From the You're Kidding, Right? department:
IT News site The Register reports that obscure California-based firm Maz Technologies has obtained a patent for a "method of transparent encryption and decryption for an electronic document management system". The patent is so broad that potentially any application which saves data to disc in an encrypted form might be covered.

Maz is now enforcing its "copyright", requiring companies which infringe upon it to pay a minimum US$25k license fee.

Controversy Corner
It's official, this Blog is controversial! I just received an email from a recent visitor (you know who you are) who castigated me for my comment on the 14th of March that Healthful is not more correct than Healthy. "Is not!" he persuasively argues. Well, I'm sorry but it Is Too! And here's my proof:

According to Dictionary.com:

Usage Note: The distinction in meaning between healthy (“possessing good health”) and healthful (“conducive to good health”) was ascribed to the two terms only as late as the 1880s. This distinction, though tenaciously supported by some critics, is belied by citational evidence -- healthy has been used to mean “healthful” since the 16th century. Use of healthy in this sense is to be found in the works of many distinguished writers, with this example from John Locke being typical: “Gardening... and working in wood, are fit and healthy recreations for a man of study or business.” Therefore, both healthy and healthful are correct in these contexts: a healthy climate, a healthful climate; a healthful diet, a healthy diet.

Also weighing in on the People are healthy; vegetables are healthful debate is Paul Brian, of the Common Errors in English site. According to his Non-Errors page:

Logic and tradition are on the side of those who make this distinction, but I'm afraid phrases like "part of a healthy breakfast" have become so widespread that they are rarely perceived as erroneous except by the hyper-correct. On a related though slightly different subject, it is interesting to note that in English adjectives connected to sensations in the perceiver of an object or event are often transferred to the object or event itself. In the 19th century it was not uncommon to refer, for instance, to a "grateful shower of rain," and we still say "a gloomy landscape," "a cheerful sight" and "a happy coincidence."

So there!

Introspection corner
My Blog has been going for three weeks or so now, and despite a few bare patches in the middle, I'm quite happy with it. Obviously I could spend more time on the writing, making it clearer or funnier, but why bother? At the moment, the readership is small. It's hard to jusify that kind of effort. I think, however, that this might be an appropriate juncture to ask myself a few impertinent questions. Let's give it a shot.

First and foremost, I have to wonder why? Why am I doing it? Why a Blog? And how long will it last? I wonder what percentage of people start their Blogs, full of good intentions, and then just abandon them to dusty recesses of Blogspot's hard drive? I'm sure that I'll join their number very soon. I can't imagine that I'll have either the time or the inclination or even the exciting lifestyle tid-bits to keep it up for long. The Blog, I mean. You know I meant the Blog.

Oh who am I kidding? I have plenty of time at the moment. Scads of it. I could write all day if I wanted, but I can't afford to. It's amazing how quickly this Garden Leave is slipping bye. I'll have to find a new job soon. And when I do, what will happen to this Blog? So far as you know, this might well be the last entry I'll ever make. So don't go getting all attached or anything. Clingy is bad. Unless, of course, you're blonde. Despite my avowed preference for brunettes, I think men are inclined to more forgiving of Blondes. You heard it here first.

Back to the issues raised above. Let's field that first question, shall we? I suppose I should explain why I've decided to create this new(ish) Blog. Let's step back in time for a moment:

Some time ago I caught the tail of a documentary about (suprise!) weblogs and online diaries. I don't know -- I'd looked at a few before, but until then I hadn't given the genre much attention. They didn't grab me. But the people on this documentary! God damn it, they were freaks, but there was something oddly compelling about their obsessions. It seemed they all had some interesting sexual or emotional issues to address. Here were people sharing their inner-most thoughts with complete strangers. For some reason the notion appealed. I started a Diaryland diary, but it never really went anywhere. I'm not sure if I was too busy, or if I just found the whole experience uncomfortable. Probably a little bit of both.

It wasn't my first venture into the world of web publishing, after all I used to have my own home page and a fan site devoted to my favourite director, Whit Stillman. It went the way of so many web pages, dying at the same time as its free hosting service. I have no plans to resurrect it at the moment; I think I'm past the whole fan page thing.

So why have I come back to the Blog idea? What's so special about it? Why now?

Blogs! What vanity! What madness! Talk about self-indulgence!

So here am, vainly, madly and self-indulgently creating my own. Since my first foray into the genre, I've made a habit of reading lots of Blogs. This time around, I've an idea of what I want to accomplish and how to do it. Am I bothered by the self-indulgent nature of the form? I am. Don't ask me to resolve this conflict in one entry; it may take a while. It's not like you have anything better to do, is it? After all, you're the one reading this stuff.

That's enough of the thinking thing. My brain hurts. It's dark outside and very late. I'm going to turn off the computer and stare vacantly out of my front window, watching the cars go by. Perhaps I'll quietly sip on my pineapple juice and think deep thoughts about the troubled farm fishing industry and, if I get time, the eyes of that girl I saw in Tescos the other day. Perhaps I'll go to bed.

Bed, I think.

