Iklangadget.com

Everyone wants love, companionship and contact. Those who can’t get it from humans can turn to the latest crop of hot toy robots: Wall-E in three sizes, WowWee’s Rovio, Femisapien and Mr. Personality, the dino D-Rex, multi-talented Elmo Live and Sony’s enchantingly personable Rolly music player. Each exudes a desire to be your loyal friend from every noisy servo and glowing LED. But which should you choose?

Keep in mind, though two of these list for $400, most cap at $250, and they’re all toys. They don’t have a heck of a lot of AI, though they do have an impressive array of user-triggered functionality and some goofy “spontaneous” behavior. You ain’t getting C-3PO no matter where you turn, not even R2-D2, but there’s something cool about each of these:

Mr. Personality – $245
This is one weird bot. Turn it on and it will act like one of the many “personalities” you have downloaded to it, telling jokes, reading fortunes and interacting with you along the way.
Pros: 3-legged, multi-directional wheels move in all directions easily; multiple personalities technically mean relief from boredom; depending on the personality, it’ll call you “master”
Cons: The default personality is very annoying; not enough functions to stay entertaining; obstacle sensors are too sensitive
Worth the money? Doubtful. Depending on the power of the development community some fun personalities may emerge, but they are severely limited by the options on the remote.

Rovio – $240
Maybe the most technical bot of the bunch, the Rovio is a webcam-on-wheels controlled via an internet interface. With some smart maneuvering, you can snoop on your daughter’s date in the living room from the privacy of your bedroom. Or, if you have your own domain server, you can control the Rovio from anywhere in the world. It has major limitations, like an awful camera and outside of Internet Explorer you can’t hear any sound, but its API allows customization so there’s true potential that has yet to be reached.
Pros: Good looking, highly interactive UI; like Roomba, can return to its base to charge itself when batteries run low
Cons: Seriously shitty webcam; setting it up on a Mac is torture; if you bought this thinking you can easily control it from anywhere in the world for free you’re SOL
Worth the money? Not yet. The Rovio is a great concept, but you’ll be much better off waiting for version 2.0… or maybe 3.0.

Femisapien – $50
She’s the female companion to Robosapien, and she’ll blow you kisses, dance to music or speak in her very own gibberish language with you. She doesn’t do anything very fancy, but she’s the only girl here, so she looks better doing it than most of these other bots.
Pros: Fairly interactive; relatively inexpensive; giant robot boobs
Cons: Command system very complicated; routines aren’t all that exciting
Worth the money? Only if your name is Zoltan.

iDance WALL-E – $53
The cheapest WALL-E of the crop, and a less expensive alternative to the Rolly, iDance WALL-E dances—if you can call it that—to the beat of your MP3 player, or his own built in sound bank. A one-trick pony, but I’ll be damned if it isn’t an adorable trick.
Pros: Look at that little bot—how could you not love it? His dancing is fun and silly, and he couldn’t be any easier to use
Cons: The speaker sucks; WALL-E’s moves don’t match the music closely like Rolly’s do
Worth the money? When we first saw the iDance WALL-E, he was only supposed to cost $25 bucks. But now, at twice the price, it’s definitely one bot we can live without.

Ultimate WALL-E – $400
The name says it all: The biggest WALL-E of the litter is ultimate in every way. It will follow you around, dance to your music, or perform a pre-programmed series of movements and noises. Best of all, it uses a really interesting controller that can move WALL-E using a touchpad.
Pros: Big enough to seem realistic; a ton of features so it won’t bore quickly
Cons: Expensive; controller has too many buttons that don’t do very much; did I mention “expensive”?
Worth the money? Who has that kind of money to spend on a robot? Especially one that isn’t programmable, upgradable or all that intelligent. It should’ve stayed at its original $190 price.

