If you haven't heard what happened in yesterday's United States Grand Prix, in Forumla One Auto Racing, I can't blame you. Formula One is mostly a European sport -- American's love their Nascar.

What happened is that, out of 20 cars scheduled to race, only 6 started. And so, the lamest race in automotive history took place at the Indy track, with Ferrari easily beating out the other two much weaker teams (Jordan and Minardi) for the so-called “win“.

Why this happened is fairly clear.

• There was a couple of accidents in practice, one serious
• It turns out the tires take some of the blame for these accidents
• Michelin, tire supplier to 14 out of the 20 drivers, warns the teams that it is not 100% sure the tires are safe
• The teams then ask for an exemption to the silly “one tire“ rule so that they can change the tires on their car to a safer type. That is rejected.
• The tires are failing because drivers are driving too fast through a tight turn - the tires can't take the pressure. So the teams ask for a slight change to the course to slow down cars through that turn. In fact, they offer to give up all the “points“ for winning to the teams that run on Bridgestone. (Essentially, they offered to play a competitive game for the fans, but concede the part that matters - the points.) This idea is also rejected.
• And so, left with no compromise, the 14 drivers are ordered by their owners into the pits at the start of the race, and F1 fans (particular the American fans watching live) are cheated out of a real competition
• The only two fast cars in the race, the two Ferraris, refused to pass each other (a practice called “team orders“)

It would seem to me, a fan of F1, that Formula One governing body (FIA) has an obligation to protect the sport from embarassments such as this. To go into a race knowing that the majority of drivers will pull out, and let it happen, is the real problem here.

I think everybody involved, including Michelin, is admitting that the tires were the original problem. But there was plenty of time to fix it, and lots of ideas on how to fix it. But they couldn't agree, and so the race went ahead. The race should have been cancelled, delayed, whatever.

I see this sometimes at work. Someone makes a mistake, but then instead of everyone rallying around and fixing the problem, people proudly announce “It's not my problem, I'm not going to do anything to fix it.” There's the crime of the original shooting. And then the crime of not calling the police while a person slowly dies out on the sidewalk. Michelin admitted to it's fault. Why doesn't Formula One admit it screwed up as well.

Anyways, what's done is done. Formula One looks dead at Indy. And it might take a few years to return to the United States. In fact, this might cause a rift that causes many teams to break away from F1 and form their own league. Man oh man. The implications of this farce are long reaching, unless the parties involved can kiss and make up quickly.

The other night, my wife and I were having a late dinner out. (Well, late for us, might be normal time for some people.) We drove up to a nice Italian restaurant north of Toronto called Il Fornello. (There is an Il Fornello 3 blocks from my condo, but we like to go a bit farther from home for dinner sometimes.)

Only a few minutes after we were seated, a nice family of 4 were seated near us. My wife remarked how good looking their children were, and I agreed. The kids appeared to be 6 or 7 years old, and both as cute as can be.

A few minutes later, I looked up to see that one of the kids had spilled their soft drink on the table. This is when the fun (for us) and misery (for them) began.

The mother was extremely upset. Some of the drink had apparently touched her jacket and came dangerously close to her purse. She immediately threw her purse at her husband, where he proceeded to keep it on his lap for the rest of the meal. She spent a couple of minutes attending to her jacket, although it seemed like she was spending more time looking at her jacket in an upset fashion and less time cleaning it. I think there may have been 1 or 2 drops of Coke on there.

As the family was moved one table over, the mother then took the opportunity to angrily scold both of her kids. Man, she was so pissed.

She spent the next 20 minutes (waiting for the meal to arrive), with her arms folded across her chest, staring into space. Her back was slightly leaning away from her family. The table was silent. As far as I could tell, no one spoke for the entire 20 minutes. The kids were quiet. The girl who spilled the drink appeared to be fighting back tears.

