Tangential Ramblings

The regularity of emails from Joel Spolsky has gone up of late, as he's started writing a set of articles under the heading Great Design, each of which I'm notified about. Some of it is lifted or derived from his book User Interface Design for Programmers, but that doesn't bother me as I've not read it.

So far, it's compelling stuff, certainly worth a read. The list of chapters gives sufficient insight for me to come back for more, but doesn't give the game away. The key take-away in today's lesson is that often, products are great in spite of their flaws: the instantly scratchable, battery-challenged iPod being a prime example.

In the series, he promises to explore some of the design principles of everyday objects, with a particular focus on gadgets and websites. Looking forward to it.

It seems that the jury's divided on Google's decision to compromise its ideals in search of the yuan; more so than was the case when Yahoo! and Microsoft made similar decisions.

Alan gives a very balanced viewpoint. Meanwhile, 12's mindset is pretty much made up, with her entry The New Evil Empire. Bill Thompson, the hugely irritating technology reporter for the BBC believes it makes sense.

Google was (and still is) seen as the nice guy of the internet. They weren't a part of the original bursting bubble; meanwhile, their revenue stream is sufficiently well hidden from the end user that many see it as a loving company out for the good of the end user. This viewpoint is echoed by its mantra: do no evil. (As an aside, many might argue that the mantra itself is grammatically incorrect, and that it should read don't do any evil, but that's by the by.) And as with Filo and Yang at Yahoo!, it's fronted by two seemingly affable guys who haven't let their success get in the way of their principles. Or have they?

If they were still pre-IPO, would they have made the same decision? It's difficult to say for certain, but my view is that their principles would have won out, and they would have ignored the huge opportunity offered by China, or else worked their way round the barriers rather than conforming to them. However now they have shareholders to answer to, and if they don't hit China now, then they'll lose out in the long run, as their competitors reap the rewards of a ripening market.

It's a toughie. My principles are firmly in the camp of ignoring the Chinese government's demands (just as Google has done with those of its own government) and the opportunities that it may offer. On the other hand, they're a business, and in the long run, ignoring China would compromise their position as market leaders. Maybe do no evil and shareholders together form an oxymoron that just can't work.

The decision will certainly knock some of the gloss off the Google brand. Whether this will have a long-term impact remains to be seen.

The Monty Hall problem continues to bubble. It's strange how certain scenarios play havoc with your intuition, allowing your mind to jump to conclusions that are mathematically off, sometimes way off.

In trying (and failing) to explain the rationale behind the problem the other day to my hosting provider, we went on to explore a similar scenario. Instead of there being three doors, imagine there are 100. And instead of the host opening only one door, imagine he opens all but two (the one originally chosen plus one other), all opened doors coming with an accompanying bleat.

Even in this scenario, he believed that switching offered no benefit to the contestant. So I upped the ante.

Imagine I've put a red sticker on the shoe sole of one person in the world. Now I ask him to choose anyone in the world (without them lifting their feet). (He chose someone from China, after confirming that he wasn't allowed to choose himself.) I then eliminate 5,999,999,998 people one by one (assuming there are 6bn. people in the world), all of whom are bereft of a red sticker. So there are two people remaining: his original choice and the one remaining person I didn't eliminate.

Even under this scenario, he was of the opinion that switching offered no benefit, even though the reality means that your odds of success increase by 599,999,999,900%. That's 599 billion percent.

It seems that once your mind is convinced of something, it takes a lot of evidence to prove you wrong. Even overwhelming odds failed on this occasion.

Woke up to the news that Tony Banks had died. There was a piece on the news about how everyone was shocked. Got me thinking about an invention: a watch that counted down your life. If it said you've got three days left, go to the doctors.

Told Suzanne [Karl's girlfriend] about invention. She said she wouldn't buy one. But she said that about the iPod.

[...]

A fella on the plane was reading Coy Mag. It was a fishing magazine. I glanced over and noticed he was reading the Pond of the Month article. Don't think they could make it into a weekly magazine.

