Optigrab II - for a new generation of jerks:  Here’s a new product that cult-followers of the movie, The Jerk, (I confess) will appreciate: something to keep glasses from slipping off ones nose.

(Warning: Here’s a picture of the product, but it’s not for the squeamish.)
(Note: For the record, this sounds to me like a lingering April 1 item.)

(via: BusinessPundit)

Sp-lame: Sploid.

TiVo logo ads update: Yesterday, I suggested
that the only “replacement ad” worth inserting onto a TiVo’d program
would be a static logo. Apparently, that’s so obvious a suggestion, they are already doing it.

(Thanks to a comment on a post on Doug Petch’s weblog.)

What Susan said: Susan Mernit gave a talk at an American Press Institute Seminar
called,  “The Real Deal: How Young Adults Spend Their Time
Online– from RSS and SMS to peer-to-peer file sharing…how newspapers
can tap into the new information networks.”

With much generosity, she has posted a summary of her presentation, making it easier for the rest of us when we need to make such a presentation to an audience of print-publishing-types.

Faking geekspeak - Ajax: 
Ajax, in addition to being a household cleanser, is the geek buzzword
of the nanosecond. As a service to those who aren’t geeks (I’m not, but
some of my best friends…), here’s how to fake an understanding of
what it is.

Whenever a geek friend says the word Ajax and looks at you with that
sneer of superiority, simply reply, “Sure, I know what Ajax is: it’s
how Google gets those
“instant” suggestions to automagically appear when you use Google
Suggest.”
Warning, if you’re not actually a geek and are (like me) just faking
it, don’t go overboard by saying something like the following, “But,
hey, there’s
nothing new about it. I’ve been using xmlHttpRequest links for years.”

By the way, automagically, while not a new buzzword, is one of my favorites. But then, I prefer buzzwords that sort of explain themselves.

If you insist on having a geek-oriented explanation of Ajax, here’s the “mother-post” that helped get the buzz-ball rolling.

Aggregatorosphere news: Howard Kurtz has seen (scroll down) “the future of the blogosphere,” and he’s “out of
breath.” Actually, what he saw was Memeorandum and the Annotated New
York Times. (See earlier rexblog post for background.)

Feed me:  Steve asks, why no Google feeds? While we’re asking that question, I just visited Drudge
for the first time in months (years?) and am wondering why he doesn’t
offer a feed? If it’s a revenue issue, Steve’s suggestion for how
Google could make money would work for him, as well.

Like Drudge? Drudge, who has spent the past four years saying he’s not a blogger, should not even respond to questions
about “competition” from “competition” that, on good days, will likely
get less than 1% of the traffic he has built up in almost a decade of
grinding out daily, uh, whatever it is he grinds out. More gossip or
more chattering is no threat to Drudge. (Although, and I can attest
from experience, it is easy to go years without looking at the Drudge
Report)

Since we’re talking about highly suspect research: Why is it news when a company does research on their product and the research reveals something positive?

Disclosure: Despite three years of trying to understand “digital
versions of magazines,” (and I’ve tried, really, I have), I just don’t
sense a groundswell of demand from readers, rather I sense they are
something publishers would love for readers to want. As I spent
considerable time on this topic a couple of years ago (and, frankly,
that’s where this concept is stuck), I’ll let others debate the future
of PDF-like replicas of print magazines. If someone (other than
publishers) want them, great! Knock yourself out.