Google, whose motto has been “Don’t be Evil,” has hired lawyers who are concerned about how we commoners ignorantly use the term Google as a verb. They want to protect the Google brand, so that it doesn’t go the way of cellophane, thermos, and other products that have become totally generic. But their me-centric concerns encroach on evilness, and they’ll fully embrace evilness if they take legal action.

We’re told that it’s okay to say you “googled” somebody or something, but only if you did it using the Google search engine. You cannot “google” someone on Yahoo or MSN or Lycos or any other search engine. You can “search” on Ask.com. You can only “google” on Google. This is a matter of cosmic importance.

Google has been a cool company with cool products and services. Now, with this pettiness, they risk losing their street cred and becoming just another bunch of corporate schmucks. Like Microsoft.

Interesting article in BusinessWeek about how the growth of the internet has slowed to a crawl. In the US, 64% of households are connected to the internet. And that percentage is expected to increase to only 65% in the coming year. The explosive growth of the 1990s and early 2000s seems to have hit a wall.

Why? The article sites several factors.

• Setting up a computer and getting connected is just too complicated; many people don’t want the hassle.
• Some people (but not a whole lot) still live in areas where internet access isn’t possible or is difficult.
• People are afraid of it. They hear the stories about identity theft and rampant viruses, and don’t feel capable to figure out how to protect themselves. I resonate with that.
• They see the internet as unncessary. About 6 million peoplehave a computer, but not internet access, and say they won’t subscribe at any price.
• About 31% of non-users say they have internet access at work, and that’s sufficient for their needs.
• Then there’s the senior citizen segment. I know plenty of seniors who use the internet. But according to the article, 60% of people age 65 or older don’t use the internet at all. That surprised me.

There’s also a big segement of younger folk (under age 44) who view the internet as a time-waster, or just don’t want the hassle.

The article says computer and internet companies have failed to make things simpler. Instead, they keep adding new features which will appeal to the early adopters, and that just further intimidates nonusers. The “simpler” argument doesn’t work for me, since I set up a dozen Macs in the past six months. Take it out of the box, turn it on, the machine walks you through a few routine steps–and you’re ready to go.

At the same time, I’ve got a Dell laptop at work, which I use only so I can check to see how my websites look on a PC. That laptop drives me nuts with all the things that keep popping up. It’s hugely intrusive. For my PC readers: I know, there’s undoubtedly some setting I can turn off. But I’d rather just be able to gripe about PCs, if you don’t mind.

In my work, we are doing more and more on the internet, at the expense of print media. This is valid. We’re in survival mode, and we’re looking to the future of the church. But it’s good to know that 35% of our people probably aren’t connected, and it’ll be a number of years before that number drops even to 30%. Our demographics would skew more toward the “middle class” end of things, where you could expect to have more people connected. But we’re also a somewhat rural group, so we’d have plenty of people who only get dial-up, if anything (though in actuality, we’re more of a smalltown denomination, and small towns are connected for the most part).

Anyway, it gives me, as Communications Director, some things to consider.

Finally, finally, the Scott Peterson trial is over. And they found him guilty. I’ve gotten so weary of hearing about this. When it comes on, I change channels. Just can’t stand the guy, and can’t stand the case. Way too much hype.

We’ve had a lot of potential “trials of the century,” but none can beat the OJ Simpson trial. Bill Clinton (impeachment hearings), Martha Stewart, Kobe Bryant, various other–none can really compare with OJ. Interestingly, it’s been ages since I’ve heard anyone–black or white–argue that OJ was innocent. It’s like the whole world realizes he did it, and got away with it. And he did.

The Michael Jackson case could be interesting, if it ever comes to trial. And it looks like it probably will, perhaps even in my lifetime. That could, potentially, unseat OJ, because Michael is a bona fide international celebrity.

And still ahead: Robert Blake (nobody will really care, I suspect), and Saddam Hussein (that’ll be interesting).