I hold no brief for David Irving. He’s a self-important, sad, weasly little man who is largely the author of his current troubles.

However, I do care about the independence of search engine results.

Try Googling “David Irving” and the first result returned is his official site and that of his publisher, Focal Point. No surprise there.

Except the abstract below the link says: “Web site of disgraced British Holocaust denier David Irving.”

Whatever your own feelings about Irving, it’s clear that he would never thus describe himself. These words occur nowhere in the site’s content, nor in the meta tags.

Remember, Google’s database is generated not by human beings, but by a computer algorithm.

So where did this description originate? Has someone at Google editorialised the entry? If so, how many other entries have been similarly editorialised? I can see a possible case for neutralising or sanitising sites with objectionable indexed content, but the front page merely reads: “Publishers of works of Real History by David Irving and other authors.”

You may argue with Irving’s interpretation of history, as most people will. But to seek to extinguish dissent, however distasteful, is a step on the road to tyranny - about which Google already knows something, having bowed to Chinese censorship of the web in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

Am I allowed to say that I find it all deeply disturbing?

So the team who thought it would be tremendous fun to raise money on the internet to buy and then destroy a brand-new iPod have now repeated that stunt with Microsoft’s much sought-after Xbox 360.

Some might interpret this act as an exciting, practical denunciation of global capitalism and Western consumerism.

Sadly for the team, however, I suspect most of us will interpret it as a desperate, attention-seeking gesture by a friendless bunch of spods whose parents didn’t smack their bottoms often enough.

Anyone who donated money to them may wish to consider this. If you wanted to make a serious point, there were better uses for your money. If you just wanted to participate in a vicarious thrill, you are not “wacky” - you are just sad.

If you’re not already aware that Apple has finally launched an iPod that does video I presume you’ve been holidaying on Neptune.

Hmm. Cupertino cheerleader as I normally am, I just can’t get excited this time. Even when the TV shows which Steve Jobs trumpeted at the launch event make it over to the UK iTunes store, I can’t imagine many people paying £2 a shot to watch.

Surely, if you’re a fan of Desperate Housewives, Lost or whatever, you’re already a cable or satellite subscriber. How else do you become a fan?

So why are people going to pay even more money to watch postage stamp size videos, when you can get a vastly better experience simply by switching on your TV or setting your DVD recorder?

See, this is what you get if you’re a good, brave boy in hospital - oh, and pay a not inconsiderable amount of money.

Oh - apparently Blogger don’t allow you to publish pictures like that, so here instead is my new 17″ iMac G5, which arrived yesterday (whoo-hoo!) after a six-week wait.

Which was nice.

The view from my office window. All this is to determine what I can do when I’m away from the computer. Apologies for the crap quality of my camera phone!