Getting into World of Warcraft for the first time means hours of grinding: performing the same tasks over and over to “level up” a character. But far from being boring, grinding is one of the great unsung joys of gaming.

Last week, I finally decided to start playing World of Warcraft again. And you know what that means: Exciting medieval adventures! Chess-like strategizing with guildmates over raid techniques!

And, of course, grinding.

Hours upon hours of mind-numbing grinding.

The article goes on to discuss the psychology behind grinding, and why despite this truly burdensome element, people continue to pay monthly subscriptions.  Without going into too much psychology, a subject of which I am a novice and an expert in my own mind, let me offer the simplest explanation for the acceptance of grinding.

Essentially, grinding offers users a way to kill time, blow off steam that might be building in real life ventures and simply beat stuff up.  From the very first video games until now, there always was and will be a repetitive idea that lives on in virtual worlds.   Think about simple, but popular video arcade games like Pac-man, Centipede, and Space Invaders.

Sure, the addiction element may not be anywhere near as sophisticated as that found in World of Warcraft or other MMORPGs, but designers today are paid to make addiction happen.  Without addiction, games become yesterday’s news and there is no way they’d last beyond a few months to a year on the replay value scale.

As for my gaming habits, I notice that some of the most fun I have gaming involves repetitive and violent bludgeoning of pixels that resemble an enemy.  In the real world, you might consider how hunters love stalking and destroying their prey.  In the virtual world, the feeling is very much the same with the only consequence being that the time I spend hunting or destroying monsters online is time I could have spent doing something more productive.

When the hockey star Sean Avery took an internship at Vogue earlier this summer, the work uniform that the fashion-besotted left wing chose included a shorts suit that showcased his athletic calves.

“Why go to work and be hot?” he asked last week, adding that there was no compelling business reason to look modest and dull on the job. “You can look good and not have that boring-type look,” said Mr. Avery, who signed with the Dallas Stars this summer after several seasons with the Rangers. “Why are women allowed to do it and not men?”

I write a lot about politics so I was a bit amused by the characterization of this style as being borne from “left-wing” thinking in the fashion industry.  Well, it definitely is NOT conservative.. but the style isn’t really “liberal” — it’s just uhh what is the word I’m looking for.

Ahh yes, DUMB.

Well, to each their own I guess. If you’re interested in flirting with getting fired at your top notch law or accounting firm, by all means give it a try. You can read more about this business fashion blunder and the reasoning behind the fashion statement, here.

On Wednesday, LinkedIn will announce that it has raised $53 million in capital, primarily from Bain Capital Ventures, a Boston-based private equity firm. The new financing round values the company at $1 billion. That heady valuation is more than the $580 million that the News Corporation paid for MySpace in 2005, but less than the $15 billion value assigned to Facebook last year when Microsoft bought a minority stake.

According to Science Now,

Many vaccines contain adjuvants, nonspecific agents that help jolt the immune system into action. “Alum,” a term referring broadly to aluminum hydroxide and several aluminum salts, has this effect, as was accidentally discovered in the 1920s. It has been widely used in human vaccines since the 1950s, and it’s still the only adjuvant allowed in the United States. “But we didn’t really have a clue about how it worked,” says immunologist Harm HogenEsch of Purdue University’s School of Veterinary Medicine in West Lafayette, Indiana.

I generally like to know why certain forms of treatment are needed whenever I turn to medical professionals for help.  I guess as long as we ‘know’ it isn’t dangerous, some people are more willing to stick anything in their bodies!

The KC-767 has a superior survivability rating and will have greater operational utility to the joint commander and provide better protection to aircrews that must face real-world threats,” said former U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff and retired Gen. Ronald Fogleman, in a Boeing statement.

Cryptome reports that the US National Security Agency (NSA) has remote administrative access to several of the most popular Windows PC firewalls, and that it has also taken control of a number of supposedly “secure ” email services within the past few months.

 The article contends that personal computer firewall software products from MacAfee, Symantec, Zone Alarm all help Microsoft’s NSA-controlled remote admin access via ports 1024 – 1030 without using a security flag.

The Inquirer has this equally interesting food for thought:

“Certain privacy [and/or] full session SSL email hosting services have been purchased [or] changed operational control by NSA and affiliates within the past few months, through private intermediary entities.”

src: NSA 0wns popular ‘firewalls’ and ’secure’ e-mail services

I’m not a fan of spying on American citizens without a warrant, I’ve previously assaulted  AT&T with phrases like “the network you can trust is a fraud” and “the network you can’t afford to trust.”  The fact of the matter is, it isn’t simply a problem that is pervasive among a handful of corporations.  It’s how government and corporations are in bed together, how consumers and citizens do not have people protecting their rights and how NSA justice believes that balancing the harms, this is the only way to roll.

From Information Week: “Firefox gains on internet explorer in business”

If IE7 isn’t taking off in enterprises, it’s questionable whether Microsoft should expect any better in IE8. Analyst firm Gartner cautioned last month that IE8’s default standards mode could break enterprise applications. Apps might not render properly if they’ve been developed primarily for earlier, non-standards- compliant versions of IE. Gartner wrote then that companies should “strive to design for standards, not browsers.”

 Looking after the interests of end-users rather than corporate agendas?  Sounds like a plan to me!

Many companies appear to be perfectly content with staying with IE6 until they see something better. The same thinking has been part of the reason for the slow take-up of Windows Vista in enterprises. And some of the security features added by IE7 and IE8 don’t work unless Vista is installed, so the pace of Vista uptake could also weigh on IE’s own upgrades.

It makes sense that in business, upgrading browsers isn’t a big deal because the computer primary use should be focused on productivity and not web applications.  The only exception being Tech companies that focus on web design and development.

 Factoring in two or three days for the bill to arrive, two or three days for the check to get back to AT&T, and a Sunday or two, that leaves three to five days for customers to pay their bills before the angry letters and phone calls begin.

In the age of the Internet, this may seem reasonable because payments should be in on or around the due date, except the problem in this case is that notices of late payment or non-receipt come only a few days before collection harassment officials are notified.

Over the years, the Blackberry has set the standard for business cell phones and now the iPhone has set the standard for media enriched cell phones for higher class consumers.  The question that remains to be answered is, “Will these ambitious super-gadgets go mainstream?”  To Apple enthusiasts and Silicon Valley nerds, the answer is obvious.  Over a million iPhones sold within months after release, are you kidding?  It’ll absolutely be mainstream in a few years!

Consider design, consumption and use

I might have given the answer above without hesitation last fall, but then it occurred to me that these phones are highly targeted pieces of equipment.  Take the Blackberry for example, it serves a purpose that is unparalleled in the business world.  Like the Rolodex, it has created for greater efficiency and increased productivity  and that’s just taking push e-mail and personal management features into account.

The iPhone, Apple’s prized gadget, takes a kitchen sink approach and meshes it all well using Apple’s trademark simplicity approach.  At a price of $600-$800 retail, not including the price of a contract and data plan, this phone — although profitable — has limited revenue potential.

Next Generation Cellular Phones – Evolution through Devolution?

Depending on how you characterize advancement, you might fall in love (as I have) with the concept of turning back the clock on cellular design and offering a Googlesque approach to design.

Googlesque, what the heck does that even mean?

Lets face it, part of how Google took over the world is it simplified search, it killed the garbage “home page portal” ambition (see MSN, Yahoo, AOL) and provided you with a Google search box.  Well, what if we could implement the same concept with mobile phones?  Think about the possibilities of a simple, flashy design that would be affordable and available for mass consumption?  Someone already has, here’s a fresh new look at cellular designs for next generation simplicity.

First Look at the Mimique Cell Phone Design

I’ve got the scoop on the new design, it comes on good authority from a member of the RKS team.

The “Mimique” Concept

This new cellular design looks to take a different approach from the newer generation of feature-heavy cell phones.   The team was aiming for a playful, engaging and simple “old-school” design using next generation style and technology.

I’d have to agree with that description, let’s take a closer look.

Mimique Cell Phone Profile

According to the RKS, the Mimique will make use of “new open-source, cell phone software” — hmm, Android anyone?  It includes downloadable “skins” that allow changing of the graphical interface to match the consumer’s mood or personal style.  The mimique design promises to provide a phone for everybody, especially typical consumers that don’t require the extra baggage that comes with newer and more expensive business and entertainment cell phones.   I think I’ve adequately explained why the idea of simplicity and usability is so appealing given the direction of current cellular technologies and unintuitive designs.

Of course, being the inquisitive person that I am, I had to probe for more information and received some literature from the design team:

Where the Mimique really sets itself apart is that it is designed to take advantage of the new, open-source cell phone technologies being developed by Google and the Open Handset Alliance. This barrier-breaking technology would allow users to customize their phones to work and look exactly the way they want.  [...] Best of all, it means that you’ll no longer be forced to pay for features you don’t want. You get to pick and choose exactly the features you want to create your own perfect phone.

