Shawn M of Microsoft posted an interesting account of a visit to campus by Dr. Weinberger. I don't know either person, but one of the concepts really struck me as a novel idea.

When it comes to creative works, we are not "consumers," and we are not users. Rather we appropriate creative works, that is, we make them our own. We apply them to our own context. We get them somewhat right or entirely wrong. They become part of us. That's how how we learn and how culture changes. But that means that creators should lose control of their works as quickly as possible. Obviously, creators need to be be paid for their work, but not for every bit of value they create: You shouldn't have to pay me if you re-read my book or lend it to a friend, even though you are getting more value from my book. Tough noogies on me. A pay-per-use system and allowing artists to control their works much past launching them into the world will kill culture. Further, since publishing creates the public [a point I'd made earlier], building an infrastructure designed to allow that type of control will damage the new public of the Web as well as cripple culture. It's a really really really bad idea, so don't do it.

As a creator of creative works (books), I have to understand both sides of the argument. But I would never want to see a pay per use system implemented for books, even though I am sure the technology exists to create such a system. I'm not sure if I totally agree with the point, but it's an interesting point.

I'm sure this next statement is not going to make you fall off your chair. I hate spam. Over the past year, spam has needlessly stolen dozens hours of my time. Even though I have a spam filter installed, I still have to sift through the spam I receive to ensure that no messages I want have been misclassified. It's rare - but it does happen.

So, the question is, how can I avoid spam? Obviously there are people in this world who receive no spam -- how can I become one?

The answer of course, is easy to say and hard to do: if spammers do not have your email address, you won't receive very much spam. So you avoid spam by keeping your email address private.

So, how do you keep your email address private? Actually, over the long term, it's next to impossible. Many popular web sites these days have some type of registration required to use them - New York Times, Blogger, Amazon.com, eBay, Yahoo. This list goes on and on. Every time you register for a web site, the risk of your email address becoming part of some spammers list increases.

If you have ever been part of a Usenet discussion, mailing list, forum, or blog comments, chances are good that your email address has been posted to the web. Spammers have programs that surf the web all day looking for new addresses - called harvesters. There are tons of other ways for spammers to get a hold of your email address, including hacking, random emailing, viruses and worms.

So, given all this, here are a few ideas for avoiding spam for good:

1. Change your email address frequently. Since it takes months for your email address to make its way onto every spammers list, if you changed your email address every 6 months, you would avoid quite a bit of spam without affecting your surfing habits.
2. Have multiple email addresses - one "private" for friends, and another "public" for web sites. This way, you can only change your "public" email address every few months, without harrassing your friends with "my email has changed" messages.
3. Create multiple public email addresses. That way, when one of those public email address gets flooded with spam, its even easier to change your address. And you will also get an idea of which web site gave your email address away to spammers.
4. Install a spam filter. If you can't afford to change your email address, install a good Bayesian spam filter.
5. Use Hotmail. These services seem pretty good at filtering out spam, although you lose some advanced features that modern email readers provide.
6. Use an email reader that only displays plain text, or one that shows HTML with images diabled like Outlook 2003. HTML images are one way spammers use to prove your email address is valid.
7. If you have to post your email address to a mailing list or public web site, obfuscate it. Use (at) instead of "@", (.) or (dot) instead of ".", put spaces in there, or insert obvious spam traps such as NO.SPAM or DIE.SPAMMERS.DIE in the middle of your real email address.

Recently, I wrote a rock paper scissors (RPS) web service and submitted it to a competition in Switzerland. (That sounds more impressive than it actually is...)

First, the good news, in my group I tied for first place with a record of 6 games won and 4 games lost. However, when you take the individual rounds into account, I came fourth in my group -- dead middle out of 7 contestants in Group 1.

http://www.00001001.ch/codeduel/fr/ranks.aspx?grId=0

I was given the user id “noname”.

There were a total of 112 contestants, although some of those appear to be Bots entered into the competition by the organizers to fill out the groups. The top prize was a Tablet PC.

I didn't know this...

TIP: Sharing Message Box Text

Ever seen a message box that you wanted to remember or share? What did you do?

...

When you see the dialog box, instead of copying an image to the clipboard, you can copy the text by simply pressing Ctrl-C. That's right--the standard keyboard shortcut for Copy will cause [the message text] to be placed on the clipboard.

How to use Microsoft Component Services (COM+) with .NET assemblies.

http://www.csharphelp.com/archives/archive116.html

I'm currently watching the (final) game of the NBA Finals. Pistons up by 24.

And it occurs to me that there is one more thing about basketball that is driving my a little crazy right now.

OK, it's the middle of the third quarter. The referee calls a foul. The commentators are in the midst of talking about something else (how the Lakers are going to have to rebuild during the off season). The camera pans away to show some happy fan, or the owner, or a pretty girl, or something. When the camera returns to the court, Shaq is in the midst of missing yet another free throw. The commentators are still talking about things other than the game in progress. And play continues.

What the heck? The commentators didn't even mention the foul. The TV didn't show a replay so that I could understand what about that play meritted a foul call. The TV didn't display relevant stats such as the number of personal fouls that player has left. It's as if the play didn't happen.

What's a person like me - someone still trying to understand the nuances of the game - to think? Every other sport that I watch (football and hockey in particular) show replays, and allow commentators to give their opinion on the penalty called. Basketball seems to be a sport of distractions. Show and talk about anything but the game in progress...

Here I sit, watching the four potential leaders of Canada debate on television. We in Canada face a huge challenge this year with our election, much like our American friends who face a similiar dilemma. Who should I vote for if I don't like any candidate? Is there a “None of the above” checkbox?

A year ago, if you asked me who I would vote for in the next federal election, the answer was simple: Paul Martin. I liked Mr. Martin when he was finance minister. I actually hoped his boss, Jean Cretien, would step down sooner just so Paul Martin can take over the job sooner.

But now, I hope Paul Martin and the Liberals are kicked out of office on their collective behinds for the broken promises of last elections, as well as the squandering of billions of dollars of my taxes. It's ironic that “liberal” is listed as a synonym for “wasteful” in the thesaurus.

The dilemma is who to vote for if not the Fiberals. Do I vote for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives? I briefly considered it, but quite frankly the Reform / Alliance / PC / Conservative merged party needs more time to mature before it's ready to take power. A lot of former members of the Conservative party don't support the new party (take Joe Clark for example). It needs 4 more years before all of the internal squabbling is resolved and they are ready to be one cohesive party.

That leaves who? Jack Layton and the NDP? I actually like the new Jack Layton™. He was a councillor in the City of Toronto for years. I have never been a supporter of the NDP (socialists), but here I sit thinking they may be a breath of fresh air. Now, I'm not saying the NDP should take power, but what if they had enough power to keep the winning party honest? What if the had the power to resist steep tax cuts, and encourage increased spending on social programs without the power to actually ruin the finances of the country?

Strike me down with a lightening bolt. I just might vote NDP. *Shudder*