Status-Q

It’s only as I start setting up a new machine with a hosting company that I realise how much I liked my old Cobalt RaQ. This new machine comes with Ensim’s WEBppliance software, which is pretty good, but not as good as Cobalt’s. I’m writing some notes which might help anyone else just starting with Ensim after being used to more regular Linux machines.

[Original Link] Neil McIntosh writes:

I thought Who Remembers Me (in Web watch) had an amusing URL — http://www.whoremembersme.com/ — in accidentally incorporating whore members, but this pales before the URL used by Powergen’s Italian company, http://www.powergenitalia.com/
Thanks to the current NTK #294 for the link. [onlineblog.com]

[Original Link] If I criticise you in my blog, you may soon be able to demand the right of reply. Perhaps. An article by Declan McCullagh is causing some concern on Slashdot, where they’re wondering what would happen if Microsoft decided to respond to every criticism!

Still, this is only in Europe and may not be enforceable even here. I wonder if adding an unmoderated ‘comments’ feature to a blog would be enough to satisfy the legislation?

[Original Link] Walt Mossberg gives a very balanced account of his experiences with a Segway. Pun intended. [Thanks to John Naughton for the link.]

[Original Link] Paul Boutin’s very readable description of how the Slammer worm worked.

[Original Link] Dan Gillmor on the inevitability of internet telephony. We use it regularly for most of our transatlantic calls….

[Original Link] At long last, Apple’s splendid iSync is starting to support a much larger range of devices.

[Original Link] …but I’ve never tried emulating one.

[Original Link] A wonderful collection of public pronouncements about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. (Thanks to Adam Curry for the link)

[Original Link] Dave Winer hits on what is, for me, a key attraction of weblogs:

“On my weblog no one can change what I wrote. In contrast, having written for professional publications, pros have to prepare for their writing being interfered with. Sometimes you submit right at the copy-edit deadline. Or you write exactly the required number of words so nothing can be cut. But in the end, the words that appear are an amalgam of what your organization thought should be said on the subject you’re addressing.”

Exactly this has happened to me, most recently writing for the Communications of the ACM and the IEE Review. The dear old CACM, for example, objected to my use of the phrase “three score years and ten”, presumably as requiring too much education on the part of its readers. Sad to see such dumbing down in what used to be an academic journal. They admitted it, too, though with the qualifier, “…we call it ‘mainstreaming'”.

The Review editors, on the other hand, introduced typos, while cutting out entire paragraphs, with the result that I appeared to be arguing the opposite point from my intended one, and doing so incompetently. This was done at the last minute, of course, after I had approved another version.

In both of these cases, it’s only really my wounded pride that bothers me, because despite their large distribution numbers, I doubt very many people actually read that sort of journal any more. I care less about the mangling of my words than that my name is still associated with them afterwards! I make lots of mistakes and stylistic errors too, of course, but at least here I can fix them before too many people notice.