So why change direction in design, are there other benefits besides reclaiming the phone for consumers through intuitive new-age design?

The combination of open source software and touch-screen technology will make the Mimique easily upgradable.  Today, if someone comes out with new cell phone features, you have to buy a new cell phone to get that feature. But with the Mimique, you’ll just download the new feature to your phone and you’re good to go. This will greatly extend the lifespan of the phone itself, because the features are never locked into the design.  With the Mimique, you’ll always have the newest, coolest phone on the block, because it’s the one phone designed to be everything you want and nothing you don’t.

Will this concept catch on?  I think it has a ton of potential and if marketed properly, I’ve no doubt this will kick off a new era of cellular design. If you’d like to take a look at the design on their website, you can visit RKS design here: “Mimique  Concept”

Wii Crossbow, are you ready for it? 

The article is “World Billionaires – 2008” – here’s the list:

ArsTechnica had the lowdown on some of the odd packet routing issues that resulted on Sunday, here’s  an excerpt:

On Sunday, YouTube became unreachable from most, if not all, of the Internet. No “sorry we’re down” or cutesy kitten-with-screwdriver page, nothing.  What happened was that packets sent to YouTube were flowing to Pakistan. Which was curious, because the Pakistan government had just instituted a ban on the popular video sharing site. What apparently happened is that Pakistan Telecom routed the address block that YouTube’s servers are into a “black hole” as a simple measure to filter access to the service. However, this routing information escaped from Pakistan Telecom to its ISP PCCW in Hong Kong, which propagated the route to the rest of the world.

Insecure Routing redirects Youtube to Pakistan

Virtual Pressroom

Microsoft Makes Strategic Changes in Technology and Business Practices to Expand Interoperability

February 21, 2008

Microsoft today announced a set of broad-reaching changes to its technology and business practices to increase the openness of its products and drive greater interoperability, opportunity and choice. These changes are codified into four new interoperability principles and corresponding actions: 1) ensuring open connections; 2) promoting data portability; 3) enhancing support for industry standards; and 4) fostering more open engagement with customers and the industry, including open source communities.

The Microsoft site has the details, audio and video highlights of the press release and changes in MS policy.

Engadget published this piece on the cynicism that is widespread in the industry regarding this latest MS statement.

Echoing the reactions of many to Microsoft’s decision to open things up this morning, the European Commission issued a statement this morning saying that while it welcomes any moves towards “genuine interoperability,” it’s not going to believe it until it sees it — it’s counted four similar announcements by Redmond in the past, with nothing to show for it. Of course, Microsoft is currently being investigated for antitrust violations in Europe, so there’s a whispered belief that the new steps are a ploy to derail that process, but that’s pretty doubtful — and the EU’s not having it anyway, saying that “Today’s announcement by Microsoft does not address the tying allegations.”

Meanwhile, the WSJ had commentary on possible motives, but seemed more trusting of the Silicon Valley giant.

Skeptics will argue that it’s a peace offering to regulators in Europe, where Microsoft is under constant scrutiny, and to regulators in the U.S., where a successful acquisition of Yahoo would undergo close scrutiny.

Finally, Venture Beat has an interesting spin on the future of Microsoft that is not laced with spite and distrust as most commentary on the story.

With Ray Ozzie taking over as chief software architect for the departing Bill Gates, there is certainly a chance the company actually means to change its ways going forward. Ozzie, a veteran of Lotus Notes and Groove, two collaboration-based applications, would seem to have a mindset more in line with the open Internet. However, as they say, actions speak louder than words.

“If you can read this, then you’ve more than likely downloaded this album from a peer to peer network or torrent. You probably expect the rest of this message to tell you that you’re hurting musicians and breaking just about every copyright law in the book. Well, it won’t tell you that.”

Lecture averted, he fills the rest of this document sharing an artist’s frustration with current music distribution methods. Jordan stresses donating as a means of supporting the music rather than paying retail outlets who he claims can take up to 8x more from record sales than the actual artist. Also warning against trying to support them via ITunes, he informs that none of their material sold via this method has showed any profit to the actual artist and they are currently in a legal battle with the digital music distributing Goliath.

Instead Jordan stresses purchasing directly from the label Alphabasic.com where “the artists usually receive over 90% of the actual money coming from your wallet”. Not only will the money be going to the party it should, their library contains a collection of lossless, DRM-free downloads. You can even donate directly to the band where 100% of your contribution will go to the band.

And though Jordan states he isn’t certain that the donation method is the right plan for the long term, I’m glad to see the waters being tested. My guess is that the failing of this method will be that while you might initially have groups of people who pay $1 for the album and groups who might pay $20 or something equally overboard to make the band think they are cool, eventually you’ll probably be left with the first group. I eagerly await the results and will keep an eye on Jordan’s blog for continuing information.

The industry certainly needs shaking up a bit, and I can’t imagine a better way to stick bees in the bonnets of the big wigs than artists willingly going to p2p networking. Perhaps inspired by Radiohead’s recently donation distribution method, I have to admire the risk taken by Jordan and I hope to see more of such moxy in the future.

While I may have once been a hard sale on digital distribution, mourning the idea of losing that physical object with its album art and new CD smell, I find myself less and less reaching for a CD and all the more often reaching for my Ipod or firing up Winamp. In fact, the only time I’ve handled music on disk in the last year or so was to burn a mixed CD for a friend or two. My only concern with digital-only music is the cold terror that awakens me at night and makes me clutch my chest in fear; a hard drive crash. Which is why I have about 5 backups of my music collection, as I imagine do many music lovers who keep their collection stored digitally. I don’t know how many backup their music to a hard drive in another state, but I feel confident that I am not alone in my paranoia.

You may see the entire read-me on the label’s site: http://www.alphabasic.com/Please_read.html

Here are a few links from Yahoo’s Tech section that could come in handy if you need to catch up on the drama:

In response to eBay’s recent announcement that it would no longer allow sellers to leave negative feedback for buyers, the uproar has been deafening. How deafening? So loud that a boycott has been planned, set to begin tomorrow on February 18, 2008 and run for (at least) a week.

The article seems to suggest that the boycott won’t last because there are few other options available for merchants.  I’d tend to agree with the author and I think in the end this is the right thing to do for consumers.  If certain consumers act in bad faith, it’s easy to report them or even take legal action if necessary.   You can read more about this issue, here:  “eBay Boycott Begins Tomorrow: Will it work?“

Well, one expert thinks this is not a good route for venture capitalism to take.

Paul S. Kedrosky, a venture capitalist and the author of the Infectious Greed blog, said that his industry was indeed inefficient at picking winners; typically, 90 percent of venture investments are not home runs. But he does not particularly trust a company that professes to be able to do better than venture capitalists.

Kedrosky makes an excellent point about the value of such a start-up company to venture capital firms:

“If their tool did such a good job, they’d raise a fund themselves and beat the tar out of us,” Mr. Kedrosky said. “It’s hard to imagine what their mathematical combination of factors is.”

In essence, these young entrepreneurs are taking a risk that may only pay off for their start-up by sucking in investors that are intrigued with the idea of simplifying the start-up process.  What’s the big deal anyway, millions are thrown away on useless companies.. if this one pans out it could investors billions in the future.   The question is, can you put your faith and future in the hands of two young guns from the valley?

Bob Goodson, left, and Kirill Makharinsky  Photography: NY Times / Peter DaSilva

They apparently have some big supporters backing them up.

YouNoodle’s financial backers include Paypal co-founders Max Levchin and Peter Thiel, and the Founders Fund, a venture capital firm.

In addition to the  venture prediction tools, the company is working on a network for early-stage companies and will provide tools to create business plan competitions, business school classes and more.  While these tools will be free, entrepreneurs exchange their private data to help refine the predictor algorithm.  If you’re not sold on the idea, it’s ok, you can try out a watered down version of their software and pay the bucks after you’ve given it a try.

Now for the funny part:  Can YouNoodle predict its own success?

“So far, we haven’t run ourselves through it,” Mr. Goodson said, adding that the results could prove baffling. “If it says we’ll fail, and it’s right, that’s something of a paradox.”

Considering that 90% of ventures tend to fail, I’m betting that the tool would give it little chance of hitting a home run, but hey.. I’m just human what do I know?  I don’t plan on investing in young start-ups any time soon, but if you are, you may want to check them out.  YouNoodle

Super Smash Brothers, Brawl – Trailer of upcoming  release

Click here to view the embedded video.

I own the Game Cube version and would be interested to see how this might play out on the Wii, based on the new sensor-driven controls.  Just the same, I don’t get what makes the game so popular!  Sure, it’ll make tons of money and perhaps break new Nintendo Wii records for sales in a given time-span, but what I want to know is why?