U-Command WALL-E – $130
U-Command WALL-E is the Baby Bear of the WALL-E bunch, just right in almost every way. Its controls are comparable to the Ultimate WALL-E, it can move, dance and make noises on your command, all for a much more attractive price.
Pros: Essentially a “lite” version of the Ultimate WALL-E for less than half the price, versatile controls allow for repeated play without getting too stale
Cons: The only WALL-E without a line-in speaker for MP3s; not as technically impressive as other over-$100 contenders
Worth the money? Totally. Even at $130, it’s one of the cheaper robots on the list, and the most fun right out of the box.

Sony Rolly – $400
At first glance, the Rolly doesn’t fit the traditional robot mold. The egg-shaped MP3 speaker looks like it’s just another smooth white gadget with an “i” in front of its name. But when you see it in action, it’s one of the most exciting little toys around, dancing wildly and putting on a light show to the rhythm of the songs coming from its body.
Pros: Great speaker; customizes dance/light shows to your own songs; amusing even after repeated viewings
Cons: Can’t customize songs on a Mac (but you can on a Vaio!); can’t jump to a specific track on the device
Worth the money? Surprisingly, it might well be. I can’t put my finger on it exactly, but I get a huge kick out of the Rolly. The fluidity and snazziness of the movement and lights explains the steep cost.

D-Rex – $150
The scariest bot of the lot, D-Rex growls, attacks and lets out the sounds of bodily functions from every orifice. Rubbery, lizard-like skin and huge, moving yellow eyes add to the effect.
Pros: Creepy; fun to play with (for a while); the coolest looking of all the robots
Cons: Doesn’t do too enough; may scare little kids (or is that a “pro”?)
Worth the money? Tough call. D-Rex is probably the biggest robot here and isn’t that expensive for being so big. But since it only performs a few functions, don’t expect anything close to a Pleo.

Elmo Live – $60
What’s left to say about the newest version of every kid’s favorite fuzzy friend? It raps, dances and tells stories and jokes, all in the body of the most popular Muppet of a generation.
Pros: Buy this for your kids and they will love you forever.
Cons: Don’t buy this for your kids and they will hate you forever; also, the song “Elmo’s Gotta Get On Up” has been stuck in my head for damn near six months
Worth the money? Do you have a choice? At $60 it’s a steal compared to most of these other bots… but good luck finding it.

And now…
The Winner: U-Command WALL-E. One of the few bots here that is fun to play with more than once, this WALL-E is cute, interactive and kids can enjoy him without driving parents crazy by playing the same thing over and over—*cough*Elmo Live*cough*.

Runner-Up: Rolly. I can’t stop looking at this little dude. His syncopated dancing demands attention from anyone who sees him, and he is the bot that performs his most essential function—playing music through a speaker—the best.

Honorable Mention: iDance WALL-E and Ultimate WALL-E. I like you both a lot, but why did you get me all excited with your decent prices, and then double them when I wasn’t looking? Not cool guys.

The Loser: Rovio. No offense here Rovio, we really like the though of a remote controlled, customizable webcam and we think you will get it right one day, but right now you cost too much and the most important feature you have—your webcam—is absolutely terrible.

In a dusty supply closet at 1 Times Square, a computer terminal hooked up to hordes of ethernet servers, RAID arrays and monitors humbly runs the largest LED sign in the world. The sign, a 3-sided, 17,000-square-foot Goliath, debuted last night at the opening of a Walgreens in New York City. Today, I got to see what makes it tick. galleryPost(’walgreenssign’, 3, ”);

Each side of the sign, designed by D3 LED, requires a 48-drive RAID pumping data at a rate of 3.2GB/second to a custom-built PC. From there, the data is fed through graphics cards to multiple DVI pipes, which lead to six DVI pixel splitters (known as a Spyders). The splitters take video data of a specific resolution and upscale it to the size needed for the display. Once the data is crunched and formatted for the sign, it’s sent out via 4Gbps ethernet to one of more than 12,000 display modules that make up the ginormous billboard.

Each module is a mini-computer, complete with MAC address, redundant 4-gigabit ethernet ports, power supply and a fan. Each panel can report all kinds of vital statistics, including its temperature. If there’s a problem, the panel reports itself to the main computer for easy troubleshooting. (Like a good communist, it can report problems with its neighbors, too.) The majority of the electronics are accessible from inside, so dangerous repair jobs on scaffolding suspended over Times Square are a thing of the past.

