As time is changing, technology is constantly upgrading. When it comes to products like DVD/Blu-ray, CDs, books, and photos it feels like it's almost time to kiss the hardcopies goodbye.

Many products have become digital and it's hard to visualize the future without them.

I must agree that it's nice to be able to stream and download movies and music online for free but it's still not the same as a hardcopy. Personally, I love being able to pick up a DVD/Blu-ray and turn it over to read the synopsis of a movie. I enjoy viewing the cover, the pictures and just opening the case to remove the disc.

The same goes for CDs and being able to physically put one into a CD player, while viewing the song list on the back, and seeing images of the artist.

I also prefer holding a book in my hands and hearing the sound of pages being turned compared to reading it online via a computer screen.

Although, I must say the hardest thing to watch is less and less people making copies of photos. I really enjoy viewing images in albums and seeing them in frames and collages. Today, images are uploaded onto a computer to view and share with friends, but that takes away from the symbolic meaning of a photograph.

Are we really ready to see them go?

For future generations, it looks like they may not get the chance to have hardcopies of these products to hold. This is something they will definitely be missing out on because I know that I will forever miss them, and be wishing I could hold them in my hands.

Photo by photostock
www.freedigitalphotos.net

In case you're joining us late, here's what's going down:

On Friday, Daniel Loeb, the CEO of activist hedge fund company Third Point, not so quietly pointed out the fact that Thompson's Yahoo! bio featured some inaccuracies in regard's to his educational background.

Thompson holds a Bachelor of Science degree in business administration with a major in accounting. His Yahoo! bio read that he had a bachelor's degree in accounting and computer science. Loeb freaked out about this, as Yahoo! excused the mix up as an "inadvertent error" and has so far chosen to stand behind Thompson, even though the situation is being further investigated.

Loeb then called for Thompson's head on a platter by Monday, but when that demand wasn't met, he asked that all information relating to the hiring process of Thompson be publicly disclosed. Shortly thereafter, Thompson apologized to his staff via an internal memo and now reports have surfaced that Yahoo! Director, Patti Hart (the one who headed the search committee that hired Thompson) will not seek re-election to Yahoo!'s Board of Directors when her term expires.

Now, what I find to be perhaps the most interesting aspect of this whole story is Loeb's abundant enthusiasm and over-the-top attempts to get Thompson out of office. I mean, why would he care so much?

Oh, right, Third Point owns 5.81% of Yahoo!'s shares and has been desperately attempting to get some of its own staff nominated to the latter's Board of Directors - now I kind of, sort of, understand (not really).

If I were a shareholder of Yahoo!, I too would be more than a tad concerned about whether or not Thompson's qualifications were indeed accurate, but I would also probably want to go about finding this out in a more level-headed, professional and not so media-whorish way.

If Thompson and/or Yahoo! did in fact lie about his educational background, then Loeb and company certainly have the right to start chasing after them with pitchforks and torches. However, the fact that he has chosen to wage public war before an investigation can be conducted comes off as completely insane tactic that appears to be lacking in the intelligence department.

As far as we know, Loeb isn't looking to take Thompson's job, but it appears as if he feels it necessary to attempt to publicly joust him off of his post so that he can get a couple of his cohorts some seats at this seemingly heavily desired boardroom table. I must think that it's made out of some really classy redwood and is surrounded by fresh-off-the-cow leather chairs.

What's more, how can he be so pissed, so quickly with Thompson? He's been on the job for barely five months and apart from having to cut some jobs, reorganize divisions and pick (what could be) an ill-advised fight with Facebook, it's not as if he was brought Yahoo! to ruins - he was brought in to attempt to save the ship and there's never any guarantee that such a thing is going to be nice and pretty at the outset.

As far as I'm concerned, it's too soon to be going after him so vigorously for something as trivial as an alleged resume error. Besides, it's not like Thompson just got out of school - he had a big hand in successfully growing PayPal. For me, that would trump the alleged resume padding. Real world experience, at some point, will eventually represent an individual's skill set way better than his collegiate credentials.

Sure, activists and those that work for activist organizations aren't always known for their subtle tactics when it comes to trying to drive a message to the front door, but in the big business world that Yahoo! resides within, is this approach by Loeb at all beneficial?

I don't believe it is. Unless we find out that Thompson gave Loeb atomic wedgie at a meeting, or drunkenly streaked across his front lawn in front of God, family and his neighbours, then I don't see why Loeb is attempting to sharpen Yahoo!'s axe so prematurely.