I know I’m in the minority, so I’ll leave a cookie for the gamers who eat this stuff up. “Cheats and Exploits for Super Smash Bros Brawl“

Now that Blu-ray has won the battle of the next-generation video media, HD-DVDs are going on sale.  Engadget reported it initially and it appears others are blogging about it so I thought I’d share the link.

Here’s one for Amazon: HD-DVD’s 50% off.  I am sure there are plenty more.

Why Nerds hate Valentines Day:

1. You blow 300 bucks on a dinner, date, and a play that could have been put to better use by buying a shitload of gold on ebay for your WoW account.
2. Having to wait in line for an extra 10 minutes to buy a Red Bull because of some douche-bag buying chocolate, and delaying your all-night gaming session.
3. Not having a girlfriend is compounded by the fact that even your Second Life character can’t get any action.
4. No hot girls show up to class
5. Valentines Day candies give you cavities and make you break out with acne

Why Nerds love Valentines Day:

1. Everyone in a relationship is out on the town resulting in faster internet connections
2. You can watch porn in peace without being interrupted by your roommate and his girlfriend
3. You can eavesdrop on your roommate making sweet Valentine’s Day love to his girlfriend later in the night
4. If you have a girlfriend, you become “King of the Nerds” for a night
5. You look forward to a Valentine’s day themed logo on the Google homepage

If you liked this article, please subscribe to the BIT: News Feed at itola.com

One of the sexier updates is the option to turn off the translucent menu bar, a point of contention among Mac users since it was first announced. Menus have also become less transparent allowing for easier viewing. A complete listing of all the 10.5.2 fixes and updates can be found here on Apple’s website.

Well, some new research suggests that up to 50% of the clicks on advertisements are done by serial clickers.   These people make up 6% of the total Internet population, but their attention is grabbed by ads in a way that overwhelms and throws off previous research on the topic.  With a potential 6% of Internet surfers responsible for 50% of the clicks online, does that make branding and CPM ads that more important?  The research claims that although this small percentage of Internet users are online for hours more than others, they are not as likely to purchase the goods after they click.

The average salary of these surfers — that in my non-professional opinion I’d attribute to OCD — is below 40,000 / year.

The study was carried out by the media agency Starcom USA, behavioral targeting network Tacoda, and digital consumer insight company comScore.  They worked on research that would study click-through rates, their source, and the effect it has on online advertising.

The study reveals that a very small group of consumers who are not representative of the total U.S. online population is accountable for the vast majority of display ad click-through behavior. 

This is an interesting story because online advertising is such a hot topic right now and every major Silicon Valley company is trying to gain ground in a market that Google currently dominates.

While many online media companies use click-through rate as an ad negotiation currency, the study shows that heavy clickers are not representative of the general public. In fact, heavy clickers skew towards Internet users between the ages of 25-44 and households with an income under $40,000.

Their relatively younger age tells us a lot about their behavior alone.  I’d imagine that this group is the prime targeting group for marketers as they probably tend to be more impulsive and more easily distracted from the content by animations and vivid marketing visuals.

Heavy clickers behave very differently online than the typical Internet user, and while they spend four times more time online than non-clickers, their spending does not proportionately reflect this very heavy Internet usage. Heavy clickers are also relatively more likely to visit auctions, gambling, and career services sites – a markedly different surfing pattern than non-clickers.

While this may be seen as a ‘negative’ because conversion rates are low, it’s an obvious benefit to the ad serving companies like Google because they can leverage the additional hits for CPM ads and also use the inflated hit count to negotiate better deals.  As far as CPM ads are concerned, the analysis that came about as a result of the research did not allow them to conclude that there is a correlation between  branding and click ratios.

Starcom data suggests no correlation between display ad clicks and brand metrics, and show no connection between measured attitude towards a brand and the number of times an ad for that brand was clicked.

Of course, advertisers will probably use this data to try and shift the burden on ad servers to yield better production or reflect this fact in the price.  It’ll be interesting to see if any companies budge on this matter, though, since Google itself dominates the industry and has a virtual monopoly on online quality ads and sites.  They are also cutting down on spam sites and domain parking exploitation of ad serving — although not entirely, as Google has deals w/ companies like Go-daddy to serve their ads.

“There is more and more emphasis by advertisers for greater return-on-objectives in campaigns, particularly in the digital space where the accountability data is so readily available,“ says Starcom USA Director of Connections Research and Analytics Grant Prentice. “Natural Born Clickers shows us that we can’t count on click-through rate as our primary success metric for display ads; Starcom is more reliant on shifts in brand attitude metrics and analytics tying on-line exposure to sales as the true measures of online advertising efficacy.” 

This doesn’t mean a whole lot because of how ad publishing works though.  Basically the market decides how much each click is worth, marketing agencies and departments have to decide how much they are willing to pay for targeted traffic.  Sometimes branding is more important than selling products, especially early on and CPM might actually be less effective than a CPC type model.

 “While the click can continue to be a relevant metric for direct response advertising campaigns, this study demonstrates that click performance is the wrong measure for the effectiveness of brand-building campaigns,” said Erin Hunter, executive vice president at comScore.

“For many campaigns, the branding effect of the ads is what’s really important and generating clicks is more of an ancillary benefit. Ultimately, judging a campaign’s effectiveness by clicks can be detrimental because it overlooks the importance of branding while simultaneously drawing conclusions from a sub-set of people who may not be representative of the target audience.”

I  know that bloggers and small business providers are usually at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to their revenue interests, but it sure would be nice if research would yield results that benefits the little guy, too!  In my view, I don’t think advertisers are paying enough for sites with quality content.  If they want to pay peanuts then serve their ads at spam sites.  For producers of strong original content maybe the big boys should consider raising prices based on venue. This may actually encourage higher quality content online rather than mass producing garbage sites to make a dime off unsuspecting Internet users.

Dell’s move caused a stir online that the company tried to tamp down.  A spokesman, David Frink, called the development — which Dell disclosed to consumers on the company’s Web site — “not even all that interesting.”

“We regularly adjust our product offerings and how customers can purchase those products,” he said. “The majority of our consumer AMD-based systems are available through our retail partners and telephone sales.”

This helps to explain why Apple has chosen to account for iPhone sales on a subscription basis, choosing to amortize the phones over a 24 month period.  In doing so, Apple can provide iPhone users with new features without having to charge them.

Apple is planning to further expand its worldwide retail presence by opening up stores in Germany, Switzerland, Australia and Mexico.

This is a significant move as Apple’s retail stores have been an integral part of Apple’s resurgence and in the company’s meteoric stock performance over the past 4 years.  Apple’s retail stores account for approximately 20% of its revenue, and not only that, but they also generate revenue that comes in at more than $4,025 per square foot, besting typical leaders such as Tiffany’s and Best Buy by as much as $3000 per square foot.

Apple currently operates over 200 retail stores in the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, Ireland, and Japan.

Yahoo’s board has decided Microsoft’s $31-per-share offer “massively undervalues” the company, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. Yahoo is expected to formally reject Microsoft’s offer, the Journal reported.

“Massively undervalues” tells me that it is a negotiation tactic.  The reason I believe this is the case is because when the news of Steve Ballmer’s offer was spreading like wildfire, Yahoo’s stock was in the process of a massive decline over the prior year and down under $20.  A company of Yahoo’s standing and success, branding and prominence in the Silicon Valley and globally, has the right to argue that it is worth much more than $31 a share.  Usually, initial offers are either low-ball offers to test the waters, or made to get the negotiation process rolling and expect to pay a premium over that offer price.

It looks like from here on out, it’s a lawyer’s game and I expect Microsoft might bite or maybe make an offer between $35 and $38 dollars a share.  What Yahoo suggests may sound like pocket change in the grand scheme of things for Microsoft, but I am sure the Silicon Valley giant will consider its options and inevitably acquire Yahoo.  The only way this falls through is if a bidding war breaks out with another company that can afford Yahoo.  At that point all bets are off.  One thing is certain, Yahoo is sitting pretty in all of this and I’m pretty sure the board isn’t going to blow this one — stockholders and employees should prepare to celebrate.

One problem that is starting to surface is that corporations and some individuals would like to see the internet lose that anonymity.  For the purposes of data mining (a lucrative business practice) and to keep online discourse regulated, some would stop at nothing to see online free speech stifled or diminished.

From ArsTechnica: “Appeals Court: First Amendment protects forum trolls”

Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous, a judge in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only that, but they’re allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights and speak their minds, no matter how scathing their comments may be. The court opinion reversed a previous decision that would have allowed Lisa Krinsky, COO of a Florida-based drug service company, to subpoena 10 anonymous Yahoo message board posters’ real names.

Why is this important to you and me?  Why should we care if trolls are “outed” or tar-and-feathered for being jerks?  Well, for one, part of the value that the Internet brings to the world is not only freedom of speech and an expectation of privacy, but it also levels the playing field and allows people a forum to express themselves with the world.  Where else could you find a place for some random person to speak loudly and receive publicity for otherwise unpopular speech?  Where else can you speak the truth without feeling the pressure that comes from your boss or colleagues, friends or family?

