In July, I spoke at The Amaz!ng Meeting 8 in Las Vegas. Sponsored by the James Randi Educational Foundation, it’s the largest meeting of critical thinkers and skeptics in the world. Unlike my usual talks about the abuse of science that I had given at previous TAMs, this time I wanted to tackle a much thornier issue: how we skeptics argue with believers of various stripes.

This isn’t directed towards any group in particular, so please relax and just enjoy the talk. No matter what side of an argument you’re on, there are some very valuable lessons to be learned here. I think this talk is particularly good for anyone wanting to get involved in politics or activism at any level.

Mayor Edmondson,

After reading today’s story in the London Free Press regarding Middlesex County Council acquiring iPads instead of $1,100 laptops (http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2010/08/10/14985046.html), I must challenge the notion that iPads are several hundred dollars cheaper than appropriate laptops for councillor use. Also, a 2 year refresh cycle for computer hardware is almost unheard (and a massive waste of taxpayer dollars) of except for engineers and game developers that need the very latest computer technology.

As a county taxpayer, I’m not happy about this decision to replace laptops only 2 years after purchase. iPads are probably enough, but you can easily find business-grade laptops (small, lightweight & wireless) for $499 – that’s $50 less than the cheapest iPad and they’re much more versatile.

This is yet another example of politicians being enamoured by a piece of technology they don’t need, while ignoring what would really be valuable to them and their citizens.

I eagerly await your response to this email.

UPDATED AUGUST 15, 2010: Mayor Edmondson emailed me back on August 12, and according to him the decision to move to iPads has indeed not actually been made yet even though the London Free Press story makes the case that this is a done deal. As promised, here is the response from Middlesex Centre Mayor Edmondson:

Dear Derek…Thanks for the letter. I would like to comment only on the fact that this is something that has not formally been presented to Council, but appears to being presented as a possible way of saving some money. In terms of the assumption that our councillors are zealous about technology, I would certainly argue the point, as it is far from the truth. Your point about the time to recycle a computer is well taken, as the one which helping to present this to you is much older than those that most County Councilors have, and has only caused me some inconvenience on a couple of occasions.

You should know that it was a giant leap for some Councilors to move away from paper into the wireless world, but as a group we recognized the time money and waste that could be avoided and got on with the change. This same group, less than a year later, were strong proponents of a broadband network for the whole of the County and today that has been established with the exception of one or two towers. This has been another huge technological step forward for County residents and particularly businesses. However, in my mind that does not necessarily lead to the adoption of an i-pod or rather pad as a necessity for carrying on our business, unless a real business case can be made for doing so. Thus far I came face to face with one for ten minutes or so when old faithful here failed at our last meeting. That certainly didn’t convince me that I needed one, nor that I could do a better job because of it. I will wait for the business case, and some tips on the advantages that won’t likely include cute and cuddly.

Thanks again and enjoy your day…Al

Here’s hoping rationale people think this through and re-consider their decision. The notion that iPads will properly replace the councilors’ laptops, aging or otherwise, for the next 3 years is ludicrous. I’m keeping a close eye on the meeting agendas going forward and I may drop in to lend my opinion to full county council if given the chance.

Please reply in the comments, and I would really appreciate it if you would throw in whereabouts you do live. I’ll get it started.

If I could change one thing right now, it would be that Middlesex County/London owned and operated its own fibre-optic network and Internet service provider (ISP) with no bandwidth caps or throttling policies. It would be called MLfibre or FibreLDN and you could get a 100Mbps down (maybe 5Mbps up for residential and 50Mbps up for businesses) for under $100/month.

So… what would you change?

Click here to view the embedded video.

I really enjoyed hearing Sean Galloway, a city planner, talk about ‘The Future of London.’ It was very interesting and exciting, especially once some of my friends and I asked him how much of what he was talking about would eventually be implemented in London. I’m pretty sure the answer was “100%.” Nice! Here is Sean’s Ignite Talk:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Some of the other presenters I really enjoyed were Nik Harron and Chris McInnis. Ignite London’s YouTube account has the first half of the night uploaded so far, the second half of the night is coming soon.

Lastly, I’m embedding my Ignite Talk and then my slides right after them in case you missed the night or wanted to see it over again. Next time I do an Ignite Talk, I’m really going to have to work on not going over 15 seconds per slide (or having less slides and throwing them back-to-back!).

Click here to view the embedded video.

And the slides:

If you’re coming, I hope to see you there and I really hope my talk on MuniFibre gets you thinking about the possibilities!

In fact, the defaults for Facebook’s privacy settings completely expose your profile not only to everyone on Facebook, but to the entire public including non-Facebook users. Meaning your current and potential employers, people you like and have pissed off, your parents – everyone – can see your Facebook profile. For a visual representation of Facebook’s expanding public defaults, click here.

Those pictures of you drinking and smoking weed on the weekend? Those pictures of you in your slutty Halloween costume? The status updates about how you’re looking for a new job? All public, all the time unless you change your privacy settings.

