Unpredictable. Unfocused. Just like life.

I just got around to reading the Sunday Boston Globe, and there was an editorial about the problems cause by too many Canada geese. The editorial on page D10 isn't available online any more but it had this observation:

...the thousands of Canada geese that befoul public playing fields, beaches, and golf courses throughout Greater Boston have taken on a verminous quakity. Many don't bother to migrate and are so lazy that they have earned the name "lawn carp."

[...]

But the ability of a single Canada goose to produce upwards of a pound of droppings per day has resulted in many a ruined outing for people who seek to enjoy the water's edge.

I had my first opportunity to check out Microsoft Virtual Earth. I've had Google Earth for a few weeks, and I've even tried out Google Moon.

While I can't exactly put my finger on it, I just didn't find Microsoft Virtual Earth as pleasant to use. The interface wasn't as smooth, the mapping wasn't as clear, and the satellite photos weren't as close. Zooming in almost always resulted in a loss of image.

It just seems that Google is just doing whatever they damn well please, and having a great time. For example, try zooming in to Google Moon. On the other hand, Microsoft seems to be stuck playing a game of catch up, and not playing very well. I think they're finding it a bit difficult to have other people calling the shots, and perhaps they have forgotten how to play the game.

I got my first tele-spam the other day. Somebody actually called me - my number is on my site. They asked me what I was doing to promote my website, and said that they could help me make more money. I told them I wasn't interested.

Now I'm just waiting for calls about discount Cialis and cheap Windows software.

We're almost done but progressing much more slowly now, probably as a result of too many Mai Tais at the Tiki Lau last night. Though we have just assembled the Weber grill, so we are taking care of the important things. So I'm sitting out on the deck enjoying the fresh air right now.

You know just how relaxing it is being here when this is the most I can say after three days.

We told our friends that we could have their whole house unpacked by the end of the day. Of course we've had a million errands to run, but we're about 80% of the way done, and we even stopped to put in a new toilet.

So we're in Westford, Massachusetts. We've spent the afternoon helping our friends unpack, since the just got all of their belongings delivered today. Great pad thai for dinner too. It's so nice to be back here. We've already bumped into some old friends.

I'll have lots more to say when we've got full wireless broadband connection tomorrow.

Ok it's summer. Where is Internet Explorer 7? It was supposed to be in beta by summer.

Andrew at Bound By Gravity, along with numerous other Canadian blogs, has much to say today about the CBC policy on use of the word 'terrorism.' The CBC, or Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, is Canada's public broadcaster. The policy makes this point (emphasis mine):

Avoid labelling any specific bombing or other assault as a "terrorist act" unless it's attributed (in a TV or Radio clip, or in a direct quote on the Web). For instance, we should refer to the deadly blast at that nightclub in Bali in October 2002 as an "attack," not as a "terrorist attack." The same applies to the Madrid train attacks in March 2004, the London bombings in July 2005 and the attacks against the United States in 2001, which the CBC prefers to call "the Sept. 11 attacks" or some similar expression. (The BBC, Reuters and many others follow similar policies.)

Terrorism generally implies attacks against unarmed civilians for political, religious or some other ideological reason. But it's a highly controversial term that can leave journalists taking sides in a conflict.

By restricting ourselves to neutral language, we aren't faced with the problem of calling one incident a "terrorist act" (e.g., the destruction of the World Trade Center) while classifying another as, say, a mere "bombing" (e.g., the destruction of a crowded shopping mall in the Middle East).

Andrew makes a great point:

Look - I would be completely supportive of attempts by the media to use the English language in an appropriate fashion (i.e. not overusing words like "tragedy"), however this is a transparent attempt to remove the word "terrorist" from the reporting of... well.... terrorism. By all means don't gratuitously call every single attack that occurs a "terrorist attack" (especially if evidence has not yet been found to link it to a terrorist organization), however do not purposefully avoid using the word "terrorism" in your reporting when it accurately describes the situation.

Avoid labelling any specific bombing or other assault as a "terrorist act" unless it's attributed (in a TV or Radio clip, or in a direct quote on the Web).

