I actually use delicious. I find it helpful for bookmarking and looking up sites based on my tags. I guess I'll allow google to handle another internet service for me now?
Its one of those great internet tools that millions of people use but generates zero revenue (I'm guessing of course but I don't see where any revenue comes from with this).
Mr. don't touch my junk walked into an airport screening with a tape recorder (obviously not a tape) activated. This story then blows up (street slang possibly not best choice for subject)
But the point is someone should do research on how to make a non-event become a story which the whole nation comments on.
Possible ingredients:
Catchy exchange caught on audio or video
Release "news" at appropriate time - this story started just before busiest travel time of year
Have similar agents go on any available news outlet to increase story volume.
Achieve critical mass where news media spontaneously reproduces story until nearly all americans reference it (tiger woods, etc)
I would also be interested in hearing the people who are complaining the loudest about airport security's opinion of airport security during november 2001. I don't gamble but I would bet they had no problem with it then.
The correct model for paying for content is obviously yet to be discovered but refusing to pay for content because a free version is available does not mean that the quality is equal.
You could refuse to pay for cable and watch free shows with an antennae (or you could before the HD switch no reception maybe an issue). I'll watch the free show on NBC or a better comparison would be HBO - you pay $15 a month extra for HBO. HBO then supposedly gives you content worth paying for. The NYT and other online news sources can be this model. A minority of people order HBO but enough do to make it profitable.
Based on this article alone, I would not buy stock in Verizon.
We use cell phones and the internet more than others so that equals our networks are better?
So I drive my 78 Malibu more than your new xxx that makes it better?
I hope this interview was conducted in a bar after many drinks because if this guy is leading a major corporation with such nutballery then I can only presume that there are many other dumbass things going on there.
I think the biggest problem facing the nytimes and other sites that deliver a quality online product is that everyone is accustomed to getting everything free online.
Most people go into a movie theater and pay $5 for a tube of popcorn that is worth 50 cents but balk at paying a dime for a product that many gladly paid for before the internet.
The fact is just about none of the creators of the news content are making money online so when people suggest going to another similar free site, guess what that site is not profitable either. I think the only logical outcomes are some sort of pay system or a system that consolidates to the point that all of our news comes from one or two sources which would not be a good thing for a democratic society.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually use delicious. I find it helpful for bookmarking and looking up sites based on my tags. I guess I'll allow google to handle another internet service for me now?
Its one of those great internet tools that millions of people use but generates zero revenue (I'm guessing of course but I don't see where any revenue comes from with this).
Mr. don't touch my junk walked into an airport screening with a tape recorder (obviously not a tape) activated. This story then blows up (street slang possibly not best choice for subject) But the point is someone should do research on how to make a non-event become a story which the whole nation comments on. Possible ingredients: Catchy exchange caught on audio or video Release "news" at appropriate time - this story started just before busiest travel time of year Have similar agents go on any available news outlet to increase story volume. Achieve critical mass where news media spontaneously reproduces story until nearly all americans reference it (tiger woods, etc) I would also be interested in hearing the people who are complaining the loudest about airport security's opinion of airport security during november 2001. I don't gamble but I would bet they had no problem with it then.
This is such a simple great idea - send a text you've reached your monthly plan limit. No more guessing or having to check.
The correct model for paying for content is obviously yet to be discovered but refusing to pay for content because a free version is available does not mean that the quality is equal. You could refuse to pay for cable and watch free shows with an antennae (or you could before the HD switch no reception maybe an issue). I'll watch the free show on NBC or a better comparison would be HBO - you pay $15 a month extra for HBO. HBO then supposedly gives you content worth paying for. The NYT and other online news sources can be this model. A minority of people order HBO but enough do to make it profitable.
Based on this article alone, I would not buy stock in Verizon. We use cell phones and the internet more than others so that equals our networks are better? So I drive my 78 Malibu more than your new xxx that makes it better? I hope this interview was conducted in a bar after many drinks because if this guy is leading a major corporation with such nutballery then I can only presume that there are many other dumbass things going on there.
Most people go into a movie theater and pay $5 for a tube of popcorn that is worth 50 cents but balk at paying a dime for a product that many gladly paid for before the internet.
The fact is just about none of the creators of the news content are making money online so when people suggest going to another similar free site, guess what that site is not profitable either. I think the only logical outcomes are some sort of pay system or a system that consolidates to the point that all of our news comes from one or two sources which would not be a good thing for a democratic society.