Not only that, but Facebook’s new, and much maligned, “Open Graph” program, which is basically a 20x worse version of the failed Beacon, will invade your privacy in ways you never thought possible. Here I’m going to help you put an end (somewhat) to Facebook’s over-the-top campaign to make all of your data public and available to advertisers. The addition of “Connections,” which I opted out of, is also generating some harsh feedback from users.

1) Open up your privacy settings control panel by clicking Account > Privacy Settings. That will bring you to this screen:

2) Click Profile Information and be sure that everything is set to “Only friends”

3) Click Back to Privacy and then click Contact Information. Adjust accordingly according to your wishes.

4) Click Back to Privacy and then click Applications and Websites. This is one of the most critical sections of the site for protecting your privacy and data from websites/companies that you don’t want to allow access to! First, click the Edit Settings button beside What your friends can share about you. The default settings allow your friends to unknowingly share everything about you – fix this!

5) Click Save Changes at the bottom, then click Applications and websites at the top to go back to the previous page. Edit the setting for Activity on applications and games dashboards to your desired setting (mine is Only friends), and then click Edit setting beside Instant Personalization. Unclick “Allow,” then hit “Confirm” on the box that comes up.

6) Click Applications and websites at the top again, then click Back to privacy to bring you back to the main control panel. Now click Search. This is another really important tool because the default settings let people find your Facebook profile using search engines like Google, Yahoo!, and Bing. Change your settings to what you’re comfortable with for Facebook search results and uncheck the box beside Public search results.

7) Click Back to privacy, and you’re done! Not that it was easy by any means.

Facebook suffers from a very poor user experience when it comes to managing your privacy, and my opinion is that it’s on purpose. They make money by giving advertisers access to your data they deem public; a ridiculous list that includes your interests (books, movies, music, etc.), list of your friends, etc. How Facebook can deem that type of information public is beyond me, but that’s their policy.

There are actually two other things you can do.

1. Don’t “Like” news stories and blog posts using Facebook’s “Like” button with the thumbs-up on it.
2. If you normally click the “Keep me logged in” checkbox on the login screen so that you don’t have to login every time you head to the site, discontinue this. Facebook can’t automatically share your information with other sites if you’re not logged into Facebook when you’re visiting Open Graph partners.

If you’re curious to see what information Facebook makes public about you before you get started, try using this tool.

Alternatively you could simply delete your account – which quite a few people have done including some engineers at Google – and use other social networking and sharing sites more heavily.

Your data is yours. Start treating it that way! As they say in the financial services world, CYA… cover your ass.

I know this story is several months old now, but it isn’t too late to talk about it. St. Joseph’s Hospital and London Health Sciences Centre embarked on restructuring the hospital system here a long time ago and both hospitals say they are very well “integrated” now. Cliff Nordal, the current CEO of both hospitals, had a significant role in this restructuring.

Cliff Nordal is retiring, and good for him. Why wouldn’t he? He took in almost $800,000 in salary and benefits last year! Considering he’s been the CEO of St. Joseph’s for over 20 years, I’m sure he’s got a very comfortable nest egg to retire on.

Then the debate began: should LHSC and St. Joe’s continue under one CEO or go back to two? Well, St. Joe’s decided they wanted to go back to having their own CEO because “St. Joseph’s remains a health-care centre with a mandate based on Catholic values.”

I thought this was an interesting argument for a publicly funded organization. While some of the folks over at the blog of AM980′s Nathan Smith (a very well written blog entry at that) pointed out that Catholic-funded schools obviously promote “Catholic values,” they are also required to teach a provincially mandated curriculum. Don’t think for a second the potential similarities haven’t crossed my mind!

What I find most interesting is the “Catholic values” they want to promote, and the experiences friends of mine have had at the hands of the practitioners at St. Joseph’s Hospital.

So, exactly what “values” are the staff so concerned about protecting and promoting that patients can’t get elsewhere?

• The Catholic Church is anti-contraception. Given the seemingly rampant increase in sexually transmitted infections being seen in seniors engaging in promiscuous sex, would St. Joseph’s Hospital staff still promote the use of condoms?
• Gluttony is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Would overweight/obese patients be treated differently, given staff may believe the patient is going to Hell? (Yes, it makes me laugh a little every time I see an overweight Catholic)
• Greed is also one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Would very wealthy patients be given the cold shoulder because they spent their lives pursuing wealth? After all they’re going to Hell too, aren’t they?
• What about members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities? I can only imagine what treatment they might receive!

Publicly funded healthcare institutions should adhere to the Canada Health Act and be done with it. Promoting Catholic “values” is irrelevant to providing good diagnostics, treatment and bedside manners. Leave your personal beliefs at home, stop costing taxpayers more than needs to be expensed (e.g. hire a single CEO to replace Mr. Nordal) and get on with providing the healthcare patients so badly need!

