Done. I'm right here now sitting on my couch and trying to recover my legs after that first marathon ever. As planned, I met Ralf Treinen and No l K the at the start of the Paris Marathon. As No l was targetting 3h30m while Ralf and I were targetting 4h, we left him go with the faster runners. As No l doesn't blog that much, I think I can say it now: he managed to run in 3h28m, which is awesome. He is incredibly happy with that (we unfortunately didn't manage to meet again after the race as the crowd was too huge and the cellphones were of course miserably failing). Ralf and I ran together the first 12 kilometers. Then we split because he had to stop for a few seconds. Up to the 21st kilometer, I kept the pace for 4h and I was even running a little bit faster. However, this advance vanished slowly from km 25, up to km 35 where the virtual runner that was running 4h passed me..:-). Ralf also passed me around km 38 which is indeed the moment where I was blowing up, running slower and slower. The last 3 kilometers were a nightmare but, still, I managed to finish and my GPS watch tells me I ran for 4h10m. The official time is 4h12m56s, because of a huge "runner jam" at Bastille where we had to wait for 3 minutes before being able to enter the Faubourg Saint-Antoine street. Running through Paris is really magic, particularly with the nice sun we had ( not *too* hot, though) and I am really proud and happy to have my first marathon finished *without walking*. Yay.

If you are in the greater or lesser NYC area, there is a conference on IP and circulation that has a pretty nifty line-up as well as a international perspective. If you are in the Montreal area, IP reformer James Love will be giving a talk NGO efforts to reform the World Intellectual Property Organization and there is a semester long series (almost over) sponsored by the Columbia Society Fellows on IP with a fantastic line-up

For the benefit of non-Londoners, the above poster (and others) appeared a few days ago. Any further remark seems superfluous. Somewhat related, James Welch recently wrote about your rights at the so-called "knife arches".

From the FFII:

EPO seeks to validate software patents without the European Parliament

Benjamin Henrion, President of the association, says: "The current plan of the patent lobby is very clear: avoid a new software patent directive, validate the EPO practice via a central patent court, and guide the hand of the courts via a decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. They want to avoid the intervention of the European Parliament in substantive patent law."

In other words, seeing as the elected representatives have blocked a change in the law, the unelected quango will simply seek a change in the rules to make it unnecessary to change the law and therefore avoid asking the elected representatives at all.

This is crazy, dangerous and downright sinister.

"Considering that the EPO is an institution acting as judge and party, where the attributions and procedures have to be revised. [...] Demand the revision of rules of function of the EPO in order to guarantee that this institution can publicly justify the accountability in the exercise of its functions [...]."

Judge, jury and executioner more like.

Interested parties have up to the last day of April to send their comments to the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

Information for third parties wishing to file written statements

Communication from the Enlarged Board of Appeal concerning case G 3/08

(my comments added in bold)

In accordance with Article 112(1)(b) EPC, the President of the European Patent Office has referred the following points of law concerning the limits of patentability of programs for computers within the meaning of Article 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The case is pending under ref. No. G 3/08.

The questions referred are:

1. Can a computer program only be excluded as a computer program as such if it is explicity claimed as a computer program?

No, any computer program is excluded no matter how it is claimed because a computer program is not patentable. The patent claim must contain material other than a computer program and the computer program itself cannot be claimed as part of any patent claim nor can any computer program ever be deemed to have infringed any patent claim even if that claim was previously based entirely in hardware.

2.(a) Can a claim in the area of computer programs avoid exclusion under Art. 52(2)(c) and (3) merely by explicity mentioning the use of a computer or a computer-readable data storage medium?

No patent claim can be made against any method expressed as a computer program. It is the software that matters, not the paraphernalia of computers. Therefore, whether a computer or computer-readable data storage media are mentioned, any software is automatically excluded from patentability. If the claim makes no sense without that software, then the claim is excluded.

(b) If question 2(a) is answered in the negative, is a further technical effect necessary to avoid exclusion, said effect going beyond those effects inherent in the use of a computer or data storage medium to respectively execute or store a computer program?

Any effect is excluded from patentability if that effect is or can be executed by software. If the effect becomes possible via software at some point in the future, the software cannot be deemed to have infringed the patent claim because software is not patentable.

3.(a) Must a claimed feature cause a technical effect on a physical entity in the real world in order to contribute to the technical character of the claim?