The problem with trying to regulate speech online or allowing for the destruction of internet trolls is you essentially move in the direction of threatening individual privacy rights and pulling the plug on internet fantasies.  Whether you love trolls or hate them, there’s something to be said for policing the words of the masses and seeking to ruin people who push unpopular opinions.  In the grand scheme of things, the trolls may get their 15 seconds of fame… before being banned or ignored, or rebutted by an equally passionate person on the other side of the argument.

We should strive to push for a highly diverse Internet with myriad ideas that as a collective work to find problems to difficult solutions.  Additionally, we should also work to protect the ‘fantasy’ aspect of online interaction.  If people want to remain anonymous, why deny them that right?  If they are not breaking the law or committing acts of terrorism, why should the courts step in to help out corporations only intent on retaliating against individuals or stifling speech?  Let’s hope we never end up on the slippery slope of Internet censorship, because once that happens, the value of the online experience is lost.  If we succumb to regulation of speech or relent on privacy rights online, the Internet will be no different a forum than the “real world” that is dominated by corporations and special interest groups with lots of money.

From the OpenID website:

This morning the OpenID Foundation announced that Google, IBM, Microsoft, VeriSign, and Yahoo! have joined the board. The OpenID Foundation was formed in early 2006 by seven community members with the goal of helping promote, protect and enabling the OpenID technologies and community. Today’s announcement marks a milestone in the maturity and impact that the OpenID community has had. While the OpenID Foundation serves a stewardship role around the community’s intellectual property, the Foundation’s board itself does not make any decisions about the specifications the community is collaboratively building.

If you’re not quite sure why this matters, consider the future of online usage.  There’s a school of thought that would argue that everything will be connected and social networking will continue to grow, evolve and bring in millions of additional users.  In addition to social networking, blogging and other community and interactive websites will flood the internet like never before.  With this in mind, by soliciting the assistance of the major players in Silicon Valley, OpenID has all but solidified it’s status as the standard for online authentication.  Additionally, by agreeing on a standard for OpenID, there is potential for large companies to work on a reputation and/or profiling system for web users at-large.  To learn more about OpenID and the latest  news related to the maturity of the OpenID community, check out the following: “Evolving the OpenID foundation board“

If some Mississippi legislators had their way, they’d put forth a law that would ban obese people from being served at restaurants.

State Rep. John Read, a Republican who is one of the bill’s three authors, says he wasn’t trying to offend anybody and never even expected the plan to become law.

“I was trying to shed a little light on the No. 1 problem in Mississippi.”

This may sound humorous as you read along, but this isn’t a spoof.  Obesity is a real problem with consequences for Americans and we’ve been unable to solve this growing epidemic without the use of drugs or surgery to solve the issue.  Of course, exercise and dieting is ideal, but helping to fight obesity isn’t like having the flu or acquiring a chronic disease that can be cured drinking a Slimfast(tm) every morning.

The question that should be asked is whether the Republican Representative crossed the line by proposing such legislation.  If you take him at his word that this was not a serious proposal, but intended to shed light on a serious problem in Mississipi, then maybe he has done his state a great service.  Obesity is much like other sensitive subjects, e.g. Affirmative Action.  No one wants to talk about it because it is a pretty prickly subject and people get hurt in the process no matter which way you roll on the issue.

Steve Holland, the Democratic chairman of the House Public Health and Human Services Committee, said in a statement he will “pocket veto” the bill. “It’s dead on arrival at my desk.”  Although he appreciates the “efforts of my fellow House members to help curb the obesity problem in Mississippi, this is totally the wrong approach.”

How can you not laugh at the public press that the issue is receiving?  First, you have a candidate with the gall to put forth such an ‘idea’, then you have a Democrat coming out to fight the ‘good fight’ and defending the rights of the obese.   Way to stick up for the little… errr, big guy? Again,this is a serious problem so why are we walking on eggshells to get to the heart of the problem?  Eventually, it may be policy makers that help America shed the weight.

About one-third of Americans are obese (30 or more pounds over a healthy weight), and 66% are overweight or obese. Even so, obesity experts are outraged by the bill.  “It would be hard to concoct something more ridiculous,” says Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.

I’m no Yale expert and I haven’t spent my life studying the problems with obesity like Mr. Brownell, but maybe it is good to call a spade a spade?  Instead of dealing with emotions that inevitably arise out of the hate and frustration, self-esteem problems and depression, maybe we should focus on the problem itself and find ways to encourage the masses to help combat the problem?  Maybe this noise will help push obese people to stay away from the super-size or learn more about all the foods and drinks that are most dangerous to our health.

I don’t want to be insensitive about the issue, but it’s just not a simple problem to solve.  Showing love and support isn’t everyone’s forte, so it’s a futile effort to try and control what politicians, celebrities and ‘experts’ say.  The problems that stem from humiliation, shame and guilt are not trivial and it does offend and hurt some people:

“This brings bias against obese individuals to a new and appalling level, and at a time when significant progress is being made in the effort to stop blaming obesity on the people who have it and to address the social and political conditions that drive it.

Again, I cannot agree with the expert, it seems he’s too involved and has a hard time being objective.  In my view, it never really is about blaming obese people, most people don’t think of it in those terms unless you push the issue.  How often do you think “maybe he should stop eating, doesn’t he have self-control?”  Most Americans don’t go about their lives thinking, “darn, she sure is fat, why doesn’t she just exercise or go on a diet?!”

If anything, the question most Americans are asking is “Am I fat and what can I do to keep myself looking good.”  Sadly, the same areas of society that encourage obesity indirectly (e.g. super models, strip clubs, television and Hollywood) are also the ones that discourage people from eating that extra french fry.   It’s easy to blame these vices on the problem of teenage anorexia, but in my view, both anorexia and morbidly  obese people are also suffering from severe mental disease or stress and require the help of a mental health expert in addition to a physical fitness expert.

“Are these legislators fighting to get rid of soft drinks in schools? Are they working to stop the relentless marketing of unhealthy foods to children? Are they doing anything about the fact that poor people do not have access to healthy foods?”

This is the best argument made against legislators who would dare bring up obesity under such crass legislative proposals.

Restaurants and Corporations Encourage America’s Obesity Problem

Consumers are provided incentive to purchase fatty foods because they cost a lot less than the ‘premium’ low-calorie foods.  Fast food restaurants are serving up individual meals that have as much as 50 to 75% of a typical calorie intake for the day and maybe doubling or tripling the fat intake.  Consumers do have a responsibility to moderate their intake, but with obesity you have a special self-perpetuating cycle of guilt.  People eat to deal with stress, they eat to socialize with co-workers, eat to handle depression and settle impulsive behaviors that would best be handled by psychiatric help.

While this is a problem that involves many factors, people have to be careful not to entirely shed the blame of obesity on society.  Society is part of the problem, there is no doubt about that.  We have to remain cognizant of the fact that shedding personal responsibility might be one of the biggest reasons that combating obesity has become so difficult to solve.  It won’t be long before pharmaceutical companies or scientists design a solution that won’t increase the risk of heart failure or death.  Until that happens, it is the duty of all Americans to help fend off this problem and it starts with YOU.

If you enjoyed this article, please subscribe to the news feed — free column on business and technology.  You may sign up for the e-mail version using the form located within the sidebar. 

In reverse order, here are a few videos that show without a doubt that Steve Ballmer and Yahoo are a perfect match.  I mean, could you argue that there is a bigger Yahoo in silicon valley than Steve Ballmer?  I didn’t think so!

#5 The iPhone… what a joke, that concept will never fly!

Click here to view the embedded video.

#4 Steve Ballmer gets pwn’d

Click here to view the embedded video.

#3  Remember when Redmond introduced its latest product to flop? Microsoft Deodorant

Click here to view the embedded video.

#2 In the 80s, did anyone predict Ballmer would be the CEO of a multinational corporation?

Click here to view the embedded video.

#1 Steve Ballmer, I’ve got four words for ya:  Prozac!

Click here to view the embedded video.

So is there any doubt now that Steve Ballmer’s era of MS is a match for Yahoo? I didn’t think so.

Speculation is mounting that Google is plotting the launch of a mobile phone in partnership with computer giant Dell.

For the sake of innovation and the competition in the market that mobile niche that Apple currently dominates, let’s hope that Google and Dell can get it together on this potential alliance!

Senior industry sources claim the two companies will reveal their plans at next month’s 3GSM telecoms conference in Barcelona, al-though Google insiders deny an announcement is due in the near future.  But the rumors will once again throw the spotlight on Google’s mobile strategy, which has been the subject of much conjecture over the last year.  There had been widespread talk of Google launching its own handset, known as the “Gphone”, to go up against Apple’s iPhone, which launched in November last year.

