Whilst Googling around today, I noticed a sponsored link...

Linux vs. Windows
Which do you choose when
reliability is key? Get the facts.
www.microsoft.ca/getthefacts

.... which redirects to this site. Allegedly, "an overwhelming 88% of corporations report that Microsoft's Windows Server 2003 operating system provides performance and reliability that are equal to or better than Linux in comparable usage scenarios".

Reading on, "corporate enterprises rate Windows security nearly on par with comparable Linux networks".

Nearly on par does not equal on par. These stupid assertions were made nearly 2 years ago, since this article is dated April 2005.

Microsoft, if you're going to dabble in negative campaigning, at least keep it fresh.

One thing that never ceases to annoy me are the flyers that spammers stuff into my mailbox. Unlike the email spammers (typically penis enlargement pills and other fake pharmaceuticals) and telejunkers (usually duct cleaning and windows) it seems that mailbox spam is not limited to hawking one particular thing.

Tonight, I get home from work to find a religious flyer in my mailbox. I won't mention the faith in question, because (a) it's largely irrelevant and (b) I don't wish to incite hatred by labeling one particular faith as more spammy than another.

The contents of the flyer itself are not worth commenting on - I didn't even waste any time reading it, but what is laughable is the one-liner at the top of the flyer that caught my eye: "Note: This publication uses the Holy Scriptures; discard it with the proper care". Of course I'll discard it with the proper care - it's on plain paper, so it went quite nicely straight into the recycling bin. What did they want me to do with it? Bury it? Cremate it? Mail it back?

Warning: the external links referenced in this article will most likely generate popups - do not click on them unless you are one of these fabled people who actually like popups, or if you have a popup blocker in your browser.

Whilst Googling around today, I chanced upon an (old) news article on The Times of India.

Luckily, I am running Mozilla Firefox, which has a built-in popup blocker.

According to my browser, "Firefox prevented this site from opening 7 popup windows". That's right, SEVEN popups. Clicking on "Options" shows 7 URL's off of 4 unique domains.

This is the sort of bullshit that makes the 'Net suck. Obviously, enough people made enough noise for Microsoft to finally integrate a popup blocker in version 7 of Internet Exploiter, long after Opera and Mozilla implemented it in their browsers.

I understand that most sites (especially those that have no corresponding offline presence) need to make revenue and I have no problem with small file-size banner ads in principle. If I am interested in a banner, I'll click on it, rest assured. I will never *EVER* buy or subscribe to anything displayed in a popup.

The same idiocy is practiced by the tuckfards at experts-exchange.com. They evade popup blockers by deliberately obfuscating the JScript to launch a popup, even fooling Firefox:


<script language=javascript><!--
document.write('<scr'+'ipt language=javascript src="http://a.tribalfusion.com/j.ad?site=*removed*
&adSpace=*removed*&size=468x60&type=horiz&noAd=1&requestID=*removed*">
</scr'+'ipt>');
//-->
</script>

[note the obligatory misnomer domain name, indicative of most dotcom-only junk-monger companies these days]

Particularly ironic - given that experts-exchange is a tech resource site, they should already be enclued into how annoying popups really are.

So, webmasters, get a clue: no-one likes popups, so lose them already!

(1) Posted a complaint at The Beeb's Watchdog site.

(2) Posted an abbreviated summary on British Ex-Pats so that other British-Canadians aren't taken for a ride (or flight) by this unscrupulous company.

(3) Posted a complaint with the BBB of Vancouver.

(4) Emailed the acquaintance, who originally recommended Canadian Affair to me, so that they are kept in the loop.

(5) ABTA action will follow when I can find the time to mail off copies of the correspondence to England.

(6) Proving yet again that there is some truth in anagrams: according to Wordsmith.org, an anagram of "The Airline Seat Company", Canadian Affair's other name, is "I emplane, a cheat in story".

My first blog post in a quite a while and it's going to be a long one.

