No surprises in this election. As expected, the Liberal lizards have formed another government and Paul Martin is still the prime lizard of Canada. The only change is that now they have a minority government, so as soon as they reach the first important issue, it's all over.

I heard an interview with Bob Rae, the former premier of Ontario, on CBC recently. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that running a minority government as if it were a majority is like jumping out of an airplane as if you had a parachute.

It's a nice image, but is it true? Maybe someone should take Mr. Martin on a skydiving trip and see if the analogy holds up.

The polls are open for the federal election. Don't forget to vote for your favourite lizard.

On June 18, I mentioned the bill that US Senator Orrin Hatch is introducing which would make it illegal to "induce" someone to commit a copyright violation. Here are a couple more links on the subject.

First, Joanna Glasner covers the reaction of the tech industry to the bill in this Wired.com article:

"As we read it, reporters who wrote about peer-to-peer file-trading networks could well be charged with inducing infringement," he said. "Their definition of inducement seems to cover almost anything." (Wired.com: "File-Trading Bill Stokes Fury", June 24, 2004)

In this article, Ernest Miller annotates Hatch's introduction to the INDUCE Act:

Criminal law defines "inducement" as "that which leads or tempts to the commission of crime." [Luckily, not every temptation is a crime or there would be more people in jail than free.] Some P2P software appears to be the definition of criminal inducement captured in computer code. [Software is a tool. This is the same as saying that bolt-cutters and crowbars are inducements to burglary.] (The Importance Of: "The Obsessively Annotated Introduction to the INDUCE Act", June 24, 2004)

Link via BoingBoing.net.

I didn't mind when my car grew a healthy crop of green algae on the roof and hood. It seemed natural for this part of the world, and toned down the shocking red of the underlying paint.

But this morning, I discovered a new, and less welcome development. My car has ants. Hundreds of them, all over it. I think they're feeding on the tree sap that practically sprays off the beech trees that overhang the parking lot.

As I drove to work, I saw dozens of them enduring the blast of wind on my windshield, clinging to droplets of sap for dear life. One by one, they vanished into the wind. By the time I got to work, I was surprised to see a few of them staggering around on the sunroof. Tenacious little buggers.

So what will take up residence in my car next? Mice? Raccoons? A herd of wildebeest?

Summer is here. The temperature in my home is often well into the thirties. This makes it an absolute pleasure to spend more time in my cubicle. Hooray for air conditioning! I'd work seven days a week if they didn't turn off the A/C on the weekends.

Here's a sign that I need time away from my cubicle. I had a Dilbert dream last night. It wasn't a long one -- only three black-and-white panels like the comic strip -- but it was definitely a Dilbert dream. This doesn't bode well.

Here's how it went:

• First panel: Dilbert meets the new employee who can go into "stealth mode" and become invisible.
  
  
• Second panel: Nobody can find Stealth Guy.
  
  
• Third panel: Dilbert is at his desk, and stealth guy is standing behind him, clapping. Punch line: Dilbert says, "He lauds me."

Yeah, I don't get it either.

I lost my cellphone. Maybe I shouldn't have given up the land-line after all. I mean, I can't even phone around to see if anyone found it. Doh!!!

Update: tried calling my own number with no answer. Maybe the batteries are dead. So then I called Telus Mobility and suspended the phone. Don't want any extra long distance charges on the thing.

Well that's the end of the phone, I guess. Later this weekend I'll visit the cell phone shop and buy the cheapest replacement possible. Unless of course they have one of those camera phones with web, games, and a QWERTY keyboard. drooooool.

Many thanks to Mike, who lent me his cell phone for the day. Oh, by the way, Mike... Guido called about the Chinese watches. You know. The "Chinese watches". ;)

Update: Many thanks to my Dad, who met up with the guy who found the phone! My phone and I are now reunited. Yay!

US Senator Orrin Hatch has introduced a bill that would make it illegal (in the US) to make or use devices that are capable of a copyright violation. This would mean that most computers, CD burners, scanners, cameras, and even VCRs would become illegal devices.

Also, the wording of the bill indicates that it would be illegal to "counsel" regarding copyright violation, which effectively muzzles: web links to certain software companies, discussions on CD and DVD protections, or even suggesting to someone that it's possible to copy a copyrighted work.

Many have speculated that this is an attempt to overturn the "Betamax" ruling, which protects recording for personal use, and that it may be an attempt to control any technology that has the potential to be used illegally.

It's interesting to note the bill is named "Induce" or "Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act". It's not clear to many how this relates to child exploitation. More than likely, that's a way to demonize the bill's critics -- after all, it's not about boosting the profits of large corporations, it's about the children. Please, think of the children!!