As for now, we are left to sit here and wonder what's eating Daniel Loeb. Maybe, Thompson getting canned isn't what he really needs - maybe it's just a hug.

Photo by mack2happy
www.freedigitalphotos.net

Ahead of travelling down to my cousin's wedding on the weekend, m'lady chose to share her excitement about attending the event through her Facebook page, and then opted to stay away from her phone for about a day. Upon her return to it, she noticed a bevvy of comments offering congratulations and questions as to whether or not I actually slid down to one knee, popped out a ring box, and set a date.

After a few moments of near hysterical laughter on her behalf, she cooled everyone's jets by clarifying what exactly went down. I followed, essentially telling people the same thing.

While this is a pretty funny misunderstanding (I hope), it does say a lot for just how careful we need to be about what we share, and how we share on Facebook.

You see, we have been together for four years and just recently bought a home together, so of course people are beginning to wait for the other shoe (or ring finger) to drop. Obviously, as soon as one of us wrote down the seven letters that make the word "wedding" on a site in which we are heavily connected to family and friends through, we quickly were pounced upon by those awaiting an excuse to dress up and take advantage of an open bar.

Surely, I know some of them just want us to get married at this very instant and while we appreciate the enthusiasm, it's not happening quite yet. Believe me, when it does, you will all be informed in a very concise, non-confusing manner. You may in fact be someone we choose to call or text about it, in a more private setting.

The primary problem with being too vague on Facebook is that it can end up leading to rumours that get spread around to those that aren't online, but may happen to know us. While I'd like to think that everyone who commented on her wedding status would pay attention to their notifications to see that we clarified the comment, I know that not everyone is that diligent.

What's more, someone could've read that message and spread it around before we even had a chance to defuse the bomb. Although I think the detonator has been disabled, I can't say for sure. As far as I'm concerned, her entire family may think that it's time to head off to a department store and seek out our registry.

Nevertheless, we have learned our lesson. When involved in a long-term relationship, be as ultra clear as you can when creating status updates that may insinuate that a massive event (such as a marriage) could be on the horizon.

God forbid one of us ever posts the word "baby" on one of our pages...

Photo by: vichi81
www.freedigitalphotos.net

I bring this up because a video showing a mobile phone-distracted woman in China falling straight through a sinkhole made me giggle, and made me think.

I take public transit to and from work, plus make regular trips into society outside of working hours. Most days, I come across at least one individual that is so caught up in his device, that he too would be capable of disappearing into the ground. While losing reception for him would be a terrible experience, I'd imagine that breaking a bone or two in an attempt to complete a Draw Something level, or a cutesy text, would suck quite a bit more.

For me, I'm mystified by how certain people are able to survive life when operating a mobile phone. The fact that they can't find the brainpower to know how to properly walk and technologically communicate at the same time, hurts my feelings.

Apes wouldn't be this ignorant to their surroundings, would they?

I'd like to think that an ape would know that it's in his best interest to put down his phone while at a crosswalk to ensure that a careless, (maybe even distracted) driver doesn't blindside him. I'd also like to believe that he'd be able to know that his phone activity is slowing down his physical progress, and thus holding up those behind him, or resulting in him bouncing off fellow walkers.

Think about it this way - most of us know how to walk and chew gum at the same time, correct? That's the case because most of us don't walk and pay so much attention to our chewing technique, bubble blowing and flavour savoring that we wind up bumping into poles, fellow humans, or into the ground after a many-metre drop through a sinkhole.

So then, why can't we be that way with our phones? Why can't we not let them distract us when out and about in the world? It's not a challenging thing. Games can be paused, texts and e-mails can be saved, voicemails can wait to be answered, and people can be called back. Also, it's been rumoured that even when you close your browser, the Internet will (more often than not) come back to you through the click of a button.

Sure, we all have those urgent moments in life that don't allow us to be that logical and put the phone away when on the move. That said, I can't imagine that every distracted phone-walker I see is up to something that is so important, that he is willing to chance possible injury or an awkward encounter with someone he's pissed off by crashing into during a seemingly crucial Words with Friends match.

If you ask me, the girl that fell in the sinkhole and these people that could face painful and awkward moments as a result of phone-distraction deserve what's coming to them. Now, I don't want anyone to die or be seriously injured while walking-and-talking or walking-and-texting - that's too brutal of a consequence.

However, those that fall down some stairs, get splashed after a bus races through a puddle, walk into a street sign, or simply trip and go flying into a bush because of phone-distraction, all deserve such fates.

