Hey Geeks!!  Looking for a late Summer treat for yourself?  Maybe some early Holiday shopping?  Take advantage of Geek Bouteek’s Labor Day sale and receive 20% off your entire purchase.

Sale is good through Monday, September 6, 2010.  Check out our designs at  http://www.geekbouteek.com/store/

Happy Labor Day!!

Do you know a Geek that could use a great T-Shirt for Father’s Day?  Take advantage of Geek Bouteek’s Father’s Day sale and receive 20% off your purchase. 

Order at http://www.geekbouteek.com

In the absence of superheros such as Superman or Spiderman to come to our rescue, we as everyday citizens still have the ability to be our own superheros.  How, you ask?  By saving Mother Earth.  Energy conservation is one of the simplest ways that we come to the aid of both Mother Earth and our own wallets.  By taking some very basic steps at home, we can all reduce energy consumption and waste while we also save on household bills.  Sounds good to me! 

I was recently paying bills and took the time to review my water bill.  I was aghast to see that on average, we use over 250 gallons of water every day!  I truly though I had been doing a good job of conserving water until I did some digging.  Even though we own EnergyStar rated appliances (dishwasher, washing machine), and we have shower heads that use less water, I didn’t take into account how much water we were (literally) flushing down the drain.  The toilets in our house are all at least 30 years old and use approximately 3.5 gallons of water per flush, where toilets nowadays typically use no more 1.7 gallons of water.  With 4 people in the house, no wonder we’re using so much water per day!

Inspired by my own desire to be a superhero to Mother Earth (and my bottom line), I thought I’d share some of my own energy saving tips:

• Switch your lightbulbs - switching from incandescant or CFL bulbs to LED is a huge energy savings.  LED bulbs use a mere 10% of the energy of a standard incandescant bulb.  The downside is that LED’s are still costly to purchase, but they are coming down in price.  You can currently purchase them for about $25-$40 each, but the cost is lowering all the time, hopefully to the point of being more competitive with the price of CFL bulbs (about $4 each).  Yes, I know that sounds like a big investment, but it is a worthwhile investment if you can swing the initial cost.  Take a look at this spreadsheet that outlines the differences between incandescent, CFL and LED bulbs http://www.scribd.com/doc/3222967/Incandescent-vs-CFL-vs-LED-Savings
• Run appliances at full capacity – run your washing machine or dishwasher only when they’re full.  They’ll use less water.  Same goes for your fridge – the fuller the better.  Keeping a full fridge/freezer helps keep it cooler, and it will take less electricity to maintain the temperature.
• Unplug small appliances while not in use – Toasters, Microwaves, Coffee Makers and a host of other small household items use electricity when not in use.  Plug them in only when you need to use them.
• Reduce your toilet’s water consumption – As an alternative to buying a new energy efficient toilet, you can place bricks or water bottles full of sand or small rocks in your toilet tank.  This will allow the tank to think it’s using more water than it is.
• Take shorter showers – by shortening your shower by just 1 minute everyday, you can save an average of 5500 gallons of water annually

These are just a few simple solutions that will reduce your carbon footprint and save you money.  Now, go off and be superheros!

Yesterday, it was announced that Facebook’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg, admitted that Facebook “missed the mark” and “made several mistakes” when it came to user’s privacy settings.  It wasn’t an all out admission of guilt though, and it wasn’t even a direct address from Zuckerberg.  What it was, was a reprint of an email between he and tech enthusiast where he still tried to push back on users saying that Facebook couldn’t anticipate what privacy settings users would want.  Really??

I know that the idea of privacy and social media is a bit of an oxymoron.  Your information is specifically out there to share, and (sometimes) be shared – BUT we have the right to have comprehensive control over what we’re sharing and with whom.  Facebook has made a series of sneak attacks when it comes to the sites privacy settings, the most recent stealth attack in April of this year.  What Mr. Zuckerberg didn’t account for though, was the massive push back from the public.  When it comes down to it, he really shouldn’t be that surprised, because social media has given a voice to the people that is large, in charge and impossible to ignore.  Mr. Zuckerberg has already come under the spotlight for his lack of publicly addressing concerns, and this approach is not likely to help his already dwindling image.