Photo by plousia

London implemented a pilot project last summer that supposedly cost $140,000. The project? Letting people park overnight on city streets. The $140K cost comes from the apparent revenue loss of parking tickets that are normally issued to the poor saps caught leaving their vehicles on the road in the middle of summer.

A lot of people loved being able to leave their cars on the street. House parties, people too drunk to drive home or hail/call a cab (admit it, you’ve been there!), or a simple lack of parking in your driveway or on the lawn. The reasons you may need to leave your car on the street are numerous.

And yet when it came to studying the pilot project and deciding whether or not to allow this permanently, city council voted no. Why? Well, heaven forbid they lose that $140,000 for a second year in a row!

The travesty of it all!

If I recall correctly, and something that Gina Barber pointed out in her blog earlier today, is a system that Judy Bryant proposed. While Ms. Bryant is a city councillor I respect very much, I disagree that her system of issuing temporary parking passes to those that request them would actually work. It may sound good on paper (though I disagree that it sounds good at all), the task of requesting, issuing and tracking said temporary parking permits would probably cost the city more than the revenue it could possibly generate.

Where would people get the passes? How much would they cost to make? How much would they cost to track? How much would it cost to make sure they’re hard, or nearly impossible, to forge?

I see people abuse disabled parking permits more often than I’d like to admit. Wouldn’t such a small system be easily abused? I can only imagine the predicted revenue and then subsequent massive discrepancy such a system would generate in the city budget.

Photo by Video4net

An acquaintance of mine posited that extending the hours that people need to pay for parking would probably make up for the lost revenue. I agree with him. Downtown parking meters only require payment between 8am and 6pm. Why not extend that to 8pm year round? That should more than make up for allowing overnight parking.

So what did London city council approve last night instead? To give themselves back the 5% pay cut they took in 2008 as a “gesture,” as Gina Barber so nicely puts it, to show they understood what Londoners are going through. I challenge any city councillor to explain, with a straight face, to someone who’s been out of work for most (if not all) of the economic downturn/recession how they can support giving themselves back the 5%.

My biggest problem is that this council seems to get very little done. If I felt like London taxpayers were getting their money’s worth, I wouldn’t complain. But I don’t believe they do! There are some terrific city councillors, but the majority of them seem to prefer just sitting around and debating things instead of actually getting things done. In fact I think London would get a lot more done if some councillors/Board of Control members would just up and quit or retire.

So to end this rant so succinctly… London city council, either start getting things done that deliver visible, measurable results or risk being voted out in October. I hope that Londoners are finally sick and tired of being hosed and really pay some serious attention to this fall’s elections!

Photo by see phar

Several acquaintances/friends of mine and I have had the opportunity to speak to a few City of London councilors and employees at various local events over the last year like AgendaCamp and SMarts London. We’re also encouraging them to attend this year’s PodCamp. I find myself usually running into Nancy Branscombe; while I don’t always agree with her (mostly about the cartoons), I know that I and several others appreciate the effort she makes to get involved in community/grassroots events.

People like Shawn Adamsson, Bill Deys, Titus Ferguson and I have all taken those opportunities to speak to Nancy, voicing our concerns for the city; some of these concerns have to do with the lack of an open data initiative for London, how the city’s engaging citizens (or rather, how it’s not), and more recently Bill Wittur has been talking about making London a “digital destination.” It looks like our concerns have been heard, because Nancy decided it would be a good idea to let engaged folks speak to some City councilors and staff. Last week we had a 90 minute meeting with several higher-ups from the City.

Digital Extremes Logo

Those in attendance at this initial meeting included Adam Caplan, Bill Deys, Bill Wittur, Jodi Simpson, Shawn Adamsson, Titus Ferguson, Keith Tomasek, Jeff Fielding (City of London CAO), Joseph Edward (City of London CTO), Nancy, Judy Bryant (councilor), Elaine Gamble and several staffers. The “normal” citizens had a chance to explain open data (as opposed to open source), making London more attractive to digital businesses (like TVWorks, NDS and Digital Extremes), and how the City can engage citizens more effectively.

Some of the outcomes of the meeting included some breakout meetings happening between people currently involved and those we think should be involved (e.g. Mike Schmalz of Digital Extremes), setting up an online presence (which I’m taking care of right now over at ChangeLondon.ca), along with sending Gavin Newsom’s (Mayor of San Francisco) guest blog entries from TechCruch.com to City employees/councilors in order to give them a politician’s perspective on open data.

Photo by Kevin Van Lierop

So what’s next? Well, more meetings will certainly be taking place. We’re all busy people, so the online presence is crucial to fleshing out our ideas, letting anyone in and around London comment and get engaged, and for setting up future face-to-face meetings and discussions. We hope that everyone in the London area will find something interesting to get involved in, or at least comment on, and start driving London and Middlesex County to be even better than they are in several ways.

When ChangeLondon.ca is ready for public consumption, you can bet you’ll hear about it here and elsewhere! What other areas do you think Change London should focus on?