So it is clear, I enjoy my local paper. I want to support my local paper. But right now I am not happy with my local paper. In today’s mail I received a letter from the Herald informing me that I am a valued customer, that they are enhancing the product, and they want more money for the subscription.

Typically a small increase in subscription fees is not a huge issue and generally speaking I am not opposed to the principal. Though, in today’s age I wonder if continuing with the paper product is necessary as the primary method of delivery. Should the paper, in its paper form, be regulated as a niche medium to the product? Let’s be clear that the product is the content not the physical paper! To confuse the two would be a mistake. After all, they pay their staff to produce pieces of journalism not folded pieces of paper.

Given the letter about the increase in fees and the afore mentioned hiccups in delivery I have started thinking about how the Chronicle Herald could evolve to provide me more bang for my buck. For $20 a month I could have a paper product delivered to my building that occasionally results in the frustration of a missed delivery or a paper taken by a neighbor. The production of the physical product is a highly recyclable result though its production is not environmentally friendly. Take in consideration other variables like the paper getting wet , ripped, etc and you can see how people might want a bit more than the status quo for more money.

What I propose though is not a radical shift in direction for the Herald but an evolution of the delivery. Many companies have flirted with moving to a website based paper. This does offer them a virtually unlimited space to produce content that a physical paper limits. It offers search ability, ease of archives, a world audience, and so forth. But it has been difficult for the industry to monetize that particular business model. So while I don’t think it is a model that is unsustainable – I just think it is being done wrong – it is not the solution I have in mind either.

To see where I am going with this take a long look at your mobile phone. News on my phone? No, not exactly! Think about the business model built from the subsidized subscription method of the mobile phone market. Since the cost of my local paper is now approaching the cost of a basic cell phone contract perhaps it is time to start thinking about such a model, a la Kindel.

By pairing the news service with a long term subscription based model where instead of a physical paper delivered you get it downloaded to your subsidized device such as an Amazon Kindel or other e-reader. I’d be willing to even pay $30 a month for such a service. The benefits of such a device are; reusable, you still benefit from the virtually unlimited space of the cloud, and other services can be used on the device making it versatile product for things like eBooks and magazines, a larger screen than your mobile, etc.

As these devices evolve to offer options for; full color, video, and audio, so does the possibilities for your news agency to produce more and more dynamic content. While I am not advocating for the Kindel in particular it is the most popular e-reader available today and I offer it as an example.

What are your thoughts? Is this the direction the news paper industry should take? Would you pay more for a Kindel (or other like device) to receive your daily paper? Would your current mobile suffice? Comments are always welcome.

They define the events with a line “This isn’t an industry or professional event, it’s just a bunch of people who like this whole ‘internet’ thing and want to hang out with like-minded folks” which is exactly what social media/new media is about. It is about bringing people together around a common idea or goal.

At last night’s 3rd Wednesday event a question was posed to the group, is there a wrong way to use social media? While the question is a valid one to ask it also implies there is a correct way to use social media. Which leads me to think about why you are using social media?

This is where the answer lays in my mind. Social Media tools like Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, Myspace, etc are about engaging and connecting people in a new way. Twitter is limited to 140 characters per message to get your ideas across. Facebook allows the sharing of video, pictures, and a variety of other information. Blogs are a beast onto their selves. But their fundamental purpose is all the same. The spreading of ideas in an interactive way.

The real power of social media is not in what tools you use – although they can add clarity to your message – but in how you use them. There were many brand experts in attendance last night who made very valuable contributions to the discussion about building a brand using these online tools. Though I think the fundamental principal of engagement was the key to the whole discussion.

Like the discussion that was happening in the room the discussions that happen online are most effective when people engage each other. Discussions where people talk and don’t listen. Well, we all paid our tuition for those! And like the course I took on the romantic poets where I was lectured to for 4 months those conversations did not have an impact like the discussions we had over Feminist Philosophy.

Others made valid points on honesty, authority, and even clarity. All valid points, all worth considering. But how are online discussions different from in person ones in that respect. You can say what you want but if you are being dishonest you will be caught and loose any authority you had. You effectively destroy your message or goal.

So is there a wrong way to use social media? Yes, that is to be disengaged from your potential audience. Is there a right way? Not really, because the varied goals of each user will dictate how they use it. But use, without engagement, is rarely effective. If you are building a brand, personal, corporate, or otherwise, not engaging the people who will give your idea power will prove to be a fruitless endeavor.

What do you think? Is there a right or wrong way to use social media tools?

In casual talks with employers and managers around the city the predominate feeling is that if an employee or potential employee has a blog, facebook, twitter stream, or any other online presence the it is the employers right to know. While no one would admit to actively hunting these resources out the reactions did indicate a certain “right to know” attitude. The reality is that some employers are doing extensive searches of current and potential employees online habits. A recent Deloitte survey found that 30% of employers were informally monitoring social networking sites for employee’s habits. People have even been dismissed for content they have posted online. A quick search for “Fired for blogging” will give you an easy dozen links to choose for with related stories.