Kate at small dead animals puts it so succinctly:

Memo To CBC. Islamofascism does not recognize "neutrality". You have taken sides.

Theirs.

Finally a reference for everything you always wanted to know about the Family Guy series. My son, who has the entire series up until this season on DVD, will be so pleased.

We're heading home to Boston today to visit neighbors and friends, and to help some friends move into their new home. I am assured that they have a broadband connection, even though they don't yet have television. So tomorrow's postings will originate from Westford, Massachusetts. I can't wait.

Our corporate legal counsel reads my blog, and did once take me aside and comment on one of my posts, suggesting that it could be taken in a couple of ways, both of them bad. He was very polite about it, but I saw his point.

So when he tells me something now I always ask if I can blog this. Today he was telling me about his vacation in France, He was noticing that whenever he saw any kind of sign it was phrased positively, as opposed to a North American tendency to say the same thing in a negative way. For example, where we might say:

Keep off the grass.

Please respect the grass.

No smoking.

Please respect the environment.

Steven Levitt compares the two at the Freakonomics Blog:

We found that wearing a seat belt reduced the chance of death by 60-70 percent across all crashes. We estimated that air bags reduce the death rate by 15 percent in frontal crashes, but don't help in partial frontal, side, or rear crashes. (The benefits we found for adults in seat belts were higher than most previous research, and the results on air bags were lower than in most earlier research. But there is nobody who knows the data who would prefer an airbag to a seat belt if it was an either/or choice.)

The bottom line is that to save a life with a seat belt costs $30,000; to save a life with an air bag costs $1.8 mm by our estimates. This makes seat belts an incredibly effective safety innovation. While in comparison, air bags look bad, indeed in the scheme of things $1.8 mm to save a life is pretty good by regulatory standards.

It seems that there are just so many people who are incapable of parking between those two white lines. Any morning at Starbucks I'm guaranteed to see at least 2 cars out of 20 haphazardly parked, encroaching on other spaces.

Somebody was obviously frustrated enough to start posting pictures of the offenders on Flickr.

Tip of the hat to The Social Customer Manifesto.

Elisa Camahort on offshoring:

This was always my argument when discussing offshoring. Look, if it's all about the bottom line then justify to me the multi-million dollar salaries and other benefits that execs get. Maybe some folks don't remember, but we didn't always live in a time where execs made such huge percentages more than the regular working folks at their company.

If you and your significant other, or more likely your kids, can't agree on what to watch, then you should check out this new LCD from Sharp. It can display two different images depending on the viewing angle.

Tip of the hat to collision detection.

Nine women will be ordained as Roman Catholic priests later this month in international waters:

In an effort to break through the stained-glass ceiling of the Catholic Church, two Central Coast women will be among a group of nine being "ordained" later this month in the international waters of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Dana Reynolds, 58, of Carmel, and Victoria Rue, 58, of Watsonville will be challenging the church's refusal to ordain women as priests or deacons. The Canon Laws of the Roman Catholic Church pointedly refer to all priests and potential priests as men or young men.

"I don't see it as defiance," said Reynolds. "I see it as making a statement. As the other half of the human race, as women, we should be a part of this."

[...]

Rue, who teaches comparative religions and women's studies at San Jose State University, said she is "what they call a 'cradle Catholic,'" born into the religion. She remembers "handing out Necco wafers to the kids on our block," pretending to be a priest when she was in second or third grade.

It's always funny to hear about people who claim to believe in something, and in the next breath say how they plan to change it. The Catholic Church has always been an all or nothing proposition; either you are Catholic an you follow the laws of the religion or you find a new religion.

As the New York Times notes, the Internet Archive is being sued for copyright infringement. Yet all they seem to have done is to save a copy of publicly available information; the logical equivalent of sales brochures. They do of course make those brochures available to internet users, but they were already available once before.

The plaintiffs in this case, Healthcare Advocates, are trying to win another lawsuit wherein access to the earlier web pages would be detrimental. But many companies have been ordered to produce email in court cases, which is a far less public medium.