July/August 2005:
My wife, my son and I travel to England to visit my folks for two weeks, flying from Toronto Pearson [YYZ] to Birmingham International [BHX] on Thomas Cook flight #TCX4L. Outbound flight: no problems. Return flight #TCX4K: I am refused boarding, because my British passport (with accompanying perma-resident visa stamp and landing papers) plus Canadian credit, debit and Ontario health cards, are not sufficient proof of Canadian perma-residency, even though my visa stamp and landing papers quite clearly show that I am a perma-resident, not on a student or visitors' visa. The fact that both my wife and son share my last name and that my flight originated at YYZ, is lost on the over-zealous security staff at BHX.

I am forced to cough-up CDN$433 to purchase a one-way ticket for use in returning me back to the UK within 6 months, because Canadian Affair is "acting on instruction from Canadian Immigration" (lie #1 in quotes - explanation will follow later). Thos Cook's travel rep at BHX, Kosmar, say that they do not have access to credit card facilities, even though they are authorised agents for Thos Cook/The Airline Seat Company Ltd (AKA/TA Canadian Affair). Luckily, I have the cash to buy a one-way ticket back to the UK. The Security Officer, who refused me boarding, said that the ticket must be valid for a return flight back to the UK within the next 6 months (the maximum time I can stay in Canada without a special visa) yet Kosmar issues me with a return flight of TCX4L on August 19th. This will become apparent when I summarise my conclusions later.

When I finally arrive back at YYZ, I have no problems with Canadian Passport Control, given my landing papers and passport stamps that proves I've been living in Canada for the past 2 years without any time outside of Canada over 6 months (this is the requirement to maintain perma-residency status). The Passport Control Officer informs me that whilst it is not 100% required, it is preferred that I have my perma-residency card to speed up the entry process. This confirms Thos Cook's first lie: if they were "acting on instructions from Canadian Immigration", then I would have had to either get back on the next plane to the UK (not possible, since the next available flight, TCX4L, is a week away - they only fly/flew out once a week) or I would have to call a relative to bring my perma-resident card to the airport. Neither were required.

According to Canadian Affair's booking terms and conditions (current, looks different to how I remember it when I wrote my my complaint) all complaints must be made within 1 month of return. I faxed my complaint letter on August 25th, thereby satisfying that requirement. Foolishly, given the time-constraint for a complaint submission, I expected a speedy reply - naturally my optimism was mis-placed, because it took Canadian Affair around 6 weeks and 2 chase-up calls to reply. Their letter was dated just "September 2005", but the postmark on the hand-written addressed envelope states October 2nd. This should have been a subtle clue to the sequence of mis-information that would follow from them.

The letter, written by Katherine Tam, Office Manager, Canadian Affair Vancouver, states that "The security officers as you can appreciate are acting on instruction from Canadian Immigration. Although you did have your Social Insurance number and bank cards this is unfortunately not sufficient prove [sic] to enter Canada with a one way ticket". Lie #2: my ticket was not one-way - it was a return ticket, originating from YYZ. Tam continues: "This is because temporary residents can actually obtain such items and not need to surrender such cards upon departure". Lie #3: my passport visa stamp shows that I am a category "IM-1" immigrant, ie. a perma-resident, NOT a temporary resident. Also, temp residents cannot obtain an OHIP card. Tam goes on further to state: "Therefore Canadian Immigration would normally want to see your Permanent Residency also as prove [sic] of your immigration status". Correct, Canadian Immigration would prefer to see my perma-resident card, but it was not necessary when I arrived back at YYZ. Tam then closes out with the following two paragraphs: "I have arranged for a refund of $433 to be sent to you, this will arrive shortly from our Head Office in the UK. We apologies [sic] for the inconvenience caused and hope that you will still choose to fly with Canadian Affair in the future."