Effects on the "real world" are irrelevant - if the effect is or can be performed in software, the effect is excluded and any software implementing that effect cannot be deemed to have infringed the patent claim. The real world still includes the electrons that implement the effect of software but software is not patentable.

(b) If question 3(a) is answered in the positive, is it sufficient that the physical entity be an unspecified computer?

No, the effect is not the issue, the method is the issue.

(c) If question 3(a) is answered in the negative, can features contribute to the technical character of the claim if the only effects to which they contribute are independent of any particular hardware that may be used?

Portability infers software and software is not patentable. A claim must be excluded if it is wholly or partially implemented as software or can be wholly implemented as software and no software implementation can be deemed to have infringed the patent claim either in whole or in part now or in the future because software is not patentable.

4.(a) Does the activity of programming a computer necessarily involve technical considerations?

No. Programming is a form of speech, it uses languages and different languages have different requirements for technical expertise. Some languages require little or no technical expertise to generate an effect within a computer by means of software.

(b) If question 4(a) is answered in the positive, do all features resulting from programming thus contribute to the technical character of a claim?

No software programming can have any technical character for patentability because software is not patentable.

(c) If question 4(a) is answered in the negative, can features resulting from programming contribute to the technical character of a claim only when they contribute to a further technical effect when the program is executed?

No, if the features result from programming then the software to effect those features is not patentable and the feature itself is not patentable. No effect of a computer program can be wholly or partially patentable.

The text of the referral in the English language is available under Referrals pending before the Enlarged Board of Appeal.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal considering the referral will be composed as follows:

* P. Messerli (CH) (Chairman)
* M. Vogel (DE)
* D. Rees (GB)
* M. Dorn (DK)
* K. H rmand (EE)
* A. Klein (FR)
* J.-P. Seitz (FR)

It is expected that third parties will wish to use the opportunity to file written statements in accordance with Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (OJ EPO 2007, 303 ff). To ensure that any such statements can be given due consideration they should be filed together with any new cited documents by the end of April 2009 at the Registry of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, quoting case number G 3/08. An additional filing of the statement and documents in electronic form would be appreciated (Dg3registry_eba@epo.org ).

---

Feel free to add your own answers to the questions as comments.

If anyone is still on Orkut, you now can import your friends birthdays into calendar. There is a link off the homepage. Now all I have to do is write some scripts to scrape all the local convert and movie venue calendars so I don't have to pick up the onion every week.

Horse Gym USA has a picture of a Canadian at the top of the page.

San Francisco looks like a small place from the top, i.e. the top of Golden Gate Heights. It also seems like all the views of the city face northwards. Mt Davidson does have some views south, but they aren't as pretty. San Francisco is sand and rocks, the trees that do well here are not from here. The cloud forest plants should do well, the botanical garden has lots of them.

This post is for Akash. You'll have to ask him why.

13 Mar 2009
White Swan, Black Swan: nice vocals, I only caught a couple songs

The Donkeys
Decent band, fun to listen to. A good whale joke:
Two whales are sitting at a bar
one says to the other [long whale noises]
The other says, "man you are trashed."

Quick to get on stage and play

Phosphoressence
Good country rock band. Slow to start playing and some assholes decided to pop into the front of the crowd, they were tall so they blocked a bunch of peoples view. Then they gained an extra 3 people and started moving backwards. For once someone actually got inside my bubble.

7 Mar 2008 -- Red Devil Lounge
* "Three of" (good luck googling these guys) -- very good
* A, b, and C -- not good, the lead singers voice cracked a lot, they did look like they should be in the movie "That thing you do" (my first date was at this movie).
* Moonlight Sexy -- ok, Andy didn't like these guys
* Marcy Playground -- Great!

14 Mar 2008 -- Writers with drinks
S.G Browne with Breathers: A zombie's lament. The chapter he read was really funny. I think this was the best part of the night. The host was also really good, but the host could be described as slightly scripted talking out of her ass.

I went to see Fruit Fly at the Castro Theatre tonight. It was a really fun movie and very local. Oh yeah, it's a musical, I don't think I've had that much fun watching a movie since I saw Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter the first time. The opening number is a song about public transit and not needing a car in San Francisco. The previous film by H.P. Mendoza is Colma: The Musical, it's got a lot of the same cast and also look like a lot of fun. Unfortunatly, movies are behind music and I can't find a stream or download on hulu, amazon or youtube of Colma the musical.

