My times have changed.  All the gadgets that used to clutter up our shelves – the camcorders, alarm clocks, cameras… all of those things have now converged into one convenient device known as the smart phone.  We seem to have less a need for STUFF.

When I look to generations before mine (my parents, my grandparents…) they would essentially hoard things.  They keep boxes of pictures and cassette tapes, just to reminisce about days gone by.  But you know what?  Our generation does that too.  Only, you can’t see it.  It’s digital hoarding.

Think you might suffer from digital hoarding?  Well, here are some symptoms.

1)  You keep every email, “just in case”
I’m definitely guilty of this one.  These days, especially with web-based email, there doesn’t seem to be much of a necessity to get rid of any emails.  My account has every single legitimate email I’ve ever received since I opened the account when I was a teenager.

2)  You’ve never deleted a single digital photo you’ve downloaded from your camera.
Again, I’ll refer to my personal hoarding to show you how far digital picture hoarding can go. I have over 6,000 photos saved on my laptop.  No word of a lie

3)  You installed a game five years ago and haven’t played it since 2007.
Just the other day, I finally deleted the Sims 2 from my computer.

I personally don’t think there’s anything wrong with digital hoarding.  I mean, we’re human.  We like to keep our treasured things nearby and accessible should the need ever arise.  Like real hoarding, it becomes a problem when it has a negative effect on you.

Keeping all this junk on your computer will slow it down.  And as you near your storage limit, your computer will grind to a near standstill.  You could get an external hard drive and move all those un-needed files there… or, you could put it ‘in the cloud’.  ‘In the cloud’ is a term that essentially means uploading all those files to a secure website.  For example, a site called Mozy lets you upload ALL of those files you don’t need, but can’t bring yourself to delete.  And it’ll cost you just $5/month.

The best part is it’s online.  So, all those documents, songs, pictures, videos will be accessible to you whenever and wherever you need them… as long as you have an internet connection.

Something to think about.

It works by letting users ‘check in’ at a location and then broadcasting that to your friends on Facebook.  It’s very similar (if not identical) to another service called FourSquare.  This new Facebook feature does have purpose - let’s say you and a big group of friends are meeting at a pub on a busy Saturday night.  Rather than make countless phone calls or send dozens of text messages to find out where everyone is, Facebook Places will allow you to simply ‘check-in’ at the bar.  Then your friends will be able to log on to Facebook and quickly check how many people are already at the meeting place.

This new feature will also allow you to check who may be in the same neighbourhood as you.  You could have a quick look at Facebook Places and find out an old friend from high school happened to be just down the street.

The feature is automatically enabled for your facebook account, and it’s up to you to disable it.  That just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me.  Why not give people the option and let them decide for themselves?

If you’re waiting for the major downside, here it is.  It allows you to tag other people in places, too.  So, while you may not actually use Facebook Places, other people can mark you as say, at the park, at a restaurant, or wherever you may be.  It takes away control.

By telling people where you are all the time, you’re telling them when you’re not home.  And that’s effectively publicly broadcasting that your house is empty and it’s an ideal time to rob your place (Just check out pleaserobme.com to see what I mean).  I don’t mean to spark paranoia – I’m not accusing your friends of being criminals.  But criminals do have friends, don’t they?  And criminals do use facebook, right?  I’m just saying…

What if you’re not doing anything criminal, but you’re doing something you shouldn’t be? What if you’ve got a lady or man on the side?  You tell your significant other you’re working late when you’re actually out at a bar with that someone else.  Unbeknownst to you, someone tags you in those locations, your better half sees it on facebook, and then comes down to the bar to break up with you.  (Wait, that actually might be a useful tool…)

Anyways, my point here is that changes to evolve Facebook – I think they’re a good thing.  I’m just tired of them signing people up for services and demanding they cancel it if they want out.  Let people decide for themselves, rather than forcing it on them.