People, the screens and the capabilities of mobile phones may be beautiful, but so is life. Wouldn't you rather experience the world on your own terms, as opposed to the world using a sinkhole to remind you that it exists?

Think about it.

Photo by Ambro
www.freedigitalphotos.net

The cross, if approved (petitions to stop the build are flying around my town the same way recycling boxes do on windy days) will be a two-minute walk from my home. I am not cool with this at all, nor are many of Milton's residents.

Last week, Bell representatives came to Milton to speak with concerned citizens. Now, to be clear, the Town of Milton won't be making the final decision on whether or not this tower gets built. The final decision will be made on the Federal level by Industry Canada. Great...

Unfortunately, I was out of town on the night of the town meeting (otherwise I would've been first in line to pick up a protest sign and blaring megaphone), so I wasn't able to watch my compadres battle the big Bell machine.

However, in order to have my voice heard on the matter, I forwarded the following letter to the Altus Group Limited (comments.agi@altusgroup.com), the organization that filed the application, on behalf of Bell, to build the structure:

Attn: Morteza Alabaf, Altus Group Limited.

Let me start off by saying that I am one of those individuals that believes in freedom of expression. I enjoy different perspectives, appearances and beliefs, even if I disagree with them. That said, I am troubled by the notion that an enormous cross could potentially be erected within earshot of my home.

I am against this for a number of reasons. Firstly, I do not believe that religion - of any sort - needs to be flaunted in this grand of a manner. People, by all means, should be able to visit their church of choice and attend it as often as they like. However, when we start setting up crosses that are nearly 30 metres tall, alienation, segregation and condemnation is just around the corner.

Just think about those that don't attend church, or don't share the religious beliefs that the New Life Church promotes. Every time they pass by it, they are going to be bombarded by something that either offends them completely, or makes them feel uncomfortable.

This leads to my second issue. I am convinced that certain people will avoid purchasing a home in my neighbourhood because they are not impressed by the gigantic religious overtones. Not everyone wants to look out their window, or turn down a street on a daily basis that has a large cross filling up the skyline. It may be selfish to say that I'm concerned about property value, but hey, I invested a large amount of money into my home and want to eventually be able to turn a profit off of it when I decide to switch homes. I have a feeling that this over-the-top religiously themed Bell tower will hurt my selling potential.

Thirdly, let's not forget about the health issues. I work for a technology publication and I know that it is not healthy at all to have such a large device that pumps out such high levels of radiation right in the midst of a suburban centre. While I bet Bell clients would love to have a stronger wireless signal, I doubt very much that they would like to find out 20 years from now that the cancerous tumor they find is - at least in part - due to a giant, radioactive tower that essentially sat in their backyards. Sure, it hasn't been totally proven that cell towers can cause cancer, but it also hasn't been entirely disproven.

Finally, the New Life Church may believe that this is an excellent way to celebrate its belief system and draw attention to its piece of property, but let's face it, I'm sure that the church is also quite pleased by the sizeable financial compensation in which Bell will provide it for giving them a piece of land to place the tower. Sure, it may help the church's initiatives, but again, is it worth alienating and potentially poisoning residents? I don't think so.

If this tower needs to be built, please, for the sake of all of us, put it up in a non-residential area, in a form that will not offend, make people uncomfortable, or even worse, ill.

If you'd like to make your voice heard and help us Milton folk out with our damning of the man campaign (read: not letting Bell build a massive cell tower in a suburban area), please send an e-mail to comments.agi@altusgroup.com.

It's scary to hear that Facebook deletes about 20,000 underage children daily from its site. Some parents may tend to think Facebook's a great way for their children to start experiencing social networking, but the majority are against their child being on Facebook altogether.

After reading various articles online about kids 13 years of age and under going against Facebook policy and joining the social network, it's understandable why more than 70% (according to a survey conducted by Minor Monitor), of parents across the U.S. are concerned.

Now do their parents not care, or is it that they don't know this is being done right in their own household?

I must admit I was shocked when I had my little cousin send me a ‘friend request' on Facebook, last year. I knew he was under the restricted age, so I wondered to myself how he set up an account. After viewing his profile I noticed it read that he was born in 1990, which would make him 22 this year, but he's only really turning 12.

Facebook's surveillance tool obviously is not very successful in recognizing underage participates. After all, it's supposedly designed to detect them, refuse them, and block them for up to two years. But how exactly is the site suppose to obtain that information when it's made easy to select any age when creating an online account?

The same survey shows that 38% of U.S. kids on Facebook are 12 and under. It also notes that four per cent of kids on Facebook are six and under, which is not satisfying to read at all.