Anyway, if anyone wants to go see Fruit Fly it is playing in Berkeley on friday. I don't think I'll make it out to that since the Castro Theatre is having a triple bill "nerds with balls" Midnites for maniacs on friday.

In other good news, I couldn't get either a Petzl size 1 or size 2 harness since my legs are size two, but my waist is size 1.

So, fanatical readers of my blog (are there any?) may remember a long time back that I got bored and wrote a little script that amused me. While testing something out yesterday, I needed to find a domain that I wasn t using in production so I could test on it. I stumbled across Cheese Nibbles which had a lovely We ll be back with something cool soon message on it. So, I did my tests, and they worked. Everything s good. I d actually forgotten what was on Cheese Nibbles in the first place, so I started rooting round in the code. I found the old site, and I decided to resurrect it. I posted in a couple of IRC channels, to see if other people found the site amusing, and got the following back in response

<Daviey> neat
<Daviey> Mez: rss feed needed
<Mez> Daviey: *chuckles*
<Mez> but then it d be twitter
<Daviey> sure, but a shared account
<Daviey> Or.. make it twitter when changed

So, well, thanks to Dave Walker s suggestion, I did a quick google, and within 6 minutes, had it working. You can find the twitter feed at http://twitter.com/cheesenibbles Also, over the last couple of weeks I ve been working with Zeth from my local LUG (and the tech, who shall remain anonymous, like The Stig ) on a podcast, which we are, for now calling The Podcast (imaginative I know). I was interviewed in the first podcast (which Zeth did alone, and I (apparently) provided the comedy element for) and presented with Zeth for the second one. Also, as the second one was recorded during the Ubuntu Global Bug Jam, of which I was running one of the venues, I actually allowed myself to be interviewed for it aswell. The podcast is very rough around the edges at the moment, and well, we haven t got a website, or an RSS feed yet, but you can find the show notes here, and download the podcast episode in either MP3 Format, or OGG Format All comments/thoughts/suggestions welcome!

For anyone that goes to Cantina at 580 Sutter, you may as well skip the cocktails since they are weak and overpriced. It's as good to go for the crappy red strip which is still overpriced, but at least only by a dollar or two.

I had an existential experience in my local drug store last night while pondering this sign. What does it mean for pain to be truly external to the person feeling it? Have I ever felt external pain? Is external pain merely another term for empathy? What might products to help with empathy entail? Would my local drug store stock them?

