TechTicker
educational technology, eLearning & emerging technology

One of the people I follow on Twitter, (jeff)isageek, asked the question today: “With services like friendfeed, twitter, disqus, google reader, del.icio.us, etc [sic] do i even need a ‘traditional’ blog?”

From the standpoint of eLearning and educational technology, my answer is a resounding: Yes.

Sure, it’s important to evaluate new technologies in terms of how they can be used to embetter our online activities - and more importantly our offline activities - however this must be ever tempered by proper investigation and inquiry.  Immediately flocking to the next new trend without thoroughly investigating the last one is detrimental to all technologies involved; not to mention the people that use them.  This is especially critical for education.

New technologies are emerging at a phenomenal pace, and perhaps not surprisingly this has served to whip up an ever-present sense of excitement and anticipation in which people are constantly looking for the next great innovation to top the last one.  In some regards this is a very valuable trend for the industry, because passion and enthusiasm breed interest and uptake, and people who may have once ignored the possibilities offered by eLearning and web technologies may perhaps begin to consider them.

In the same breath though the danger in this is that users may afford new tools an overinflated sense of value fanned by the flames of media hype.  The important task for users therefore - and particularly for educators - is to ensure these technologies are evaluated and analysed according to their own merit, rather than the ever fickle waves of pop culture influence; lest we fall prey to the curse of implementing technology for technologies sake.

In the case of brand new so-called lifestreaming technologies, advocates seem to place a tremdous amount of value on the speed of use and real-time interaction they afford users.  Ideas that were once allocated several hundred words are now crammed into 140 characters.  Speed is being afforded more consideration than thorough contextual elaboration.

This is what blogs facilitate that technologies like Twitter and Friendfeed cannot.  They provide space for carefully considered contemplation and reflection in which time requirements are secondary (if that) and accuracy and thoroughness of information and thought are of the utmost importance.  In keeping with this the comments and discussion that take place on blogs facilitate more considered responses, and are often times vehicles for investigation and reflection in their own right.

For certain industries, or social spheres, blogs may be quaint and passe; but they are not, and should not be perceived as such for education.

This is not to say that the aforementioned “friendfeed, twitter, disqus, google reader, [and] del.icio.us” do not or may not serve valuable purposes.  Real time communication tools, RSS readers and feed aggregators, social bookmarking tools, and discussion tools all have their uses - in fact they can be incredibly valuable.  The importance is to allow sufficient time to realise their true value (or lack thereof) before discarding older technologies.

The point: By all means, try everything; but evaluate them properly and thoroughly.  And remember, ‘traditional’ doesn’t always mean obsolete.

I’m seeing a disturbing trend coming out of Mac-land right now, and it’s starting to piss me off.

As I mentioned yesterday, the slimy push to get Safari installed on PCs via the Apple Software update is poor form, but in and of itself it’s just irritating.  The motives that drove the decision on the other-hand are more disconcerting; but what makes me really angry is the arguments in support of the move coming out of the Mac-head camp.

In a comment on Paul Mison’s post “A Translation of “Apple’s Windows Invasion“, Tom Insam writes:

“Obviously Apple realised that if they wanted to get accepted by all those windows users, they had to install irritating system tray icons and background processes and intrusive update software like everyone else. Not to mention apps with their own look-and-feel that don’t look like anything else on the desktop. It’s just Apple trying to fit in on the platform.”

This argument is pathetic and echoes of school-yard me-toism, where the only logic is “Everyone else is doing it.  Why not us?”It reeks of an application that lacks the appeal and quality to be adopted on its own merit and therefore can only get into the user radar through underhanded tactics.  It reflects very poorly on Safari, as is being demonstrated by the outrage across the web as we speak.

If Steve Jobs was trying to gain the ear of PC users this way, it hasn’t worked.  The move is being seen for what it is: a desperate ploy for attention.

