The rationale is this: Digg is making a play to increase its value to $300 million, and the best method they could come up with was to level the playing field so that more users could have more influence. So the word has gone out that at least the top 10 Diggers will be banned soon, with more to follow.

Many of you are familiar with Digg.com. It's a social news sharing site where you the user can post links to and comments on noteworthy articles and websites you encounter on the Web. There are dozens of sites now that fit this genre, but the most popular has been far and away Digg. The most popular alternatives are Reddit.com, Propeller.com, Mixx.com, and SocialMedian.com. Each site has it's own unique attributes, but the basic premise is the same:

1. Users submit links to noteworthy content
2. Other users vote those links and content up or down, based on whether they liked it.
3. Users also can comment on the posts, discussion why they liked or disliked or maybe just random observations about the topic.
4. The most popular content (has the most votes) rises to the top of the page, thus earning it more views and therefore sending more traffic to the websites linked to.

Because these power users are being uprooted, many of them will turn their focus to Mixx. If Mixx is the primary destination for these lost and roaming souls, you can be sure that it will become a household name in less than two years. Well, households that understand the Web and how to leverage it, at least.

Due to the poor business planning and treatment of its users, I strongly urge each and every one of you to abandon your use of Digg in exchange for one of these alternatives. Mixx is just simply the best looking of what remains.

**NOTE** I have been surprised since the writing of this article that many of those top Diggers plan to milk the system for all that it's worth until they are banned. I marveled at this upon first glance, then realized that this is what they do for a living. When your live revolves around sending traffic to sites via social media, you don't abandon your cash cow out of pride. You ride that horse until it bucks you off. In this case, literally.

So perhaps we won't be abandoning Digg just yet. But it has definitely lost respect and street cred. Mixx, StumbleUpon, and SocialMedian are my personal favorites, and the sites I will use most often for promoting content I discover that is worth sharing.

This particular DJ was commenting on yet another report that kids today are overweight, under stimulated and just plain lazy. Sure, these facts are probably all correct; kids today spend too much time playing video or computer games, and not enough time doing anything physical, and as a result of that, combined with eating unhealthy, they pack on the pounds quickly. However, that is not what got me angry. The DJ proceeded to tell the listeners that today’s generation of kids do not socialize, that they spend too much time on Facebook, MySpace and MSN chatting with friends.

It's safe to say that the DJ grew up in the 1960s, where children were given no other choice but to play outside with the neighborhood kids. Today however, the generation has shifted along with the most recent technology. Forty years ago, people did not have the Internet in their homes, so socializing was done face-to-face, while today, kids can socialize through their computers and video game consoles.

The last time I checked, Facebook and MySpace are considered one form of social media, and in turn, would mean that kids today are in fact socializing with each other.

I am not taking one side over another, but merely playing devil’s advocate; I see the pros and cons in each argument. I will say this, there is a definite generational gap and understanding between my parents’ generation and my own (and even younger.) If I were to ask my mother to define social media, she would venture a guess of blogging, but other wise she would be clueless.

Just because it is not the “traditional” type of socialization, social media is getting a bad rap from our elders simply because they just do not understand (kind of like that Will Smith song.)

Growing up, I was a bit of a couch potato. However, I was extremely active in extracurricular activating including dance, figure skating, and a wide variety of sports both in and outside of school. But I also didn't have the same technology available to me that these kids do.

I am not writing this to blame the absentee parents for being too busy to raise their children, but rather offering up the idea that it is simply the way our world has shifted. Technology has become more and more interactive, so why wouldn’t growing minds want to discover and explore?

If we are to believe dnScoop's estimations, Facebook and MySpace are each worth $1.2 billion, with Google at only $1.7 billion. Seems a bit out of balance. Yes, you're all wonderful companies hell bent on world domination, but Facebook is NOT in the same league as Google, is it?

Oops! Sorry, Google. Yahoo is worth $2.1 billion and MSN.com is worth $1.9 billion. Those damned portals! No worries. If it's any concession, Ask.com is only worth a supposed $51 million. Take THAT, you supposed innovators of search! 

So what are the factors that go into this farfetched estimation? 
That's a great question. Let's take a quick look at the publicized factors.

1) Domain Age
The older the domain is, the stronger search value it is likely to have as well as resale value.

