As long time listener to audio podcasts such as Leo Laporte’s TWiT network (Windows Weekly is among my favorites) and Creative Screenwriting Magazine, I can say I love listening to podcasts. There are many great shows that I have sampled, and I’ve found that I much prefer listened to audio podcasts instead of video.

The first reason is obvious: audio shows do not require your full attention. One can listen to a show while driving in the car, doing menial chores or eating lunch and allowing you to stimulate your brain while doing routine or mundane tasks.

Given its nature, video shows generally work best in shorter format. You have to be at a screen and it requires one’s full attention. That’s not to say that long-format shows cannot work. I haven enjoyed Kevin Pollack’s Chat Show, Jason Calacanis’ This Week in Startups and Stupid for Movies from time-to-time, but I find it difficult to stick with them because of the screen requirement and, given their hour plus length and without an audio-only alternatives (which some of them have), they are more difficult to fit into one’s schedule of content consumption.

Also, because video requires much more production time and expense, they are consequently more limiting in terms of who has the resources to produce them. This leaves the door open for some smart entrepreneurs to bootstrap a good idea and get it off the ground with little investment in the audio realm. It also means that content producers must focus more on that what of the content instead of the how and, in the end, that generally compels podcasters to make sure they’re creating intellectually stimulating content.

This is certainly not always the case, nor does it rule out the possibility of a video show accomplishing the task of stimulating the mind. However, in general, audio shows tend to be more about ideas as such and allow for more in-depth analysis of a subject as they can be more liberal in their production length.

Such low overhead in producing audio podcasts has its negative side. While the door is open for successful shows to exist on extremely niche topics, this also means there is a lot of bad content out there one has to sift through. But generally, when you find a good one, they are extremely rewarding and enjoyable.

I do not want to say that video shows are unworthy of attention. They can be more lucrative for content producers as they command much higher advertising rates. That’s not to be discounted. The potentiality for higher profits nets bigger investment in such content, and people will make take time to watch a show if it’s good enough (see my article: Eight Reasons to Quit Cable TV as a first point of instruction for how to clear some room for any video podcasts you might be inclined to watch).

But, for the reasons discussed here, I think people tend to be more loyal to the audio shows they do consume. They’re easier to fit into one’s busy schedule and audiences therefore have more time to get to know a show’s personality and style. As a result—and content permitting—there is higher potential to become more invested in these types of shows.

Ratings by movie reviewers are ubiquitous, from thumbs up or down to a star-rating system or any kind of sliding point system. Are they a waste of time that should be avoided and abolished, a necessary marketing tool to pull readers in to read reviews, or an objective measurement of the reviewer’s overall evaluation of a movie?

During my days as Managing Partner at Box Office Mojo, when the site still published movie reviews, we struggled with this question. Initially we used a letter grade scoring system.

However, the grading system was a source of consternation for us and our reviewers. Readers of the site would often write in and say, “How could you give such-and-such movie a C+ and then give thus-and-so movie an A-?!” Some of them clearly had not even read the reviews and were writing solely on the basis of the grades—and in some instances readers hadn’t bothered to notice the two reviews were written by different people. Sadly, such trifle led us to decide to do away with the rating system.

(In July of 2008, we sold the company to Amazon.com, an acquisition for IMDb.com, which Amazon owns. Post-sale, they decided to stop producing reviews which, incidentally, was probably the right move for the company as they were a money-losing proposition and generally disliked by the site’s readers).

I’m not sure axing the rating system was the right choice. The need for succinct headlines was still there to draw attention, and we found ourselves changing our headline policy to be more evaluative in order to draw readers in. We had avoided a specific rating system per se, but succumbed to the purpose a rating system is meant to employ.

That purpose is to draw attention. Whether for a movie review or a headline to a news article, there is an objective need to draw the readers’ attention and state why an article or review is important.

Arguably, a rating scale achieves that purpose in the quickest way possible. It is a succinct, immediate advertisement of the reviewer’s evaluation of the movie. It can also help the movie-goer who doesn’t like to read reviews prior to seeing a movie be given an indication of the review without having to read or know anything about the movie prior to seeing it.

However, a rating is not a substitute for a review, so those who try to compare one movie’s rating to another’s are dropping the context of the overall purpose here. How could I give, for example, the movie Liar Liar an A while giving an A- to We Were Soldiers? Both are very different movies and in some ways I like We Were Soldiers better (click here to read my review of Were Were Soldiers).

But a rating is not meant to be used as a comparison tool to rank different movies and that is not its purpose. The rating pertains to the movie in question, and should indicate whether the movie was interesting, entertaining and/or fulfilling on its own terms. It is a teaser or overall summary of the reviewer’s evaluation and only that. A reviewer should expound the reasons for liking or disliking a movie in his review.

(As an aside, reviewers should only assign a rating after they’ve written their review, and make sure their rating matches what they actually say about the movie. Otherwise the reviewer could find himself trying to justify his initial rating rather than focus on what he has to communicate about the movie.)

