Home Blog Page 1313

Cruise Control your next run

By
Peak Web
-
0

WEB-running app-Vaikunthe Banerjee

A new technological development from SFU researchers helps runners crush their goals

By Kelli Gustafson
Photos by Vaikunthe Banerjee

A research duo from Simon Fraser University’s Locomotion Lab have created a new app to help runners, entitled “Cruise Control.” Biomedical physiologist Max Donelan, along with PhD candidate Mark Snaterse, created this app after discovering that sound tempo can control running pace. Through the application of cruise control philosophy, this app works to assist runners in maintaining a particular pace, heart rate, or cadence, by controlling music tempo to pace their steps.

Donelan and Snaterse have spent the past few years perfecting the “control algorithms” for this new technology. “This project started a number of years ago when Max and I were looking into the mechanisms underlying the control of locomotion,” Snaterse said.

After conducting experiments, Donelan and Snaterse discovered that people would adjust their running speed in accordance with a shift in “metronome tempo [clicks, beats, etc.].” By applying this “control theory” and conducting more human experiments, Donelan and Snaterse became certain that runners could benefit with a technology to help regulate their speed using this theory. “Basically Cruise Control turns your music into your personal trainer,” Snaterse told The Peak.

After inputting your preferred distance, speed, cadence or heart rate, the app will select music from your phone, and adjusts the tempo automatically, to match your input goal(s). Snarterse compared the app to dancing; “during the run you just need to synchronize your steps with the music.” According to the developers, a runner can maintain their desired pace by having their steps matched to the tempo of the music playing.

According to Snaterse, all levels of runners could benefit from this app. “Regardless of your level, with Cruise Control it feels like your favourite band is right there with you timing their kick drum to drive you faster and further.” Snaterse admitted that he “never run[s] without the app anymore,” and revealed that his favorite song to run to is “Dancing Shoes” by The Arctic Monkeys.

The app has received wide acclaim from gadget buffs and cardio junkies alike, and has been featured on social media sites such as Mashable, Gizmag, Lifehacker, and Guyism. So if you’re looking for a way to stop your iPod from betraying you with swelling Celine Dion mid-workout, Cruise Control will run you $4.99 at the iTunes AppStore.

POINT: Chicken Wings Suck

By
Peak Web
-
1

WEB-chicken wings-Ljudmila Petrovic copy
Wings aren’t the only things that come in hot, steaming piles

By David “Eat Alberta Grassfed Beef” Dyck
Photos by Ljudmila Petrovic

To see Counter-Point, click here!

Chicken wings. They’re everywhere. If they were a currency, it would be inflated like the pre-WWII German economy, with remarkably similar results. Hundreds of value-seeking students packed into rows, ordering piles of wings for what appears to be a comparatively cheap rate on every “wings night” you find yourself in the middle of. You’ve convinced yourself that you’re enjoying yourself, though. Why is that?

You just wanted to enjoy a beer and maybe a burger without having cheap chicken panzerschrecked all over the table. It starts with value. Why get the meal that you wanted when you can just eat chicken for pennies on the dollar? Besides, everyone else at the table is on board. The lust for chicken is spreading like a cheap, saucy plague, and you don’t want to be the jerk going against the tide.

That brings us to the sauces. Once the indoctrinated masses have convinced everyone to feast on tiny chicken meat, the last question is the sauce question. There are two final solutions: you can get wet wings or dry wings. No matter which way you line them up, each option is worse than the last.

Napkins turn to useless, shredded pulp in the wake of wet sauce; if you’re lucky enough to get one of the two moist towelettes that may or may not be provided, it’s good for cleaning half a hand, at most. In a situation where you have to use your fingers for anything besides shoveling chicken into your face, you’re screwed. Lick your fingers?

Last I checked, this is the first world. Get dry wings? They taste like rubber. Use a fork? With how tiny they are, it would be like trying to remove a tumour from a baby’s brain.