The sign’s modules are split into three sections, low-, medium- and high-resolution grids based on their distance from the street. (Why waste pixels for objects way high up?) The top, as you probably guessed, has the largest pixels, at 24mm, while the middle has 12mm and the bottom has 10mm.

The animators are faced with a tough challenge when creating content for the signs, as they must keep the different display sizes in mind so the animation appears cohesive throughout the sections. To help out the animators, sign creator D3 LED made a virtual copy of it that is 10,000 pixels high by 4,000 pixels wide, the equivalent of 43 megapixels. (It’s 20 times the resolution of HD, too.) They use an Adobe After Effects template to help coordinate placement of the animations on the slash-shaped sign.

As previously reported, a single 30-second spot on the billboard requires a staggering 150GB of data transferred through the system. But before you accuse D3 and Walgreens of hogging all of the power in New York, they attest that they are not. With the Con Ed bill in mind, their design reduced unnecessary copper wiring by over 300,000 feet and increased the voltage for more efficient power. They also set up an auto-dimmer (like you might have on your laptop) that adjusts the luminosity of the LEDs based on the ambient light outside. All of this makes it not necessarily cheap but at least cheaper than you’d think to operate.

The Walgreens sign is a complex, fascinating testament to the sheer power of LED displays. While most people living in New York avoid Times Square exactly because of things like this, tourists will undoubtedly flock to the center to observe the sign up close, even though it can be seen from as far away as Bryant Park and the Port Authority. For now, it’s something that even this semi-jaded NYC resident can appreciate. [Walgreens Sign on Giz]

The Gadget: The Casio EX-FH20 camera, bargain brother to the popular EX-F1. It features 1000 fps slow-mo video, a 40 fps burst mode for still shooting and a 9.1-megapixel sensor, as well as good ol’ 720p at regular speeds, all for just over half the price of the original slow-mo star. galleryPost(”exfh20lightning”, 3, “”);

The Price: $600

The Verdict: Casio did a great job of bringing the power of the EX-F1 down to a beginner’s level for the EX-FH20. The functions on the new camera are more streamlined than its bulkier predecessor: missing are the dedicated shooting mode switch dial, the multi-use focus/zoom ring and separate buttons for video and still capture from the F1. But on the other hand, the FH20 bests the F1 in a couple places, with its 9.1MP sensor and 20X optical zoom, compared to 6MP and 12X in the original. The on-board video editor is still there and simple to use for cutting down lengthy slow-mo clips. And whaddya know, it takes decent (albeit more point-and-shoot than DSLR quality) pictures too, as seen in the gallery below. galleryPost(”exfh20burstshots”, 6, “”);

newVideoPlayer(”/slowmoexfh20_giz.flv”, 476, 376,”"); But we know what you really want to see: how the slow motion video compares to the original exploding Mentos-capturing beast. As seen in the clip above, it does the job much like the original. You give up some video frames when opting for the budget cam—it records 210, 420 and 1000 fps instead of 300, 600 and 1200 fps—but that’s not a huge difference. And while 1000 fps video shrinks is at a paltry resolution of 224×56 pixels—even measlier than the original—it doesn’t get as dark as the F1’s output tended to, so you’ll have slightly more clarity in the crazy slow but still mostly novelty setting.

newVideoPlayer(”/othervideoexfh20_giz.flv”, 476, 376,”"); It also shoots other types of video well. The 30 fps-210 fps “She Walked in the Room” mode is still there, and is a fun way to make otherwise typical activities look extremely epic. Also, 720p HD video is crisp and clean, and doesn’t have the nasty “jello effect” when panning that cheaper camcorders designed specifically for this purpose often suffer from.