Wouldn't a library which had saved years of brochures for research purposes be guilty of the same thing?

Once the information has been made publicly available, isn't it always publicly available?

This is why I no longer read The Globe and Mail. Here's the headline: Majority want Harper replaced, poll shows.

When we read the story we see this first paragraph:

Stephen Harper moved yesterday to revive his political fortunes in the electoral heartland of Ontario even as a new poll shows that 59 per cent of Canadians want him replaced, including more than one-third of his own supporters.

But the survey, conducted for The Globe and Mail/CTV by the Strategic Counsel, also finds that popularity difficulties plague Prime Minister Paul Martin, with 52 per cent of voters saying he should be replaced.

Why is it that banks and other financial institutions' privacy policies say that they may share your information unless you opt out?

Shouldn't the default be that they won't share any of your personal information unless you specifically give them permission?

Of course that wouldn't be very convenient for the banks, but why is that your problem? Especially when they are using that information primarily for marketing purposes.

Elisa Camahort brings a little common sense to a recent blogosphere discussion on people switching from Windows to Mac:

See, Steve probably made the decision [to switch] the same way most people considering a computer purchase do. He probably read reports; talked to friends; relied on personal experience, compared specs and application support. If he wanted to know what Microsoft evangel-blogger Robert Scoble thought about his own company's products, well he certainly could read about it ad infinitum. What would a phone call get him besides a sales pitch? But more than that, I sincerely doubt Scoble can spare the time to talk to every random person considering a switch, so perhaps, just perhaps, Microsoft should, rather, look to improve either a) their product or b) their marketing. [I mean, Microsoft does have the marketing team who thought comparing loyal customers to dinosaurs was a good idea...you know, shame them into paying for an upgrade!]

Jeneane Sessum, also picking up on the New York Times article about disposable computers, notes a key problem with fixing your broken machine - the lack of Windows install disks:

I spent $2,000 on computers last year--my Acer laptop from buy.com (do NOT buy.com) and an HP PC from Microcenter here in Atlanta. The year before we bought a PC from a different store (or OEM as Scoble refers to them). In fact, I've been buying PCs for years, and it's been a long, long time since I got the actual software that would let me re-install, from scratch, the Microsoft OS. Maybe never.

Yes, Robert, the world is round and every day all around this round world, people pay for Microsoft's OS twice. Once on the computer and once in the box.

Grrr, I hate that too. I can't imagine not being able to pave my machine.

I'll get you a copy, if your OEM won't. On the machines I've bought lately the install bits are on the hard drive. Just gotta know where to look for them. Have you called tech support yet?

This seems a bit silly though. Why should I have to go through all of this, just to save Microsoft the cost for a CD - probably under a buck. Why should I have to go looking for bits of Windows? And if my hard drive is trashed, where am I to go? If I want a copy of Windows XP, I can expect to pay about $250 (at Amazon) And if I call technical support, I can probably expect to spend at least an hour on the phone.

Isn't it simpler to just throw the whole thing in the trash and pop by the store to pick up a new machine? At around $400, it's a lot less than the cost in time and energy that I would have spent otherwise.

I've always assume that the $33 billion that Microsoft has in the bank is the savings from never actually providing a CD to customers, or the profit from selling customers that CD that they never got when they paid for the operating system the first time. And I'll bet that Microsoft technical support would be half the size if customers didn't have to keep calling back to authorize the operating system they've already paid for - twice.

Tony Blair in The Observer:

The Prime Minister hit back at suggestions that the London atrocities were linked to injustices in the Middle East, saying it was the 'almost-devilish logic' of extremists to play on western guilt.

Their propaganda was clever and sophisticated, he told an audience of Labour party delegates in London: 'It plays on our tolerance and good nature; it exploits the tendency to guilt of the developed world - as if it is our behaviour that should change, that if we only tried to work out and act on their grievances, we could lift this evil; that if we changed our behaviour, they would change theirs.

