Google’s library project

This morning’s Observer column about the project is here.

Bluescreen express

Windows XP doing its usual thing in Cambridge station.

Dickensian Christmas

Charles Dickens’s front door — 48 Doughty Street, yesterday.

An open letter to the President

Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from you and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination… End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Leviticus 15: 19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Leviticus 24:10-16). Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Leviticus 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

Thanks to Kris, who found it in her email box.

The Firefox ad…

… ran as a two-page spread in today’s New York Times.

It was paid for by voluntary donations from users. This is an interesting precedent. Up to now, Open Source software has never had the advertising support of its proprietary counterparts. This ad — and the fundraising model behind it — suggests that things may change.

Private virtues, public vices

I feel sorry for David Blunkett because of the tragedy in his personal life. But I’m delighted he’s no longer in government because he was the most authoritarian Home Secretary in living memory. Writing in the Guardian, Roy Hattersley got it about right:

“Mr Blunkett despised the ‘liberal intelligentsia’. That is a reasonable enough position if it amounts to contempt for people who support social democracy as long as they are not required to pay for it in their taxes. But Mr Blunkett went further. When I joined the Labour party, I believed that it represented the best instincts of the working class. Too often Mr Blunkett reflected and articulated its worst emotions.

That made him careless about liberty and cavalier about the rule of law, suspicious of foreigners and willing to use the authority of the state to create the sort of society – rigid and regimented – he wanted to see. His resignation will reduce Labour’s appeal to the men and women who, like him, rejoiced at the news that Harold Shipman had committed suicide. Let us hope that his successor attracts a different constituency.

David Blunkett was – and gloried in being – a hard man. That is what his personal circumstances made him. But today he deserves, whether or not he welcomes it, our sympathy. His resignation is a personal, if not a political, tragedy.”

“The stuff of nightmares…”

In one of those wonderful coincidences, the day after the Home Secretary fell on his sword, Britain’s Law Lords — the UK’s supreme court — delivered a stinging rejection of his anti-terrorism legislation, specifically section 21 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001 used to justify detention without trial of 16 alleged terrorists. It’s an unprecedentedly tough judgment, with some amazing passages. Here, for example, is Lord Hoffman:

“This is a nation which has been tested in adversity, which has survived physical destruction and catastrophic loss of life. I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive Al-Qaeda. The Spanish people have not said that what happened in Madrid, hideous crime as it was, threatened the life of their nation. Their legendary pride would not allow it. Terrorist violence, serious as it is, does not threaten our institutions of government or our existence as a civil community… The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.”

And here’s Lord Scott:

“Indefinite imprisonment in consequence of a denunciation on grounds that are not disclosed and made by a person whose identity cannot be disclosed is the stuff of nightmares, associated whether accurately or inaccurately with France before and during the Revolution, with Soviet Russia in the Stalinist era and now associated, as a result of section 23 of the 2001 Act, with the United Kingdom.”

The Lords’ judgment is that the 2001 Act conflicts with the 1998 Human Rights Act. (In the UK, even the highest court in the land cannot strike out legislation as unconstitutional.) Which means that the new Home Secretary has to decide what to do next.

What’s on your iBod, er, iPod?

The new iPod enables one to store photos as well as music files — and to display them on TV using the special cable supplied with the device. This has given Playboy.com an idea. Yes, you guessed it…

“No favours but slightly quicker”

Nanny trouble strikes again: David Blunkett has resigned as home secretary after an e-mail emerged showing a visa application for his ex-lover’s nanny had been fast-tracked. The e-mail had said “no favours but slightly quicker”. Blunkett said he had not been aware of its contents and insisted he had done nothing wrong.

So what happened then? Did a civil servant send the email on her/his own authority? If so, shouldn’t s/he be sacked?

In the meantime, I can see the phrase “no favours but slightly quicker” entering the British comic lexicon — like “Up to a point, Lord Copper” (denoting total disagreement) from Evelyn Waugh’s novel, Scoop. Or Mandy Rice-Davies’s “Well, he would, wouldn’t he?” (Uttered while giving evidence at the trial of Stephen Ward when the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Viscount Astor had denied having met her.)

Kook of the Year!

There’s a wonderful story on Slashdot about a crackpot who wrote a Wikipedia page about himself, only to have it, er, rendered more objective by other contributors. This then drove him wild, with predictable results. The current version of the page seems admirable to me, but it’s had to be locked to prevent further vandalism. Opponents of Wikipedia will doubtless try to use this story as evidence that an open project like this cannot work. To me, it proves the opposite.