So what is the best rating scale to use? While there are no hard and fast rules, I believe a scale of one to four to be ideal—whether stars or letter grades or some other method is used is not important. The lowest rating should be reserved for an “I hated it” or “very bad” evaluation; the second for a “mixed” review, and then two scales of positive: “liked it” or “pretty good” and “loved it” or “excellent.”

Just as the concept “big” gives an indication of something’s size, but is no substitute for its more precise measurement, so a movie rating give an indication of a reviewer’s evaluation of movie but is no substitute for reading the actual review.

A recent article in The Financial Times titled “Net Neutrality Comes Back to Haunt Google” demonstrates why Google should stand on principle in its business practices and should give one pause in advocating Net Neutrality.

Many in tech industry advocate Net Neutrality, which is the idea that all traffic transferred over the Internet should be treated equally with all other traffic. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as Comcast, AT&T and Time Warner are most people’s conduits to the Internet. Net Neutrality would force ISPs from throttling or prioritizing traffic through their networks. For example, some ISPs have slowed down or blocked certain types of traffic (or even prioritized other types of traffic), such as heavy users or traffic transferred by certain applications such as those involved in illegal file sharing or voice over IP data transferred by applications like Skype.

Before you jump in and say whether that’s good or bad for customers, consider that these companies own these networks and as such, it is their right to set the terms for their service. If customers do not receive the quality or quantity of service they want, they are free to select another provider (or no provider). They do not have the right to dictate how ISPs may run their service.

Google has advocated Net Neutrality, according to the article, because they believe the lack of Net Neutrality will hurt their business. But now they are under fire on a new front but up against the very principle they have been advocating. Some now want to regulate search results on the Internet, and dictate how Google must rank their search results.

Why? Google has “too much power,” the argument goes, with respect to sending traffic to sites on the Web. They determine who gets placed and how high up Web sites are shown in search results. A small change in search engine positioning can make or break a business, and an entire industry has been borne around search engine optimization (SEO) by businesses in order to exploit the value Google has created for Web publishers.

But it is Google that has created the value of search in the first place, and to dictate how they must run their business is a violation of their rights and an attempt to expropriate the value they did not earn by that which they did not create.

Google commands such “power” because it has won customers over in terms of the value of their search engine. From recipes to song lyrics to news articles to photographs, Google will help you find the most relevant content on the Web in the most convenient way possible to you. That is their purpose and that is the core of their business, and they have won customers over by being the best at it and, as a result, earned the position of the dominant player in the market.

But to force Google to modify their search results by force will destroy this value, and that is exactly what proponents of “Search Neutrality” desire. They want to make Google give results to customers according to their standards and whims, and determine how search should be optimized, not by the free choice of customers (such as by creating a competing search engine that is better than Google that customers want to use), but at the point of a gun. How did Google gain the dominant position in the marketplace? Blank out. They just are, and they want a piece of it–a piece they did not earn and cannot win legitimately.

That same threat is currently being faced by ISPs by telling them how they must run their business. Google had better wise up to the principle involved here and defend ISPs rights and oppose Net Neutrality, or they won’t have a moral foundation to stand on when regulators come after them as their next target.

Disney/Pixar’s Toy Story 3 is an extremely mixed movie, offering a very touching closing scene, but is preceded by what is mostly a horror movie and may be inappropriate for children.

In this installment of Toy Story, Woody, Buzz Lightyear and the whole cast of toys are faced with the inevitable: their owner, Andy, has grown up, and he is leaving the house to go off to college. Naturally, the toys are worried, since it seems they are destined for the attic—or worse.

An interesting moral conflict arrises among Andy’s toys. Woody, the leader of the group, asserts that their purpose is to be there for Andy when Andy needs them, while many of the other toys proclaim that they just want to be played with. Andy was a wonderful owner, and played with this toys with much imagination in his youth, but as he’s grown up and his need to play with his toys has waned.

At the core of this conflict is the question: What is the moral purpose of a toy? Should they, as Woody would have them, be sentenced to possibly decades in the attic so they can “be there” for Andy when needed, or should they seek the joy they once had by finding a new owner who will play with them again? Is their purpose to serve Andy, or to bring excitement, suspense and adventure to the imagination of young children, which is what makes the toys happy?

They face these questions after and while being donated to a child day care center. But this is where the story gets sidetracked and turns into more of a horror movie. At the day care center, they meet a whole host of new toys (and unimaginative, abusive children), including an evil, pink, strawberry scented stuffed bear named Lotso and a toy that looks more like Chucky than a baby play doll. The conflict switches from the internal one, to fighting for their lives in the face of this evil bear and his Gestapo of toys.

Still, there is fun to be had, and Toy Story 3 delivers some fun and laughs, including an imaginative sequence with Mr. Potato Head and hilarious scene when Ken and Barbie meet each other for the first time.

In one particularly stomach turning moment, however, Woody, Buzz Lightyear and their friends, as well as the evil bear Lotso, are faced with imminent destruction. They manage to nearly escape but Woody decides, in an obscene act of altruism, to save Lotso and put the survival of him and his friends in the hands of this monster. Needless to say, the evil bear does what evil bears do, and what follows is the movie’s most horrific scene in which the good toys must face their imminent deaths. Adults will be horrified, and children may be scarred, so proceed with caution.