If you choose an FH20 over the F1, you sacrifice more than just not-as-slow-mo video. Without separate buttons for video and stills, you lose the ability to capture images while you record video, a great feature in the last model and the hardest thing to lose. Also gone is ultra-fast 60 fps LED strobe flash option, but it can still fire off 5 fps with the standard flash firing (vs. the F1’s 7 fps). Most of the other features remain, though slightly dialed down: 40fps high-speed burst shooting (with resolution dropped to 7MP) instead of 60fps on the F1, and smaller sizes for slow-mo video as mentioned earlier. And you better bring some rechargeable batteries—gone is the rechargeable Li-ion, and this camera eats four AAs like they were a delicious piece of cake. But with the steep discount over the F1 and the more direct, easier to use interface, for those who mostly want to shoot slow-mo video while taking a few pictures on the side it’s not a hard sacrifice to make. [Casio]

What you gain with the EX-FH20 over the EX-F1:
• 9.1MP camera sensor over 6MP
• 20X optical zoom over 12X
• Easier interface for beginners
• $400 in your pocket (vs. the EX-F1’s $1000 price tag)

What you lose:
• Slow-motion video size and frames (EX-FH20 records in 210, 420 and 1000fps at 480×360 224×168 and 224×56 respectively—EX-F1 records in 300, 600 and 1200fps)
• Taking still shots while shooting HD video
• 60fps LED flash strobe mode
• 20 fps of burst still shooting (down to 40 fps compared to 60 before)

Once again, if you can’t get Giz’s slow-mo song du jour out of your head, here’s the Amazon MP3 link. [Hide and Seek by Imogen Heap]

And if you’re still humming the song made famous by the Harlem Globetrotters, here’s an Amazon MP3 link to that too. [Sweet Georgia Brown by Brother Bones]

newVideoPlayer(”/uniqlorobot_giz.flv”, 476, 286,”"); If you couldn’t make it to Times Square this morning, the clip above shows what happens when humans become vending machines. Yes, it was a stunt put on by Uniqlo, and no, it didn’t ruin shopping forever. It’s actually pretty great; first you get your body scanned to reveal your hottest and coldest parts, then no matter the result, a human trapped inside a box delivers you a warm HeatTech shirt. Uniqlo has other demos planned in Paris, Shanghai and Seoul, but if you won’t be in any of those places, at least you can rest easy knowing that you’ll still have a job when the robots take over. [Uniqlo]

newVideoPlayer(”/minohdlightning_giz.flv”, 476, 286,”"); The Gadget: The Flip MinoHD, the most recognizable name in pocket camcorder’s HD camera, it shoots 720p video on 4GB of built-in memory. galleryPost(”minohdlightning”, 3, “”);

The Price: $230

The Verdict: Once again, Flip has done a respectable job of bringing dead simple, high quality video recording to the masses. The MinoHD is light on features—no macro shooting, still picture taking, or video quality options—but it makes up for these shortcomings by its ease of use. The memory and battery are both built-in, and are sufficiently sized to take a day’s worth of video without filling up or going dead. The touch-sensitive buttons are more responsive than the original Mino, making zoom and playback a snap. Even the new editing software on the Flip, usually included on camcorders like this as an afterthought, is great, and you can make a YouTube-level video complete with background music and credits in just a few clicks.

The video quality on the MinoHD is decent. Well-lit areas look good, but places with low-light are noisy and not as clean as the Zi6. The video gets choppy while panning, a problem shared with Kodak’s cam, but most things shot on the device will likely be single-angle clips of people getting punched in the nuts or popping zits, so this shouldn’t be much of an issue.
newVideoPlayer(”/iphonespore_giz.flv”, 476, 286,”");
For comparison’s sake, here’s a clip I shot in low-light on the Zi6, the current cream of the HD crop. It’s much clearer than the MinoHD, and close-up focus looks nice. Sound quality is pretty comparable between the two.