But to be fair, as has been explained elsewhere, this tactic is nothing new. Apple hasn’t sunk to depths unexplored by other companies.  They’ve just joined their ranks.

Let’s get this straight, Apple: This tactic is unacceptable no matter who does it.  This goes for Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Apple.

From my standpoint as a consumer, this has broke my trust, my confidence in the company and eliminated any desire at all to use the browser.  I choose to use an application; it cannot be forced on me.  And the fact it is being forced on me means I will never use Safari by choice.

I am not a zealous PC-user either.  My laptop is a MacBook which has virtual installations of Windows XP Professional and Ubuntu Linux Gutsy Gibbon.  I see computer software as a tool through which I can achieve the aims and objectives I set for myself.  I do not see the borders of operating system or program that some people get hung up on.  If it serves the purposes I need it to, I’ll use it.

However when I see companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple breaking my trust it alienates me - immediately.  I used to love Google but have begun to shy away from them; I used to trust Microsoft, but have done the same.  Now I do the same with Apple.

I’ve developed quite an appreciation for open source philosophies, and the freedom, choice, and openness they advocate.  Apple’s move with Safari has reminded me of what I don’t want to return to with proprietary companies.

References:

• “A Translation of “Apple’s Windows Invasion“, more chaff, 21 March 2008

Here’s the story I keep expecting to go away, but instead it keeps growing bigger and more controversial by the minute.

Apple has recently begun to use and/or abuse their extraordinary share of the media player market held by iTunes as a jumping off point for spreading the uptake their Safari browser.  This has many PC users seriously miffed, and appears to have fanned the flames of the long-standing operating system war between Mac-heads and PC-users, which has been burning since the 1980s.

When installing iTunes, users are also required to install the Apple Software Update tool, which regularly checks for new versions of the software.  When a new version becomes available, users are prompted to download and install it.

Being prompted for software updates is nothing new.  What is stirring the controversy is Apple’s increasing tendency to use this update to try and piggy-back other applications.

This began with QuickTime, which is so closely integrated with iTunes you cannot install iTunes by itself anymore.  Apple has now expanded this tactic to include prompts to install Safari as well.

The symptom in question appears when you have iTunes but not Safari installed on your PC.  When the update appears, users now see the inclusion of Safari, with the install option selected by default.

While not nearly as bundled as QuickTime, the fact users are now being prompted to install unwanted or unrequested software is getting people’s backs up.  You need only look to the Digg thread on “Apple pushing Safari downloads on Windows users” for examples of the anathema this move is being met with.

More recently though, Mozilla CEO, John Lilly weighed in:

“…by and large, all software makers are trying to get users to trust us on updates, and so the likely behavior here is for users to just click “Install 2 items,” which means that they’ve now installed a completely new piece of software, quite possibly completely unintentionally. Apple has made it incredibly easy — the default, even — for users to install ride along software that they didn’t ask for, and maybe didn’t want. This is wrong, and borders on malware distribution practices.”

I for one find this irritating, but not nearly the personal afront that some people are making it out to be.  As Tom Kranit from CNet discussed yesterday (”Think before you install“), it’s important to pay attention to what you’re doing when you click OK when prompted to install something:

“Had Apple bundled Safari with iTunes, the way they bundle Quicktime, I can see where Windows users would have more of a complaint. Being forced to install something you don’t want just to get updates for something you do want is not cool. You can download standalone versions of QuickTime or iTunes on Apple’s site, but sometimes they appear bundled in Software Update and people don’t realize they have other options.

But that’s not what’s happening with Safari. If you don’t want Safari, don’t click “install.”

It seems that at some point people became conditioned to downloading anything that shows up from an official source, like Microsoft, Apple, AOL, Yahoo, or whoever. Remember, it’s your PC; spend your installation capital wisely.”

I don’t think this move is going to do much to increase Safari’s market share. PC users by and large seem to take their browsers in one of two flavours: Internet Explorer, or something that isn’t Internet Explorer.

