day without frustration since — especially under deadline pressure when you need every seconds -saving short-cut you can get and you find that a simple feature of the old version is now no longer simple or time saving. And often makes you scream in frustration at whatever the thinking was of the programmer who made the change. While the specific program we use is one that few of you would ever need to encounter, I understand that what we're going through is pretty common with other programs as well. Someone also explained the trick computer programs seem to have found of creating new problems with one version of a program or operating system which are then fixed in the subsequent version, thereby making it essential for you to buy two updated versions. Now I understand the quandary these companies find themselves in. They've built a company on the ingenuity of the program they designed. It never wears out. If they created the perfect program, then nobody needs to get a new one and they have no revenue stream, (hence the genius of companies like Adobe that now rent the program through the "cloud" meaning they have an ongoing income). So they make changes that aren't improvements just to make their old product obsolete. Built-in obsolescence has been around for years. Back in the 1950s and 1960s the car companies used to completely change the look of their cars each year so you felt you needed to buy a new car. They don't do that anymore but they've got a different way of getting you. It can be impossible to get parts from vehicles that aren't even 10 years old. We had the same no -parts problem with our photocopier and printer, meaning they were also part of our re-equipping of our office (sometimes a new printer won't work with the operating system of an old computer). I suppose I shouldn't be too self-righteous about built-in obsolescence. We happen to be in the business of selling something that people want new every week. You're not going to want to buy a newspaper that's a year old. Still, I wish computer programmers would leave well enough alone. We, in turn, could drop so many swear words from our vocabulary. Canada doesn't have a fentanyl problem For weeks I've watched the developments occurring in what I'm told is Canada's fentanyl problem. For those who don't know, fentanyl is an synthetic opioid medication that is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine. It's found its ways into pills that resemble less powerful drugs such as Oxycotin and Percocet, two brands of painkillers, that are then sold on the street. It seems every other day there's another story about someone overdosing on fentanyl because they didn't know they were taking it or they didn't know the potency of the drug. It has lead to some people saying that Canada, and specific cities within the country, have a problem with fentanyl. Let me be among the first to say that is not true. There may be people overdosing and, yes, dying, as a result of taking fentanyl but these people are putting themselves in harm's way every day. Fentanyl isn't found in pills that people receive legally from their pharmacist (unless it's prescribed). Take, for example, a warning issued by police and public health officials in Ottawa last month after a brainstorming session on how to prevent fentanyl deaths: "Obtaining drugs from a non-medical source such as a friend, ordering online, or a drug dealer is very risky and potentially life-threatening as there is no way to know what is actually in them or how toxic they may be." To me, that's an overly verbose way of saying, if you don't get your drugs legally, don't take them. That's part of the problem that Canada has: people are taking these illicit, potentially life - destroying pills with little thought to the consequences. I'm not some drug teetotaller who is going to say that every form of drug everywhere is bad because I can't say that. I can say that I haven't heard of anyone dying of a fentanyl overdose because their pharmacist gave it to them. If these people, many of whom are children, weren't taking these powerful opioids recreationally, they wouldn't be putting themselves in a situation where they could die as a result of unknown drugs entering their systems. So what does Canada have? Canada seems to have a problem with people not making very bright decisions about what to put into their body. Things must be a little different from when I was a kid, because the only drugs I remember hearing about in high school, and a bit beyond, was marijuana and some other, more fringe drugs. There weren't, as far as I knew, people raiding their parents' stash of painkillers or uppers or downers to share with their friends and enjoy a high. The problem we have is that too many people turn to drugs to solve their problems instead of working through them. I'm not going to say that people don't need drugs. There are maladies and afflictions in this world that require pills, possibly over a short period or possibly every day. It seems to me, however, that more and more people think they have a problem and more and more pills are being prescribed for them, making it easier for teens to get a hold of them and sell to their friends. Maybe I lived in a bit of sheltered community, growing up in Seaforth, or maybe we're turning to too