On Sunday, Facebook promised big changes in the coming weeks but perhaps due to all the publicity, they’ve decided to move up the timeline and unveil their new simplified settings tomorrow (May 26th).   It will be interesting to see what these changes are, how comprehensive they are are, and how they apply to plug-ins on the site.

Do yourself a favor, when you’re logging into Facebook tomorrow take the time to go over the Privacy Settings and make sure you’re sharing what you want to, and not sharing what you don’t.

I’m very big into brand loyalty.  If a company is good to me, I stick with them.  Or maybe it’s because I don’t like change…  Regardless, I’ve used Sprint as my cell carrier for the last 10 years.  Sure, there’s been some ups and downs and in the not-that-distant past I seriously contemplated switching carriers because it seemed like the phones available on Sprint’s network weren’t as technologically advanced (or as cool) as phones on other networks.  And as awesome as the iPhone is, I simply cannot bring myself to switch to AT&T’s service when the reception is terrible almost everywhere in NYC.  Everyone I know that lives here and has AT&T (iPhone or no iPhone) has a lot of trouble making or receiving a call while they’re inside a building unless they’re right next to a window and practically hanging out of it.  No thanks.  I’ll stick to my guns and with my current provider even if I can’t have an iPhone.

But do I really need an iPhone?  The way I see it, companies like Motorola are making a big comeback with the Droid which has both a touch screen and a full QWERTY keyboard (somthing that the iPhone doesn’t).  It’s slim and it’s has a complete app store.  HTC and Samsung both offer phones through Sprint that are based on Motorola’s Android platform, with full access to the Android Apps.    Hmm – so you mean I can get an awesome phone with all the features I want AND I can use it to make calls all without switching carriers?  I’m listening…

Looks like I’m sticking it through with Sprint and it is about time for a new phone.  Currently, I’ve got the Samsung Instinct which is fine but never really turned out to be the phone I thought it would be.  It’s perfectly good for checking Facebook and email and making a call here and there.  It’s got a decent navigation system that gets a lot of use too, but both the browser and the OS are proprietary to Sprint, and not very good.  The only problem now is – what phone to get?  Both the HTC Hero and the Samsung Moment are both based on the Android platform.  To name a few features, both have touch screens, full Google integration, and access to the Android Apps but each of these phones has a feature that I want that the other doesn’t have.  HTC’s Hero has a layered calendar and linked contacts while the Samsung phone has a full QWERTY.  Oh, I hate choosing!!

So, I’m putting it out there – does anyone have any feedback?  Anyone have either of these phones and would like to share their experiences with me?  I’d love to hear from you!

By and large, Twitter has been one of the most successful Internet companies in nearly every aspect, except for the fact that they had no tangible way of generating significant revenue, an admittedly large stumbling block to longevity.  Well, according to an article in today’s NY Times, it seems that Twitter has finally come up with what it feels is a sustainable business model, one that involves potentially spamming users by injecting “Sponsored Tweets” in their Twitter feeds.

The short of it is that Twitter will be looking initially to include what they call Promoted Tweets, which are paid for by advertisers, in keyword searches performed by users as well as ultimately forcing these Promoted Tweets into appearing at the top of the Twitter timeline for targeted users.  The advertisements will start appearing Tuesday, April 13th to a small percentage of users and will become more widespread as testing continues.

A lot of people out there dismiss Twitter as a useless waste of time, but I can attest to the fact that if managed correctly it can be a very useful marketing tool, and we have generated several sales directly from our Twitter activity.  The problem though is that Twitter is already a vast wasteland of spam, self-marketing and scams.  If you are using Twitter to promote your company, as we do, you need to be very disciplined in maintaining the groups of people whose tweets you actually pay attention to and letting the rest of the garbage flow right on by, lest it all becomes overwhelming white noise.