Every once and a while the mother would add a “flourish“ to her temper tantrum. She'd roll her eyes. Readjust her folded arms forcefully. Sigh heavily. Man oh man. She was upset, and she wanted everyone to know. I will say this, she never once screamed or shouted. She didn't lay one finger on her kids. But that's about the only nice thing you can say about her behaviour.

Then the meal came. Were things back to normal now? Had the incident blown over? Had she calmed down? Of course not. The little girl was too upset to eat very much, and of course the mother grabbed her food from in front of her and started eating it herself. A knife went flying onto the floor (I didn't see how that happened), and no one from that table even looked at it or bothered to pick it up. The son did have a shocked look on his face for a few seconds, like he couldn't believe what just happened. But everyone else at the table acted like flying knives were normal.

So here we sit, my wife and I. We've been trying to have kids for years, and am now spending tens of thousands of dollars in medical fees and drugs to make it happen. And we're watching this “family” (well, the parents) behave like this in a restaurant. Is this what it is supposed to be like?

So, even though this was a miserable situation for them, this incident provided my wife and I with some food for thought. Before we left, I felt like going over to their table and giving them some food for thought. I doubt my words would have changed anything, but geez... how can you watch an adult behaving worse than a 2-year-old child for 45 minutes and not say anything:

* “All this over a spilled drink? Seriously? My parents acted better than this when I came home and told them I wrecked their car and almost killed myself in the process.“

* “Hey, it looks like you have a couple of children here you don't love. My wife and I have been trying to have kids for years. We'd be happy to take them off your hands -- no charge!“

* “Hey, buddy. Why don't you grow some balls and protect your kids from your wife's nasty temper?“

I am sure we don't know everything that preceded this, but seriously... what the HELL is wrong with this woman? And why isn't the husband doing anything besides protecting his wife's purse? The kids are terrified. One of them is crying. And this couple sits there silent - extracting every last tear from their own children as payback for a $6 dry cleaning bill.

Sometimes I don't understand people.

Wil Wheaton makes an interesting post about how the actor's union (SAG) has just struck a deal with the video game makers for a new salary structure.

Video game programmers react with anger and bitterness that the spoiled actors are getting treated like kings while they “slave away” for years, unloved.

And I don't understand what all the fuss is about.

I think some important points are being overlooked here.
(1) Game makers are free to use anyone they wish to do voices for their game. As Wil said in his post, you can hire a real actor or you can hire Joe from accounting.
(2) Hiring a real actor has certain benefits over Joe from accounting. Actors have experience, so they will produce more quality work in less time. Actors have consistency in performance - being able to speak in a difficult voice consistently over an entire day or days.
(3) Actors have an established system for properly compensating their performances (known as scale) - both up front and over time. If a performance is so good that it deserves to be replayed again and again, then the actors are entitled to a small and limited additional income off those repeats.
(4) Actors make an inconsistent living. Most actors have to work at other jobs to make their rent. Only a small (< 1%) number of accreditted actors can afford to do nothing but acting for income.
(5) Programmers make a consistently good living. Let's say the average game developer makes $100,000 per year. If a game takes 3 years to make, an average programmer will rake in $300,000 in salary over that time, plus benefits. The actor who lends two or three voices to the project will make $700 total.

So why are so many $300,000 programmers so bitter about some $700 actors? I don't get the source of animosity here. Let's say the actor makes $700 initially, and if the game sells really well and makes a profit, he gets another $300? What's the big deal?

After dinner tonight, I walked over to the shopping mall next door to the restaurant. My wife and I had about 30 minutes to shop before the mall closed. It's been a few weeks since I had been in a mall, so I just wanted to look around a little.

Within 5 minutes, I was holding Star Wars 3: Revenge of the Sith on DVD.

The first thought that entered my head was, “Wow, already? Those movie pirates work fast. This movie just opened last weekend.”