Still, the price tag is a bit steep for such a small set of features. More serious aspiring viral video stars will miss options like recording in VGA to increase space, or a macro switch for close up shots. Also, the screen is so small that its difficult to see what you’re recording, which is necessary when the video is in 720p. All in all, the MinoHD is a super simple, solid quality, if a little pricey camcorder that will have you sharing videos in no time.[Flip]

Flip, the grandaddy of cheap camcorders, is the latest to join the hi-def video club with the release of the Flip MinoHD. The MinoHD joins the Zi6 and EZ300 in capturing 720p widescreen video, and it will save up to 60 minutes of footage on 4GB of built-in storage. Its the same size as the original Mino, and it has a 2-hour Li-ion battery—though with the way we’ve seen these HD cams suck down power, we’re cautiously optimistic. The $230 camcorder comes in black or your own design, and while it’s pricier than similar cams, Flip has a great reputation so we’ll reserve judgment until we see it ourselves—which will be verrrrry soon. Stay tuned for a full review, fact sheet down below. [Flip]

Flip Mino HD
Details
•Sleek, pocket-sized camcorder shoots breathtaking HD video
•Available in black or whatever you want
•4GB of on-board memory records up to 60 minutes of video
•Dimensions: 4” x 2” x 0.6”; weighs just 3.3 oz.
•HD 720p resolution (1280 x 720) in16:9 cinematic widescreen
•No glare display (1.5”)
•Sealed, rechargeable lithium ion battery (up to 2 hours of battery life)
•Flat back-panel with touch-sensitive buttons
•Instant playback, pause, fast forward/rewind, and delete features
•Connects to TV for instant viewing
•New built-in FlipShare™ software works on any PC or Mac:
•Save, organize, and edit videos with ease
•Email videos and video greeting cards
•Upload videos directly to AOL Video, MySpace, and YouTube
•Capture HD snapshots from your videos
•Create custom movies with your own music
•Order DVDs and have them shipped anywhere in the world
Suggested Retail Pricing: $229.99

The Gadget: EyeClops Night Vision Infrared Stealth Goggles, the cheapo-version of the spy favorite that’ll allow you to go exploring, play wargames, or stalk your ex-girlfriend in the dark. galleryPost(”eyeclopsgoggles”, 3, “”);

The Price: $80, but going for $60 just about everywhere.

The Verdict: Good goggles for the price. While they aren’t exactly battlefield quality, the goggles work well enough to light up your path in the dark. The close-up setting is okay if you only care about what’s right in front of you, but you won’t be able to check up on your former lover from a tree without turning on the long-distance setting which will give up your position with a bunch of bright red lights.

Friends who’ve tried on the goggles complain that the night vision is only displayed in one eye (the other is covered with a piece of plastic), but I think that cameras in both eyes could get more confusing than necessary. The only problem I have is that it takes 6 AA batteries, which is too many to hold on your head comfortably if you’re going to be wearing them for a long time. But again, they are way cheaper than the next level of night-vision gear, so if you want to feel and look like you are from the future without spending future prices, these goggles are the way to go.

When you go to the polls next Tuesday, no matter who you vote for, you will be motivated by words, images and videos you picked up online. There are some voters who don’t use the internet to gather information about candidates, but that number is dwindling, while the number of ways candidates can reach you online is growing. Sometimes 2004 is referred to as the first “internet” presidential election, but back then, social networking was in its infancy, YouTube was just a glimmer in some kids’ eyes, and Live Xboxes were few and far between. This year, candidates used text messages, videogames, satellite broadcasting and a highly contagious amount of viral video to broadcast platforms, hear from constituents and raise cash. This year we got the first real look at how races will run in the net age, titans clashing bit for bit over your very soul.

You might automatically think that the more youth-friendly Obama whomped McCain on the internet, but it’s not totally true. According to the Pew Research Center, Obama and his fellow Democrats did reach a wider audience over the internet—In April, 65% of likely Obama voters got election news online compared with 56% of McCain’s supporters—but following the VP picks and conventions, as we near the general election, both numbers have presumably skyrocketed. Obama also raised more money online, with liberal democrats three times more likely to donate than their conservative republican counterparts. But the scrappier McCain campaign managed to do some tooth-and-nail fighting using Web 2.0 magic themselves. Here’s how both contenders wriggled their way into the series of tubes:

BARACK OBAMA
When Barack Obama announced his intention to run for president in January 2007, he was a virtual unknown on the national stage. Barely six months later, with just two debates under his belt, he was a viral sensation. Perhaps above all else, he has Obama Girl to thank for this bump. The video for her song “I Got A Crush…On Obama” was an instant online hit, rebroadcast all over television, written about in newspapers, spawning several spinoffs and currently sits on YouTube with over 10 million views. Countless Obama-centric sites flourished, as his name became synonymous with traffic, but it was the campaign itself that made the biggest contribution to his grassroots online popularity, showing its tech chops and putting them to good use.