[...]

There was a really fat bloke on the plane. He was playing on his PSP. While I waited to go to the toilet, I looked at what game he was playing. It was darts. He's that fat and lazy he can't face playing a more active game on a games console.

[...]

Sat next to an old fella. Old men's ears and noses carry on growing as they get older. Suzanne noticed his fingers were fat too. Maybe they continue to grow. Suzanne didn't laugh when I said that her arse had the same problem.

It seems that as was the case when Marilyn vos Savant published the correct answer in the New York Times back in 1990, my entry is causing some (seemingly) intelligent people to blunder. (I have to be somewhat polite here, as one of the blunderers is my hosting provider.)

The rationale in the post below is pretty straightforward, as highlighted by the friend who originally sought my help:

"Perfect ... even I understand that!"

Nonetheless, it seems some people need some further evidence. What better way to help than via the powers of Excel. Here's a spreadsheet that takes you through the logic behind both the no switching option and the switching option. Each row in each of the sheets represents a unique experiment, with each element that is up to chance being driven by an independent random number.

In the no switching option, the only things that are random are the prize-winning door and the door originally chosen by the contestant. In the switching option, both of these elements are still random, as is the door that Monty opens, although this is sometimes forced.

The spreadsheet contains 50 rows of experiments, although you can copy a row down as far as your computer's memory will allow to see where your odds settle. Using all 65,536 rows (65,532 experiments of each type), I recorded a 33.15% win rate for games in which I stuck, and a 66.72% rate for games in which I switched.

I've noticed it on the odd occasion in the UK, but it's prevalent in New York: that is the misuse of the word literally. Usually, when you hear it, you can safely interpret the exact opposite. Apparently, such usage is known as a "general intensive".

I heard two such examples on the local news. The latter is beautiful.

- A passenger literally went nuts while on board a plane
- A truck that blew over on a bridge, threatening to drop into the waters below, was "literally hanging on by its fingertips".

Yesterday, I was asked for the rationale behind the Monty Hall problem, which I originally referred to back in August 2004. I thought it worth sharing. The original problem involves three doors; I also worked out the logic for four.

The original problem goes like this. There are three doors, behind one of which is a car, behind the other two of which are goats. (Not sure why goats, but that's the version I heard.) The assumption is that you'd like to go home with a car as opposed to a goat.

You're invited (by a game show host, naturally) to pick a door, which you do. Irrespective of which door you pick, the game-show host opens one of the non-picked doors and reveals a goat. He then asks you whether you want to stick with your original choice, or switch to the other unopened door.

The answer is that you should always switch, as this doubles your chances of driving home as opposed to attracting bemused stares while walking home accompanied by a goat.

Let's refer to the doors as A, B and C. For the sake of argument, let's assume you choose door A. (Choosing each of the three doors is equally likely, and therefore the odds you see below can be divided by three and then multiplied by three at the end, with no overall impact. Doing so confuses and adds no value, so I won't.)

There are three potential cases:

- Case 1: car is behind door A
- Case 2: car is behind door B
- Case 3: car is behind door C

If you don't switch doors, then your chances of being correct are 1 in 3, as you ignoring any extra information being given. If you select door A, then in case 1 above, you'll win; in cases 2 and 3, you'll lose. The odds of each case occurring are equal, so the odds of winning the car if you don't switch are 1/3.

In case 1 above, the game show host will open either B or C. Either way, switching will result in a goat.

In case 2, he will open door C (he can't open A because you chose it, and he can't open B, because it hides a car). Switching will give you door B, which will result in a car.

In case 3 he will open door B (he can't open A because you chose it, and he can't open C, because it hides a car). Switching will give you door C, which will result in a car.

So, in equally likely scenarios, (1, 2 and 3), scenarios 2 and 3 give you a car; scenario 1 gives you a goat.

So if you don't switch, you have a 1/3 chance of winning. If you switch, the probability of winning goes up to 2/3 - double.

