Boing Boing has a link to an article that says a UK scientist did the math and says that it costs 4 times as much to send text messages over a cell phone then it does to transmit data from the Hubble telescope.

I’m almost afraid to do the math for Canadian rates.

Read the Boing Boing post

For the London Free Press – May 12, 2008

Read this on Canoe

Many people presume it is better to incorporate a new business as a federal corporation rather than an Ontario corporation. But an Ontario corporation is usually the more practical alternative.

Ontario corporations can be created quicker than federal ones. They are also cheaper and easier to maintain going forward.

Many believe a federal corporation is required to operate across or outside Canada. Depending on the nature of the business, one with activities in several provinces may be better off incorporating federally, but an Ontario corporation can operate in various provinces as well.

If a corporation maintains a physical presence in a province other than where its head office is located, registration as an extraprovincial corporation is required, whether the company is incorporated federally or in Ontario.

Some feel a federal corporation is more prestigious, but that perception is neither strong nor widely held.

Some argue the corporate name is better protected if it’s a federal company. Use of a corporate name by either a federal or provincial corporation does not give the name any protection as a brand or trademark. If the corporate name will be used as its brand identity, it should be protected by a trademark registration.

Another advantage of an Ontario corporation is that bankers, accountants and lawyers are much more familiar with them. That saves time and money in the long run.

And when choosing a name for your corporation, whether federal or provincial, it’s a good idea to check to see if the domain name is available for various top-level domain extensions, including .ca and .com. And get those names quickly, while they are available.

A domain name can be a necessity for a business. A domain name the same as one’s corporate name can be useful international advertising. It may be the first place potential customers go to find information about a business.

Businesses also give a better impression if their e-mail addresses use their name. For example, dcanton@harrisonpensa.com seems more professional than dcanton@hotmail.com.

If the business intends to sell its products or services outside Canada, it may want to do at least some cursory trademark searches in other countries to see if the proposed name has been used by others for similar products or services.

It’s also prudent to put the proposed name in quotes and do a Google search to see what comes up. That will show any common uses for that name and what your customers will see when they search your name. It would not be a good thing if Google searches show sites that your customers might confuse with yours, or might be inconsistent with the image you want for your business.

It’s far better to think through federal versus provincial incorporation and choice of name at the outset, than to incorporate and find out you have to compromise on your domain name or change your name.

I’ve commented before about how frustrating it is to see that Canada’s wireless prices are higher than other countries, and that our devices and services lag other countries.

I use an HTC Windows mobile smartphone, and while its a great device, I find that I don’t get as much use as I could from it, as I’m always concerned that data charges will get out of hand if I use the net too much.

Michael Geist just wrote an article, and posted a speech he just delivered on the state of wireless in Canada, using the iPhone as a starting point.

Its worth a read/listen

That’s the title of a presentation I gave last night at an Internetwork London meeting. (It’s a monthly networking event for people with an interest in tech in London, Ontario.)

My powerpoint slides are attached, although they do seem to lose a bit of meaning without the talk that goes with it.

Look at the powerpoint (pdf file)

As a follow up to my article yesterday about security theatre, Boing Boing has a post today entitled CCTVs don’t solve crime in UK; Scotland Yard’s answer: more CCTVs!.

Read the Boing Boing post

For the London Free Press – May 5, 2008

Read this on Canoe

The United Kingdom recently launched a new campaign against terrorists that targets photographers.

It is ironic that in perhaps the most-surveilled country in the world — with thousands of cameras watching the public on a daily basis — any person taking photos is considered a possible terrorist.

The Metropolitan Police Service has asked people to trust their instincts and pass on information about suspicious behaviour by contacting the Anti-Terrorist Hotline.

Citizens have been asked to “look for the unusual — some activity or behaviour which strikes them as not quite right and out of place in their normal day-to-day lives.”

An article published at cms.met.police.uk/news entitled “Met launches new counter-terrorism campaign,” notes terrorists live within normal communities, “making their plans whilst doing everything they can to blend in, and trying not to raise suspicions about their activities.”

The article then notes observation and surveillance helps terrorists to plan attacks, and asks readers to ascertain whether they have seen anyone take pictures of security arrangements such as closed-circuit TV.

They have even created posters stating, “Thousands of people take photos every day. What if one of them seems odd?”

This anti-photographer campaign has raised the ire of photographers, tourists and residents. It creates suspicion of innocent people, feeds paranoia and erodes precious freedoms. It is my understanding that in the U.K., like most countries, a photograph can legally be taken of anything public, whether it is people, buildings or objects, provided they are outside.

This recent campaign has led some people, even security guards and police, to believe there is something inherently illegal, wrong, or suspicious when people take photographs in public places.

Recently, a photographer and his friend spotted a man being detained by a security guard and police officer. The photographer noted the altercation and elected to look through his zoom lens to see what was transpiring. Shortly after, the photographer became the subject of suspicion, finding himself detained and jostled by six security guards.

He was then detained by a police officer, who insisted on examining the camera and sought personal information on the premise that is unlawful to photograph people in public.

Video of the incident can be seen on flickr.com by searching for “radio for backup.”

The practical reality is this campaign throwing suspicion on photographers is mere security theatre that causes more harm than good.

There are many ways to photograph security cameras and other security measures without arousing suspicion, or indeed without anyone knowing that photographs or video is being taken.

Would one really expect a malfeasant to stand in front of a security camera and be watched taking a photograph of it? Or would they more likely do it surreptitiously by using techniques such as miniature or hidden cameras?

It seems likely the true targets of the campaign may go unnoticed while those shooting vacation photos become targets.

Would one really expect a malfeasant to stand in front of a security camera and be watched taking a photograph of it?

Congratulations to London’s Amabile Primus and Young Men’s choirs (and my son Kyle who is in the Young Men’s choir) for both placing first in their respective classes this week in the CBC national Choral 2008 competition.

Both choirs will perform in a gala winners concert, in a live performance from Montreal broadcast on CBC Radio Two the weekend of May 16.