This "Britney is stimulating the economy" argument has been kicking around (on Yahoo, on AP, etc.) for weeks.

It's just another way to put "Britney Spears" in a headline. The argument is that when people see "Britney Spears" in a story, they look at the story, and more clicks are made, advertisements are watched, etc.

Wow. People are drawn toward tabloid trash. Fascinating!

if Britney Spears is the economic stimulus package.

I don't quite get the angle of this old story here. Is this a mistake?

How much do we think the Britney meta-economy is worth? As you point out there has been quite a bit of traffic generated by the Britney-economy story. And while your at it, how about the Britney meta-meta-economy?

"Ever wonder why you see throngs of photographers following Spears everywhere she goes?"

.............No.

Not a big part of my daily mental routine.

Not to be overly snide or patronizing, here, but I really do like reading about actual tech news: The new programming breakthroughs, the scientific innovations, the pushing of conceptual boundaries. I also like hearing details of Internet security, the change in economic business models for websites, the shifting of media emphasis, the revolution in user-generated stuff, the way the youth culture drives new handheld and cellphone technology, the impact on lifestyle, innovations in biotechnology, and much more.

Meanwhile, I don't need an expert to tell me that tabloid trash is profitable.

One thing that fascinates me lately is the advent of motion-sensor-based tools. The Wii is the most obvious example. Apparently most handheld devices have motion-sensor technology as well, so if you're watching a little screen and then you turn it sideways, the little screen will turn with the change of gravity. That's amazing.

And apparently new games and tools are coming right around the corner that will make the Wii look old and clunky.

As somebody who grew up playing the Atari 2600, that's pretty freaking amazing.

I like reading about stuff like that. I like reading about revolutions in video game concept, like the game "Portal" where you can move doors around, or "Prey" where gravity shifts, making the universe more dreamlike and Escher-style.

How far off are we from cars that can drive themselves?

What becomes of all the old technology -- the huge computer monitors, the VCRs? Where do they end up? How are they recycled? That would be an interesting story.

It's only a matter of time before somebody invents a device that can be used to read a book comfortably: Something that's easy on the eyes, that can be taken to bed, or read on the toilet, that's lightweight, easy to upload different books too, and has a business model for charging per book uploaded.

Just imagine the implications on libraries, home bookshelves, and the like. How many years before there is no longer any reason to have any physical media stacked up? No CDs, no books, no DVDs, just furniture for sitting and eating? Even TVs will become flat and when not in use will project pleasant images of landscapes, fish bowls, or modern art.

How many years? I'm guessing not that many.

How many years before people stop caring about Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, Amy Winehouse, Jennifer Love Hewitt's buttocks, Paris Hilton's thigh bruises, or whether or not Tom Cruise's baby was fathered by the frozen sperm of L. Ron Hubbard?

How many years? I'm guessing far too many.

And apparently new games and tools are coming right around the corner that will make the Wii look old and clunky.

I've been enjoying the Wii control experimentation Johnny Chung Lee has been doing (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/projects/wii/). Touchless multi-touch manipulation (a la Minority Report) is a very interesting possibility (and not just for gaming). The head-tracking alone could well make the most immersive FPS achievable without holographic projection. Absolutely fascinating.

I'm not sure that the clunkiness is inherent in the existing controls so much as the sensitivity of the current software. There's a lot more which can be achieved with what we already have.

For someone who is supposed to be on the cutting edge, you're kind of behind the times, even just within the Salon.com world.

Broadsheet mentioned this over a week ago. I found it mildly amusing then... less so the second time around. Sorry.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/01/22/britney_economy/

1) Kudos on not putting a picture of Britney in her underwear (either official or unofficial variety) up for this story. Financial graphs? Good demonstration of restraint.

2) Britney's not on a fun roller coaster at this point. It seems pretty clear that unless there's major intervention, she's probably just going to drive into some big while on many drugs, and simply die. And then we'll be able to portion out the blame for that to the paparazzi, the media, the secondary Britney economy, or the American people.

3) Much better would be for her to be allowed to drift into obscurity. For people to tune it out. Stop clicking on the next new Britney story in the media outlet of your choice.

Couldn't help the Drudge headline this am (didn't read much on the details of why, but still want to wash my eyes out with soap for reading), but she's back in psychiatric care again (which is probably the best place for her to be). She was taken by ambulance, and escorted by a hugely large entourage of cruisers, motorcycles and helicopters. (Helicopters?!)

In essence, more police were escorting Britney Spears to the hospital than work in my town.

Who can blame Britney for her crazy behavior? Why should she stop when she is rewarded every time she has a break down?

Pure Nightclub reportedly sold seats at a table next to Britney's for $50,000. Portfolio magazine says Spears can earn up to $400,000 just for attending an event. People will pay serious money to see the wacky star. So what incentive is there for Brittany to stop attacking cars and chopping off her hair?

If the public, or her fans, really want her to get better, they should stop buying the "rag mags" and leave her alone. If Britney wasn't swarmed by papparazzi or paid to appear at events every time she has a meltdown, maybe she would actually WANT to get better, and straighten up her life.

More on Britney:

http://emily-carlson.com

http://emilycarlson.org

http://emilycarlson.info

http://emilycarlsontelevision.blogspot.com/

http://emilyannecarlson.wordpress.com/

http://emilyannecarlson.blog.com/

http://emilyannecarlson.tblog.com/