We may be dealing with rumors and hype, but it seems that the rumors of Google’s interest in the mobile market are all consistent with their desire to launch their own  handset and mobile software.

Google recently announced its operating system for mobile phones, dubbed “Android.”  The purpose of the software is to create a platform for developers to create mobile applications that will easily run on handsets.

Dell might see the potential of expanding its reach into this market and it’s an interesting storyline given that Apple and Dell have a cute little rivalry going on that Apple is easily winning at this point.

There was a time when Yahoo! melting into Microsoft seemed laughable. After all, they were two different companies with two different cultures and two different visions. Now with everyone chasing Google, many are proclaiming that this deal makes a lot of sense. Google currently has such a huge lead in search that it dwarfs Microsoft and Yahoo! put together. But is there any reason to think that Microsoft and Yahoo! can accomplish together what they weren’t able to accomplish on their own?

One interesting aspect to this deal, however, are the reasons underlying Microsofts offer. Does Microsoft really feel that this offer to purchase Yahoo! will really “synergize” the company and lead to some great new products and/or services? Does it geniunely feel that a Microsoft/Yahoo! combo can give Google a run for its money? Or, is Microsoft, which is lagging severely behind Google, completely out of ideas. Is buying Yahoo! a hail-mary attempt by Microsoft to catch up with a company that it can’t compete with otherwise? Microsoft has a history of trying to catch up to where the competition IS, instead of focusing on where an particular industry is headed for in the future. I would hope that a Microsoft-Yahoo! deal, should it go through, would result in innovative and original ideas that range beyond simple re-branding.

In my opinion, however, Super Bowl commercials have lost their relevance.  Why?  Well, in case you aren’t already aware, we are now bombarded with advertisements at every corner and every turn.  In turn, it’s getting increasingly difficult for today’s consumer to be that impressed with a commercial.  After all, we’re exposed to media advertising nearly every waking hour.  With the cost of Super Bowl advertising getting costlier every year, it makes sense that only some of the biggest name-brands would be willing to shell out the cash necessary for a 30 second spot.

And that, I feel, is what has caused a general ‘blandness’ to envelop what was once a showcase for the best ads on the planet.  With only a few companies being able to compete for the most sought after spots during the Super Bowl, it only makes sense that the commercials that make it to air aren’t necessarily the best in show.  Rather, they are the best in show for the companies that actually afford a Super Bowl spot in the first place. They’re still great commercials, but I feel that the day of the Super Bowl commercial as a defining marketing tool is a thing of the past.

What a game, what a victory… history was made today but not by the New England patriots.

Perfect Season no more.  In perhaps the most meaningful game of the New England Patriots’ season, the New York Giants came out and showed that they too were worthy of the admiration and praise of NFL fans everywhere.  I know the NY Giant fans played the respect card to an extent, but I guarantee you that a lot of NFL fans everywhere had their hearts behind the giants team.

I know most tech gurus aren’t interested in sports, but this is one game I hope you all didn’t miss!

From USA Today: 

Domino’s claims the system is accurate to within 40 seconds, regardless of whether you placed your order online or by phone. The only thing that won’t be tracked is the actual journey of the pizza from the store to your house, but Domino’s will give you the exact time your pizza left the store.

Honestly, with the resources of a large corporation, tracking pizza and other delivery outlets can’t be far behind.  Set up a network that tracks devices on all company vehicles and allow users to see the delivery online.  That would be a nice marketing gimmick and whoever does it first will probably make a pretty buck off of the advertising campaign that follows.

Rival Pizza Hut is unimpressed. PizzaHut.com already provides an estimated time when customers will receive their orders, says Bob Kraut, vice president of marketing.

Way to try and take the wind out of their sails, Pizza Hut!  You’re just jealous!  On a side note, I don’t know that the technology is going to compensate for the ‘bleh’ pizza at their regular prices, but I guess for Super Bowl parties it really doesn’t matter.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

Microsoft Corp. offered $44.6 billion to buy Yahoo Inc., in a bold attempt to dramatically expand its online business and compete more effectively with Google Inc. in services ranging from email to Internet advertising sales.

Adding to the drama, here’s the best part of it all — Microsoft decides to bully it’s rival:

The offer was made in a letter sent Thursday by Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer to Yahoo’s board of directors. One person familiar with the matter said that Microsoft decided to “go hostile” with its bid within the last few weeks after Yahoo ignored its latest overtures.

The offer, $31 a share in cash and stock, is a 62% premium to Thursday’s closing price.

Aside from a larger market share on internet search, Yahoo may have a leg up with their YPN ad publisher program.  Additionally, Yahoo stock has been plummeting and with rumors of previous flirting between the silicon valley giants, it seems like now is a good time for Yahoo to consider such an offer.  Though, I don’t know if you can call it flirting if one party seems consistently interested and the other is generally turned off by the proposition.

Not surprising, but the Dow is reacting positively to the news. 

This is the basic problem:  Apple announced at Macworld they they’ve sold 4 million iphones while AT&T announced that they’ve only activated around 3 million iPhones.  This has caused pundits to go stir-crazy, with some predicting dire financial repercussions for Apple.  Oh the humanity!

Where are the iPhones?

That’s the 1 million dollar question.  Are they in inventory?  Have they been unlocked in the USA?  Or have they been unlocked and sold in the back alleys of Hong Kong?  Are they in King Tut’s tomb?  There are two facts we can take away from all of this hoopla.

1. There IS a significant discrepancy between Apple’s numbers and AT&T’s; and
2. this whole story is completely overblown.

For starters, Apple is still making significant margins on each iPhone sold.  An unlocked iphone, however, doesn’t provide Apple with a monthly revenue stream from AT&T.   That said, a significant number of the unlocked iphones are rumored to be overseas in countries that don’t yet sell iphones, in which case Apple is not currently missing out on any revenue that they could potentially be earning from AT&T.  If the missing iphones are affecting anyone, it’s AT&T, not Apple.

Furthermore, it speaks to the desirability of the iPhone that people are willing to pay big money for a phone that’s not even out in the market where they reside.  And not only that, but they are willing to purchase a phone with no warranty, no support, and the knowledge that their unlocked iPhone might be made unworkable by future software updates from Apple.  And on top of that, users are paying a premium for these unlocked iphones.  Someone has to be making a profit after all.

Again, many of the iPhones seem to be thriving in overseas markets where Apple has yet to strike deals with wireless providers.  If anything, iPhone sales in these countries can be seen as a temporary bonus for Apple’s bottom line.  So yes, the iPhones are missing because people want them so damn much they’re willing to pay extra for an unlocked version.  Not that bad a problem to have, all things considered.

Digg’s latest changes didn’t put an end to gaming as was intended. Instead, gaming is now required of active diggers who seek to hit the front page.

If you’re an active social network user, then you’re likely familiar with Digg and the latest problems that have arisen with recent algorithm changes. In short, Digg recently made an effort to curb gaming of their website by changing how stories are promoted and if you’ve been following the drama, it looks like Digg succeeded on some levels.

There has been a lot of talk about the casual-digger versus power-digger conundrum that has played out on Digg. Casual Digg users have laughed and even prodded at the Digg community’s top supporters for losing “power”.

Who got squeezed by the new Digg algorithm? It’s not who you think!

New users got what they wanted and top diggers with a huge fan-base are a tad uncomfortable, but they’ll survive. Arguably, the most important users of Digg’s community are the ones hit hardest by new changes, it’s the active diggers that provide the Digg community with diggs, comments and link “new users” to “top users” via social networking.

If you don’t believe me, ask the top digg users if they have hit the front page in the last 48 hours. The response will be similar from our mini-celebrities in the community. MrBabyman / Muhammad Saleem and Zaibatsu (aka “Reg” / Z) aren’t the ones denied access to the front page, nor should they be! It is not those users that have had their Digg experience ruined and chances are they didn’t miss a beat despite participating (in some form) in the backlash against Digg last week.

Did Digg go too far and were active diggers right to react angrily to the new changes?

My initial position was that diggers were being melodramatic and reactionary. But hey, drama is what makes the world go ’round and it sure helps drive communities on social networks, especially if you follow politics.

I’ll give an example of something that the new Digg algorithm did cure and explain how this cure essentially served to squeeze out the large base of users that are active but lack the strong fan-base that Digg’s top users have.

Digg’s Front Page — taking out the trash

Digg did a good job of removing the spammy lame garbage posts from the front page. What I mean is, some blogs essentially quoted long passages from other sites and added a line or two of commentary and would make the front page.

The reason these garbage sites would hit the front page was because of the way the algorithm worked – it focused on friends and lobbying and sites with already large communities would get automatic diggs in addition to the friend’s of diggers who would submit the articles.

