You’d think it would be easy to spot when you’re about to send a very inappropriately-worded text message, wouldn’t you? For me, apparently not…

It all started a while back when I finally got around to getting in touch with a very good friend of mine, who I had been a bit lax about staying in touch with recently. She gave me the fantastic news that she was getting married later in the year, and I suggested we meet up to celebrate (and so I could vet the lucky chap). Unfortunately, family issues distracted me and I didn’t follow up. Then yesterday I suddenly remembered that I hadn’t spoken to her for a few weeks, so I resolved to get in touch in the next couple of days.

That brings us to today – a cold Monday morning. The day starts badly – the Jubilee line is down, and as a result the Bakerloo line is overcrowded so they’re not letting people onto the platforms at Baker Street. I eventually have to go via Euston and end up getting to work about half an hour later than normal. As I rush in to the office, I get a text from my friend telling me the date of the wedding – and whilst I am in mid-reply, I walk onto my floor to see my colleague on hands and knees under my desk, power cables everywhere, and not looking happy. Must be another power failure or something – a bad start to the morning looks to be getting worse, so I hurriedly finish my text, basically saying I’ll email her shortly, and get on the floor to help out.

Ten minutes later everything is sorted, and I’m waiting for my laptop to boot up – I’m still a little distracted by the power cables, though. My phone rings.

Me: “Hiya, what’s up?”
Colleague: “Morning. Can you make that design change you suggested?”
Me: “Yeah, sure. I’ll do it when I’m turned on.”
Colleague: “<snigger>”
Me: “What?”
Colleague: “<snigger> What’d you just say?”
Me: “I said I’ll do it when I’m turned on. What’s so… awww, crap, I meant when my LAPTOP is turned…” <pause> <suddenly realising why I’d just automatically used that phrase> “AWWWW, CRAP! NUTS! NOOOO! NUTS! NONONONO NO!” <buries head in hands>

Why had that phrase sprung so readily to mind? Because this is what I’d sent to my soon-to-be-married friend:

“Yay, was just thinking about you last night, will mail you when I’m turned on”

It turns out that no matter how hard you wish for it, time will not rewind to before you hit the ’send’ button on an unfortunately-phrased SMS. Believe me, I tried…

Not much blogging lately – mainly ‘cos of 1) putting together a Sharepoint 2007 Intranet prototype for work and 2) studying for my dual MCTS exams. I’m on a Firebrand bootcamp this week, did the first exam today – 70-631 (scored 945) for WSS configuration. Two  more days of training, then I’ll be doing 70-630.

MCTS: Windows SharePoint Services 3.0 – Configuration

Since this is stuff I deal with day-to-day at work, and WSS 3.o isn’t massively different to 2.0, it’s been fairly straightforward so far (although I have learnt lots of new stuff about firewall configurations and network load balancing – didn’t expect that). However, from working with it for the past few weeks, it seems that MOSS 2007 is a whole new ball game compared to Portal Server 2003, so I’m both looking forward to, and dreading, the next couple of days.I’m keen to learn how all the new stuff works, but it’s going to be hard un-learning four years  or so of SPS2003…!

The BBC recently reported on trials being carried out on speed limiting devices being fitted to cars. Personally, I think this is an excellent idea, and here’s why…

I’ve already got one, although not quite as smart as the ones being proposed, and I love it. It’s standard equipment on the Citroen C4, and works in a similar way to the cruise control – you choose a speed, but instead of keeping you at that speed, it prevents you from exceeding it by accident. It’s entirely optional – I can choose when to turn it on, and it automatically disengages when cruise is engaged or the car is turned off. There are a couple of differences, though – the C4’s speed limiter doesn’t know what the speed limit is for any stretch of road, and it doesn’t apply the brakes to slow you down – indeed, if you’re exceeding the set limit by more than couple of MPH it doesn’t even bother cutting the engine, it just waits for your speed to get below the limiter then it cuts back in again.