2) PageRank
Yes, despite how many SEO "experts" say pagerank is meaningless, it still plays a factor here.

3) Inbound Links
The number of (quality) inbound links directly affects your website's ability to rank well in search engines like Google, Yahoo, MSN, and Live.

4) Alexa Traffic Report
Yes, only certain types of people use the Alexa toolbar and thus the numbers are guaranteed to be inaccurate. Still, it's one of the only ways to guess at a third party site's traffic.

5) Domain Name IP Report
Though we don't know exactly what dnScoop pulls from this, it is probably the fact that a large number of sites on the same IP indicates a lower quality score. 

6) Link Value Report
Ironically, Text Link Ads is the enemy of Google, yet somehow both search AND TLA values are combined to determine the values. Perhaps it's just a ploy to make affiliate revenue by referring a bunch of people to TLA. 

7) Site Category, Domain Keyword Popularity, and Number of Domain Name Occurrences on the Web
These were not mentioned in more detail, but are fairly self-explanatory. They're also looking at how often people mention the words in your domain name. This indicates either direct brand popularity or topic popularity. 

Now that we understand the criteria a little better, let's look at a few more popular websites worth mentioning:  

ESPN.com comes in at $658 million.
Craigslist.org is purported to be worth $614 million.
Amazon.com at $1.1 billion.
Ebay at $866 million.
Digg at $1.1 billion
Twitter at $43 million
SearchEngineLand at $2 million
NYTimes at $691 million
DoshDosh.com at $2 million

Heck, even Mark Cuban's own BlogMaverick is quoted at more than $2 million. Stinkin' billionaires.

Well, for now, we're keeping our twelve thousand dollar website and adding even more value. And don't even consider offering to buy. We won't sell 'til we're worth at least $14k

So, if you dare do the research, what's your site worth? We want to see too. Post your website name and dnScoop value in a comment below.  

**Disclaimer**
No, we're not going to actually sell CultureFeast.com for $14k. It's called "humor", people. 

Which leads me to my point: I have spent the last couple of years dating and finding myself in short-term relationships. I have met a lot of women through the more traditional means (i.e. through friends, family,work) as well as the “new traditional” means (match.com and other various internet sites). I cannot say that any method has been better than another one. Some dates have been good. Some were not so good. And the select few led to something more. The “something more” phase is pretty much the NO MAN’S LAND of NO MAN’S LANDs when you are starting to get serious with someone. In the days of Myspace, Facebook, and Twitter pretty much all of your activity (or inactivity) is open to scrutiny.

This means that if you are starting to date someone regularly via match.com, there is always the catch-22 of being“caught” looking at other profiles or messaging others because it lets others know when you last logged-in. On the same note, the person you are dating would have had to been on there to know that you had been. It has all sorts of ramifications that can be taken a variety of ways, unless you are proactive about it.

I have adopted the 30/30/30 method. Basically it means if you have either been seeing someone for 30 days, exchanged 30+ realistically romantic emails, or spend at least 30 minutes a day on the phone then it is time to stop putting out the feelers. Whether you’re willing to admit it, either you (or your fancy) probably think of the two of you as a couple once you have reached this point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with setting some initial boundaries that will act as a verbal contract between two people. It’s a great way for both people to grow the relationship at its own pace and provides a checkpoint to evaluate how things are progressing. Also, if after that watermark is reached, it provides a clean breaking point if the bond doesn’t look to have any real future.

Regardless of how two people are brought together, there is still an inherent need to feel wanted, appreciated, and respected. As we all know, open communication is the basis of most healthy relationships. If we learn to break out of our “don’t say too much, too soon” mold, we can avoid finding ourselves in the dating NO MAN’S LAND. Dating is a wonderful institution and the one proven method of finding that one special significant other that will truly compliment our wants and needs. The landscape of dating continues to change and happiness lies in our ability to change our approach and conduct within it.

I’m a sucker for NYC photo blogs (PBs) because I love the Big Apple but I never had the chance to live there on a long-term basis.

So NYC photo blogs are how I try to get my regular fix of things-New-Yoark.

With every photo I remember once again how much I love this sultry, chaotic, and majestic Mother of All Cities.

Here is a short list of my top favorite NYC PBs, plus another which has nothing to do with NYC but one you should really support by visiting.