'Their cause is not founded on injustice. It is founded on a belief, one whose fanaticism is such that it can't be moderated. It can't be remedied. It has to be stood up to.'

A couple times last week I mentioned Raincoast Books' injunction forcing customers to return books puchased legitimately before the book was officially released. I emailed them telling them that I would no longer purchase books from them. They wrote back that it was well within their rights as the book had not been released.

The Globe and Mail had intended to post a review of the book at 12:01 am on Saturday, to coincide with the release. On Friday they were served with legal papers enjoining them from posting that review (emphasis mine):

At 2:15 p.m. yesterday, legal papers were served on The Globe and Mail, enjoining us from publishing a promised review by Sandra Martin of the latest Harry Potter book. We had stated yesterday that we intended to post the review on globeandmail.com just after midnight and print it in today's edition of the paper. Raincoast Books, the Canadian publisher of the book, asserted that such a review violated an injunction granted, without anyone else present, by a British Columbia court last Saturday morning.

[...]

That's right: Raincoast and Madam Justice Kirsti Gill rendered illegal the reading of a book without permission. Raincoast alleged that Globe writer Sandra Martin had come into possession of the book unlawfully and the review she planned to write therefore would be the product of unlawful reading and in contempt of court.

Microsoft marketing executive (hey, blame the Financial Times) Robert Scoble says that blog search engines need authority as a means of ranking in order to improve the search. He points to a search for spaces.msn.com at Technorati that yields a bunch of content dupes. Actually they aren't duplicates; Technorati is just indexing the templates as well as the content, and the templates are always the same.
I can understand Robert's goal - being able to narrow down a search to useful results. However, by adding "authority" he is immediately going to limit the number voices in the blog world. Since people never go past that first page or two of a search, they will only ever hear what the 20-30 "most authoritative people" have to say about something. This will merely have the result of reinforcing A-list bloggers. It is already highly likely that anyone savvy enough to search Technorati in the first place is already reading many of those bloggers.

If we were to apply the same logic to search engines, would we accept that the results were not the most relevant, but created by the most authoritative people? Personally I want the best answer to my question, not the one from the most famous person.

Authority is highly subjective as well. Walt Mossberg is a smart guy, but when it comes to telecom I prefer to read Om Malik so for me he is more authoritative. Others may prefer the view of Russell Beattie. On the subject of Microsoft I'd think Robert authoritative, but some might prefer a more technical blogger.

While this might be an excellent option, in addition to the predefined list of authorities I suggest that each user should be able to upload their OPML list of feeds, which could then be used as their definitive personal view of authority. But I'd still prefer the option to ignore authority and take my chances finding interesting blogs, a sort of serendipity.

It appears that the new crop of hybrid vehicles get about the same gas mileage as their internal combustion-only equivalents, leading to cars that don't reduce anything but your tax bill:

Consumer Reports, in an article published in May, found that in actual on-the-road conditions the Accord hybrid averaged 25 m.p.g., versus 24 m.p.g. for the 4-cylinder model and 23 m.p.g. for the nonhybrid V-6. The E.P.A. figures show a larger benefit for the hybrid, but the agency's fuel economy figures are considered by many to be inaccurate because they do not reflect the way cars are actually driven.

The two-miles-per-gallon increase over the V-6, about 8 percent, is still significant, and federal tax rules, which are based on cost and not mileage benefit achieved, still give an Accord hybrid buyer a substantial subsidy. But 8 percent is not in the range that would make a substantial dent in American oil consumption. If every car in the country were converted to a hybrid with that improved mileage, the gain would be swallowed up in three to four years by growth in driving demand.

Mr. Buford, a telecommunications analyst at Kraft Foods who works in the Chicago area, said he decided on a hybrid because he wanted to "go green," although he added, "I wasn't willing to make any of the trade-offs normally associated with a hybrid." He said he liked the way that the electric motor on his new car kicked in early during acceleration, at a speed range in which the V-6 gasoline engine is relatively weak. And its emissions of smog-forming pollutants are low, he said. (The Environmental Protection Agency puts the hybrid and nonhybrid Accords in the same emissions category).