And of course they can’t be seasoned with rosemary and cracked pepper. No, it’s all FRANCO’S SUPER RED HOT SPICY WINGS that appeal to people who want to be rounded up and accosted with heat. Some sadomasochistic urge in your “friends” drives them to sit around tearing small amounts of meat off of unsettlingly small bones that are coated in a sticky, uncomfortable sauce. Chicken wings are not worth the hollow cost. Don’t just follow orders. Eat a burger.

COUNTER-POINT: Wings are the best

By
Peak Web
-
0

WEB-chicken wings-Ljudmila Petrovic copy
They’re cheap and part of a balanced meal

To see Point, click here!

By Ljudmila Petrovic
Photos by Ljudmila Petrovic

There’s something about hearing the words “Wings” and “Wednesday” together in a sentence that just warms the cockles of my heart. Maybe it’s because they’re fiscally responsible, maybe it’s because they come in those adorable baskets, maybe it’s because they’re fun to eat. I don’t know.

Okay, so it would probably be more “worth it” if you were paying 25–35 cents per wing if it belonged to a bigger bird, but I personally don’t see gnawing on an albatross wing as a fun after-class activity. Sure, you sometimes come across a vein, but that comes with the top-of-the-foodchain territory.

All in all though, wings are fun. You get your protein AND you get to choose from a plethora of sauces. It can never get boring, and there’s bound to be a sauce for each of your moods. Feeling spunky? Get some hot wings. Rustic? BBQ. Safe and traditional? Get some salt n’ peppa! Like a little girl? Go with honey garlic.

Another thing I love about wings is the competition that often comes with the territory. I find it hard to not accept a challenge, especially when there’s usually a taunt on the sauce list along the lines of: “Think you can survive our deathly spicy, burn-off-your-mouth SUPER HOT DEATH SUICIDE MURDER WINGS?” Uh, yeah. I do, actually. Let me tell you, you will stumble out of that bar feeling like you just dodged death. You may not look it, but you’ll sure as hell feel like a million bucks.

This brings me to my next point: beer. I’m not normally a huge beer drinker, but when I get some wings in front of me, it’s hard to resist some brew. Health and fitness magazines are always telling me that a balanced meal of carbohydrates and (lean) protein will keep me the most satiated and are a sure-fire way to drop at least 25 lbs in a week. Beer is a carbohydrate, correct? Chicken is a lean protein for sure. Women’s Health would be so proud of me right now.

But ultimately any day of the week that combines alliteration and meat is okay in my books. Yes, I am also a proponent of Steak Sundays and Filet Mignon Fridays, thanks for asking.

To see Point, click here!

Robinson rebuke reinforces negative assumptions about aboriginals

By
Peak Web
-
2

robinson the peak

Just because investigative journalism sullies a local hero doesn’t make it less valid

By Helena Friesen
Photos by Eleanor Qu

In Feb. 3’s column, Eric Onderwater asked the student body to “Leave John Furlong Alone.” Furlong, who has been accused of abusing aboriginal students during his stint as a voluntary teacher up North in the 70s, is also the former CEO of VANOC. Onderwater asks SFU students to ignore the laundry list of allegations against Furlong, which include his use of a leather strap on students, multiple accounts of sexual assault and his penchant for racist slurs.

Onderwater accuses Robinson (the Georgia Straight journalist who broke the story) of fabricating it with the intention of becoming famous, selecting Furlong at random as the target. Because most journalists would risk their entire careers in order to break a story about a marginalized group of people that most Canadians are not sympathetic towards while tearing down a local celebrity. A bulletproof plan if ever there was one.

Let’s do a little math: a furlong was typically used to measure the distance a team of oxen could plough without resting. It is approximately the equivalent of 5 km. Currently there are over 6.5 km worth of archived material and documents related to residential schools that are inaccessible because the government has refused to provide the resources to bring them out of storage. One furlong is equivalent to approximately 33 John Furlongs. This means you would need 3575 Mr. Furlongs in order to understand how much material the government is not allowing us to access.

Although John Furlong was not teaching at what is technically a residential school, he did teach at a Catholic school that had virtually the same mission of assimilation, humiliation and degradation. In fact, they even shared some of the same teachers. Because of this technicality, none of the students were compensated for the mistreatment they endured.

