Yes. And it is only worth that much because of the availability of free content. If no free content was available, that connection would be worth much less than that (close to $0) to most people.
Unfortunately, none of the money that funds the news you enjoy comes from the money you pay your ISP
Agreed. But the only thing that proves is that it would be beneficial for the ISP to share some of their profits with the content providers, as a 1Gb/s connection which delivers no content is hardly worth anything.
You completely missed the point. The currently "free" news is not actually free. It already has a price tag comparable to the one of the old fashioned print news. Back then, some of the money I spent on my subscription went to the USPS. If the news papers want to charge for online content, they will have to reach a similar agreement with the new delivery man first. I, the consumer, only care about the total price. I don't care if I pay $45 for delivery and $0 for content or $25 for delivery and $20 for content, as long as I only pay $45.
"Entitlement" came from your comment "so I feel justified to expect some free content to come with that". Please grep/"entitlement"/"expectation", and I will avoid the use of that specific word.
Unfortunately for your argument, entitlement and expectation are not synonyms. I just checked sed's man page and there's nothing in there that guarantees semantic invariance. With enough replacements you could turn my original post into Mein Kampf, but that does not make me Adolph Hitler.
I can't figured out were you got this entitlement thing from, I never used that word. Nor did I say that someone should prevent the news papers from doing this, I just opined that it won't work.
I already pay $45/month for my internet connection, a price I find acceptable in part because I can get my news through it at no extra cost. That is $540/year. About 70% of my internet traffic is news, so that is $378/year spent on getting news. Back in the days when I had print subscriptions and no internet connection, I was spending about $250/year on news. Doesn't look good now, does it? And by the way, this kind of cost analysis is not entitlement, but rather the free market at work.
Thank you for making my point. I don't have cable TV, because cable TV has no content I am interested in. I have an internet connection because, currently it does deliver content I am interested in. That content is roughly structured like this: 10% online shopping, 20-25% Wikipedia, and the remaining 65-70% news (I include here everything from Twitter to The Economist).
If a significant portion of that news traffic were to dry up, I would have to consider canceling my internet service. I seriously doubt we will ever get there, because the more news outfits go paywall, the more exposure the ones that are still free will get.
Big news organizations made sense when moving information over long distances was slow and expensive. That is no longer the case. That niche is gone for good from the ecosystem. So, all they have to offer now is editorials. The question is how many people out there are willing to pay a premium for editorials. My guess is: too few.
If I came to you and said here is a 20 Mb/s connection, but nothing useful ever comes through it, would you pay me $45 for it? I don't think so. I only agree to pay $45 because I expect to use it to access some useful content. When that assumption will stop being grounded in reality, I will discontinue my subscription.
It is not my job to convince the ISP to give money to the newspapers. That is the newspapers' job. So far they haven't figured that out. I am not saying they should not do the paywall thing, I am just saying that I don't think it will work. News just happens, anyone who witnesses it can report it, and plenty of those people are willing to report it for free
Back when I paid for my subscription to The Economist, that included the delivery medium. Now I already pay $45 per month for the new delivery medium (my cable internet connection), so I feel justified to expect some free content to come with that. That is, in a nutshell, the reason why I (and most people) will rush to pay Murdoch or anyone else for news. I wish them good luck with their plans. Over and out.
Lance Armstrong can produce almost 500W and that is exactly what makes him Lance Armstrong. Playing tug-of-war with a Clydesdale has to do with force, not power. When it comes to sustained power output over long periods of time, no animal can beat a human. I am willing to bet that I can outrun a Clydesdale on a distance of 20 miles or more. Under 20 miles, my money is on the Clydesdale.
Because it is not a ground breaking, fundamental science result, which is what Science and Nature tend to publish. They also wouldn't publish a result about the safety of side airbags in KIA cars, although, technically, it is physics.
Yes, people would stop eating GM corn products. And GM wheat products. And GM soy products. And meat and dairy products from cattle fed with GM feed. But that's ok, 'cuz Monsanto can just GM the people, so they can survive through photosynthesis.