In the case of the latter, this title is well and truly held by Firefox; and as far as I’m concerned, Safari just can’t compete with Firefox.  Sure it’s fast, but so is the Firefox 3 Beta 4 version, which I’m using currently. With Safari you’ve got zippo on the customisation options; with Firefox, you’ve got a massive library of tools and add-ons for building your browser experience exactly the way you want it.

So I don’t see Apple gaining very much by this move, except criticism that it’s becoming another Microsoft. These slimy install tactics have just given me another reason to ignore Safari, not embrace it.

References:

•  ”Think before you install“, Tom Krazit, CNet News.com, 21 March 2008
• “Apple pushing Safari downloads on Windows users“, Digg, first submitted 21 March 2008
• “Apple Software Update“, John Lilly, 22 March 2008

Question: “Which blog provider should I use?”
Answer: It’s complicated.

As an individual question in and of itself this is not a very challenging thought; however when you work for a central non-academic unit like I do, and the person asking the question is looking to implement blogs course-wide as a student journal project it is a different situation entirely. The question is no longer a simple one; it has significant implications that need to be considered.

In the event your school or institution has a centralised blog hosting service the answer is easy. It is always ideal to use onsite hosting. It’s when there is no central hosing service that things get complicated.

First and foremost it’s essential to consult your institution’s guidelines and policies before even considering using a commercial/external provider. This is not a decision to be taken lightly, and some schools may have policies strictly forbidding storage of student data off-site. It’s also wise to consult with local subject matter experts and in some cases legal experts - especially with respect to End User Licensing Agreements.

Particularly in the case of EULA’s, as painful and incomprehensible as they can be to read, it is critical to read the fine print to ensure nothing questionable is included that could have an adverse impact on the course, students, data, an your obligations as an instructor. The Terms and Conditions outline what you and your students commit to when you use the service. They include rights and responsibilities for both user and service provider, and importantly Intellectual Property issues. All of which are important to be aware of.

Above and beyond EULA considerations, the key issues of off-site hosting involve student data, student privacy, and security. Institutions and schools have legal obligations to protect and preserve all of them. So the prospect of storing this information off-campus needs to be carefully considered. Policies and laws will vary from country to country, but the fundamental issues are more or less the same.

In the instance of student data, the significance lay in the protection of assessable material and student work. When a homework assignment is submitted, schools have an obligation - moral if not legal as well - to ensure it is kept safe. For locally hosted services this frequently involves sophisticated and expensive servers, disaster recovery equipment and plans, and IT staff to maintain the environments. The IT people I know take this area very seriously, which is the way it needs to be. Just imagine the catastrophic consequences of losing a student’s thesis or dissertation in a server crash.

It’s always wise to instruct students to store back-up copies elsewhere, and not rely on the online environment as their sole storage location; but this concept isn’t always emphasised or adhered to. It should be.

It’s important to bear in mind too that student data not only refers to preservation of the data, but access to it as well. With a common mandate being the preservation of student records for at least a minimum amount of time, it’s critical that any online service be assessed for the long term availabilities of the information they will contain.

Access to information also refers to service up-time. In this sense preservation of student data refers not solely to what has already been created, but what is currently being created, and even what will need to be created in the future. If you give your students an assignment to write a blog post by a certain date for example, but the blog provider suddenly and unexpectedly has an outage, your students are unable to complete their assignment.

This is not to say there aren’t ways to accommodate these unexpected inconveniences, nor that outages are limited to external providers (they unfortunately happen with school-hosted environments too), but rather that they are important considerations to factor into planning.

With student privacy you deal with a student’s personal details - name, student ID number, grades and marks, even address and phone number. All of this information is highly sensitive. Online applications do take the protection of this information very seriously, but schools take it arguably more seriously - especially when the students are minors/under-aged.