The problem that Digg is going to have to deal with is that they seem to have tightened the screw a bit too much making it difficult, if not impossible, for active diggers to have their content hit the front page. In fixing the ‘garbage-blog’ problem, Digg killed the ability of middle-of-the-road diggers and some quality digg content-submitters to hit the front page. One of my active interests on Digg is politics, so a good analogy is when cities actively clean the streets by ‘removing’ homeless people during the Olympics. They may have good reasons for doing it, but hiding the problem and cheating the public out of the truth only temporarily hides the homelessness problem and doesn’t actually fix it!

Where does that leave top diggers that are marginalized by the new system?

Whereas active diggers previously may have accomplished multiple front-page articles with quality content before, they can’t make the front page to save their lives. A number of diggers who actively engage the community on Digg are no longer front-page worthy using prior Digg strategies and friend support.

Where does it leave active users who don’t have two to three thousand fans? People in my boat aren’t interested in switching social networks, we don’t have time to get situated in a new community or learn a new system, so my only option is to do exactly what Digg programmers are trying to prevent.

In order for active users to hit the front page with quality content, gaming is now required! Essentially, users like me are forced to add more friends and shout-spam while commenting and lobbying for support on articles I’d like to share. The entire purpose of Digg is defeated for people like myself who are boxed-in by the new rules.

Based on what I know so far, I can’t defeat the algorithm without ‘gaming’ the system and I’m not exactly a new user in-fact I’m probably one of the more active diggers around! Here, let me explain. Before the Digg algorithm changes, getting to the front page with ‘good stuff’ wasn’t terribly difficult for me because I managed to make friends with a lot of active diggers and frequently contributed to discussions that would help give my profile exposure.

Digg wants to prevent ‘trivial’ front-page submissions, understandable, but the problem is that now a lot of really good stories will not hit the front page. If you’ve been paying attention – like I have — minus the spam-blog fix, the over-all quality of Digg’s front page stories have diminished considerably.

Prior to the Algorithm Changes…

I purposely kept my list small, maybe in the 100-110 range for the most part and I did so for the purpose of following all of my friend’s submissions. If they submitted good stuff, I wanted to be there to digg and/or comment! It made sense, it worked well but it made Digg a strong lobby system that spammers quickly exploited for their own profitable gain. The fact is, however, that I never felt a need to “game” the system when I was submitting quality articles… the system just worked.

Digg fixed the problem with mass-friend adding and spam-shouting but because of the user interface, many stories on “upcoming” aren’t seen. The only way I can imagine getting articles on the front page is by adding a few hundred more friends and hope they aren’t on the digg shit-list.

Active Digger “Shit-List”

I call it a “shit -ist” because if you’re friends with active diggers chances are ‘you are one.’ If this is the case, the threshold for promotion is very high and requires the effort that you’d expect from a full-time job.

Fine, I’ll play along with the “new Digg” and I will go ahead and add a bunch of new friends that allow ’shouts’ to their profiles. If they don’t allow shouts they are useless because others won’t see my shout-spam for articles I’d like on the front page. Is that the effect that Digg programmers were hoping for? I really hope not, because it sounds counter-intuitive and inefficient. Further, the system is so damned slow as it is I can’t imagine why they’d want to see the system taxed further.

Conclusion: I’ll play the game, but it isn’t a very fun game because I feel like I’m working a job now and getting no love in return. My intent is not to come off as a whiny digger and I know that my words may come off that way to some. The idea was to share my latest Digg experience and the logic that goes through the minds of people adversely affected by the algorithm who nevertheless want to be front-page capable again.

I’ll report back with my results and findings to complement my above views on how the middle guy, not just the ‘top diggers’ got squeezed out of the equation by Digg’s brilliant new algorithm.

As you may be aware, Digg recently tweaked the algorithm it uses to determine which stories make the front page. This might not seem like a big deal to most, but some of the top Diggers were up in arms and staged what they referred to as a near “revolt”. Several of the top Diggers expressed concerns that the new algorithm makes it more difficult for their submitted stories to make it to the front page, amounting to what they construe as punishment for their success.

It’s been estimated that approximately 30-50% of the top stories on Digg are submitted by top Diggers. As such, many of the top diggers feel that they have “built this site from the ground up” and are mulling a move over to other social news networks such as reddit and mixx.com

According to Wired,

“Several top contributors to the social news site Digg held an emergency online meeting at around 8:30 to discuss their response to a recent change in the algorithm Digg uses to determine which stories appear on the site’s front page.”

First of all, some of the top diggers need to get over themselves. This is Digg, so when one reads of “emergency online meetings” and “boycotts”, it’s hard not to laugh at the absurdity. Now I understand where the top diggers are coming from. They are responsible for a good number of the front page stories that hit Digg and they feel that it’s unfair that they are essentially being punished for their past successes as top contributors.

In Defense of Digg:

It is well accepted that new users have a considerable disadvantage when it comes to getting stories to the front page. In contrast, many of the top diggers have an online following that range in the thousands. When they submit a story, they instantly get numerous Diggs from their fans. With that in mind, doesn’t it make sense that a top digger like Mr. Baby Man (with over 4,000 fans) should have a higher hurdle to getting to the front page than a digger with no fans?

Digg wants to continue to grow. It wants new users to join and feel like they can become part of the community. It’s daunting, however, when new users see quality stories they’ve submitted go nowhere simply because they have no clout. The changes in the algorithm might not necessarily be about blindly helping new users get to the front page, but more about leveling the playing field on Digg, where a few of the top Diggers arguably have too much power.

Another reason why Digg might have decided to tweak its algorithm is that Digg has turned into a lobby system of sorts — “I’ll digg your story if you digg mine.” As people began amassing friend lists in the hundreds, spamming via the shout system became common place and though it didn’t happen all the time, some questionable content starting hitting the front page.

There have to be safeguards in place in order to prevent users from simply adding an inordinate number of friends and mass shouting to them for diggs. Digg’s new algorithm supposedly takes this into account, and deals accordingly, with diggs that come from users who digg every submission sent their way. The problem with this, however, is clear. While this might take care of the user who blindly diggs away at anything their friends send them, not all diggers are spammers. In fact, the majority of them will only shout when they feel they have a high quality submission that will be of interest to users. So if a friend of mine on Digg consistently sends me great stories, and I digg every one, is it fair that my digg should be weighted less?

On the other hand, let’s hypothetically analyze a story submitted by a top digger. Let’s assume that 50 diggs on that story means 20 diggs on weight due to serial diggers, and that thats visually represented in the “hot list” as a “50 digg” article. At that point, it’s up to the non-friends to digg it up and achieve that highly coveted “diversity” spread. If it’s a good enough article, the diggs will start coming in and the article should be queued for the front page. Is that really so outrageous?

In Defense of the Users

One might assume that if all the top Diggers decided to leave Digg that others would simply fill their void and the stream of quality content would continue. But if you peruse the submissions of the top diggers, they really do a great job of finding interesting and obscure stories around the web.

The question then, is this: should we assume that only the top diggers can find great material online? This is a dangerous line to toe because we risk elevating the top diggers to a status akin to an editor on Slashdot, the complete antithesis of what Digg is supposed to be about. Moreover, because it’s so difficult for a new user to make the front page, new users (potentially the next Mr. Babyman) might be inclined not to even bother submitting. The fact that a Digger has a history of great submissions should not be overlooked or taken for granted, but that shouldn’t give diggers a free pass for the rest of their Digg days.

The fact remains, however, that Digg is a user-generated content website and Digg must be open to hearing the concerns of those who helped make Digg what it is today. Otherwise, it risks “alienating its most loyal users.”

Digg’s Dilemna

The heart of Digg is quality content, and to get that, you either need an algorithm that favors power users or a completely blind algorithm that favors the masses. The problem with a completely blind algorithm that lets the masses decide what makes the front page is that there are so many submissions to Digg that people will miss a lot of great stuff if there aren’t ‘power users’ to shape and shift what makes it through. Essentially, there has to be an incentive for ‘power users’ while also having measures in place as to prevent them from attaining too much editorial power.

Some have suggested that Digg should remove the “friends and fans” aspect of the site. This would presumably ensure that people will start digging for content, rather than out of obligation to friends or for reciprocal diggs. This won’t happen anytime soon, though, because the system of friends and fans is actually beneficial to users. If I see that a user is consistently submitting stories that I find interesting, I should be able to add him as a friend and follow his submissions. With such a setup, I am more likely to become an active member of Digg.

What’s interesting about Digg is that its created a virtual world where you have “elite” users who happen to be the top diggers. Then you have the serfs who are fighting for their “rights” as users. Then there are a slew of random diggers with no loyalty to digg who might login to the system once every two weeks. And then, of course, you have a large number of people who don’t even have digg accounts but make sure to visit the Digg homepage a few times a day.