Now, let's move this up to four doors and see what it does to the odds.

The doors are A, B, C, D. You choose A. Cases 1 through 4 are that the car is behind A, B, C, D respectively.

The chances of winning if you don't switch are 1/4. Now, let's assume you switch.

In case A, if you switch, you'll lose, as you chose the correct door in the first place. In cases B through D, if you switch, there's a 1/2 chance that you'll win. This is because the car is not behind the door originally selected, and there are only two other doors to go for, one of which has a car.

So, your odds of winning are (1/4 * 1/2 * 3) = 3/8. This is:

[a 1/4 chance of one of a specific potentially-successful scenario
happening] *
[a 1/2 chance of success from switching] *
[3 scenarios]

The 3/8 chance of winning having switched is 50% greater than the 1/4 chance you would have had if you'd stuck.

I read today about the Ricky Gervais podcast. Eight half-hour episodes, probably filled with trite observations, lots of head-squeezing and references from Merchant that Chinatown isn't really a town, more a novelty street.

I think I'll listen nonetheless.

The Guardian link above only contains the last four episodes, so here's the full catalogue for those with too much time on their hands.

- Episode 1
- Episode 2
- Episode 3
- Episode 4
- Episode 5
- Episode 6
- Episode 7
- Episode 8

Enjoy!

Yesterday saw the two Conference finals. The NFC showdown saw the Seahawks host the Panthers, while in the AFC, the Broncos hosted the Steelers.

The Seahawks used their home field advantage to good effect, sealing a clinical 34-14 win, removing them from the list of six teams not to have been to the Super Bowl.

The Steelers became the first ever team to beat the first, second and third seeds, all on the road, to secure their own berth in the Super Bowl in two weeks' time. The Broncos put up little resistance, led in their mediocrity by Jake Plummer. They turned the ball over four times (two lost fumbles and two interceptions), having turned it over only eight times in the 16 games of the regular season. The frustrating part was that Plummer's two interceptions were both thrown on the first play of their respective drives. Maybe that's the best way to do it - if you're going to throw an interception, why bother waiting until there's false hope?

Maybe not. The first of these interceptions was made with less than two minutes left in the first half, allowing the Steelers to extend their 14 point lead by seven.

The Steelers were impressive, on both offense and defense, and they are currently favourites to beat the Seahawks.

Nick Assinder is one of the political analysts for the BBC. Here's one of his articles. Interestingly, the email address he puts at the bottom of his posts is Nick.Assinder-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk. Is there any other form of email address?

I wonder whether he also uses Nick.Assinder-SNAILMAIL@bbc.co.uk, which his secretary prints out and leaves in his in-tray.

Occasionally, there's a headline that catches the eye. Here's a great example: dead whale left outside embassy. It reminds me of a similar headline that appeared in the Halifax Evening Courier, the local paper where my parents live, back in 1993: Councillor leaves dead goat on ex-wife's doorstep.

Alternate row shading is quite useful if you've got particularly wide data (lots of columns) and when readers need to scan across individual lines. Bug listings, contact lists etc. I usually use a light yellow shading to help with this, alternating with the default white.

To generate the alternate row shading, I used to insert a new column at A, fill it alternately with 1s and 2s, filter the 1s, shade the filtered rows, then delete column A. The problem with this method is that if you insert a new row some way down, it screws up the shading, leaving two consecutive shaded or unshaded rows.

The better way to do this is to use conditional formatting, and base the conditional format on the row number, or more specifically, whether the row number is odd or even. If the cells you want to highlight start in row 2, highlight rows 2 through n (n being the bottom of your list). Select Conditional Formatting from the Format menu. In the first condition, select Formula Is from the dropdown and type the following into the condition area:

=mod(row(A2),2)=0

Then choose your desired shading through the Format button.

Because the first cell of the range highlighted is A2, it will apply this conditional format to A2, but change the reference accordingly for all of the other cells in the range. The formula itself takes the row number (for row 2, this is 2), divides it by 2 and calculates the remainder (in this case 0). If the remainder is 0 (i.e. the row is even), it will shade it; otherwise, it won't.