Last week, Scott James Remnant posted a series of Git Sucks on his blog, starting with this one here, with follow up entries here and here. His problem? To quote Scott, I want to put a branch I have somewhere so somebody else can get it. That s the whole point of distributed revision-control, collaboration. He thought this was a mind-numbingly trivial operation, and was frustrated when it wasn t a one-line command in git. Part of the problem here is that for most git workflows, most people don t actually use git push . That s why it s not covered in the git tutorial (this was a point of frustration for Scott). In fact, in most large projects, the number of people need to use the scm push command is a very small percentage of the developer population, just as very few developers have commit privileges and are allowed to use the svn commit command in a project using Subversion. When you have a centralized repository, only the privileged few will given commit privileges, for obvious security and quality control reasons. Ah, but in a distributed SCM world, things are more democratic anyone can have their own repository, and so everyone can type the commands git commit or bzr commit . While this is true, the number of people who need to be able to publish their own branch is small. After all, the overhead in setting up your own server just so people can pull changes from you is quite large; and if you are just getting started, and only need to submit one or two patches, or even a large series of patches, e-mail is a far more convenient route. This is especially true in the early days of git s development, before web sites such as git.or.cz, github, and gitorious made it much easier for people to publish their own git repository. Even for a large series of changes, tools such as git format-patch and git send-email are very convenient for sending a patch series, and on the receiving side, the maintainer can use git am to apply a patch series sent via e-mail. It turns out that from a maintainer s point of view, reviewing patches via e-mail is often much more convenient. Especially for developers who are just starting out with submitting patches to a project, it s rare that a patch is of sufficiently high quality that it can be applied directly into the repository without needing fixups of one kind or another. The patch might not have the right coding style compared to the surrounding code, or it might be fundamentally buggy because the patch submitter didn t understand the code completely. Indeed, more often than not, when someone submits a patch to me, it is more useful for indicating the location of the bug more than anything else, and I often have to completely rewrite the patch before it enters into the e2fsprogs mainline repository. Given that, publishing a patch that will require modification in a public repository where it is ready to be pulled just doesn t make sense for many entry-level patch submitters. E-mail is in fact less work, and more appropriate for review purposes. It is only when a mid-level to senior developer is trusted to create high quality patches that do not need review that publishing their branch in a pull-ready form really makes sense. And that is fairly rare, and why it is not covered in most entry-level git documentation and tutorials. Unfortunately, many people expect to see the command scm push in a distributed SCM, and since git pull is a commonly used command for beginning git users, they expect that they should use git push as well not realizing that in a distributed SCM, push and pull are not symmetric operations. Therefore, while most git users won t need to use git push , git tutorials and other web pages which are attempting to introduce git to new users probably do need to do a better job explaining why most beginning participants in a project probably don t need their own publically accessible repository that other people can pull from, and which they can push changes for publication. There is one exception to this, of course, and this is a developer who wants to get started using git for a new project which he or she is starting and is the author/maintainer, or someone who is interested in converting their project to git. And this is where bzr has an advantage over git, in that bzr is primarily funded by Canonical, which has a strong interest in pushing an on-line web service, Launchpad. This makes it easier for bzr to have relatively simple recipes for sharing a bzr repository, since the user doesn t need to have access to a server with a public IP address, or need to set up a web or bzr server; they can simply take advantage of Launchpad. Of course, there are web sites which make it easy for people to publish their git repositories; earlier, I had mentioned git.or.cz, github, and gitorious. Currently, the git documentation and tutorials don t mention them since they aren t formally affiliated with the git project (although they are used by many git users and developers and the maintainers of these sites have contributed a large amount of code and documentation to git). This should change, I think. Scott s frustrations which kicked off his git sucks complaints would have been solved if the Git tutorial recommended that the easist ways for someone to publicly publish their repository is via one of these public web sites (although people who want to set up their own server certainly free to do so). Most of these public repositories probably won t have much reason to exist, but they don t do much harm, and who knows? While most of the repositories published at github and gitoriuous will be like the hundreds of thousands of abandoned projects on Sourceforge, one or two of the new projects which someone starts experimenting on at github or gitorious could turn out to be the next Ruby on Rails or Python or Linux. And hopefully, they will allow more developers to be able to experiment with publishing commits on their own repositories, and lessen the frustrations of people like Scott who thought they needed their own repositories; whether or not a public repository is the best way for them to do what they need to do, at least this way they won t get as frustrated about git. Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Git and hg John Goerzen recently posted about Git, Mercurial and Bzr that...
2. Batches of patched batches of patches I found the following from the Risks Digest, authored by...