Now, I appreciate copyright protections. They're a good thing. But isn't it a bit extreme to make everyone a criminal for having the potential to break the law? And if this passes, will copyright holders start suing manufacturers (or owners) of VCRs, tape recorders, CD burners, or computers? Even cameras have the potential to violate copyright. Certainly, this would have an effect on the development of new digital technology.

Frankly, I'd be surprised if an insane bill like this actually made it into law, but if it does, expect some interesting court cases. The RIAA's lawyers must be drooling over this.

Link: CNN: "Antipiracy bill targets technology"

(Link via Slashdot: "Sen. Hatch to Introduce Wide-ranging Copyright Bill")

This post is for tech writers only. All others can glaze over and look bored.

The debate rages. Which of these is correct?

• anti money laundering
  
• anti money-laundering
  
• anti-money laundering
  
• anti-money-laundering

I like the idea of laundering anti-money, but that doesn't appear to be the purpose of this company's software. Opinions, anyone?

I like spicy foods. I put hot sauce on practically everything — without it, food is bland and boring. Why is it that this surprises people?

Example: I frequent a particular take-out stand for lunch a couple of times a week. I often order some chow mein and some hot-and-sour soup. Every time, the owner hesitates, peers at me, and says, "Very spicy!...OK?"

Example: I was at Subway. I asked for hot sauce on my sub. The "sandwich artist" asked me if I was sure... "It's very hot." Yes, I was sure. I like spicy. "Really? You don't look like you would." What's that supposed to mean?

Alright, are these things not called "hot-and-sour soup" and "hot sauce"? Am I so pale and sickly that shop-owners fear for my safety?

I don't see Robot Wars or Battlebots on television anymore. I guess the factions managed to set aside their differences and have returned to welding cars and speaking Bocce to 'vaporators and load lifters. Or maybe they've joined forces against their common oppressors and are quietly plotting to overthrow humanity.

I think I'll give Sushi Robo a wide berth for a while.

Remember those laundry detergent ads from the seventies and eighties in which an exhausted housewife would scrub her husband's blue shirts in vain to remove the dreaded "ring-around-the-collar"? Those ads were broadcast often and repeatedly. Collar dirt must have been a serious problem back then.

But now, in the twenty-first century, we don't see such ads anymore. Does this mean that we have finally beaten the scourge of ring-around-the-collar? This, surely, is proof of the betterment of mankind.

Why did I watch it? I don't know. I must have been too lazy to change the channel. Last night, some movie station (I forget which one) showed the confused 1998 romantic comedy, "You've Got Mail". Having just seen Tom and Meg the night before when I watched the last 30 minutes of "Sleepless in Seattle" (again, too lazy to grab the remote), I thought it was a repeat showing. It wasn't. Same cast, slightly different story.

Anyway, maybe as I guy I don't get the romantic comedy genre in general, but this plot confused me. In short (spoiler coming, if you haven't seen it), Joe (Tom Hanks) falls in love with Kathleen (Meg Ryan), anonymously, by e-mail. They don't realize that in real life, they've met, and they're bitter enemies.

• When Joe realizes who his Internet crush is, instead of telling her, he keeps it secret, and is really mean to her. Why? That's never explained. He just is. The unexplained motivations get better.
  
  
• When Joe, the man Kathleen hates intensely, barges into Kathleen's apartment, she's not upset. No, they have a friendly chat. Huh? Seriously, in real life, she'd be calling the police and fending him off with a knife. That's scary stuff.
  
  
• Joe keeps his identity secret for days (weeks?), playing with Kathleen's emotions by e-mail. This, in real life, would be considered cruel and deceptive. What does she do when she finds out? She kisses him.

Alright, I just don't get it. And don't get me started on "Sleepless in Seattle". I mean, for crying out loud. How could they fall in love? She was a stalker!

What's on tonight? Oh, crap. "What Women Want"? No! I put my foot down. I'm going to go to Blockbuster and I'm going to find a cheesy action movie. Like Roger Moore in "Moonraker" -- I always get all misty when that metal-toothed behemoth, Jaws, meets the love of his life. *sniff* Pass me a kleenex, will ya?

I watched Quentin Tarantino's ultra-violent "Kill Bill, Vol. 1" on video last night. As I watched, these thoughts occurred to me:

• Of any movie I have ever seen, "Kill Bill" has by far the most gratuitously gory, sickening violence.
  
  
• The body count is higher than any martial-arts themed movie I've seen. Then again, I may have miscounted — some of the bodies were in several pieces. (shudder)
  
  
• Lucy Liu looks really hot... until her brain is exposed. All I can say is that she'll need a serious comb-over to hide that.
  