The millions of documents that attest to the conditions of residential schools are currently unavailable, seemingly because the government would like to make it as difficult as possible to access our atrocious history. If more people were aware, pieces like Onderwater’s would never be penned. Onderwater’s article reinforces the dominant attitude held by Canadians, and he works hard to delegitimize aboriginal people and silence their voices.

He states “Robinson thinks. . . Aboriginals are saintly creatures in need of every resource the government has to offer.” He conveniently neglects the fact that the entire population of Canada uses government funds, like the ones we get to keep the university running, to pave our roads, or to give subsidies to oil corporations.

The effects of residential schooling are not up for debate. If the allegations against Furlong are true, he must be held accountable. More importantly, Canadians need to stop believing the lie that indigenous people are bathing in pools of money with endless resources. It is important to contextualize the conditions of different aboriginal communities.

There is no monolithic aboriginal identity, or experience. Making sweeping generalizations about a group of people is called stereotyping and is best friends with a concept I like to call racism. How many Furlongs will it take for people to finally start believing aboriginal people and give it a rest? We can only hope that work like Robinson’s continues to highlight the gross negligence the government shows towards groups of people. I’m not so sure we need to leave John Furlong alone, but it would probably be best if Onderwater recognized the SFU community does not support his solo act.

Who’s afraid of feminism?

By
Peak Web
-
0

WEB-masculism-Mark Burnham

The masculist movement seems to think it has girl cooties at any rate

By Rachel Braeuer
Photos by Mark Burnham

There was a point in my life where I thought being a feminist was abhorrent. If you’ve read anything I’ve ever written before, take a minute to let that sink in. I understand the motivations that make the growing masculist movement want to grow independently from feminism, but I’m here to tell you it’s an unnecessary divide.

Eric Bock’s proposed event “Why UBC needs Masculism” is an enigma. Is it serious or is it a joke? Bock didn’t respond to a request for an interview, so the best I can do is assume based on the responses given on the page. He does cite studies about men getting raped and the increasing incidence of eating disorders in men. Comments from others who seem to take the event seriously felt honest, but were all shrouded in what I’d call hipster irony, save for fear that would be patronizing, err, matronizing?

None of the serious posts made on the board that I saw were off base. Men do face serious issues that are directly related to their gender. But let’s make two things clear: women had to fight for their right to be taken seriously in a man’s world for a long time and (with less frequency) still do. I appreciate, if the organizers are serious and not just mocking the “Why UBC needs feminism” event from the week before, how it feels to have people not take you seriously because of your gender. Really, this response proves their point, if they’re genuinely trying to make one.

Secondly, feminism (maybe not radical feminism, but generally) has, for at least a decade, been talking about and trying to proactively resolve these “men’s issues.” It was in women’s studies classes that I was introduced to studies in masculinity, not while interloping in the men’s locker room. This is what really gets me down. Men can be and are feminists. The white ribbon campaign was started by men, for men. One of the organizers of Slutwalk in Vancouver is male. If asked, I’d call most of the guys I know feminists. However, if I told them that, I imagine some would be displeased.

Masculists often talk about the need for “safe spaces for men.” I think this is one of the areas where feminist and masculists aren’t seeing eye-to-eye, and I wonder if this is a question of phrasing. When feminists talk about safe space for women, it references women only having a voice inside their own homes, and still being thought of as either the father or husband’s property (fun fact: rape was, until the mid-20th century, thought of as property damage because of this!)

Until women demanded their safe spaces outside of the home, all other spaces were, by default, men’s spaces. I agree that men don’t have arenas where they can talk about issues that impact them the way women do, but trying to usurp the need for safe spaces or appropriate feminist phrases demonstrates the unchecked privilege some masculists exhibit and places the movement in direct and arbitrary opposition with feminism.