You know that spyware, adware, and viruses have become a huge problem when people feel that it's easier to throw them out and start over with a new computer.

The front page of today's New York Times talks about several people who have made that decision:

On a recent Sunday morning when Lew Tucker's Dell desktop computer was overrun by spyware and adware - stealth software that delivers intrusive advertising messages and even gathers data from the user's machine - he did not simply get rid of the offending programs. He threw out the whole computer.

Mr. Tucker, an Internet industry executive who holds a Ph.D. in computer science, decided that rather than take the time to remove the offending software, he would spend $400 on a new machine.

Microsoft executives say they decided to enter the anti-spyware business earlier this year after realizing the extent of the problem.

"We saw that a significant percentage of crashes and other problems were being caused by this," said Paul Bryan, an executive in the company's security business unit. Windows XP Service Pack 2, an upgrade to the latest Windows operating system that has been distributed to more than 200 million computers, includes an automated malware removal program that has been used 800 million times this year, he said.

At least another 10 million copies of a test version of the company's spyware removal program have been downloaded. Yet Microsoft executives acknowledged that they were not providing protection for people who have earlier versions of the company's operating system. And that provides little comfort for those who must navigate the perils of cyberspace.

After only millimeters of rain in the last month, and in the middle of a heat wave, it seems like we made up for it all today. While I don't know exactly how much rain fell, I'd guess about 5"-7".

It didn't get any cooler though.

Seth Godin commented on someone at T Mobile who answered his can, and helped him solve his problem.

I had a similar experience this evening. My carrier is Rogers, and I haven't been shy about noting the problems I've had with them. But tonight I was trying to use their website to change some services and add call forwarding to my cellphone. When I tried to update I got an error saying that there was a duplicate service, and I should call their call center.

I called, and a young lady (I didn't get her name) answered quite quickly. She asked me what I was trying to add, and when I told her call forwarding she told me that was already included in my plan. She waited while I made the change and submitted it, then she told me how to use forwarding.

She was knowledgeable and patient, and she helped me to solve my problem quickly and easily. She redeemed Rogers for a lot of the problems I've had in the past. It was a very nice experience, and just shows that things don't always have to be bad.

I planned to go to Starbucks and have nice cup of coffee and read the New York Times, Unfortunately this Starbucks is attached to a bookstore, and tonight it was overrun by people in and out of costume awaiting the release of the new Harry Potter book. Quiet relaxation was definitely out of the question.

If only all of that power could be harnessed for good.

From Kerry Diotte at the Edmonton Sun:

It’s pay day for Edmonton refinery worker Peter Demers.
He heads to the bank to deposit his cheque and notes the federal tax is $606.24.

Peter stops to pick up a litre of rye and 12-pack of beer for the weekend.

Included in the price of the bottle is $13.30 in taxes. There’s $4.01 in tax on the case of beer.

He stops at a convenience store to fill up his SUV with 100 litres of premium fuel as recommended by the vehicle’s manufacturer. That price includes a 10-cent-a-litre tax levied by the feds, nine cents from the province, plus 7% GST. With premium fuel hitting $1 a litre in Edmonton yesterday, those combined taxes total $26.

While in the store the refinery worker picks up a carton of smokes for about $75. For that purchase he gets tagged with $32 in provincial taxes, $15.85 in a federal excise tax, plus the GST on top of everything. That adds up to $53.10 in taxes! So the grand total in government taxes paid on just one day for Peter is $702.65.

He curses under his breath at the crush of taxes – using Prime Minister Paul Martin’s name in vain.
Tax me, I’m Canadian.

In this country it’s always a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

As an otherwise proud Canadian it makes me ashamed and angry we’re so overtaxed – and it’s time to speak up.

Peter Demers is fictitious but he’s the Canadian Everyman – paying astronomical taxes to three levels of government.

“Basically we in Canada lose almost half of our wealth to three levels of government,” said Canadian Taxpayers Federation Alberta director John Carpay.

