Last week, we had a memorial service for those killed in the London bombings. Today is Remembrance Sunday, where we remember those killed at war. And next week, there’s probably some other memorial service for people killed in another horrific tragedy. And all of these kinds of events make me feel the same way: If I died in some extraordinary fashion, I wouldn’t want to be remembered at these services.

There are very few things I can think of which are more depressing than the thought of being remembered for your death, rather than for your life. How many of those killed in the London bombings would want to be remembered as the person killed in a terrorist attack? How many more would prefer to be remembered for the happiness they brought to their family, and the good they did with their lives?

How many servicemen killed in battle would want to be remembered for enduring the worst possible conditions, far from home, only to die in unimaginable pain at the hands of the enemy? How many more would prefer to be remembered for the time they spent with their families, friends, and colleagues before being forced to fight for their country?

When the time comes, if some great atrocity carries me off, if I’m lucky enough to be remembered then please put the end to the back of your mind, and remember my life before you remember my death.

For the last year or so, I’ve been taking part in internet research with a couple of online companies, which basically involves filling in the odd survey they email to me. It’s not bad work – for five minutes here and there, I’ve earned over £35 in the last year – not bad going, I think! Which is why it surprises me that I’ve never blogged about it before. So, as I’ve just requested another £5 voucher for surveys answered, I thought now was as good a time as any to recommend the idea to you.

The two companies who’ve sent most surveys my way are Valued Opinions and YouGov. The former tend to be more generous than the latter – Valued Opinions tend to pay between £1 and £2 per survey (though some offer much, much more), and they’re generally quite short and sweet. They also pay out once your account balance reaches £5, which it obviously does quite quickly at that rate. YouGov tend to be a little more stingy, usually offering about 50p per survey, or just entry into a prize draw. Their surveys often take quite a while to complete, too, and you only get paid when your account balance reaches £50. However, surveys tend to land in your inbox more often with them, and you get paid by cheque whereas Valued Opinions pay you in shopping vouchers of your choice.

Of course, you’re never obliged to take part in any surveys if you don’t have the time or inclination to do so, but the more you take part in, the higher the account balance gets. Some of the surveys are quite interesting too, particularly when it’s research where companies are looking at launching new products, or adverts are being tested out – It’s fun to then see the results of the research hit the real world.

So there you go – it’s a good, easy, and relatively painless way of getting paid (admittedly not huge amounts) for doing relatively little. And isn’t that what we all want?

A couple of years ago, I treated you to the stories of the ill-thought-out domains getfitta.com and powergenitalia.com

Courtesy of Gavin Esler, presenter of the Beeb’s Newsnight, I can share with you some more of these interestingly named sites.

Imagine for a moment that you want to find out who represents a particular celebrity. Some kind of database of agencies and stars might come in handy. But do you really think anyone would believe that explanation if they saw whorepresents.com in your web history?

A site I use from time to time is Experts Exchange. And yet I’ve never noticed quite how the URL – expertsexchange.com – could be misread.

A busy parent might well need to find a therapist – though maybe not through therapistfinder.com – if they send their child to the Mole Station Native Nursery – molestationnursey.com – and try and recommend it to others through that particular address.

And finally, my personal favourite… Where’s the best place on the web to buy pens? Why, Pen Island of course. Check it out today at penisland.com.

That’s all the puerile fun for today, folks!

From today’s G2…

What’s the most offensive thing you could possibly do in public? Squat down and crap on the pavement, or eat a bag of Wotsits? Pretty soon, it’ll be the latter, because eating healthily is now the law, and anyone who disobeys is a demented suicidal pig.

Some day soon, I’ll actually write a post, instead of just pointing you to things I liked… Though, in this case, it’s so funny that I’d quote the whole thing if it didn’t seem impolite, so make sure you click through and read it!

I’m sure my past correspondents at the VES would vehemently disagree with the following, but I found Dr Kathryn Mannix’s letter in yesterday’s Guardian to be considered, interesting, and well-argued:

I am a consultant in palliative medicine and over my 19 years in this area I have been asked about euthanasia by patients many times, but only three patients have ever asked me to provide assistance with their deaths. Patients usually ask about euthanasia as they consider all the future possibilities of dealing with a progressive and incurable illness. But it is a measure of the ability of human beings to cope with situations previously considered unendurable, so few requests for euthanasia actually arise. However, a small number of people continue to consider that they would prefer to be dead, and for them and their supporters the current law is the cause of much criticism.