Maybe not the most concise title, but it's a great feature. Have you ever needed to fill a column or row with dates, but skip weekends? Pain isn't it?

Well no. There's a hidden menu that enables this. Put your first date in your first cell. Now hover over the bottom right corner of that cell until your cursor becomes a "+". Right-click (yes, right-click) and drag, either to the right to fill the row or down to fill the column. When you've gone as far as you think you need to, release the mouse button and you'll be presented with a nice little menu. This allows you to fill the range with all days (standard behaviour), weekdays only, months (giving the same day of each month) or years (the same day each year).

Clicking the Series option even allows you to only include every nth value, combined with the above.

It's a lovely feature, but I question its placement. Hiding things like this only causes frustration for those users who've done it the hard way for the last umpteen years.

Today, I added a new category to my blog: Excel tips. Those of you who know me will be aware of my penchant for MS Excel (Excel 5.0 being the most revolutionary piece of software ever written), so I thought I'd dedicate a corner of my beloved blog to it.

I'm not sure how useful this one is, nor where its business requirement came from, but it's quite cool. Excel allows you to create a dynamic picture of a range of cells, and for it to hover over the main body of the spreadsheet, as would any other picture. The beauty of this, however, is that the image changes as the cells' values change. Also, it's a hidden feature that many won't be aware of.

First of all, copy the cells that you want to make a picture of in the standard way. Then navigate to the place in the spreadsheet (either on the same sheet or a different sheet) where you want to plonk the picture. Now, instead of doing your standard paste, hold down Shift and click the Edit item on the main menu. As if by magic, the menu has changed slightly. Click Paste Picture Link, and there you have it. You can even rotate this picture to a cheeky angle to baffle your colleagues and to spice up your reports.

The BBC's homepage along with its various section homepages are pretty inflexible when it comes to content. They've stuck with catering for an 800 pixel width (in my view this should now be increased to 1,024).

Also in Internet Explorer, scaling your fonts has no impact, which has meant that the BBC has allocated fixed amounts of space to content. Main story titles take up two lines; the main story summary takes five lines, the second and third stories are allowed five lines; and all of the links towards the bottom of the page are allowed one line each.

(As an aside, the BBC has always had a problem scaling links, as highlighted by Alan Simpson in this comment to the editor on 1 July 2004. The then editor Pete Clifton promised it would be fixed within the month. Still waiting.)

This often means that content is shoe-horned into the space allowed. This is something I've noticed for some time, but which was specifically pointed out to me by my friend Elise. (Typically, there are no glaring examples I can see at the moment, but they crop up frequently.)

In Firefox, all of the fonts scale, which I believe goes against the look and feel that the BBC was looking for. However even with today's design, reasonable amounts of scaling don't adversely affect the feel of the homepage. The links at the bottom begin to wrap on to a second line, although the extension of the leading articles' summary sentences beyond the bottom of the associated images soon eventually causes some white space to appear.

While there will always be examples in which editorial has to be tailored to fit its medium, this happens way too often with the BBC. They will need to put more thought into its look and feel as Firefox gains market share, and make sure that assumptions it made in 2002/3 when they redesigned the homepage (e.g. hard-coded font sizes are obeyed by the browser) are updated accordingly.

Back in November 2004, we had the best starting lyrics to a song thread, hotly contested between the Monkees, the Beach Boys, the Brand New Heavies, Simon and Garfunkel, and Talking Heads.

Now it's time for the best moment in a song. Here are some contenders to start the ball rolling.

- The Buzzcocks, Ever Fallen in Love (With Someone You Shouldn't've): the guitar changing down following "a-fallen in love with" 2:27 into the track
- Lynyrd Skynyrd, Sweet Home Alabama: the tiny piano riff 30 seconds in
- Billy Bragg, A New England: the break in the guitar after 44 seconds.