Since the beginning, Obama’s campaign has relied on fundraising through online donations. Instead of courting bigwigs with deep pockets, the campaign reports that it has received an average contribution of $86 per donor from 3.1 million people—online. Using the internet for donations has proven successful in an age where even grandmas buy stuff online, but the Obama campaign has broken records for most money raised in a day and most in a month. Obama even raised enough to opt out of the public financing every presidential candidate—including McCain—has received since 1976.

Obama’s people have spent this cash in the most technologically advanced ways they could think up:
• Buying space within Xbox games
• Renting entire satellite TV channels
• Building iPhone apps
• Sending (and receiving) text messages
• Reaching out to supporters on Facebook
• Streaming video of campaign events
• Broadcasting the candidate’s whereabouts on a heavily followed Twitter feed

Though the campaign obviously also allocates plenty of dollars to the usual TV ads and mailers its even got a website that’s garnered praise for its accessible design. Perhaps drunk on their success there, the Obama people even launched a second site, FightTheSmears.com, to respond to attacks levied the candidate’s way, which has been used effectively to shut down false criticism from the opposition. galleryPost(”electiontechgal1″, 3, “”);

But Obama wasn’t totally guilt-free when it came to smearing his opponent. While his use of technology has allowed him to compete in states that Democrats wouldn’t think they could before, he has made missteps. The most blatantly techy thing thing the Obama campaign put out was an ad blasting McCain for lack of computer know-how. The ad fell flat on it’s face and was even criticized by his running mate, Joe Biden.

On another tech front, Obama received flack for—until very recently—accepting donations without proof of citizenship. This has led to some of the shadier ones getting refunded.

JOHN MCCAIN
John McCain wasn’t able to get his fundraising game to Obama’s level, and did accept the public financing and the $84 million cap that goes along with it. But perhaps that thrift has inspired McCain’s more tech-savvy people to use technology effectively—and efficiently.

The McCain campaign has used YouTube as its most effective advertising weapon. The site has acted as a video press-release machine, where McCain’s people will post an ad that runs a few times in a cheap media market, but due to some inflammatory or interesting attribute, gets blasted on cable news channels all day, for free. This approach was especially effective in the summer when the race was tighter. Obama, strangely, never counter-attacked with a similar strategy.

McCain hired Matt Lira, a top Republican “eGuru”, to run his blog, which receives a good amount of attention and is well updated. Besides the blog, the most notable thing to come out of his website was a pencil for students with a grammatical error. McCain’s Twitter feed only went up in September, and has been updated a paltry 25 times—that’s one tenth of Obama’s tweets.

The McCain camp has also taken to using some old-school tech known as robocalling, the same thing that George Bush used to tank his candidacy in 2000. Today, though, people recording those robocalls have uploaded them to blogs and other sites, so that they robocall strategy has a tendency to backfire. turning into rhetorical fodder for left-leaning sites.

Unpaid Republican supporters have been the brightest spots in McCain’s thrifty march to the White House. Andy Martin is the man responsible for the wildest email rumor ever, a thread suggesting that Barack Obama was a Muslim who concealed his religion. That lie, originated in 2004, found a life of its own this year, spreading across the farthest corners of the internet. Somehow, the reddest people in the reddest states all heard it. This inadvertent campaign tactic (strategy?) shows the power of e-mail, though it too is dangerous power: The ugliest moment of the 2008 race was when McCain had to directly confront a supporter and explain to her that Obama was not an Arab, but rather a “good family man.”