Of course, this is a Disney movie, so expect a happy ending and a particularly touching and well crafted conclusion, where we finally get to experience a human connection with the toys. It may give you goosebumps or bring a tear to your eye, but the horror preceding it leaves a very uneasy feeling and one feels a sense of lost innocence by the time the credits begin to roll.

It is unfortunate, because the internal central conflict did not need to be needlessly complicated by such trite antics as a cliched evil villain nor was the horror employed for any rational purpose. If Woody and his friends had to truly face their budding moral conflict, the picture could have unfolded into a complex tale of the Good vs. the Good (or seeming good), but instead the filmmakers chose a lesser conflict to be the crux of the story.

It’s too bad, because all the pieces were there, just not fully assembled.

Much hoopla is being made in the media about Google’s so-called “snooping” on wireless networks (Wi-Fi) in various countries, with government agencies calling for investigations into Google, and grabs at more power by “enhancing” so-called privacy laws.

For some background, Google drives around the country in vehicles on public roads and snaps pictures of the roads and surrounding buildings and identifies Wi-Fi locations that extend out to the roads. It uses the images for its Google Maps application and the Wi-Fi location in its services to quickly and automatically identify a customer’s location (such as in an application used for directions or displaying a map). (As an aside, Apple has a similar feature built into its iPhone and iTouch devices.)

In order to identify the wireless router, Google scans the data it is transmitting. But it can only read data being transmitted on non-secure, i.e., fully open to the public, networks.

Earlier this year, Google discovered and then disclosed that it had inadvertently stored the data being transmitted over these open, non-secure, non-password protected Wi-Fi networks. Google asserts that it never used any of this collected data in any of its products, and it fully intends to destroy the data. The only reason they have not done so already is due to various regulations, as they must dispose of the data legally, navigating myriad laws in dozens of countries in which this occurred.

Many in the media, tech industry, so-called privacy advocates, and now several government agencies (foreign and domestic) are investigating the matter, shouting bloody murder and pointing fingers at Google for “violating” people’s privacy.

This is absurd. Google collected data from public networks, i.e., wireless networks that individuals chose not to secure and, further, from computers that individuals also chose not to secure, which transmitted its data over a wireless network which they also knew (or should have known) was not secure. Securing a wireless router or network is a relatively simple task, and given that wireless signals can and do easily transmit beyond the person or company’s property, it is up to those that own a wireless router to secure their network, if they so desire.

If private, confidential data was transmitted over these unsecured networks, the primary finger of blame should be pointed at the person transmitting private data over an usecured network, not the person picking it up.

That does not stop the media and various groups and government from making sensationalist claims that Google “snatched passwords” and “private e-mail message.” While this may be factually correct, it is dishonest and misleading.

The “snatched passwords” and “private e-mail messages” were transmitted, unsecured, over an unsecured, public network (yes, both the network AND the computer that does the transmitting were not secured—a double whammy—and, yes, it is possible to transmit these things securely—even over an unsecured network—if you set up your e-mail and other applications on your computer to do just that. For example, any data transmitted to a URL starting with https:// —often used on Web sites when entering credit card information—is deemed secure even if you visit that site on a non-secure Wi-Fi network).

Some may argue that, just because one may leave the front door to one’s house unlocked—and wide open—doesn’t mean you have a right to enter the house and take what’s inside. But the metaphor is not quite accurate; it is more like someone left all their furniture on the sidewalk. That still does not mean, the argument may continue, that you have a right to take the furniture, since you don’t know whether it is intended to be given away (maybe the homeowner is simply replacing his carpets that day, and doesn’t want to damage his landscaping, or is in the process of moving).

Of course, the metaphor does not apply here exactly, as Google collected copies of people’s data. But it did not “steal” or “snoop” on people’s “private” data. It looked at it, while it was there, out in the open, in plain, clear view. Nor is Google exploiting the data, using it to blackmail people who accidentally did not secure their wireless networks and computers, or is otherwise exploiting the data (which would be wrong). They did not want it in the first place, and now want to throw it away. In other words, they have not harmed anyone in any way whatsoever.

As a property owner, you have a right to set the terms for the use of your property. When it comes to wireless networks, you do this by setting a password on your Wi-Fi router—or not—depending on your purpose. It is up to the owner of the wireless network to determine, and it is his responsibility to do so.

In short, Google did not violate anyone’s privacy, and it did not harm or violate anyone’s rights. Further, they should be praised for being transparent about the issue, and about their intended use (or, in this case, destruction) of the collected data. Morally, they did not have to announce this—just deleting the data would have been fine—and probably had to do so because of regulations in various countries (which has caused them undeserved scathing from the media, and likely expensive legal fees navigating the matter).

If anything, we should be alarmed at those advocating further government regulations or that Google hand over the collected data to anyone. And, we should all be taking responsibility for securing our privacy for those things which we wish to keep private.

Reasonable measures can and should be taken by any person transmitting data, especially over wireless networks. And these measures are nearly as simple as closing your front door (let alone locking it) and make clear your intentions with regard to your privacy.