The director of the tax-fighting group notes greedy politicians viciously a-tax us from all angles.

“Canada has one of the highest income tax rates in the world,” said Carpay.

The other day Kathy at relapsed catholic noted an Arab television poll that found that Canadians would not inform on terrorists: [emphasis hers]

"Yesterday, the Arab T.V. network 'Al Arabiya' made a poll in one of its regular programs asking the question: 'If you know of a terrorist, would you inform the authorities about him?', and you know, the final results were about half and half. Nearly half of the voters said they would not. That means they sympathized with the terrorists. The votes were quite different depending on country. For instance, most voters from Iraq and Saudi Arabia said they would, whereas those from Syria (and Canada!!) overwhelmingly voted in the negative."

All she wanted was some self-tanning lotion.

Instead, librarian Chris Masterman of Kitchener was shocked to be offered a copy of the latest Harry Potter book last night, more than a day before its official release.

[...]

Masterman, who didn't actually witness any copies of the book being sold, called the publisher, Vancouver-based Raincoast Books, and told them what she saw.

[...]

Masterman said she blew the whistle because she didn't want the surprise spoiled. "I think it's such a neat sort of event, it comes out, there's this big secrecy and everyone reads it at the same time."

Charlene Li and Forrester are offering a boot camp in a couple of weeks called "Social Marketing: Tapping Into The Power Of Connected Consumers", all about blogging, RSS, podcasting, and viral marketing.

Why the headline? The cost for the one day session is $2000.

I've been getting this trackback spam constantly for the past few days, and I just don't get the point:

IP Address: 205.236.34.1
Name: search engine
Email Address: google@yahoo.nl
URL: http://www.google.com

Comment:

i come from best search engine http://www.google.com

205.236.34.1

Blacklist Status: Clear
Cached Whois: Cached today
Whois History: 4 records stored
Record Type: IP Address
IP Location: United States United States - Alabama - Repton - I3d Internet Communication
Reverse IP: No websites hosted using this IP address
Reverse DNS: master.francite.com
OrgName: i3d INTERNET communication
OrgID: IIC-10
Address: 11720, 1ere Avenue est
City: St-Georges
StateProv: QC
PostalCode: G5Y 2C8
Country: CA

NetRange: 205.236.34.0 - 205.236.34.255
CIDR: 205.236.34.0/24
NetName: I3D-QC-CA
NetHandle: NET-205-236-34-0-1
Parent: NET-205-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
NameServer: MASTER.FRANCITE.COM
NameServer: NS2.INET-INTERACTIVE.COM
Comment:
RegDate: 1995-11-21
Updated: 2003-01-23

TechHandle: JQ25-ARIN
TechName: Quirion, Jean
TechPhone: +1-418-228-7843

Usually I agree with Andrew at Bound By Gravity, but today he made a comment about Jay Currie's statement that putting a bra on a man's head does not constitute torture. Andrew says:

Allow me to pull up the UN definition of torture (and keep in mind that the USA is a veto-holding member of the UN) that I used way back when:

"... 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

[Source: United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment]

Furthermore, I presented this:

This definition is reinforced by the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims' website. The IRTC lists isolation, threats, humiliation, mock executions, and witnessing the torture of others as the main methods of psychological torture. Rape and sexual assaults, methods also used by the US soldiers, are listed as means of physical torture.

I don't particularly care if you think that humiliation, intimidation, and sexual assault are valid means of extracting information, the fact remains that they are all forms of torture, and all are equally vile and reprehensible. Trying to justify this sort of thing by pointing to even worse atrocities committed by the enemy is pointless distraction, and is not going to work.

Are we merely to ask these people politely if they have any information, and thank them when they say no? I'm in no was condoning rape or sexual assault. However, all of these things are certainly not equally vile and reprehensible. As Andrew himself quotes, 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted.

I can't see any way that putting a bra on someone's head constitutes severe pain or suffering.

Russell McOrmond at Digital Copyright Canada also sent a note to Raincoast Books about their injunction and got pretty much the same response that I did.