The timings may be a little off, depending on the version you may be listening to, but it shouldn't be difficult to identify the glorious moments.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, merely a placeholder for me (and hopefully others) to contribute as and when moments make them smile.

Some slightly flawed research here indicating that people make up their minds about the quality of a website in 50 milliseconds (1/20th of a second).

The research was conducted by flashing a page in front of a user for 50ms and asking them to rate it in terms of aesthetic appeal. Apparently, the results correlated well with ratings given by people who had longer to assess the site.

The conclusion was that people make their minds about the quality of sites in 50ms. The conclusion should have been that if put under pressure to do so, people can accurately assess a site's quality within 50ms. Whether people actually do so in everyday surfing is a different matter.

Anyway, the research rightly points to the fact that first impressions count for a lot, and suggests that these impressions have a lasting impact. I wonder whether the 50ms rating of this site would match the impeccable quality that regular users have become accustomed to.

The Steelers almost threw it away at the last. Leading 21-18 with 1:20 left in the fourth, the Steelers were forced to play the ball, as Indianapolis still had all three time-outs in their pocket. Jerome Bettis fumbled at the 2 (his first fumble of the season), leaving the Colts to run it back to their own 42. They then pushed on down the field to set up Mike Vanderjagt for a 46-yard game-tying field goal attempt, which he missed, wide right - very wide.

So the golden boys of the AFC (New England and Indianapolis) have both fallen by the way-side. The good thing about Pittsburgh's win is that Denver will host them. (They would have had to travel to Indianapolis had they won.) The Broncos crowd was a big factor in unsettling the Patriots, and hopefully, they'll be just as vocal next week. However, the Steelers look strong on both offense and defense.

Meanwhile, Jelle Klaasen gave a strong performance in the all-Dutch BDO World Darts final against Raymond van Barneveld, beating him 7-5. It was a gripping final, although I had to keep score off to the side in Excel, such was the graininess of the BBC's streaming. However the highlight may have been the commentary from Tony Green, with two gems in particular below.

- Clean as a whistle, and as fast. It's like the Tour de France
- How cool can you get? [Pause] Cucumbers. [Pause] Even cooler.

The game between the Broncos and Patriots has just finished, with the Broncos winning 27-13. And what a game it was!

The Broncos' offense (including Jake Plummer) was less than convincing, but when your defense forces five turnovers, the strength of your offense is not so much an issue. Denver's three touchdowns came from drives of one, one and three plays respectively, as the turnovers always left them in prime position. The most impressive turnover was an interception return of 101 yards by Champ Bailey, being forced out of bounds at the 1. The offense will need to shine much brighter next week against either the Steelers or Colts to secure their Super Bowl ticket.

Brady has seen better games, but at times he flourished. The Patriots caused some nervousness for Broncos fans late in the game, when they threatened to steal the game in the fourth quarter, before the Broncos hit back with another touchdown-earning turnover. The Broncos also benefited from a slightly iffy pass interference decision in the end zone during the first half, leaving them sitting pretty at the one yard line.

The last turnover came via an interception, courtesy of John Lynch, sealing the game. His early dominance continued throughout; he's a phenomenal force to lead the defense.

For whatever reason, the Broncos have not been heralded during the regular season, the AFC limelight being shared by Indianapolis and New England. I predicted a Broncos/Seahawks final before the weekend began (obviously with the Broncos winning), a game that is still on the cards.

This afternoon, Seattle looked less than impressive, but managed to secure a 20-10 win over Washington. Maybe this was their "off-week", and they'll bounce back next week to earn their rightful Super Bowl berth.

The show-down between New England and Denver at Invesco Field is ten minutes old, and it's fierce. John Lynch has already been an inspiration for the Broncos, helping to stop the offense in its tracks on both of New England's possessions. No score so far.

It's without doubt the match-up of the play-offs to date. The Broncos are unbeaten at home this season; Brady has a career 10-0 play-off record. Let's see which of these gives tonight.