Now on the flip side many employees will argue that their online actions are none of their employers business. According to the same Deloitte survey 53% of employees think that their social networking habits are none of their employers business. Even though over 70% understand it is easy to damage their employer’s reputation online. I think the reasons for this is quite obvious and do not warrant an in-depth discussion. Employees do not want to be held accountable at their employment for things they do off the company time. The basic social contract of mutual financial success, that is I perform a set of duties to assist the company in being profitable and am justly paid for those services, is the underlying principal of this. For many people the employee/employer relationship ends there and unless the employees external actions prevent or inhibit that process, what the employee does is their business.
So where do you stand? Where does the employee/employer relationship end? At what point do you feel the employer is overstepping its bounds of intruding into your personal life? Leave your comments below. I would love to hear from employers and employees alike on this.

Users of Facebook will now be able to instant message with one another though a built in message client. Unlike many other Facebook apps like “Movie Quiz”, “Scrabblous”, or , you will not need to install (Read: Add) this application to your profile. It is an automatic addition to your profile and available through any page you view on Facebook. Regardless if it is a group, picture, someone else’s profile you will be able to access your instant messages though a small bar across the bottom of your screen. It acts and feels much like using MSN in windows with a mix of Google’s chat interface. Check it out, log into your profile now.

Should MSN start worrying? Possibly, any thoughts?

This is a topic that was often battered around during my time on campus at Memorial University working with the Commons. In my discussions with staff it became apparent that there was apprehension against using podcasts or blogs at the university. One staff member even suggested that no professor would want to share his or her intellectual property for free. But the 90% participation rate of MIT – a world leading school – suggests that staff would be interested if the opportunity was presented to them. So why is it a highly ranked and respected school, such as Memorial, would not jump at the chance to join this group?

It could be a fear that by offering their lectures and content for fee they would devalue their work and risk funding. There is the technology barrier and the consideration some professors may not know how to participate from a technological level (how to make a podcast for example). The sister to that argument is other technology barrier, availability of equipment to produce the necessary content and provide it.

However, each argument should be trumped with possibility of advancing the schools brand, attracting students, professors, and staff. It can be have the effect of bringing to light new opportunities for investment and research, advancing and raising the level of education at the school.

Application platforms like Facebook can be integrated – not withstanding the outstanding copyright concerns – into the daily student life. Apple offers the iTunes U for schools to provide their audio and video content. There are a dozen avenues to explore in allowing greater social networking, social media, and interaction between students and the university members.

This is not to say all of the delivery should be or could be outsourced to other vendors. A school like Memorial (To continue with my previous example) could develop its own portal (which it has) and provide content via that system. Some content could even be restricted to the university community using the existing authentication systems, or even to particular classes. The possibilities are only as limited as the resources and time restrict. That said it would be great to see my alma mater become the leader in this field and the first major Canadian University to join the Open Courseware Consortium.

For years the wireless network carriers that provide your cell phone service have had a restrictive hold on what devices could be used with their services. Today marks the final major player to reverse that practice and customers in the US win. But what about Canada?

It seems that wireless providers in the Great White North are less inclined to provide the same openness to their customers. The big three here – Bell, Telus, and Rogers – still require that customers use only the devices and software that they provide. Even when you consider that two of them use the same technology (CDMA), they do not easily allow, if at all, the ability to take your phone from one carrier to the other. Instead, you are required to sign a new contract for a subsidized phone in order to switch companies. So the question remains when will Canadian companies follow the American lead. Not only do they seem disinterested but the Canadian Government’s department of Industry also lacks any definitive position on the topic. In fact, the Minster of Industry lacked any requirement of an open network policy for bids in the upcoming Canadian wireless spectrum auction. A requirement that is part of the same auction that is ongoing in the US.

For a government that seems so determined that align its self with the American draconian DMCA it has missed the boat on a pro-consumer move of open wireless networks. Which is also a policy of the Americans. So who looses should we not adopt this policy – either though industry or government regulation – why we the customers do!

An open network policy would allow consumers the choice to use any device, phone, or software on their wireless provider. Therefore, instead of being tied into contracts and restrictive choices of phones you would be able to take any technological compatible piece of equipment to any provider. The caveat to this is you may have to pay full price for the phone to avoid the contract requirement since the carrier’s subsidize the phones through those contracts.

The Canadian wireless providers face three issues and mounting public pressure to fix them.
1) Open networks – allow the customers the choice to use any device, phone, or software they wish with their connection.
2) Service plans/pricing – currently there is no reasonable data plans for mobile devices and most plans have minutes, bandwidth transfer, or content restrictions. Unlimited – if even available – plans are priced well out of the affordability of the average Canadian.
3) Competition – With only two major CDMA and one GSM carrier there is little to no choice for service. Increased competition is necessary.

As for the iPhone, the AT&T move will have no effect. Customers will still need to sign a two year contract to get their iPhone. That said, in two years I predict a surge of iPhone users fleeing AT&T for other carriers.