I don't know about you, but once my liver and kidneys have been damaged by a defective product, there is no redress civil courts can provide. Lynching the Monsanto executives wouldn't make me feel any better either.
Then get the Astak EZ Reader. It reads any format under the sun (including.djvu, which means you can put scanned documents on it), it is not tied in to any particular store, and it sells for $265. The battery lasts for 5,000 page turns, it takes a 4Gb SD card, and you can plug it into a USB port on your computer and treat it as a USB hard drive. I had it for 3 months and so far I have no complaints.
Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speech
What makes you say that? Is it the "free speech zones" at the Republicrat national conventions or Lenny Bruce's multiple arrests for saying "four letter words" on stage?
You must be a very unlucky guy. I flew Air France many times before 2006 an since, and never had such a terrible experience. The only notable incident was in 2003 when some baggage handler in CDG stole stuff from my bags and Air France promptly gave me a $300 check right there in the airport, to replace the most important items, and later reimbursed me for another $600.
By the way, the tram at CDG goes around the airport twice in 35 minutes. Were you at Orly? I never flew through there.
Now, Delta, on the other hand, I can tell you a few horror stories about them, but I don't want to overflow Slashtod's storage capacity.
Slashdot Mirror
You pay $45 a month for your internet connection
Yes. And it is only worth that much because of the availability of free content. If no free content was available, that connection would be worth much less than that (close to $0) to most people.
Unfortunately, none of the money that funds the news you enjoy comes from the money you pay your ISP
Agreed. But the only thing that proves is that it would be beneficial for the ISP to share some of their profits with the content providers, as a 1Gb/s connection which delivers no content is hardly worth anything.
You completely missed the point. The currently "free" news is not actually free. It already has a price tag comparable to the one of the old fashioned print news. Back then, some of the money I spent on my subscription went to the USPS. If the news papers want to charge for online content, they will have to reach a similar agreement with the new delivery man first. I, the consumer, only care about the total price. I don't care if I pay $45 for delivery and $0 for content or $25 for delivery and $20 for content, as long as I only pay $45.
"Entitlement" came from your comment "so I feel justified to expect some free content to come with that". Please grep/"entitlement"/"expectation", and I will avoid the use of that specific word.
Unfortunately for your argument, entitlement and expectation are not synonyms. I just checked sed's man page and there's nothing in there that guarantees semantic invariance. With enough replacements you could turn my original post into Mein Kampf, but that does not make me Adolph Hitler.
I can't figured out were you got this entitlement thing from, I never used that word. Nor did I say that someone should prevent the news papers from doing this, I just opined that it won't work.
I already pay $45/month for my internet connection, a price I find acceptable in part because I can get my news through it at no extra cost. That is $540/year. About 70% of my internet traffic is news, so that is $378/year spent on getting news. Back in the days when I had print subscriptions and no internet connection, I was spending about $250/year on news. Doesn't look good now, does it? And by the way, this kind of cost analysis is not entitlement, but rather the free market at work.
Thank you for making my point. I don't have cable TV, because cable TV has no content I am interested in. I have an internet connection because, currently it does deliver content I am interested in. That content is roughly structured like this: 10% online shopping, 20-25% Wikipedia, and the remaining 65-70% news (I include here everything from Twitter to The Economist).
If a significant portion of that news traffic were to dry up, I would have to consider canceling my internet service. I seriously doubt we will ever get there, because the more news outfits go paywall, the more exposure the ones that are still free will get.
Big news organizations made sense when moving information over long distances was slow and expensive. That is no longer the case. That niche is gone for good from the ecosystem. So, all they have to offer now is editorials. The question is how many people out there are willing to pay a premium for editorials. My guess is: too few.
If I came to you and said here is a 20 Mb/s connection, but nothing useful ever comes through it, would you pay me $45 for it? I don't think so. I only agree to pay $45 because I expect to use it to access some useful content. When that assumption will stop being grounded in reality, I will discontinue my subscription.