many drugs to solve our problems. I don't recall there being pills in my home on a regular basis. Sure, a broken limb here or a surgery there would undoubtedly result in some higher -end painkillers being in my home but I can't remember a desire to take them, let alone to share them. Every day problems, however, seem to be resulting in pills being more prevalent. Sore back? Better get on some kind of painkiller regiment. Feeling a little blue? Here's a pill to brighten your day. Trouble paying attention? These will turn you into a zombie capable of only doing exactly what you're told. As older generations turn to over-the- counter pills to adjust everything from their testosterone and estrogen to being grumpy in the morning, these pills become more and more available. As those pills become more available, and get sold on the street, people are inevitably going to find a way to counterfeit them to make money. After that, you're going to have death and destruction to deal with. To me, the solution is pretty simple: stop the prevalence of pills at its source. Try to deal with your problems on your own terms instead of turning to an apothecary first. The fewer pills that are out there, the fewer children and teens that will get their hands on them. Canada doesn't have a fentanyl problem, we have a problem with too many drugs being available to people they aren't prescribed to. Limit the number of pills and you limit the number of times the news has to report on someone overdosing and not living to see the age of 30 because their friend bought some pills from another friend. The solution is pretty simple — take the pills you need when you need them and lock up the remaining pills and, if there are pills you don't need, get rid of them. Cheesy education ith a future wife working in the safety training world at Bruce Power, I hear a lot of corporate speak at home — terms that don't necessarily translate into usefulness here at the offices of The Citizen. Every once in a while, however, out of that corporate, best practices gobbledygook comes a nugget of something worth remembering. If you're not already familiar, allow me introduce you to the Swiss Cheese model of accident causation, created by two men at the University of Manchester in England. The idea behind the model is the stacking of Swiss cheese slices with the concept that the holes in a slice of Swiss cheese represent individual system weaknesses. If the first slice of cheese has, say, four holes, that represents four potential weaknesses in that system. Slap a second slice of cheese on top of that slice, however, and its unique series of holes are bound to cover up some of the holes (weaknesses) in the first slice. Further failure could be produced, however, if holes in both slices happen to align. Put on another slice to further prevent weaknesses and you have the Swiss Cheese model of accident causation. The idea is that if you layer enough slices of cheese (barriers), you should have all your bases covered and the potential for something to fall through one of those holes (weaknesses) is almost non-existant. This is something we are currently wrestling with here at The Citizen. With a crucial member of staff currently on leave, other members of the team are attempting to bring their skills and knowledge (slices of cheese) to the table to ensure nothing is falling through those holes. To do this effectively, however, requires teamwork — one of our strong suits. On Sunday night, a system run by a company that thought it had its Swiss cheese holes all plugged up glaringly showed that wasn't the case — not at all. As everyone has no doubt heard by now, La La Land, a musical starring Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling, did not win best picture at the 89th Academy Awards. But, for about a minute and a half, the filmmakers thought they had. You see, presenters Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway were handed the wrong envelope on their way out onto the stage. They were handed an envelope containing a card proclaiming Stone as the year's best actress for her work in La La Land — an award handed out 10 minutes earlier — rather than the card that said Moonlight was the year's best picture. How could this happen, when Stone is sitting in her seat, Oscar in one hand and a card heralding her win in the other? It can happen because there were two identical suitcases containing an identical set of results — a system devised by the firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, which handles the winning envelopes. It's a wonder this hasn't happened before with two identical sets of envelopes floating around backstage — especially in a business that thrives on James Bond -like suitcase swaps and other similar schemes to engage viewers. The same could be said for NFL quarterback Tom Brady's ball -pressure scandal, referred to as Deflategate, in which it was alleged that he deflated balls to gain a competitive advantage. Under the NFL's current system, each team handles and prepares its own balls for the game, leaving plenty of holes in the aforementioned Swiss cheese slices through which failure is possible. No one is perfect, but enough people in the same room who are pretty good at what they do can create a perfect person in the aggregate.