1) Lightning Field

The granddaddy of all NYC PBs as far as I’m concerned. I have no idea for how long David F. Gallagher is keeping up this site. He is a freelance journalist who is published in some serious outlets including New York Times.

From time to time he takes us to different parts of the world but he is mainly a New Yorker. Follow him and he’ll take you to the corners of NYC that you never knew existed.

2) Quarlo

Owned by Todd Gross. This blog unfortunately stopped back in December 2006. But his archive is still amazing.

Probably the most self-aware stylist of them all, Quarlo managed to come up with the exact burnt color-palette with stinging greens and harsh yellows that to me conveys the daily struggle of life in NYC. Yet a lot of his photos reflects his own sense of visual humor as well.

I’ve sent him an e-mail to see what’s going on with the site but he didn’t answer. Worth a bookmark.

3) Satan’s Laundromat

A unique photo site specializing in the signs, graffiti and symbolic oddities of NYC. Also stopped in December 2006, unfortunately.

Most of these blogs are works of love and hard to keep them up when nobody’s paying you for your time, equipment and the overhead. You start with a camera and start roaming the streets like a drunk person; an artist drunk with the lust of life. Then, eventually, "life intervenes" and you find yourself a day-job with a steady paycheck, I guess... Goodbye camera.

4) Slower

Another once-great PB that is now over. By Eliot Shepard.

You can however now enjoy Shepard’s photos over at http://eliotshepard.com/ Check out his HORIZONTAL scrolling photo-bar. Fancy, eh?

5) Blue Jake

Still going strong, thanks god. A rich collection of amazing snapshots from Brooklyn, and other fine boroughs of New York.

6) Laura Holder

Gone! What a pity. It’s a silly directory now… What a waste of cyber space... There should be a law against such jarring domain transformations.

7) Joe’s NYC

Still fresh and live. Go Joe!

Mecca Pixel

What? Now it's a laptop computer store ??!! Sad and outrageous. It used to be a great photo blog.

9) NYC Photobloggers

A mega directory of all NYC photo bloggers. If there is anyone taking pictures of NY for over a year he or she is probably listed here.

10) Overshadowed

For those who like their photos large, unadorned, with no text. A site for the visual purists. A museum of fine arts, of sorts.

11) Rion

By Rion Nakaya. The only web site I know with a NU domain extension.

She is reporting from Paris for the last 2 years but gave us great panoramas of NYC in the past.

12) Infrangible

by Khoi Uong. Yes. Laudable.

Plus this:

13) Ziboy

A distinguished Chinese photo blog by Wen Ling. He is a guy who lives with his finger glued to the shutter release button of his digital.

I’ve seen photos on this blog over the last couple of years that made me wonder how the “Chinese authorities” allowed this blog to continue since Ling never hid his identity.

An honest photo appraisal of daily life in China (I think). Recently he published tons of photos from his USA visit (including NYC) but most of his archive is still about China.

It’s always a pleasure to read what he thinks on any topic.

Deford’s recent column on Olympics again got me thinking about the whole hoopla around the Olympic torch, the Tibet issue, etc.

First off, did you know that the Olympic torch itself was invented by the Nazis, in 1936?! I certainly did not know that.

Second, I believe that as long as China hosts this year’s Olympics she cannot eat her cake and have it too.

In return for the prestige and publicity of the Olympics she has to endure non-violent protests of her occupation of Tibet. What goes around comes around.

To those who say sports and politics should not be mixed, I say: what is being protested is neither the Olympics nor the Chinese people but the foreign policy of the Chinese Communist Party, and for a very legitimate reason at that.

But come to think of it, are we perhaps making too much of the Olympics itself?

What’s the big deal about track and field, anyways?

Don't get me wrong. I love track and field and I'm an amateur runner myself. I try to do my 8 to 10 miles every week.

But as Deford asks, “how many of you can even name a single American track athlete in this year's Games? How many of you can name a single track athlete from any nation?”

The International Olympics Committee can call the Olympics a “movement” or whatever it wants but we know what it is – it's a big fat commercial event, attended by all the semi-amateur athletes that under-the-table "incentives" can "motivate."

Is there anyone among you who still believes that our modern day Olympics has anything in common with the original Greek sport event of its day?