It is not my job to convince the ISP to give money to the newspapers. That is the newspapers' job. So far they haven't figured that out. I am not saying they should not do the paywall thing, I am just saying that I don't think it will work. News just happens, anyone who witnesses it can report it, and plenty of those people are willing to report it for free
Well, I don't pay for HBO either. And no, Slashdot is not content. It's mostly noise.
Back when I paid for my subscription to The Economist, that included the delivery medium. Now I already pay $45 per month for the new delivery medium (my cable internet connection), so I feel justified to expect some free content to come with that. That is, in a nutshell, the reason why I (and most people) will rush to pay Murdoch or anyone else for news. I wish them good luck with their plans. Over and out.
Soldiers are citizens too. And tend to dislike firing on their own countrymen.
That has rarely been the case throughout history.
Lance Armstrong can produce almost 500W and that is exactly what makes him Lance Armstrong. Playing tug-of-war with a Clydesdale has to do with force, not power. When it comes to sustained power output over long periods of time, no animal can beat a human. I am willing to bet that I can outrun a Clydesdale on a distance of 20 miles or more. Under 20 miles, my money is on the Clydesdale.
As a matter of fact I am. Albeit not a Lenovo.
I have a KVM switch which intercepts SysRq. Without it I could not switch between input sources. So needless to say, I use it all the time.
Which would in no way fix my liver and kidneys.
You mean like SDI?
Because it is not a ground breaking, fundamental science result, which is what Science and Nature tend to publish. They also wouldn't publish a result about the safety of side airbags in KIA cars, although, technically, it is physics.
Yes, people would stop eating GM corn products. And GM wheat products. And GM soy products. And meat and dairy products from cattle fed with GM feed. But that's ok, 'cuz Monsanto can just GM the people, so they can survive through photosynthesis.
I don't know about you, but once my liver and kidneys have been damaged by a defective product, there is no redress civil courts can provide. Lynching the Monsanto executives wouldn't make me feel any better either.
i think fair use, by definition, is non-commercial
LOL, that's because nobody takes MARTA. Everyone drives. Otherwise, happy killing
If I pay for something, it is only logical that I have the right to do it
So, if you pay someone to kill your wife, you must have the right to do it. 'Cuz you paid, right? Murder is illegal only when it is pro bono.
'one of Steve Ballmer's riskiest trade show moves in years.'
Riskier than this?
So, growing orchids gives the cops the right to just bust your garage door?
I never had a freaking Chevy. I did, however, have a Chevy Nova and the only German car I feel comfortable comparing it to is a Trabant.
Airbus can bet whatever they want, because they won't have to deal with bankruptcy or even losses. The governments of Europe finance them.
Oh, please, let's not pretend the US government does not subsidize Boeing through contracts that only Boeing is allowed to bid for.
Yes, it has an electrophoretic (e-ink) display, so it only takes power to redraw
Then get the Astak EZ Reader. It reads any format under the sun (including .djvu, which means you can put scanned documents on it), it is not tied in to any particular store, and it sells for $265. The battery lasts for 5,000 page turns, it takes a 4Gb SD card, and you can plug it into a USB port on your computer and treat it as a USB hard drive. I had it for 3 months and so far I have no complaints.
Why is it that the US seems to have such a high value on free speech
What makes you say that? Is it the "free speech zones" at the Republicrat national conventions or Lenny Bruce's multiple arrests for saying "four letter words" on stage?
You must be a very unlucky guy. I flew Air France many times before 2006 an since, and never had such a terrible experience. The only notable incident was in 2003 when some baggage handler in CDG stole stuff from my bags and Air France promptly gave me a $300 check right there in the airport, to replace the most important items, and later reimbursed me for another $600.
By the way, the tram at CDG goes around the airport twice in 35 minutes. Were you at Orly? I never flew through there.
Now, Delta, on the other hand, I can tell you a few horror stories about them, but I don't want to overflow Slashtod's storage capacity.