These kids do not understand the risk they are signing up for. They are posting private and personal information about themselves including their name, location and school, but are not realizing that they're making that information available to the world to see. This could lead to encounters with predators, as well as connections with strangers and bullies.

Knowing this, it's easy to comprehend why almost three-quarters of the parents surveyed say they are worried about the safety of their children when they're using Facebook.

It is fair to say that Facebook takes up time that children should be using for homework or extra curricular activities. The survey displays that 30% of kids spend at least two hours a day on Facebook.

Facebook's privacy settings may be easy to change and make safe, for someone like you and myself. But for children 13 years of age and under, they probably don't even know why online privacy is so important. Therefore, parents need to be more observant when their children are using the computer, because if my 11-year-old cousin can say he's 22, what is stopping every elementary student from doing the same thing?

Photo by photostock
www.freedigitalphotos.net

The technology itself is not what I am scared or worried about, however. I figured it was only a matter of time before a company openly presented this kind of a product to the masses. However, I am concerned that this product will - once it's released, in whatever form its released - create an even stupider human being than the guy that currently remains glued to his mobile device of choice.

As I've likely suggested in previous blogs and rants, certain personal technologies don't necessarily make human beings better. If anything, they make people far more reliant on technical devices to do the hard and dirty work for them, so that they don't actually have to challenge themselves.

Texting and instant messaging offers us abbreviations, emoticons, and a license to issue poor grammar and improper sentences, while autocorrect fixes spelling errors so that one doesn't have to actually know how to spell a word, he just has to get it close enough so that the program can do the rest of the work for him.

Then you have voice controls. When Apple first unveiled Siri, tech geeks around the world got a little moist in the pants. They loved that they could ask a random question or make a simple request and get just about every answer they ever wanted. No longer did these people ever again have to really worry about, you know, looking something up or asking another living being a question.

Finally, there's the navigation assistance. As someone with a terrible sense of direction, I can't complain all that much about GPS services and things like Google Maps. They make life for morons like me far simpler to get through, because it keeps me going down the right lines as opposed to spinning around in a circle until my nose bleeds. That said, these things essentially give me permission to avoid putting my tail between my legs and buying a map or asking a gas station attendant for the right route. Or, actually learning where the hell certain things actually are.

My problem is that as soon as all of this technology (and more) is put into a pair of consumer friendly eyeglasses, we will all begin to resemble trendily dressed robots with skin and a zombie-like posture. Why? Because there will now be very little reason left to try to think, feel, or live on the edge a bit.

If everything is handed to someone, be it money, a job, power, or an endless stream of knowledge, he is going to use it to his full advantage without much concern for how it affects anyone else.
From what I can tell with Google's Project Glass, it's helping construct an environment in which knowledge becomes free and on-demand. The quest to have to seek such a thing out becomes non-existent, if not an idea that makes the youngins laugh at those that had to get smart the old fashioned way - through school and life experiences. With these glasses, individuals will no longer have to study or learn everything, if all they have to do is slap on a pair of these magical lenses and hope that the battery is not dead.

Let's also not forgot about what type of information these glasses will be able to collect from its users. If you thought privacy concerns are a big issue now for those using Google, just wait until these bad boys hit the street.

[Breath]

I don't know about you guys, but I can't quite get behind this product idea. I have a hard enough time considering the notion of getting e-mail connected to my iPhone, so imagine how I feel when I see something like this come along.

Trust me my friends, it makes me feel like a man that's about to see the society around him lose its ability to disconnect and put together a coherent and intelligent thought without the assistance of a technological toy.

When I heard the news come down that PM Stephen Harper and his Conservative government cronies were choosing to discontinue you, I couldn't imagine the pain and disenchantment that you must have felt.

Sure, it does seem odd that anyone would want to spend 1.6 cents on an item that is literally worth just one cent, but I can't help but feel disappointed that you will eventually fade into obscurity the same way in which the one dollar bill did.

I know that it may take a long time to get to that point considering how many of your brave copper soldiers are out there manning the pockets of people, the cash registers of businesses and the locked down sections of banks. However, I can't help but feel disappointed that you have to go out like this.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty thinks this is the right and popular move to make. He also believes that cutting out newer models of you will lead to the government saving $11 million dollars a year. Couldn't $11 million have been taken from something else, anything else?

I guess since you're an inanimate object, your voice on the matter couldn't have been heard, so I'm going to speak on your behalf.