Last but not least we have security, and this relates to all other facets of online activity. Without adequate security you cannot have privacy, or ensure that student data is being preserved and protected. You also cannot effectively create a safe and secure online space in which students feel free to expand their horizons and pursue new avenues in their learning processes. Indeed adequate security is crucial to ensuring the moral and legal obligations of the educational institution are adhered to.

All this is not meant to scare you away from the internet, by the way.  After all, the innovations taking place across the World Wide Web provide educators and students with an exceptional amount of potential to design dynamic and engaging learning environments that can truly inspire learning. The flexibility and opportunities in the new web are truly astounding and should be looked towards to enhance and support learning and teaching.

The point is that preservation of student data, privacy and adequate security must take priority above all else. Even the best suited online learning environment should not be used if there is doubt about its abilities to preserve and address these crucial elements.

After waiting perhaps far too long to get set up, I’ve just configured this blog for use with Feedburner.

This feed is now available at: http://feeds.feedburner.com/techtickerdotnet

Normally something relatively cosmetic like this wouldn’t warrant a blog post, however I’ve just discovered a very surprising, and equally irritating fact about Wordpress.com: You cannot redirect your RSS feed. In fact you can’t even PAY for the option; it just doesn’t exist.

With most blogs, including Blogspot/Blogger, Edublogs.org, and even self-hosted Wordpress instances, once a feed has been burned with Feedburner it’s just a matter of updating the settings to point to the new feed location. After that, anytime a user clicks on the orange RSS icon in the address field of the browser, the user is directed to the Feedburner page and not the one that comes native with the platform.

Using Feedburner, bloggers can take advantage of a suite of informative tools to gain a better appreciation of who is viewing their blog. Wordpress has reasonable native stat’s to indicate who is visiting the blog, but provides absolutely NO information on readers who access the blog remotely via RSS aggregators and feed readers. Essentially this under-represents the number of page hits.

Unfortunately, as per this fairly lengthy discussion in the forums area, Wordpress.com users are currently doomed to a tale of two unsynchronised and unrequited RSS feeds: the native one that appears in the browser address field, and the Feedburner one that is publicised via an icon or chicklet in the blog menu.

Were it a just matter of having to reference two different locations to gain a holistic picture of your RSS subscribers this would be only an inconvenience. Astoundingly this isn’t even possible.

There is nowhere in the Wordpress.com dashboard area that features your RSS stats. Unbelievably, this feature once existed but has since been taken out. Why this is the case does not seem to be posted anywhere, leaving users to express their frustration and consternation in the forums area and essentially preach to the converted.

All that being said, please update your Tech Ticker feed to http://feeds.feedburner.com/techtickerdotnet

Please not though, the Feedburner instance does not include the Odiogo podcast options. So if you prefer the audio version, by all means please continue to use the alternative feed. I’ll take accessibility over accurate statistics and reporting any day.

Update: Minor correction, I’ve just discovered that there are statistics available for the number of syndicated vs. on-site views at the level of individual posts.  However no such stats are available for the aggregate of day, week, or month views; nor can you view a single daily breakdown of post-by-post performance (e.g. all posts viewed that day are displayed with hits broken into syndicated vs. on-site activity).

References:

• “Transitioning Subscribers from Wordpress.com Feeds to Feedburner“, Wordpress.com Forums, first post 14 June 2007
• “Become an Edublogs Supporter“, Feedburner Integration section, Edublogs.org
• Tech Ticker Feedburner feed: http://feeds.feedburner.com/techtickerdotnet

The advent of social software and related technologies has resulted in an extraordinarily public world for those of use who choose to participate. The emergence of each new application expands our ability to express ourselves virtually to the point today where we now have a tremendous ability to carve out our own presence on the Internet, and create our world in our own image.