If ou want to disable Facebook Places, follow these steps:

1) Log in to Facebook
2) Go to your Account Menu and choose Privacy Settings
3) Click the ‘Customize Settings’ link at the bottom of the page
4) Go to the bottom of the section ‘Things I Share’
5) Go to ‘Places I Check In’ and use the drop-down menu to the settings you prefer
6) Below that option will be another called ‘Include me in ‘People Here and Now’ after I check in’ - uncheck this if you don’t want people to find you by checking the neighbourhood for nearby friends.
7) The most important one:  If you don’t want your friends to check you into Places for you, go to the section called ‘Things Others Share’ and find ‘Friends can check me in to Places’.  SET TO ‘DISABLED’.

There’s no better kill-joy than to see your first back to school commercial. This week, I’m making it my personal mission to get you a bit more excited to face the crowds for back to school shopping.

Let’s start with textbooks. Every year, it’s the same burden for college students all over North America: Buying expensive textbooks that are required for every subject, lugging them to and from classes all day long. When the course is finished, the books probably won’t see the light of day again. Well, in this day and age of e-books, things are changing. You can save about 50% on textbooks by buying an e-textbook instead.

Coursesmart is a company that digitizes higher education course materials. They claim to have converted 90% of North American textbooks into digital formats for you to buy and download onto your computer, phone, or tablet. It seems to be a logical solution on several fronts. You can save money, eliminate the weight of those textbooks, and save a few trees in the process.

If you stay on the traditional track and stick with regular textbooks, there is a gadget out there that could help make note-taking a breeze. It’s a portable scanner that acts like a highlighter with a brain. You use it exactly as you would use a highlighter. But instead of adding colour to the text in your book, it will scan the words, and store it its memory. Then you can download all that memory onto your computer, putting together an instant Coles Notes version of the text you just read. Not exactly cost-efficient though… it’ll run you about $250.

I still maintain the best back to school gadget is the same one I talked about last year. The Livescribe SmartPen. If you didn’t catch last year’s back to school segment, it’s a pen that will record the audio of a lecture as you take notes on a special pad of paper. Then, you can go back and double-check your notes by touching your pen to the words on the paper, causing the pen to play back what was recorded when you wrote it down. The SmartPen is a bit cheaper now than it was last year - it costs about $180 from London Drugs.

Well, not exactly.  I mean, who’s seen a 3D movie since Avatar?  I have - I went to see Alice in Wonderland in 3D.  But it lacked the “wow-factor” that Avatar had.  That’s because Avatar was made to be seen in 3D; it was billed as a “3D experience”.  Other live-action movies, on the other hand are basically made for 2D - and then tweaked for anyone who wants to pay 50 percent more to see it with glasses on.

And there’s evidence now that ticket sales to see movies in 3D are on a steady decline, because people just aren’t seeing the value anymore.  It’s basically a gimmick - one that people have already gotten over.

3D TVs are supposed the newest “it” thing too.  I don’t have one yet, nor do any of my friends.  But it seems there’s a major complaint - the glasses.  You have to have one pair for every person watching.  So, if you want to have a movie night with a whole bunch of friends at your place, you’re going to have to stock up on at least four pairs.  And they’re very pricey - we’re talking a minimum $150 per pair.

Sure, we’ve come a long way from the tacky red and blue lens glasses they used to produce 3D images back in the day.  Today’s 3D glasses basically look like oversized sunglasses.  But the fact of the matter is people don’t want to have to use glasses at all.  Is it too much to ask for 3D technology using the naked eye?

I’m being a bit tongue in cheek - but about two months ago, I talked about the new Nintendo 3DS - their new hand-held gaming system that will be released this fall.  This device will use 3D technology.  It’s received rave reviews and will probably fly off the shelves this Christmas.  And I can guess why - because you won’t need to use glasses to see the three dimensional image.

So hopefully, the technology Nintendo is using for their 3DS can be amplified to be used for TVs and movie theatres in the future.

Let’s face it - we, as humans, are a picky species.  If it’s a hassle, we don’t like it.  We like convenience.

So, unless every movie and game will have the massive budget James Cameron had to make Avatar, I think the public is growing a little tired of 3D.  I’m sorry to say I think it’s a fad that will die out until the day they can figure out how we can get rid of those pesky glasses.