The second thought that entered my head was, “This looks legit.” The box looks official. I bet there will be no difference between the DVD cover I was holding in my hand, and the official DVD cover when the movie comes out in DVD. The back of the box talks about “deleted scenes”, and “director's commentary”. It has shiny gold foil lettering, a UPC code, a hologram sticker... the person who created this DVD cover did an extremely professional job. Either that, or somewhere the official DVD cover has already been designed and someone was able to make a copy of that too.

What makes this all the more tempting was a conversation my wife and I had earlier in the evening. We want to see the latest Star Wars movie in the theater, but don't want to fight the crowds in long lines for tickets or fights for good seats. We decided to wait one more weekend. And then, not two hours later, I had the DVD in my hand...

This all brings to light one of the overlooked aspects of the MPAA fight against piracy. You can sue uploaders, and you can target file sharing programs like Kazaa or BitTorrent. But when someone can purchase a DVD at a mall that looks every bit as legitimate as the real thing... well, the uphill battle against movie copying just got steeper.

In a previous post, Best Buy gave me $50 when I found a video card that I bought from them cheaper somewhere else.

Now, I noticed they started selling the 19 inch LCD monitor I bought $20 cheaper than what I paid for it.

So guess what? I headed on back to BB to get my $20. Hey, money is money. $20 paid for half of the dinner my wife and I went to immediately after leaving the store. I wonder how many other price match opportunities I have missed over the years. I mean, I hardly ever check the price of something I already bought. I will definitely start doing that for larger purchases.

It's been about 4 months since I sponsored a child through World Vision, and 3 months since I've written about it. If you've been thinking about child sponsorship, I feel a need to let you know ahead of time what you're getting into.

Anyways, after carefully writing a letter back to Namthip, I went out and purchased some cute stickers to include in the envelope to her. World Vision doesn't let you send anything to your child except what can fit in a standard letter envelope (and not cash), so the options are quite limited.

I realize there is a good reason for this. As I said in my first post about World Vision, sending extravagant gifts would do more harm than good to the child, her siblings, and even her neighbourhood friends.

So I sent the letter and stickers, and apparently she got them all and loved them. I received a letter back from her recently (actually, written by her sister) thanking me for them and telling me a bit more about Namthip and her family. I don't want to bother her by writing every month, forcing her to write a response, but I will write often.

So, I am here to say that sponsorship has so far been very rewarding to me personally. Your mileage may vary, of course.

World Vision, on the other hand, is an interesting organization the deal with. First, I find that they are constantly sending me mail. Well, OK, I can see some of it is necessary (like the child's letters, tax receipts, etc.) Some of it is interesting to me (updates on their tsunami relief efforts, with a request for tsunami donations.) And some of it is downright begging for money (sponsor another child, or we have a special need here). Fine, I can accept all that. I hope they get a good discount on stamps is all I can say.

(Warning, rant ahead.)

Well, today I got another letter from them. Get this - they are raising my monthly sponsorship donation by $2 per month, effective July 1st. Don't misunderstand me. They are not asking me to give more (they do that often enough), they are telling me they will start deducting more from my account unless I call them to stop it.

In Canada, we had an incident with the big cable companies where they starting adding channels to people's cable packages without their explicit permission. It started as a free 3 month preview given to all subscribers, but they then started charging for those channels once the trial period expired unless you phone them to cancel it. It's called “negative billing” - if you don't decline this automatic addition to your monthly bill, it means you accept it. It's a back-door way to sell you something, relying mostly on the lazyness of the general population.

Now, as far as the increase in World Vision's monthly donation is concerned, $2 a month is not going to bankrupt me. But I have been a sponsor for all of 4 months, and they are already poised to automatically take more out of my account. Do they do this to everyone? Wait until you've been on board a couple of months, received a couple of letters from your child, and then BAM! the rate goes up? This seems like the sales tactic of a sleazy used car salesman, and not a Christian charity. (Apologies to all non-sleazy car salesmen!)