If the masculist movement takes off and makes positive changes for men that in turn benefit everyone, I’ll still be sad I didn’t get to bro-out with everyone under the banner of feminism, but I’ll still be happy. I will support any movement that raises consciousness and promotes equality, but if masculists are going to rhetorically posit themselves against a movement that has been trying to advocate in similar way to them for years, I can’t help but be matronizing.

Critical thinking in the classroom

By
Peak Web
-
0

These skills are sadly lacking in a lot of upper-division seminars

By Daryn Wright

When surveyed, most undergraduate students claim that the most important thing they’ve gained from university is the ability to think critically. To this I ask: where is this critical thinking in the classroom? Because I’m not seeing much of it.

As an English major, most of what my peers and I do is engage in discussions about this or that text. Can we read Othello as having a homosexual theme? What can we derive from the metrical variation in Paradise Lost? Success as a student of English literature depends wholly on ones ability to pull meaning from text where it is not explicit — or to take what is explicit and explain why it is meaningful. It is a tragic moment when you’re sitting in a fourth-year English course — one where you expect your fellow classmates to have some critical thinking abilities about them — and the only discussion threads are “these lines are cool,” or worse, “I thought this was interesting.”

Well great, I’m glad you thought those lines were cool and interesting, because T.S. Eliot did some cool things and was an interesting guy, but can you tell me why you think so? This is where so many discussions stop: the dead-end alleyway of ignored metaphors and misinterpreted verses.

Constructing meaning from text, or from anything for that matter, is not merely a matching game either, as so many students seem to believe. Finding parallels in literature is not a hard thing to do — in fact, often the text nurtures this kind of engagement — but pairing two objects or concepts together is not enough to constitute an argument. This is one thing we could all learn from philosophy students, who, bless their hearts, are taught to tango in the form of logically sound arguments at an early stage in their education.

They are taught that simply pairing A and B together does not equal C, and no matter how much fluffy rhetoric they pack around that argument, it is not going to arrive in Timbuktu in one piece. If there is anything that English students — and all students in general — could benefit from, it’s a lesson in logic.

Is this problem rooted in the way we’ve been taught, or is it a form of laziness? Perhaps it is a badly-made cocktail of both causes, taking the form of rhetorically inflated discussions and papers that aren’t really arguing anything. Maybe this is my own disappointment speaking, but I thought that by the time we got to upper level courses we were supposed to have left behind the practice of merely matching “interesting” things.

Don’t get me wrong, sometimes classroom discussions result in the cracking open of texts in the most unexpected and exciting way, and collectively we are able to tease out revealing analogies and new interpretations. What directly follows from this is that tingly feeling you get in the bottom of your toes, that indication that the discussion has been enlightening in some way.

The opposite of this is the feeling of an exceedingly heavy skull as the class continues to hover around that one line that “sounds so cool.”

Maybe I’m being too harsh, and by no means am I a model academic, but if there’s one thing I can hope for in a university education, it’s that critical thinking will make its way back into our discussions, and that distracted, meaningless claims will make themselves scarce.

What are ‘values’ anyway?

By
Peak Web
-
0

what are values the peak

In a culture as diverse as Canada’s, rhetorical appeals to shared values are empty statements

By Mohamed Sheriffdeen
Illustration by Ben Buckley

If you pay attention to political rhetoric, nearly every speech issued by someone campaigning for your vote embraces the idea of “our values” or “our shared values” or “our core values.”

President Obama is enamoured with the phrase, and you cannot skim through Thomas Mulcair’s website without stumbling over the term repeatedly (a brilliant drinking game if you can hold your liquor). It can be used as a weapon, a commitment to a relationship, and even be glossed over when suitable.

In a draft of the ‘Canadian Foreign Policy Plan’ leaked by CBC News in Nov 2012, a commitment to economic negotiations with China was made, glossing over cavernous ideological schisms and approaches to individual freedoms. To wit: “we will need to pursue political relationships in tandem with economic interests even where political interests or values may not align.” This stance canonizes a dollars-first mindset despite a commitment made by our PM in November 2006 to not “sell out important Canadian values, our belief in democracy, freedom, human rights . . . to the almighty dollar.”