The bill to legalise assistance with dying, currently before the House of Lords, arises from the argument that to deny assistance is to deny the autonomy, or right to choose, of an individual. Proponents describe this denial as dehumanising, as though exercise of autonomy alone is the mark of human personhood. The humanising aspect of choice is its potential for nobility: as humans, we can reflect on our being and on the consequences of our choices. The right to choose to die with medical assistance, when placed in this context, must be weighed against the nobility of relinquishing this right if its commission would damage other, possibly more vulnerable, members of our society.

The person who is more vulnerable is the person with a terminal illness who acknowledges that the part of their life that is without suffering is over, but who is now afraid that other, powerful people may assume that they would prefer death to continuing to live in this way.

The current law presumes that life should not deliberately be ended. This protects thousands of dying people from any anxiety or uneasy self-doubt that they may be selfish not to opt for euthanasia and relieve their loved ones of a burden of care. It protects doctors from the accusation that we act to end life as we carefully adjust the doses of sedatives that are sometimes needed to control pain for terminally ill people.

To change the law so that euthanasia is permissible would immediately remove these protections, for the benefit of a small but vocal number of patients who would value their own autonomy above the protection of those even more vulnerable than themselves. This bill is clearly grounded in compassion, but it is compassion without clear vision. For the sake of the human dignity of those most vulnerable in our society, legalisation of assisted dying should not be permitted.

This is certainly one argument I haven’t really considered in detail before, but, on balance, I don’t think it radically alters my personal position on the issue; but that’s not to say that I can’t be swayed.

Another letter states that

Recent correspondence was summarised in the current issue of the British Medical Journal as showing an overwhelming response against physician assisted suicide.

This raises a further important question: If the majority of doctors are against the idea of physician assisted suicide, then presumably a majority will choose not to do so, even if given the power, on ethical grounds, in the same way that many doctors refuse to carry out abortions, or directly refer their patients to abortion clinics. Who, then, is to carry it through? Are we to blindly create a new speciality of killing patients? And if so, are these really the best doctors to judge the situation, or would it not be very difficult for a doctor who has never previously met a patient or assessed them over time to truly judge whether a patient is ready and actively wanting to die?

Clearly, there’s a lot of suffering that could be relieved through the legalisation of euthanasia, and I don’t think anyone can deny that. Therefore, it’s difficult to do anything but support the idea in principle. But then, communism works in principle. Reality is often a very different kettle of fish, and hence I can see no other choice than to oppose the proposed legislation.

Hmm… It made me smile… It’s not big, and it’s not clever, but it’s reasonably amusing… May or may not do the same for you… Guess it depends on how long it stays up – not long, I suppose, once the Beeb get wind of it… (via) [Now ending obession with ellipses…]

Good luck to everyone who’s going to pick up their GCSE results today! I really hope you get the grades you wanted – and don’t listen to all the stuff about them getting easier, they say it every year, so don’t let it lessen your sense of achievement. If you haven’t got quite what you wanted, don’t let it worry you too much – I’m sure you’ll find the right way forward for yourself, and be very successful in your own way in the long-run. And for those who did get what they wanted: Congratulations!

Good luck to everyone who’s going to pick up their A-Level and AS-Level results today – I hope you get the grades you wanted, but remember that it’s not the end of the world if you don’t. After all, if you’ve tried as hard as you were willing and the results haven’t come out in your favour, then whatever it is you wanted to do probably wasn’t for you anyway, and you just need to rethink your plans. If you have got what you wanted, then well done, and I’m very happy for you!

Now unfortunately, by the time this appears I’m going to be some considerable distance from my ‘pooter (about 1,100 miles by my calculation – yes, again, I’m positively jet-setting this month!), so I’m not going to be able to catch up with everybody 🙁 I will when I get back though… I haven’t forgotten you!

Thanks to some frankly bizarre decision by the soap-buyer of the household, all of the soap in my house at the moment is of the Grapefruit and Honeydew Melon variety, this coming hot on the heels of a brief flirtation with strawberry soap. Now, perhaps I’m the only one, but I don’t actually want my hands to smell like any kind of fruit product. Indeed, if I’d been handling grapefruits and honeydew melons, I’d wash my hands to remove the smell.

So why are there so many fruit soaps, and so few soaps that actually smell of, well, soap? Looking on a popular online shopping site (Tesco, if you’re interested), there are 40 – that’s forty – kinds of liquid soap scented with fruits, flowers, and other such things that you really wouldn’t want to smell like. There are just 8 – eight – that don’t specify, and so I’m generously assuming smell of soap. So five times more kinds of soap smell of things other than soap, than those soaps which smell soapy. That seems foolish to me. But maybe I just don’t get it.

The evil monster of the ‘Save’ instead ‘Publish’ button strikes again… that’s why this is being published a little over twenty-four hours late… Sorry!

The musical opposition to ID cards is here (via Observer Blog)