There's my arguement: Ban religion
The Church of Scientology is up to its old tricks. The web has been in a flutter ever since Wired published This Article earlier in the week. The aforementioned freaks managed to get Google to remove links to any site which they believed infringed upon their intellectual property. All of a sudden, references to sceptical sites such as Operation Clambake disappeared from searches.

According to Google spokesman David Krane, "Certain pages of the Xenu.net Web site were removed from our search engine earlier this week in response to a copyright infringement notification under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)."

Google as the vanguard of Internet censorship? Who knew?

Free thinkers everywhere breathed a sigh of relief today as Google agreed to restore the missing Scientology links. According to This ZDNet/Reuters article, representatives of Andreas Heldal-Lund, the Norwegian Web master of Operation Clambake visited Google's California offices on Thursday to put their case. A shamefaced Google restored the links even before the group entered the building.

What Scientologists believe
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away Darth Vader wannabe Xenu decided the only way to resolve the inter-galactic housing crisis was to chain the teeming masses to Volcanoes on far distant Teegeeack (AKA Earth) and then blow up the volcanoes with nuclear bombs. As you do. Unfortunately the ghosts of the dead continue to haunt mankind to this very day. Hey, wasn't that the plot of the Final Fantasy movie?

From the Oh my God, What have I done? department:
It's time for the first round of the European Midsummernight's Burn CDR Swap! The idea is simple enough; burn a CD of your favourite songs, post copies to three other people who have signed up and, in turn, receive CDs from three other complete strangers. Great idea, huh? So I signed up. Just one teeny, weeny problem: I don't actually have a CDR drive.

Sometimes I astound me.

From the What Everyone Wants for Christmas Department:
Keeping with the theme of all things German, this little gem made its debut at CeBIT in Hanover last week. You know you want one.

ELEVEN FREAKIN' QUID!!!!
-or-
Why I have been giggling like a girl for the past fifteen minutes
I'm going to Germany this Tuesday. You knew that, right? My friend Justin is coming back to England this weekend to pickup some stuff and drive his car back to his new place in Germany.

And I'm going too!

Road Trip!

The plan had been to fly back on the Tuesday following the Easter hols, but things have changed. Now I'll be staying until the following Saturday (the 6th) so I can take advantage of the frau... err... a cheap flight.

Hence my glee.

Ryan Air has just opened a route between Friedrichshafen (the closest airport to Justin) and London Stanstead. To celebrate, they're offering some very, very cheap fares. Yes, I know, Stanstead is a long way from Gatwick, but get this...

[INITIATE GLOAT MODE] (cut and paste, baby)

From Friedrichshafen (FDH) to London Stansted (STN) - One-way

Saturday, 06 Apr 2002 Flight FR2002 Depart Friedrichshafen (FDH) 14:55
Arrive London Stansted (STN) 15:35

Total for 1 Passenger
Fare price 4.00 EUR
Taxes 8.80 EUR
EUR Handling Fee (Kieran) 5.00 EUR
Total price 17.80 EUR

Stop and think for a moment. Even if you don't have the exchange rates to hand, just look at those numbers. My departure tax is over TWICE the ticket price. Aww hell, the stupid handling fee is more than the ticket price. And here's the killer. 17.80 Euros is a measely 11 Pounds Sterling! Yes, you read correctly (or at least, I'm willing to offer you the benefit of the doubt). I said ELEVEN FREAKIN' QUID!!!!

Te he he he he
he he he he he he he
he he he he he he he he he he he he he!!!!

I'm OK, really I am. Te he he! Can you believe it? The train ticket from Stanstead to Redhill will probably be more than ELEVEN FREAKIN' QUID!!!!

[END GLOAT MODE]

I know what you're thinking -- Friedrichshafen? I don't know either. I was really looking forward to flying into Zurich, but you just can't say no to ELEVEN FREAKIN' QUID!!!!. And besides, they have Zepplins! How cool is that?


Click on the picture for more detail. Really click, you won't be sorry. All sorts of Zeppliny goodness to be had.

Beer's cheap in Germany, right? I wonder how many litres I could buy for ELEVEN FREAKIN' QUID!!!!

What kind of Calvin am I?
The last refuge of the Blogger with nothing interesting to write about. The "What kind of [insert pop-culture reference here] are you?" quiz. You see these puppies on every second blog. Some Blogs (not the good kind) are full of nothing but this kind of stuff. What kind of X-Men are you? What Lord of the Rings Character are you? What kind of pathetic loser are you? And so on. There is a quiz for almost every taste.

Despite my in principle objection to these quizzes, I feel it would be churlish of me to reject this specific one. After all, the issue has been much on my mind. Just what kind of Calvin am I? I am, of course, refering to Calvin of Calvin & Hobbes fame and not John Calvin, the sixteenth century hero of Protestant theology and renowned snazzy dresser. You know Calvin? The comic strip boy with an imaginary pet tiger and an historic case of Walter Mitty syndrome? That's right.

So, I took the quiz.

You are Stupendous Man! You are simply amazing, whether you are battling your arch-nemesis Mom Lady, the nefarious Babysitter Girl, or the fiendish Annoying Girl. And you have absolutely nothing to do with mild-mannered Calvin. Take the What Calvin are You? Quiz by contessina_2000@yahoo.com!

I feel like I wanna have a lot of fudge stripe cookies
Oh just click.