There is every possibility that Columbus Day, due to occur on 9 October 2006, will not take place this year, nor ever again. The Chinese are claiming that a map dated 1763 that clearly shows the Americas is a copy of one dated 1418. They lay claim that an admiral (and eunuch, according to the BBC) by the name of Zheng He discovered the continent on his round-the-world trip in 1418, predating Columbus's voyage by some 74 years.

The claim is hotly disputed, although the overarching concept of "discovering" a continent that is already inhabited is somewhat flawed in itself.

If the claim were proven true, the timing of the new US holiday has not yet been confirmed. However Columbia University is already considering a re-branding, and Columbus Avenue is considering its options. Concern is also rife about the recent $345 million investment in the redevelopment of Columbus Circle.

The darts this week has already been a great spectacle, and we're still only in the quarterfinals. The star of the show has been Dutchman Jelle Klaasen, who began playing darts 4.5 years ago, and is only 21 years old. He's the polar opposite of the archetypal British darts player, as highlighted by this self-analysis that he gave: "I'm young, I'm fit and I don't have a belly".

In the second round, he saw off Mervyn King, and after going 4-1 up in the quarterfinals tonight, he was given a scare by Paul Hogan (who, after a stroke of inspired genius, is nicknamed Crocodile Dundee) before clinching it 5-4.

If he beats Shaun Greatbatch in Saturday's semi, then it could set up a final against his compatriot and four-times world champion (and no doubt Klaasen's inspiration), Raymond van Barneveld (nicknamed Barney Rubble), which would be fantastic to see.

The tackiness of the nicknames, the dry-ice machines and lights signalling the players' arrival on stage and the pun-tastic commentary matched only by that of Wogan three hours into Eurovision, all help to make this event unmissable. I only hope that the semifinal doesn't clash with the Broncos' match against New England.

Wow! Pay her a visit and wish her well...

The London Underground is 143 today, the first Metropolitan line train (then the Metropolitan railway) running on this day in 1863.

Happy Birthday!

Living in New York as I do, I focus much of my attention on all things New York, as that's what I'm exposed to on a daily basis. However, a colleague (a New Yorker) today enthused about the London Underground map, having seen a documentary about it on PBS. I'm annoyed not to have seen it.

Anyway, here's some interesting stuff relating to the London Underground map; interesting in my head, at least.

First of all, here is a PDF of how the London transport map might look come the 2016 Olympics. Apart from the unimaginatively named Cross River Transit and East London Transit lines, and the confusing colours chosen for the Crossrail (too close a shade to the Hammersmith & City for my liking) and the East London Transit line (too close to the Victoria), it's quite impressive.

Terminal Five makes an entrance, and the Crossrail completely changes the face of the map. Meanwhile, some of the stations look more like airport terminals given their sprawling ways (see Kings Cross, Liverpool Street, Stratford and Willesden Junction). Harry Beck would indeed have been amused.

Here's a map I found some time ago, showing the London Underground map true to its overlying geography. And here's an interesting comparison of the relative scale of various cities' underground networks.

A work of genius here showing how the Underground might look if it were centred south of the river. The entire map (including the Thames) has been rotated through 180°, with meaningful placenames given to the resultant stations.

And finally my favourite, currently adorning Joost's wall (on loan from my good self), here's the Great Bear, in which station names are replaced by famous people past and present, grouped according to the line they're on.

The London Underground map is possibly the most iconic map in the world. Its layout (and of course its font) are immediately recognisable and it's a work of immense beauty. It's great to see so many people enjoying it to the full.

Lakeside is hosting the annual World Darts Championship, one of the paragons of the sporting calendar. It's great to see that BBC Sport is streaming live coverage of the event, albeit in a slightly blurred fashion.

For those not in the know, this is the pinnacle of the darts season. Every January, great darts players and beer-swilling enthusiasts primarily from the UK, Scandanavia and the Netherlands (both the players and the drinkers) descend on Lakeside, Essex for nine days of fun and thrilling sporting action.

