Right now, blog monthly subscriptions are $US2. Of that 70% will go to Amazon and 30% will go to you, which—knowing that people can read RSS in computers and mobiles—will probably result in $US0 for Amazon and $US0 for you.

I’ve seen quite a few “headset hotties” in stock photos from when I created websites, and these aren’t nearly the best ones on the internet. Maybe you guys can help them out?

[Headset Hotties via Boing Boing Gadgets]

Giz AU is a finalist in the Best Australian Blog category. And because we really want to win (not for our egos, you understand, but for your egos), we’re asking that you hit the link and vote for us today, tomorrow and every day up until the voting closes on January 13. Not only that, we want you to get your family and friends to vote for us too – remember this isn’t about us, it’s about you.

And while you’re voting, why not pop a vote in for our sister site Defamer AU, who’s a finalist in the Best Celeb Gossip Blog category, as well as one for the mothership Gizmodo US in the Best Technology Blog category.

Thanks guys.

[2008 Weblog Awards]

Since Orwell spent some time as both journalist and teacher, I suspect he may have found the idea of blogging his journals intriguing, on an educational level. As for what he’d have thought of our society, it’s impossible to tell, though perhaps the proliferation of surveillance cameras (making “Big Brother is watching you” seem ever truer) would’ve struck a chord or two with the man.

I have a sneaky feeling he’d have disapproved of the Giz, though. Consider this guideline for good writing, one of six from his book Politics and the English Language: “Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.” [Orwell Diaries via Laughing Squid]

Consumer electronics tech journalism is very tricky. Those who strictly cover commercial CE depend on a powerful handful of companies for the very lifeblood of their content. That’s a dangerous position. A “favour” by a company can turn into the laziest kind of “scoop” imaginable, a scrap from the dinner table for the dogs of journalism. And every gadget journalist has wrestled with his conscience as he gains more access and becomes inseparable from the industry and depends on more and more of these scoops.

But bloggers and trade journalists, so desperate for a seat at the table with big mainstream publications have it completely backwards: You don’t get more access by selling out for press credentials first chance you get, kowtowing to corporations and tradeshows and playing nice; you earn your respect by fact finding, reporting, having untouchable integrity, provocative coverage and gaining readers through your reputation for those things. Our prank pays homage to the notion of independence and independent reporting. And no matter how much access the companies give us, we won’t ever stop being irreverent. That’s what this prank was about and what the press should understand.

Critics talk about the prank costing dollars and jobs. Motorola said “no harm, no foul” and enjoyed the joke. (Although they will be checking every body cavity I have for IR blasters next press conference.) Were there AV techs who got in trouble? They need only show their bosses the video to be blame-free.

Many of our harshest critics have done far worse than clicking off a few TVs. I’m talking about ethical lapses such as accepting paid junkets to Japan by Nikon, or free trips to Korea by Samsung. Turning a blind eye to Apple’s mistakes when they didn’t make an iPhone SDK and sought to lock down the handset. Stock prices torn downward by publishing incorrect leaked info. Writing about companies that also pay you for advertorial podcast work. All of these examples are offences from the last year. And I consider those offences far worse than our prank, because it ultimately it puts the perpetrators on the wrong team. As one reporter put it while chiding me, “Journalists are guests in the houses of these companies.” Not first and foremost! We are the auditors of companies and their gadgets on behalf of the readers. In this job, integrity and independence is far more important than civil or corporate obedience. Every tech journalist has to decide whether or not he’s writing for companies or for readers. When they start writing for the companies, covering all their press releases and regurgitating marketing jargon, you do no one any favours (not even
the companies, which already hire press release machines).

Gizmodo was given access to film and interview Bill Gates again this year. Some pubs might have softened up on questioning him, but we didn’t: We got the guy to open up and talk about Windows and its
shortcomings like he never has before, not even on 60 minutes. If that’s not journalism, I don’t know what is. If we had been in the pocket of this industry, we never would have asked such a risky question—and probably wouldn’t have been granted the interview to begin with.

In closing, I will fill you in on our little secret: TVs turn back on when you press the power button a second time. So, I can assure you, everything is going to be OK once the companies find their clickers between the couch cushions of our prank and your obedience. Will our critics find it as easy to turn their integrity back on? I doubt it.

(1) Industry Structural Analysis
Industry-based information tends to be randomly delivered by many companies in a variety of different formations, including RSS and web pages. Analysis of this information requires the combination of these formats. “Industry structural analysis technology” assesses the relationship between seller and buyer for raw materials and finished products using algorithms that integrate information from different formats and evaluates this information in light of analysis results from previous corporate activities. Based on this assessment, regular analysis is conducted to determine the company’s position and its relationship with other companies in terms of products and services.

(2) Comparative Product Analysis
The presentation of product information released on web pages differs from company to company. It is therefore necessary to understand the meaning of each presentation and classify it accurately when conducting a comparative analysis of products. “Comparative analysis technology” for comparing rival products determines the characteristic differences between products by looking at product information spread across multiple web pages, as well as product outlines presented in different formats. This is done by applying an algorithm to identify product pages by scanning for keywords such as “outline” and “features” as well as relationships between web pages. Another algorithm is then used to calculate the similarities between product features by scanning for keywords such as “high resolution” and “thinnest”.

[via Digital World Tokyo]