Keeping all of these users happy is no easy task, and Digg is trying its best to maintain the most beneficial balance. Before even giving the new algorithm a chance, however, some top diggers decided that Digg wasn’t listening to them and they were going to jump ship to other social networking sites. The talk of a revolt was amusing because some of these top diggers clearly felt that they had some sense of entitlement. They feel that they’ve invested more of their lives into Digg and want that to be taken into account. That is an understandable position, but at the same time, no one forced them to digg for 8 hours a day. They did that on their own accord, presumably for selfless reasons.

Digg is being challenged with maintaining growth while, at the same time, maintaining the dynamic that made them so popular in the first place. Time will tell how the new algorithm tweaks affect the stories that hit the front page so all of the hullabaloo about boycotts was a) stupid and b) premature.

And in the spirit of being a provocateur, I say to the top diggers — Boycott away! This is the web, it’s not real life. Get over yourself and try to understand that you’re not the only people out there who can find great diggable content. The Digg community has 25 million people on the site, so by assuming that 10 diggers out of that mass of people are that important is ridiculous. Some of the top Diggers were contemplating moving to reddit, mixx, propeller, or any other social news network; imagine what they’d think if they came to an already mature social news network and no one cared about what they had to submit because they were newbies. A quote from their manifesto of sorts said:

“If Digg is a game then we are ready to play for keeps. What happens if the most powerful users in the community decide to leave? Will others join? Is Digg anything without us? Let’s prove it.“

Drama much? No one is born a top digger, so there really is no need to blackmail Digg.

Again, why should a top submitter who gets an automatic 50 diggs seconds within a submission have a perpetual advantage over a “new guy” who submits the same story and gets 3 diggs from complete strangers? At the same time, are automatic diggs really a problem if a top Digger has a proven track record of quality submissions?

A balance must be met and that’s what Digg is attempting to do. I say “attempting” because judging from the front page stories of late, the algorithm is not in full working order. The new algorithm, however, isn’t written in stone and is subject to constant tweaking, as admitted by Digg CEO Jay Adelson. Digg seems to have the best interests of the Digg community at heart so people need to relax, take a few days or weeks off and come back and see what happens. Long story short, stop crying and start digging.

 Google takes a stand against exploiting domain names for profit

Google’s AdSense program would exclude those names so no one can generate advertising revenue from claiming them temporarily, a practice known as domain name tasting — the online equivalent of buying expensive clothes on a charge card only to return them for a full refund after wearing them to a party.

“We believe that this policy will have a positive impact for users and domain purchasers across the Web,” Google spokesman Brandon McCormick said.

Name tasting exploits a grace period originally designed to rectify legitimate mistakes, such as registrants mistyping the domain name they are about to buy. But with automation and a burgeoning online advertising market, entrepreneurs have generated big bucks exploiting the policy to test hoards of names, keeping just the ones that turn out to generate the most revenue.

Oddly enough, one of the major criticisms of Google’s empire is that it is quick to profit off of such kiting schemes.  It looks like the higher ups have had a change of heart and Google can now claim once again to be a proud member of the “Do No Evil” society.

Download Kernel 2.6.24 — Linux Kernel Archives (Kernel.org)

• The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is:  2.6.24
• The latest snapshot for the stable Linux kernel tree is:  2.6.24-git2
• The latest 2.4 version of the Linux kernel is:  2.4.36
• The latest 2.2 version of the Linux kernel is:  2.2.27-rc2
• The latest prepatch for the 2.2 Linux kernel tree is:  2.2.27-rc2
• The latest -mm patch to the stable Linux kernels is:  2.6.24-rc8-mm1

If you need a dummy version of what changed, Kernel Newbies has the lowdown.

Within the Church of Scientology, you are taught that Scientology is the one and only solution to all mankind’s problems, and during this narrow window of opportunity in mankind’s history it is possible to “clear the planet” (ie give everybody auditing) and save humanity from itself. Most other goals pale in comparison and anything that detracts from Scientology, or its expansion is in essence a mortal sin against humanity. This belief is strong enough to get people sign up the Sea Organization [wikipedia.org] (LRH’s private navy) on a billion year contract (ie you are in for the long haul… and not just this lifetime)

Anyone who attacks the church is either a suppressive person (2.5% of the population who are evil – think Hitler), PTS due to a connection to an SP (Potential Trouble Source – 20% of the population), or has committed various other overts and withholds (ie sins and secrets) and it trying to justify their own actions by making the Scientology seem less (because if you admitted to yourself that Scientology was the “one and only solution” then your otherwise small crime would have to weigh fairly heavily on your conscience). Anyone who commits various sins and suppressive acts, will be subconsciously aware of this, and slowly do themselves in (ie get sick, have an accident) to prevent themselves from committing more crimes.

You can read the insightful comment in detail at slashdot: “Internet Group Declares War on Scientology”

L Ron Hubbard is rumored to have suggested that the best way to make money is Religion, that’s where the money’s at!  Whether he said it or not, that is so damned true.  People will pour millions of dollars into any religion that is ‘legitimized’ by the masses.  In the case of Scientology, it has become a life philosophy for the rich and powerful to learn to hone their “skills” and improve their lifestyles.

It seems that no matter where you turn lately, you can’t escape the word Apple when it comes to technology news. AT&T is helping to continue that trend as they earlier this week revealed their Iphone business plan. While there might have been a slight lull on Iphone conversation with all the other topics going on recently, I expect we can get ready to hear about it anew as excited employees across the country prepare to retire their current business phone to be the paper-weights they’ve always felt they were.

In my office, the Blackberry has been the phone of choice and rarely does a day go by that I’m not helping one person or another with a variety of Blackberry issues. Yet in our building filled to the brim with diehard Blackberry fans and self-proclaimed Apple haters, time and time again do I get asked by my coworkers, as they pause between tracks on the newest model Ipod, “when will we get to use the IPhone?”. Despite the fact most of them live and breathe by their Blackberry and that I do not know a single one of them who uses AT&T as their service provider, their desire for the IPhone is loud; a lion roar to my ears. I can almost hear their joyful, child-like glee as their minds race with fantasies about being able to open their Excel spreadsheets on their phone.

While I’d be interested to support the technical issues of the IPhone, (simply because that means I could play with them more often) after doing so with the Blackberry this long, I do not know how keen our Higher Ups will be to fork over the funds that AT&T is asking for, especially considering the excellent deals we have in place through a variety of providers. I would imagine this outlook applies to many businesses, yet the demand for the IPhone is so high it will be impossible to ignore. High enough that AT&T can confidently charge over two times what they do for consumer packages. And they can go to bed smiling, because we’ll pay it.

Those familiar with AT&Ts consumer rates will see the leap in price right away. With their business plans, they currently offer a total of three enterprise data options (each require a minimum two-year contract):

IPhone 200: 200 SMS, unlimited domestic data, visual voicemail – $45
IPhone 1500: 1500 SMS, unlimited domestic data, visual voicemail – $55
IPhone Unlimited: Unlimited SMS, unlimited domestic data, visual voicemail – $65

While I find the jump from 200 SMS to 1500 SMS for only a 10$ increase fair enough, it’s hard to swallow the IPhone 200 plan starting at $45 when the same level consumer plan will run you around $20, though the unlimited data certainly counts for something. In addition, AT&T is currently offering a $25 monthly credit to new accounts that are activated before the end of March, so that lessens the sting quite well, letting only those who miss this deadline take the brunt of the venom.

So while I’ll continue to wait patiently for the actual device itself to lower in price, I will be sorely tempted if my bosses end up breaking under the demand and decide to take advantage of these business plans. In the meantime I’ll have to be satisfied with my metal can with the string tied to it.

More details of the IPhone and AT&T’s service plans may be found on their website: AT&T IPhone Business Plans

A funny thing happened the last time Apple released its earnings.  Looking forward to Q1 2008, Apple, which is notoriously conservative when it comes to earnings guidance, projected an aggressive EPS of $1.42 a share.  With Apple’s conference call set for tomorrow, analysts are expecting an EPS of $1.60.   And when all is said and done, look for Apple to release earnings tomorrow that will blow both of those numbers out of the water.

Though its stock price might indicate otherwise, Apple has never been better positioned to succeed, improve, and impress.  Apple’s line of Macbook laptops are selling at a record pace.  The iphone turned the telecommunications industry on its head and was able to garner an impressive share of the smartphone market in less than 8 months.  Apple stores are constantly packed with customers, its lineup of ipods has never been more diverse, and that’s just the beginning of the story.

How does this translate into higher earnings? 

1) iPods

Put simply, Apple is selling more ipods than anyone could have anticipated last October, save perhaps Apple.  For months, analysts were droning on about how the market for mp3 players was becoming saturated and that everyone who wanted an ipod most likely already had one.  What no one envisioned was just how popular Apple’s newest line of mp3 players (the ipod Touch and the updated ipod nano) would sell.  Even as I write this now on Wednesday afternoon, 5 of the top 8 items on Amazon’s bestselling electronics list are ipods.  Wall Street is expecting ipod sales of around 24 million units, but don’t be surprised to see Apple with a number close to, if not more than, 25 million units sold. 