For example:

• Our Facebook page shows who we know, how we know them, what our interests are, what movies and books we like, and what we don’t like.
• Our blogs depict our innermost thoughts, plans, passions, gripes, aspirations, and even secrets.
• Our Flickr pages show what we look like, where we went for vacation, what our new car looks like, what our children look like, and even what our house looks like.
• Our Twitter account gives moment-to-moment accounts of what we do during the day, when we’re leaving the house, where we’re going, and frequently impulsive statements that should not be revealed but are anyway.
• Our LinkedIn page tells where we’ve worked, for how long, what we did there and what our career aspirations are.

The power and flexibility afforded to users by these applications is tremendous - however their use can come at a price.

Taken on their own, the information we share enables us to reveal a sliver of who we are to the friends we have on each site. We may occasionally reveal a secret or two, but in the moment it doesn’t always seem like a big deal. A single confession or ill-considered statement seems harmless considering how many comments a typical person makes online over the years. But that’s the problem.

Whereas taking this information on an isolated case-by-case basis presents only a glimpse, when gathered together collectively the implications are truly staggering.

Pieced together, the information we reveal about ourselves online yields an amazingly comprehensive view of who we are, and in incredible detail. And more often than not all this information is publicly available to anyone who care to look - including wives, children, bosses, potential-bosses, or even ne’er do wells who would seek to abuse and exploit this information.

Furthermore, unlike face-to-face conversations where your comments disappear into the ether the moment they leave your lips, written statements or uploaded images and video are forever etched into the fabric of the internet through a process called indexing, and can be called upon by search engines by anyone.

Some search engines, such as Google, also store a copy of the content on their servers to expedite the search process and reduce demands for system resources. What this means is your content is immediately replicated across the web, regardless of whether you end up deleting it or not - once it’s posted there’s no going back.

Increasingly this information is being used for purposes not originally intended by the ones who initially posted the content. Potential employers are frequently beginning to conduct searches into prospective employees via search engines to see what may unexpectedly emerge. So the embarrassing 10-year old photo from the New Year’s Eve party may not remain past tense - it may cost you a desired position.

In my case a harmless search for my name by my supervisor yielded a tidal wave of information on my Internet use. “Mike, your Internet footprint is HUGE!” she told me. In an instant she discovered my blogs, my Twitter page, my YouTube page, and a whole slew of accounts I forgot I had.

In my case nothing harmful emerged from her epiphany aside from the embarrassment of my guitar performances being promoted at all staff meetings since. However others have not been so lucky.

In the case of a young lady named Marissa Schneider, her MySpace contributions have become the subject of investigation in a lawsuit Schneider’s family has launched against Chrysler after a devastating car crash.

According to Idaho News Now (”Victim’s MySpace page subpoenaed in lawsuit“, 15 February 2008):

“Last week, Chrysler issued a subpoena to get full access to Marissa’s My Space account, including private blogs which have been largely unchanged since her accident.“

A catastrophe such as is hardly something each of us would consider when posting to our blogs, however in Marissa’s case Chrysler is arguing it’s relevant for the case.

“ Marissa’s MySpace page includes some curse words and an admission that she smoked pot in the past. But the Schneiders’ attorney, Karen Koehler of Seattle, says both drivers were sober the night of the head-on crash and that Chrysler is trying to dig up dirt on a young woman incapable of defending herself.”

It’s critical that users have firmly established boundaries in place long before logging on to ensure it becomes common practice. My rule of thumb is to ask “Would I be comfortable with my grandmother, daughter, or boss reading this information? What about a complete stranger?” Could knowledge of this information be exploited?”

Once information is released, we are effectively powerless over what happens to it on the open web. Restraint of tongue and pen can only be beneficial.

Via TechCrunch, if the rumours coming in are true it would seem that Microsoft is not content to focus on its $50 Billion quest for Yahoo! alone. Reports suggest that they’re now looking to purchase life streaming application Ustream.tv as well:

“Ustream.tv is said to be in advanced talks with Microsoft to be acquired for $50 million, according to a report from Valleywag. Given it’s very early morning as the post goes live we are unable to put calls in to confirm the deal, but might have more later.”

