In no particular order, they are:

• content aggregators care much about Rupert Murdoch putting content behind a paywall,
• increasing the amount of media content in controlled spaces (ie the iPad) could significantly undermine Google’s business model,
• it will become easier to stop people breaking DRM and other copy-protection measures in the future, not harder, and
• the implication that radio stations, TV channels and other internet sites don’t read newspapers and re-use the content.

They’re all worth having a laugh at for various reasons. I’m surprised a technology writer doesn’t make more about how Google structures its search algorithim. I’m also surprised a technology writer thinks the golden age of copy protection is apparently ahead of us, not behind.

But the most interesting thing in Farrer’s piece is that citizen journalists, bloggers and tweeters have more to fear from News Ltd and other old media organisations locking up content than the other way around. Farrer makes the not unreasonable comment that if traditional news content was successfully locked away, tweeters, bloggers and citizen journos would have to go elsewhere for content to ‘riff’ off. It’s a big if but even if he was right in saying it could be done successfully, it doesn’t matter. News Ltd, Fairfax and other big media outlets should be more afraid of citizen journos having reduced opportunities to riff off their content than the other way round.

People are already paying less attention to traditional media, they’re digesting less traditional media and diversifying their sources when they do. They’re paying more attention to their Twitter feeds and Facebook updates than ever before because they feel that the content is relevant and that it matters. Locking conternt up further encourages more of that, not less. News Ltd and Fairfax et al should do everything they can to encourage bloggers and tweeters to hang off their every word.

To do otherwise risks speeding up a virtuous circle that has already begun and risks leaving old media out in the cold.

One of the joys of digital photography is that it allows for opportunistic photos like these:

Kate took the photo of this kid who was on the six hour flight from Washington to San Francisco with the rest of his family. He couldn’t have been more than two-and-a-half. His mum had gotten up to go to the bathroom and left him watching his portable DVD player. Funny thing was every now and then the kid would tap the thing like it was a keyboard.

And the morning after I took a photo of this:

We stopped in for breakfast at this great little diner and the whole time we were there this old guy was using his iPhone. And he was a pro – resizing websites on the fly with the pinch technique and tapping away at e-mails.

But it all got me thinking about how different things would have been 10 years ago. While some people might have had a digital camera, I didn’t. And there weren’t any portable DVD players or iPhones around to take cute pictures of. But even if they were – if I was using a camera where I’d paid $4 for film and another chunk of change to develop I may not have taken either .

But because I have a digital camera and there are plenty of portable DVD players and iPods around I could take a picture of them without concern I was “wasting” film, copy them to my laptop and blog about it all.

Ain’t technology grand.