So, of course, selfishly the last thing I want are MORE ads, especially ones over which I have no control (and I understand the irony here, since I use Twitter to market my own company).  The thing I like least about Twitter’s approach is the plan to have ads for advertisers you are NOT currently following appear at the the top of your timelime.  I can understand ads appearing in searches, that’s what Google has been doing for years, and I can understand ads from companies who you are already following, that’s actually kinda cool.  What I don’t like are the ads from companies I don’t follow, the great thing about Twitter is that you control whose tweets you see, and this just completely overrides that.

Now, I know I can’t really complain, because Twitter is offering a service that I don’t have to pay for.  And I am certainly cynical and jaded enough to understand that advertising and marketing will continue to dominate our lives in more and more subversive ways until we are naming our kids after products.  And I know that this is simply capitalism doing what capitalism does.  But I also know that it doesn’t mean I have to be thrilled about it.

Cablevision and ABC 7′s parent company, Disney have been duking it out over contract pricing.  It’s been a total mud slinging fest on both sides.  Cablevision currently pays 200 Million annually for ABC’s programming and, according to Cablevision, Disney is asking for an additional 40 Million on top of that per year.  Cablevision’s argument is that is a hefty increase when ABC is offering no new programming or functionality, and that the price is too high not to have to increase rates for Cablevision’s subscribers.  They also go on to say that ABC is trying to cover lost ad revenue due to a bad economy.  Disney, on the other hand, says Cablevision “pockets” fees from customers and that Cablevision is more concerned with profits than their customers.

In all honesty, the whole thing oozes with corporate greed on both sides but I have to say that Cablevision’s point rings truer with me.  ABC Disney is able to broadcast for free, and you can view ABC live without a cable provider with a digital antennae.  So, ad revenue is down because companies aren’t spending as much.  Unemployment is at an all-time high since the Depression, meaning consumers have less extra to spend.  In this model, ABC would demand 40 million more per year to that lost revenue, which was lost largely because of a terrible economic downturn and rather than suck it up like the rest of us, ABC Disney would have the consumer pay.

To Disney’s argument that Cablevision is pocketing customer’s fees, I have two points:

• Coporate structures are designed to make a profit, and Disney isn’t fooling anyone that they aren’t doing the same thing.  Disney is a powerhouse in the entertainment industry, owning ABC, ESPN, Pixar, Marvel, Theme Parks, etc…  They are rolling in profits.
• Since creating its Optimum Triple Play 7 years ago, Cablevision hasn’t raised fees on it’s digital phone service or internet.  Their claim is that it doesn’t cost them anything programmatically and they value their customers.  True or not, they’re saying the right things to me.

The waging war came to an ugly head yesterday when ABC Disney made good on its promise to pull ABC off the air at midnight 3/7/10 if the conflict was not resolved.  When I woke up yesterday morning, we had a looping message from Cablevision where ABC 7 would normally be.  Fo 3 million customers in the New York City area that meant no Red Carpet, no Oscars.  In efforts to console customers, Cablevision made an offer to subscribers – go to the On Demand store and order any movie on 3/7/10 only for free.

Sure enough come Oscar time (8pm EST) ABC 7 was still off the air and the drama lingered.  However, service was restored at 8:55pm EST, just in time for the first award to be handed out.  Just like a knight in shining armor, ABC Disney came to the rescue of 3 million subscribers that were being deprived of the glitz and glamor of the Acamemy Awards.  Yeah, not how I see it…  ABC Disney used Cablevision customers as pawns in a game of chess against Cablevision in order to meet a ranson demand.  They even urged customers to switch providers just to stick it to Cablevision.  I for one don’t appreciate being toyed with in such a way, and in an act of defiance didn’t turn the TV on at all last night.  I know I’m only one viewer and can’t change ratings, but I did what little I could to voice my displeasure in an outrageous battle.

Question now is, how far can I really take my protest when Disney is everywhere?