As a spectator event, Olympics is a great diversion. It's fun and entertaining.

But all this torch relay charade with the symbol of “supposedly-amateur spirit” jumping from one puzzling city to another and turning into a tug of war between the Chinese government and her detractors is a little bit too much for me.

Why don’t we just collect the billions of dollars spent on Olympics every four years across the globe and spend it on something truly worthwhile, like eradicating HIV/AIDS perhaps? Or bringing a laptop computer to every child in the world?

In the very least, can we please change the symbol of Olympics to something else? Honoring anything that was originally invented by Hitler’s crack troop of designers still rubs me the wrong way.

If you're interested in being a contributor, let me know. Here's what you get:

- The joy of being a part of a new website- Your own email address

- A forum for expression that I'm going to market like crazy

- That special feeling you get when you help a friend

- Free stuff. I don't know what yet, but I'll be dishing out any and everything I can to contributors.

If you have no interest in being a part of this, but maybe know someone that does.....pass this along. If anything, swing by the blog  and add it to your RSS reader. I'll be updating the blog as often as possible and it will give you the chance to see when the page is updated with fresh content.  

In the meantime, if you need a healthy dose of Nixism (def. "Anything of, or concerning, Nix Johnson") then hit up culturefeast.com.  I am a regular blogger on there.

Nils Gilman writing in his blog “Small Precautions” has taken the time to provide a seminal response to my essay on the “Modernization Theory."

His erudition and Ph.D. background is evident in his every sentence. ( See “Death of Modernization Theory?”)

Gilman thinks my exposition is “well and good and true, but also probably beside the point.”

The following sentence probably sums up the main thrust of his response:

“Almost from its theoretical inception, the popularity of modernization theory has had less to do with its ability to provide an accurate empirical description of the developmental patterns of poor countries than it does with its ability to articulate in seemingly "objective" social scientific jargon a justification and explanation of American global dominance in a manner that resonates with liberal political and economic sensibilities.”

Long sentence. So let me try to break it down to its main points. Gilman is basically saying two things:

1) The modernization theory is something relatively new since its main function is to “justify and explain” the “American global dominance” from “its inception.”

2) It’s used only to justify the existence and dominance of liberal market economies and the democratic system of governance that comes with it.

I have issues with both points.

1) As I tried to make it clear in my original post, the roots of the modernization theory go all the way back to the 19th century.

Emile Durkheim lived between 1858-1917. Ferdinand Toennies lived 1855-1936. Marx likewise was alive 1818-1883.

By contrast, America’s “global dominance” is a relatively recent event, covering the post WW2 period.

So it is historically inaccurate to peg modernization theory solely to America’s rise as a global power.

2) I also tried to make it clear that the modernization theory was used to justify socialist and communist social orders as well.

Leftists have used different “stages” of “progress” towards “modernity.” That’s all.

The main paradigm of a linear progression from a worse social order to a “better” one was used to justify the rise of the Soviet Union and China as much as the United States.

And with the rise of China, not only the pro-American and pro-liberal variant of modernization theory has collapsed, but the pro-Left and pro-Marxist variants as well.

Until BOTH variants proved to be empirically untenable, one could perhaps still defend the modernization theory by resting on one of its sub-arguments. But China’s “repressive hyper-development” leaves no room to wiggle.

Thus what brought the end of the modernization theory is not ONLY “the collapse in the belief in the United States as the inevitable ideological and technological model which the rest of the world is destined to follow.” That’s true but tells only HALF of the story.

We are today also disillusioned and dismayed by the North Koreas and Cubas of this world; and by China and Putin’s Russia.

So-called socialist regimes did far worse that the liberal Western democracies in assuring “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” for their citizens.

That side of the equation probably hammered much larger nails into the “coffin of the modernization theory” than the “American global dominance” – which became an iffy postulate anyways after the invasion of Iraq while Russia and China are kicking stronger by the day.

I also think it is too early yet to dismiss Fukuyama’s central thesis (despite his own recanting) and praise the “alternate versions of modernization theory [that] have been taken up and developed in other countries.”

Five or ten years of economic fireworks does not “modernity” make.

Countries like China and Dubai may perhaps look like they have found an “alternative” path to rapid development. But they still have no idea what environmental pollution, women’s rights, or freedom of expression is all about, and the kind of explosive energy these components of “modernization” pack in when they are ignored, shoved aside and suppressed by the Central Party or the Royal Family.

