This is a good illustration of something that scares
me.
The article is not really CNN's. It was on the AP wire, which means it's
all over the place instantly. You could have said it was the Times Daily of
Alabama that notices that WiFi is insecure.
Check
out this Google news search to see just some of the sites in which this
story is shown. Bad information sure can travel fast and wide nowadays.
Interviewer: what will the future be like? Guru: I have no clue.
Of course, honesty does not garner interviews - or attention or contracts. Touting does.
I mean, 30 years? Who the hell knows?
Part of the problem with these predictions is that there is no accountability when they're wrong.
Nielsen really has no more insight into the future than most of us.
How many interviews have we seen/read in which the "expert" tells us exactly what will happen in an election? Or how a certain event will affect a leader or nation?
And when they're completely wrong? Too late! They're already making new predictions.
You gotta be joking.
It's not your content....unless you're willing to pay for it (and even then it's not yours.)
We have two choices:
1- Subscribe.
2- View ads.
Number 1 is not a good model for the Net unless you have content that's unique and targeted for a special few.
So we're left with ads.
I kow there are some sites doing ad (and revenue)-free journalism. Thing is...you can't do that on most stories.
(disclaimer: I speak in generalities so please don't point out indiviudal cases such as Elena's trip to Chernobyl.)
On the other hand, I am a journalist and I would refuse to have my work become part of an ad.
There has to be a compromise. News providers can not become ad whores but - consumers can't be ad prudes!
As I've said before, good information is not free.
Please, let's not be anti-ads just for the sake of it.
I hate billboards and other intrusive ads as much as the next guy.
But unless you're willing to pay for content and information on the web (an article at a time sometimes?) you should just learn to deal with some ads.
I am a journalist. My salary is derived from advertising dollars. You people consume information like it's an all-you-can-eat buffet but whine about having to "pay" for it.
Guess what? Information ISN'T free! (at least good information isn't).
I recently did a story about U.S. jobs being outsourced to China. It took weeks of planning and a lot of dough to send to of us overseas. We stayed in a hotel, ate meals, needed transportation...not to mention we had the gall to ask to get paid for our work!
I came back and spent days working my ass of to put together a series of reports.
Once they appears in the media, all we ask is that you look at an ad.
And you whine?
Slashdot Mirror
This is a good illustration of something that scares me.
The article is not really CNN's. It was on the AP wire, which means it's all over the place instantly. You could have said it was the Times Daily of Alabama that notices that WiFi is insecure.
Check out this Google news search to see just some of the sites in which this story is shown. Bad information sure can travel fast and wide nowadays.
I'd like to hear:
Interviewer: what will the future be like?
Guru: I have no clue.
Of course, honesty does not garner interviews - or attention or contracts. Touting does.
I mean, 30 years? Who the hell knows?
Part of the problem with these predictions is that there is no accountability when they're wrong.
Nielsen really has no more insight into the future than most of us.
How many interviews have we seen/read in which the "expert" tells us exactly what will happen in an election?
Or how a certain event will affect a leader or nation?
And when they're completely wrong? Too late! They're already making new predictions.
doh! sorry. wrong place.
How long would it take to download one? There is no mention.
I thought every article regarding speed or storage breakthroughs is measured in encyclopedias per x.
Get your ads out of my content!
You gotta be joking. It's not your content....unless you're willing to pay for it (and even then it's not yours.)
We have two choices:
1- Subscribe.
2- View ads.
Number 1 is not a good model for the Net unless you have content that's unique and targeted for a special few.
So we're left with ads.
I kow there are some sites doing ad (and revenue)-free journalism. Thing is...you can't do that on most stories. (disclaimer: I speak in generalities so please don't point out indiviudal cases such as Elena's trip to Chernobyl.)
On the other hand, I am a journalist and I would refuse to have my work become part of an ad.
There has to be a compromise. News providers can not become ad whores but - consumers can't be ad prudes!
As I've said before, good information is not free.
Replace "Google" with "Hotmail" and read some of these posts again.
You'd think this was another April Fools joke!
Please, let's not be anti-ads just for the sake of it. I hate billboards and other intrusive ads as much as the next guy. But unless you're willing to pay for content and information on the web (an article at a time sometimes?) you should just learn to deal with some ads. I am a journalist. My salary is derived from advertising dollars. You people consume information like it's an all-you-can-eat buffet but whine about having to "pay" for it. Guess what? Information ISN'T free! (at least good information isn't). I recently did a story about U.S. jobs being outsourced to China. It took weeks of planning and a lot of dough to send to of us overseas. We stayed in a hotel, ate meals, needed transportation...not to mention we had the gall to ask to get paid for our work! I came back and spent days working my ass of to put together a series of reports. Once they appears in the media, all we ask is that you look at an ad. And you whine?
After reading the above, I'd say you're being modest.