Now, there’s a report about a new worry:  Digital doping through downloaded music.  It’s called idosing, and apparently countless teenagers stateside are trying it out.

Websites claiming to be “dealers” of these digital drugs sell kids songs, with the promise that these tunes will replicate the effects of being on drugs. All you need is a set of stereo headphones, and you’re all set.

Sounds scary, right?

Well, I’ve read up on this so-called idosing, and doctors and scientists are really skeptical of - if not completely refuting - its supposed effects.

The concept is that these music tracks play two different sound waves in each ear to create what’s called “binaural beats”.  Experts say binaural beats are simply your brain perceiving the two different waves as a seperate beat that sounds like it’s coming from inside your head.

The websites that sell these idoses claim this will alter your brainwaves and make you high.  But experts - and I’m a bit more inclined to believe them - say they’ve done research and have found there is no real evidence to suggest these altered states actually exist.  Doctors and scientists are saying the sounds don’t make you high.

Check out this CBS segment, which includes an interview with Science Journalist Brian Dunning.

Now, if you search YouTube for “idoser” you will get several videos of teenagers lying down with headphones on, seemingly very stoned on whatever they are listening to.  I’m not a doctor, but I do understand the placebo effect.  If you tell a young teen their drink is spiked when in reality they’re drinking a virgin rum and coke, that kid just might end up acting drunk anyways.

There is some concern among parents, though, that this so-called idosing is a gateway to harder drugs that are actually smoked, eaten, or injected.  And I can certainly understand that worry.  That’s because the websites that sell these music tracks actually call the songs drug names as a way to label the apparent effects its supposed to have on you.  They have titles like “Ecstacy” “Cocaine” “Peyote” or “Alcohol”.

So, whether or not these idoses are actually making kids high, I think we can all agree the websites are promoting the concept of getting high and effectively promoting drugs.

But I it doesn’t look like headphones are really tell-tale sign your teen is doing drugs (at least, not yet).

Just last week, a lot of people were fooled into thinking it was “future day”. A photoshopped image of the dash of the famous DeLorean time machine circulated around, tricking several people into believing Marty McFly and the Doc travelled to the “future” date of July 5th 2010.

Well, that is not Back to the Future Day - but it is the day I realized how much of a geek I am.  I looked at that picture and immediately thought to myself, “That’s not right - they travelled to October 21st, 2015.”  (I mean, who actually knows that?  I think I need a life.)

But it started me thinking about the fact that we are now just five years away from the “future” the movie predicted.  And anyone who is familiar with the movie will know that we have a lot of inventing to do.  That’s not to say we haven’t tried.

Someone has actually made a replica of the famous hoverboard - and it actually hovers.  The levitation is made possible by a slew of electromagnets and lasers.  But don’t get your hopes up - this thing won’t actually hold any weight.  But maybe it’ll pave the way for someone else to run with the idea to make a real hoverboard.  Come on, you know you’ve always wanted one!

Another thing I always loved from the Back to the Future movie was the shoes that laced themselves.  We see them in the scene where Marty McFly first arrives in the year 2015:

Unfortunately, Nike still has yet to make these shoes, but again, someone has tried.  It’s a curious-looking gadget with a big, clunky motor at the heel of the shoe.  It’s not exactly the same thing, but it does work.  I suppose if anything, it’s proof of concept.

And as for flying cars, well, pretty much every futuristic movie has promised us flying cars for a very long time.  We still don’t have vehicles that can make a vertical take-off, but a car has been invented that can fly.  It’s basically a hybrid between a car and an airplane, with wings that can be unfolded so the vehicle can take flight.  And yes, it actually works.  Imagine, flying your own personal plane into an airport, and then simply folding up the wings and driving away.  Conceivably, that could happen if the designers launch their product for the masses.

They say movies about the future create a self-fulfilling prophecy, that we invent things to match what we expect of the future based on films.  That’s fine by me.  Just give me a flying car, and I’m good.

It seems as though this year there have been a lot more complaints over bad refereeing than previous World Cups.  More specifically, the most complaints have been around goals that should or shouldn’t have counted, but were victims of bad calls.