Perhaps they are marching towards an implosion that is not readily visible over the horizon because we need to look at their progress over 50- or 100-year cycles?

Perhaps in the short run it looks like some “alternate versions of modernization theory” is at work here.

But I say the jury is still out until we see how countries like China, Russia, and Dubai survive over the “long run” (50 years?).

Soviet Union, after all, with all its nuclear weapons, alternative "5-year economic development plans" and all that institutionalized cradle-to-grave Leninist brain-washing that passed for a "national education system," could survive for only 72 years.

We have to observe such "alternative models" for a little while longer. That’s when we’ll understand if Fukuyama was really wrong or that he just yielded in to the political pressures of his day.

At this point I realize I am actually close to hypothesizing a “resurrection” of the modernization theory in the future, which is a corollary that I have not entertained previously. I'll continue to think about that one.

I’d like to thank Nils Gilman again for his thoughtful analysis and response and the way he encouraged me to think about this issue further.

By wise, I mean I was smart enough to click on a few different hyperlinks for internet dating. On the surface it would be easy to lump internet dating into one single entity, but that would be the equivalent of saying that hooking up with someone from the bar is the same as your mother fixing you up with a girl from her church. They just aren’t the same things. For those lacking real experience with what I call the multiple levels of internet dating ™ (I haven’t actually trademarked it….yet), allow me to expand.

In the world of internet dating there is a direct correlation of the level of seriousness to the amount spent on monthly fees and amount of involvement required of users. The fees range from FREE to upwards of $30-$60/month and the required involvement ranges from placing a simple posting to having to field multiple emails. And depending on how serious a guy is about finding love or a relationship, there is something for just about everyone. For the sake of keeping this posting to a reasonable length that will actually get read, I’ll keep it simple and break it down into 4 categories.

LEVEL 1

First you have Craigslist.com. For those that are not familiar with Craigslist, you are missing out on a cornucopia of awesomeness. The site is basically the classified ads of almost every urban area in the world all crammed together in one simple to use website. If you can get past the fact that the site looks like it was designed with a Commodore 64 or an Apple Macintosh Classic II, you will find all sorts of things. If you’re looking for “love”, there are personal listings for just about any type of relationship that you (and your spouse/lover/buddy/livestock) could hope for.

The big word of caution when trying to find someone on Craigslist is that you never really know if the person that looks “too good to be true” is really posting an ad, really a prostitute (I found that out the hard way), or a fake ad for a porn site. All of these are distinct possibilities. I’m not trying to knock on the people that put up actual personal ads, but what do you really expect from a website that allows you to sell the headliner from a 1975 Malibu, one minute, and then post an ad that says “I’m looking for my soulmate” the next? I’d say that when you’re cruising Craigslist, don’t let your expectations get above the level of “Things I’d never tell anyone unless we were playing I NEVER….”

COST: FREE                 INVOLVEMENT: MINIMAL

LEVEL 2

Next you have all of the free sites that focus solely on dating and finding love. Off the top of my head, I can think of a few. My personal favorites are Plentyoffish.com, Datehookup.com, and Tattoosingles.com. The first two are self explanatory, but the latter of the three is my new favorite. It’s not my favorite because of any personal experiences. It’s more of a novelty. Seeing how almost everybody I know, even my ultra-Catholic friend, have tattoos, it’s really wide open. If you do a quick search you’ll find people with one single tiny tattoo right next to someone with 90% coverage. Now if only I could find a girl with a skeeball target pattern tattooed in an appropriate location, I’d be booking the flight and quickie wedding in Vegas immediately.

The basic idea behind all of these sites is finding someone. I just don’t know if it’s to find someone to date, date with intentions to marry, or date with intentions of sneaking out at 4am. I tend to look at all of these the same way I look at a nickel/dime/quarter poker game. If you don’t have any real “investment”, what’s to keep you playing it safe and logical? What’s to keep me from doing something stupid like making dates with 3 different girls on the same night and time? If I stand them up, they’re just going to chalk it up to general flakiness and move on.

