Oh, grief. There are many people and things you can name your children after, why on Earth choose an internet service? Even if it did bring you and the baby’s father together. Lots of things can bring people together, but you don’t see names like “Joe Hedonism Bloggs” or “Tom Red Lion Smith” do you? So why curse someone with a name like “Lucian Yahoo Dragoman”?

Update: A factual correction to this story has now been posted.

I’m not sure where I stand on the issue of increasing licensing hours.

On the good side, there’s clearly a big need to change this country’s attitude to drink, and a change of attitude is most easily brought about by a change in society. As somebody who doesn’t go out to get drunk, I can’t profess to understand why people do this. But I’m sure that people who do it are aware of the probable consequences, and are not going to stop drinking with the knowledge of these. So a cultural change is needed. If that cultural change can be brought about by changing licensing hours, then so be it. This change would also end the problem of all of the pubs closing at 11pm, and the streets being unbearably roudy at this particular time. And it’s simply scaremongering to say that pubs will be open twenty-four hours, since very few places will be able to afford the staff to serve the three local drunks at four in the morning.

On the less-good side, there’s yet to be an extensive trial of these changes, so who can really say whether or not this will change attitudes to drink? If the extention of licensing hours doesn’t result in the the desired change to attitudes, then we’re left with a terrible situation where people will sit and drink themselves silly for much of the night. And it could replace one big period of disturbance with a continuous trickle throughout the night, which would consequently be more difficult to avoid and affect more people.

So I think that we need to have a large-scale trial before we decide whether to go ahead with this idea. I’ve heard the Government pointing to our European neighbours of examples where long licensing hours are not a problem, which does nothing but introduce a chicken-and-egg argument about attitudes to drink and the relevant licensing regulations.

With public concern rising, the Conservatives are now suggesting the liberalisation of hours should be delayed until binge drinking is curbed.

I’ll respect this position when the Tories get round to explaining how they intend to tackle the binge drinking problem. The shameful position they have adopted on this is opportunism at its most infuriating. It’s criticising the Government for the binge drinking problem, and criticising it for trying radical ways to fix it. This isn’t a sensible place to be in an election year, because it makes the Tories appear to lack credibility. Given the current opinion polls (and common sense), this is something they should probably try to avoid weeks before an election.

Medical opinion argues there will be no lessening of alcohol problems until the cost of drink returns to the relative prices of the 1970s. This would imply doubling the price of a £4 bottle of wine and pushing up beer to £5 a pint.

I’m not sure whose medical opinion this is, but it certainly isn’t mine. Doubling the price of alcohol will simply replace one problem with another: Alcoholics, who are found in a higher proportion of poor-income families anyway, will be spending even more money to get their fix, and driving themselves even further into the realms of poverty and thus increasing the crime rate. Increased prices may help to stem the tide of binge drinkers in middle England, but they shouldn’t be helped at the expense of those worse off in society. Increasing prices would bring about a cultural change, but not the one we’re looking for.

If I was given the task of reducing the level of binge drinking in society, I know where I’d start – by asking the people who do it why they do it. If only the Government would take this approach, then maybe they could treat the root cause of the problem rather than the symptoms. There’s my medical opinion.

How David shrank as he faced Goliath (Guardian)

I can’t honestly say that this is one of the ‘great mysteries’ of art that I’ve ever pondered at any length (what is it with me and puns lately?), but it’s good to know that it’s finally been solved, I guess. Or, at least, that a likely hypothesis has been found.

But the remaining mystery is, I think, rather more interesting:

Now we all know why he is rather less substantial in one area than might have been expected, just one great puzzle remains: why, since David was Jewish, did Michelangelo sculpt him uncircumcised?

It was bound to happen… Someone has photoshopped those disturbing photos of Bill Gates. There’s another photoshopped version here, too.

Suspected human-to-human bird flu transmission in Vietnam (New Scientist)

This is an extremely important development, and should be topping news bulletins not buried in amongst the ‘In Briefs’. It is very, very worrying, especially bearing in mind that we’re due for a ‘flu pandemic. This is showing all the signs of being the beginning of this global crisis, and the fact that it’s now being transmitted human-to-human is a major step towards disaster.

This has me worried, and that doesn’t happen very often. Keep a very careful watch on this story.

Outcry over creation of GM smallpox virus (Independent)

This is the great problem with eradicating viruses. It would obviously be silly not to keep samples of the virus, so that a vaccination can be prepared should the virus not have been completely irradicated, but keeping samples means that there’s always the risk that the virus will fall into the wrong hands, which means it’s only prudent to keep researching possible treatments – which leads to a greater possibility the virus will get out, or that a highly virulent strain will be developed by accident.