Last week, Scott James Remnant posted a series of Git Sucks on his blog, starting with this one here, with follow up entries here and here. His problem? To quote Scott, I want to put a branch I have somewhere so somebody else can get it. That s the whole point of distributed revision-control, collaboration. He thought this was a mind-numbingly trivial operation, and was frustrated when it wasn t a one-line command in git. Part of the problem here is that for most git workflows, most people don t actually use git push . That s why it s not covered in the git tutorial (this was a point of frustration for Scott). In fact, in most large projects, the number of people need to use the scm push command is a very small percentage of the developer population, just as very few developers have commit privileges and are allowed to use the svn commit command in a project using Subversion. When you have a centralized repository, only the privileged few will given commit privileges, for obvious security and quality control reasons. Ah, but in a distributed SCM world, things are more democratic anyone can have their own repository, and so everyone can type the commands git commit or bzr commit . While this is true, the number of people who need to be able to publish their own branch is small. After all, the overhead in setting up your own server just so people can pull changes from you is quite large; and if you are just getting started, and only need to submit one or two patches, or even a large series of patches, e-mail is a far more convenient route. This is especially true in the early days of git s development, before web sites such as git.or.cz, github, and gitorious made it much easier for people to publish their own git repository. Even for a large series of changes, tools such as git format-patch and git send-email are very convenient for sending a patch series, and on the receiving side, the maintainer can use git am to apply a patch series sent via e-mail. It turns out that from a maintainer s point of view, reviewing patches via e-mail is often much more convenient. Especially for developers who are just starting out with submitting patches to a project, it s rare that a patch is of sufficiently high quality that it can be applied directly into the repository without needing fixups of one kind or another. The patch might not have the right coding style compared to the surrounding code, or it might be fundamentally buggy because the patch submitter didn t understand the code completely. Indeed, more often than not, when someone submits a patch to me, it is more useful for indicating the location of the bug more than anything else, and I often have to completely rewrite the patch before it enters into the e2fsprogs mainline repository. Given that, publishing a patch that will require modification in a public repository where it is ready to be pulled just doesn t make sense for many entry-level patch submitters. E-mail is in fact less work, and more appropriate for review purposes. It is only when a mid-level to senior developer is trusted to create high quality patches that do not need review that publishing their branch in a pull-ready form really makes sense. And that is fairly rare, and why it is not covered in most entry-level git documentation and tutorials. Unfortunately, many people expect to see the command scm push in a distributed SCM, and since git pull is a commonly used command for beginning git users, they expect that they should use git push as well not realizing that in a distributed SCM, push and pull are not symmetric operations. Therefore, while most git users won t need to use git push , git tutorials and other web pages which are attempting to introduce git to new users probably do need to do a better job explaining why most beginning participants in a project probably don t need their own publically accessible repository that other people can pull from, and which they can push changes for publication. There is one exception to this, of course, and this is a developer who wants to get started using git for a new project which he or she is starting and is the author/maintainer, or someone who is interested in converting their project to git. And this is where bzr has an advantage over git, in that bzr is primarily funded by Canonical, which has a strong interest in pushing an on-line web service, Launchpad. This makes it easier for bzr to have relatively simple recipes for sharing a bzr repository, since the user doesn t need to have access to a server with a public IP address, or need to set up a web or bzr server; they can simply take advantage of Launchpad. Of course, there are web sites which make it easy for people to publish their git repositories; earlier, I had mentioned git.or.cz, github, and gitorious. Currently, the git documentation and tutorials don t mention them since they aren t formally affiliated with the git project (although they are used by many git users and developers and the maintainers of these sites have contributed a large amount of code and documentation to git). This should change, I think. Scott s frustrations which kicked off his git sucks complaints would have been solved if the Git tutorial recommended that the easist ways for someone to publicly publish their repository is via one of these public web sites (although people who want to set up their own server certainly free to do so). Most of these public repositories probably won t have much reason to exist, but they don t do much harm, and who knows? While most of the repositories published at github and gitoriuous will be like the hundreds of thousands of abandoned projects on Sourceforge, one or two of the new projects which someone starts experimenting on at github or gitorious could turn out to be the next Ruby on Rails or Python or Linux. And hopefully, they will allow more developers to be able to experiment with publishing commits on their own repositories, and lessen the frustrations of people like Scott who thought they needed their own repositories; whether or not a public repository is the best way for them to do what they need to do, at least this way they won t get as frustrated about git. Related posts (automatically generated):

1. Git and hg John Goerzen recently posted about Git, Mercurial and Bzr that...
2. Batches of patched batches of patches I found the following from the Risks Digest, authored by...

If you're interested in free software --- and free network services in particular --- and should try to join me in Boston for the weekend of March 21st and 22nd. The FSF is organizing its annual members meeting again. This year the model is very different. For a start, the audience isn't limited to FSF members and the conference is not just about FSF projects and work. Instead, the meeting has been rebranded LibrePlanet and has been broken up into a two-day event that is going to talk about and then try to tackle some of the biggest problems facing the world of free and open source software. Saturday March 21st will feature a series of talks about major issues facing free software. Sunday March 22nd will be focused on an unconference attempt to tackle and explore several of the key themes or tracks: network services, high priority projects, and the nascent LibrePlanet activism network. I'll be focused on the track around free network services which I'm helping organize in part through Autonomo.us. For more information on that angle, please take a look at my blog post over at Autonomo.us. We're going to have a great group of people at the track and I'm excited by the idea that that we'll be able to make some real progress on the issues. I encourage anyone who thinks they might be able to make it to consider doing so. There are details including travel, location, hotel information and much more on the event web page and wiki (login is required to RSVP). Please spread the word!

[This is something old I wrote up while I was in Brazil]

It turns out I can't have an uneventful *set* of flights when Brazil is involved. My first flights to Brazil would be the most uneventful, I got earlier flights than I had booked. The next time I tried to fly, I flew out of Brazil, which since I booked through an agency outside Brazil I had to get paper tickets. The paper tickets didn't get to me in time, so I basically had to rebuy my tickets.