I took this to mean that, yes, perhaps I should have had the perma-resident card with me, but that in the interests of good faith, Canadian Affair would be sending me an ex‑gratia refund (not even a little extra on top for all my efforts). Lie #4: payment never came. Fast-forward to December 27th, when I used the extra-long holiday period to sit down and chase up any unfinished business (and the same day I actually got around to starting this blog). I faxed a chase-up letter 2 days later, including a copy of Tam's letter and confirmed receipt with Celia later in the day. Fast forward to April, following 4 months of busy home and work life. My folks asked if I ever got a resolution out of Canadian Affair. This prompted me to call them yet again for an answer. Called on April 26th or 27th and spoke to Russell, who claimed to be a Supervisor. He advised that Katherine Tam was now working in their Glasgow office. Understandably, given that it was already 1900h Eastern Time, he advised that he would not be able to contact her until the next day. Russell promised me a callback the next day, after speaking with Tam. I gave both my work and home numbers. Unsurprisingly, I received no calls or voicemails the next day(s) or on the Monday. So, I called one more time on Saturday May 27th and spoke to Scott, who advised that Tam was back at their Vancouver office. I advised Scott that unless I received a favourable response on Monday May 29th, I would be issuing a charge-back on the original booking (about CDN$1800 versus the amount of CDN$433 I was claiming back) since Canadian Affair did not provide me with the original return-flight service that was paid for in June 2005. Scott would not comment beyond repeating the words "you will receive a call-back on Monday" and again took my work number - he only had my home number on file.

Sure enough, I did get a callback on Monday, but Tam left a voicemail on my home number, requesting a callback. Called Tam on Tuesday 30th and re-issued my threat of the charge-back, which evidently did not get relayed by Scott. Tam advised that after writing her letter in September/October, she referred my complaint to her Head Office and that they wrote to me "shortly afterwards" to turn down the refund request. I never received a second letter, nor any response to my chase-up fax in December or phone call in April, but that is beside the point: Tam had already promised me a refund in her original letter. I advised Tam that if she did not have the authority to issue refunds, she had no business promising me something that could be overridden by another office and, notwithstanding their decision, their communication and general customer service had been extremely poor to-date. Tam once more advised that she would speak with her Head Office and this time relay my charge-back threat.

Tam called back the next day, Wednesday 31st May 2006, to advise that their decision stands and that they would fight any charge-back attempt.

To summarise:
(1) Canadian Affair will use any means necessary to generate extra "revenue" by disingenuously hiding behind "immigration rules" and will hold passengers' return flights ransom, until such time the ransom is paid in cash. It is now obvious as to why Kosmar "could not" take credit-cards for the ransom - Canadian Affair evidently knows that it is exploiting a grey area of the "immigration rules" and obviously wants to reduce the number of legitimate charge-backs. Any passenger, who does not have timely access to cash in Canadian or UK currency, will be shafted - even if they have a life, job and family to get back to in Canada. Any ticket purchased will be under duress, therefore under ransom. Kosmar issues return flights for the next available flight, not for the 6 months - evidently and purposely so that I cannot cancel the return flight for a refund and for them to be able to resell the seat.
(2) Canadian Affair have the temerity to demand complaints to be submitted within one month of the return date, yet will play for time, hoping that complainants will forget to follow up on their claim.
(3) Canadian Affair, when chased, will promise a refund (even on an apparent ex-gratia basis).
(4) Canadian Affair, when chased some more, will play for more time, hoping that complainants will eventually forget or give up. This is presumably intended to make the complainant "shut up and go away".
(5) Canadian Affair, when chased yet again, will then break the refund promise - they will not even have the courtesy or guts to inform the hapless complainant that they have turned down the claim.
(6) Canadian Affair will openly lie about having written a follow-up letter.
(7) As per Canadian Affair's own website: "Canadian Affair is the trading name of a privately owned company called The Airline Seat Company Limited" and "Canadian Affair maintains strategic alliances with Thomas Cook Airlines and My Travel Airways which are exclusive to the company's Canadian routes". According to a Google search, My Travel Airways were formerly known as "The Air Touring Company" aka Airtours. Airtours have had numerous complaints exposed on the BBC's consumer affairs programme Watchdog. It is no small surprise that Canadian Affair should "maintain strategic alliances" with such a disreputable company, even if the flights themselves were on Thomas Cook, not My Travel.

My recommendation: If flying to/from Canada/UK, fly with KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (maybe no direct flights, but good connections via Amsterdam Schipol) or Air Transat. Never had a problem with either airline - I went with Canadian Affair on the recommendation of an acquaintance. Next time, we're going with KLM or Air Transat for sure.