There’s no easy answer to the problem. But for right now, I’d be more worried about the (probable) forthcoming ‘flu pandemic than some smallpox risk. The risk of a ‘flu pandemic within just a few years killing millions is much greater than the risk of a biological attack using smallpox killing millions in the next few years.

For what it’s worth, I don’t see that introducing the jellyfish gene would be a particularly risky thing to do with this virus, and I wouldn’t be too worried about it if it did go ahead. I think Prof Donald Henderson has very good intentions in speaking out about this, and I can fully understand and sympathise with his point. However, I think that the current research should be given the go-ahead, but future research monitored extremely closely.

Blair: Tory spending plans ‘ludicrous’ (Guardian)

I honestly think that the soundbites from this speech make Mr Blair look worse than he did before.

For him to call his opposition’s plans ‘ludicrous’ makes him look, frankly, silly, especially when the Tories are out saying that they respect that their’s is not the only point of view. It makes Mr Howard look like a considered broadsheet reader, and Mr Blair look like a reactionary red-top fan. Which, of course, is what won the 1997 election for him. But that isn’t to say it’ll work again. In 1997, he had a broad appeal across the country. This time, if he continues to make speeches like this one, he’s going to isolate everyone from upper-middle-class upwards. He would be much better advised to be appealing to middle England, not brushing half of them aside.

From the campaigns so far, the Conservatives should be (but clearly aren’t) miles ahead. The Tories are landing punches on them, and Labour are damaging themselves with their infighting and poor speeches. And the Liberal Democrats need to be considered as a serious threat too, particularly with being seen as the Iraq protest party.

If Mr Blair is looking for a convincing victory, he needs to get back on form. And fast.

US attack on TV gay icon (Telegraph)

Last time I chceked, tolerance was a key plank of the Christian religion. So why is it a problem if SpongeBob Squarepants is spreading a message of tolerance of homosexuals? Kids are not going to magically ‘turn’ gay because their heroic Sponge is a bit camp.

And how did a cartoon Sponge that wears clothes and lives in a pineapple under the sea ever make such a big splash (pun intended) over the pond (I can’t help it) as to make our broadsheets? Do conservative American Christians really not have anything else they could be rallying against? Are there no bigger fish to fry (sorry)? Like ‘One nation, under God’ launching illegal and unjust wars? Or that their country is leading the world towards the destruction of God’s planet?

One of the biggest problems with America today is that they have confused Christianity and patriotism: Quite an acheivement for a country that fiercely defends the separation of Church and State. If you’re not Christian, then you’re anti-American, which is how much of America can justify attacks on Iraq. Surely the leader of a truly Christian nation would end all speeches with ‘Praise God in the highest’, or some other offering of praise, not a request that ‘God Bless America’, which inevitably and inextricably links politics and religion, and offers no pacification to a God that supposedly has the power to cause eternal pain. Frankly, if I believed in that God, I wouldn’t be able to conduct my daily life without fear, as everything I did would have to be out of obessive compulsion to please, or not offend, God. It would be impossible to conduct a normal life with such a belief. The only people who truly demonstrate such a belief are monks and nuns, who I respect highly.

Seven Longhorns to debut in May 2006? (Silicon)

This seems a rather unlikely story – unless, of course, Microsoft have changed their strategy again.

As I understood it, Windows XP was released in its two editions – Home and Professional – to end consumer confusion between the home and NT versions, particularly with reference to the confusion surrounding Windows ME and Windows 2000. If this is the case, then it seems a somewhat backward step to release seven versions of Longhorn. I’m not sure which version I’d have to run, and I’m reasonably computer literate.

At the same time, though, this would be a good move by Microsoft if it meant that the most basic version of Windows could be sold at a very low price, so that it could compete in that field for the home users that Linux and the like are trying to target, since these could become more of a threat over the next few years. And, of course, Microsoft has been shifting in this direction by adding two further editions of Windows XP to the market (Media Centre and Tablet), as well as the stripped-down bargain version sold in countries where piracy is a particular problem. So there are clear advantages to taking this proposed stance on the release of Longhorn, and clear signals that this path is being taken.

This is all speculation, of course. No-one will really know until the blooming thing is released. When will that be? The current prediction is May 2006, but exactly how many times has this project been pushed back? I don’t expect it to ship by May 2006, I expect it to be pushed back once more, but still arrive in time for summer 2006. That’s my prediction.

Update It now transpires that there will, indeed, be seven versions – see here for more (18/09/2005)

Woman Allegedly Gives Crack to Son, 4 (Guardian)

I’m not particularly surprised, and I’m confident that this is not an isolated case. Given the number of things that some parents do to get their children to be quiet, this is just a logical step in the mind of an illegal drug user.