How Not To Blog ?

I have lost all respect for Gizmodo, Nick Denton's popular gadget blog.

Since receiving $75,000 from Sony late January for a 3 month sponsorship deal on Lifehacker, Nick's other blog, Gizmodo, has never been the same.

Sony-related articles on Gizmodo already number 21 for March, and there are still 11 days to go in the month. Last month, the count was 19. January showed 15 and December showed 9. And that's not including the non-article advertising.

In comparison, Gizmodo has 8 Apple-focused articles, 6 Nokia, and 4 for Windows & Microsoft.

Is Sony really that good? The articles seem to suggest that. But, really, the company has lost its bearings. The only good thing going for it is its game console and portable coming out. They are actually revolving around pretty-stupid, in my onion, and can't seem to figure out much.

I've visited Lifehacker once, and once was enough. A tech blog sponsored by a billion-dollar tech company just doesn't seem right.

Gizmodo is the slut that tastes funny. Read more about Nick selling out to corporate interests. (Too bad he couldn't even secure his own name as a dot-com. And dot-slut isn't yet available.) Get some style, Nick.

Engadget is a much better site for gadget/tech. At least it doesn't make your eyes hurt.

Jigsaw is in the business of buying and selling contact information to/from you.

For every good contact you give them you may get about $1, depending on what it goes for in their marketplace. They use a points system whereby buyers can buy points for $0.20 - $0.12 and sellers can sell points at $0.10.

All contacts in their database include a person's phone number, email address, and title. They don't say anything about how another person might feel having their private information traded back and forth like it was a stock. I guess they would refer to this as "pre-emptive networking".

What's next? Will I be able to sell my friends' contact information for $1 each, too? Sign me up! I've got a list of people I don't particularly care for.

I've always wondered why the old women to old men ratio was so high. Obviously, it's because women generally live longer. But why?

A longevity expert recently said that women are almost six times as likely to live to 100 than men because of their bleeding out iron when they menstruate. (Article)

"Iron is a critical factor in our cell's ability to produce those nasty molecules called free radicals that play an important role in ageing," Dr Perls, an assistant professor of medicine at Boston University, said outside the conference. "It may be as simple as having less iron in your body."

So, actually, my recommending to my girlfriend that she take iron supplements to make up for its loss during menstruation could actually be shortening her life! Excellent. I don't want anyone else sucking on her wrinkled breastisis when I'm dead. The doc didn't do a study on men with iron-poor diets, like Peter Pan, to see how long they usually live. I wouldn't be surprised if people like that lived to be 130.

A guy with a good book says that Women invented the concept of time. It is quite natural that they would have a better relationship with it that men do.

It's a fucking conspiracy, I tell you!