So this time, I learned my lesson, I bought the international tickets separate from my inside brazil tickets. This means I could get electronic tickets all the way. One problem is that I can't pay any of the Brazilian carriers directly since I don't have a Brazilian CPF. So a friend bought my ticket the day before I left. The ticket had a small problem, I had to go through Rio to get to S o Paulo. I would have two hours between the flight from Rio to the flight to JFK. Unfortunatly the leg from Rio to S o Paulo was an hour late and I had to run to get checked into to the flight to JFK. It turns out I had lost my seat, but I did get on the plane and wasn't the last one to check in. The way back to Belo Horizonte was supposed to be simpler, I had a lot of time in S o Paulo before the direct flight to Belo Horizonte. Well, unfortunatly the boarding passes I was given was for Larry Morrison going to Lima, not for James Morrison going to S o Paulo. It feels really bad that the woman who checked me in, used checked two pieces of ID, and the security guy who checked my boarding pass didn't notice this. I didn't notice this either since I had two boarding passes with the first one going to Miami. Anyway, so after Larry and I had the same seat on the flight to Miami we figured out I had the wrong ticket. I got the right one then we were off. We arrived in Miami in good time, but our gate was occupied, which meant we disembarked 20 minutes late and 10 of us had to push through the aisles to get out and onto the connecting flight to S o Paulo. This flight was again uneventful. However, in S o Paulo there was a nice long wait at customs, no processing time for me, then the discovery that I had made it to S o Paulo, but my backpack hadn't. Fortunatly, there was a second flight from Miami arriving in 30 minutes (left 2 hours later than mine) that should have my bag. It turned out I did, so I could finally go check in for my flight to Belo Horizonte. That checkin was almost uneventful, but again the line took forever. I waited for 8 minutes as the second person in line. Again, I took no time getting processed. Given the time I take to go through customs and checking in, how could both those lines move so slow?

Last june, I went to Cologne to visit a friend I'd first met Heike at Debconf7 in Edinburg, where we had much fun playing some music together. So the next time we met, which was at FOSDEM '08, she told me that she'd been playing in a band. As in, the kind of people who make music profesionally. Which was really cool. She also told me that this band, which consists mainly of a Canadian couple, would be playing in Cologne in early june, and that perhaps it'd be nice if I could come over to watch. Considering that'd be a nice excuse for a short holiday, I went, and had a great week in Cologne. Since Heike and the others had to practice, I only saw them in the evening; but Cologne is a great city, with interesting museums and other things, so I would spend the day sightseeing in Cologne (and Bonn on one day), and would be at the particular bar or whatever where the concert would be in the evening. I had a great time. Before going home, I bought one of their CDs, since I really liked the music. Anyway, at this year's FOSDEM, Heike told me that there was a new CD out (actually MP3 downloads), made from a recording that was done at one of the concerts. So, today, I bought a copy. Come to think of it, this is the first time I bought an album of a concert that I actually went to, and where I did not perform myself. After all, I don't really go to concerts all that often unless I'll be on stage. What's strange is that the music sounds slightly different from how I remember it. The mind can do strange things... or is it the case that a recording is not the real thing? Probably. In any case, the music is great, so go check it out!

It's been a little wet around here recently. Enough so that I bought an umbrella yesterday. Unfortunately, I didn't take it out on my walk today. So on my way back from Golden Gate Heights, I felt more soaked than when I went out to walk all of Broderick in the pouring rain.

On the getting things done front, I have finally put up my disco ball. It's been 9 hours and it is still up so I think it will hold over night.

I would like to thank James for saving me two tubes and two floor pumps.

I recently ate a bag of potato chips made by FoodShouldTasteGood, Inc.. Their motto (as printed on that bag under their name) was, "It's our name. It's our brand. It's our motto." Now, either the antecedents for those three it's are different -- which seems implausible -- or their motto is lying in its final sentence. It's all very complicated. Seth Schoen reminded me of a somewhat similar issue with the United States' national anthem, The Star Spangled Banner. The final stanza includes the line, "And this be our motto 'In God is our trust.'" This is not and has never been the U.S. motto. In fact, the U.S. had no motto at all until 1956 when "In God We Trust" -- which is very similar, but not quite the same -- became official. It seems that nobody is quite sure where "In God We Trust" came from but there is some speculation that it originated in the anthem itself. Presumably, it became the motto because lawmakers thought it sounded good in the song and not because the U.S. government failed while trying to "correct" the embarrassing incorrect line in its anthem.

I've decided I would like to get myself a small laptop that has a projector built in. It doesn't have to be super powerful, but the projector from a phone would probably be good enough.