Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Removing News Corps. Feeds

Well, it looks like I can start removing all my News Corps. Feeds. I know my little blog won't mean much. I'd sure like to see all the News Corps. links drop off the Internet. That might wake this guy up. Maybe all of the bloggers that work for this guy can talk some sense into him.

Here's a link to the papers run by News Corp. Feel free to start dropping their feeds as well.

Time to celebrate -- Murdoch to hide his crap: "

For someone as successful as he's been, Rupert Murdoch sure has no clue what the internet is all about.

Rupert Murdoch says he will remove stories from Google's search index as a way to encourage people to pay for content online.

In an interview with Sky News Australia, the mogul said that newspapers in his media empire – including the Sun, the Times and the Wall Street Journal – would consider blocking Google entirely once they had enacted plans to charge people for reading their stories on the web.

In recent months, Murdoch his lieutenants have stepped up their war of words with Google, accusing it of "kleptomania" and acting as a "parasite" for including News Corp content in its Google News pages. But asked why News Corp executives had not chosen to simply remove their websites entirely from Google's search indexes – a simple technical operation – Murdoch said just such a move was on the cards.

'I think we will, but that's when we start charging,' he said. 'We have it already with the Wall Street Journal. We have a wall, but it's not right to the ceiling. You can get, usually, the first paragraph from any story - but if you're not a paying subscriber to WSJ.com all you get is a paragraph and a subscription form.'

The 78-year-old mogul's assertion, however, is not actually correct: users who click through to screened WSJ.com articles from Google searches are usually offered the full text of the story without any subscription block. It is only users who find their way to the story through the Wall Street Journal's website who are told they must subscribe before they can read further.

Murdoch also wants to legally challenge the doctrine of Fair Use. Please, please do!

Murdoch added that he did not agree with the idea that search engines fell under 'fair use' rules - an argument many aggregator websites use as part of their legal justification for reproducing excerpts of news stories online.

'There's a doctrine called fair use, which we believe to be challenged in the courts and would bar it altogether... but we'll take that slowly.'

Of course, Murdoch will never challenge Fair Use. Media organizations live in fear of a clear judicial affirmation of Fair Use. It would make it harder for them to threaten people who engage in accepted Fair Use practices.

Still, it's amazing how little Murdoch knows about how his products interact with the internet -- that one can get full stories off of WSJ if you just know how, or that Google News doesn't actually do anything except provide a headline, part of the first sentence and a link to the source material. He actually thinks Google news is a 'parasite' for linking to his products!

The people who simply just pick up everything and run with it – steal our stories, we say they steal our stories - they just take them," he said. "That's Google, that's Microsoft, that's Ask.com, a whole lot of people ... they shouldn't have had it free all the time, and I think we've been asleep."

That level of ignorance of the medium is breathtaking.

With luck, Murdoch will also order Fox News to pull their stuff off Google News and enact a paywall to keep those freeloading communist conservatives from reading the material for free. It'd be the fair and balanced things to do. And I, for one, can't wait.

Monday, September 7, 2009

Gmail outages could turn off enterprises

Must have been a slow news day over at Macworld. Are you telling me that if something is unreliable people tend to not rely on it? That's frickin' genius. I HATE captain obvious headlines.

Gmail outages could turn off enterprises. Repeated outages of Google's Gmail online e-mail system could discourage enterprise customers from using it.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Use BCC to Cut Down on Reply Spam [Email Overload]

No Shit! Just don't hesitate to inform people of this when you are included on mass emails with pages of people on the CC line.

Use BCC to Cut Down on Reply Spam [Email Overload]

PC World runs down three lessons they've learned about containing the email beast, and at least one of them is worth contemplating for your next multi-recipient email. In short, BCC isn't just a privacy tool, but a reply-all killer.

Thomas, a federal government worker, uses BCC more often than not when addressing multiple recipients. In most cases, nobody cares who else is addressed on the message, and in almost every case, it prevents over-eager reply senders from hitting everybody with needless retorts.

Use them for messages with many addressees and that will cut down on all the 'Me too' responses from people who stupidly hit the 'reply all' button before sending their worthless e-mail. One person hits reply all, another 29 send a message about the mistake, and you suddenly have 212 messages when only one was necessary.

Basic, for sure, but it's a good refresher, or a small hack if you weren't already using BCC to your advantage. The same article, though, agrees with our own advice on BCC disasters—don't blind carbon copy anyone who you want to remain truly hidden, because their reply could hit anyone you've carbon-copied in a "non-blind" way. So if you're aggravated by email waste but nervous about an office faux pas, BCC everyone who deserves to have a copy, and keep everyone else out of it.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Study: Most Twitter posts 'babble'

If you read the article you'll see that they used 6 categories. One of them actually being "pointless babble". If you ask me, 5 of the 6 are actually pointless. Only 1 of them (news) would be worth reading. So, while 40% might be "pointless babble", I'd say 90% would be just pointless.

The adorable, iconic Twitter "Fail Whale" floats blissfully on the wings of your Pointless Babble. A study reveals that more than 40 percent of Twitter's tweets are 'Pointless Babble.' So what were we expecting?  Why should self-published content to be different than, for instance, conversation?