Since then a new security risk has been discovered that exposes all you photographs to potential viewer though simple website address manipulation. Thanks to the work of Computer Engineering Graduate student Dave Churchill this simple exploit can allow anyone to view the full album of someone who is not on his or her friends list.

The conditions for doing this are quite simple. First, you need the address of a photograph in an album that belongs to someone who is not in your friends list. The easiest way to obtain this address is by viewing a photograph that has been tagged by someone you know. Make sure that photograph belongs in an album of someone you do not know and in an album you cannot view through standard navigation. This is necessary as it provides all the information necessary to make the hack easy and demonstrates that it indeed works.

At this point, the simple removal of a parameter in the address bar will expose all the photographs in that album. In this case the “&subj=123456789” portion of the address. If you remove that piece of data and hit enter and you now can view all the photographs in that album.

If this was an album of someone you did not know and as such would not be able to view otherwise, you have just bypassed Facebook’s lacking security with the preverbal Mac truck. I have tested this and found I was easily able to view full albums I otherwise would not have access to view.

This simple oversight in the development of the Facebook code is alarming. If this very trivial hack can be applied to albums what other hacks can be applied to expose further data. Since Facebook relies on cookies to track if you are logged in or not, this URL and many others are essentially open to the pubic.

How much longer will Facebook’s lack of security and questionable content policy be accepted? From the blanket user agreement that anything users post on Facebook is free for Facebook to reuse and even sell to others, to their substandard security. Facebook is facing mounting pressure to answer questions to how they use users information and how they protect that.

It is starting to look increasingly like Facebook is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

See Dave’s original document here

I had been having trouble with the device recently and had performed a disk repair on it twice. Tonight while playing a few tunes, I noticed that it was getting choppy as if the songs had random pauses in them. Much like the effect of a radio cutting in and out. Eventually I saw the icon indicating the iPod was in need of servicing. I was able to connect it to a computer and it recovered fine for a brief period. By the time I got home it had completely died. This was only after a few songs and a couple of hours later.

Finally, after many attempts to start the iPod I saw the infamous Sad iPod Face . I knew this was not a good sign. It was also starting to make an audible clicking noise as it started up. It was as if the iPod was starting only to encounter an error, stop the internal drive, and attempt to start again. No number of attempts to connect the device to the computer, restore it, or refresh it has delivered any success. The little guy is gone. The only way it will stay on is if I connect it to the computer and then it is unresponsive. It is like life support for electronics.

This is the downside of portable devices like the iPod. They work really well for a few years and then take a rapid decent into malfunctions and eventual electronic death. Combine that with the cost of a replacement and it is like a double slap in the face. Cell phones, iPods, and blackberries all come with hefty price points making them luxuries, not must haves (with the exception of a cell phone if it is your only phone). That said, I used my iPod on average of about 2 to 3 hours a day and would notice its absence during my commute and at work. So it will get replaced in time with a new iPod Touch or a regular iPod. Like I said, in time.

Now if Mr. Jobs reads this – and I doubt he does – feel free to send a replacement.

By now, you are likely wondering what in the world I am raving about. The simple answer is that I am raving about Google Reader, my RSS reader. This product allows me to unify all my online – which almost is my exclusive source for the majority of content – reading. However, it has caused a daily wading through hundreds of articles, blogs, and headlines. Most of these I do not read and will never have the time to read. Many are duplicates reproduced on another feed or I will learn from in another manner. This is the biggest downside to unifying your regular reading into one source. You become overwhelmed with the volume you actually attempt to consume or you become over zealous in your subscriptions.

Because Google Reader is online, I am able to access it from any internet-connected computer, and that saves me from the trouble of having to remember which sites I am subscribed. Copying that configuration to each computer I use (work, school, laptop, etc) would become daunting. I prefer this method to downloading a client and installing it. The obvious benefit is if I remove or add a feed, I do not need to worry about duplicating the process on multiple machines.

Now back to my original problem, what can I cut to make my reading experience more enjoyable. What RSS reader are you using, and what are some of your favorite blogs? Feel free to discuss in my comment section.

The iPod Death Clock is a great site if you are an owner of one of these ubiquitous devices. Only asking you 4 or 5 questions about how, or how often, you use your device and combining that information with make and model details gathered by inputting your serial number. The death clock estimates how long you have left before you have to consider another upgrade. For me the answer is obviously bleak! It is a good thing I have been considering the 16Gig iPod Touch as a replacement.

How accurate is the information? Well according to the site the battery on my iPod should be around 10% of its normal capacity. This reflects well with my actual experience recently with using my iPod. The device typically only gives 2 or 3 hours of playback before completely dieing on me.
The results page also gives a maximum expected life of 3 months before having to replace this device. While 42 days seems rather quick for me, I do not really expect it to last beyond 3 months based on my recent experiences.

iPod Death Clock comes with one disclaimer that the site is for entertainment purposes only. While they claim their repair shop statistics mirror the results they produce, they also state actual life span may vary significantly. Basically they are asking you to take their results with a grain of salt. Keeping in mind no one can predict the exact date your iPod will die.

How long do you have left on your iPod? Let us know in the comments section.