So what are values anyway? The term is shifting and fluid, a catchall thrown together to bestow upon you, the voter, a belief that your government has your best interests at heart; whether that term is concrete or simply addresses economic, social, cultural, religious and/or political ideologies that occupy the public imagination at any given moment is up for debate.

It is hard to presume that those cultural values harboured by every single demographic in this or any country are held across the board, and indeed the argument can be made that those “values” espoused in North America are Judeo-Christian ideals that swing right and left on a decade-by-decade basis.

It is the commitment to these“values” that convinced John Baird to embarrassingly flex imaginary international political clout when Palestine was granted a confirmation of statehood by the UN. It is the commitment to these ‘values’ that led Harper’s government to circumvent parliamentary dissection of individual mandates within their highly publicized omnibus budget bills in the so-called interest of economic security. Harper once screamed that, “corruption is not a Canadian value!” when Paul Martin had the audacity to associate Liberal values with those of all Canadians.

Indeed, the amount of rhetoric and projection is so thick that it shrouds clear conversation — one cannot argue hypotheticals. So, the question remains, what are our values? They are whatever we need them to be. The idea is a useless and outdated political tool. It is impossible to identify an individual set of values with all Canadians; the cultural, religious and political diversity in our country is staggering and not all individuals may feel they are aptly represented by government, but politicos still make hay by rallying around a single, presumptuously unifying flag.

Why? Because the need to believe in something greater than the individual is a stirring call. “Our values” is the broadest, vaguest phrase in modern politics, but it allows the listener to fill in the gaps, crowd-sourcing national policy, in a grotesque vote grab that alienates the people it intends to unite.

Prevailing conditions in our southern cousin illustrates the danger of this approach. Values can be used by an individual or a group to promote an inconsistent agenda and assume an executive role with a presumed morality. Exercise gun control? Not a chance, it infringes
upon our rights.

But what about individuals with alternate lifestyles and sexualities? Do they deserve the right to enter into unions and pass on death benefits to their partners? If they violate our values, god no. What rights or values are divine? Which are human constructs, and which can truly be universally applied? Nobody really knows, and neither does your government. Prattling on about a shady, undefined set of values belittles our intelligence and drives us away from a secular government whose sole focus should be the establishment of rules and regulations derived from a clear focus on the common good. Let us move on from the white noise and demand clarity.

Vancouver lives on without the Waldorf

By
Peak Web
-
0

Stop crying over spilled milk from your vintage cereal and get out there.

By Gloria Mellesmoen

Until now, I have been more than sympathetic to your lamenting cries about how nothing will be the same and how you cannot believe that this is happening to you. This might sound a little brash, but it is something that needs to be said: you need to get over it.

The mourning period has past and my patience is quickly waning. Everything comes to an end eventually and The Waldorf was no exception. You need to move on. There are plenty of other fish in the sea. Quite frankly, I am sick of hearing the whining about The Waldorf’s closure. I cannot fathom why people are so fixated on a venue that is at an end when there are so many vibrant locations that are worth talking about in Vancouver.

The way we are treating The Waldorf is much like how in death we tend to exaggerate about how loved or wonderful someone was. The Waldorf is overrated. We need to stop talking about what is gone and appreciate the things we still have.

Funky Winkerbeans on a weeknight is a perfect example of an underrated venue. The gritty nature of the bar and its East Hastings location will drive some away, but that part of its charm is what keeps me frequenting it.

Funky’s somehow manages to be both rough and laidback, a combination which promotes a “come as you are” ambiance and attracts the kind of people who have a story. The conversations
I have had in the bathroom there have been some of the most interesting I have ever had. This is a stark contrast to many of the vapid interactions I have had while waiting in lines at classier places, such as The Waldorf.

My wallet will also attest that Funky Winkerbeans is a better venue for a night of drinking. As a student, I tend to gravitate to locations where cheap alcohol is present and this is a good location for that. Even Caribou is attractive when put in a pitcher with a $12 price tag.