The reports are listed as rumours currently; and for Microsoft’s sake I hope they prove to be untrue.

Were Microsoft not looking to gobble up Yahoo! I’d say it was a worthwhile acquisition to make, but in light of Yahoo!’s launch of Yahoo! Live last night - with all its warts and network traffic issues - purchasing Ustream.tv just doesn’t make any sense.

Yahoo! Live and Ustream.tv are duplicate technologies that fall into the emerging lifestreaming category, in which users with a decent web connection and web camera can create their own video channel for broadcasting whatever content suits their fancy.

Channels currently in existence range from political webcasts, to tech discussions, to music performances, to vlogging, and everything in between.

I’ve experimented with Ustream.tv to a extensive degree and am quite impressed with the application. Ustream supports embedded instances of the video and chat tools; has a small-scale social network built around it complete with profiles, tagging, commenting, and searching; and importantly supports playback of prerecorded content. Video clips can be recorded while broadcasting live or even pre-recorded privately before being publicly released.

Ustream has already had some major successes and has been used by the UN at the recent Climate Change conference, and by both Democrat and Republican candidates during the primary races. So it’s got some major runs on the board which make it an obvious contender for acquisition.

What makes these rumours truly odd is that Yahoo! has just gone live with their own lifestreaming offering. Having only just been launched, I have only minor experience with it; and unfortunately the test run I did start didn’t end well, with the application buckling under the load.

TechCrunch discussed this recently in “Yahoo Live Fails to Scale“:

“The idea of Yahoo getting into live streaming isn’t a bad one. The space is a logical vertical for the big players to be in, and there’s been rumors for some time that Google might soon offer a similar service on YouTube. The implementation isn’t rocket science; live video needs bandwidth and solid servers, something the little players are already doing. Yahoo Live isn’t a bad effort, but it lacks some of the obvious value adds of competitors such as the ability to record shows, so in theory it should take less to run…and yet it came crashing down miserably”

The system requirements to run this sort of service are vast, so in some ways it’s not surprising that the launch experienced some difficulties. Yahoo! isn’t exactly a small player on the Internet these days and rumours about Yahoo! Live have been ripe for weeks now. Despite the fact no major announcement was made it’s not the least bit surprising that its existence became widely known very quickly.

On the other hand surely they would have expected and planned for all tech-lovers to try their hand at the release - given it’s wow factor and the fact it’s the current en vogue innovation.

Some have commented on the surprising absence of a recording option. I find this a bit unusual myself. At the same time the fact life streaming has hit the radar so quickly could have caught Yahoo! offguard and this launch was pushed out the door quickly in the hopes they could join the front runners, with the intention of expanding the tool suite over time.

Unfortunately network and server load isn’t something that should be addressed later on down the line. Especially not when you’re Yahoo!. Adequate capacity is a must have, not a nice to have.

I’ll be taking a closer look at the app when I can gain access and will post my evaluation when I’ve got some more information.

References:

• Ustream.TV
• Yahoo! Live
• “Microsoft to Acquire Ustream.tv for $50 million?“, TechCrunch, 8 February 2008
• “Yahoo Live Fails to Scale“, TechCrunch, 7 February 2008
• “Yahoo! Launches Live Video Service and We Cover it…Live…Sort of“, Read/Write/Web, 7 February 2008

Several years ago I discovered the joys of RSS. The ability to monitor the activities of a slew of different websites, blogs, news sources, and even podcast channels from a single location was a godsend and a major time-saver.

If you’re not familiar with RSS, it’s not complicated stuff – despite its fairly nondescript abbreviation. RSS stands for Really Simple Syndication and lets you sit back and have your favourite sites come to you with new content, rather than forcing you to go looking for it.

In terms of getting started there are only 3 things you need to do:

1. Select an RSS Reader;
2. Locate the RSS feeds for the websites you wish to subscribe to; and
3. Enter the RSS feed addresses into the feed reader.