COST: FREE                 INVOLVEMENT: SOMEWHAT ACTIVE

LEVEL 3

          You had to know that I would be bringing up Match.com. I personally am a big fan of the Match.com formula. I met my best girl friend through Match and I have met a lot of awesome women. I’ve had plenty of bad dates, but for the most part the system works. The fact that there is a monthly fee aids in weeding out the people that are not serious about wanting to find someone and pursue a relationship. Granted there are still the people that are willing to abuse the system, but nowhere near what happens on the free sites.

This site is definitely for those that are ready for something more that hooking up and not quite ready to go buy rings and pick out a wedding dress. Match.com is definitely the site that has made it alright to tell your friends and family that you met via the internet. It hasn’t quite gotten to the point that it’s totally accepted, but give it another 5-10 years and it will be commonplace.

COST: $15-30/month                 INVOLVEMENT: EXTENSIVE

LEVEL 4

And finally, there is the most “serious” of internet dating websites. I’m, of course, talking about Eharmony.com. This is the site that tells you that other websites just give you a picture and a paragraph. Their theory is that if you are matched based on multiple levels of compatibility, then your physical attraction is bound to happen. I’m not trying to down on this site, but what a bunch of crap. Can you imagine how many women have ended up having amazing emotional chemistry with guys that look like Rocky Dennis from the movie MASK? Hey, I like the sun on my face too, but I just can’t see how this could ever work.

I guess if I was at the point that my mindset was centered around getting married as soon as possible, then I could possibly be all for this site. So, I guess it’s my fault. I’m just not ready to get married so badly that I’d be willing to forego physical attraction and tell my inner caveman to go hibernate. Someday, maybe, but definitely not today.

COST: $20-$60/month                 INVOLVEMENT: PURE BLIND FAITH

It is incredibly difficult to say what works best for each person when it comes to internet dating. In my opinion, the first thing anybody needs to do is determine what they are looking for and then go from there. I personally am at the point that I am about to swear off dating altogether and go join a monastery. Yeah….like that would really happen.

Yes, Reputation Watchdog is coming soon, though how soon has yet to be determined. It will benefit the growing online reputation management industry, which is a combination of SEO and PR for the Web. I'm sure many of you are wondering what the heck "online reputation management" is. Put simply, reputation management is PR and guarding your image/reputation online, where anyone can say anything about you in thousands of different venues. Each of these negative statements about you can cost you that new job, a quality new hire, a client, or potentially thousands of customers and millions of revenue.

There are plenty of places you can read more about the ORM industry, such as here and here and here. 

Credit goes to the ever awesomer Ben Jordan for creating and enhancing my logo vision.  

Having admitted my serious crush, there is still at least one major flaw with iTunes that, if corrected, would make me a loyal brand evangelist for life. And the only reason this one thing needs to be fixed is because it has already cost me at least $30 that I can't get back.

The problem comes when you purchase music. Once you've purchased, iTunes remembers WHAT you've purchased. You download each song, movie, music video, or podcast onto your PC or Mac and it's stored on your hard drive. That's great, until your hard drive breaks down, is stolen, or reclaimed by your employer. 

I purchased several albums on my work laptop. I used it all the time, both at home and in the office. I was totally planning on burning my new purchases to CD, but never had the opportunity. I was laid off at work, and in an instant, the laptop was no longer mine. I lost those new albums because I hadn't transmitted them sooner. 

This is the problem. If I'm downloading from iTunes, and iTunes keeps track of what I purchase, WHY CAN'T I DOWNLOAD THE SAME THING AGAIN FOR FREE?!?!?!

This is my dilemma. Seriously, how hard would that be? That way, if my computer dies or is lost or stolen, iTunes would always allow me to re-download ONLY the songs or albums or shows that I had already purchased. Sounds perfect to me. 

If you're listening, iTunes, this is my holiday wish: change iTunes so that I can re-download what I've purchased so that I will always have access to the music or videos I have paid for, and you will have my loyalty forever!!!! This is an excellent idea. You know it is. You know I will love you forever if you do this!

As the cheeseballz say, Let's make it happen!
 

This Fall season, FOX got their butts in gear and provided their own streaming video player on their own website. And guess what? You can FINALLY watch House MD online! Hurray!

But wait! There's a catch! You can only watch House 8 days after it airs on television! WHAT?!?!?!? If you happen to miss the show's original air date, you have to wait until one day AFTER the next week's episode. 