I had the distinct pleasure of being at the Muse show at MSG last night.  It’s the second time I’ve seen them there, and just like the first show, they amazed me.  The sheer explosion of music and technology was an assault on the senses, bringing out the best of my deeply geeky appreciation for both.  Before taking the stage, there was a guest appearance by Matt Pinfield looking to get the crowd amped up while cautioning audience members to be sure not to miss the moment when they took the stage.  Let me tell you, he wasn’t kidding. Playing the waiting game before a show always has a bit of excitement and anxiety as you just want to see the band come out as you get swept away in the moment.  As we waited for Muse to take the stage we were left looking at a stage with 3 floor-to-ceiling columns covered with a fabric scrim.  Not too visually appealing in the state they were in, but you couldn’t help wonder what part they would play come show time…Matt Bellamy is a rock god, and it couldn’t be more fitting that once the lights dimmed, the columns turned into three buildings with staircases with the band members coming down the steps, as if from heaven.  The aha moment came when the screens fell and revealed the band members on separate raised square platforms, suspended mid-arena with large columns projecting each of them on all four sides while they opened with “Uprising” from their latest album.  There wasn’t a bad seat in the house.

Hands down, this was the most technologically advanced show I’ve ever seen, (and I’ve been to many) incorporating a rotating platform for the drums, laser light shows, a piano designed to display lighted patterns based on the notes played, and steamy chutes of colored smoke, to name a few aspects.  Always the showmen, Muse puts on the best rock show money can buy today.   The only thing better than the amazing visual displays, was the music itself.  The live stuff from them is even better than what you get on the album.  By the time they played “Hysteria”, the crowd was losing their voices from screaming, ” ‘CAUSE I WANT IT NOW!!” and after 17 songs ending with “Unnatural Selection” you were left wondering where did the time go?  It seemingly flew by and suddenly it was 10:45pm in NYC.  They returned for a 3-song encore, bringing the house down with a thrashing finale of “Knights of Cydonia”.

Perhaps the most impressive part of all though, was the audience itself.  I can’t tell you how many shows I’ve been to where half the people were rabid fans and the other half were just there to have a night on the town.  Everyone in attendance last night was totally and undeniably a massive fan of Muse.  Between the glitz of Matt Bellamy’s silver sparkle suit and shoes (and his Flobee haircut), his amazing musicality, stunning visuals and a totally awesome audience Muse rocked the house at MSG last night and I had an amazing time.

Three Google executives were convicted this week in Milan of privacy violations surrounding a video that was posted to Google Video in 2006 showing an Italian boy with Down syndrome being bullied.  While it is a shame that the internet is often used to debase others, are these executives really to blame?  They had no knowledge of this video being uploaded, and they weren’t the ones to upload it.  It is an interesting and powerful notion though that one case of internet public ridicule possesses potential to open the floodgates on internet policing.  To date, the internet has been able to exist on a Free Speech basis.  Problems arise however when countries outside the US don’t share the same notions of the freedoms we sometimes take for granted.  It seems though that there are two main problems with the scenario posed by this case:

• How do you police the internet?
• Why aren’t the individuals that uploaded the video (or performed the bullying) being held accountable?

So, how do you police the internet?  Is there someone that scans every piece of material before it’s posted?  Are there bots that periodically scan and remove undesirable content?  Who sets the laws that govern the policing?  The answer is simple – without radically changing how we use the internet, you don’t.  Google even pulled the video as soon as they were notified to do so, fully cooperating with the Italian authorities.  What more could they have done, really?In reality, the focus should be less on Google, who was only a vehicle for some bullies to continue ridiculing a poor kid with Down syndrome and more on  the actual kids who were involved from start to finish.Seems that this whole matter is mostly a witch hunt on Google, and other sites like it, by an angry mob who feels they’ve been wronged.  This kid was definitely wronged, but Google’s not responsible for what happened to him.  Let’s hope that this case proves to be an isolated incident and not a gateway to similar court cases.