The RSS Reader then acts as your inbox for any new content published on your subscriptions. All you have to do is check the feed reader for updates. Some providers even have small applets you can install that will notify you of new content, or even entire software packages that enable offline reading.

Locating RSS Feeds

Typically the fastest way to locate the RSS feed for a site is to look for the standard RSS icon in the address bar of the browser. Clicking on this icon will give you several options. You want the one that says something along the lines of “Subscribe to this RSS feed.”

NB: Often times there will also be an option to add to Del.icio.us. Del.icio.us is a social bookmarking site that tracks websites, but not their feeds. It’s invaluable for certain purposes, but not RSS.

Selecting the subscribe option will take you to a page that contains the feed itself. Increasingly this page is formatted nicely for easy viewing and will often contain additional options for subscribing via specific RSS readers; however you will occasionally see a page full of XML code which more than likely will mean nothing to you. Either way all you need to do is copy the feed’s URL, which is displayed in the address bar of the browser.

NB: Feed URLs can have several different file extensions including .XML, .RSS, or even no extension at all. For example the RSS feed for this blog is http://techticker.net/feed. For general purposes they all mean the same thing.

Once you’ve located the feed URL go to your RSS feed reader, click add new feed and enter the feed’s URL in the field provided.

NB: The specific steps to add a new feed depend on the reader, but generally speaking the option to add a new feed or subscription will be clearly labelled somewhere obvious.

Selecting a Feed Reader

Feed Readers fall into two categories: those you access online, and those you access via a program installed on your computer.

Over the years I’ve experimented with several different options – both online and locally stored. However due to the nature of my work I was more or less forced to go with the online option. This is no longer necessary, for reasons I’m about to explain.

Locally installed feed readers have historically had drawbacks – most notably lack of synchronisation. I’m on many different computers over the course of the day but still want access to all of my feeds. In the past this meant having to install the same software on every machine and re-subscribing to the same feeds over and over again.

The next drawback was version control. If I discovered a new feed I’d have to remember to add it to every machine, lest the subscriptions would be different. I’d also have to remember which articles I’d read on which machine, and which I hadn’t. It was an absolute mess; so to save my sanity I ended up with an online reader.

Online readers such as Bloglines and Google Reader don’t require the installation of any software and are accessed via a web browser. To access them you visit the website and login using your account. Any changes you make are stored on the provider’s servers rather than locally on your machine, so your subscriptions remain exactly the way you left them regardless of the computer you’re on.

Fortunately innovation and development have continued in the realm of offline RSS readers. Newsgator for example now provides some excellent free software that supports offline reading, and additionally like most email clients such as Outlook and Thunderbird, will also synchronise your actions once you’re back online again.

You still have to install the software on any machine you use, but after that it’s just a matter of logging into your free account so the software knows what your subscriptions are and can ensure your changes are tracked.

This is a huge deal for me because I spent an amazing amount of time commuting to work everyday, and subscribe to an equally amazing number of feeds. So combining my reading time with commute time is a long-desired blessing.

For more information on RSS readers and Feed aggregators see any of the following:

• Bloglines
• Newsgator
• Newsgator RSS Software
• Google Reader

It would seem that there are two political prize fights unfolding before us - one between Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who are vying for the Democratic nomination in the United States, and perhaps an even heavier battle in the IT gladiator pit between Google and Microsoft, over Microsoft’s pursuit of Yahoo!.

In both the stakes are high, the arguments are polished to perfection, and it’s exceptionally difficult to discern the true nature of the candidate from the facade that’s being presented.

Personally speaking, unlike the Democratic primaries where my candidate of choice is clear, in the race for online supremacy I have equal degrees of reservation and skepticism for both sides of the isle.

As always I’m attempting to reserve judgment on this story pending further investigation - but in this case I’ve got such firm opinions on both parties that I’m prevented from favouring either. In fact I’m so cynical and concerned that I’ve begun to see doom in most possible outcomes.

