zhasper.com

I was really frustrated this morning. I've seen the new Gmail interface, I like it, I love some of the new shortcuts ([ and ] rock my world)... but it still wasn't enabled on my gmail account.

Just on the off-chance it was a problem, I checked my language setting. Yep, I had English (UK) selected - as soon as I switch to English (US), I've got the new interface version.

If you're also frustrated, you might want to try twiddling your language as well.

I just saw the Google blog post about Google Web History.

I've not seen anyone else comment on it yet, so I'm going to jump in and forestall the OMG-Google-Store-Huge-Amounts-Of-Data-About-Me-I'm-So-Scared raving loonies that are inevitably going to come out of the woodwork:

Google Web History is not evil for two reasons:

A) It's explicitly opt-in
B) It doesn't represent Google collecting more data about you; it represents Google giving you more access and visibility of data they collect about you anyway.

To use Web History, you have to first download the google toolbar; then, you have to explicitly choose to enable the PageRank button feature. It's not turned on by default, and the screen which asks permission turns it on explains that if you turn it on, Google will know about every page you visit.

After that, you may need to go to the link above and choose to enable the web history feature - although I'm not certain whether this just turns on displaying of your web history, or if it controls whether the web history is stored at all.

Assuming you download and install this toolbar, and assuming you then choose to turn on the PageRank button, Google will be collecting this data about you. If they're collecting it anyway, which would you prefer - that you have no idea what they've collected, or that they show you what they know about you.

Google Web History is not evil. It does have privacy implications, and you should heed the warnings you get when turning on the PageRank button in that toolbar. If you're not comfortable with Google having that much information about you, don't enable PageRank.

A long time ago, I was reading a book containing (amongst other things) synopses of ST:DS9 episodes. The author made an observation at one point that the series never made much sense to ver until ve realised that ST:DS9 is in fact two completely seperate series, with common characters and storylines marketed under a single name. The author refers to the episodes which focus on Starfleet and their issues as ST:DS9, as distinct from the episodes that focus on the Bajorans and their issues, which are called Star Trek:Terok Nor.

I've lately come to a similar conclusion about Dare Obasanjo and his blog. I used to get confused about the quality of his posts; some are interesting, informative, and useful - for instance, his most recent post, or a post from my birthday about OpenID.

Others, though, are dreck. In posts like these, he goes off in long tirades, completely abandons common sense, and instead parrots the MS company like a good little market-droid.

I'm not confused any more though; I've come to the same acceptance of Dare as that author (note to self: must find name of that author) came to with ST:DS9. I now think in terms of the blog having two completely distinct authors, who happen to share some interests and co-brand their posts. The former are written by Dare the blogger, the latter are written by Dare the Voice of Microsoft.

(The pointless wikipedia tirades, in which he tirelessly restates basic facts about Wikipedia as though they were damning criticisms - I'm not sure of they're written by D:tVoM, or if they come from a third contributor).

It's strange what you discover through looking at your webstats.

#1 search term for people finding my site this month:

latest ladies names, for which I'm the top hit.

Bizarre.

(found via BoingBoing:

And it's lucky for Microsoft that prior innovators were willing to go out on a limb and fight for the freedom to innovate without asking permission first -- otherwise Microsoft would have had to ask permission from all the world's websites before it launched Internet Explorer (built on the backs of all the websites, without asking them permission, don't you know).
...
Remember, if Google wins the Google Library Project lawsuits, the fair use principle it establishes will benefit everyone, including those who want to scan books to compete with Google. Microsoft's "collaborate" principle, in contrast, will benefit only those companies who are big enough to get big copyright owners to answer their calls -- a world where Microsoft will have an unfair advantage.

So kudos to Google for standing up for fair use. And shame on Microsoft for suggesting that only those who "collaborate" are entitled to innovate.

(from the EFF)

What more needs to be said?