The most prized features of the event have to be the crazy head-gear worn by many of the fans (many under the assumption that if you're from Scandinavia, you're a viking) along with the fact that the whole family, kids and all, are brought along to the raucous drinkathon that takes place in the arena behind the oche. A great family atmosphere.

If you're not already a fan, check it out. This is the true sport of kings, and you'll be hooked before you know it!

Would someone please explain the functionality behind the UK/International toggle that sits at the top of the BBC News site?

I understand that by clicking the International version radio-button from the main news homepage, it delivers content more befitting a global audience, while the UK version offers content that is more relevant to the UK. I also understand that the left-hand navigation is different for each of the two versions.

What I don't understand is how it interacts with the left-hand navigation. If I select UK from the left-hand nav., the toggle between versions doesn't seem to have any impact on the content of the UK section homepage, merely switching the left-hand navigation module.

I think I understand what they are trying to accomplish by it, but it seems that apart from changing the navigation module, its only impact on content occurs on the main news homepage. As such, I find it confusing that it sits at the top of all pages on the site. Thoughts?

Another great weekend of American Football, with the four wildcard games accounting for much of Saturday and Sunday.

Yesterday saw a great game in which the Redskins saw off the Buccaneers 17-10, despite the 'skins notching up fewer offensive yards than any winning team in play-off history (120). This was followed by a dominant performance by the Patriots as they destroyed the Jaguars 28-3, thanks largely to an oppressive defense [sic].

Today began with the Giants going down to the Carolina Panthers 23-0 leaving only one member of the Manning family with Super Bowl hopes. This was the first time a home team has been shut out in the play-offs since 1979. As Eli's dad Archie Manning said after the game, it was "a good old-fashioned ass-kicking".

Later this afternoon, Cincinnati lost Quarterback Carson Palmer (not Carlton) to injury in his second play of the game, leaving the Steelers to win 31-17, despite a valiant performance from back-up QB Jon Kitna.

The net result of all this for Denver is that they will face the in-form Patriots at Mile High (Invesco Field) on Saturday. Generally, the AFC has a mighty set of four remaining (Denver, Indianapolis, New England, Pittsburgh), while the NFC could be considered much weaker (Carolina, Chicago, Seattle, Washington), with Seattle being the main exception.

Today is Louis Braille's birthday, or at least it would be if he'd lived to be 197. The associated Google logo marks this occasion beautifully.

You can find the comprehensive set of Google holiday logos here.

Voting is currently underway to determine the seven wonders of the modern world. It seems that they're trying to prevent mass voting by making the website the slowest in history to load. They will be counting the handful of votes ready to annouce the winner on 1 January 2007.

I'm not sure how they define modern: whether it's the modern perpective or whether the wonders themselves must be modern. I think it's the former, due to the inclusion of the Acropolis, the Egyptian and Mayan pyramids (separately) and the Easter Island statues in the short-list of 21.

Anyway, below are my alternative suggestions for the seven wonders of the modern world, none of which are listed in the official competition, for whatever reason. They are in alphabetical/numerical order.

• (2^30,402,457)-1
• The apostrophe
• Braille
• The FedEx logo
• Microsoft Excel
• Pi
• UK postcodes

You can vote for any of these using the comment feature above, or else suggest alternatives.

December was the second biggest month of all time for this site, with an average of 1,054 page impressions from 285 visits each day. (July 2005 saw an average of 1,358 page impressions from 446 visits daily.) The monthly totals are around four times those of December 2004.

For some bizarre reason, the most popular search term directing people here in December was <brooklyn beckham>, directing 51 people this way. However my favourite was <michael vick numpty>, searched by two people. (This site comes up third in Google's results, btw.)

53% of traffic came from the US, 2% from the UK, with a healthy spattering of hits from other countries including Bulgaria (284), Japan (118), Iceland (88), Argentina (38) and Colombia (20).

Not the busiest month in terms of posts - 17. The lowest monthly total was twelve back in May, with a peak of 26 last January. The cumulative total is now at 337. Make that 338.