If I had been a sponsor for 2 years, and they wanted to increase the rate to match inflation (or whatever), I wouldn't feel so bad. But raising the rate 8% after 4 months is a lousy way to start a long term relationship with donors to your charity.

Looking at their web site, it looks like they are raising the monthly donation amount for new sponsors as well. That makes me feel a little better. But their letter to me did not say that. In fact, their letter specifically says how the increase is needed to fight HIV/AIDS in Namthip's community. To drive home the personal nature of this request, they use her name 4 times in the letter, refer to her indirectly 5 times, mention my name several times... making it seem like I am the only person receiving a letter increasing the rate.

As an example of the terrible selling job they did on this automatic (except if specifically declined) increase, here's a sample from the letter:

“Many sponsors tell us it is more convenient for them if World Vision simply begins deducting the new rate from their bank withdrawal or credit card payment plan.“ --- Really? People tell you they prefer that you help yourself to their bank account without asking them first?

And, even though it looks like this increase is for everyone and not just me, I still feel a bit ticked about this negative billing. It is sleazy. Maybe it's necessary, but I didn't expect it. I didn't see it coming. I honestly expected the current monthly rate would continue at this level, forever. They should have been more clear up front how these increases work, and whoever wrote the letter should change careers.

Instead of trying to personalize this rate increase, World Vision should have depersonalized it. Tell me World Vision is raising it's rates for the first time in X years. Tell me that costs increase year after year per child, and that sponsors will have to give just a little bit more to get back to break-even. Tell me that it is going to be impossible for you to meet the needs of the currently sponsored children out there unless you raise the rate across the board. Make me feel like this is normal, and it happens from time to time. They could take a lesson on how to do this from the phone or cable company.

I think I might call them tomorrow and make a minor complaint about the wording of the letter. Hey, I love being a sponsor. I don't mind giving more. But World Vision will have to make a little better effort to save money, and be more business-like with their rate increases.

Can you imagine if the phone company wrote you a letter talking about how there has been some bad weather recently in your town, and equipment needs replacing close to your home. How your phone line is older than other homes, and is getting more expensive for them to maintain? That wouldn't happen. They would say that, effective on July 1st, the cost of basic service is going up from $21.50 to $22.20. In addition, call answer and call display are each going up $0.15 more per month. There, they just got $1 per month out of me, without personalizing it. It's not difficult to do, yeesh!

(End rant. Sorry about that.)

Yesterday, as a friend and I were walking into a local fast-food place for lunch, we saw someone begging for spare change on the sidewalk. As we approached, he said to us, “Would you mind getting me something to eat? I haven't eaten in 3 or 4 days.” So I said, “Sure. What would you like?” “A small burger and a drink.” was the reply.

This is something I have always thought about doing. In the neighbourhood where I work, street begging is quite common (so much for the clean reputation of Canada, eh?). I sometimes think about picking up some food for someone instead of just handing out money. I am leery about freely handing out money to street beggars for a number of reasons, which I will get into some other time.

So, after being asked nicely for some food, I purchased an extra meal and brought it out to him. “Here you go, man.”

And what was the response? Was he overjoyed? Grateful? Content even? Well, in a word, no.

“Did you buy me the poutine?” was the first words out of his mouth. “Huh?”, I said, “No you just asked for the burger and drink.” “Can I get $2 for the streetcar?” “No.” “Can I get $1 for a coffee?” “No.”

And that's when I left.

So, that will teach me I guess. Maybe I expected too much? I certainly was not expecting this guy to worship me or anything. A simple “thanks” and nothing else would have been enough. Actually, if all he did was open the bag and start eating his food without even looking at me, I would understand. But though greed and outright ungratefulness, this one guy has put me off directly helping the homeless for a while. He acted like I just stole his lunch, instead of giving him one.

Am I acting unchartiable by expecting some acknowledgement? Maybe. But my sympathy towards people “less fortunate” has been eroded a bit more, and that is not a good feeling for me.