So, although it’s not as smart as the speed limiters being proposed, it does come in very handy. First off, I much prefer not having to keep an eye on my speed all the time. Less time looking at the speedo = more time looking at the road. I particularly don’t have to worry about speed cameras – since I can’t exceed the limit, I know I’m not going to get flashed and can instead concentrate on the idiot in front, who has only just noticed the camera and slammed on the anchors. Also, I know that in, say, a 30 area, I’m not going to accidentally creep up to 35-40ish and increase the risk of causing serious injury to any pedestrian who jumps out in front of me. Sure, there might be people stuck behind me who wish I was doing 35 or 40, but If I was to hit and injure someone because of exceeding the limit it would be me who’d have to suffer the consequences – so excuse me if I’d rather stick to the limit.

Now, as always, there’s some muppet giving it all that about how it’s the Worst Idea Ever. In this case, it’s Claire Armstrong, from the road safety campaign group Safe Speed, saying that the devices could be dangerous.According to her, and no jokes about women drivers please, truck drivers have gone into “zombie states” when using speed limiters. Ok, first off, we’re talking about regular car drivers here, not truck drivers who drive all day and are under a totally different set of stresses when it comes to driving. If you were faced with 400 miles of motorway at 60mph every day, you’d be a zombie as well. And secondly, if people do stop paying attention, isn’t going to be better that they crash at 30 instead of 60 or something?!

Claire has backup, though – Derek Charters, from MIRA, says limiting speed automatically could cause accidents.

“The last thing you need is one car to be overtaking and then pull back in, in front of the cars in front, because that braking event will then cause everybody to start to slow down, which will then compress the traffic, which then causes an incident.”

Again, Derek is missing a few subtle points here. First off, if every one was using these things, there’d be no overtaking of the sort he describes. Secondly, if everyone was using these things, the traffic would be going at slower speeds anyway, and apparently this helps to avoid those “phantom” traffic jams – you know, the ones where you’re stuck in a jam for no apparent reason.

So those are a coiple of negative views on the idea – how about a positive? How many times have you been driving along in a 30 zone, and it’s gone into a 40 or 50 zone – only the car in front isn’t paying attention and is sticking at 34mph? Surely that’s just as dangerous – the driver behind the slower car knows the limit has been increased, and that the car in front hasn’t noticed, and is now getting worked up about being held back. He’ll start to look for any way to overtake, possibly choosing a risky spot and putting his, and other’s, safety at risk. However, with these speed limiters, the car would know about the higher limit and – assuming you’re already pushing the accelerator – your speed will increase too. Result: less road rage, fewer hold-ups due to people not observing the limits, and possibly smoother journeys. And be honest, how many times have you beend riving through one of those 40 areas where there are houses, then it’s gone into a 30 zone and you haven’t noticed? Again, these devices would ensure that you if you round a bend and come face-to-face with Mr Plod and the business end of his radar gun, he won’t be waving you over for a little chat.

Sure, there could be problems – the addition of braking does raise the possibility of accidents. For example, the system glitching and accidentally thinking you’re on the 30mph service road alongside the dual carriageway you’re on, and slamming on the brakes by mistake. Anyone with a satnav will have seen it get a bit confused and think you’re on the next road over or something – there’d need to be some serious accuracy for this to not be an issue. And I assume if it can’t get a GPS lock it’ll disengage. I guess the “optional” part of this tech means that you can turn it off – of course, if you have an accident (or are caught speeding) and you’ve turned the system off, that would probably not help your case – so that’s another reason to use it!

Anyway, if they can ensure there are no false positives (for want of a better term), I can’t wait for this kit to be available – I’ve added to it to my list of “Things any car I buy must have”, along with aircon, ABS, cruise control, iPod connectivity and a panoramic glass sunroof. Which pretty much means I’m tied down to Citroens or Mercedes at the moment…

After much faffing about with CMS sites, I’ve decided that it’s just simpler to go with a blog format for my site. Having set up a blog for our wedding (www.peggyandandy.co.uk) already, I think it’ll do what I need it to do without any major limitations.

I’ll mainly be blogging about tech, but there’ll be the odd topical observation here or there as well. Hopefully a little more useful than “by ‘eck it’s cold tonight”, but don’t count on it.