Some go so far as to say McCain’s vice presidential pick came directly from a suggestion by a young, influential right-wing blogger Adam Brickley, whose site’s title, “Draft Sarah Palin for Vice President” is cheerfully out of date. (Cuz, like, she was drafted.) The blog now serves as an unofficial but “endorsed” McCain-Palin site and news service. On the flipside, it’s also true that Palin was vetted more thoroughly by bloggers than by the campaign itself, thanks to stockpiles of information easily available over the internet.

Still, like Obama’s tasteless attack ad said, McCain is an admitted technophobe, not accessing e-mail or any website besides the Drudge Report. Maybe if he—and his campaign—expanded their horizons, they could have figured out how to do even better playing the internet game. Of course, many of McCain’s supporters are offline, and the election’s not until Tuesday.

When you go to the polls next Tuesday, no matter who you vote for, you will be motivated by words, images and videos you picked up online. There are some voters who don’t use the internet to gather information about candidates, but that number is dwindling, while the number of ways candidates can reach you online is growing. Sometimes 2004 is referred to as the first “internet” presidential election, but back then, social networking was in its infancy, YouTube was just a glimmer in some kids’ eyes, and Live Xboxes were few and far between. This year, candidates used text messages, videogames, satellite broadcasting and a highly contagious amount of viral video to broadcast platforms, hear from constituents and raise cash. This year we got the first real look at how races will run in the net age, titans clashing bit for bit over your very soul.

You might automatically think that the more youth-friendly Obama whomped McCain on the internet, but it’s not totally true. According to the Pew Research Center, Obama and his fellow Democrats did reach a wider audience over the internet—In April, 65% of likely Obama voters got election news online compared with 56% of McCain’s supporters—but following the VP picks and conventions, as we near the general election, both numbers have presumably skyrocketed. Obama also raised more money online, with liberal democrats three times more likely to donate than their conservative republican counterparts. But the scrappier McCain campaign managed to do some tooth-and-nail fighting using Web 2.0 magic themselves. Here’s how both contenders wriggled their way into the series of tubes:

BARACK OBAMA
When Barack Obama announced his intention to run for president in January 2007, he was a virtual unknown on the national stage. Barely six months later, with just two debates under his belt, he was a viral sensation. Perhaps above all else, he has Obama Girl to thank for this bump. The video for her song “I Got A Crush…On Obama” was an instant online hit, rebroadcast all over television, written about in newspapers, spawning several spinoffs and currently sits on YouTube with over 10 million views. Countless Obama-centric sites flourished, as his name became synonymous with traffic, but it was the campaign itself that made the biggest contribution to his grassroots online popularity, showing its tech chops and putting them to good use.

Since the beginning, Obama’s campaign has relied on fundraising through online donations. Instead of courting bigwigs with deep pockets, the campaign reports that it has received an average contribution of $86 per donor from 3.1 million people—online. Using the internet for donations has proven successful in an age where even grandmas buy stuff online, but the Obama campaign has broken records for most money raised in a day and most in a month. Obama even raised enough to opt out of the public financing every presidential candidate—including McCain—has received since 1976.

Obama’s people have spent this cash in the most technologically advanced ways they could think up:
• Buying space within Xbox games
• Renting entire satellite TV channels
• Building iPhone apps
• Sending (and receiving) text messages
• Reaching out to supporters on Facebook
• Streaming video of campaign events
• Broadcasting the candidate’s whereabouts on a heavily followed Twitter feed

Though the campaign obviously also allocates plenty of dollars to the usual TV ads and mailers its even got a website that’s garnered praise for its accessible design. Perhaps drunk on their success there, the Obama people even launched a second site, FightTheSmears.com, to respond to attacks levied the candidate’s way, which has been used effectively to shut down false criticism from the opposition. galleryPost(”electiontechgal1″, 3, “”);

But Obama wasn’t totally guilt-free when it came to smearing his opponent. While his use of technology has allowed him to compete in states that Democrats wouldn’t think they could before, he has made missteps. The most blatantly techy thing thing the Obama campaign put out was an ad blasting McCain for lack of computer know-how. The ad fell flat on it’s face and was even criticized by his running mate, Joe Biden.