Russell also comments on the relevant portions of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Poof.. the human rights protected in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights just disappears. Say goodbye to: property rights (Article 17), communications rights (Article 19), education rights (Article 26), cultural and creators rights (Article 27).

(3) For the purposes of this Act, other than in respect of infringement of copyright, a work or other subject-matter is not deemed to be published or performed in public or communicated to the public by telecommunication if that act is done without the consent of the owner of the copyright.

The most interesting this Russell quotes is from a Canadian Press article by Angela Pacienza:

"All you get when you buy a book is the piece of paper," said Bloom. "You don't get any rights with it other than possession of the paper."

HP is offering two home PCs that sell for $249 after a $50 rebate.

I sent this to Raincoast Books (feedback@raincoast.com):

It is unfortunate that a book publisher and a children's author would abuse the Canadian court system and trample freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - as a publicity stunt. I will no longer be purchasing any books from Raincoast Books.

Seth Godin envisions a car for teenagers: [emphasis mine]

So, what does a parent want?

Low powered
Cheap
Great gas mileage (more cheap)

Funky looking
Allows easy attachment/customization of side panels
Not embarrassing!

Requires breathalyzer test to start
Easy to set, hard to hack speed limiter
Constant GPS reporting via wimax or cellphone, allowing the owner of the car to see where it is
Constant speed reporting via wimax or cellphone, with easy to set alerts by cell phone
Location lock out, making it easy for the owner to set the range of the vehicle or the roads traveled

All this technology is easy to sync by computer or phone

Lots of airbags
ID card key making it easy to charge the driver per use, treat different drivers differently, including usage time.

I do have teenage children - two sons 17 and 19 - and I worry about them. But I also trust them, because it seems that we've raised them fairly well. We demonstrate our trust in them and the return the favor by bringing their friends home to meet us, and discussing a lot of things with us.

Seth seems to work from the opposite point of view - eliminate any possibility of them doing anything, thereby taking away their ability to earn trust. This seems to be the mantra of parents today who ruthlessly schedule the children's lives, and try to protect them from any possible harm.

I appreciate the fact that my parents let me make my own mistakes. I earned their trust. I feel that I owe it to my kids to give them the same opportunity, otherwise we're going to end up in a pretty cynical world. Sure they'll make mistakes, but that is after all how you learn.

Seth, how would you really have felt if at 17 your parents did that to you?

I write a column for my local paper. This time I respectfully disagreed with a comment the publisher of the paper had made in a recent speech that was reprinted in the paper. The editor informed me that though the article was good, the publisher did not like my reference, so they would have to edit it out. The paper is behind a buyerwall, so here is what it looked like.

I wrote this:

[the publisher], wondering why we can't attract the kind of investment that Silicon Valley and Boston do, suggested that we had a branding problem. Having lived and worked in both Boston and Santa Clara, I must respectfully disagree. Those areas consist of many small yet competitive townsthat co-exist without any sharing of services at all. It is that collection of towns that area that attracts people because of its diversity. It offers different things for different people, just as Waterloo Region does.

I've lived and worked in both Boston and Santa Clara in Silicon Valley. Those areas consist of many small, yet competitive towns that co-exist without any sharing of services at all. It is that collection of towns -- that area -- that attracts people because of its diversity. It offers different things for different people, just as Waterloo Region does.

At the Huffington Post Tom Watson complains that President Bush didn't visit London after the bomb attacks:

Why didn't President Bush visit London? Why didn't he walk the streets, take a few questions from the press, show the power of his office to Londoners? Stand at the side of Tony Blair and Ken Livingstone? Why hasn't anyone asked? Why did he fly all the way to Washington, signing the condolence book at the British Embassy - instead of walking a moment or two in Londoners' shoes.

More likely President Bush was merely acknowledging that Prime Minister Blair had the situation well in hand, though I'm sure he offered his support. What London needed was to get past the attacks and get back to normal. The last thing they needed was another VIP traipsing through the area.

