Check this out y'all:

A NYT article says that Americans waste $650 BILLION dollars over-checking their email obsessively. BILLION. Not Millions. Not Thousands. BILLIONS. Crazier? We waste $650 BILLION dollars trying to get back into the groove of work after checking our email obsessively.

Why do we do it? Are we that afraid of missing something?

Some of us here can say that we too check our email obsessively. Even going so far as to click on the Gmail logo over and over to refresh the page. Does this sound familiar to you? If so, you're apparently not alone.

How do we stop? How do we combat this problem? Do we love email that much? We hear people complaining all of the time about information and email overload, so maybe we're trying to get a jump on controlling it before it controls us?

Many questions and not a lot of answers, but if these numbers from the NYT are true, oh boy do we have to change some things.

First things first.

Stop. Look, and Listen.

• Stop checking your email so often
• Look and notice that Gmail already refreshes itself
• Listen for emails to come in automatically via POP or IMAP
  

You won't miss something.

What's your favorite way to catch email? We find that checking email on the mobile slows us down a bit. Unless you get too obsessed with that...can you say Crackberry?

Lets hear your thoughts in the comments.

[via silicon valley insider]

Mixx, a young social news site similar to Digg, just scored a button under "SHARE" next to the articles on the NY Times site. But this is hardly important news, so what's the big deal?

The Digg-clone is only about half a year old, and as you can see in the picture on the right, only the the most established of social sites get a mention. Yet del.icio.us, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Fark, and other bigger, older, and more established sites haven't made the cut.

This NYT-Mixx button is money for the young company, and you can bet you'll hear (or read) the word "Mixx" getting mentioned more often in the future. Now, in order to complete the site's initiation process into the world of established bookmarking sites, we need to turn its name into a verb

ex: Did we Mixx this article? Yes, we love Mixxing stories (for the record, DLS has no official preference as to whether or not its members like to "Mixx" posts).

As of midnight tonight the New York Times pay to view Select Service is no longer. The Times began the subscription service exactly 2-years ago and charged users $49.95 a year or $7.95 a month for the ability to access specific content online. Overall they managed to get 227,000 paid subscribers which made for a profit of close to $10 million a year.

In their announcement the Times said more users were now coming to the site via search engines and links on other sites than they were at the service's launch. These users couldn't get to the content (since they were not subscribers) but were unlikely to pay for it just to check out one piece on content. By allowing everyone access, the New York Times stands to dramatically increase their page views and make more money in advertising revenue than they were off of subscription fees. For those subscribers who have already shelled out some cash for Time Select the NYT is planning to reimburse them on a prorated basis.

What do you think about the Times decision to drop their subscriber service? Could this be the beginning of the end for subscriber based web content?

[via TechCrunch]

One of my favorite parts of being a college student is the fact that I have access to pretty much any and every scholarly journal and article database on the planet. That's why was so excited to read about The New York Times' decision to provide their premium TimesSelect service free of charge to anyone with an .edu email address. TimesSelect offers exclusive Op-Ed columns, early access to the newspaper's Sunday edition, and access to up to 100 free archived articles (dating back to 1851!) per month.

True enough, I could probably get all that through the databases I already have access to, but the ease of being able to simply log into the NYT site to view an article instead of having to look it up in a database goes a long way.

Unfortunately, it seems that @alumni.school.edu and similar addresses are ineligible for this offer.

[via Consumerist]

The New York Times has a dedicated reader program that has been in open beta since September 27th that allows users to read the Times on their computer in a way that more closely matches the experience of reading the dead-tree newspaper. Although I'm not a huge newspaper fan, I downloaded this application and it really is enjoyable to use. The New York Times Reader software relies on Microsoft's new .Net framework 3.0, which can make the installation take a bit of time if you don't already have it installed. I already had .Net 3.0 installed, so the reader installed in about two minutes.

Once it launched, it failed to synchronize with the server, but shutting it completely down (including the system tray icon that stays running) and restarting it fixed that problem. The layout is well optimized for reading, splitting content into rows of a reasonable width. It also does a very good job of dynamically optimizing the text layout based on how large the window is sized. Ads are included in an unobtrusive way, and I've found that when reading in a smaller Times Reader window, ads are removed to make more room for content.

The download (and use of the software) requires a free NYT account.

Thanks to Download Squad tipster Bob Rudis for the link.

Yesterday's New York Times included an, um, interesting article by John Markoff about the next generation of the web. He says that computer scientists and start-ups want to "add a layer of meaning on top of the existing Web that would make it less of a catalog and more of a guide--and even provide the foundation for systems that can reason in a human fashion." He says their effort is "referred to as Web 3.0." That's nice, John, but why does your article have everyone who actually knows what they're talking about scratching their heads? Everyone who's been paying attention will identify that new "layer of meaning" as what people have been happy calling the semantic web for a few years now, but nobody but Markoff, and maybe a few overenthusiastic marketers, are calling it Web 3.0, and that bit about reasoning "in a human fashion"? Well, AI isn't new to computer science, and Hollywood got over it five years ago. I'm not sure what Markoff's excuse is.

Predictably, the blogosphere is all over the Web 3.0 meme, with notable responses from Nick Bradbury who says "The Semantic Web may happen, but if it does, it's going to be a helluva lot messier than the architects would like," and ex-Microsoftie Robert Scoble who proposes "Web 2007" as a much more hypeworthy name, Tim O'Reilly ("I was surprised to see Markoff referring to this as "Web 3.0", when that very fact is the heart of what we've been calling Web 2.0."), and, of course, Dave Winer.

In a hard-fought battle, RealNetworks appears to have won a major patent victory to protect their technology. This is a patent that already faced a struggle with the Patent Office itself, just to get filed in 1999 (and it took 5 years to do that). But it now looks like the "streaming through a congested network" magic is owned by RealNetworks... Despite a previous patent by Apple for the same thing used in QuickTime. Personally, I always thought Real had better streaming, QuickTime had better downloadable quality. The billion-dollar question: who cares? Will this really affect Real's bottom line? Rob Glaser (CEO of Real) has essentially said he's not going to go after the "big hair porcupines" in the industry using the technology. Hm, that would probably be Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe. Who does that leave, YouTube? Developers aren't rolling their own codecs, for the most part, these days. During the go-go 90's I saw all sorts of wacky streaming implementations, but you don't hear a lot about this now that broadband keeps growing. You do hear about different protocols (like Bittorrent) for moving data, but streaming tech this old doesn't get headlines. Yet that appears to be what Glaser is hoping for, as in the New York Times he's quoted as saying, "We're hoping that people will say, 'Oh, I get it,' and that this will boost the identity of Helix." Well Rob, one can dream, eh? This sounds a little like those patent-to-profitability games dying tech companies play. They're bleeding money after innovating, so they sue everyone on old patents to make some cash. Sounds like Real doesn't want to play that game, but will they have to?