On another tech front, Obama received flack for—until very recently—accepting donations without proof of citizenship. This has led to some of the shadier ones getting refunded.

JOHN MCCAIN
John McCain wasn’t able to get his fundraising game to Obama’s level, and did accept the public financing and the $84 million cap that goes along with it. But perhaps that thrift has inspired McCain’s more tech-savvy people to use technology effectively—and efficiently.

The McCain campaign has used YouTube as its most effective advertising weapon. The site has acted as a video press-release machine, where McCain’s people will post an ad that runs a few times in a cheap media market, but due to some inflammatory or interesting attribute, gets blasted on cable news channels all day, for free. This approach was especially effective in the summer when the race was tighter. Obama, strangely, never counter-attacked with a similar strategy.

McCain hired Matt Lira, a top Republican “eGuru”, to run his blog, which receives a good amount of attention and is well updated. Besides the blog, the most notable thing to come out of his website was a pencil for students with a grammatical error. McCain’s Twitter feed only went up in September, and has been updated a paltry 25 times—that’s one tenth of Obama’s tweets.

The McCain camp has also taken to using some old-school tech known as robocalling, the same thing that George Bush used to tank his candidacy in 2000. Today, though, people recording those robocalls have uploaded them to blogs and other sites, so that they robocall strategy has a tendency to backfire. turning into rhetorical fodder for left-leaning sites.

Unpaid Republican supporters have been the brightest spots in McCain’s thrifty march to the White House. Andy Martin is the man responsible for the wildest email rumor ever, a thread suggesting that Barack Obama was a Muslim who concealed his religion. That lie, originated in 2004, found a life of its own this year, spreading across the farthest corners of the internet. Somehow, the reddest people in the reddest states all heard it. This inadvertent campaign tactic (strategy?) shows the power of e-mail, though it too is dangerous power: The ugliest moment of the 2008 race was when McCain had to directly confront a supporter and explain to her that Obama was not an Arab, but rather a “good family man.”

Some go so far as to say McCain’s vice presidential pick came directly from a suggestion by a young, influential right-wing blogger Adam Brickley, whose site’s title, “Draft Sarah Palin for Vice President” is cheerfully out of date. (Cuz, like, she was drafted.) The blog now serves as an unofficial but “endorsed” McCain-Palin site and news service. On the flipside, it’s also true that Palin was vetted more thoroughly by bloggers than by the campaign itself, thanks to stockpiles of information easily available over the internet.

Still, like Obama’s tasteless attack ad said, McCain is an admitted technophobe, not accessing e-mail or any website besides the Drudge Report. Maybe if he—and his campaign—expanded their horizons, they could have figured out how to do even better playing the internet game. Of course, many of McCain’s supporters are offline, and the election’s not until Tuesday.

We took a look at Asus’s Eee S101 today, and as predicted, it’s the prettiest looking netbook we’ve seen since the birth of the category. galleryPost(”asuseees101handson”, 3, “”);

It’s 2.2 lbs., extremely light and thin, and the chrome finish on the trackpad area is much better looking than the generic plastic of similar models. The 10.2-inch matte screen is compact without straining your eyes, and the keyboard feels bigger than the original Eee’s (that or my fingers have gotten smaller to accommodate this segment of the PC industry). The only thing painfully tacky in the S101 is a Swarovski crystal accent on the hinge, but it isn’t very obvious until you glance at it.

At $700, it’s not exactly cheap for an Atom-powered laptop running Windows XP off of a 16GB SSD, and that’s the only configuration you can order up. Still, in addition to its good looks, it’s got more inputs than a new MacBook: 3 USBs, a 4-in-1 card reader and VGA video out. It’ll arrive in copper brown and graphite; too bad that the champagne paint job, in the Continental’s opinion the best suited to accompany the Swarovski accents, won’t make it to the US. [Asus]