My oldest son and his friends have come up with a pretty creative idea for a new series. Yesterday they pitched it to a major television network, who seemed to like the idea. I can't really go into any more detail, but I'll let you know what happens.

Tip of the hat to waxy.org.

Ian Betteridge suggests the real truth behind rumors on the net:

Simply because 30,000 say that Apple is preparing to launch a phone company doesnt make it true. It just means that 29,999 bloggers saw it on Scobles blog.

Jeneane Sessum asks why Technorati doesn't get beat up for its failings in the same way Dell does.

I too have pretty much given up on Technorati, finding that it is not working as advertised, and having been unable to get any answer to repeated support inquiries. PubSub hasn't been all that great lately either.

The truth is, these things aren't tangible goods; they are services that I can replace with other services, with little cost or difficulty, other than a little bother.

My Dell laptop, on the other hand is a tangible good that I spent hard cash for and I depend on. When my Dell is broken I am unable to work unless I happen to have a spare computer, so I am drastically affected.

In general, when software doesn't work we just keep on working around it. When hardware is broken we can't work, so we start to scream - to anybody who will listen.

In response to the bombings in London, Toronto Transit Commissioner (TTC) Howard Moscoe dismissed the possibility of attack on Toronto's subway and transit systems with this comment:

"We don't have any troops to pull out of Iraq … and I'd wonder … if the terrorists would first have to find where Toronto is before they attacked it. So I don't want to overstate our vulnerability. Canada is not as vulnerable as Britain, the U.S. or Spain."

Speaking to reporters for Global Television, Peter Powers, a Terrorism and Security expert from UK Emergency Preparedness, reacted in shock saying that he "[hoped] to God that those words dont come back to haunt [Moscoe]."

Powers however, is obviously not privy to the same intelligence of Moscoe's Transit Commission; al-Qaeda does not know where Toronto is. A concept, Moscoe believes is antecedent to there being any attack.

I for one agree with Howard Moscoe. How could al-Qaeda ever find Toronto? I mean, its not like they have maps.

Tim Bray wrote an excellent, and much quoted, post about the London bombings. He suggested something that I had thought as well - deny the terrorists control of the media. Currently every little attack becomes fodder for CNN, the New York Times, and all kinds of other media. This means that the terrorists are being successful in gaining mindshare, and we really need to stop helping them do that.

Tim also suggests that we should try to figure out the "why" of terrorism. He's probably right, but I'm not sure that culturally we would be either willing or able to understand and accept the reasons.

He notes today that though the post has been linked may times, he has had almost no direct response. I've know Tim since we worked together years ago, so I'll often mail him directly. But his sight doesn't seem to invite direct response. There doesn't seem to be any indication of comments or trackbacks, and no suggestion of where to send feedback, which might explain the lack of it.

Kathy at relapsed catholic points to an interview where it is explained that there are no "civilians" in the Islamic world: [emphasis mine]

Host: "Mr. Hani, make no mistake. The same assembly ruled that Jihad in Iraq is allowed against soldiers. Even Sheik Osama [sic.] Al-Makdisi, Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi's mentor... Okay. Abu Hani, okay... He asked Al-Zarqawi not to kill civilians and to attack only the Americans... I mean, only soldiers..."

Al-Siba'i: "The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr. Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I'm familiar with religious law. There is no such term as 'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not.

Islamic religious tradition has symbolically divided the world between those places where Islam is dominant, and where aspects of Islamic religious law are supposed to be in effect, and where it is not. These terms held particular significance during the times of the Prophet Muhammad and the rise of the Islamic empire.

Dar al-Islam (“house of Islam”) signifies a geographic location controlled by Muslims where Islamic law is in effect.

Dar al-Harb (“house of war”) is a location where Muslims are not in control and Muslim law is not in effect. Dar al-Harb can also refer to a human’s inner struggle to accept the will of God.

Dar al-Sulh (“house of treaty”) is a place that is not under Muslim control, but that has friendly relations with Islamic territories. In Islamic tradition, the precedent for Dar al-Sulh is a treaty that the Prophet Muhammad entered into with the Christian city state of