With a goal of getting drunk (and the way that Caribou will almost always taste better with more consumed), Funky’s offers the perfect off-campus drinking experience.

Though the other patrons and the price of alcohol are incentive enough on their own, the best part of Funky Winkerbeans on a weeknight is The Evil Bastard Karaoke Experience. The magic begins around 9 p.m. and comes without a cover charge.

There is no kind of judgemental or pretentious atmosphere here. Everyone, regardless of how well they can sing, is able to get on stage and sing. I am effectively tone deaf and even I can drag someone up with me, with the encouragement of Caribou, to belt out Carly Rae Jepson’s “Call Me Maybe” with confidence. The best part is that they have no Nickelback on their song list and likely never will.

Though the Waldorf closing is without doubt unfortunate, Vancouver has a plethora of worthwhile joints for entertainment and drinks that deserve to be the topic of conversation. There is no reason to lament for what was when we have such great places like Funky Winkerbeans that still exist.
 

Letters to the Editor – February 18, 2013

By
Peak Web
-
0

Dear Editor,

I’d like to give a reminder to all students who ride the bus.

Please, look up from your portable devices once in awhile, and if you see an older person standing, get up onto those strong young legs of yours and offer your seat out of respect.

These are the people who have contributed so much to the society you live in. I have seen older individuals left standing too many times when young, strong students are sitting. As one ages, stability can weaken, so please take a minute and think about maybe giving up your seat to make someone else’s life a little more comfortable. I hope that when you reach that age, someone will show you the respect you deserve.

Thank you,
Laurie Darcus
Graduate Student,
Archaeology department
 

COLUMN: Bill C-30 defunct

By
Peak Web
-
0

Government listens to successful online campaigns

By April Alayon

When I first read the news about Bill C-30 being thrown out by the Supreme Court, I was overjoyed. Bill C-30 is the Conservative government’s attempt to strip you of your privacy rights by requiring telecommunications service providers to disclose any subscriber information without a warrant. Bill C-30 was vetoed by the government due to a large opposition from Canadians who believe that the bill is more of a violation of privacy rights than a tool to speed up law enforcement investigations. How did Canadians voice their right to privacy and free expression?

Through online petitions. This is a historic milestone in Canada. It proves that grassroots campaigns and online petitions can be very effective if they receive country-wide support and doggedly press the government. Bill C-30 is officially the Protecting Children from Internet
Predators Act. This is a misnomer. Protecting children from internet predators is not even the purpose of the act. It has more to do with unauthorized surveillance than actual protection for children.

The fear around this act being passed stemmed from the uncertainty over which of the authorized individuals would be able to access information and how they would be able to use this private information. OpenMedia asked Canadian citizens to stand up for their rights and started the stopspying.ca campaign, which generated huge support to bring down the bill. Pushing the bill to pass, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews accused those who refused to support this bill as supporters of child pornography. This was a feeble maneuver.

It was June 2011 when the campaigns went viral among Canadian’s social network news feeds. Videos against the bill were produced and national TV news started paying attention. It was also reported by CBC that the constant and determined campaign by OpenMedia gave weight to the
political engagement.

Remember SOPA and PIPA? Back in 2011, Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect Intellectual Property Act were attempted to be passed by the US law to lay down censorship on the Internet. Both acts were not passed due to huge online protests that took place. Social media is just a tool, but it’s becoming more evident that it is a powerful tool that can unite a huge country and change policies. I was once skeptical of methods like collecting of signatures and online petitions. I used to believe that no court would take it seriously, but recent events involving widespread outcry of the citizens being highlighted by social media and led by grassroots campaigns gave me faith that we are still in charge of our government. All we need it to stick together and voice it out.

One last thing: if you took part in this campaign by even just signing a petition online, give yourself a high five!

1...1,3121,3131,314...1,431Page 1,313 of 1,431

Simon Fraser University’s independent student newspaper since 1965.

Contact us: [email protected]

© The Peak Publications Society 1965-2024

Simon Fraser University’s independent student newspaper since 1965.

Contact us:
[email protected]

© The Peak Publications Society 1965-2024