FIFA has always been against the idea of introducing technology to the sport.  Their mentality is basically that the rules of soccer should be the same everywhere, from the World Cup to different leagues at different levels.  FIFA is worried that adding technology into the professional game would create a disconnect between the professional game and the game that’s played in your backyard.

But we, at home, watch soccer with replays, and all start freaking out when we see a blatant goal that was disallowed.  The US and England were both unfortunate victims of these circumstances in this World Cup tournament.

There are two different technologies FIFA could consider.  The first is called “Hawkeye“.  It’s a set of six cameras positioned around each goal.  The cameras operate at a rate of 500 frames per second, which means it would be able to capture very fast moving balls.  And the images would be processed in real-time.  If the system judges the ball crossed the goal line, then a signal would be transferred to the referree though a device like a watch or earpiece in less than a second.  And the system is apparently set up to detect the ball, not humans.  So it sounds like it wouldn’t give you faulty reports when players run near the goal line.

The other option called the “Cairos chip ball system“.  With this technology, thin cables would be installed underneath the turf in the field’s penalty area and behind the goal line to create a weak magnetic field.  A sensor is placed inside the ball to measure where it is in the magnetic field, and that’s how the system determines whether or not the ball crosses the goal line.  Again, it would alert the referee in a split second.

While I respect FIFA’s desire to keep the game simple, I think they have no choice now but to seriously consider implementing one of these two Goal Line Technologies on a professional level.  It would be like hockey, where the technology is only used to resolve a dispute over a goal, and wouldn’t be used for fouls.  It wouldn’t disrupt the flow of the game, and it adds fairness - which I think is something everyone wants and deserves.

It was just two weeks ago that I gave you a rundown on the features of the latest iPhone.  One of the things Apple boasted about with the iPhone 4 was the glass covering, which has been chemically strengthened.  Apple said it would make it stiffer and harder than plastic, and it would be more durable than previous models.  Well, now word is spreading that countless users stateside already have shattered phones. Some of the users claim they only dropped it from a height of one foot.  Apple did start replacing some phones free of charge, but stopped after 50 complaints.  From here on in, users are on their own if they drop the fragile device.

Another feature Apple was proud of in their launch was the high-resolution display.  Well, a flaw has surfaced on this so-called Retina Display.  Several handsets have a yellow tint that kind of looks like a urine stain on the screen.  It looks like Apple hasn’t given an official word on this yet, but it may be a manufacturing problem, perhaps residue from the glue that is holding the glass to the screen.  To be fair, Apple is replacing handsets that have this problem, no questions asked.

The final issue with the new iPhone is pretty significant, considering it’s a phone.  The device loses reception. When does it lose reception?  When you hold it like a normal person holds a phone to their ear.  The phone’s antenna is incorporated in the hardware like all other phones.  But it seems the way the new iPhone is designed so that holding the phone in a way that covers the bottom left side of the device will cut out reception.

The funniest part about this is the way Steve Jobs has responded to this complaint.  He says, “Just don’t hold it like that.” Really, Steve-o?  You should have a better answer than that.  To be fair to ol’ Jobsey, it appears as though a better answer could be in the works.  He recently replied to an iPhone user’s email with the vague phrase, “There is no reception issue.  Stay tuned.”  What that means remains to be seen.  Maybe a solution is coming.

Before I go, I just want to remind everyone, I gave Apple the benefit of the doubt two weeks ago.  I publicly said the iPhone 4 wasn’t that bad, and was probably a good phone.  I guess should stick to my guns more often.

This year was a pretty big year for gaming.  Playstation, XBox, and Nintendo all had exciting announcements to make.

Let’s start with Playstation.  They’ve finally started to kick off its response to the Nintendo Wii.  The Wii did a great job of getting all ages into gaming by creating its motion-controllers.  Playstation is launching it’s own system, called “Move”.  Move is pretty much just a Nintendo Wii - but a whole lot better.  The Wii uses a sensor bar and accelerometers in the controllers to figure out what you’re doing, whereas the Playstation Move will use cameras to create a three-dimensional image of the controller’s movements relative to your body.  In a nutshell, if you play tennis on a Wii, simply flicking your arm will usually do the trick.  But with the Move, you’ll need more skills than that - angle, speed, and spin will all become factors in your tennis game.