Some good news in today's 24hrs: "The City of Brampton is slapping big fines on those accused of causing advertising pollution. Anyone caught posting signs on public property without a permit could face a whopping $5,000 fine".

It's about time that municipalities went after the street-spamming morons who litter public property with those nasty choroplast signs and bits of paper taped to the sides of bus shelters. It's nothing but commercial graffiti.

Hopefully, the rest of the cities in the GTA will follow suit.

Saw an interesting story on Wednesday in 24hrs, a free daily news rag in the GTA. It looks like one of the big Canadian ISP's is trying to bilk its customers into paying more for a high-priority internet service (what Shaw Communications calls "QoS Enhancement"). This is presumably done in a protection racket-type effort to provide a "reliable" connection for its customers who subscribe 3rd-party VoIP services. Naturally, there is a plug for Shaw's own VoIP service (called "Shaw Digital Phone") with a link at the end of the "QoS Enhancement" page.

Of course, Vonage's cries of "VoIP Tax!" aren't without merit, but this is old news. Primus has had the same ongoing problem since at least May 2005, according to this blog. However, it looks like Vonage is actually trying to do something about it, by complaining to the CRTC.

Shaw's rebuttal is less-than-convincing. It is laughable that Shaw should claim that "contrary to Vonage's claim, Shaw does not offer an Internet telephony service in direct competition with Vonage or any other Internet phone provider. Shaw's Digital Phone service is a carrier-grade, primary line, local and long distance residential telephone service that uses a managed IP network. Shaw Digital phone calls travel directly from Shaw's secure private network to the tried-and-true public telephone system. They do not travel over the Internet. The result is a more reliable and higher quality phone service". Nonsense, Shaw, it's still VoIP. Even though it's not provided through a 3rd-party carrier, it still uses an IP telephony network, ergo it's VoIP by definition.

What contempt Shaw must have for its customers, if they think everyone is so stupid as to not know what VoIP is and how it works. Hopefully, the CRTC will slam them good. I'm glad I'm not a Shaw customer.

Related perma-link.

Ordered some goodies from the GoogleStore website about 3 weeks ago. Unfortunately, one of the items I wanted wasn't in stock, but GatewayCDI couldn't tell me how much it would cost to ship the order for the in-stock items until everything came into stock 3 weeks later. When they finally told me that the shipping would cost almost half as much as the goods, I cancelled the order.

This is the sort of idiocy that happens when a company outsources its services. GoogleStore had some cool goodies on their site, but due to their dire customer service and excessive shipping costs, they've lost a sale.

Having worked in e-commerce, I can say that it is not impossible to calculate the shipping costs on-the-fly - there is no reason why they couldn't have told me the shipping costs as I placed them in my shopping cart.

GoogleStore: dump GatewayCDI and either do the e-commerce in-house, or find a better outsourced e-commerce solution with cheaper shipping.

Decided to add a bit more to my blog customisation to gradually move away from Minima Black, one of the default Blog*Spot templates. I initially chose Minima Black, because I find pages with white backgrounds too hard on the eye.

However, I don't want my blog to look just like all the other Minima Black-based blogs out there, so I added some animated .gif's, courtesy of Flaming Text. Then I coded some JavaScript that is called when the <$BlogItemTitle$> meta-tag is used in the template, referencing either <Rant> or <Rave> in the blog title. Now I have a customised blog title, stating if the blog entry is negative (rant) and/or positive (rave).

Finally, another part of the script keeps track of how many rants and raves I have posted (in the current blog index) which is displayed over on the right-hand side-bar.

More lameness from Spike TV, this time from their Wednesday night offering, Casino Cinema, which featured John Landis' classic comedy Trading Places. Despite branding themselves "The First Network For Men", Spike aired the heavy-cut version of the film, removing any and all references to profanity and nudity.

To make matters worse, Casino Cinema stops after every 7-8 mins for a commercial break and/or feature on gambling, which totally detracts from the film. What could have taken 2½ hours (with commercials) actually ended up lasting 3 hours.

Bravo! on the other hand, screened it uncut and with limited commercial interruptions tonight. Maybe there are stricter restrictions on what American channels can show - if so, it's ironic that US channels can't show US-made films uncut.