First and foremost with Google are the privacy concerns. They’re increasingly coming into the public firing line for the sheer volumes of information they’ve got indexed on their servers. Some are arguing this gives the company an unprecedented amount of power and influence. You need look no further than the periodic demands by governments for access to Google’s information storehouses before you realise the implications there.

For bloggers, vloggers, podcasters, and photo-sharers, much of this information is volunteered for all the world to see - sometimes a bit too unsparingly; however many are beginning to argue that it’s the information Google is indexing that we’re not volunteering - and not aware of - which is the main worry (see Google Privacy Concerns for example).

Others argue that Google’s massive slice of internet advertising and search queries represents a threat to competition in its own right. This is exactly what Microsoft put forth in their recent rebuttal to Google’s accusations of a threat to innovation and competition. Links to both press releases are as follows:

• Google argument: Yahoo! and the future of the Internet
• Microsoft rebuttal: Statement from Brad Smith, General Counsel, Microsoft

In light of the above, it would seem on one hand that the tech world would benefit from an adversary to Google. Perhaps a real substitute could force the company to live up to their famous slogan “Don’t be evil“.

On the other hand, Microsoft isn’t exactly a virtuous knight in shining armour charging forth to save the damsel from the clutches of the foul dragon. They bring an equal amount of controversy to the battlefield - if not more.

In Microsoft you have an unchallenged monster of a company who has all but destroyed every competitor it crosses paths with, earning itself several anti-trust lawsuits and legal battles in the process. Open source fans I know refer not to Microsoft, but Micro$oft, and loathe the closed nature of the software with a passion.

Google by contrast supports open source initiatives such as Firefox, Drupal, and the Summer of Code program. As Wikipedia explains:

“Google Summer of Code is an annual program, first held from May to August of 2005, in which Google awards stipends to students who successfully complete a free software / open-source coding project during the summer.”

Both companies have, in their day, contributed unprecedented amounts of innovation to what has become the IT industry today; however both have also reached levels of such unchallenged power that the public has begun to question their business processes and tactics and have turned against them.

The bottom line is ultimately a simple question: Would a Microsoft-Yahoo! merger present a sufficiently even match for Google that the two would keep each other in check as the New York Times suggests (Deal That May Create More, Not Less, Competition)?:

 ”…in the case of the online advertising market, advertising and media executives said on Friday that they liked the prospect of a combined Microsoft and Yahoo. Google, they said, has become so dominant in its grip over the online audience that the merger might be the only way to produce a competitor strong enough to face off with it.”

Otherwise God forbid one company ultimately won out over the other to become undisputed ruled of the IT world.

This blog is as much a research tool for documenting my own discoveries and developing thought processes as it is a vehicle for presenting my established and well-considered opinions. Therefore you will at times see posts covering subject matter I am not familiar with but am seeking to learn more about

Net neutrality is one such topic. In this emerging discussion there are vocal parties on both sides of the fence, and arguably a tremendous amount of spin doctoring. So much so that I’m currently having a great deal of trouble distinguishing fact from fiction.

Therefore what I intend to do is research this topic from an objective academic perspective, assessing both sides of the argument, thereby gaining a holistic perspective on the discussion. In the end I will undoubtedly arrive at a conclusion and opinion on where I sit in the scheme of things; but in order to have an informed opinion you must first be informed.

In the first paragraph of its article, Wikipedia discusses net neutrality:

“Network neutrality (equivalently “net neutrality”, “Internet neutrality” or “NN”) refers to a principle that is applied to residential broadband networks, and potentially to all networks. Precise definitions vary, but a broadband network free of restrictions on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, on the applications that may use it, the modes of communication allowed, and where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams would be considered neutral by most observers.”

My research into this matter will expand and evolve over time, and I will be listing future categories in a specific Net Neutrality category.