Now on to XBox.  You may or may not remember me talking about something called Project Natal back in January.  I promised this system would be launched this year, and it’s finally been given its formal unveiling at last week’s E3 event.  Project Natal has been renamed is Kinect.  It’s an add-on to the XBox 360 system that transforms your body into the controller.  You will be able to play soccer video games by actually standing and kicking your feet, or play a racing game by mimicking the motions of steering a wheel, using the pedals, and shifting gears.  It all works by using a camera to map out your body movements.  This is really going to push the boundaries for gaming. Kinect will be in stores just in time for the Christmas rush.

I’m sure you can see a bit of a trend happening here.  But Nintendo’s announcement last week doesn’t have anything to do with motion controls.  Their newest product is the Nintendo 3DS.  It’s their newest handheld gaming system.  It’s just like the Nintendo DS, with one difference - it’ll have 3D graphics, without the use of glasses.  I don’t know how they did it, but this is probably the most exciting announcement of all.  Imagine playing a 3D game or watching a 3D film without those annoying (not to mention unflattering) glasses in the way.  I haven’t even mentioned the coolest part yet - the 3DS will have a set of two cameras on the outside that will work together so you can take pictures in 3D to view on the system.  How cool is that?

With all these exciting announcements, it’s hard to say which product is going to be the runaway winner this Christmas.  But I think it’s fair to say it’s going to be one heck of a console war this holiday season!

Now, I’m not going pretend I’m an Apple-lover.  I don’t “drink the kool-aid”, as I like to call it.  But I’m not going to spend this whole time trash-talking the newest iPhone.  In fact, I don’t think it’s all that bad.

The latest version is much thinner than the previous one, but it is a little bit heavier.  It’s got a glass covering, which has been chemically strengthened to make it stiffer and harder than plastic.  Apple says it makes it scratch resistant and more durable.

The resolution of the screen for the newest iPhone is better than all the previous versions.  Apple calls it the Retina Display - with four times as many pixels as the iPhone 3GS.

It’s now got two cameras - the main camera on the back of the phone, and secondary front-facing one.  Let’s start with the main camera - it has a bigger sensor and bigger lenses - although it still has the same 5 megapixel resolution as the previous iPhone.  But it is supposed to be more sensitive to light, which will probably give you better photos and videos in low light conditions.  The front-facing camera is in standard VGA resolution - nothing all that amazing.  It’s set up for users to do video conferencing.

Now the downsides of all these features I’ve just mentioned (you know I have to…):

Let’s start with the glass covering of the phone.  As I mentioned before, Apple says the glass has been strengthened to be more durable than previous iPhones.  But a group has actually put this to the test - they say they dropped the hardware from a height of 3.5 feet, and it actually broke. So, now I don’t know what to believe - Apple’s word?  or an actual test?

As for the resolution, I’ll give Apple my approval for giving the iPhone 4 the highest resolution ever put into a phone.  But as the term “Retina Display” -  that term basically means you can’t see pixels with the naked eye.  But they kind of exaggerated.  Apparently, it’s not technicially retina display because you can see pixels when you’re holding the phone about a foot away.  So, yes, the resolution is really good.  All I’m saying is Apple kind of lied (again).

And lastly, the front-facing camera for video-calling.  Apple made a big stink over the fact that their new iPhone accommodates video calling - like it was something new.  Hello, earth to Apple!  Video-calling has been around for a long time.  The camera will be good for anyone using Skype on their phone, but there’s a reason people haven’t picked up on video-calling yet - it’s just not practical.  The iPhone 4 can only video call other iPhone 4’s - and only over wi-fi - I just don’t see everyone starting to use video calling just because the newest iPhone has limited capabilities to do so (although I may be under-estimating the power of that Apple-flavoured koolaid).

All in all, it is a good phone, I can admit that..  But it’s basically now on par with the best Android phones - and there are new Android phones practically every month.  I think the tide is turning and Apple’s dominance over the smart phone market will slowly dissipate from here on in.