This is yet another network television company's attempt to encourage you the viewer to watch the original airing. Which makes no real sense, since FOX can make money through online advertising before and in the middle of shows like every other television station online. 

This is a case of telling the customer to stick it. FOX doesn't care that you can't afford TiVo. FOX doesn't care that you have a family and a life where you can't always sit in front of the boob tube. They want you to watch their show when it airs or they're going to penalize you and make you wait.

The other major television networks take a maximum of 48 hours after television broadcast to post episodes online. Most are available the morning after.

So, FOX, are you going to start thinking about we the people? Or should we just accept that you think you can put us on hold and we won't do anything about it? 

So here is my plea/contribution to Blog Action Day: it's a plea to you to change JUST ONE THING in your life that won't cause you much money or discomfort.

Are you ready for it? Here it is: Go buy 2-3 cheap canvas bags to do your grocery shopping with. It's that simple. No more paper or plastic! If you use paper, you're using up trees. If you use plastic, you contribute to the massive pollution that plastic plants produce.

The solution is simple. Reuse canvas bags, and drop off your collection of plastic bags to a recycler! If you can't find one, look for a local Whole Foods Market, where you can drop off your plastic bags AND buy canvas shopping bags. It's simple. It's cheap. And over the course of the next 20-50 years that you shop, you'll save a LOT of product and nature from being wasted.

Why NOT do it? It's so easy that it's not even an inconvenience. I bought one last week, and I'll buy another canvas bag or two. Then i'll leave one in my car at all times, and after emptying my groceries, I'll leave the bags by the front door so I'll remember to put them in the car for the next trip to the grocery store.

See?!?!?!? That was easy. You can make a difference too.  

I've been a little curious, though, so I agreed to give this a shot. I followed the email link to Yahoo! Sports and created my team - the DoubleDs. Learning as I went, I set up my personal preferences for my team's draft order. I ranked quarterbacks, running backs, wide receivers, tight ends, and team defenses (forgetting all about kickers). I had my preferences set for the automatic draft, only to find out that some guys can't be present for the draft and apparently can't figure out that an automatic draft means that they don't actually have to be there. So I get the news that we're postponing the fantasy league draft another week.

Two days ago, I hear from Aaron that there are "technical difficulties" with Yahoo! that will require us to join a chat room and do a manual draft. Technical difficulties in this instance means that someone doesn't understand the Internet and how to use it. 

The end result is that I, the guy who had his players ranked for the automatic draft, end up being the only guy who gets screwed. I couldn't make it to the manual draft because my wife and I have a pregnancy class to attend on Saturday afternoons.

THE RESULT:

I get home on Saturday evening to find that I am stuck with Matt L., Matt H. and Matt S. as my quarterbacks. I have no decent wide receivers. My tight end is a loser. The only plus is that I have Adrian Peterson, Clinton Portis, and the Steelers defense. Luckily, I managed to find Dallas Clark available and picked him up as my starting tight end. 

In the end, I have a 5 or 6 out of 10 while at least two other teams in my fantasy league are 8s. It doesn't matter much to me, except that I now see how Fantasy Football COULD be fun (assuming you actually get to pick your players).

A word of advice: don't join a league where the other guys don't know how to use the Internet. Other people's lack of expertise could bite you in the ass.  

How would you like the opportunity to do a joint venture with one of the biggest names in Internet marketing? How would you like the opportunity to win $25,000 in cash? And how would you like the opportunity to be a part of Internet history? If it sounds to good to be true, this is one time that the truth is actually better than it sounds! Joel Comm has created the world's first Internet reality show, and he is inviting you to take part by being a contestant on The Next Internet Millionaire!

This is truly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity unlike anything you've ever seen before. All you have to do is film a short video audition in order to have a chance at being on the show! It doesn't matter if you are a newbie or experienced Internet user. It doesn't matter if you can create a professional video or if you just have a simple webcam. It doesn't even matter if you currently have any product ideas! All that matter is that you have the DESIRE to be The Next Internet Millionaire! Go to this page right away and learn how to submit your video audition...

And by the way, even if you don't want to be on the show, I highly recommend you get on the show mailing list as you will learn a lot just from watching this groundbreaking event! The Next Internet Millionaire... Will it be you?

To your success!