Apple has been successful in continuously introducing new ipod models.  But more importantly, each new ipod model has something more to offer when compared against earlier models.  This is what continues to drive the phenomenal sales growth of Apple’s lineup of music players and what will undoubtedly be the reason why ipod sales will be larger than expected.

2) Macs

Looking past the mp3 player market, Apple’s refreshed line of imac desktop computers are also selling at an unprecedented rate.  In a recent note about Apple, RBC said that 25% of Best Buy representatives contacted noted that Macs were the number one selling PC at their stores.  This is an impressive number considering that Apple only accounts for 3 or so percent of the OS market share.  With that said, the bulk of Apple’s Mac revenue will be coming from its fleet of notebook computers, the macbook and macbook pro.  Just this summer, reports came out showing that 1 out of every 6 laptops purchased is a Mac and there is no reason to think that this trend was any different this past holiday season.

Apple’s Leopard (OS X.5) operating system has also been selling extremely well, and has decidedly outpaced sales of its previous operating system, Tiger (OS X.4).  Leopard was released this past October and it was impossible to predict how the release (which was delayed) would turn out.  Would there be bugs?  Would users care about its new features?  In fact, the release of Leopard was initially delayed so that Apple could devote more of its resources towards the iphone rollout in June ‘07, and there were definitely some questions as to whether or not Leopard was even polished enough to be released.  As it turns out, Leopard has been a resounding success.  Though there have been a few bumps along the way, users are by and large happy with Leopard and can expect to see a slew of  free incremental updates to the OS in the next few months.  Tellingly, a recent report noted that in the last month and a half, 81% of Apple buyers indicated that they were happy with their purchase of a Leopard loaded computer..  In comparison, around 50% of Windows XP owners were satisfied with their purchase, and only around 25% of Vista owners were pleased with theirs.

When you take all of this together, it’s clear that Apple desktop and notebook sales are surging.  Leopard is also selling extremely well, and might even be behind the explosive growth in Macs this past quarter.  That said, expect to see stronger than expected Mac sales announced tomorrow.

3) iPhone

Steve Jobs recently announced at Macworld that Apple has already sold 4 million iphones.  Wall Street was seemingly unimpressed as it was hoping for sales of 5 million.  The fact of the matter is that the 5 million magic number was never a goal of Apple’s nor even desired by Wall Street analysts.  “5 million iphones sold” was a rumor that made its way around the net with no substantive evidence to back it up.  What Apple has stated, however, is that it would like to sell 10 million iphones by the end of 2008, and before 2008 even began, Apple had almost reached 50% of its goal.

Apple is likely to see impressive iphone sales this past quarter given its recent and controversial price cut, coupled with sales overseas.  While there are reports out of Britain that the iphone is selling a little bit more lightly than expected, sales in other countries, such as France, are doing significantly better than expected.  All in all, the margins on Apple iphone’s are pretty high, and when one factors into the equation the monthly stream of revenue Apple receives from AT&T, Apple’s bottom line is looking pretty good this quarter.

Conclusion

Apple’s initial guidance was $ 1.42 a share on revenue of $9.42 billion, with Wall Street expecting an EPS of $1.60.  Given all of the above, however, look for Apple to destroy those earnings estimates with an EPS closer to $1.83 dollars a share and revenue well above $9.5 billion.  There is no doubt that Mac computers, ipods, and iphones are selling extremely well, and after tomorrow’s earnings report we’ll see that they’ve been selling even better than anyone could have anticipated. 

Industry sources are indicating that Microsoft plans to release Windows 7 (the follow up to Visa) in 2009, one year earlier than anticipated. Microsoft might be anxious to roll out a new update to its OS after the lukewarm reception had by Vista.

Microsoft, however, would be well-warned not to rush and push an unfinished product out the door. if you recall, Microsoft initially began working on what would become Vista in 2001. The project, initially codenamed “Longhorn”, was hampered by continuous delays and bugs, and when it was finally released, the public was less than thrilled. PC World even ranked it as the biggest tech disappointment of 2007. Tech analysts, and even Steve Ballmer himself, point out that Microsoft, in developing Vista, was trying to do too much, and as a result, the project was plagued with numerous delays and glitches.

Microsoft has hopefully learned its lesson and will now attempt to deliver incremental, yet value laden, OS updates that will actually get users excited.

A young Steve Jobs announced the arrival of the Macintosh computer.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I don’t ask that sarcastically, but rather as a matter of curiosity. I just can’t seem to figure out who this computer is being marketed for. Let’s take a look at the specs: The base model is 1.8 ghz with 2mb ram , an 80gb solid-sate drive, and a 13.3 inch screen. It comes with an iSight camera, as do all Macbooks, a full-size and backlit keyboard, and a multi-touch gesture supported trackpad. All cool stuff. But what’s noteworthy about the MacBook Air isn’t what it has, but what its missing.

The MacBook Air is missing an optical drive, though an external is available for purchase from Apple. It’s also missing an ethernet port and a firewire port, which is extremely important if you’re hoping to import any video onto your mac. Also noticably absent is a user replaceable battery. As opposed to other electronic devices, average consumers actually make use of replaceable batteries for their laptops. The most important thing it’s missing, however, is a cheap price tag. For you see, this lightweight baby is gonna set you back at least $1800 bucks — and that’s before you add on an external optical drive or more HD space. This begs the question: Who would actually buy this machine?

For nearly $700 less, users can purchase a regular MacBook with much more impressive specs. And though not as thin or light as the MacBook Air, the regular MacBook is no slouch itself. The most recent iteration of the MacBook weighs a measly 5 pounds, only 2 more than the MacBook Air.

Too weak for Pros, and too expensive for everyone else?

The MacBook Air is clearly not versatile or powerful enough to be the computer of choice for power users, and its hefty price tag is sure to put off users looking for a primary computer. I guess the computer could appeal to heavy travellers who might want the thinnest computer available, but with the regular MacBook being significantly cheaper and only mildly heavier and larger, is the MacBook Air worth the extra price? I simply fail to see what void the MacBook Air is filling and maybe that’s where the answer lies. The MacBook Air seems best used as a secondary computer, a road companion of sorts.  But given it’s extremely thin build, is it durable enough to be the computer of choice for heavy travellers?  In the end, perhaps it will be a luxury product that will sell surprisingly well on account of its shockingly small form factor. And for all I know, seeing and using a MacBook Air in person might be so impressive that it might convince people to lay out the extra cash right there on the spot.

Some are already calling the MacBook Air a disappointment, and I myself have my doubts as to how it will fare in the marketplace. But you can’t deny that Apple is once again pushing the limits of what engineering can do and that’s precisely why they’ve succeeded in the past. And because the bosses over here at Itola weren’t kind enough to cough up the cash so that I could hit up Macworld, I’ll have to wait two weeks before I can get my hands on one and give it a full review.

Here are some cool pictures to keep you smiling as you fall asleep tonight:

We’ll post more as the information keeps rolling in. Sit tight!

Nevertheless, many media journalists believed adult content was going to help determine the winner of the now defunct battle between Blu-ray and HD-DVD. As will be explained below, porn on Blu-ray is not the real issue, but if anything, these stories conjure up memories of the Sony Betamax and JVC VHS wars of the late 70’s and early 80’s. Let’s take a look back.

Betamax vs. VHS and Porn: A trip down memory lane

Sony’s Betamax was released in 1975, one year before JVC introduced its well-known VHS player.

After a battle that lasted for almost 10 years, VHS emerged victorious despite the fact that Sony’s Betamax was largely recognized as the technologically superior player. The reasons behind VHS’s victory cannot be traced back to one deciding factor, but one egregious difference between the two formats was that Betamax players could, at first, only play tapes that lasted up to an hour in length, clearly not long enough for a standard Hollywood movie.

Another popular theory, though impossible to substantiate, is that Sony’s refusal to allow adult content on its Betamax player allowed VHS to pull away and become the de-facto home video standard for nearly two decades.

Does porn on blu-ray even mean anything?

Sony’s stance regarding porn on Blu-ray is completely irrelevant for a few reasons. For one, Blu-Ray already seems well positioned to overtake HD-DVD as the next HD standard, porn or not. But more importantly, sales of adult-oriented DVD’s are slowing down significantly as consumers are flocking to the Internet to get their adult content for free.

As a funny aside and perhaps a testament to the glorious nature of 1080p!, many porn stars are opposed to Blu-Ray, and HD in general, because it reveals blemishes on their bodies that would otherwise not be noticeable. But I suppose that porn in HD would allow for some interesting titles. Move over “Debbie does Dallas” and say hello to “Patti does Pittsburgh as she goes to a Pharmacy to get Pro-active for her Pimples” and “Vainy Vixens 4″.