I think you're great. When I was a young child, I'd visit my Uncle Jack rather regularly. Each and every time I entered his apartment, he would pull out a giant bag of pennies and my sister and I would divide the take right down the middle. This event always made us tremendously happy and helped us learn the value of a dollar - or more specifically in this case, a cent.

As I've gotten older, I've come to realize the value of you, penny. Whenever I needed those extra couple cents for a bus ride, or to pay for an item that cost me $9.01, you were there for me. You helped me get from point A to point B and saved me from receiving $0.99 worth of change. Eventually, once you disappear for good, businesses will be able to round off purchases to the nearest nickel on cash purchases.

We all know how this works - they're going to round up. They're going to make me wish that I had a couple of you sitting in my pocket so that I don't have to pay more money for something, just because I choose not to use my credit or debit card on a certain purchase.

I'm also going to miss the excitement of accessing my change jar after a number of months and discovering this bushel of you ready to be wrapped up, taken to the bank, exchanged for cash and eventually put toward groceries.

Now, I would admit that wrapping you up can be a bit of a pain, but that's something I can forgive you for.

Aside from me though, I know that many others will be vastly disappointed when you eventually disappear from Canadian soil. Non-profit groups that collect change donations are going to miss your presence, not to mention the homeless man looking for change, or the person finding you on the ground and thinking that you may provide him with some luck.

Penny, I know there are a lot of people out there today that are ecstatic with the fact that you will soon become a dinosaur. But keep your chin up and understand that you are still a valuable part of the Canadian culture. Just because a government wants to save a few bucks and create a buzz over its budget by including your dismissal as one of its front line items, that doesn't mean you're worthless.

You're worth a cent. And to millions of people, that's just enough to keep you valuable.

Up until a couple of weeks ago, even though subconsciously I must've figured that some companies attempt to Tarzan their way past privacy laws and basic human decency, I'd never known anyone that had a boss, or prospective employer, that requested access to one's FB account.

Then, posted upon the FB profile page of a girl I went to high school with, I found a note about her being asked to provide such information to a company in which she was interviewing to become a part of. Naturally, she found this be a gross violation of her privacy.

I have yet to hear whether or not she bowed down to the request, or flipped the proverbial bird and put a dent into his car.

Now I can't sit here and proclaim to know the ins and outs of any privacy laws be it those put into place by the authorities, or by companies.

What I do know, however, is that this kind of George Orwell-like form of managerial tact does not work for me. I don't want people in the office listening to me on the phone a lot of the time, let alone look at what I'm communicating to a select network of family, friends, peers and people that I have just been too lazy to un-friend.

Although I do enjoy gallivanting across FB, by no means am I heavily active within it enough to declare myself to be a social networking superstar. I am largely a private person until, after much consideration, I choose to let people in - this especially applies in the workplace.

While I don't completely shutdown in conversation with co-workers, I am also cognizant about what I choose to discuss about myself. Because although humans are supposed to be able to differentiate between the work version of Joe Smith and the after hours version of Joe Smith, sometimes lines get blurred. All of a sudden, a point made in a casual conversation can sometimes come back around at you in a way that negatively affects your professional standing and/or situation.

Imagine now that your manager has your FB login information. Not only can he monitor all of your activities, but he can also now edit them, delete them, or for fun, create status updates, personal messages and comments that either humiliate you, dumb you down, lose you friends, or better reflect the company's image.

Beyond that, imagine how your friends would feel if they knew that they too were potentially being subjected to a fake Joe Smith. Imagine if the boss man or woman wasn't the most legitimate human on the planet and attempted to conduct some shady dealings with your friends, while using your name.

Needless to say, there's a whole lot wrong with this world when employers feel the need to spy that closely on current or future staff members via FB. And, shame on them for preying upon those that don't know any better, can't afford to lose their mortgage money and therefore feel as if they absolutely need to compromise their deserved privacy just to hold or ascertain a job.

I would never do it. If pushed, I would most definitely get the best attorney in the land to drop the hammer on this kind of a scumbag.

I can understand that certain companies likely keep an eye out on certain employee FB accounts to either gather insights into one's character or to make sure that the individual isn't slandering the place of business at hand. I don't like this managerial method, of course, but I can understand why a certain type of boss would attempt to friend an employee on FB.

What we all need to recognize, is that as fun and intriguing as FB can be, it's as dangerous as any other type of social playground there is. If we allow bully bosses to infiltrate playgrounds that aren't designated for them, we might as well start buying underwear in bulk because the wedgies will be frequent and unrelenting.

Photo by Ambro
www.freedigitalphotos.net