  
• If "Kill Bill, Vol. 2" is more of the same, then I have absolutely no desire to see it.
  
  
• Uma Thurman has funny-looking toes.

In his latest blog entry, Doc describes how he and a group of community-minded volunteers clean up the sides of roads. They face piles of garbage, smelly muck, and insects, but they forge ahead because it's a good thing they're doing.

For their efforts, volunteers find themselves on the receiving end of drive-by insults and motorists hurling garbage.

Link: Doc's Medicine Cabinet: Garbage Picking

As I promised in the comments on an earlier post, I devoted a portion of my lunch break to writing a song about a sandwich. Ahem... to be sung to the tune of "The Yellow Rose of Texas" -- written in 3 minutes.

I spotted me a sandwich
A-lying on the ground
It wriggled like an earthworm
And didn't make a sound

I stabbed it with my chopsticks
And lifted it up high
It writhed and tried to bite me
And wouldn't seem to die

I threw it into traffic
And heard a meaty crunch
I saw the mayo squirting
And then I lost my lunch

[insane giggling] Your turn. :)

The average age in the metaverse game, Second Life, is somewhere around 30, according to a straw poll in the Second Life forums. The minimum age in the game is 18, and the oldest players to admit to it have been over 60. There are, apparently, minors who manage to slip into the game on their parents' credit card. This is painfully obvious in some in-world "business transactions" (the "L$800" in this conversation is roughly equivalent to only $3.25 US):

Davo: Yo

Me: Hi Davo.

Davo: Hi

Me: You said hi first :) What's up?

Davo: Is It Possible For Me To Get A Plane Now That Is L$800 And i pay you Lets see L$150 a week

Davo: i pay L$200 right away

Davo: Erm u know the LODESTAr is it possible for u to write a contract or sumtin for me where i paid L$150 a week and i pay L$200 right away

Me: I'm sorry, but I don't sell stuff like that Davo. I'm sure that you can just save up, though. Or maybe buy a less expensive plane?

Davo: Darn

Davo: U can trust me dude

Davo: ull pay 250 right away

Davo: ill apy L$200 a week

Me: For any new player, I'd suggest not spending more than you earn. If you really want a good plane, save up for it. Have a look at Busy Ben's in Oak Grove. There are some good, smaller vehicles that cost less.

Davo: Erm

Davo: hang on me consult sum friends...

I really don't want to take money from this kid. The Lodestar is my biggest, most expensive plane -- the luxury model. This is like a teen who walks into a Dodge dealership and asks to buy a Viper on his weekly allowance.

Sigh. Part of me wants to just give him a copy. The other part wants to send him off to There.com to play with other kids his age. Who let him in the front door, anyway?

Go rent the movie Bubba Ho-Tep. Right now. Do it.

It's silly and clever at the same time. Elvis, JFK, and a soul-sucking mummy, all in the same movie. How cool is that?

What are you doing still sitting there? Git!

Thankyuh, thankyuhverruhmuch.

Edit: About 10 years ago I had an idea for a screenplay in which Elvis, JFK, and Marilyn Monroe shared an apartment. Everyone told me my idea was too stupid for a full length script. They were right -- I should have thought to include a soul-sucking mummy. It makes all the difference, apparently.

When my brothers and I were little, my dad was a bit of a birder, and I think he still is now, but to a lesser extent. I don't think he was ever a rabid birder exactly, but he did own a well-used copy of "A Field Guide to Birds".

To my brothers and I, it was The Bird Book. Any time he spotted an unusual bird, out would come The Bird Book to the sound of collective groans. We'd spend the next fifteen minutes or so flipping through the pages of feathery mug shots, trying to find a positive match. And then when he found it, he'd give a gleeful chortle and announce it's name to anyone within hearing range. "Ho-ho! It's a bufflehead." The book would then be left open on that page for everyone's reference.

It was a good experience for a kid, though only some of it stuck with me. I can still identify coots, loons, and various ducks and geese, but others escape me. For example, there's a big black sea bird that's not uncommon along the coast here. Eats fish. Does a lot of standing around and diving. Very impressive. I couldn't for the life of me remember what it was called.

My cubicle neighbour is a birder, and after I described it (inaccurately), she pulled out her own Bird Book. The moment I saw a painting of it on the flyleaf, the name popped into my head: cormorant.

So the constant exposure to The Bird Book did train me to identify birds, but apparently I can only identify paintings of birds.

This morning I woke up singing a song. I can't remember the words now, but it was about sandwiches.